Vorkosigan

Parsimony doesn't really apply to history in the same way that it might to the sciences. Historical explanation is characteristically messy and complex, extending backward in time and outward in space. Imagine if you tried to explain the development of democracy in the US. Even the most "parsimonious" thoroughgoing explanation would have to discuss Greek democracy, constitutions in the ancient world, the Iroquois Federation, the Magna Carta, the evolution of religious tolerance, the growth of secular society, the Enlightenment, Roman and Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, the influences of Christianity and its opponents and many other things -- and that's just to cover the growth of democratic tradition! Imagine if your explanation tried to integrate other things -- human cognitive habits, economic trends, gender bias, and so on. And of course, how you integrate this depends on what theory of history you are working with, so that your "parsimonious" explanation may include yet another layer that specifies the conditions and behavior of your model that integrates all this disparate data. You can see that even the most parsimonious explanation is going to be a multivolume work!

In HJ research, Crossan has come closest to developing a rich historical methodology that addresses several different levels of data. See his The Birth of Christianity. But the crucial need, that of sorting fact from fiction, is not met anywhere in the Crossan ouvre.

To get back to the topic at hand, I think a scholar would reply to your complaint about refutation by pointing out that the whole of NT historical studies constitutes a refutation of the no-Jesus theory. Theissen and Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide has a dedicated refutation of the no-Jesus hypothesis. It contains numerous logical errors and unwarranted assumptions, in my view. It is handicapped by the fact that the field as a whole contains no reliable methodology for sorting fact from fiction in the NT texts; and that its primary texts have been worked over by Christians bent on establishing the historicity of Jesus.

You should read Doherty, but also NT Wright, John Meiers A Marginal Jew (especially volume 1) and above all, Crossan. Lots of religious types swear by EP Sanders, but Sanders offers not even the slightest whiff of a methodology for sorting fact from fiction. Geza Vermes' The Changing Face of Jesus is also interesting. For a radical view read the available stuff at The Journal of Higher Criticism, especially Detering's article on the Dutch Radicals and Paul. Never refuted, the Radicals were simply ignored into non-existence (just as the no-Jesus crowd is purposefully marginalized). Again and again, when I think about this material, I feel the pull of the Dutch Radical claim.

My own opinion is that the only conservative and justifiable view is Jesus agnosticism. I think it is extremely difficult to show that Jesus ever lived, and proving he never lived is an even higher peak to surmount. At most, you can show that the writings about him are fictions. Showing that no human figure is connected with the story is a task beyond our current abilities and evidence, I would say.

Vorkosigan

Toto

There is no scholarly refutation. The scholars would prefer to ignore Doherty.

Paul cannot be the proof of Jesus' existence; Paul never met Jesus in the flesh, but is comfortable claiming that Jesus appeared to him and that he got his gospel from "no man", but from this vision. Doherty explains all of Paul's references to Jesus as making as much sense if "Jesus" only existed on a spiritual plane. (The parsimonious explanation would be that later Christian forgers added the phrases that imply that Jesus was on earth to fit their changing theology.)

Greg2003

I would like to add to what Toto has said my own understanding of Doherty's approach. Dohorty is NOT saying that the silence of Paul regarding a historical Jesus is proof that there was no historical Jesus. Rather, he is using the silence as one step in a progression of steps leading to a compelling conclusion that the earliest beliefs about Jesus did not include any specifics about a historical existence in the recent past.

We are asked to conclude as most scholars do that the epistles of Paul (the ones that are deemed authentic by most scholars) are the earliest christian writings. Further, we are asked to accept that the gospels enter the historical record (and therefore, were most probably written in) the second century BCE. Doherty then demonstrates (I think quitely compellingly) that Paul's beliefs about Jesus are purely ahistorical, spiritual, mystic and gnostic (Albert Sweitzer also wrote a book about this). Doherty then looks at other new testament epistles (particularly interesting is Hebrews) to show the supernatural and ahistorical beliefs about Jesus. He then finds it reasonable to believe that the earliest beliefs about Jesus were ahistorical and borne out of a mixture of religious and mythical traditions brewing at the time.

There is also a detailed exposition of how the gospel stories came about. But the bottom line is that all the assumptions are supported by prior scholarship that is widely accepted. Doherty is just making connections and drawing conclusions that many scholars seem afraid to make because of the inevitable controversy that they would generate.

Vinnie

Are you saying that Paul could not provide historical evidence of Jesus' existence because the two never met?

Vinnie

Toto

Paul is not an eyewitness, so his evidence would be at best hearsay and not be very good. I know that Christian apologists claim that he met people who knew Jesus - James and Peter and John, the pillars of the church in Jerusalem, and these apologists claim that he "must have" learned about the human Jesus from them. But this is very speculative, and there is no indication from Paul's writings that he had any interest in the human Jesus, or got any information from any of the other apostles.

We had a long thread on this a while back

Vorkosigan

I would like to add to what Toto has said my own understanding of Doherty's approach. Dohorty is NOT saying that the silence of Paul regarding a historical Jesus is proof that there was no historical Jesus. Rather, he is using the silence as one step in a progression of steps leading to a compelling conclusion that the earliest beliefs about Jesus did not include any specifics about a historical existence in the recent past.

Very well put. I believe Doherty has conceded the possible existence of a figure under the story.

Vorkosigan

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, it looks like the reputed non-existence of Jesus must be the most popular subject on this board... So I might as well (re)state my position on this. Actually, here's where I've already stated my position on this. There were no replies the last time...

(Sept 9, 2002) Doherty is Right!

Briefly, I think that both sides in this debate are burdened with so many untenable assumptions (of different sorts) that the whole debate is basically meaningless.

Still, if we try to weigh the two positions, such as they are, objectively, then the Mythicists appear to be more honest in dealing with the evidence.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Vinnie

Since when do sober historians require first-hand eyewitness evidence for the historicity of a person or event? If historians expected contemporary primary source material on every historical individual or event, whether it be it Plato, Apollonius, Jesus, Alex the great, or a large number of such ancient figures/events, there would be no history.

Actually, Paul himself claims to have met these people. That would fit your criterion of contemporary-primary source material would it not? A first hand eyewitness account. Unless you know of good historical evidence that I should not believe Paul ever met James or Peter that compellingly explains away the primary source data on the issue?

Galatians 1:13-24:

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie. 21 Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. 22 I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." 24 And they praised God because of me.


What is very speculative are negative arguments from silence about what Paul did not say. Paul does relay tidbits of material and sayings about/from Jesus but I agree that it seems he was not largely concerned with the words, parables and earthly life of Jesus. Death and resurrection were the focal points for Paul as evidenced by his authentic letters.


What then would fundamentally separate Doherty from Crossan? Crossan rejects large elements from the Jesus story of Gospels and other 1st-century Christian literature. So does Sanders, Fredriksen etc., along with virtually all critical scholars. If this is true aren’t these scholars just reconstructing some information about the figure behind the story which Doherty concedes the possible existence of. Crossan & company attempt to try to find the figure under the story. It seems the line here may be thinner than expected.


Because Mark and Paul have pro-Gentile material and Mark anti-Jewish material is no reason to assume there was no historical Jesus. That is absurd. The argument is specious and the conclusion banal.

Any anti-Jewish sentiments in Mark (these are commonly cited examples: 3:6, 7:13-16, 8:15, 10:2-5, 14:55-65, 15:1-15) reflect the views of the church of Mark (written around 40 years after Jesus’ death (assuming he died somewhere around 30 AD) A lot can happen in 40 years and I honestly don’t remember much by way of an anti-Jewish nature in the “canonical Paul.” Pro-gentile yes, but that does not an argument against the historicity of Jesus make. I do not believe there are any anti-jewish sentiments in Q either but I couldd be mistaken. Mark is probably our first Christian source with anti-Jewish sentiments.


Personally, as far as the no-Jesus claim goes, I do not see it as tenable. How many witnesses do we require to accept that barest claim that there was a Jesus of Nazareth behind the stories? We have Mark, Q, and Josephus. Some would add to that GJohn, Paul, Special M, Special L, a miracle list/collection as evidenced by the similarity in John and Mark and also a a sayings list as mentioned above( Q). Also many would argue that for the most part, the prosopography of Jesus in GMark correct aside from some of Mark’s own additions and anti-Jewish sentiments. The embarrassing elements in the stories like his hometown and own family rejecting him, baptism by John etc.

Something I put up on the baptism
http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/embarrassment.html

Something I put up on James and Jesus
http://www.geocities.com/ilgwamh/brotherofthelord.html

Vinnie

Vinnie

Upon a cursory examination of Q material the only possibilities of anti-jewish sentiments in Q would be Luke 3:7 (seems a slight stretch), Luke 1:39-44, and Luke 13:35. There is some anti-pharisee material in there but nothing anti-Jewish in Stage 1.

Vinnie

Toto

Vinnie - this is rehashing some old stuff, so forgive me if I don't want to go through it again.

Historians do consider the quality of their sources. There are eyewitnesses to the existence of Alexander (we had a whole thread on that, which got hijacked.)

There is no dispute that Paul met the pillars of the church. But did they tell him that they knew a historical Jesus who had died a few decades ago? There is no evidence of this.

Doherty has not "conceded" the existence of a person behind the story. Doherty thinks that there might have been a person or persons at the origin of the sayings in Q, but that this person was not the impetus for the Christian religion. Crossan evidently believes that there was a person who was crucified by the Romans who was the impetus for the Christian religion, even if the gospels are not reliable history.

There were, after all, a number of people named Jesus in the first century. Some were probably wandering sages, some were probably crucified. But did the Christian religion start because one of them inspired followers, or because Paul and other diaspora Jews started to worship a risen savior that they did not identify with any person who had recently lived? That is the $64 question.