Ted Hoffman

Below is an upcoming article I have been writing. Its becoming too voluminous and am looking at ways of cutting it down. I wanted to focus on HJ methodologies but seem to have lost track.

Criticize the hell out of it or pat me on the back. At the end is a rough outline I would like to build upon. Add ideas if you can.

**********************START*********************** ***

Prologue

In a scene in The Matrix Reloaded, the starring, Neo (Keanu Reeves), meets, for the first time, the architect of the Matrix (Helmut Bakaitis), who is frustrated by failure.

Neo: "Who are you?"

The architect : "I am the architect. I created the Matrix. I have been waiting for you. You have many questions and though the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand and some of them you will not. Concurrently, while your first question is the most pertinent, you may or may not realize that its also the most irrelevant."

Neo : "Why am I here?".

The architect: "Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony, of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here."

Neo: "You haven't answered my question.

Introduction

Like the architect in The Matrix Reloaded, the historical third Jesus questers , when asked about the historicity of Jesus, respond that "while the question is the most pertinent, it is also the most irrelevant", though not in these exact words. They now presume that a methodology is more important than this very fundamental question which they ignore altogether or treat in a cavalier manner. Like Neo's question, the question about whether a historical Jesus existed is left unanswered by those elaborate historical Jesus methodologies which instead, seek to show which potrait of Jesus is the correct one.

Like the successive integral anomalies in the matrix, historical Jesus variants emerge, each with varying grotsequeness. Like in the matrix, where the anomaly is systemic and creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations, in HJ methodology, this unanswered question introduces and compounds errors which spread, crack-like, accross the entire reconstructions of historical Jesus. Leading, ineluctably, to successive mutations of historical Jesus.

Like the architect, they are frustrated by failure. And they are beginning to let out their frustrations on each other like we can see in the Jesus wars with HJ scholars criticizing each other and profusely churning out competing Jesuses.

Like the architect of first matrix, the third questers reasoning is quite naturally, correct, their theories like works of art, sublime. But like the first matrix, whose triumph was only equalled its monumental failure, will they also fail?

We learn from The Matrix Reloaded that the imperfection inherent in every human being made the doom of the first matrix inevitable. But what are the implications of developing a HJ methodology whilst treating the existence of a HJ as a basic assumption?

What if the assumption that there is a voice of historical Jesus at the lowest strata (as assumed by JD Crossan and others) is actually false?

If the assumption that a HJ existed is incorrect, as I argue it is, then the historical certainities HJ scholars assign to the pericopes and the HJ reconstructions they engage in are at best irrelevant; at worst they are deceptive and misleading to readers who haven't familiarized themselves well with this field of study.

I argue that this assumption inevitably informs the choices they make in their criticism. The assumption, without doubt, makes them reject alternative possibilities as they analyze historiographical evidence and taints every conclusion they draw. Like a brush soaked with paint, every stroke they make is coloured by this assumption, even when it is not intended.

This historical Jesus epidemic has spread accross the entire range of miltivaried historical constructions from the textual stratigraphy, to the archaeological examination to the sociological lens.

An important point to bear in mind is that the data does not allow us to assume, a priori, that a historical Jesus existed. Quite the contrary. But that, is exactly what biblical scholars do: they treat the existence of a HJ is a maxim. I argue that this is the untamed demon undermining their earnest efforts and damning their conclusions.

A Horrifying Profusion of Anomalous and Grosteque Jesuses

In The Historical Jesus (1991), John Dominic Crossan says regarding the unstandardized nature of historical Jesus research: "the historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke".
Crossan adds that because of this comical and irregular nature "it is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography". However, Meier, as we learn below, thinks that Crossan and like-minded scholars are deluded on this and he contends that HJ scholars are doing theology, whether they realize it or not.

Crossan's observations may be correct but the only problem is that he is part of the 'bad joke'. Instead of extracting himself from the obviously flawed process and undertaking the burden of assiduously seeking and eliminating the anomaly that makes a harmony unattainable, he instead, like a moth to the flame joins the orgy.

While he complains that there is "acute scholarly subjectivity" pervading the Historical Jesus studies, a neutral observer can easily discern that, in the midst of the melee of the Jesus Wars (as some Americans refer to it), Crossan too, with his face glistening with sweat and chest heaving with exertion, suffers from the same bias he accuses his warring colleagues of suffering from. Perhaps not the exactly in the same fashion, but it nevertheless contributes to the malaise in HJ research.

What are the symptoms that indicate to us that HJ research is in serious jeopardy? Its output. HJ scholars have come up with a horrifying profusion of anomalous and grosteque Jesuses. Lets have a brief rundown of these Jesuses:

N.T. Wright proposes that the historical Jesus was a revolutionary and saviour. Geza Vermes presents a historical Jesus who is a charismatic teacher, healer, and exorcist - a Galilean holy man. Robert H. Stein proposes that he was a supernatural historical miracle worker and saviour. Marcus Borg talks of Jesus as a spirit person, subversive sage, social prophet, and movement founder. John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack tell us that the historical Jesus was a cynic sage/ landless labourer, displaced peasant. J.P Meier tells us that Jesus was a marginalized jew (a ‘blip’ on the radar screen of pagans and mainstream Jews), a radical egalitarian feminist socialist with a social agenda. Stevan Davies tells us that the historical Jesus was a healer - alternate personality as "the spirit of God,". Robert Eisenman hypothesizes that the historical Jesus was a Torah-observant and nationalistic Jew of insurrectionist leaning. Paula Fredriksen, Bart Ehrman, Theissen, E.P. Sanders, Dale Allison and Ludemann all claim that Jesus apocalyptic prophet. Richard Horsley tells us he was a social revolutionary for an egalitarian society. Stevan Davies claims he was a Galilean charismatic, Luke Timothy Johnson persuades us that Jesus as a son of god who was baptized and died for our sins. Riley tells us he was a Hellenistic hero. The Jesus seminar vouch for an uprooted, iconoclastic Jesus who is dissimilar to both the antedecent Jewish tradition and the christian one that followed it and who is a wandering cynic philosopher, and so on and so forth.

These Jesuses can be grouped further along certain lines or even split further. I follow no strict categorization in enumerating them. They can be shifted around the groupings because there are features that overlap among them. They are to be regarded as collage potraits and not mosaics.

Now, laymen are literally buried under the sheer weight of this uncontrolled flood of Jesuses. The outlandish variegation of these Jesuses is evocative of an artist attempting to craft human figures from whatever he picks discriminately from a garbage heap: one having a tinhead, another with an electric cable for the head, another with a brick for his heart, another with a packet of milk for its head and so on and so forth.
Which potrait of Jesus is the correct one? Now, that depends on who you ask. Simple logic tells us that they cannot all be correct, but that they can be all wrong. I lean towards the latter. Lets move on to the root cause of this mindboggling surfeit of historical Jesuses.

The Cause of the Problem

A phenomenon known as the HJ epidemic has been identified as one major problem in NT scholarship. Its symptoms include uncritically assuming a HJ behind every relevant saying and every deed even those that are clearly not Jewish (like bedrock CST). Its genesis is the primordial 'divinity school' theological seminary" background that is weighing down the efforts of most NT Scholars today like a ton of bricks.

For example, Crossan received a doctorate of divinity from Maynooth College, Ireland, in 1959. JP Meier, his compatriot, and who is normally on the receiving end of his criticism, is a Catholic University scholar who believes that Jesus was both fully divine and fully human. He is a scholar who, among other things, has tried to bridge the gap created by Rudolph Bultmann's dichotomy, which sought to separate Christ from the historical Jesus. Meier holds a doctorate in sacred Scripture (1976) from the Biblical Institute in Rome. In 1968, he graduated from the theology program at Gregorian Universit ans has served as a Catholic priest.

Meier thinks that "a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology"[1]. When asked about historicity of Jesus' miracles, he opines that "It’s a matter of faith." ibid.

Now, Crossan and Meier have been the most outspoken about historical Jesus methodology. Some schools of thought of about the HJ have been built around them and Crossan openly criticizes Meier's methodology in his works. The whole maelstrom about a HJ has seen titles like Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan, emergin in publications.

To what extent can someone, like Meier, who believes in the trilogy, and who believes a HJ existed, be and critically objective in his reconstruction of a HJ? Remember, the apple never falls far from the tree. Can these scholars afford to publish works that will disturb their friends and family? To what extent can they divorce their thought systems from what they learnt in the divinity schools?

We know they have valiantly tried to shed the theological seminar training and perhaps indoctrination. Crossan is regarded by conservative Christians as a liberal scholar and his works are derided by orthodox christians, some of whom claim he has a hidden agenda.

But, in spite of their efforts to free themselves from the christology that they learnt in divinity schools, and the theology that they were tested on in the seminaries, they have been unable to entertain the thought that perhaps, just perhaps, a HJ never existed, and that salvific Jesus was erstwhile an intermediary saviour figure called "the son of God" as we see in Shepherd of Hermas. They have never asked themselves why 1 Clement refers to Christ, not as a past personality, but a present power. Why in Odes of Solomon, Didache and Gospel of Barnabas, none of Jesus' teachings are mentioned and why they refer only to God for knowledge and wisdom and why Pilate, Mary or Jospeh are not mentioned by these early writers, why in Philippians 2:6-11 Paul writes of a God who came down and suffered and for that act, was exalted by being named Jesus - why Paul says Jesus was killed by [a]archons[/i] (demons) and not Pontius Pilate as the Gospels indicate?

Have they asked why Tatian, in Apology to the Greeks c.160 had as his main focus, the Logos. When he expounds on The Doctrine of the Christians, he focuses on the creative power of the Logos in bringing about the universe, its being the first-begotten of the Father through whom the world was made. Why Tatian never mentions that there was an incarnation of the Logos. Why Tatian uses expressions like 'God taught', never 'Jesus said', or 'Christ taught'. Why the names 'Jesus', 'Christ' and 'Christian' don't appear in Apology. Why, when Tatian talks about Christians belief in the resurrection, he never mentions Jesus or christ, or that Jesus resurrected.

And why the same author, a decade or so later, in Diatessaron c.175, references the gospels and why, suddenly, a historical Jesus emerges in his theology?[2]. Why does The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus state that "God did not, send to men any servant, or angel to the Christians"? Didn't the author know that Christianity was founded by a man called Jesus who was sent by God? Why does the author, who is a Christian, write lengthily about The Manifestation of Christ and never once mentions the name Jesus or Mary or Nazareth? Isn't it odd?

Why do HJ methodologies focus only on Jesus' sayings and not on his personality - was Jesus a radio? Why is it that the voice of a HJ is missing in the first strata (Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans - where the words "son of God", Pilate, Joseph and Mary,[terms which appear in the latter strata] are markedly absent)? Why is there no Jewish voice in the common sayings tradition? Why is it that Mark has no infancy narrative? And why did the three gospels copy Mark and move around Markan material without any regard to context? Why is it that almost the whole of Mark was constructed via literary borrowing and midrash from the old testament if there was an actual story of a historical Jesus? Is it a coincidence that events in Mark so closely parallel those in Kings - from sequence, structure, plot and characters?

These are questions that NT scholars have failed to ask themselves, or have asked themselves but ignored them because of their potential to ignite a maelstrom in NT scholarship. Or because of certain theological commitments that they have been sworn to. It is my belief that they whiz past these questions because of their theological commitment to a historical Jesus. And that commitment, borne out of divinity classrooms, is the cause of the problem.

How bad Is it Anyway?

Very bad.

The Jesus Seminar, who purport to represent the academy on HJ questions tell us that, after more than a decade of their meetings, the one thing we can know for certain is that Jesus was crucified.

Finally one certain thing. Ok, so, who crucified Jesus and why?

We look into Crossan's The Historical Jesus - The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant. Crossan (who chaired the Jesus Seminar) says in it that he knows the crucifixion happened but doesn't know why. When queried further, he murmurs suspiciously that he thinks the temple incident in Mark 11 had something to do with it.

Fair enough. So we start contemplating how bad this temple ruckus must have been, making the high priests start plotting to get rid of Jesus and all...

But Paula Fredricksen interrupts our thoughts and tells us she has visited the temple scene personally and thinks its very unlikely that it happened as narrated. She supports this with unassailable reasons. While we are digesting this, Fredricksen sedately reminds us that even the crucifiction could not have happened as described. She proceeds to explain that the grisly manner in which Jesus was crucified was preserved for political insurrectionists and that if Jesus was one, he could not have been crucified alone, but with his followers too. We also know that whereas Josephus, the Jewish historian, recorded the crucifixions carried out by the Romans, Jesus' crucifiction is missing in Roman records which have a number of Jesuses, but no Jesus of Nazareth.

So anyway, how come Jesus was crucified alone? Crossan tells us that as soon as Jesus was arrested (for what - a temple incident that never happened?), his disciples fled back to rural Galilee and never got to know what his fate was (and bear in mind that Crossan rejects the historicity of the twelve. He says that the prospect of a gang of 13 idle men wandering in a shame-and-honour society like Galilee while the women and children did meaningful things is out of the question). So, Crossan tells us that, after a while, these diciples came together and combed the scriptures then constructed the passion narrative from passages like Psalms 22. This is what he calls the 'cross gospel' which, he informs us, the author of Mark later used and which was the source of the passion narrative of the other three gospels. Other scholars, critical of the Jesus Seminar, disagree and say Crossan is using that unattested document as a crutch.

********************TO BE CONTINUED***********************

Historical Jesus Methodologies or Historical Jesus Guides?

1. Lack of adequate explanation for dating the documents included in the strata
2. Speciously narrow date ranges in the strata render's the strata dubious.
3. Absence of a Historical Jesus in the first strata beats reason because its supposed to be closest to a
historical Jesus.
4. Single-minded preoccupation on Jesus' words or sayings rather than his person (identity), his deeds and experiences, casts a shadow of doubt regarding his historicity.
5. The void in the (CST) Common Sayings Tradition points to the acute absence of a focusing earthly figure.
6. Lack of attestation of a historical Jesus by Josephus. This flies in the face of the idea that Jesus taught a radical philosophy and was responsible for a wide ranging movement as depicted by HJ theorists.
7. Paul's disinterest in Jesus' alleged 'achievements' in Galilee
8. Missing references to a HJ in Q where expected.
9. No Jewish references in bedrock layer of CST.
10. Criteria plus stratum does not equal Methodology
11. Unreliability of the methodologies.
There is little or no external corroborating evidence to the gospel events. That means there is no way to test the conclusions which makes the arguments for validating the methodologies, circular.

1. Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier

Bede

Hi Jacob,

Much of what you say has merit and echoes frequently made by Vork. The problem I have with both of you is that you don't know where to stop.

You are quite right, and eloquently explain, that the multitude of Jesus's has discredited the third quest. Clearly the third questers have never got the point that THE REAL JESUS is now beyond the curtain of history. We cannot know what kind of guy he was, his motivation, his philosophy or his theology but this is precisely what the third quester's seek. We can seriously question the motives of people who, in the absense of any hard facts, seem to be inventing a Jesus for their liking.

But then you get confused. There is a huge difference between the third questers wanting to get at the REAL MAN, and a secular historian noting the few facts that we do know about who Jesus was and what happened to him. This is the same for nearly all historical figures. We can say nothing much about the REAL Alexander, the REAL Commodius, the REAL Marshall Nee. This keeps biographers in work as they can write lots of books about the same people. But it is a category mistake to think that because the motives, thoughts and philosophy of Jesus are beyond us, the bare facts of his life are equally hidden. They are not. The problem with HJ studies is not that they think Jesus existed. It is that they cannot accept that HJ studies is really not very interesting as there is not very much to say. The MJ thesis is just another turn of this wheel - Jesus has been everything: a sage, heretic, Essene, pharisee, gay etc etc. So, it is inevitable he can also be no one at all.

Of the cuff, here are my two laws of HJ studies:
1) Anything it is humanly possible to say about Jesus will be said.
2) It already has been.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Amaleq13

Who is the "secular historian" (Fox?) and what are the few "known" facts?

Bede

EP Sanders lists the facts. Fox and Grant have useful things to say but the later is too worried about preaching and the Kingdom of Heaven stuff.

Otherwise, pick up a history of the world (JH Roberts is good) and see what it says about Jesus. That is really all you can get.

B

Ted Hoffman

Bede,
Thank you. Compliments from you are unexpected but well received.

We don't intend to stop. Who was it - was it Jean Paul Satre who said that even when God is dead we don't stop?

You still haven't named the secular historian.

There was no midrash (creative writing) and literary borrowing (or prophecy historicized) in Alexanders case. (a) We have very little reason to doubt his existence (b) The question of his existence is not significant - I mean I know of no people who are on payroll's for proving what kind of person Alexander was or studying him, or who have made carreers out of that (c) Alexander is not extraordinary - reverse christology, son of God allegations, virgin birth issues wrapped up with historical claims and being saviour of the world make Jesus very significant.

So, socio-politically and for historico-religious reasons, we have every reason to focus on Jesus but no reason to be bothered by Alexander the Great. Besides, Alexander's existence is buttressed by plenty of historical evidence. If he was apotheosized, thats another matter. And besides, we don't care.

What are these 'bare facts'? Where are they? How do you know they are facts?

Is that why you have a webpage enumerating HJ theories? Because HJ theories are boring and have very little?

He cannot be none at all - a MJ is all of them because he is fluid and each community or writer can make of him what they conceive. But a HJ, a distinct personality, cannot be all of them. A MJ is just like God. To Hebrews, God was a furious, meat-loving Yahweh who helped them in battle. To Muslims, he is Allah who is prudish and militant (depending on which Muslim you talk to). To Christians, he is a deistic, sometimes pantheistic and intervening loving God who will Judge us after we die - depending on whatever brand of Christianity you have in mind and so on and so forth.

The same fluidity and split personality applies to Jesus. His manifestations are expressions of what communities or certain writers/ evangelists/theologians believed. He could be beaten to any shape because he had no concrete identity. To Paul, he was a heavenly saviour figure whose teachings were accessible via revelation. Mark's Jesus was a quasi-docetic man with a messianic secret. Matthew's Jesus was a kenotic eschatological messiah who was conceived by God making a virgin pregnant - and fits well into the motif of dying and rising saviour figures in the Hellenistic era. John's Jesus was an incarnation of a pre-existent Logos. Marcion's Jesus was a docetic figure - his physical attributes only an illusion. To Clement, Jesus was an ever-present intermediary figure to rely upon for strength and wisdom, not a man who died in the past. To Shepherd of Hermas, he was an intermediary son of God etc etc.

Well into the second century, we still see communities like those that were behind Odes of Solomon and Didache and 1 Clement having no HJ. We still see the early works of Tatian having no HJ while at the same time we see people like Justin having a HJ - at the same time!
These are christian communities living side by side - yet there are christians without a HJ.

As we move late into the 2nd century (post c.180), Tertullian, Irenaeus etc - thats when a HJ seems to be present in every christian work.

The only reason it was possible to present comprehensive Christian theologies in the early second century without mentioning 'Christ', or 'Jesus' as we see in Tatian's Address to the Greeks and others, is because even in the second century, there were christians who had not heard of a HJ. If christianity had a central founding human figure, this would have been impossible.

Thus, the idea that a central figure existed in christianity is an idea that was conceived later, and concerted efforts made to fabricate him from the OT and force him down the throats of the other christians.

HJ scholars will continue to fail because they are trying to create a single, concrete figure from a fluid admixture of beliefs and variegated background of segregated communities and writers who wrote for them. Why do GThomas and Q have no narratives - because there was none. There was no HJ. Why is there no Jewish voice in CST? Because there is no Jewish man behind the sayings.

An MJ can accomodate all the theological fluidity we see in early christian communities. It explains the silence form historical sources concerning a HJ and it explains why the quest has failed: because its fighting an MJ battle with a HJ mindset.

Interesting.
So, according to you, the quest is over? As in, they have said all they could say and cannot say any more?

Then perhaps you agree with me that they should make room for MJ scholars to give it a damn try?

It will be interesting to have a term like "MJ scholarship" being a legitimate term 10 years from now. It will be a delight to have Doherty receive honorary degrees and so on and so forth and have faculties opened to study the Jesus Myth Hypothesis since HJ Hypothesis have had their chance and either squandered it or reached their pinnacle. They seem unable relieve themselves of the problematic paradigms they were bequeathed by their predecessors and seem determined to labor to death with flawed assumptions rather than wipe the slate clean and start afresh.

From this point on, they can only degenerate to become a spectacle in the academia and they are slowly making other scholars shun NT scholarship as an undertaking not worthy of being grouped under 'academic scholarship'.

Celsus

Hi Jacob,
I would try rephrasing it as this:
In an exercise of balance (and I can vouch that these are extremely useful), try arguing from the opposite stance once or twice. It will help your tentativity (and therefore scholarship) to no end. Maybe you should set up a debate with Bede or Vinnie where you argue opposite positions. I would get front row seats for that one. Hell, I know fuck all about the HJ/MJ argument, but I could give it a shot if you want an opponent (you know, antirealist yada yada yada). How about we set up a "mirror" thread here, where everyone argues positions they feel are diametrically opposite to their own (ok, we'll skip out the fundies and the raving SAB-quoters)? Seriously. I'll be the naive realist. <--blind man

Joel

Ted Hoffman

Hi Celsus,
a) Doherty builds on NT scholarship - so in that respect, JM hypothesis emerges from the same background as HJ hypothesis except Doherty has no theological commitments. He quotes Kummel, Knox, Barrett, Price etc etc.

b) Doherty and other atheists, agnostics (like Price) have nothing to lose in terms of their worldview if there ever was found evidence that a HJ existed. HJ scholars will lose their entire carreers if it emerged there was no HJ.

c) There are no Mythicist seminaries or schools for indoctrination. There are no mythicist churches or organizations to fund research and publicize MJ theory.

d) Doherty is not on any payroll for being a mythicist or for teaching mythicist theories. He therefore will suffer no monetary loss or disgrace if JM hypothesis is falsified. And if he does, as an underdog, it will be no great loss.

e) Doherty has dealt with the relevant 'evidence' and arguments by HJ scholars. HJ scholars have buried their heads in the sand wrt JM hypothesis.

f) No HJ scholars have attempted to clearly refute Doherty's thesis though Fredricksen tried.

g) Three professors of New Testament today take Doherty's theory seriously.

h) The search for a historical Jesus has been carried out by hundreds of scholars over a century and they have failed mightily. The Jesus myth theory, particularly as formulated by Doherty, is very young. And has for the first time, invaded the strongholds of orthodoxy.

Yeah, like assume that an unknown landless labourer and unemployed peasant (per Crossan) was welcomed ceremoniously into Jerusalem by the poor from the ghetto.

Or that a single unarmed man cleared the temple of moneychangers.

Or that he predicted the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem.

Or that he believed he would come again.

We don't want a bloodbath here Celsus. There are things I wouldn't wish even my worst enemies.

Homicide Celsus. Homicide.

{edited}

philbo

Sorry, after looking at "The Bug in NT Scholarship", my first thought was that there's no way Microsoft are going to fix that - you'll have to upgrade to XP Scholarship instead...

...but I loved the Matrix introduction, especially because I can see the sort of theist at whom this would be aimed wanting to start by saying that you're demeaning the argument by using SciFi quotes, and ignoring that it's actually really rather apposite.