GakuseiDon

EXACTLY! Where is the historical Jesus in this, indeed??? It's something I bring up time and again. If early and undoubted historicist Christians like Justin make statements that we wouldn't expect from a historicist, then it suggests that there is something wrong with our expectations. And if we see the same pattern in Paul and other early Christian writers, shouldn't our expectations of what we find there by informed by what we see in Justin and other historicists where we see that pattern?

I think this is an important point, and one to keep in mind when reading early Christian literature, at least up until the time the Gospels became authoritative (around the end of the Second Century): that the Scriptures were the authority that convinced the early Christians that Jesus was Christ, rather than the example of Christ himself as a miracle-performing wise sage, which is more a product of what we would expect looking back with modern eyes. We see the importance of the prophetic nature of Scriptures clearly in Acts 17:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../acts-kjv.html

Acts.17
[1] Now when they had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where was a synagogue of the Jews:
[2] And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,
[3] Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.
[4] And some of them believed, and consorted with Paul and Silas; and of the devout Greeks a great multitude, and of the chief women not a few.

So, Acts' Paul isn't relying on eye-witness accounts of anything about Christ. People -- even Gentiles, according to the story -- believed because of the Scriptures. It has nothing to do with Christ's miracles or his wise sayings. Paul's focus is using Scriptures to show that "this Jesus", who suffered and rose from the dead, "is Christ". It is the power of the prophets whom Paul appeals to, and it is the Scriptures that convince.

[5] But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people.
[6] And when they found them not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also;
[7] Whom Jason hath received: and these all do contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Jesus.
[8] And they troubled the people and the rulers of the city, when they heard these things.

The antagonists here are concerned about the implications of Jesus being Christ. They take it to mean the Christians are declaring "another king" -- one prophecised to appear, by ancient texts. In a time when prophecy was taken seriously by many, this would have been a concern.

[9] And when they had taken security of Jason, and of the other, they let them go.
[10] And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
[11] These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
[12] Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
[13] But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people.

It's "the word of God" that Paul preached, not "the words of Jesus". And it is "searching the scriptures daily" that convinces people, not a meditation on the life and words of Jesus.

If we look at Justin, we see the same thing:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...stapology.html

For with what reason should we believe of a crucified man that He is the first-born of the unbegotten God, and Himself will pass judgment on the whole human race, unless we had found testimonies concerning Him published before He came and was born as man

Justin doesn't point to eye-witnesses nor accounts of miracles nor wise sayings as the reason. It is the "testimonies" by the prophets that convinces.

Ignatius makes the same point:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

And I exhort you to do nothing out of strife, but according to the doctrine of Christ. When I heard some saying, If I do not find it in the ancient Scriptures, I will not believe the Gospel; on my saying to them, It is written, they answered me, That remains to be proved.

Ignatius doesn't point to the life of Jesus here, nothing about his miracles or sayings. The "doctrine of Christ" is confirmed by the Scriptures, not by anything Jesus said.

So Steven, do you agree with me then that there is something strange going on with how early historicist writers like Justin and Ignatius wrote, and that this is not what we would expect? Where is the historical Jesus in the remarks from Justin that you reproduced?

aa5874

Where do you get your figures from?

Toto

GDon: I will repeat the same point I made the last time you brought this up, which you ignored.

Justin Martyr was a "historicist" for theological reasons only. He did not believe in a merely historical Jesus; he did not have any evidence that Jesus existed in the flesh or walked by the lake in Galilee. He took the theological stance that Jesus must have existed in the flesh because that is what the scriptures called for. So we might not expect Justin to dwell on any historical details.

First century Christians (if there really were any) are in a different position. Either Jesus was there, or he wasn't. He was married, or he wasn't. Could Paul really have written the way he did if he thought Jesus was a recently crucified brother in the flesh of a guy he met in Jerusalem?

aa5874

But, most amazingly both of them BELIEVE Jesus was a real person. I find that completely fascinating.

But, Ehrman is in a far worse predicament because he admits that the Gospels are unreliable and contains many discrepancies.

Without any credible corroborative source from antiquity then the Gospels can really only be considered as myth fables presently.

Any Jesus that Ehrman presents will still be uncorroborated, without any credible historical basis and fabricated by Ehrman's own imagination.

Steven Carr

This is just Wellsian mythicism. Early Christians believed in a historical crucified Jesus who they found in scripture, and who then was made flesh and blood, rather in the way that the magi in Matthew's Gospel were later given names.

Nature and religion abhor a vacuum. People found in scripture, such as eg Melchizedek, are given back stories.

As far as Paul was concerned, Jesus was present since the beginning of time and his body could be conjured up in a ritual meal.

And he didn't have to worry about being stoned as a blasphemer for worshipping a figure found in scripture. There was nothing blasphemous about bizarre readings of the Bible, unlike the undoubted blasphemy of claiming that a crucified criminal was the Lord.

Zaphod

I predict that, rather than being interesting, it will be very disappointing.

GakuseiDon

Okay, thanks.

Well, that's the question. Should we have expected him to have written that way, and whose expectations are we talking about? Ours? Justin Martyr's? Paul's? Whose expectations are important here?

It's not that you may not be right. It's simply that Paul hasn't been examined in context of the wider literature of the time. THAT is what should be setting our expectations.

Let me restate your question: Taking into account the wider literature, and setting our expectations on what Paul says or doesn't say by what the wider literature says and doesn't say, could Paul really have written the way he did if he thought Jesus was a recently crucified brother in the flesh of a guy he met in Jerusalem?

GakuseiDon

Steven, you wrote: "So where was the historical Jesus? Christians were converted by listening to accounts of miracle-working prophets who made Christ known, and defended their belief by claiming Jesus was in the Scriptures."

Where is the historical Jesus in the remarks from Justin? Why are they not there?

Steven Carr

You explained why there were not there.

Christians were converted by readings from scripture. The 'oral traditions' were probably passed on sayings about which Old Testament books to look up.

GakuseiDon

:lol: Oh I see. You were just pointing it out in your post. Thanks for that.

But then that leads to the question: why doesn't Justin appeal to the eye-witness accounts of the apostles? He has what he calls "memoirs of the apostles" "which are called Gospels" and which "were published in His name among all nations by the apostles". So why is the conversion being done by reading the Hebrew Scriptures?