Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 5:10 pmI think a historical Jesus would be the most parsimonious explanation if

1. the Pauline epistles gave better accounts than they do
   • eg. if they were more explicit about James being the brother of Jesus ie. beyond Gal 1:19
2. the Pauline epistles had better provenance than they do
3. for other reasons (but, like you, I don't want to make this a tit-for-tat over specifics)
   • (tho will say the sperm bank thing is not as big an issue as Carrier or his detractors have made it : it's a silly metaphor)

Unfortunately we tend to think of "mythical Jesus" being "celestial Jesus", and "earthly Jesus" being "historical Jesus". I wish this board kept the differences in mind in our discussions. An earthly Jesus can still be non-historical, as per GA Wells' theory for example. An earthly Jesus can still be mythical, as per Marcion.

If we look at Paul's use of "earthly" terms, it's clear that it favours an "earthly" Jesus, since that is the implication of Paul's use of "seed of David", "seed of Abraham", "Christ came from the Jews", etc. Incredibly, Dr Carrier gives odds of "2-1" against his minimalist mythicist theory in OHJ for "seed of" readings, which implies that for every three references of "seed of", two refers to an earthly being and one refers to a celestial being. I'd like to see that reference class expanded with actual examples from the text of "seed of" referring to celestial beings not appearing on earth by Carrier!

So the most parsimonious explanation for what we see in Paul's letters is a belief in an earthly Jesus. That conclusion seems unavoidable. That still doesn't mean a historical Jesus, of course. But it rules out a celestial one, if we are going by the most parsimonious explanation.

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 5:10 pmApart from the Pauline epistles being in the NT canon, we actually don't know how they might actually relate to the canonical Gospels, apart from Acts of the Apostles ie. if they were apocrypha or the like would we give them weight or due credit more than, say, the Valentinian texts such as Gospel of Truth, Tripartite Tractate, Gospel of Philip, or the like?

I think we would, simply because Paul's letters are dated to 50-60 CE. The Valentinian texts you mention are mid-Second Century and later. But if the Valentinian texts could be dated to 50 CE, I'm sure they would be given much more weight. Similarly, if the academic consensus changed to one whereby it is thought that Paul's letters originated in the mid-Second Century, they would have much less weight towards determining the origin of Christianity.

Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 1:51 pm

DCHindley wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:37 am I do not recall Schweitzer even dealing with the TF in Quest. He might have addressed it in a footnote, though.

It's in the 2001 Fortress Press edition translated by John Bowden, which bills itself as 'the First Complete Edition'. It's not in the other edition of Schweitzer I own. The 2001 Bowden translation may be the first English translation of The Quest of the Historical Jesus to include it.

Hi Ken,

Strangely, I never bought the 2001 edition, although I have heard about it (based on a later German edition than the 1st English translation, I think). Thanks for that.

DCH

If I may just drop in a comment about the term "historical method" --

I don't believe that there is any such animal as a sure and agreed upon "historical method". Some historians are more liberal than others with what they allow themselves to read into the sources and often enough, I am sure, they find themselves being criticized for their "overly liberal" interpretations.

One can find in academic discussions of historical methods soundly argued rejections of the reliability of a source on the grounds that it appears as little as twenty years after an event. On the other hand, one can also find well-reasoned cases for preferring certain information in a source that is produced centuries later. What is important is that the historian acknowledges the limitations of the sources being appealed to and frames their case accordingly. When it gets down to the nitty gritty of "what really happened" in any of the history wars on this planet historians tend to get very particular about what can be reasonably inferred from the sources.

What is overlooked in discussions that address the Pauline epistles is the problem of what historians can know about their provenance. I can cite historians who -- at least in any question other than that of Jesus -- I have little doubt would reject the relevance of sources that cannot be established as coming into existence until some century after the date in question, let alone the basis of certain theological or historical information contained in them.

I think this question deserves a thread of its own. I have attempted once or twice to bring the above problems into the discussion but for some reason each time the discussion got tangled up, almost from the start, in gumpf.

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:25 pm But it is pretty rare, in my experience reading legendary material, that mythical/legendary figures are set on earth and in recent timeframes.

Once more at the risk of being "labelled" a "mythicist" despite all I have written on the question, I do have to draw attention to the word "rare". And I am addressing this question entirely in the nude abstract with no personal directions at all. Yes, it is indeed so rare as to be non-existent in tales about the myths per se. But ancient historians do "report" (a "fabulous" word even in modern times often enough) the appearance of mythical figures to eyewitnesses contemporary with those "reporters".

I only respond here this way because the question of "historical method" is still on my mind. If we begin with the conviction that Heracles is a mythical person then we can automatically discount as baseless eyewitness reports of those who claim to have seen him. And if we begin with the conviction that Jesus was created as a "myth" (or "midrash") then we must draw the same conclusion. In other words, the question is not decided by "reports" -- not even eyewitness reports.

I was more recently "almost persuaded" (per Agrippa in Acts 26:28) that Jesus was a historical figure -- although one who had pretty much nothing to do with what we read in the canonical gospels -- by a discussion on the Book of Revelation. I have been turning over the argument in my mind for some weeks now. When I have come to a decision I will be sure to post about it somewhere. Whatever I decide, it has already been made very clear that the Jesus of the gospels is a thoroughly literary creation and on that point even most biblical scholars who do not inhabit seminaries, I am sure, will agree.

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 2:10 pm

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 7:18 am Chris Hansen thinks that the 'called Christ' is genuine, so he is excluded from the list.

This is incorrect of my position. I think both the Testimonium and the smaller "so-called Christ" passages were interpolations. I am also a historicist, though the most minimalistic one that someone could be.

I know a historicist who is even more minimalistic than you insofar he thinks that "brother of Lord" (Gal 1:19) means spiritual brother. This historicist refers the case of Menahem, called by Josephus "son of Judas the Galilean", where one can't mean biological son given the long temporal distance. Hence even "son" could mean "disciple": even more so "brother".

As to mention Wells as a "classical" example of proponent of an earthly mythical Jesus, I advise to replace him with Eduard Dujardin, since Wells thought about a mythical Jesus born on the earth, while Dujardin assumes, as Carrier, that the god Jesus descended already adult on the earth. .

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:21 pm An earthly Jesus can still be non-historical, as per GA Wells' theory for example. An earthly Jesus can still be mythical, as per Marcion.

• Sure. Are you differentiating or do you differentiate non-historical and mythical?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:21 pm

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 5:10 pmApart from the Pauline epistles being in the NT canon, we actually don't know how they might actually relate to the canonical Gospels, apart from Acts of the Apostles ie. if they were apocrypha or the like would we give them weight or due credit more than, say, the Valentinian texts such as Gospel of Truth, Tripartite Tractate, Gospel of Philip, or the like?

I think we would, simply because Paul's letters are dated to 50-60 CE.

• How and why are the Pauline letters dated to 50-60 CE?

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:21 pm if the academic consensus changed to one whereby it is thought that Paul's letters originated in the mid-Second Century, they would have much less weight towards determining the origin of Christianity.

• Dating the Pauline epistles to the early to mid-2nd century would not necessarily change the weight given to them in determining the origins of Christianity, though that may depend on what other things change as well

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:21 pm The Valentinian texts you mention are mid-Second Century and later.

• Not necessarily. That's the traditional date given to them on the basis of the proposition/premise they were reactions to the orthodox texts: a reaction to a supposedly already extant NT canon.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:22 pm
I don't believe that there is any such animal as a sure and agreed upon "historical method". Some historians are more liberal than others with what they allow themselves to read into the sources and often enough, I am sure, they find themselves being criticized for their "overly liberal" interpretations.

One can find in academic discussions of historical methods soundly argued rejections of the reliability of a source on the grounds that it appears as little as twenty years after an event. On the other hand, one can also find well-reasoned cases for preferring certain information in a source that is produced centuries later. What is important is that the historian acknowledges the limitations of the sources being appealed to and frames their case accordingly.

• Well, primary contemporaneous sources or sources that [virtually] verify primary contemporaneous sources are optimal. And preferably more than one.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:22 pm When it gets down to the nitty gritty of "what really happened" in any of the history wars on this planet, historians tend to get very particular about what can be reasonably inferred from the sources.

• Especially for ancient events and tropes. Especially if religion is involved, as we all well know.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:22 pm What is overlooked in discussions that address the Pauline epistles is the problem of what historians can know about their provenance.

• Exactly.

Chris Hansen wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 8:25 pm Thomas Brodie's literary construct theory and Jean Magne's pre-Christian 'Gnosticism' are by far the most convincing I've read, and, imo, show far more command of the academic literature and ancient material.

A few things have been thrown into the mix since they were writing, too (even since Brodie's last publication in 2012, iirc)

• Marcionite Priority

• More understanding of 'Gnosticism'

• More understanding of literary genres of the first and second centuries

• More understanding of the influence of Empire in the genesis and development of Christianity
  • (and I'm not referring to Atwill's or others' similar Flavian or direct-Roman-origin conspiracy theories : more Adam Winn)

• [perhaps] more understanding of the roles of Platonism and Neoplatonism in Christian genesis and development

If Marcionite Priority were to become a more widely and seriously considered proposition, then the NT relationships to and the roles of 'Gnostic' texts, perhaps especially of those of the Valentinians, may become more significant

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:03 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:21 pm An earthly Jesus can still be non-historical, as per GA Wells' theory for example. An earthly Jesus can still be mythical, as per Marcion.

Sure. Are you differentiating or do you differentiate non-historical and mythical?

Yes, depending on the theory. A "fictional" Jesus would be non-historical rather than mythical. The Gospel Jesus is almost certainly a fictional Jesus. My point is that we shouldn't confuse "earthly" with "historical".

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:03 pmHow and why are the Pauline letters dated to 50-60 CE?

It's off-topic, but Dr Carrier gives a good summary of the evidence here: https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/7643

MrMacSon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 11:03 pm

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:21 pm The Valentinian texts you mention are mid-Second Century and later.

Not necessarily. That's the traditional date given to them on the basis of the proposition/premise they were reactions to the orthodox texts: a reaction to a supposedly already extant NT canon.

The conclusion "not necessarily" can be applied to the dating of a lot of early literature! But that conclusion isn't data towards or away from any position (other than a position of "necessarily", of course). The dates, IIUC, are based on when Valentinus was thought to have lived. Evidence that those texts existed much earlier than thought, or that Paul's letters were written much later than thought, would have a domino effect.

GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sat Dec 18, 2021 7:21 pm If we look at Paul's use of "earthly" terms, it's clear that it favours an "earthly" Jesus, since that is the implication of Paul's use of "seed of David", "seed of Abraham", "Christ came from the Jews", etc.
…
So the most parsimonious explanation for what we see in Paul's letters is a belief in an earthly Jesus. That conclusion seems unavoidable. That still doesn't mean a historical Jesus, of course. But it rules out a celestial one, if we are going by the most parsimonious explanation.

I don’t understand the claim here about “earthly” vs. “celestial.”

Are the “sons of God” of Genesis 6 “earthly” because they mate with the daughters of men, and sire the mighty Nephilim, who are “on the earth in those days”?

Would you say that the god Apollo was “earthly” because, in the lore of the Greeks, he was born on an island in the Aegean?

How does the (supposedly Pauline) claim of Davidic parentage in Romans 1:3 “parsimoniously explain” the Pauline Jesus as earthly-but-not-celestial? When that very verse introduces us to Jesus as “the son of God”?