gurugeorge

I don't think it's actually possible to reduce it to 3 reasons because the reasoning is complex and relies on interpretations of the OT and NT, which in turn come from scholars, not all of whom are in agreement about various things. So no judgement can really be dead certain, it's just a balance of probabilities. Given that, here would be my argument within your parameters:

1) The traditional view of Jesus is that he was the Son of God and a kind of "superman" figure. To a rationalist, such a Godman figure can't possibly exist, and (despite historical-looking references in the NT) can't be historical and is therefore a myth.

(I say "can't possibly exist", but in a way that's too strong - it might be more accurate to say, "most probably didn't exist" - given our understanding of the world. Given our understanding of the world, the kind of evidence that would be needed to make it plausible that he existed would have to be much stronger and more coherent and remarkable than the NT "evidence", and its falsity more remarkable than the possibility of a Godman, which, while vanishingly improbable (given our current understanding of the world) might yet be possible if it turns out that there's a really huge gap in our understanding of the world, and that supernatural entities, Godmen and the like, really are possible after all.)

2) In view of that fact, rationalist Christians and liberal Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries started to deeply investigate the texts to see if there might be some ordinary human being at the root of the Godman myth - some preacher, some revolutionary, some kind of remarkable person who might have somehow started the whole thing and later gotten mythologised into this "superman"-like, God-like figure. The search for that kind of "historical Jesus" (not the Godman - who is obviously a myth, but some human being at the root of the Godman myth) is still going on.

3) There is unfortunately very little evidence in the Bible, and no evidence outside the Bible, of any such human being. There's nothing in the earliest Christian material that would strongly suggest there was a human being at the root of the myth. At best, the historical references that refer to the Godman that might possibly be construed as referring to a human being are so ambiguous they look like they more probably just refer to the Godman, or some kind of precursor myth of what later became the more familiar version of the Godman that we know, and are therefore only "historical" - i.e. historical-looking references, just like you get with other myths.

TedM

Thank you Toto. Since I've described a minimal HJ --preacher, crucified, believed resurrected, I think the only part of this evolution you describe that applies to my question would be from Paul to Mark. Agreed?

Both Paul and Mark talk about a man/SonofGod who was crucified and resurrected. So, no evolution there, unless Paul's "man" wasn't a real human being. This is what Doherty suggests, but I don't see any evidence for that from him. The evidence points more strongly IMO to a human than a "being" Paul knew or cared little about who lived in a sphere in some kind of parallel world.

Mark much more clearly places Jesus at particular places and in a particular time period. While I agree that Mark's info provides much more detail, I think Paul's writings are more consistent with a man who recently lived on earth and was crucified on earth than elsewhere.

Mark clearly portrays Jesus as a teacher/healer with followers. Paul does not clearly do this. There are a few minor references that are debatable on various grounds (1 Thess 4:15, Lord's Supper, "forbade divorce", 2 Timothy). IF one concludes that Paul is not talking about a preacher Jesus, then we have evolution here.


However to conclude such evolution, not only do we have to explain the few references in Paul but we have to explain some other apparantly early references to Jesus' as a teacher: in the Didache, possibly in Hebrews 2:3 ("declared God's salvation"), and in 1 John 1:5, 3:1.

IF these preceded Mark, then there really was no evolution to preacher. Again, what we have is MORE information in Mark. Way more.


Not mentioning doesn't mean forgotten, though that is one possibility. All we can say for sure is that Paul wasn't writing a book like Mark, but even so the typical person might be expected to have said something more definitive about a HJ than what we have from Paul and possibly some others (Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, James).


Very good observation. I've puzzled about Paul's silences and concluded that Paul was much more concerned in his epistles of stressing what was unique and special about his gospel to them, and that all had to do with why a man was resurrected, and not any kind of teaching message of Jesus, though Paul does seem to admire the qualities of righteousness of Jesus and his "meekness". Whether he really know much about the man is hard for me to conclude one way or the other. It does seem very reasonable to conclude that Pauls' Jesus did not preach about salvation for all mankind through his death and resurrection. I think one can reasonably expect that Paul would have referenced those kinds of teachings of Jesus.

thanks,

ted

TedM

I'm tired and am fighting a cold, so may not get back to this for a day or two. Thanks for all responses.

ted

TedM

My recent post to Toto addresses this. Thanks.

You are forgetting belief by others in resurrection. That is plenty enough if such a person was suspected of being a prophet or even the Messiah, and/or was loved and missed after his death. Add to it a passover crucifixion (the atonement for sins sacrifice ceremony) and Paul and others' imaginations were stoked!

ted

Dirge

Oddly enough, Josephus, in the Antiquities, gives a much better description of John the Baptist than he does Jesus, who he barely mentions. But then I suppose some will claim John the Baptist never existed.

TedM

These may have been exagerrations, of course. However, John the Baptist was also said to have attracted crowds, yet how much info do we have on him other than the reference in Josephus? He was pre-AD 70.

ted

TedM

Thanks gurugeorge. I consider the Josephus reference, Pauls numerous references to Jesus' humanity, and a few to his brothers, and the various other references to be supportive, though not very strong of a HJ. I suspect that the many gospels of a HJ and the abscence of gospels about a cosmic MJ existing so soon after Paul's demise should also be considered significant evidence.

If I remember correctly the group that seemed to be from early on and claimed have biological connections to Jesus (Nazarenes) downplayed the divinity of Jesus as opposed to the opposite view of a cosmic Savior. That seems to be worth looking into further as significant evidence.

I think it is significant that the early epistles all seem to be talking about a man on earth who was crucified and resurrected, and not a God who was never a man. Where are all of those early references to a MJ?

I think that IF he was believed to have been resurrected as we find in the very earliest references to him, that is sufficient for launching Christianity as a religion, and turning the man into a true Godman, though he himself IMO did much to spread such a belief since I think he was probably a faith healer and probably orchestrated his own death.

ted

TedM

Not odd if the TF is real though, right? Then it clearly is a more glowing review. If the TF is not real, then what existed in its place previously? Perhaps it was even MORE revealing. We can't know, or course.

Dirge

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2...ry-oldest.html
CADRE Comments: New Archeological Discovery: The Oldest Church in History?


This may no enlighten anyone, but I found it interesting. Perhaps older churches will be found someday.

Toto

I don't think that Paul describes a preacher. He does mention Christ crucified (with no historical details) and later "appearances" but he does not describe a resurrection.

But I believe that this evolution shows that there were no details originally for this Jesus.

Doherty does more than suggest that.

You are clearly committed to this. But it is not so clear Paul's letters were not interpolated to add these references.

2 Timothy is usually classified as pseudo-Pauline; the other references are suspected interpolations.

When do you date the Didache? 1 John?

And surely "declared God's salvation" is more likely to be a rhetorical florish than evidence of preaching.

...


You're welcome