One ought to consider, however, the indication that Jesus' disciples were less than thrilled about this teaching attributed to him, which might provide an argument against it having been invented.
There are, at any rate, reasons to think that this teaching was already attributed to Jesus much earlier than the time in which Mark's Gospel was written. In Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, he specifies that his teaching that a wife must not separate from her husband (7:10).
This is all the more intriguing because Mark too specifies Jesus' teaching indicated that wives should not divorce their husbands. Matthew domesticates this to something more natural in a Jewish context, in which women did not normally have the legal power to initiate divorce.
But what is most interesting is that Paul says that this teaching is not his, but the Lord's (1 Cor. 7:10). If that was the end of the story, of course, we'd have reason to be suspicious. Who wouldn't be tempted to add to the authority of what they say by attributing it to a higher authority? Indeed, it is the penchant human beings have to do just that which makes us question the authenticity of teaching attributed to Jesus in the Gospels and elsewhere.
But Paul goes on to specify that something else he has to say is not the Lord's teaching, but his. Was Paul simply suddenly overwhelmed with guilt at his ploy? Or just suddenly feeling less divinely inspired? The more natural explanation is that Paul is here indicating his awareness that he was here passing on teaching attributed to Jesus that he had had passed on to him. And so we have in this one instance an indication that teaching that later made its way into the Gospels was attributed to Jesus earlier on. Does this prove absolutely its authenticity? Obviously not. But it does show that we do not simply have Gospel authors creating all their material entirely from scratch.
For those who may still be on the fence about the historical authenticity of Jesus' teaching on divorce, here are some other words of wisdom, the source of which is beyond reasonable doubt, and fictional:
"We're all at war with ourselves. That's what it is to be human. The trick is to figure out how to be on the winning side"
- Sylar
Posts
37 comments:
I love the divorce sayings. Jesus is so cagey about so much but on divorce he comes right out and gives specifics. You'd think you were reading Paul! :)
For added amusement value, this is one of he teachings most often ignored or rationalized away by Christians. I have a good friend whose father refused an offer to serve as deacon at his church because his wife had been married before and he knew that this was issue. His (somewhat incomplete) bravery on this is refreshing for its rarity.
Or Paul or a later writer modifying Paul could have made the distinction deliberately to give more force to that teaching. Indeed, distinguishing the teachings that one really cared about from the less important ones by claiming the ones you cared about were from Jesus seems like a pretty rational tactic.
I think you are likely correct here but the argument isn't quite as airtight as you portray it.
Once more, I will write something up in a few days or so.
One ought to consider, however, the indication that Jesus' disciples were less than thrilled about this teaching attributed to him, which might provide an argument against it having been invented.
I don't guess I understand this argument. The teaching wasn't new, but because of... um... what? Because of something, the fact that these teachings are attributed to Jesus points to historicity. Seriously, I don't get it. If this is a well established teaching, why would it surprise anybody that a story was made up about someone who included it?
Haven't you noticed that a lot of preachers in very big churches get a lot of mileage out of the unpopular Christian teachings?
If I understand it, your argument goes something like this:
1) The teachings on divorce attributed to Jesus aren't unique.
2) People reading the Jesus story might not have been thrilled about the teachings on divorce attributed to him.
3) Therefore, Jesus was historical.
Doesn't seem to follow.
But what is most interesting is that Paul says that this teaching is not his, but the Lord's (1 Cor. 7:10).
As I read Deuteronomy, there are lots of prohibitions on divorce. Didn't the Jews think the Old Testament was the word of the Lord?
Or do you believe that first century Jews had not made the connection between the OT god and Jesus?
But it does show that we do not simply have Gospel authors creating all their material entirely from scratch.
I am under the impression that reliable scholarship can identify virtually all of Mark as midrash. I don't guess I see why this stands out as particularly important.
Can you provide an example of where Deuteronomy prohibits divorce? Can you provide some examples of the reliable scholarship that you have in mind who view Mark as entirely "Midrash" (a term that really seems to get misused in this sort of context, since it seems not to mean anything remotely like the Rabbinic sense of the term)?
James,
I must apologize for my neglectfulness. I have not responded yet as I have been busy with personal life matters (I have not even had the chance to really update my blog or my facebook in a few days). Please accept my apologizes; I am working on a reply to his article as we speak.
Warm regards,
Tom
P.S. I'm glad to see you enjoyed the SBL conference. Hopefully next year I'll be able to make it.
A quick glance shows quite a few prohibitions in Deuteronomy 22, in which the meeting of various conditions ties a man to his wife for life.
As you should be well aware, I am of the opinion (well supported by social anthropologists) that traditions, laws, and myths of any culture are subject to change through time, so I am not distressed that the Jewish attitudes towards marriage changed over quite a few centuries. My only point, Dr. McGrath, is that if Paul was familiar with the Old Testament (as he surely was) he was surely aware that there were significant prohibitions on divorce, and that they were dictated by the Lord himself.
If you are not familiar with the work of Sir John Goody, the prominent social anthropologist and Fellow of the British Academy and US National Academy of Sciences, you should pick up a copy of "The development of the family and marriage in Europe." He devotes two full chapters to the shift from polygamy to monogamy by the early church, and identifies socioeconomic factors that provide a very clear and coherent explanation for the shift in values -- a shift of which the first century writers were at the head.
On to Midrash:
Just to be thorough, I'll mention that Earl Doherty has done a great job of demonstrating what you seem to also believe -- that all the gospel accounts after Mark are completely indebted to Mark, though they have their own embellishments.
As for Mark, Michael Turton (whose page has been taken down, presumably to facilitate publication) drawing on the work of Richard Carrier and Robert Price, among others, has compiled and parsed Mark, noting OT parallels, new material, CHREIA sayings, anachronisms, oral traditions, etc...
DIRECT OT PARALLEL: 33/71
OT VERSE CONSTRUCTION: 45/71
CHREIA: 9/71
OUTRIGHT INVENTION: 8/71
UNKNOWN: 9/71
By his estimation, that means approximately 65% of Markan pericopes were built off the OT in one way or another.
(As I said, the page in question has been taken down. For similar discussions, see: http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=79
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=288 )
To be clear, I am not resting my argument on the authority of one, or three scholars. I've said before, and I'll repeat it, that I'm not a historical scholar, and I don't much care if a particular pericope was borrowed from the OT, the Greeks, the Babylonians, or the bloody Hittites. What interests me is that if you pick virtually any part of Mark and hand it to a scholar with expertise in any one of these traditions, they're damn likely to find some parallel.
I leave it to the scholars to quibble over the original origin of the various themes in Mark, but to any objective reader, it should be apparent that the Gospel of Mark is a borrowed fabrication, not an attempt to describe history.
Robert Price said it very eloquently:
"Not only do the Gospels contain basic and irreconcilable differences in their accounts of Jesus, they have been put together according to a traditional Jewish practice known as "midrash", which involved reworking and enlarging on scripture. This could entail the retelling of older biblical stories in new settings. Thus, Mark’s Jesus of Nazareth was portrayed as a new Moses, with features that paralleled the stories of Moses. Many details were fashioned out of specific passages in scripture. The Passion story itself is a pastiche of verses from the Psalms, Isaiah and other prophets, and as a whole it retells a common tale found throughout ancient Jewish writings, that of the Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent Righteous One. It is quite possible that Mark, at least, did not intend his Gospel to represent an historical figure or historical events, and designed it to provide liturgical readings for Christian services on the Jewish model. Liberal scholars now regard the Gospels as "faith documents" and not accurate historical accounts."
- Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle
bleh... That was Earl Doherty, not Robert Price, just to clear up the double attribution
I don't find it difficult to envisage the Gospel authors as treating the story of Jesus midrashically, as it were. But in the cases you are referring to, I'd much sooner say that at many points at which the Gospel authors either had no other information, or had information about Jesus and were persuaded (as so often) that he was fulfilling prophecy, the Gospel writers created narratives about Jesus, or added details to the narrative, based on things they found in the Jewish Scriptures. The only question is whether their doing so, for instance in the very obvious example of the account of the crucifixion, this was a creation out of whole cloth, as it were, or was based on an event they knew happened but had not themselves witnessed, since the male disciples had fled.
Argh. Sorry for hogging your blog space with multiple posts, James. I just had a thought that might clear the air a little bit.
Remember that I'm not a Christian. I'm starting with the assumption that all the miracles in the Bible are fabrications or misinterpretation of natural events. Without bringing theology into the discussion, I can only start with the assumption that the early Jesus authors were ordinary men with ordinary agendas. They were not *really* agents of God, whether they believed themselves to be or not.
What seems baffling to me, Dr. McGrath, is that you seem content to take a few authors with common vested interests at their word about rather extraordinary claims.
Paul was promoting a new religion. He was more educated and had more access to the scriptures than most, if not all, of his audience.
On reflection, I realize I should have explained what I meant about Deuteronomy more thoroughly. Pre-Christian Jews were polygamous, and divorce was conditionally allowed. Deuteronomy spells that out. However, by the first century, times had changed an awful lot. Most Jews were growing up in a situation far removed from their nomadic tribal ancestors. They were under new management, so to speak.
To me, it seems obvious that Paul, a cunning writer and expert in persuasion, would shape and mold Jewish tradition to his own ends. That is, if it was in his own interest to promote the permanence of marriage to Jews, he'd cite the scripture even if the scripture didn't quite agree with him. That's why the Deuteronomy passage is noteworthy. Paul could easily say, "The Lord said this," and most of his readers would take him at his word. After all, he saw Jesus in a vision, right?
We can see the same thing today in debates over the constitutionality of various government policies. There have been times in the last few years that I've found myself saying aloud, "Have any of you read the constitution?"
The thing is, Dr. McGrath, most Americans haven't read the constitution, and this is in a time when ten minutes and a Google search will put the thing right in front of you, and you don't have to get out of your bathrobe. You can sell Americans on just about anything as "Constitutional" because on the whole, we just have a vague notion of what it says.
When I examine the writings of Paul in this light, it's hard for me to take anything he says at face value. He was a man with an agenda. He knew his audience, and he knew what his audience knew. I would be shocked and surprised if Paul didn't attempt to sway things his way, particularly since he seemed to have his own agenda with regard to divorce.
(The book I mentioned earlier sheds light on why he might have had that agenda, but it's not part of the discussion here.)
I recognize that first century Jews are not the same as 21st century Americans. They were more steeped in ritual, to be certain. But let's be honest. Any society shapes itself to its environment. When Jews became "civilized" they would fall under the same sociological pressures as any other society. That is, they would quickly adopt traditions and practices reflecting their new way of life. (We have lots of documentation of similar transitions. The Vikings are a great example.)
The thing is, Dr. McGrath, you spend a lot of time talking about what the writers would or would not have done, and coming from my own areas of expertise -- namely psychology and sociology -- I find your predictions baffling. You seem to believe that honesty is paramount when one sets about to start a new religion. In my studies of comparative religion, I've found the exact opposite to be true, almost ubiquitously so.
So, this leads me to a question. Considering the incredibly high priority placed on independent historical corroboration, why do you trust a handful of authors who clearly don't fall under the heading of independent? All of your sources are biased and removed in time by at least a couple of decades.
If anything, it seems the default position should be to doubt their honesty.
Thanks for the comment - you can use as much space here as you like!
When it comes to claims to the extraordinary, it is absolutely appropriate to be skeptical. When early Christian writers make claims that support their agenda and aims, a comparable skepticism is absolutely appropriate. What surprised me was that I looked at things that seemed not to serve Christians' agenda, such as the claim (itself not at all improbable) that an individual who spoke about God's kingdom found himself arrested and executed by the Romans.
The case we're discussing is less clear cut than that of the crucifixion. It is simply a series on things about which I think the balance of probability is on the side of some authentic material that probably goes back to Jesus.
In this case, the question is why Paul would suggest that only one of his two teachings on the subject in 1 Corinthians 7 is from "the Lord" if he were inventing it. Obviously, one can argue that the material is pre-Pauline but not authentic. But at what point does skepticism not merely about the miraculous and about what Christians desired to be true, but about claims about a person and things he may have said and did, including some that fit awkwardly with key Christian claims, become excessive skepticism?
The only question is whether their doing so, for instance in the very obvious example of the account of the crucifixion, this was a creation out of whole cloth, as it were, or was based on an event they knew happened but had not themselves witnessed, since the male disciples had fled.
If you read my previous post, you'll see that I focused quite a lot on the transition of tradition through time. With that in mind, I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about the choice of execution method for Jesus. It was a popular method at the time, and would evoke powerful images for anyone who had witnessed a crucifixion.
To get down to minutia, I don't suppose it matters if the author of Mark was thinking of a specific myth and changed the method of execution, or whether he had an execution as part of his plot and decided on crucifixion because of its contemporary relevance.
The point is, you're jumping a gun here by using a unique element to argue for historicity when all a unique element proves is a certain amount of creativity on the part of the author.
To address the broader and more important point, you seem to be saying that the incredible coincidence of a historical Jesus' life paralleling myths and legends available to educated writers is easy to write off.
Coming from a non-position, that is, not having a preconceived notion that there was or was not a historical Jesus, it seems that the burden of proof would fall to the person claiming that the appearance of midrash is coincidental.
Are you aware of any historical figures whose lives happened to be 65% similar to folk tales and mythology? I'm not.
I can't think off hand of someone that would precisely fit that statistic. But it certainly seems clear that the same sorts of miracle stories and miraculous birth accounts we find in the Gospels also grew up around all sorts of figures from the ancient world's literature, including some historical ones.
You keep referring to "Midrash" and so let me ask you whether you know of any other instance in which Jews engaging in Midrash, rather than commenting on or retelling in expanded form a story from the Jewish Scriptures, instead wrote a new story about a new individual who supposedly lived in the recent past, and whose relatives were still alive and known.
In this case, the question is why Paul would suggest that only one of his two teachings on the subject in 1 Corinthians 7 is from "the Lord" if he were inventing it. Obviously, one can argue that the material is pre-Pauline but not authentic. But at what point does skepticism not merely about the miraculous and about what Christians desired to be true, but about claims about a person and things he may have said and did, including some that fit awkwardly with key Christian claims, become excessive skepticism?
Here's the crux of it. Each element of your historical Jesus hypothesis defies traditional historicity models. We have no contemporary evidence whatsoever. We have only biased evidence beginning at least a couple of decades after the fact. We have no necessary place in history. That is, Christianity could have easily developed with or without a historical locus. (I assume you aren't going to suggest that all religions come from historical figures!) We have no reference to any writing done by the figure.
If we were to stop here, we'd have reasonable doubt as to the historicity of Jesus. However, it doesn't stop there. The historical mythological parallels are striking. He resembles Moses, David, several of the Prophets, Abraham, as well as a number of Hellenistic figures. The account of his life is so steeped in magic and the supernatural that it's hard to find anything we can isolate as a probable human event.
All the while, there's a perfectly plausible story sitting quietly over in a corner: It's made up.
Simply put, so many difficulties are overcome by saying that it's a fabrication that this hypothesis demands to be taken seriously.
You keep referring to "Midrash" and so let me ask you whether you know of any other instance in which Jews engaging in Midrash, rather than commenting on or retelling in expanded form a story from the Jewish Scriptures, instead wrote a new story about a new individual who supposedly lived in the recent past, and whose relatives were still alive and known.
Moses.
With the obvious caveat that most Jews couldn't waltz into Egypt to verify the existence of the Pharoah, I think it's fair to say that the Moses story incorporates real people.
I suppose you can argue the "real relatives" within a couple of decades thing, but I find that argument uncompelling at best. There were no social security cards or DNA tests. A decade or two later, anybody could have claimed relation. We've been here before.
I am not in principle opposed to the possibility of pure invention. But if it seems to solve some difficulties, it creates others. I have yet to encounter a plausible and straightforward "Jesus myth" theory that explains how people living within less than a decade of the crucifixion (if there was such an event) were claiming to be the individual's brother and other relatives. Why create "Jesus of Nazareth" and put later writers in the situation of having to invent wildly contrasting and implausible stories in order to try to claim that he was nonetheless born in Bethlehem?
There are plenty of examples of individuals who had a profound impact on people who then started schools or movements, individuals who did not themselves write anything. Why is the theory that Socrates did not exist preferable to the view that he did exist, even if the dialogues of Plato reflect much more of Plato than of Socrates himself? The latter seems to make far better sense in both the case of Socrates and of Jesus.
In short, if you wish to claim that much that is said about Jesus in the Gospels is later invention, then you may be able to make a strong case, or at least emphasize that the burden of proof is on those who would claim the authenticity of this or that saying or story. But to go so far as to deny that there was such a figure at all, and to appeal in support to the term Midrash (which do not mean in Rabbinic Judaism what you seem to mean by it), then you seem to be going beyond the most natural reading of the evidence. In order to justify doing so, you appeal to fringe historians while ignoring the mainstream. And so while you may claim to have no ideological axe to grind, that claim is weakened by the fact that you consistently quote historians about whom the same cannot be said! :)
I have yet to encounter a plausible and straightforward "Jesus myth" theory that explains how people living within less than a decade of the crucifixion (if there was such an event) were claiming to be the individual's brother and other relatives.
I've given you a plausible and straightforward theory several times. For James, perhaps Paul was referring to James as a spiritual brother, as the word usage seems to imply. I readily admit that I'm not a language scholar, but I'd be interested in seeing you rebut this argument, which you can find here:
http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/more-on-abba-eloi-and-the-interpretation-of-scripture/
In lieu of a linguistic explanation, I have no difficulty in imagining a situation in which two people, either in collusion or separately, decided to capitalize on a growing mythology by claiming relation to the central figure. James, a decade is a long time even in the information age. People pretend to be other people all the time, and that's with social security cards and DNA testing. It's hard to imagine how someone with a little knowledge wouldn't think to claim relation to Jesus at some point or another!
In short, if you wish to claim that much that is said about Jesus in the Gospels is later invention, then you may be able to make a strong case, or at least emphasize that the burden of proof is on those who would claim the authenticity of this or that saying or story. But to go so far as to deny that there was such a figure at all, and to appeal in support to the term Midrash (which do not mean in Rabbinic Judaism what you seem to mean by it), then you seem to be going beyond the most natural reading of the evidence. In order to justify doing so, you appeal to fringe historians while ignoring the mainstream. And so while you may claim to have no ideological axe to grind, that claim is weakened by the fact that you consistently quote historians about whom the same cannot be said! :)
James, James, James. I thought we were leaving the personal insults aside. Shame on you.
I have no desire to argue with you over whether or not so-and-so has a bias. You are biased. I am biased. History is a biased discipline even in the most objective hands.
I wish to hear your rebuttals of these arguments, whether you think the authors are biased or not.
My reply is here:
http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/of-divorce-and-faithfulness-to-wife-and-god-mark%e2%80%99s-reading-of-malachi-and-1-corinthians/
Thanks,
Tom
Hmm...it seems that link is not functioning. Here is the new link:
http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/divorcedivorce
I apologize for the earlier bad link.
Tom
If I am using midrash inappropriately, I apologize. As I've said before, ancient history is not my field. My meaning is that the Gospel is in the tradition of Jewish exposition, expansion, and adaptations of previous writings. That is, we can see the twelve disciples as metaphors for Israel, Jesus as the new Moses, etc, etc.
My broad point is that so much of the gospel of Mark points directly to the OT that it seems quite a stretch to ignore the obvious parallels and suggest that it's all coincidence.
In fact, James, this seems one of the strongest arguments for ahistoricity that I can find. With so much of the gospel pointing to symbolism, metaphor, and allegory from the OT, why would we think that a historical figure would be necessary? Furthermore, what motivation would the author of Mark had for making such a piece about a real person?
If you're discussing the historical existence or otherwise of Jesus, then you have to address not only Mark's creative activity a few decades after the time Jesus is supposed to have lived. You have to explain why some people would be claiming to be the relatives of a fictional character within less than a decade of the supposed events, when Paul visited them in Jerusalem (presumably having been aware of their existence earlier still, when he persecuted the group).
The scenario that you seem to envisage is not like claiming to be the relative of someone rich and/or famous. It is like claiming to be the relative of someone who you claim is a millionaire, but all the riches are spiritual, and the person has never been heard of before. What exactly would the point be?
If you're discussing the historical existence or otherwise of Jesus, then you have to address not only Mark's creative activity a few decades after the time Jesus is supposed to have lived. You have to explain why some people would be claiming to be the relatives of a fictional character within less than a decade of the supposed events, when Paul visited them in Jerusalem (presumably having been aware of their existence earlier still, when he persecuted the group).
Is this directed at me? Have you been reading what I write? I've addressed both of these issues extensively. You haven't given me any reason why my explanations aren't valid and parsimonious.
The scenario that you seem to envisage is not like claiming to be the relative of someone rich and/or famous. It is like claiming to be the relative of someone who you claim is a millionaire, but all the riches are spiritual, and the person has never been heard of before. What exactly would the point be?
James, are you being disingenuous? Of course it's claiming to be the relative of someone with spiritual riches. Who said Jesus had never been heard of before? Not me, certainly. I just said he's more likely made up than real. That's a lot different than "never heard of."
What you seem to be claiming is that someone made up the story about Jesus, and within a few years it was worth claiming to be this individual's brother (in a sense specific enough that one would be referred to as "the Lord's brother" as distinguishing that individual from "brothers in Christ" more generally). You're also claiming that this would be advantageous even while claiming that the individual had been crucified by the Romans and was nonetheless the Messiah.
If you want to invoke Moses, this seems to be the equivalent of someone going to Hebrews in Egypt (let's call him Aaron, if you like) and saying that his brother Moses is their redeemer, but in fact he's not going to do anything about their slavery in Egypt - in fact, Pharaoh had him executed.
What you seem to be claiming is that someone made up the story about Jesus, and within a few years it was worth claiming to be this individual's brother (in a sense specific enough that one would be referred to as "the Lord's brother" as distinguishing that individual from "brothers in Christ" more generally).
1) I haven't seen your rebuttal of the linguistic argument against what you're saying. I provided the link.
2) Yes, I'm claiming that within a decade of the Jesus story being made up, it could have been worthwhile to claim relation to him. What's so amazing about that?
If you want to invoke Moses, this seems to be the equivalent of someone going to Hebrews in Egypt (let's call him Aaron, if you like) and saying that his brother Moses is their redeemer, but in fact he's not going to do anything about their slavery in Egypt - in fact, Pharaoh had him executed.
No, it isn't, and I didn't invoke Moses. You asked for another character that had been similarly cobbled together. Moses, by all historical accounts, seems to be a myth, cobbled together in a way similar to Jesus.
I'm sorry, James, but inventing arguments and then shooting them down isn't going to accomplish much. You asked a valid question: What other mythical character was tied to real people. I answered. I made no claim that Moses was comparable to Jesus in any way other than the inclusion of real characters in the myth.
I don't know why my links aren't showing up! This is the third try! (Sorry!)
http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/divorce/
Hopefully this works this time!
I replied to Tom's point about abba on his blog at the post you linked to.
I don't see that Moses is that helpful a comparison, not because he may not well be cobbled together in the way you suggest, but because that seems to have happened over the course of a much longer period than in the scenario involving Jesus. But I'll give it some more thought before responding at length. For now I'll just say "good night"!
James,
I replied to your comments as well.
I hope you have a great thanksgiving!
Tom
I don't see that Moses is that helpful a comparison, not because he may not well be cobbled together in the way you suggest, but because that seems to have happened over the course of a much longer period than in the scenario involving Jesus. But I'll give it some more thought before responding at length. For now I'll just say "good night"!
I appreciate you giving it some thought. If I may presume to suggest some directions for thought, consider that I didn't bring up Moses. You did by asking me for another example of a mythological figure that would be comparable to Jesus in its usage of previous mythology and tradition.
My leanings toward mythicism don't rest on Moses' similarity to Jesus. I assume that you asked that question because you want to disqualify my question to you about what other figure was so mythologized and yet turned out to be historical.
You've been kind enough to list most of your reasons for believing in the historical Jesus, so I'll give you a quick outline of what I believe to be the cumulative case against historicity.
In approximate order of weight:
1) Absolutely no contemporary evidence for at least a decade by the most generous estimates. More conservative estimates allow for perhaps twenty or more years before any evidence appears.
2) Within the first century CE, absolutely no independent evidence. All sources are separated by at least a decade, most by several decades. All have significant motive and potential for bias.
3) No necessary place in history. As I've mentioned, without Alexander the Great, historians would have a lot of explaining to do. Without Jesus, we just need to imagine a religion starting based on a myth. Not so difficult.
4) Later evidence references Christians, not Jesus directly.
5) The Gospels are highly indebted to the OT, and contain considerable elements from Classical culture and myth, indicating an edification work, not a historical document
6) When the gospel of Mark is stripped of magic, god myth and obvious retelling of previous stories, there's hardly anything left.
7) There appear to be no other real figures in history who have so much mythology within such a short time *AND* no contemporary evidence of their non-mythological existence.
8) The claim(s) of relation to Jesus don't appear for at least a decade after his existence, and coincide with Paul's conversion and the spread of the religion, which casts serious doubt on their veracity.
9) The modern interpretation of James' physical relation to Jesus appears to be a linguistic error.
As you can see by the relative weighting of my observations, by the time we get to quibbling over whether or not James claimed to be or was thought of as a brother of Jesus, we've already glossed over the most important historical criteria, namely contemporary and independent contemporary corroboration AND a necessary, or at least highly likely place in history.
You may feel comfortable glossing over these, and relying on the testimony of biased individuals decades later, but the scientist in me finds that rationalization to be... well... a rationalization.
I find it interesting that you keep demanding alternative explanations when the ordinary conclusion one would reach when presented with the above facts would be that the character was unlikely as a historical figure.
Finally, you seem convinced of a factual origin to Christianity based on the rapidity with which the ideas and stories spread. Consider that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in 1830. By 1838, the new religion had 17,881 followers. Now, consider that Paul was a cunning and well traveled man of the world. We have evidence from his own pen that he spent most of his time after his conversion preaching the new religion.
No, I'm not impressed by the argument that Jesus just had to be real because a decade after his supposed life, a bunch of people believed he was real.
I suppose my response is that a historical Jesus who was subsequently interpreted, developed, mythologized and whatever else can take seriously most of the points you make, while also avoiding having to explain why someone would invent a figure who was something as oxymoronic as a "crucified Messiah".
This Joseph Smith you're talking about - did he really exist? :)
All jokes aside, I hope you have had a happy Thanksgiving!
This post from John Loftus will probably be of interest to those engaged in this discussion.
I have sent along a request to Mr. Loftus in the hopes that he would indulge me to write a response to him. If he allows it, I will work on my response this week and for the benefit of those interested, I will post a link here.
Warm regards,
Tom
I have just completed my first response to the first part of his article on why he accepts the historicity of the figure of Jesus here. As promised, there is the link to it.
Regards,
Tom
I suppose my response is that a historical Jesus who was subsequently interpreted, developed, mythologized and whatever else can take seriously most of the points you make, while also avoiding having to explain why someone would invent a figure who was something as oxymoronic as a "crucified Messiah".
I'm actually pretty comfortable with this response, even though I disagree with your conclusion. (I'll avoid the argument about whether a dying savior was really a new invention.) I have recently decided that I'm not a Jesus mythicist in the strong sense. That is, I don't assert that there was no historical Jesus. I'm a Jesus Irrelevantist. I am comfortable with the notion that there was a rather ordinary figure who made no important historical contributions, but was later mythologized to the point of becoming an icon. To be honest, I don't see any good evidence that such a figure existed, so epistemologically, I think the only strong position is that the burden of proof has not been met. However, I'm open minded towards the notion that some real person inspired either or both of the early Jesus authors in the same way that William Marston's wife inspired the Wonder Woman character.
Although... I have to ask, is Wonder Woman a historical figure?
This Joseph Smith you're talking about - did he really exist? :)
As certainly as the author of Mark or the Pauline texts!
Hope your Thanksgiving was lovely!
Regards,
HD
I'm married to the real Wonder Woman. That other guy's wife if just one of the many pretenders the Bible warned about...
I do hope to run a parallel series on things I think we can be just as certain Jesus did not say and do. I won't try to guess which series will have more posts in it by the time I've finished, but it will be interesting to see, looking back, from some point in the future.
I'll just add that one reason I find the "dying and rising gods" category unpersuasive as a proposed source of inspiration for a purely fictional Jesus is that I am not persuaded that, in the earliest Messianic movement (before it was known as Christianity, and before it was appealing to non-Jews), drawing on figures from outside Judaism would have helped make stories about a fictional Messiah more attractive. Then again, synagogues like the one at Dura Europos show that, in subsequent centuries at least, there were other Jews who were weaving their sacred narrative together with those of the wider Greco-Roman world, so it isn't impossible.
Now if you'll excuse me, Wonder Woman beckons... :-)
As a point of historical interest, William Moulton Marston was a polyamorist, and lived with two women... his wife, Elizabeth Marston, and Olive Byrne, their mutual live-in girlfriend. William had a PhD in psychology, and modeled Wonder Woman after the principles he saw in his wife (and possibly their girlfriend) as interpreted through his DISC theory. (Google it. It's easy to find!)
Wonder Woman, in a very real way, was the personification and deification of human ideals as represented through a new philosophical (psychological) paradigm.
Marston was a rebel in a new and exciting period of history. He was a freethinker. Above all, he was a creative genius.
I wonder if Paul, or perhaps the author of Mark was a similar creative rebel. It's a lot easier to be a rebel through fiction than through real action, after all. Paul, especially, has all the earmarks of a man driven to be the center of attention.
On another not, you might find this passage from Richard Carrier to be of interest with regard to the dying and resurrected savior:
"James Holding asks: "Who on earth would believe a religion centered on a crucified man?" Well, the Sumerians perhaps. One of their top goddesses, Inanna (the Babylonian Ishtar, Goddess of Love and "Queen of Heaven"), was stripped naked and crucified, yet rose again and, triumphant, condemned to Hell her lover, the shepherd-god Dumuzi (the Babylonian Tammuz). This became the center of a major Sumerian sacred story, preserved in clay tablets dating over a thousand years before Christ. The corresponding religion, which we now know included the worship of a crucified Inanna, is mentioned by Ezekiel as having achieved some popularity within Jerusalem itself by the 6th century B.C. The "women weeping for Tammuz" at the north gate of the Jewish temple (Ezekiel 8:14) we now know were weeping because Inanna had condemned him to Hell, after herself being crucified and resurrected. So the influence of this religious story and its potent, apparently compelling allure upon pre-Christian Judaism is in evidence.[2]
Even so, my point is not that the Christians got the idea of a crucified god from early Inanna cult. There may have been some direct or indirect influence we cannot trace. We can't rule that out--the idea of worshipping a crucified deity did predate Christianity and had entered Jewish society within Palestine. But we don't know any more than that.[3] Rather, my point is that we have here a clear example of many people worshipping a crucified god. Therefore, as a matter of principle--unless Holding wants to claim that Inanna really was resurrected--it appears that people would worship a false crucified god. Therefore, Holding cannot claim this is improbable."
ugh... attribution here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/improbable/crucified.html
Post a Comment