Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 06-30-2010, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The real debate is not over the historicity of the gospel crucified Jesus figure. There is no real debate here. (as aa5874 is continually pointing out.....)The real debate is over the early history of christianity, the pre-christian, pre-Paul, communities. And it is within those communities that the possibility, the very real possibility, of a historical figure becomes an issue. So, no need to give up your defense of the idea that there is some history, some historical figure relevant to early christian origins - just change the focus of your argument from the gospel storyline to the historical time period in which that storyline is set. Drop the crucifixion idea, drop the carpenter idea, drop even the name of Jesus (it's only a tag line anyway) and start looking for a historical figure that could have had the wherewithal to inspire - and thus to generate in others the conviction that their lives had been changed by his existence.

MaryH, are you thinking there was someone like the Teacher of Righteousness before Paul, a founder or innovator in the development of whatever christianity was at that point? If the NT material was written in the late 1st or early 2nd C that leaves a lot of time elapsed (decades or more), which would make it harder to pinpoint such a person in time and place.

For instance maybe this pre-Paul figure was active in Syria or Asia Minor. By the early 2nd C, could the origins have become cloudy enough for people to assert Palestine as 'ground zero'?

I don't think the Teacher of Righteousness has any historical standing. Actually, I don't see the need to confine the search to any religious context. A secular historical figure could, in time, just as easily, lead to some sort of religious/theological/spiritual take on his life (possibly what happened in my view). Yes, since there is no way to date Paul (the Damascus/Aretes text being ambiguous) a considerable length of time could be there between the death of a historical figure and Paul' much later appearance. And, of course, the length of the life span of the historical figure would add it's own length to such a time frame. The length of the time period, although of interest, is not itself a relevant factor in pinpointing such a person. All one needs is historical evidence - plus, of course, that such a figure has some connection, some reflection, within the gospel time frame.

Yes, to my mind, Palestine is indeed a later development. 'Ground zero' was elsewhere for the pre-christian communities. Once Paul is on the scene - change of focus! He does head of for Syria and Arabia prior to Jerusalem. I don't think the subsequent cover up re the identity of the historical figure should be looked upon as being detrimental in any way. After all, there is no salvation in any man. Christianity was going to focus on the spiritual, on interpretations and theology. The trappings of historicity, hierarchies and bloodlines were what would be detrimental to long term viability.

The gospel of Luke gives the only definite dating re some activity on the part of the gospel Jesus. The 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 ce. Was this dating relevant to a historical figure? Possibly. In that year Philip the Tetrarch re-built the village of Bethsaida and renamed it Bethsaida Julius. The gospel of John tells us that the early disciples came from this village. The gospels of Mark and Matthew state that it was in the district/villages of Caesarea Philippi that questions of Messiahship arose. Philip began his rule in 4 bc and died in 33 ce - both time periods relevant to the gospel timeframe. Philip ruled for 37 years - a peaceful rule. Apart from Josephus mentioning Philip, there are also coins from his reign.

Perhaps a lot of coincidences here - but if one is trying to recover the early history, the pre-Paul history of Christianity - then this historical figure should not be overlooked.

Quote:

"About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years. He had shewn himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him, he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgement, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal sat down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint; he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took (for he left no sons behind him) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave orders that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrarchy."
(Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews. Book XV111,ch.1V,par.6)

maryhelena · 06-30-2010, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Come off it, Abe - this is utter nonsense. History buffs should not be confined by what was important to early christians, or what they believed. Yes, the crucifixion is central to christianity - to christian theology! No resurrection without a sacrificial death - normal deaths just won't do. That's just part and parcel of the original dying and rising god mythology: The Sumarian myth of Innana who was killed in the underworld and left to hang on a hook for three days prior to her resurrection. Abe, your stuck on theology - but it won't get you anywhere near the historical origins of christianity.

Well, wouldn't you normally expect that that is the sensible way to go about it? Finding the best explanation for the earliest variations of Christianity? That would necessarily entail an explanation for the belief in the crucifixion. You seem to think it is about theology, but the act of crucifixion is very much a common historical phenomenon in the Roman empire, and it seems somewhat out of place in a theological construct. I know that the mythicists have earnestly tried to explain it in terms of theology, and for good reason. It is hard to compete with the standard explanation for Christianity's focus on crucifixion--Jesus really was crucified.

Indeed, the gospel Jesus was crucified - so what! Try supporting that storyline with some historical evidence :banghead:

bacht · 06-30-2010, 10:37 AM

Thanks Mary, I appreciate your thoughtful response

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I don't think the Teacher of Righteousness has any historical standing.

Really? Why couldn't there have been a 'rebel' priest in Hasmonean times?

Quote:

Actually, I don't see the need to confine the search to any religious context.

Interesting. There has been some discussion here about the cult of Caesar, maybe you're thinking of someone further afield.

Quote:

The length of the time period, although of interest, is not itself a relevant factor in pinpointing such a person. All one needs is historical evidence - plus, of course, that such a figure has some connection, some reflection, within the gospel time frame.

I tend to see the ca 30 ce date as artificial, so I'm open to other timeframes for pre-Paul activity, though I'm still not convinced he really existed. The co-opting of Marcion's writings using a pseudonym seems just as plausible imho

Quote:

Yes, to my mind, Palestine is indeed a later development.

Rioght, maybe diaspora Jews in places like Alexandria or Damascus.

ApostateAbe · 06-30-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Well, wouldn't you normally expect that that is the sensible way to go about it? Finding the best explanation for the earliest variations of Christianity? That would necessarily entail an explanation for the belief in the crucifixion. You seem to think it is about theology, but the act of crucifixion is very much a common historical phenomenon in the Roman empire, and it seems somewhat out of place in a theological construct. I know that the mythicists have earnestly tried to explain it in terms of theology, and for good reason. It is hard to compete with the standard explanation for Christianity's focus on crucifixion--Jesus really was crucified.

Indeed, the gospel Jesus was crucified - so what! Try supporting that storyline with some historical evidence :banghead:

You know the evidence already, but I think it is better to think in terms of the best explanation for the evidence. You wouldn't take the gospel accounts or the accounts of Paul as evidence enough, because they are Christian sources littered with miracles. But, what really matters is which explanation fits the best. That is actually how we decide our beliefs, generally. There are no lines of evidence that fit only one theory and no other possible theory. But, there is often evidence that fits a single theory the best.

ApostateAbe · 06-30-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Well, wouldn't you normally expect that that is the sensible way to go about it? Finding the best explanation for the earliest variations of Christianity? That would necessarily entail an explanation for the belief in the crucifixion. You seem to think it is about theology, but the act of crucifixion is very much a common historical phenomenon in the Roman empire, and it seems somewhat out of place in a theological construct. I know that the mythicists have earnestly tried to explain it in terms of theology, and for good reason. It is hard to compete with the standard explanation for Christianity's focus on crucifixion--Jesus really was crucified.

Which came first, the crucifixion or the atonement by sacrifice? It's can work either way, but a historical crucifixion is more strained.

If there was a historical crucifixion, then we can see how this would have been interpreted after the fact as a sacrifice. Although implausible, it's not impossible. But this is ad hoc. It's an unlikely explanation invented to maintain the mere possibility of a historical Jesus. Why is it unlikely? ...because cults founded by personality figures only rarely outlive their founder, and for such a cult to outlive a founder convicted and executed by Rome in a society dominated by authoritarian thinking and worship of the powerful borders on the absurd. We also have the problem that there is no body and no tomb of Jesus. How could it possibly have been lost given an uninterrupted line of Jesus worshipers as historicism requires? Instead, we have a resurrection story that quite conveniently explains away why no-one knows where the tomb is. And what happened to Jesus' family? They just fall off the map. This is also implausible. If we look to modern cult dynamics as an indicator, we see that family members of the cult leader tend to hold high rank in the cult. Aside from Moon himself, the key leaders of the Moonies are all direct family members - his wife, his children, etc. The same holds true the lunatics at Westboro, and numerous other modern cults. So you have several implausibilities all rollwed into one: a cult outliving it's humiliated executed leader, the missing tomb, and the cult leader's family just disappearing from history. Any one of these is sufficient to call the hypothesis into serious question, and combined they are a death punch. Yet HJers just ignore all this as if it were no big deal.

So what about the opposite idea...that the crucifixion came 2nd.

If there was no historical crucifixion, it's also easy to see how it would have been fabricated by a culture obsessed with sacrifices. The concept of atonement by sacrifice is universal in the ancient world, including pre-Christian Judaism. Further, the Jewish scriptures depict two different messiahs, one that is the triumphant savior of Israel, and one that is the suffering servant. At a time when expectations of the triumphant savior resulted in the destruction of the temple and even of Jerusalem itself, it's easy to see how a shift in focus to the other messiah could take root as a backlash, and once it had taken root it's easy to see how an origin story would be created and back dated to a symbolic 40 years prior to the fall of the temple, just as a bogus birth story and fake geneaology was backdated a necessary 30 years prior to that. Is this implausible? Not at all. Does it account for all the evidence? Yes.

I won't deny that my explanation is at least a little ad hoc. Any critical explanation for the beginnings of Christianity has to be at least a little ad hoc, with new suppositions that are not directly on the face of the Christian records. The advantage goes to the theory with the least number of new suppositions each with the smallest degree of unlikelihood.

When Jesus was supposedly crucified, it is not just an ad hoc explanation that they wove their theology around it. It would be absolutely necessary in order to keep the cult alive. And, they found their theology in Isaiah 53, per Matthew 8:17, as I wrote recently to you in another thread. The relevant part of Isaiah 53 is not prophetic--it is in past tense, and the suffering servant is seemingly a personification of the nation of Israel suffering at the hands of their foreign captors. But, with just a little imagination, it can be thought to refer to Jesus, and that is what Christians did. Psalms 22 is another important "prophecy," and maybe it can be argued that "They pierced my hands and my feet" was an inspiration for the crucifixion story, rather than a post hoc connection. At least some elements of Psalm 22 have found their way into the gospel telling of the crucifixion. Do you think Psalms 22 was an inspiration for the crucifixion?

If you want to claim that your theory is not implausible, then I think you will need at least one other comparison within history or the modern day that closely resembles your model of the beginnings of Christianity. I have a few examples that resemble my own model.

Ken Dyers, an Australian cult leader, committed suicide after allegations and police investigations of child sex abuse. His cult lives on, and they have turned him into a martyr of state persecution. See this page.
David Koresh was the leader of the Branch Davidians, the compound that was lit afire after the federal siege. He is today a martyr, not among the modern Branch Davidians (who tend to see him as abusive), but among right-wing conspiracy theorists who view the deaths as murder by the federal government that was covered up.

maryhelena · 06-30-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Thanks Mary, I appreciate your thoughtful response

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I don't think the Teacher of Righteousness has any historical standing.

Really? Why couldn't there have been a 'rebel' priest in Hasmonean times?

Perhaps I'm not up to date re the Teacher of Righteousness - has this figure now been historically verified? Hasmonean times and a rebel priest. It's possible - but that takes one a long way back from the gospel time frame. Sure, one can dismiss this time frame - and then everything is wide open. It's there ie. certain historical detail is recorded within the gospel time frame - hence my willingness to give that time period some historical relevance to the origin story of early christianity.

Quote:

Interesting. There has been some discussion here about the cult of Caesar, maybe you're thinking of someone further afield.

As I mentioned - my ideas relate to Philip the Tetrarch.

Quote:

I tend to see the ca 30 ce date as artificial, so I'm open to other timeframes for pre-Paul activity, though I'm still not convinced he really existed. The co-opting of Marcion's writings using a pseudonym seems just as plausible imho

Viewing the gospel storyline as being unhistorical does not necessitate that one throw out the baby with the bathwater

The historical context could still be relevant. I also have questions re Paul - some strong character ie sure of his own ideas, his 'vision', was probably involved - but could have some other name.

Quote:

Yes, to my mind, Palestine is indeed a later development.

Rioght, maybe diaspora Jews in places like Alexandria or Damascus.

Alexandria would also be on my radar....

bacht · 06-30-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Perhaps I'm not up to date re the Teacher of Righteousness - has this figure now been historically verified? Hasmonean times and a rebel priest. It's possible - but that takes one a long way back from the gospel time frame. Sure, one can dismiss this time frame - and then everything is wide open. It's there ie. certain historical detail is recorded within the gospel time frame - hence my willingness to give that time period some historical relevance to the origin story of early christianity.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting the T of R as a possible forerunner of Jesus. I just mentioned him as an example of a 'founder', in this case for the Qumran dissenters, who afaik never name him in the documents.

I tend to lean toward the period after 70 as critical for christian origins, but I'm not qualified to make a solid assertion on such things. Doherty's idea of a Q community is interesting, but I'm not aware of any concrete evidence for this. Your candidate Philip seems as reasonable as Stephan Huller's choice of Agrippa II. Then there's those folks from Adiabene...

maryhelena · 06-30-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Perhaps I'm not up to date re the Teacher of Righteousness - has this figure now been historically verified? Hasmonean times and a rebel priest. It's possible - but that takes one a long way back from the gospel time frame. Sure, one can dismiss this time frame - and then everything is wide open. It's there ie. certain historical detail is recorded within the gospel time frame - hence my willingness to give that time period some historical relevance to the origin story of early christianity.

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting the T of R as a possible forerunner of Jesus. I just mentioned him as an example of a 'founder', in this case for the Qumran dissenters, who afaik never name him in the documents.

I tend to lean toward the period after 70 as critical for christian origins, but I'm not qualified to make a solid assertion on such things. Doherty's idea of a Q community is interesting, but I'm not aware of any concrete evidence for this. Your candidate Philip seems as reasonable as Stephan Huller's choice of Agrippa II. Then there's those folks from Adiabene...

Yes, post 70 ce for christian origins. It's the pre-Paul, which would really be pre-christian origins, that are prior to 70 ce. The non-christian, the non-Jewish roots - the roots that were watered with Jewish prophetic, messianic, ideas - and then brought forth the hybrid christian 'flower'....

Yes, my idea re Philip the Tetrarch is just one more to add to the brew of ideas re christian origins. What this 'industry' does indicate is that any idea re early christian origins that fails to offer some historical core - is going nowhere. The 'market' wants a human face...

maryhelena · 06-30-2010, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Indeed, the gospel Jesus was crucified - so what! Try supporting that storyline with some historical evidence :banghead:

You know the evidence already, but I think it is better to think in terms of the best explanation for the evidence. You wouldn't take the gospel accounts or the accounts of Paul as evidence enough, because they are Christian sources littered with miracles. But, what really matters is which explanation fits the best. That is actually how we decide our beliefs, generally. There are no lines of evidence that fit only one theory and no other possible theory. But, there is often evidence that fits a single theory the best.

Abe, however many times you repeat your mantra, "the best explanation for the evidence", is not going to give your explanation any historical relevance. Firstly, you have no 'evidence'. All you have is interpretation of the gospel storyline. Secondly, 'best explanation' is subjective. Thirdly, 'best explanation' has no relationship, no relevance, to theology. Theology is about the imagined, its about the mystery, its about the unknown. Logic has no place in trying to fathom its secret depths - or should that be heights...:Cheeky:

spamandham · 06-30-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The gospel of Luke gives the only definite dating re some activity on the part of the gospel Jesus. The 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 ce. Was this dating relevant to a historical figure? Possibly. In that year Philip the Tetrarch re-built the village of Bethsaida and renamed it Bethsaida Julius.

The idea that Philip might be the historical Jesus is interesting, but I don't think it's productive to get too hung up over the time period. The year 30 has symbolic significance, since it's exactly 40 years prior to the fall of the temple. If the gospel story is purely a literary work, which I believe to be the case, then it has to be set in *some* time, and setting it a symbolic 40 years prior to the fall of the temple makes a lot of sense from a literary perspective.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.