|
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Is Muller's viewpoint "coherent"?
Bernard Muller's website http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/ has a reconstruction of Jesus which he claims is coherent and doesn't fall prey to wild unsubstantiated theories and interpretations, and is based on primary evidence, with emphasis on "against the grain" items as well as the plain wording of the texts.
What exactly are the criticisms here against his claim that his viewpoint is "coherent"?
From his introduction page:
Quote:
INTRODUCTION
Note: my definition for 'historical' in "historical Jesus" is 'having lived in the past', based on the Collins English Dictionary (Canadian Edition), "belonging to past", and with 'Jesus' being the name of the man credited to have started Christianity.
Who was the historical Jesus?
On one side, his earthly existence is denied by some. On the other is the incarnated "historic" Word of the ecclesiastic establishment. And then we have the scholarly renditions of the "historical Jesus": the charismatic founder of a movement or sect, as a sage, revolutionary, healer, magician, myth maker, prophet, one "in the Spirit", etc.
This website is not about anyone of these theories. Instead, its outlook is entirely different.
First, let's keep in mind the following:
By a simple act (remaining seated in a bus, then arrested), Rosa Parks (a humble seamstress then) provided the spark which gave birth to the momentous modern Civil Rights Movement, led by others from the start. Decades later, she was considered its "Mother" and revered as an icon, despite the fact she withdrew from it early on.
Then, considering the above, can we assurely answer "no" to this question:
Could Jesus have existed as just a lowly Jew, but through circumstances leading to (& about) his execution, triggered the later development, by others, of a (religious) movement and cultic beliefs?
But do we have items of evidence supporting this?
As a matter of fact we do, in a surprisingly large quantity, and many of them are found in the gospels (some others in Paul's epistles, as shown later). But then, can the gospels, criticized as unreliable, be used in the quest of the real Jesus?
"the writing of each Gospel reflects the experiences and circumstances of early Christians. They do not all tell the same story of Jesus because each one is responding to a different audience and circumstances." (PBS frontline 'From Jesus to Christ')
Despite their flaws, discrepancies, unhistorical items, suspected embellishments/fiction and overall purpose of bolstering faith, these writings (and some others in the N.T.) have "down to earth" and "against the grain" bits & pieces, which make a lot of sense on a human, social, cultural & historical standpoint. But how can we be sure of their truthfulness? Could these items be outright inventions?
But if it is the case:
- Why give Jesus four brothers and at least two sisters (Mk6:3), rather than emphasize his uniqueness?
- Why base him among the uneducated villagers of Capernaum, his new home (Mt4:13), a poor town in Galilee?
- Why bother to have him get a "mother-in-law" (Mk1:30) out of bed?
- Why give him a few "unschooled" fishermen (Mk1:16-20, Ac4:13) as his main followers?
- Why have him say: "you are worth more than many sparrows" (Lk12:7/Mt10:31)?
- Why tell his own people wanted "to take charge of him" and saying: "he is out of his mind" (Mk3:21)?
- Why reveal the disciples as "questioning what the rising from the dead meant" (Mk9:10) (after they supposedly saw an alive Moses!)?
- Why start Jesus' public life right after the arrest of John the Baptist, who attracted a much larger audience: "Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to him [John]" (Mk1:5a)?
- Why have Jesus declare "among those born of women there is no one greater than John [the Baptist]" (Lk7:28a/Mt11:11a), lowering Jesus below John (conflicting with Mk1:7!)?
- Why write "Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John [the Baptist], whether he was the Christ or not" (Lk3:15)?
- Why relate, after John's execution, ""Who do people say that I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah"" (Mk8:27b-28a), when Christ is set far above John (and John himself as Elijah: Mk9:12-13)?
- Why have Jesus disowned by his companions and crucified as "king of the Jews" (Mk15:26) for the benefit of Gentile Christians?
- Why would the most reliable early manuscripts of Mark's gospel end as such, with the "empty tomb" undivulged and without reappearance: "... And they [the women who allegedly witnessed the empty tomb] said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." (Mk16:8)?
Some of these points, and a lot of other ones, are certainly creating doubts about Jesus as the Son of God, Lord or Christ (Anointed One). And some of them were troublesome for the early Christian writers/preachers, as for Paul:
1Co1:23 YLT "... Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness ..."
Gal5:11 "... the offense of the cross ..."
2Co13:4 "... He was crucified in weakness ..."
However, these overlooked pieces of data, and many others, shed a lot of light on the real Jesus and why he set off unintentionally the evolution of Christian beliefs. Furthermore --and somewhat unexpected-- from them (& Josephus' works) the resulting reconstruction fits too well together (and explains so many things) that it cannot be easily dismissed.
**************
It took me three years doing research on the history of (very) early Christianity. Then, with no predetermined agenda, I decided to write this reconstruction about the historical Jesus and the sequence of events ('historical thread') leading to the earliest Christian doctrine. It is a sincere conclusion of a personal exercise motivated by my curiosity and not any anti-Christian propaganda or apologetic effort.
My approach, as an investigative and critical historian, will appear radically new. The research was not based on studying extensively scholarly works; but instead by inquiring about contextual facts, scrutinizing primary sources, getting free from past indoctrinations and, above all, doing a lot of thinking. Never interested in learned opinions, lofty intellectualism, slick or bullying rhetoric, agenda-driven "studies" or ill-validated theories, I strived to discover the bottom of things, the facts and the bare truth, as naive as it may sound.
"Hypotheses are established as valid when they are able to account for the bulk of the evidence." Malhon H.Smith
With its many components backed up by series of attestations & short arguments, this reconstruction (with its associated "deconstructions") is thoroughly documented. Furthermore,
- Contrary pieces of evidence & interpretations are flagged and addressed (which is usually not done in scholarly works!).
- Great care is taken about the dating, authorship & later alterations of crucial early Christian texts.
- Loose ends and miscellaneous critical issues are examined in the appendices.
I think you will find this work, as a whole, to be solidly stand-alone and fully coherent, despite covering a lot of ground before & after the crucifixion and handling a huge amount of multi-sourced evidence! No other "historical Jesus" inquiry goes as far!
Some elements have already been reported by others. But you will be astonished, just as I was, when stumbling upon the unexpected!
The reconstruction will show that, among other things, the main events of Jesus' last year & days are best explained by the peculiar historical context, and also, with the religious/political background, were likely to start later cultic beliefs (which they did).
A far-fetched supposition? Too big of a challenge?
Not at all: surprisingly, the numerous pieces fit easily into place, like the ones of a jigsaw puzzle, with no need for delicate argumentations, convoluted interpretations and long discussions.
When eyewitnesses were still alive, Paul wrote about Jesus (pre-existent as a heavenly deity for Paul) who, from "Israelites, ... whose [are] the fathers, and of whom [is] the Christ, according to the flesh ..." (Ro9:4-5 YLT) and "come of a woman, come under law" (Gal4:4 YLT), "found in appearance as a man" (Php2:8) "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Ro8:3), "the one man, Jesus Christ" (Ro5:15) (who had brothers (1Co9:5), one of them called "James", whom Paul met (Gal1:19)), "humbled himself" (Php2:8) in "poverty" (2Co8:9) as "servant of the Jews" (Ro15:8) and, after "the night in which he was delivered up [several times]" (1Co11:23 Darby), "was crucified in weakness" (2Co13:4) in "Zion" (Ro9:31-33 & Ro15:26-27).
And the same picture can also be seen at the bottom of the earliest gospels, especially the first one, Mark's.
The early Christians did not seem to consider the earthly Jesus as (theologically) sacred:
"Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man [Jesus] will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven" (Mt12:32a)
His historic presence appears to have been rather minimal:
"but made himself [Jesus] of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant" (Paul in Php2:7)
Very little external evidence about him is available.
But then, according to Paul:
"we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden ..." (1Co2:7)
"... we speak not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, communicating spiritual [things] by spiritual [means]." (1Co2:13 Darby)
"... we have the mind of Christ." (1Co2:16)
"... I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it." (1Co3:10)
"I did not receive it [Paul's good news] from any man [Paul had met Peter & other eyewitnesses], nor was I taught it; rather, ... by revelation from Jesus Christ." (Gal1:11-12)
"... it pleased God ... to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles." (Gal1:15-16)
Christianity did not grow from the sayings or deeds of an earthly Jesus!
Still later, step by step, in order to propel the actual Jesus as "evidence" for the divine entity claimed by Paul:
"... Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God." (1Co1:24)
"... one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom [are] all things ..." (1Co8:6 Darby)
"... God sent forth His Son, come of a woman ..." (Gal4:4 YLT)
"... Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead ..." (1Co15:12)
the successive gospels considerably enhanced him beyond measure:
"But these [miraculous signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God ..." (Jn20:31a)
I trust the quotes (mostly from first century authors) and data used here to be truthful or, at least, providing valid information. For example, I consider Mk14:27 (with Mt26:31 & Jn16:32) as an indication on what really happened, as the gospel author (and his community) knew it.
I carefully determined "truthfulness" and avoided the rest, such as unauthentic sayings, ambiguities and expediencies,
(St. Gregory, fourth century bishop of Nazianzus, writing to St. Jerome (Hieron. ad. Nep.):
"A little jargon is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors have often said not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated to them."
quoted by C. F. Volney, The Ruins (Boston, 1872) p. 177)
from my study on early Christianity (with the political, social, religious and cultural background) and the making of the New Testament (and other early Christian writings), plus, of course, a review of the critical studies on the subject.
|
|
04-24-2008, 09:49 AM
