JonA

What has always been a hindrance for me in accepting the non-historical Jesus position—because I really do not care one way or the other whether there was a Jesus or not—is the lack of explanation I see given by ahistoricists for certain phenomena that an historical Jesus well explains.

I've done some research on the matter and haven't been able to find any straight-forward and coherent explanation offered in place of the historical Jesus proposition to explain these phenomena. I'm currently going through the book The Jesus Mysteries (or via: amazon.co.uk). I started reading it in hopes of getting a better understanding of some of the ahistoricist arguments, but being now half way in I find the book full of so many even simple errors as to be useless to anyone wishing to understand anything.

This book was one of my last hopes, however, for understanding the ahistorical explanations. I am unable to find other resources that might lay out an argument that actually argues something in any clear fashion. Thus, I have decided to post this thread in hopes that ahistoricists could lay out their favorite explanations.

These are the basic things I'd like to see explained:

Thought Revolutions

Messianic Thinking

Before __________, Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was to be a king who raised an army, expelled the foreign rulers from Israel, and established Jewish reign in the region. (Some variations exist.)

After __________, a small group of Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was not a king; he did not raise an army; he did not expel the foreign rulers from Israel; he did not establish Jewish reign in the region. Instead, he was a peasant; he had a rather small following (even if many people 'supposedly' knew about him); he was executed by the foreign rulers (Romans); he was resurrected; he ascended into heaven with a promise to return and fulfill all of the traditional Messianic expectations.

Apocalypticism

Before __________, no one expected a man named Jesus to come to Earth for a second time and bring in the kingdom of God (or some such kingdom) within the lifetime of the first century 'Christians'.

After __________, the first century 'Christians' expected a man named Jesus to come to Earth for a second time and bring in the kingdom of God (or some such kingdom) within their lifetime.

Belief in Jesus

Before _________, there was no one who believed that a Jewish man named Jesus had lived and had been crucified and raised from the dead.

After __________, there were people who believed that a Jewish man named Jesus had lived and had been crucified and raised from the dead.

Tenets of Belief

Messiah

Because of __________, Jesus is always called the Messiah/Christ.

Apocalypticism

Because of __________, all of the earliest 'Christian' sects/cults were apocalyptic.

Jesus

Because of __________, the figure head of the movement always has the same name: Jesus (the Hellenized form of the Hebrew/Aramaic 'yeshua').

Crucifixion

Because of __________, all of the Jesus story traditions involve the notion of crucifixion, no matter how down-played they make the event.

Explanation and Topic

Comparison to Other Explanations

Given the pattern laid out based on the above, are there any other religious sects/cults/etc. that have followed this same pattern in their inception?

What are they and (briefly) how do they follow this pattern?

Quality of Explanation

The explanation can involve as few or as many assumptions as you desire.

The explanation can be as probable or as improbable as you desire.

The explanation can be as good or as bad as you desire.

Topic

Absolutely no discussion here on an historical Jesus.

Absolutely no discussion here on an ahistorical Jesus.

The before-and-after sections should have the same item for each pair of line blanks. Feel free to copy-paste the above layout when filling in the blanks. There is no need to limit yourself to how many different things you introduce as explanations; everything can be given one explanation or everything can be given a different explanation. I'd prefer to avoid lengthy back-and-forth discussions on particular explanations; it is already accepted that an explanation can be as good or bad as imaginable, and pointing out where explanations fail certain criteria of quality doesn't offer anything to the thread. I'm just collecting explanations for now; judgements relating to their quality can come later.

I don't think discussing an historical Jesus is at all relevant in this thread, since my hope is to see arguments that do not rest on an historical Jesus. Likewise, denying a certain explanation is not itself an explanation, so the denial of an historical Jesus (though likely a consequence of the explanations presented) is not acceptable as an explanation in and of itself for anything (indeed, any hypothesis that affirms nothing can explain nothing).

Anyway, I hope to see some really good stuff that might help me understand the ahistorical position. Let the explanations roll in!

Jon

Toto

If you enter '70 CE' in all of your blanks in the 'thought revolution' section, you have a coherent narrative, but '134 CE' would also work.

After failing at a revolt against Rome, some Jews decided to reframe the idea of the Messiah as a spiritual wisdom teacher (the idea that he was a peasant is modern neo-Marxist interpretation, not found in the texts, and the idea that he had only a small following is a modern historicist effort to align the texts with the know evidence.)

I think the reasons are lost, but are equally a mystery whether Jesus existed or not as a historical figure.

Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, Moses' lieutenant who brought the Israelites into Canaan.

How many traditions are you talking about? I would guess that the blank can be filled in with "the use of crucifixion by the Romans as punishment for the Jewish rebels after the Jewish War of 70 CE and at other times," but crucifixion was also used by Alexander Jannaeus at an earlier time in Jewish history.

Crucifixion was also a metaphor. The early Christian was supposed to crucify his earthly nature and live in a spiritual state.

There are religions who have invented an earlier historical basis for their beliefs. The Hebrew Scriptures are mostly invented history, including the above mentioned Moses and Joshua. Romulus and Remus are undoubtedly mythical.

In fact, it seems to be typical for religions to invent a mythical history for their beliefs. Even Scientology has done it, in plain view.

Davka

[STAFFWARN]This thread not only would fare better in Biblical Criticism and History, but it is yearning with all its thready being to go there.

WHOOSH![/STAFFWARN]

Steven Carr

'...is the lack of explanation I see given by ahistoricists for certain phenomena that an historical Jesus well explains.'

How does an historical Jesus explain how people thought the Messiah would be crucified?

'...he was executed by the foreign rulers (Romans);'

How does that explain Paul telling people that the governing authorities hold no terror for the innocent, and are god's agents - sent to punish wrongdoers?

I suppose the historical Osama bin Laden explains Al-Qaeeda writing that the Americans hold no terror for the innocent and are god's agents - sent to punish and execute wrongdoers.

Vorkosigan

This is too simple, JonA. Obviously a group of individuals, perhaps some of them Jews but obviously some of them not, found their messiah in an idiosyncratic reading of the OT. But we don't know enough of how it evolved because we only see it long after it evolved.

Clearly a historical Jesus simply raises the issues you have. For example, why would anyone believe a historical person was the messiah when he obviously failed to fulfill any of the conditions? An HJ also raises the problems that Carr alludes to above, the problem of the widespread silence on any historical person and the strange, constant failure to discuss his life when talking about important issues where it would probably be normative. For example, in 1 Cor 7, Paul discusses marriage but utterly fails to either use Jesus to support his position or deal with the fact that the HJ doesn't support his position. Similarly on circumcision, food laws, etc. Nor does he ever say "Our problem is that Jesus didn't say anything about _________."

JonA

THIS THREAD IS NOT FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE HISTORICAL JESUS POSITION!!!

Toto

There's no need to shout. You can report the posts that you think are off topic, or ignore them, and answer the posts that did attempt to answer your question.

JonA

Reports made.

Hopefully things will be more clear from here on out.

Jon

Toto

JonA thinks this is off topic, but it seems that the question of whether a historical Jesus is actually a good explanation of these facts is on the table.

But feel free to ignore this.

ApostateAbe

Here are my answers.

Messianic Thinking

Before the death of Jesus, Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was to be a king who raised an army, expelled the foreign rulers from Israel, and established Jewish reign in the region. (Some variations exist.)

After the death of Jesus, a small group of Messianic Jews believed the Messiah was not a king; he did not raise an army; he did not expel the foreign rulers from Israel; he did not establish Jewish reign in the region. Instead, he was a peasant; he had a rather small following (even if many people 'supposedly' knew about him); he was executed by the foreign rulers (Romans); he was resurrected; he ascended into heaven with a promise to return and fulfill all of the traditional Messianic expectations.

Apocalypticism

Before the death of Jesus, no one expected a man named Jesus to come to Earth for a second time and bring in the kingdom of God (or some such kingdom) within the lifetime of the first century 'Christians'.

After the death of Jesus, the first century 'Christians' expected a man named Jesus to come to Earth for a second time and bring in the kingdom of God (or some such kingdom) within their lifetime.

Belief in Jesus

Before the death of Jesus, there was no one who believed that a Jewish man named Jesus had lived and had been crucified and raised from the dead.

After the death of Jesus, there were people who believed that a Jewish man named Jesus had lived and had been crucified and raised from the dead.

Tenets of Belief

Messiah

Because of the followers of Jesus, Jesus is always called the Messiah/Christ.

Apocalypticism

Because of Jesus, all of the earliest 'Christian' sects/cults were apocalyptic.

Jesus

Because of Jesus, the figure head of the movement always has the same name: Jesus (the Hellenized form of the Hebrew/Aramaic 'yeshua').

Crucifixion

Because of the death of Jesus, all of the Jesus story traditions involve the notion of crucifixion, no matter how down-played they make the event.

Explanation and Topic

Comparison to Other Explanations

Given the pattern laid out based on the above, are there any other religious sects/cults/etc. that have followed this same pattern in their inception?

No.

What are they and (briefly) how do they follow this pattern?

The events are unique to the historical Jesus.

These answers are, of course, very closely matching the mainstream critical way of thinking about the beginnings of Christianity. I do think there can be alternative ways of filling in the blanks and making sense of the evidence, but those explanations tend to be divided, derived, disconnected from the documents and deeply demanding of one’s dubitability, my dear. At least in my opinion.