Diogenes the Cynic

I think this is a reasonable assumption. I voted "not enough data" in the poll and I'm not completely convinced that Jesus was wholly a myth. I think it's at least plausible that a core sayings tradition originated with a real historical figure who was crucified. It can't be proven, though, and the gospels are obviously highly mythologized. After years of near-obsessive reading and research on HJ, I've concluded that even if there is a historical germ, it can no longer be recovered from the myth.

I do find many of the Q and Thomas sayings to be appealing regardless of their origin and would like to think that HJ said them.

Vorkosigan

That's my view too. Now that they have been overwritten with myth and legend, how would you go about demonstrating that you are recovering any data? There is hardly a fact in them that you can't demonstrate a precedent in myth, OT, etc for. The outside vectors are all corrupt.


I also love the sayings in Thomas, especially those that didn't make it into the Gospels. The Q sayings are all Cynic, so they are inherently lovable, at least to me, I love the Cynics.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Good lord! Simon Greenleaf! A 19th century lawyer! Yowza. Let's compare him to Ted Weeden, perhaps the greatest Mark scholar of the last 30 years. Weeden writes:

********
I. The Markan Invention of Judas

First, the most ignominious acts perpetrated against Jesus by his disciples
were Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial. I submit that neither act is
historical. They never happened. Both infamous deeds are fictive
inventions of Mark. There is no convincing evidence in pre-Markan
tradition that early Christians knew of either act. Paul evinces no
awareness that either Judas betrayed Jesus or that Peter denied him. In
fact Paul makes no explicit reference or even the slightest allusive hint of
any disaffection upon the part of any one in the inner-circle of Jesus'
followers. With specific respect to Judas, there is nothing in the Pauline
correspondence to suggest that Jesus was betrayed by one of his own. In
Paul's statement in I Cor.11:23:, "I received from the Lord what I also
delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he PAREDIDETO took
bread," the translation of PAREDIDETO as "betrayed," found in many English
translations is a translation, which is unfortunately prejudiced by the
story of Judas' betrayal in the Synoptics, John and Acts. The proper
translation of PAREDIDETO in I Cor. 11:23 is "handed over or delivered up,"
i.e., "arrested (cf. C. K. Barrett, _The First Epistle to the Corinthians_,
266).

I find it unusually striking that, if in fact a trusted disciple in the
inner circle did betray Jesus, Paul does not use that information to attack
the "false/super apostles" in II Cor. 10-13, particularly in II Cor.
11:13-15. Had Paul known about Judas, how could he have passed up the
opportunity to cite Judas as an excellent example of (to paraphrase only
slightly Paul's words in that Corinthian passage) "a false disciple, a
deceitful worker, disguising himself as a disciple of Christ, and no wonder,
for even Satan in disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not
strange if Judas also disguised himself as a servant of the Lord. His end
corresponded to his deed"? Moreover, I find it strange that, in citing the
resurrection appearances to various early Christian leaders and their
respective cohorts in I Cor. 15:5ff., Paul cites "Peter and then to the
Twelve"--- not "Peter and then to the eleven." Paul's citation, which must
go back to before the 50's, suggests that the Twelve are a coherent and
faithful body of original disciples whose original integrity is in tact. I
see the election held for Judas' replacement in Acts to be pure Lukan
fiction, required once the original integrity of the Twelve was compromised
when Mark invented the story that an insider, a disciple named "Judas,"
betrayed Jesus into the hands of his enemies.

Thus, there is no tangible evidence that Paul knew about Judas' betrayal.
Nor is there any evidence of such a betrayal in either the Q tradition (I
hold to the existence of Q) or the tradition behind the Gospel Thomas. Q
does not show any awareness of the disaffection of any one of the inner
circle of Jesus' disciples. There is at least one Q saying that implies
that the integrity of the Twelve is in tact. Q 22:30 (Lk. 22:30/Mt.19:28)
presents Jesus as prophesying to the disciples that they "will sit on
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Now the _QEP_ edition of Q
does not have Jesus refer specifically to the fact that each of the twelve
disciples sit on a throne, though the implication is there. Matthew makes
what is implied in Q explicit in his appropriation of Q. Namely, in
response to Peter (19:27) the Matthean Jesus states (19:28): "when the Son
of the human shall sit on his throne, you who have followed me will also sit
on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." This declaration
by the Matthean Jesus must be another case of what Mark Goodacre calls
Matthean "fatigue. " For the twelve disciples who are with Jesus at that
point includes, by logic of the narrative, Judas.

The same "fatigue" is found also in Luke, only more glaringly so, at the
point at which Luke inserts Q 22:30. The setting of Q 22:30 in Luke is the
last supper. Luke has just informed us of Judas' decision to betray Jesus,
namely, "Satan entered into Judas Iscariot, who was of the number of the
twelve... [who] conferred with the chief priests and officers how he might
betray him" (22:3f.). Then, according to Luke, following the preparation
for the last supper, Jesus sits down "at table, and the apostles [sic] with
him" (22:14). After supper, the Lukan Jesus announces: "...the hand of him
who betrays me is with me on the table (22:21). Shortly thereafter, Jesus
states to the gathered disciples, which still includes Judas, "You are those
who have continued with me in my trials; and I assign to you ...a kingdom,
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on the thrones
judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (22:28-30).

It is, of course, not logically consistent in either Gospel narrative that
Jesus should include Judas the betrayer as one who will sit as a judge with
the others of the twelve tribes. But narrative logic tells us that he
does. This inconsistency in narrative logic in both Matthew and Luke (cf.
John Shelby Spong, _Liberating the Gospels_,271, who also recognizes the
"confused context" of Lk. 22:21ff. for yet another reason related to the
invention of Judas) is due to the fact that they each have included a Q
saying, which speaks of the twelve as a faithful body of disciples of whom
none is known to have betrayed Jesus, and places the saying within a
narrative that has already "fingered" one of the twelve as a "turn coat"
bent upon betraying Jesus. That inconsistency arises, as I judge it, as a
result of Matthew and Luke adopting Mark's story line of a disciple-betrayer
and then each including within it a Q saying that speaks of the twelve as
though no such disciple-betrayer existed. This fact underscores my
thesis that prior to the Gospels themselves, there is no tangible evidence
that there was a disciple named Judas who betrayed Jesus.

I submit that Mark and Mark alone created the narrative figure of a betrayer
and named him Judas. In creating Judas, Mark modeled him after Ahithophel,
the confidant of David, who betrayed David by joining the rebellion against
him. I have developed extensive essays on how Mark created the whole
Gethsemane scene of the betrayal using material from the Davidic saga in II
Sam. 15-17 and 20:4-10, essays which appeared on Kata Markon ("Judas and Jesus" [2/22], "Re: Judas and Jesus' [3/14], "Judas' Kiss and Methodology" [3/27], "Judas' Kiss: Methodology and Misplaced Concreteness" [4/9]). See also the impressive case Spong makes for Judas being a Christian invention (_Liberating _,257-276). Spong presented his case to the Jesus Seminar and the Seminar concurred with him that Judas is a fictive invention (_Acts of Jesus_, 136f., 138). Spong, in his paper presented to the Seminar, argued that Mark created the betrayer-figure Judas. But he does not identify Mark as the "culprit" in his book.

Mark's choice of IOUDAS as the name of Jesus' betrayer was carefully
designed, in my view, to symbolize the southern kingdom of Judah (IOUDAS)
and its successor the province of Judea in Mark's day. Spong pursues the
case for historical antecedents for the Judas persona by suggesting that
there are parallels between the Gospels' Judas and Judah the brother of
Joseph. Among the interesting parallels between the two biblical stories
Spong notes are the following (267): (1) Joseph was handed over "by a group of twelve who later became known as the leaders of the twelve tribes of Israel," (2) in "both stories [the story of Joseph and the story of Jesus]
the handing over or betrayal was into the hands of gentiles,' (3) in "both
stories money was given to the traitors- twenty pieces of silver for Joseph,
thirty pieces of silver for Jesus," and (4) "one of the twelve brothers of
Joseph who urged the others to seek money for their act of betrayal was
named Judah or Judas (Gen. 3726-27)." Spong points out also (267f.) that
in the case of Jesus the amount of conspiracy money was made thirty pieces
of silver, a touch added by Matthew, as a result of the influence of the
Zechariah prophecy "about the betrayal of the shepherd king of the Jews for
'thirty pieces of silver' (Zech. 11:13)."

Along with these historical antecedents behind the name Judas, which Spong
points out, there lies also the traditional hostility between the northern
tribes of Israel and the southern tribe of Judah, Richard Horsley (_Galilee_
and _Archaeology, History and Society in Galilee_) has reconstructed an
impressive history of the bitterness that existed among the northern tribes
for the ill-treatment they received from Solomon, David's son, not to
mention the inherent differences between the northern tribes and Judah with
respect to their diverse origins and cultic traditions. This historic
conflict between the northern tribal heritage and the southern cult and
ethos has very importance for understanding some of the factors and issues
driving the Markan narrative. How do I see that?

It is my thesis that Mark is a descendent of the ancient heritage of the
northern tribes which were situated in the Galilean region. In a post,
"Guidelines for the Location of the Markan Community," which I submitted on
XTalk and Kata Markon (2/29/00), I have made a case for Mark's provenance
being the village area around Caesarea Philippi. I am convinced that Mark
viewed himself as a Galilean with a strong dislike of Judeans and
particularly the Judean Temple establishment. There is a very detectable
pro-Galilean/anti-Judean bias in the Gospel. As a descendent of the
ancient Israel heritage, it is not surprising that Mark makes Galilee Mecca
for the dawning of the kingdom of God. Nor is it surprising that the
betrayer-figure he has created is given the name IOUDAS (Judah),
symbolically representing the IOUDAIOI (Judeans) of second Temple Judaism,
who, again representative of his Judean namesakes, joins the conspiracy of
the Judean Temple establishment that seeks to do away with Jesus (Mk. 3:6; 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2, 10f.). Matthew and Luke, as I have posited,
appropriated Mark's Judas and added to his legendary character. The same is true of John who was dependent upon Mark for among other things the passion narrative. I will address this Johannine dependency shortly.
I turn now from the Markan invention of Judas his betrayal to the Markan
invention of the Petrine denial.

*******

Let's see....a 19th century lawyer with no background in literary or historical assessment...or a great scholar of Mark. Now which one do you think has the better handle on the issues.....?

Vorkosigan

diana

Well, oddly enough, I'm torn between "mythical" and "not enough evidence." I consider "mythical" to be the default, since there isn't enough evidence to support "historical." (I use the same reason to explain why I'm agnostic atheist. I'm what you might term an agnostic Jesus-myther.)

The lack of details about the character's life in the early years which seemed to evolve over time smacks of myth to me. Historical characters generally are remembered in a personal way along with or before they are remembered for the awesome things they did--particularly by those who reportedly knew them personally. We have no such thing with Jesus.

What's the most human thing to do when you're telling someone about an awe-inspiring or "spiritual" person you met? You tell your audience how it felt to look into their eyes, or the energy they seemed to exude, or the sense of peace and comfort you inexplicably drew from their presence, or something. You give some reason you think they're something special. No one even bothered to give us the color of Jesus' eyes. Nothing in the narrative even pretends to make us believe this is a real character, or was meant to be understood as such. The character and his supporting cast is more two-dimensional than the plot of a porn flick.

Obviously, the most "fantastic" parts of the stories are the stuff of myth, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a kernel character somewhere from which the tales evolved. I haven't ruled out that possibility; I've simply found no reason to assert such a character. I don't see that one is necessary to explain the phenomenon (this is where I and HJers differ), as the tale seemed to have had more than enough time to evolve naturally.

d

Nice Squirrel

Paul Buyan is believed to have existed in Quebec. Stories of great feats were added to his legend and tall tales abounded until they became so fantastical that they are literally unbelieveable.

I have no reason not to believe Jesus did not exist.

Skeptical

I voted for "historical kernel with significant mythical additions" based on 2 basic reasons:

1) I don't think the passage in Josephus is a complete fabrication, although it has clearly been interpolated (i.e. I believe the traditional, scholarly consensus). This standing alone, IMO, is sufficient to establish there was a historical person. (assuming it is not a complete fabrication)

2) Unless we posit that Paul was creating a story from whole cloth, there was some active "Jesus movement" in Jeruselem around 50's CE that Paul had contact with. So far from what I have read, the explanation that requires the least amount of speculation for this group is that they were the followers of a historical charismatic figure, i.e. Jesus. Obviously, other explanations are possible, but they all seem to require more assumptions and speculation and don't have any more actual evidence. So, all things being equal, the explanation that is simplest is best.

Although I do agree with others, the historical person, assuming he existed, has been so layered with mythology that I don't think we will ever be able to reconstruct who he was much beyond very basic and early traditions. (i..e he was crucified, some of the temple scene, basic sayings with multiple, independent attestations, etc)

Toto

Regarding Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), who wrote in 1846, check out this thread from the archives:

NT as evidence in court

from a review cited there:

Clivedurdle

Some letters alleged to be written by Paul talk of a Jesus Christ in a religious spiritual sense, these later get added to and a human is constructed. Chinese whispers the whole way down, with a Superman story in a Marvel comic to start with.

Jayhawker Soule

It seems to me that a 3rd dimension pops up every now and then. :love:

Be that as it may, I tend to think that the Jerusalem cult was real and likely evolved around a cult leader. Yeshu is as good a name as any. No?

justsumner

Ha ha ha.when will Bible thimpers give up on poor old Josphus? It has been proved, repeat PROVED that the single..yes SINGLE note concerning Jesus (written in the margins for chrissakes) is a forgery. Repeat FORGERY. It is fake. Apart from this fake there are no..repeat NO mentions of anyonbe named jesus outside the Bible. I spent 7 years in seminary reading Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew scrolls, codexes, and books looking for just such "proof." I would show the fools who doubted. I was the fool..... it don't exist.

Now..this is hardly proof of a Jesus..at the same time, it is not proof of non-existence.. so..depite a life time of research (I realize that means nothing to a born again believer) I have yet to find conclusive evidence either way. I just don't know.