Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote:

Peter Kirby wrote:Yes, you're right that this is possible--but it also bleeds into the idea that "Alexander and Rufus" were some lost bit of lore, cited here, and forgotten again. It made sense at the time, people knew the reference, but it wasn't necessarily anything to do with a real pair of sons known to the audience.

To my mind, at that point it will have lost its "self-interpreting" quality. I have conceded elsewhere and long ago that Alexander and Rufus may be a code, with the simple proviso that, if so, we are unlikely ever to crack it. (I have made the same concession with the entire gospel of Mark.) But, if those names are not a code, then to me the interpretation seems self-evident: someone at some time knew who those people were and was making the connection. It is a storytelling technique we still use today. (Maybe you disagree with me on how self-evident it is.)

By a "lost bit of lore," I only meant that they were (or could be) two people were were legendary as early members of the church (or who may even have existed and acquired great enough stature, sort of like James and John or others, just not in the extant literary record). I meant this as a follow-up suggestion to the idea that people may have thought Rufus was the one in Romans 16 and thus he may not have been actually known to the audience. Once we go there, the "self-evident" interpretation loses a bit of its luster, at least in terms of providing a witness to the historicity of Jesus.

Ben C. Smith wrote:What strikes me is how little we have to go on in making such interpretive decisions. That list of pro-mythicist and pro-historicist passages in the OP is pretty slender, is it not? Each one admits of alternative interpretations, not all of which are insane. If John the Revelator just happens to have been a bit clumsy in the way he worded Revelation 8.13, poof, that one is gone (for example). And the same goes for passages I have not listed, such as those in Josephus and Tacitus and Pliny, or others in Paul. So I am trying to figure out the most natural interpretations, the ones that strain the brain the least. And yes, in this case, you are probably right that this approach means it happened under Pilate.

Agreed.

Peter, I think that the Doherty's remark is not banal:

Finally, it has been suggested that various first century preacher/Zealots and would-be Messiah figures who agitated for revolutionary or apocalyptic change, and were usually dispatched by the military authorities (perhaps one was even executed by Pilate!), provided a partial model for the creation of Mark’s Jesus figure, or perhaps even that of Q at some stage. But this is a far cry from saying that the Gospel Jesus represents an historical figure in any meaningful fashion, or that thereby we can say that "there was an historical Jesus.

(from The Jesus Puzzle)


I think that a simple test would may reveal if the person described by ''Mark'' is or not worth of being considered a ''historical Jesus'' ''in any meaningful fashion''.

If you assume the absence of this person, then there would have been no Gospel of Mark ?

If your answer is yes, then I can concede full legitimacy of the your paradigm.

If your answer is no, then I may reduce your ''historical Jesus'' in a mere convenient database for Mark.

If you are not able of giving me a precise answer 'yes' or 'no', then I may conclude this discussion with the words of Roger Viklund:

There is always the possibility that the inventors of a story had an actual person in mind when they constructed that story. I shall not deal with such a possible human being, since I cannot see that there is any chance that we can get to know anything about him. It will only be guesswork. Instead I shall concentrate on the Biblical Jesus, whom I regard as a fictitious character.

http://www.jesusgranskad.se/jesuscharacter.htm

Thank you

Giuseppe wrote:I think that a simple test would may reveal if the person described by ''Mark'' is or not worth of being considered a ''historical Jesus'' ''in any meaningful fashion''.

If you assume the absence of this person, then there would have been no Gospel of Mark ?

If your answer is yes, then I can concede full legitimacy of the your paradigm.

If your answer is no, then I may reduce your ''historical Jesus'' in a mere convenient database for Mark.

I have no interest in a semantic debate over what does or does not constitute an historical Jesus, but since your test is so simple I will contribute my little bit here. My answer is yes. On my hypothesis, had the historical figure not existed, there would be no gospel of Mark. You are free to imagine scenarios that differ from mine, of course. Peter was correct that the standard paradigm is technically a mythicohistorical one; but I chose that term (rather than invent a new one) precisely because the usual course of action in these circles is to debate simply between a mythical Jesus (which gave rise to an at least partly historicized version found in the gospels) and an historical Jesus (which gave rise to the at least partly mythicized version found all over the place). What I am suggesting is that, had the historical figure not existed, we would still have the Pauline (and other) epistles, but probably not any gospels. Had the mythical figure not existed, we would still have that notice in Josephus about the numerous enchanters and thieves, of which my proposed historical figure is an anonymous example. We would probably still not have any gospels, however, at least nothing we would recognize as one, since I think (within the bounds of this hypothesis, which may of course be completely wrong) that the mythical Jesus Christ is what salvaged the historical Jesus for posterity. My term "mythicohistorical" was intended to capture this duality at the beginning of Christianity: a truly mythical figure independent of the historical figure, and a truly historical figure independent of the mythical figure.

(It is interesting that Davies appears to have done something similar, though from a completely different angle: hypothesizing that there was a type of Christianity already in existence before the historical figure, but one which does not remove the likelihood that said historical figure existed. I had not read Davies' work in that area, nor was I even aware of it, not having read anything of his since Jesus the Healer and a book of his about Thomas. I was aware, however, of Robert M. Price's work on Burton Mack in Deconstructing Jesus, which implies multiple origin points to Christianity, though his approach is very different from what I am talking about here. But maybe this sort of thing is just "in the air" right now.)

I suppose it is possible that, even without an historical figure, some kind of gospel which humanized a divinity could have been written. But my hypothesis in no way requires this to have happened, and I do not think it would have been inevitable; therefore, my answer to your question is yes, a gospel anything like Mark would (probably) not have existed (or at the very least had no necessary reason to exist) had the historical figure not existed. YMMV.

Surely I would be curious about how much necessary was the euhemerization of any other mythical god (like Osiris, for example) given the absence of a historical figure.

But then I wonder just in this moment (!):

What if "Mark" wanted to describe an earthly "replay" of the celestial drama?

After all, even the original hallucination of the Pillars was per se a mere celestial "replay" of an unknown event (I want say: not the thing itself).

What if "Mark" used really the memory of an anonymous crucified by Pilate to give to the hoi polloi the earthly equivalent of the celestial replay enjoyed by the Pillars?

See the principal similarity:

The Pillars didn't see the crucifixion of the mythical Son but only the his mere (hallucinated) replay.

We, as readers of Mark, can't see the historical crucifixion of the Son on the earth, but only the his mere (enigmatic) story.

Is this a clue that a historical (but unknown) figure was necessary for Mark insofar the "true" celestial (but invisible) crucifixion was necessary for the Pillars?

Only mere free thoughts of passage...

Ben C. Smith wrote:. What I am suggesting is that, had the historical figure not existed, we would still have the Pauline (and other) epistles, but probably not any gospels. Had the mythical figure not existed, we would still have that notice in Josephus about the numerous enchanters and thieves, of which my proposed historical figure is an anonymous example. We would probably still not have any gospels, however, at least nothing we would recognize as one, since I think (within the bounds of this hypothesis, which may of course be completely wrong) that the mythical Jesus Christ is what salvaged the historical Jesus for posterity. My term "mythicohistorical" was intended to capture this duality at the beginning of Christianity: a truly mythical figure independent of the historical figure, and a truly historical figure independent of the mythical figure.

''.....the mythical Jesus Christ is what salvaged the historical Jesus for posterity.''

I'm not sure about the 'salvaged' idea. I would rather view the fusing of these two elements, the flesh and the spirit, as being complementary and of mutual benefit. A 'salvaged' operation can involve loss or damage. The whole trust, to my thinking, of the gospel story is that it is a validation, an acknowledgement, of the value of physical reality. The miracles, after all, seek to create a picture of abundance. A place where the sick are healed and the impossible becomes possible. Utopia, Arcadia, Camelot, the Promised Land of Milk and Honey.

The mythical Jesus Christ is, as it were, the cherry on the cake; adding value but never over-shadowing the physical reality of flesh and blood.

The fundamental error on the part of those who follow Doherty is their placing primary value on 'spiritual' stuff, on Pauline theological speculation. Putting all ones eggs in a Pauline basked was always going to produce a mythicism with no meat on its bones....There is no value in a spiritual Jesus Christ being historicized as the gospel Jesus. Primary value rests in human life - in flesh and blood. And it is that that the gospel story seeks to validate.

One can debate the question of what historical figures were of interest to the gospel writers. Whoever these historical figures were their identification is of secondary interest, of historical interest only. The fundamental primary value of the gospel story is upholding is the supreme value of human life, of flesh and blood.

maryhelena wrote:There is no value in a spiritual Jesus Christ being historicized as the gospel Jesus.

Extremely well stated.

CW

Ben C. Smith wrote:
...On my hypothesis, had the historical figure not existed, there would be no gospel of Mark.

... the usual course of action in these circles is to debate simply between a mythical Jesus (which gave rise to an at least partly historicized version found in the gospels) and an historical Jesus (which gave rise to the at least partly mythicized version found all over the place). What I am suggesting is that, had the historical figure not existed, we would still have the Pauline (and other) epistles, but probably not any gospels.

I think you posit too much of a dichotomy there. And a reasonable likelihood of a non-sequitur, but I appreciate your position as underlined below.

I think there is a view that Jesus had to be humanized - personified / anthropomorphized / fleshed out - to provide the prospect of his human-followers being saved ie. being able to consider the prospect of salvation in an afterlife (a proposed human ascension, if you like).

Ben C. Smith wrote:
It is interesting that Davies appears to have done something similar, though from a completely different angle: hypothesizing that there was a type of Christianity already in existence before the historical figure, but one which does not remove the likelihood that said historical figure existed. I had not read Davies' work in that area, nor was I even aware of it, not having read anything of his since Jesus the Healer* and a book of his about Thomas. I was aware, however, of Robert M. Price's work on Burton Mack in Deconstructing Jesus, which implies multiple origin points to Christianity, though his approach is very different from what I am talking about here. But maybe this sort of thing is just "in the air" right now.

I suppose it is possible that, even without an historical figure, some kind of gospel which humanized a divinity could have been written. But my hypothesis in no way requires this to have happened, and I do not think it would have been inevitable; therefore, my answer to your question is yes, a gospel anything like Mark would (probably) not have existed (or at the very least had no necessary reason to exist) had the historical figure not existed. YMMV.

* Davies has said Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity, Bardic Press (2014) "is the Jesus the Healer book in its entirety with almost exactly 1/3 new material added. The new material re-enforces the argument that the rise of Christianity is basically due to Pentecost rather than to any teachings of Jesus or spread of reports of his walking around with his disciples post-mortem. Also the new material argues that the Odes of Solomon pre-date Christianity and thus all of the arrows of connection and causality between those texts and the NT texts should be reversed."

MrMacSon wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:
...On my hypothesis, had the historical figure not existed, there would be no gospel of Mark.

... the usual course of action in these circles is to debate simply between a mythical Jesus (which gave rise to an at least partly historicized version found in the gospels) and an historical Jesus (which gave rise to the at least partly mythicized version found all over the place). What I am suggesting is that, had the historical figure not existed, we would still have the Pauline (and other) epistles, but probably not any gospels.

I think you posit too much of a dichotomy there. And a reasonable likelihood of a non-sequitur, but I appreciate your position as underlined below.

Well, my view is that giving the mythical figure flesh and blood in a gospel was not necessary. That is the main thing. It may have happened, had the historical figure not have existed, but I am not assuming that it had to happen.

I think there is a view that Jesus had to be humanized - personified / anthropomorphized / fleshed out - to provide the prospect of his human-followers being saved ie. being able to consider the prospect of salvation in an afterlife (a proposed human ascension, if you like).

What I object to there is the statement that Jesus had to be humanized. I think deities can sometimes just remain deities. And often religions just die out (so, in other words, hypothesizing that the gospels gave Christianity durability is not the same thing as an argument that the gospels had to happen).

Davies has said Spirit Possession and the Origins of Christianity, Bardic Press (2014) "is the Jesus the Healer book in its entirety with almost exactly 1/3 new material added. The new material re-enforces the argument that the rise of Christianity is basically due to Pentecost rather than to any teachings of Jesus or spread of reports of his walking around with his disciples post-mortem. Also the new material argues that the Odes of Solomon pre-date Christianity and thus all of the arrows of connection and causality between those texts and the NT texts should be reversed."

Yes, I saw that somewhere. But the part that I was talking about comes squarely in the newer material that was not part of the original Jesus the Healer.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
...On my hypothesis, had the historical figure not existed, there would be no gospel of Mark.

... the usual course of action in these circles is to debate simply between a mythical Jesus (which gave rise to an at least partly historicized version found in the gospels) and an historical Jesus (which gave rise to the at least partly mythicized version found all over the place). What I am suggesting is that, had the historical figure not existed, we would still have the Pauline (and other) epistles, but probably not any gospels.

MrMacSon wrote:

• I think you posit too much of a dichotomy there. And a reasonable likelihood of a non-sequitur, but I appreciate your position as underlined below.

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Well, my view is that giving the mythical figure flesh and blood in a gospel was not necessary. That is the main thing. It may have happened, had the historical figure not have existed, but I am not assuming that it had to happen.

• It may not have happened "in a gospel" ie. it might have happened before the writing of the gospels as we now them.
  
  • eg. I recently saw brief commentary proposing proto-gospels as being epistles or epistle-like

Ben C. Smith wrote:

I think there is a view that Jesus had to be humanized - personified / anthropomorphized / fleshed out - to provide the prospect of his human-followers being saved ie. being able to consider the prospect of salvation in an afterlife (a proposed human ascension, if you like).

What I object to there is the statement that Jesus had to be humanized.

• Sure, but my proposition was a qualified one -
  
  • 'humanized' - personified / anthropomorphized / fleshed out - to provide the prospect of his human-followers being saved

Ben C. Smith wrote: And often religions just die out (so, in other words, hypothesizing that the gospels gave Christianity durability is not the same thing as an argument that the gospels had to happen).

• Sure. But I was not asserting or even arguing ''the gospels gave Christianity durability'', nor was I arguing ''the gospels had to happen''.

.

I feel like the conversation is getting too hypothetical. What really matters to me is that the gospels hail from a point after which my proposed mythical Jesus Christ has already been superimposed upon my proposed historical Jesus. This is an attempt, at least in part, to negotiate the various kinds of materials in the gospels, especially in Mark, which range from portraying Jesus in a way that suggests he is just another sinner on his way to get baptized by John to portraying him as taking on the very prerogatives of Yahweh himself in stilling a storm and walking on water. The only uncontested text which survives and describes the historical Jesus himself, sans mythical overlay, is Josephus' description of those anonymous enchanters and thieves. The texts which survive from the mythical Jesus Christ, before the historical figure got integrated (at least in that local community), are numerous epistles (Pauline and others) and possibly other works (the Didache, for example). A comparison of those numerous epistles versus that single line in Josephus will tell you just how minimalistic this historical Jesus figure is compared to the maximalistic mythical figure.

Setting aside all questions of what might have occurred had such-and-such not happened, how do you feel about the overall arrangement as outlined above?