Family Man

luvluv --

Basically, it comes down to the fact that historians can not use their normal tools of evaluation to come to a judgement about supernatural events. For example:

1. Independent sources -- by this we mean sources not just from one side of the story. If we had one source that said "Yay, Joshua blew down the walls so we won" and another source that said "Yeah, well we would have won if Joshua hadn't blown that damn horn," then we'd have good evidence. The fact of the matter is there is no such animal in the historical record.

2. Archeological evidence -- Caesar, in his History of the Gallic Wars, described pits filled with spikes that he had placed during a battle. At the site of that battle, archeologists found exactly what he described. This strongly suggests his account is accurate. There is no supernatural event I know of that has comparable evidence.

3. Motivation for the story -- Also in his History, Caesar tends to blame his underlings for failures. Historians dismiss these claims, because it is a rather self-serving claim for Caesar to make. On the other hand, the crucifixion is widely held to be true because it is a strange strange and embarrassing thing to have happen to a divine messiah. The resurrection, on the other hand, is the archtypical apotheosis. As a explanation for Jesus's strange death, it has to be considered suspect.

4. Likelihood -- The more likely the claim, the more believable it is. As I noted earlier, the dead supposively rose and walked through the streets of Jerusalem. And no one noticed? There are many, many supernatural claims that, had they really occured, would have been noticed and commented on. The fact that they weren't strongly suggests that all supernatural claims are suspect.

5. Explanatory Power -- How does the events help explain the rest of known history. For example, Roman history makes no sense unless Julius Caesar did would he is reputed to do. That isn't true of supernatural events. The early history of Christianity does not need a supernaturally risen Christ to explain it. All it needs is the belief that Jesus was resurrected. And using Occam's Razor, that is the far more likely scenario.

The bottom line is that there isn't a philosophical bias against the supernatural. It is simply impossible to use the tools of history and conclude that any supernatural event actually happened -- in fact, the only conclusions I've ever seen is that certain supernatural events couldn't have happened.

In short, you can be a Christian historian, rightly hold that the resurrection is not a historical event, and still believe that it happened. But you can not use the tools of history to conclude that the resurrection happened. They simply do not apply

the_cave

Gregg--it's "extreme" in that the allegorical story is taken to be held as detail-for-detail fact, in that it became such for a widespread community, and eventually an empire and a continent, in that there are no contemporary documents stating that it's all merely an allegory, and in that these documents became the basis of a religion (and not merely a folkloric tradition)

One of the issues at hand is the issue being discussed here--that the commentators in this tradition insisted that it was not merely allegory--and Paul did it even before the gospels were written. So a great deal hinges on what Paul meant by "in the flesh". The claim that he does not mean "earthly flesh", but rather "spiritual flesh"(?), is a radical opinion--in that the possibility of this meaning has only been raised very recently, in that it is quite foreign to our ways of thinking, and goes counter to 2000 years of contrary interpretation. This of course doesn't mean it's incorrect, but it does mean that it's radical.

sismofyt

Gregg wrote;

"Of course Paul believed in a bodily resurrection. Please show me where Doherty suggests otherwise. It's very frustrating when people raise objections to arguments that Doherty doesn't even make."

Hmm, according to Doherty, Paul didn't believe in an earthly human & historical Jesus. Thus not a bodily ressurection. Or did I misunderstand something? Or you?

I thought that it was his whole argument in "The Jesus Puzzle". No human historical Jesus amongst the early christian writers = no human historical Jesus at all...

Having read both the NT & "The Jesus Puzzle", I agree.

Gregg

I made serious errors in that post--writing at 5:30 a.m.--that I meant to correct, but forgot about it. Paul taught the resurrection of the dead, but I guess it's not clear if he believed people in their graves would come back to life. It seems more likely he felt the dead would be given new, glorified bodies. My mistake.

As to Jesus, what I was trying to address is this insistence that Jesus must either be entirely spiritual or entirely physical, i.e., an earthly, human, historical person. People keep looking at this issue through 21st-century lenses. No allowance is made for a first-century religious mindset, in which a spiritual being can mystically assume the properties of flesh and blood, get killed, and be resurrected (although possibly not in same "body" he died in), without actually coming to earth and living a human life.

I was basically a little frustrated and wrote too hastily. A lot of people don't seem to "get" the Jesus myth argument because they insist on looking at it from a 21st century viewpoint which makes a sharp division between the "spiritual" and physical realms. But when we've all seen modern-day Christians get blue in the face defending an irrational, mystical concept like the Trinity, is it really so hard to imagine a 1st-century mystic like Paul believing in a divine being mystically "becoming flesh," being invested with the necessary characteristics of the Messiah, and being crucified, shedding blood, and being resurrected, without actually coming to Earth? Especially when other mystery religions of the time had similar teachings? Especially when Greek neo-Platonism taught that as you descended through the layers of heaven, things became increasingly "earth-like"? Especially when in the wider pagan world, belief in human-like gods who did very human things was commonplace?

The Jesus myth theory just makes a lot more sense when you try to imagine yourself as a 1st century mystical thinker exposed to the swirling religious and philosophical ideas and impulses of the time.

sismofyt

Well, I tried really hard to look on the Jesus matter without 21st century eyes. I've read a lot about middle eastern history.. spend a lot of time thinking on matters and came to the conclusion long before I read Dohertys book or started going to IIDB.

I'm sure I understand what you mean, "insistence that Jesus must either be entirely spiritual or entirely physical". How can he be both?

Either he is an historical figure. Or not.

For me it makes a lot of sense that he didn't exist, but was never the less worshipped by 1st. xians as a spiritual deity. It also makes alot of sense that later xians turned him into a historical figure. Both with 1st & 21st eyes...

Thanx for your reply. Fascinating stuff...

Gregg

This is my point. The question is not "how can he be both," but "was it possible for someone like Paul to BELIEVE he could be both." Since we know that even modern-day Christians can believe things that are logically inpossible, the answer is certainly, "yes."

No, Jesus was NOT a historical figure for Paul in the sense of being a human being who'd walked on Earth. Nevertheless, Paul did believe that Jesus had descended to the lowest level of heaven, where, according to neo-Platonist philosophy, things were more "earthlike" than at the higher levels. There Jesus mystically took on the likeness of flesh and blood and was put to death by the Archons, the demon rulers of the lower heavens. I doubt that for Paul, Jesus became entirely human...he became human enough that he could share in human suffering, and thus create the link that made it possible for believers to share in his resurrection.

Gregg

No, it's not "merely" allegory. It's an allegorical tale about spiritual events that were believed to have been very real by the writer of "Mark" and his community.

"Mark" and the other documents based on it were not the basis for the religion. The religion existed long before they were written. What the Gospels initiated was a gradual transition from a belief in a Jesus who "only" descended to the lower levels of heaven and took on the "likeness" of flesh, to a belief in one that had actually been on Earth. This process would have been accelerated by the destruction of Jerusalem and the depopulation of Palestine, after which Christianity became primarily a European Gentile faith. European Gentiles wouldn't have had the same resistance to equating a human being with God that Jews and Christians with a Greek neo-Platonist background would. They were also unlikely to be aware of, or troubled by, the geographical, historical, and other factual discrepancies in the gospels. Nevertheless, as Doherty shows in "The 2nd Century Apologists," belief in a non-historical Jesus--and ignorance of the gospel "tradition"--persisted for quite some time after the gospels were written.

As to finding "contemporary documents stating that it's all merely an allegory," well, how likely are you to find something like that after centuries of Christian censorship? Still, some fascinating tidbits survived, like this from Doherty's "The 2nd Century Apologists":

'A clue to the solution of this puzzle lies in Tatian's Apology. In chapter 21 he says, "We are not fools, men of Greece, when we declare that God has been born in the form of man (his only allusion to the incarnation) . . . Compare your own stories with our narratives." He goes on to describe some of the Greek myths about gods come to earth, undergoing suffering and even death for the benefaction of mankind. "Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories."

This may well be a reference to the Christian Gospels. But if he can allude to the incarnation in this way, why does he not deal with it openly and at length? His comment is hardly a ringing endorsement, or a declaration that such stories are to be accepted as history. The way Tatian compares them to the Greek myths implies that he regards them as being on the same level. Certainly, he does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior or, unlike the Greek ones, factually true. Nor can we get around the fact that Tatian pointedly ignores those Gospel stories in the rest of his Apology. (He was to change his mind by the time he composed the Diatessaron.) Furthermore, he ignores them even though his language clearly implies that the pagans were familiar with them.'

Vorkosigan

No, it is because I've read enough of Wright, and enough criticisms of Wright, to know what his beliefs, positions, and methods are. And I know those are bogus.

But don't take my word for it. Thiessen and Merz, who are both Christians of a conservative scholarly bent, wrote a massive reference work on Jesus entitled The Historical Jesus (which I highly recommend). It covers all aspects of Jesus, social and political world, the texts and sources, and his role as the founder of a cult. Everything. And yet, that book nowhere cites NT Wright. Why do you think that is, luv? Similarly Udo Schnelle, another scholarly conservative, only cites Wright twice in History and Theology of the New Testament Writings and then in the introduction to the sources, and in the intro to the Pauline writings. Despite the fact that Wright's work is centered on the historical Jesus, prominent works in that area ignore him. Doesn't that tell you something? Most tellingly, John Dominic Crossan, who has done more thinking on methodology than everyone else combined, cites Wright only to abuse him.

The fact is that everyone, not just Infidels, ignores NT Wright because Wright's work has no scholarly value. Sad, but there it is. I'm not "dismissing" Wright -- I'm taking my cue from Wright's peers.

Vorkosigan
PS: Yes, I know Marcus Borg wrote a book with him. A popular book.

the_cave

Well, there are no contemporary documents stating that it's that sort of allegory, either. Again, this doesn't disprove anything, but the fact that no one is arguing that they're allegorical is somewhat suspect to me.

Quote:

European Gentiles wouldn't have had the same resistance to equating a human being with God that Jews and Christians with a Greek neo-Platonist background would.

Perhaps this is a meaningful distinction, but it seems more complicated than that to me. I don't see any evidence that, say, Christians in the Western half of the Empire were more "earthly incarnationalist" than Christians in the Eastern half.

Quote:

They were also unlikely to be aware of, or troubled by, the geographical, historical, and other factual discrepancies in the gospels.

Also quite possible, but heck, Origin lived right next door, and apparently was not too troubled by any discrepancies (such as they are?)

Quote:

Nevertheless, as Doherty shows in "The 2nd Century Apologists," belief in a non-historical Jesus--and ignorance of the gospel "tradition"--persisted for quite some time after the gospels were written.

The "2nd Century Apologists" are not exactly good evidence for a traditionally historical Jesus, but their discussions are not very good evidence for a wholly heavenly Jesus, either. I would be happy to discuss this on another thread (and apologize for not bothering with NT Wright at all. I have not read him.)

Quote:

As to finding "contemporary documents stating that it's all merely an allegory," well, how likely are you to find something like that after centuries of Christian censorship?

This seems to form part of the backbone of the MJ case, and I must say it's rather flimsy as a principle. I can think of all kinds of historical events whose truth I can prove by conspiracy...

Quote:

Still, some fascinating tidbits survived, like this from Doherty's "The 2nd Century Apologists": 'A clue to the solution of this puzzle lies in Tatian's Apology. In chapter 21 he says, "We are not fools, men of Greece, when we declare that God has been born in the form of man (his only allusion to the incarnation) . . . Compare your own stories with our narratives." He goes on to describe some of the Greek myths about gods come to earth, undergoing suffering and even death for the benefaction of mankind. "Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories." ....If he can allude to the incarnation in this way, why does he not deal with it openly and at length?

What would constitute dealing with it openly and at length?

Quote:

His comment is hardly a ringing endorsement, or a declaration that such stories are to be accepted as history.

Agreed. But it is a suggestion that they are.

Quote:

The way Tatian compares them to the Greek myths implies that he regards them as being on the same level.

In some ways, they are--but then why is there any confusion about it at all? The Greeks (would they be neo-Platonists?) seem puzzled about the Christian claims. Why would they be, unless there were a reason to be puzzled by them? Furthermore, Tatian does not say "Oh, but it's really the same thing". He says in effect "Well, our stories are at least no different than yours," the implication being that there is some way in which they are different.

Quote:

Certainly, he does not rush to point out that the Christian stories are superior or, unlike the Greek ones, factually true.

But isn't this the implication? I mean, he doesn't go out of his way to say they're equivalent, either.

Quote:

Nor can we get around the fact that Tatian pointedly ignores those Gospel stories in the rest of his Apology.

Are we then to assume that he's therefore not actually talking about anything? Surely we must assume that he had some story in mind!

Quote:

(He was to change his mind by the time he composed the Diatessaron.)

Quite possibly that is because by that time he had actually read them.

Quote:

Furthermore, he ignores them even though his language clearly implies that the pagans were familiar with them.'

Shouldn't that be exactly the reason why he doesn't address them at length?

Semblance

...but the fact that no one is arguing that they're allegorical is somewhat suspect to me.

Who would be motivated to say that the stories are allegorical? The supporters are going to tend to claim historicity while detractors would either not be paying any attention or would dismiss the stories as untrue.

This seems to form part of the backbone of the MJ case...

No, I would say the lack of early documents describing the events as historical are the "backbone".