TedM

Do you care to give your historical analysis regarding the primary issue of this thread? It is about whether the variety of Jesus portrayals in the 1st century can be supported by one one human source named Jesus. If you don't want to do that, I'm not sure why you are interacting here.

ted

spin

I cited why I was interacting here:
Jesus details don't make HJ details.

And surely you mean not "one human source", but "one literary source"!? We are after all analysing a literary source. This field is plagued with people going beyond what they should.


spin

TedM

If they believed that Christ had risen, either through a vision, dream or some scriptural revelation, then it makes sense to me that any indications of being the Messiah during Jesus' life that they may have previously had doubts about would be seen in a new light. Mark portrays this kind of Jesus--he heals in some places, but fails in others, he preaches righteousness but doesn't always follow the law, he preaches peace yet overturns tables in the temple. He refers to the Son of man yet often in the 3rd person. He speaks in parables, most healings are witnessed only by a few people. Mark's Jesus is charismatic but hard to 'get', and Mark portrays the disciples as very pretty ignorant as to who Jesus was. I'm sure there are contrary passages, but I'm speaking in general. But, the 'old times' become 'the good old times' and it is human nature after one dies to play up his positive traits and downplay the negative, so to me it isn't a stretch to imagine that the disciples appreciated Jesus' earthly role more after first believing in him after his death. Paul, not having known Jesus personally might not have been so affected--especially if Jesus' earthly ministry was not dramatic. Paul's silence on the miracles and teachings aren't a dealbreaker for me, though they do call out for some kind of explanation. This is just one possibility. Andrews may be a better one. Or, maybe some combination of both.

ted

TedM

I"m not sure what you are asking. He appeals to scripture when discussing Christ sacrifice and salvation, does he not?

Maybe if we can establish that Paul wanted to hurt their reputations. I don't think we can. I think he was more interested in supporting his own gospel and his own worthiness to be called an apostle.

Ok, I see. Perhaps I shouldn't expect equal treatment. In general titles have roles so I would expect them to be explained too. Paul maybe didn't explain them for 2 reasons: 1. it represented a threat to him 2. his readers already knew their roles. In the case of 'the twelve' and the 'pillars' I don't think we can conclude they represent just titles for roles that weren't threatening to Paul's authority because 1. the pillars did threaten his authority
2. If, as many believe, 'the twelve' was part of a known creed, we can't really expect Paul to remove the reference from the creed.

ted

Amaleq13

I consider the Temple disruption scene to be entirely incredible as history so I'm afraid I'll need a better answer. You can find my reasons why in the thread titled moneychangers in the temple.

It seems to me that the "messianic secret" of the Gospels and the absence of any such reference in Q suggest that no notion of Jesus as the Messiah was considered prior to his alleged resurrection. I suppose one could suggest a "magnetic personality" that superceded any actually compelling demonstration of supernatural power or astounding wisdom but that still doesn't seem to correspond to the incarnated Son Paul describes.

I agree. In fact, I agree to the point where I don't consider it implausible that they were talking about two entirely different individuals! The name was common but it is also possible that Q was such a great template for how a living Jesus should have been that the Gospel authors couldn't help but make it so. If it is correct that this hypothetical source underwent editing over time, the name "Jesus" might not be original to it. In addition, it seems a perfect choice for anyone wanting to give a name to God's Savior. In fact, the prayer Paul is understood to be repeating in Philippians 2 seems to describe this name being given to Christ after the resurrection.

I don't think the author of Q created their miracle-working prophet any more than Paul created his incarnated Son. I do, however, question the assumption that both were talking about the same individual.

Either a coincidence of a common name or the alteration/modification of a subsequently lost source text.

It seems to me that being a former persecutor of this faith might result in excessive attempts to argue one's legitimacy and Paul tells us he was divinely compelled to make the journey to Jerusalem. If the true basis for his feelings of inferiority were the result of not having followed the living Jesus, why not argue against the relevance of that activity by pointing out the failure of the disciples to get the message while he lived or that they had actually initially abandonded him? If they never abandoned him and always considered him to be the Messiah, why weren't they rounded up and killed rather than being allowed to continue to work in the very city he in which he was executed?

TedM

Ok, I guess I should have explained after your first post that when I said "historical Jesus details" I meant "alleged historical details". I know that we can't conclude squat about what Jesus did or didn't do with 100% accuracy. I'd be curious as to your criteria for determining if something is 100% certain to have happened in history..

No I meant what I wrote. The question is whether one man could have been the inspiration for the varieties of literary sources that reference him that we see or not. I maintain that since they all appear at roughly the same time that one may could have inspired them, with the differences being explained by the fact that their authors had different beliefs about that man. If you'd like to tackle this issue, I'd be interested in your methodology. I'm an amateur and so I might learn something about where you are coming from.

thanks,

ted

Amaleq13

Exactly! You need nothing but Scripture to understand and accept Paul's gospel. It doesn't seem to me much of a stretch to wonder if that is all you need to be inspired to recognize it as well. I use "recognize" rather than "create" because I think that better expresses how I conceive of the process.

This would not be done in order to hurt their reputations so much as it be to hurt their potential claim to greater authority.

I think the second is more likely though, unfortunately, less than helpful in our efforts since it would work both ways.

That title wouldn't really constitute a threat to his authority if all it referenced was the fact that they started the movement. Likewise, if "the twelve" was a group that simply represented the twelve tribes, it would not constitute a threat to his authority.

I haven't read her but, based on comments others have made here, it seems to me that you might find Paula Fredrickson an interesting scholar. IIUC, she suggests a historical Jesus that was really not all that big of a deal but who got seriously blown up by subsequent mythology.

spin

How about even 1% accuracy? -- if you could show some way to determine that modicum of accuracy.

Publically circulated epigraphy is always a good bet. That Ramses II fought the battle of Qadesh I'd say is 100% certain. Not only do we have the public epigraphy from Ramses, but we also have epigraphy from the Hittite side, so that we can reconstruct events with quite a good degree of certainty, notwithstanding the fact that Ramses doesn't tell the story as it happened. Much of the public epigraphy from Assyria supplies hard historical information, though again it needs reading in context. No-one did history in such texts; it was all propaganda of various soughts. Darius at Behistun provides us with another contemporary report of events in the near past of publication.

The difference between literary and epigraphic data is important. Epigraphy comes from a historircal context. Literature usually cannot unveil the context in which it was written, or at least the current form of the text stands.

How do you get beyond the literature??

As we are dealing with literature, I suppose there could have been a person represented in the Satyricon, perhaps even called Trimalchio, who may have inspired the character. Then again, there may not have been. There may have been a person who the writer of Judith had in mind when he wrote that book. But then again.

We are dealing with literature, and here with a literature that makes no pretentions of understanding historiography, whereas a writer such as Polybius clearly does. Polybius signals from the beginning of his work that his interest is history. He relates events which either he or informants he has spoken to have witnessed. You will find nothing like the fiction of Gethsemane in Polybius, nothing like the incredible, though conflicting, birth narratives, nothing like Jesus's tete-a-tete with the devil.

What in the gospels gives signs that we are dealing with a historical genre? the narrative framework based on Hebrew bible references? the miracle cycles? the apparent lack of geographical knowledge? the folk wisdom material? the historical difficulties?


spin

TedM

Yes, I don't know how to determine the pct. In the end I think what Amaleq and I are doing it throwing out theories and determining through argumentation whether they can be called reasonable or not.


Thanks. Yes there is a big difference between this and the gospels. Do you think there is any historical point to even asking quesitons like "was John the Baptist a real person"?


Can we rule out a man named Jesus who was believed to have been crucified and resurrected around 30? If so, by what criteria--the presence of unhistorical material in most of the writings attributed to him, the lack of historical detail from Paul?

A lot of things give signs, but none provide proof and a lot of things suggest evolved tradition and myth, but the things I would point to primarily require an argument about human nature, so it falls short of having any good scientific criteria.

ted

Amaleq13

I'm pretty sure spin hates this approach.

I think it is important to note that we are focusing primarily on Paul and, recently, Q rather than starting with an attempt to squish through the mess of the Gospels.

IOW, we start out trying to imagine a historical Jesus who makes sense given what we have in Paul and Q then we can move forward to see how this guy is depicted in the Gospel literature swamp. I'm not sure there is even one aspect to this endeavor that spin considers worthwhile. We're on our backs gazing at the clouds and imagining while he just wants to dig up material evidence he can get his hands around and look at scruffy old scrolls with odd squiggles on them.