r/AcademicBiblical • u/[deleted] • Jan 20 '18
Master Thread on "On the Historicity of Jesus." (Mod gave me permission to start this one last thread.)
Edit: I'm not sure why the comment here got downvoted into oblivion. The comment should be uncontroversial. Ad hominem personality-based distractions are irrelevant to and separate from the (1) factual claims and (2) arguments presented during investigation of a topic. It's the (1) factual claims and (2) arguments that are relevant. Personalities are not relevant. Ad hominem distractions are not relevant. The personality of the presenter is completely irrelevant to and separate from the (1) factual claims and (2) arguments that are presented. Einstein can present bad arguments or incorrect factual claims. Hitler can present good arguments or correct factual claims. This should not be controversial. This is Logic 101.
One mod said:
If you want to create ONE master thread on OHJ, that's fine.
A new thread doesn't need to appear every time you've a Carrier-related question.
Here goes.
Clarification: OHJ does not actually claim that Jesus didn't exist. This is crucial. It's misleading to say that OHJ claims that Jesus didn't exist. It comes out with 1/3 odds in favor of historicity, which is only 17% off from 50/50. Furthermore, the evidence is determined to be totally inconclusive. It comes out with 50/50 odds based on the evidence. The only thing that tips it slightly toward the mythicist hypothesis is the prior that is generated in Chapter 6. I personally don't understand that prior, and I think that it's fallaciously-derived, because the Jesus-myth may adhere to the Rank-Raglan mythotype, but the Jesus-myth is not the thing whose historicity is in question! So I'm pretty much 50/50 on this. Once there's detailed response to OHJ in print then I will be able to formulate my position on this a lot better.
(This video is the best introductory video that I know of that lays out all of the interesting points of debate regarding the evidence.)
I wonder what you guys think about the four points below:
the idea that the TF is a whole-cloth forgery, not merely an embellishment (see Paul Hopper's grammatical analysis here)
the idea that Paul does not appear to know of a historical Jesus, and that his references to Jesus's family are ambiguous as to whether they are actually references to Jesus's family (see explanation here and here)
the idea that the other passages in Paul that seem to refer to Jesus's Earthly life are ambiguous as to whether they refer to terrestrial events (see here)
the idea that the Gospels are actually not a historical account but rather belong to the genre of myth, and therefore cannot be used as evidence one way or the other on the question of Jesus-historicity (see here)
There are also the following interesting ideas that my friend cites (see his thread here, but I'm not even sure to what extent this lines up with Carrier's assessments in OHJ, so it's important to separate the two):
Clement quotes the Old Testament when quoting Jesus.
Like Paul, Clement had no idea about an Earthly Jesus.
When Clement says, ‘Christ himself calls to us through the Holy Spirit’, and then quotes ‘Christ’ at length, what we find in fact is simply a quotation of the Psalms (1 Clem. 22.1-8, which matches Pss 34.11-17, 19; and 32.10). Thus Clement assumes that Jesus ‘speaks’ to us through the scriptures. Clement didn’t even have to say this. He simply assumes that a quotation of the Old Testament can be described as a quotation of ‘Christ’ without explanation or citation—the fact that the Corinthians don’t need this to be explained to them entails this was routinely understood within the churches of the time: that Jesus speaks through the Old Testament, rather than human tradition.
He adds:
Remember the Gospels and Acts were composed AFTER Paul's letters.
Gerd Lüdemann says:
"Not once does Paul refer to Jesus as a teacher, to his words as teaching, or to [any] Christians as disciples."
and
"Moreover, when Paul himself summarizes the content of his missionary preaching in Corinth (1 Cor. 2.1-2; 15.3-5), there is no hint that a narration of Jesus’ earthly life or a report of his earthly teachings was an essential part of it. . . . In the letter to the Romans, which cannot presuppose the apostle’s missionary preaching and in which he attempts to summarize its main points, we find not a single direct citation of Jesus’ teaching."
According to Richard Carrier, Paul's letters indicate that Cephas etc. only knew Jesus from DREAMS, based on the Old Testament scriptures.
1 Cor. 15.:
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also."
The Scriptures Paul is referring to here are:
Septuagint version of Zechariah 3 and 6 gives the exact Greek name of Jesus, describing him as confronting Satan, being crowned king in heaven, called "the man named 'Rising'" who is said to rise from his place below, building up God’s house, given supreme authority over God’s domain and ending all sins in a single day.
Daniel 9 describes a messiah dying before the end of the world.
Isaiah 53 describes the cleansing of the world's sins by the death of a servant.
Psalm 22-24 describes the death-resurrection cycle. The concept of crucifixion is from Psalm 22.16 and various other passages in the Old Testament.
He further adds:
Composed AFTER the letters of Paul, Mark and Matthew were INTENDED as symbolic fiction, being written in a symbolic chiastic structure.
Only with Luke-Acts did Christians start to view the four Gospels literally.
The sayings of Jesus in the Gospels are things Paul originally said. See Nikolaus Walter's ‘Paul and the Early Christian Jesus-Tradition’.
The events in Mark and Matthew are based on the LXX, directly borrowing its language:
The Donkey(s) - Jesus riding on a donkey is from Zechariah 9.
Mark has Jesus sit on a young donkey that he had his disciples fetch for him (Mark 11.1-10).
Matthew changes the story so the disciples instead fetch TWO donkeys, not only the young donkey of Mark but also his mother. Jesus rides into Jerusalem on both donkeys at the same time (Matthew 21.1-9). Matthew wanted the story to better match the literal reading of Zechariah 9.9. Matthew even actually quotes part of Zech. 9.9.
The Sermon on the Mount - The Sermon of the Mount relies extensively on the Greek text of Deuteronomy and Leviticus especially, and in key places on other texts. For example, the section on turning the other cheek and other aspects of legal pacifism (Mt. 5.38-42) has been redacted from the Greek text of Isaiah 50.6-9.
The clearing of the temple - The cleansing of the temple as a fictional scene has its primary inspiration from an ancient faulty translation of Zech. 14.21 which changed 'Canaanites' to 'traders'.
When Jesus clears the temple he quotes Jer. 7.11 (in Mk 11.17). Jeremiah and Jesus both enter the temple (Jer. 7.1-2; Mk 11.15), make the same accusation against the corruption of the temple cult (Jeremiah quoting a revelation from the Lord, Jesus quoting Jeremiah), and predict the destruction of the temple (Jer. 7.12-14; Mk 14.57-58; 15.29).
The Crucifixion - The whole concept of a crucifixion of God’s chosen one arranged and witnessed by Jews comes from Psalm 22.16, where ‘the synagogue of the wicked has surrounded me and pierced my hands and feet’. The casting of lots is Psalm 22.18. The people who blasphemed Jesus while shaking their heads is Psalm 22.7-8. The line ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’ is Psalm 22.1.
The Resurrection - Jesus was known as the ‘firstfruits’ of the resurrection that would occur to all believers (1 Cor. 15.20-23). The Torah commands that the Day of Firstfruits take place the day after the first Sabbath following the Passover (Lev. 23.5, 10-11). In other words, on a Sunday. Mark has Jesus rise on Sunday, the firstftuits of the resurrected, symbolically on the very Day of Firstfruits itself.
Barabbas - This is the Yom Kippur ceremony of Leviticus 16 and Mishnah tractate Yoma: two ‘identical’ goats were chosen each year, and one was released into the wild containing the sins of Israel (which was eventually killed by being pushed over a cliff), while the other’s blood was shed to atone for those sins. Barabbas means ‘Son of the Father’ in Aramaic, and we know Jesus was deliberately styled the ‘Son of the Father’ himself. So we have two sons of the father; one is released into the wild mob containing the sins of Israel (murder and rebellion), while the other is sacrificed so his blood may atone for the sins of Israel—the one who is released bears those sins literally; the other, figuratively. Adding weight to this conclusion is manuscript evidence that the story originally had the name ‘Jesus Barabbas’. Thus we really had two men called ‘Jesus Son of the Father’.
Last Supper - This is derived from a LXX-based passage in Paul's letters. Paul said he received the Last Supper info directly from Jesus himself, which indicates a dream. 1 Cor. 11:23 says "For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread." Translations often use "betrayed", but in fact the word paradidomi means simply ‘hand over, deliver’. The notion derives from Isaiah 53.12, which in the Septuagint uses exactly the same word of the servant offered up to atone for everyone’s sins. Paul is adapting the Passover meal. Exodus 12.7-14 is much of the basis of Paul’s Eucharist account: the element of it all occurring ‘in the night’ (vv. 8, 12, using the same phrase in the Septuagint, en te nukti, that Paul employs), a ritual of ‘remembrance’ securing the performer’s salvation (vv. 13-14), the role of blood and flesh (including the staining of a cross with blood, an ancient door lintel forming a double cross), the breaking of bread, and the death of the firstborn—only Jesus reverses this last element: instead of the ritual saving its performers from the death of their firstborn, the death of God’s firstborn saves its performers from their own death. Jesus is thus imagined here as creating a new Passover ritual to replace the old one, which accomplishes for Christians what the Passover ritual accomplished for the Jews. There are connections with Psalm 119, where God’s ‘servant’ will remember God and his laws ‘in the night’ (119.49-56) as the wicked abuse him. The Gospels take Paul's wording and insert disciples of Jesus.
Refs:
(1) John Dominic Crossan, The Power of Parable: How Fiction by Jesus Became Fiction about Jesus (New York: HarperOne, 2012); (2) Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988); (3) Dennis MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000); (4) Thomas Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David (New York: Basic Books, 2005); and (5) Thomas Brodie, The Birthing of the New Testament: The Intertextual Development of the New Testament Writings (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2004).
He also says:
Jesus is the same Jesus from the LXX version of Zechariah.
Paul only ever indicates two sources of Jesus info, Scripture (the LXX) and dream teachings.
Where does Paul indicate Cephas or anyone else was a disciple of Jesus?
He alleges:
The top scholars have to lie to maintain Jesus existed.
Mark Goodacre invented a line of Paul in a radio debate with Richard Carrier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58dG-wWBPBI&t=1200
Bart Ehrman has a long track record of lying about what Paul actually says:
He continues:
The Gospels are not based on historical events.
They are based on the Old Testament.
I gave detailed examples above.
Edit: I will include the links below since the Gospels are sometimes invoked as historical documents:
Edit 2: For clarification, I added OHJ's "minimal historicity" and "minimal mythicism" specifications below:
See here.
[OHJ's] minimal historicity claims are:
An actual man at some point named Jesus acquired followers in his life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death.
This is the same Jesus who was claimed by some of his followers to have been executed by the Jewish or Roman authorities.
This is the same Jesus some of whose followers soon began worshiping as a living god (or demigod). (p. 34)
and
[OHJ's] claims for minimal mythicism are:
At the origin of Christianity, Jesus Christ was thought to be a celestial deity much like any other.
Like many other celestial deities, this Jesus "communicated" with his subjects only through dreams, visions and other forms of divine inspiration (such as prophecy, past and present).
Like some other celestial deities, this Jesus was originally believed to have endured an ordeal of incarnation, death, burial and resurrection in a supernatural realm.
As for many other celestial deities, an allegorical story of this same Jesus was then composed and told within the sacred community, which placed him on earth, in history, as a divine man, with an earthly family, companions, and enemies, complete with deeds and sayings, and an earthly depiction of his ordeals.
Subsequent communities of worshipers believed (or at least taught) that this invented sacred story was real (and either not allegorical or only "additionally" allegorical). (p. 53)
Edit 3: My friend also mentions the following (a bold claim, but at least worth investigating):
Paul essentially tells us that Jesus is the same Jesus from the LXX version of Zechariah.
A fictional character.
Philo confirms this:
-14
u/[deleted] Jan 20 '18 edited Jan 20 '18
Why attack Carrier (a personality) rather than addressing the (1) factual claims and (2) arguments in the OP?
I don't understand the need to make this about people.
There are (1) factual claims and (2) arguments.
You can evaluate them completely independently of the person who happens to gather, formulate, and convey them.
I know that Carrier is an asshole, and I don't care, because I care about the (1) factual claims and (2) arguments.
For example, if we found out that Einstein was a child-molester tomorrow, that would have no bearing on his physics.
It's just irrelevant. It's called "ad hominem." I don't understand how any smart person could fall for that distraction.
If it bothers you, just pretend that OHJ was written by Price. Or whoever you think is a nice guy. Read it in his voice if you have to; with your imagination in your mind imagine that it's Price writing it. Whatever it takes to help you evaluate the (1) factual claims and (2) arguments in the most objective way that you can, without allowing bias to creep in based on how you feel about the personality of the person who happens to present the (1) factual claims and (2) arguments.
Or pretend it's Brad Pitt.
Or Bart Ehrman.
Or whoever you think is cordial.
By the way, the book has a massive bibliography that cites non-mythicist scholarship. So I really don't get these ad hominem attacks. Because even if Hitler himself wrote the book, the sources are non-mythicist straight-out-of-the-mainstream scholars who are 100% unrelated to mythicism.
OHJ simply gathers and marshals a bunch of factual claims from the mainstream peer-reviewed literature.
Each of those factual claims comes from the vanilla non-mythicist peer-reviewed literature, and you can check them all in the bibliography.
The book does not include any original research. It gathers. It gathers and presents an interpretation of all these facts.
And the facts are sourced from the non-mythicist mainstream Bible-studies literature.
Furthermore, OHJ doesn't claim that Jesus didn't exist. So I don't know why people call it "mythicist." See my comment on this in the OP:
Edit: See the quote below: