aa5874

The Jesus of the NT just cannot have a human brother. The Jesus of the NT could not have been born as described in the gospels.

The authors of Matthew and Luke all wrote that Mary, his mother, is a witness to his ghost-like conception and birth. These authors claimed Jesus' transfiguration was witnessed by Peter, James and John. And further in Acts, the disciples saw Jesus of the NT physically fly or move through the clouds.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius, who wrote the History of the Church, all agree with the authors of the NT, that Jesus was the son of a God and did fly through the clouds on his way to heaven.

Now, if these authors did not write the truth, what is the true story about Jesus of the NT?

I am dealing specifically with the Jesus of the NT and with the information as described by it's authors, and this entity did not exist as described.

There is no HJ in the NT, just a God as a man, born of the Holy Ghost, unless of course you want to fabricate some other one.

mg01

Come back to this point for a moment. Is this the standard position of those who hold the historical position? Do the scholars you listed obove place this re-interpretation of scripture to a time before historical Jesus?

With relation to these to things, there are three possiblities,

• The scriptual messiah prophecy idea is concieved prior to Jesus
• Jesus himself is the source of the scriptual messiah prophecy
• The scriptual messiah prophecy idea is concieved after to Jesus

Which option do scholars favor?

gstafleu

No, but that doesn't matter. What I'm advocating is a composite origin for the gospel Jesus, the requirement that the one HJ also was known as a messiah only applies to a big bang HJ. It started with Paul's Jesus. We'll let alone for now where that came from, and just observe that while he did have some of the gospel Jesus elements (name, crucified, Messiah), he had far from all of them. What he did not have then came from other places, e.g. JbA. If this is what happened, wouldn't it be reasonable to call JbA an HJ?
Good point, for now I'm assuming that the Josephus passage is sufficient to establish he did. This may not be accurate, in which case JbA changes from an HJ to an MJ template.
Correct, that is exactly what I'm proposing. However, I hold open the possibility that Paul's Jesus may not be based on an HJ. Or, if he was, we have two, or perhaps more, HJs (Paul's original HJ, whoever that may have been, and JbA). We then at least have a start of HJ theory that at least has an actual candidate, i.e. someone we know of outside the stream of religious documents. Isn't that a step forward?

Gerard

Ben C Smith

Gerard, you wrote:

In this scenario person number one identifies a figure (A) as Jesus and (B) as messiah, and person number two immediately thinks of Jesus ben Ananias. How is that possible if, as you yourself have pointed out, Jesus (A) is a very common name? Only, AFAICT, if the term messiah (B) immediately conjures up this person named Jesus ben Ananias. Right?

You asked for flaws in your tavern exchange, and I was trying to point this one out.

What if Josephus created Jesus ben Ananias out of his own imagination as a parody of the historical Jesus?

(This is not my position; but it is the kind of option that should arise once one starts down the trail you are blazing.)

Okay, then Jesus ben Ananias would have nothing to do with whether the Jesus talked about in Paul existed or not, right? Perhaps Jesus ben Ananias can account for features of the Jesus story as found in the gospels. But the search for the historical Jesus would, by definition, have to go back behind Jesus ben Ananias to see what it was that Paul was talking about. Jesus ben Ananias can be used, I think, as way of testing some of the details of the story, but I do not think he can be used as a way of arguing that there was no HJ at all.

No. By definition, no.

It is my understanding that the deeds and attributes of Charlemagne got confused with those of Charles Martel in the Matter of France; but Charles Martel is not an historical Charlemagne; to the contrary, the historical Charlemagne is what is left once those other elements (such as those derived from Charles Martel) are taken away.

Likewise, if there was an HJ, this HJ is what is left over after elements derived from others (cynic preachers, Jesus ben Ananias, heroes from the Hebrew scriptures such as Elijah and Moses) have been taken away.

Ben.

gstafleu

I think my JbA example shows this is not necessarily the case. Here we have a person who appeared at the right place at the right time (more or less) and shares a number of things with the Jesus story.

When you say "Once a person rejects the Jesus of the NT..." I think you may be falling prey to Big-Bang-Jesus thinking: either there was one, and exactly one, historical person who contributed to the Jesus story, or there was none. In my view, though, the Jesus story can have a mixed origin. For example, we could follow Doherty in thinking that Paul's Jesus was not based on a historical person, while the Jesus we find in the gospels did have one or more historical templates. JbA is, I think, a reasonable example of such a template.

Gerard

gstafleu

I was, in my mind, equating "Messiah" with "Holy Man" (or "Religious Nut" if you like ). My point throughout my argument is that one should be flexible in candidates that have contributed to the story. Flexible in the sense that if a candidate lacks a desired property, that does not disqualify that candidate: we may be able to get that property from somewhere else, or it may already have been present. Just the fact that candidate A has only attributes (p,q,r) out of the desired set (p,q,r,x,y,z) does not invalidate him as contributor of (p,q,r). So whether or nor anyone saw JbA as a Messiah is not all that important. What is important that he was uttering end-of-day like noises, cause a ruckus, was put on trial for that, etc. The Messiah bit was in this scenario already present in Paul's Jesus, so it does not need additional explanation. The trial, Jesus' non-responsiveness, his killing by the Romans, this was not in Paul, so we explain its presence in the Jesus story from (conflation with, if you like) JbA.
Could be. I was assuming that the consensus here is that JbA probably was real. If he is unreal, we would need a reason for Josephus to fabricate him (notice that we have a reason for people to fabricate an HJ: the religion itself amply provides that). Is what you posit as such reasonable? I don't know. I agree that, once one follows this trail, this should be discussed. But for now it is a bridge that can be burned later.
Right.
[my bold]
Yes, for the HJ. You are still thinking big-bang. My point is that there may not have been a the HJ, rather there could have been more than one HJ. Paul's one could have a different HJ, or could be mythical. In either case, the gospels could have an HJ (JbA) that contributed attributes to their Jesus that we do not find in Paul. I suppose if it turned out that Paul's Jesus was an MJ, while the gospels did take input from JbA (and only JbA), then you could call JbA the HJ. But as a matter of principle my proposal does not have a the HJ: it has one or more an HJs.

Correct, he cannot. Rather, the opposite. He provides an example of a (non-big-bang) HJ. One would think HJers would rejoice. Except of course when they are big-bang-HJers. Perhaps we need a new category?

With Charlemagne we are reasonably confident that there was indeed a "big-bang" historical Charles. In that case it is indeed not reasonable to describe a conflated, also known historical, person as an alternate HCharles. With Jesus we are not in that position: how the various instances of the Jesus story developed is the issue at hand.
That is one way of looking at it, what I have called here the big-bang-HJ. My point, though, is that this is not the only possible way of looking at the issue: a development that is a composite from a number of sources is also possible. So, no, an HJ is not by definition that which is left over after removing accretions. It is also possible to arrive at (one or more) HJs by constructing the story from candidates like JbA. This is an approach that works exactly the other way around from the accretion-stripping one. I think it should be considered simply on its own merits. However, given the lack of success of the accretion stripping method so far (not to mention the distinct risk of being left with only a pile of stripped accretions once the process is complete) I would say the composite method deserves some extra attention. Plus of course the fact that the composite method has at least one proposal for a reasonable candidate, while the stripping method so far has nothing.

Gerard Stafleu

Ben C Smith

Point taken, but I do not see how it clears up your example of two ancients talking. You asked how it worked for me, and I answered. Do you still think it works, or would you modify it slightly if it came up again?

How is a crucified messiah figure to whom was added most of the teachings, most or all of the miracles, all of the birth narrative stuff, and most or all of the controversy stories to be considered big-bang? If that is big-bang, I think the term has lost its definition.

I think this is getting too philosophical for me.

I think Weeden does rejoice. But historicists would rejoice only if Jesus ben Ananias provides the basis for the legend. As things stand, he cannot. We have to look back further to see what was there before the story (hypothetically) got modified by Jesus ben Ananias.

No, I do not think so. Historicist is simply a broad category; as one of only two basic options, it has to be.

I did not introduce Charlemagne as an exercise in how certain we are in an historical core. Rather, I introduced him as an exercise in getting our terminology correct.

Even if Charlemagne did not exist, even if all his exploits were based on those of Charles Martel, it is not accurate IMO to say that Charles Martel is the historical Charlemagne. Charlemagne in such a case would be a myth inspired by Charles Martel.

Exactly. And we can describe that process without having to worry about the fine differences between the HJ or an HJ. If it turns out that Jesus ben Ananias was the initial inspiration for Jesus of Nazareth (impossible so long as Paul stands there, but just for the sake of example), then I would say there was no HJ. I would not say that Jesus ben Ananias is the HJ (or an HJ).

But this terminology is giving me a headache. I want to describe what happened to the tradition, period.

Again, I think you are misusing that term.

I would say that in this case there is no HJ.

The risk of being left with nothing is a genuine option. It is, however, one that has not been realized (yet), since we have enough from various sources to triangulate back to the crucifixion without having to assume what is to be proved.

You are mistaken. The stripping method is only a way to see what remains alongside the core that is established by other means. The core is not the result of the stripping method. The core is the result of reading the texts critically -- just as you were doing with Josephus and Jesus ben Ananias.

Ben.

gstafleu

Ben,

I would think you'd agree that it is at least in principle possible that the Jesus we see in the gospels has attributes that come from a number of historical persons. If I understand you correctly, the only one of such persons that you would consider calling an HJ would be the oldest of the lot, right? E.g. if it were established that Paul was indeed based on a historical person, while it was also established that JbA contributed to the gospels, then you would only deem Paul's HJ worthy of the name. I take it this would also be the case if it turned out that Paul's HJ was actually called John.

OK, that is one valid way of defining an HJ. My point is simply that there is another valid way as well. It has the perhaps (for some) counter-intuitive feature that there can be more than one HJ, but I don't think that invalidates the method. BTW, if you don't like "big-bang-HJ, maybe "single source HJ" is better?

In any case, I think it rather silly to exclude a person from HJ status, given that he did (some of) the right things at the right place and at the right time AND was actually called "Jesus," simply because there may have been another person who contributed to the earlier development of the story.

If it were to turn out that Paul's Jesus is indeed mythical, while JbA did contribute to the Gospel Jesus, why not call JbA an HJ? He would be as historical a Jesus as it would be possible to get, so why not call him that. Sure, it would be nice if the whole story neatly started with one person, but what if reality isn't as accommodating in its neatness? I just don't think we should our desire for a certain kind of deveopment get in the way of recognizing reality (if we can find it, of course ).

Gerard

Ben C Smith

Yes, absolutely.

Pretty much, yes.

Not sure about the John thing, since it does not come up in our case (that is, our earliest witness calls him Jesus, not John), but the rest is accurate, I think.

Yes, I find that feature strikingly counterintuitive.

Neither seems accurate for what I am describing. If Jesus existed as a crucified messiah figure, but was overlaid by aspects from other sources by the time our earliest biographical texts feature him, then neither big bang (since the final biographical result was a process, not an event) nor single source (since the final biographical result derives from several sources, and an actual historical figure derives from childbirth, not from sources) seems an apt term.

Who else gets HJ status, then? Dionysius, if the miracle at Cana is based on him? Moses, if the feeding miracles were based on the exodus? Joshua, if the name and certain salvific aspects derive from the conquest? Elijah, if some of the healings were based on him? Epictetus, if some of the sayings turn out to be cynic? Augustus, if the mythic cycle is based on the golden age of Saturn? How much of the biography does it require? I could perhaps see some requirement such as more than 50%, as a simple majority, or something... but Jesus ben Ananias certainly does not qualify in that case.

Because then we open the door to calling almost every OT hero an HJ, as well as several pagan gods, an emperor or two, and perhaps Apollonius of Tyana.

As long as Paul, Josephus, and Tacitus (among others) are there, we are looking for one person, AFAICT, to whom many things may have been added.

Ben.

gstafleu

Good point, that would no doubt be a judgment call. I don't think any of those you mention would qualify. Why I think JbA should qualify is because, as I said, he did a number of the right things in the right place at the right time. That, talking about strikingly, strikes me rather strikingly as striking . BTW, that something is counter intuitive is, at least in science, not seen as a drawback. To some (fairly large, I think) extent science is concerned with supplanting inaccurate folk beliefs with accurate ones, which--sometimes almost by definition--can be counterintuitive.

Now, as I have said before--and to put all this in some perspective--I don't think that the question of an HJ, certainly not as you define it, is of all that much importance. The important bit is finding out how Christianity came to be. We have, by now, pretty much come to the conclusion that even if it did start with one figure, that "HJ" certainly did bear little resemblance to the Gospel Jesus--and that gospel Jesus is, when it comes to religious importance, rather of a muchness. A pretty large part of the ontogenesis of Christianity would thus be concerned with non-Pauline aspects. The Pauline HJ would be an interesting but small component in that. I take it you would also agree that Paul did his own accreting onto his possible HJ?

So, if you ever do come up with a candidate, witnessed in history outside the religious stream, then I will gladly grant you the privilege of calling him "the HJ." Although I probably would still tout JbA at times as "another HJ."

Gerard