Vorkosigan

Frank Zindler's new book on Jesus is reviewed by Earl Doherty. A well-written review of what looks like a fascinating work.

The Jesus the Jews Never Knew by Frank R. Zindler.

When New Testament mainstream scholarship began circling the wagons, toward the middle of the 20th century, in an attempt to counter what had become a vigorous mythical Jesus movement and History of Religions School, they managed to send both largely into eclipse, bringing an end to the heyday of such mythicist writers as J. M. Robertson, Arthur Drews and Paul-Louis Couchoud. For a generation beginning in the 1960s, George A. Wells became almost the sole voice keeping the discipline alive, even if it was now regarded as a somewhat discredited and quaint aberration. Far from disappearing into extinction, however, the view that an historical Jesus never existed flared into new prominence in the 1990s, aided by the establishment of the Internet. An extensive constituency of interested laypeople suddenly had access to a range of biblical scholarship and opinion, and an easy forum to develop that interest and express their own views. Several books and websites appeared propounding the no-Jesus theory as the old century drew to a close, giving it new strength and a sympathetic following. These publications have continued into the new century.
The most recent of these is Frank R. Zindler’s The Jesus the Jews Never Knew. If there has been an area of research in the case for the non-existence of Jesus that has been largely neglected thus far, or at least given less study than it has merited and needed, it is the presence or absence of Jesus in the Jewish rabbinical writings and traditions of the first several centuries of Christianity. That gap has now been filled—and magnificently. It is a subject that has usually been dealt with in a passing manner, as an adjunct to larger cases focused on other matters. And it was not helped by the essential difficulty and obscurity of this particular literature. Wading through the various collections of rabbinic commentary over this period is not easy, nor especially rewarding for the non-specialist. The material itself is often dry and esoteric. It is a feather in Zindler’s cap that he has not only performed this task, he has managed to present it in a coherent and engaging manner.

Toto

Looks interesting.

Amazon.com link

Ted Hoffman

That was a very engaging review. Long live Mythicism!

Geoff Hudson

Here is a sample of the Doherty's review:

"Continuing his in-depth excursion through the Christian Josephus which makes other discussions of the subject seem asthmatic, Zindler turns his attention to the passage on John the Baptist in Antiquities 18 (5.2). He prefaces this by surveying the Baptist’s appearances in the Gospels and Acts, with an eye to their authenticity and historical reliability, and even the light they cast on the question of whether John himself is an historical figure. Then, a close examination of the Antiquities 18 passage on John suggests that it is in fact a forgery, inserted not by a Christian but a Baptist follower. While I myself had previously accepted the Josephus passage on John the Baptist as likely authentic, I find it impossible to retain the same conviction after reading Zindler’s arguments. "

I have been saying for some time that this passage about the execution John at the hands of Antipas was spurious. It is really an account of John's death at the hands of Annas with the approval of Pilate, and that account should be where the Testimonium is in Ant. 18.3.3.

Some aspects of Jesus' character may well be later mythical developments. The original HJ was John the prophet, so the extreme idea that HJ was completely a mythical character is wrong. Many of the original gospel stories were based on events in the life of John.

Geoff

Ted Hoffman

Why should the character of John be any more historical than Jesus? A Character who has many different birth and death narratives (foetuses jumping from one womb to another etc), someone people did not even know his appearance - the gospel myths state that some people thought Jesus was JBap.
Josephus speaks of his death in one way, the NT speaks of his death in another way. The Roman rulers seek to kill him at infancy (GThom) just like the mythical Jesus and Moses.

Tell me, why is John the Baptist any more historical than Moses?

Geoff Hudson

This is only a part of the argument for John being authentic and Jesus fictitious.

I think that the teaching given in Mt.5-7 was later and probably given in Rome by someone like James. It was probably all about the Spirit, e.g. "Blessed are the poor in {THE} Spirit (Mt.5:3) and later re-worded with Jesus substituted for the Spirit. A clue as to the timing is related to the Lord's prayer which occurs in Mt.6 and in Lk.11.

In Lk.11:1, the disciples ask to be taught to pray how John taught his disciples. The implication is that the request is to someone who was a disciple of John, as was James. A second implication is that JOHN WAS A HIGHER AUTHORITY ON PRAYER THAN THE PERSON ADDRESSED. There is also a remoteness about the request in which the disciples are not only looking back in time, but I suspect looking back to the land of Israel from which they had come.

Lk.11:2 continues: "He said to them". We are meant to assume that it was Jesus who "said to them", but in the context of the request, it could be taken to mean "John said to them", i.e. John said to his disciples. The Lord's prayer could well have been John's prayer, but you can bet it wouldn't have been said in the extanct form. That the editor introduces Jesus fictitiously in Lk.11:1 is given away by having him praying in an unspecified "certain place".

So John’s prayer (Mt.6:9-13) might have looked something like this:
[ ] Read out
{ } Read in

[Our Father] {God} in heaven,

[hallowed]

{pure} be your [name] {Spirit},

(10)your [kingdom] {Spirit} come,

your [will] {Spirit} be [done] {obeyed} on earth AS IT IS IN HEAVEN.

(11)Give us today [our] {your} [daily] {pure} [bread] {Spirit}.

(12)[Forgive] {Purify} us {from} our [debts] {impurities},

[as we also have forgiven our debtors].

(13)And lead us [not] into [temptation] {obedience.}

[, but deliver]

{Purify} us from the [evil one] {spirit of deceit}.

Geoff

Ted Hoffman

No.
They ask him to teach them, not what or how John taught his disciples, but like John taught his disciples.
They ask him to teach them too because they are his disciples.

What do the beatitudes and the lords prayer have to do with historicity?

Geoff Hudson

Yes - not just to teach, but to teach them too TO PRAY - literally: "even as also John taught THE disciples of HIM". The example of what John taught follows. One might ask who "HIM" was? "Him" could have been the Spirit. They were disciples of the Spirit, i.e. they were anointed by the Spirit, i.e. they were the anointed ones, i.e. they were the Christians.

The disciples of Lk.11:1 were addressing James (not Matthias) who took John's place of leadership after the disciples had fled to Rome shortly after John's execution. It was in Rome (not Antioch) where the disciples were first called Christians.

The answer to the second question is: everything. The beatitudes and the Lord's prayer have to do with theology. Theology drives actions - why were the twin-towers attacked? Actions become history.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

Here is a clue to show why I think James went to Rome.

Mat.11
[ ] Read out
{ } Read in

THE SIGN OF THE SPIRIT TO THE CITY OF ROME

(29)As the crowds increased, [Jesus] {James} said, "This is a wicked [generation] {CITY}. It asks for a miraculous sign, but none will be given it except the sign of Jonah.

(30)For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so also will the [Son] {Spirit} of God be to this [generation] {CITY}.

(31)The {spirit of the} Queen of the South will [rise] {STAND UP} at the judgment…
[with the men]
…of this [generation] {CITY} and condemn [them] {it}; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon's wisdom, and now [one] {a Spirit} greater than Solomon is here.

(32)The {spirits of the} men of Nineveh will STAND UP at the judgment [with] {of} this [generation] {CITY} and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now [one] a Spirit greater than Jonah is here.

Notes:

The parallel is that just as Jonah went to Nineveh to proclaim God’s judgment, so James went to Rome to proclaim the Spirit of God’s judgment on that city.

The spirits of the Queen of the South and the men of Ninevah had risen previously when they had died.

STAND UP in v.(31) agrees with STAND UP in v.(32).

Explicitly in v.(32), the spirits of the men of Ninevah are already there to STAND UP and judge the spirits from the city of Rome.

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

It should be Luke 11.

Interestingly, the extanct text has "one greater than Jonah is here". The sentence obviously refers to two spirits - Jonah's and the Spirit of God. The latter is not "greater" but "purer".

Geoff