Jews and the story book jesus

[robrecht]

You really like the words fraud and conspiracy...

You assume that 1 Cor 15 refers to information Paul got from, I suppose, the Jerusalem group. I do not make that assumption and Paul never says as much.

I would say that the fact that the major details of the gospels seem to be plucked from preexisting scripture make it unnecessary to posit an historical Jesus in the first place. As such, as has been shown by almost all work done in this area over the past century, the existence of Jesus as an historical person is presupposed in order to make the argument for an historical Jesus. The simple reason for this is that there are really no good facts with which to do otherwise.

So, if you feel like you have one rock solid fact that supports the historical existence of Jesus, please present it. On the other hand, if any mythicist feels that they have one rock solid fact that denies the historical existence of Jesus, I would love to see that as well.

Until then, agnosticism seems to be the only rational position with regards to this particular question.

Do you have an objection to the word fraud and conspiracy in this context?

I have not identified the source(s) Paul relies upon in 1 Cor 15 or elsewhere. Recall that I said that Paul is not always explicit with respect to his source(s)--in disagreement with you who said he was explicit with repect to his source. Misrepresenting my position does not support your position.

Can you name a single credible historian who has studied the texts of Paul and other source material who considers my position as irrational?

[robertb]

Do you have an objection to the word fraud and conspiracy in this context?

I object to these words because I see no evidence to support their use in this context. If, for instance, Paul did in fact create Christianity, would you call it a fraud if he honestly believed that he had received a divine revelation through his reading of the scriptures?

I would not.

I have not identified the source(s) Paul relies upon in 1 Cor 15 or elsewhere. Recall that I said that Paul is not always explicit with respect to his source(s)--in disagreement with you who said he was explicit with repect to his source. Misrepresenting my position does not support your position.

I use 1 Cor 15, as this is the exact chapter usually used to support the position that Paul "received" his Gospel from someone else. If this is not what you are referring to, could you clarify?

Can you name a single credible historian who has studied the texts of Paul and other source material who considers my position as irrational?

Let's put it this way, based on the actual evidence, go ahead and support an historical Jesus without presupposing Jesus' existence.

Where would you start?

[robrecht]

I object to these words because I see no evidence to support their use in this context. If, for instance, Paul did in fact create Christianity, would you call it a fraud if he honestly believed that he had received a divine revelation through his reading of the scriptures?

I would not.

Why not? If Paul falsely asserted the historical existence (born and died) of a man named Jesus, yes, of course, that would be a false claim. If he fabricated this supposed historical person in consort with others, it would be a conspiracy. If he genuinely believed that this fabrication of a supposedly historical Jesus was factual, he would be either himself defrauded by others or in some other way deluded. None of this is a matter of evidence; it is the simple meaing of words.

I use 1 Cor 15, as this is the exact chapter usually used to support the position that Paul "received" his Gospel from someone else. If this is not what you are referring to, could you clarify?

Certainly, 1 Cor 15 is one of the texts of the genuine Pauline letters I was referring to above, but not the only one. I was also alluding to 1 Cor 11 and a few other texts. But the issue is not which text(s) I was referring to, but your contention that "Paul is explicit with regards to his source" and my disagreement, ie, that he is not always explicit as to his source(s). Are you ready to now concede this point?

So, if you feel like you have one rock solid fact that supports the historical existence of Jesus, please present it.

You do not seem to be following my position very well. Ik kan een beetje Nederlands spreken als dat zou helpen. Ik heb al meerdere keer gezegd dat een historicus niet kan zeggen met absolute zekerheid dat Jezus bestond. Maar aleen dat de meeste vinden het meer plausibel.

Let's put it this way, based on the actual evidence, go ahead and support an historical Jesus without presupposing Jesus' existence. ...

Evenmin is het niet aleen maar een kwestie vanuit een zuiver logisch standpunt. Plausibiliteit is niet lauter logisch noodzaak of zuiver logische vooronderstellingen. Sorry als mijn Nederlands niet zo goed is, maar het lijkt soms als u reageert niet op mijn eigene positie.

[robertb]

Why not? If Paul falsely asserted the historical existence (born and died) of a man named Jesus, yes, of course, that would be a false claim. If he fabricated this supposed historical person in consort with others, it would be a conspiracy. If he genuinely believed that this fabrication of a supposedly historical Jesus was factual, he would be either himself defrauded by others or in some other way deluded. None of this is a matter of evidence; it is the simple meaing of words.

I never claimed that Paul was not deluded. However, I do object to using the words fraud and conspiracy, as we have no evidence that this was the case. To claim either, we get into a legalistic situation and, contrary to your opinion, one that immediately requires evidence.

Certainly, 1 Cor 15 is one of the texts of the genuine Pauline letters I was referring to above, but not the only one. I was also alluding to 1 Cor 11 and a few other texts. But the issue is not which text(s) I was referring to, but your contention that "Paul is explicit with regards to his source" and my disagreement, ie, that he is not always explicit as to his source(s). Are you ready to now concede this point?

1 Cor 11 isn't much help to your argument, as it supports mine.

23 For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you

So, on the contrary, Paul is pretty explicit about his source, unless of course one reads the gospels into Paul...

You do not seem to be following my position very well. Ik kan een beetje Nederlands spreken als dat zou helpen. Ik heb al meerdere keer gezegd dat een historicus niet kan zeggen met absolute zekerheid dat Jezus bestond. Maar aleen dat de meeste vinden het meer plausibel.

Evenmin is het niet aleen maar een kwestie vanuit een zuiver logisch standpunt. Plausibiliteit is niet lauter logisch noodzaak of zuiver logische vooronderstellingen. Sorry als mijn Nederlands niet zo goed is, maar het lijkt soms als u reageert niet op mijn eigene positie.

Good job!

I do not disagree.

However, it seems to me that in order to get to the point where your position is plausible in the first place, you need to make several unsupportable assumptions, beginning with assuming that Mark intended to convey history.

If I do not assume that Mark intended to convey history, but regard his intention as unknown, (which is all I can really say), then the only position regarding Jesus, that is consistent with the evidence is, once again, agnosticism.

But you seem to have found something in the evidence that lead you to making the positive assertion. What was it?

[robrecht]

I never claimed that Paul was not deluded. However, I do object to using the words fraud and conspiracy, as we have no evidence that this was the case. To claim either, we get into a legalistic situation and, contrary to your opinion, one that immediately requires evidence.

No, I am in no way speaking of a legalistic situation. You are wrong to make such an assumption. Nor have I claimed that Paul was not deluded in many respects. But there is no evidence that he was deluded as to the historical existence of Jesus.

1 Cor 11 isn't much help to your argument, as it supports mine.

So, on the contrary, Paul is pretty explicit about his source, unless of course one reads the gospels into Paul...

I'm not sure you have understood my 'argument'. I was just alluding to several Pauline texts.. But it is your position that Paul invented the Lord's supper based on a spiritual experience? The Greek 'apo tou kuriou' is more obviously explained by the following commands themselve, rather than presume that Paul is relating a spiritual experience. But regardless, followwing your interpretation, if that is your interpretation and you persist in it, Paul would seem to present Jesus as doing something "on the night he was betrayed". Paul is either making, perhaps even inventing, a false historical claim or a true one. This is not a 'legalistic situation,' just a discussion of historical sources. You seem to posit a spiritual, revelatory experience of Paul as a source. And yet there is no record whatsoever that anyone with whom Paul was in dispute, some of whom claimed historical connections with this Jesus, ever challenged Paul on the accuracy and audacity of such an invention? Do you also think that Paul may have invented the characters of Cephas and James? Or, with respect to the existence of Cephas and James, are you content to read the gospels into Paul?

Good job!

I do not disagree.

Eindelijk!

However, it seems to me that in order to get to the point where your position is plausible in the first place, you need to make several unsupportable assumptions, beginning with assuming that Mark intended to convey history.

If I do not assume that Mark intended to convey history, but regard his intention as unknown, (which is all I can really say), then the only position regarding Jesus, that is consistent with the evidence is, once again, agnosticism.

But you seem to have found something in the evidence that lead you to making the positive assertion. What was it?

No, I do not assume that Mark intended to write history, at least not in any modern sense of the word, nor in the prevailing contemporary sense of the word. You keep trying to bring Mark into this discussion. For no good reason, I think. Why do you assume we are even speaking about the gospel of Mark? I generally presume 'Mark's' gospel was written around 70-75 CE, and do not think his text informs us of the Paul's knowledge of Jesus in his writings some 20 or so years earlier.

[robertb]

No, I am in no way speaking of a legalistic situation. You are wrong to make such an assumption. Nor have I claimed that Paul was not deluded in many respects. But there is no evidence that he was deluded as to the historical existence of Jesus.

That is the question, isn't it? The historical existence of Jesus, in the first place.

I'm not sure you have understood my 'argument'. I was just alluding to several Pauline texts.. But it is your position that Paul invented the Lord's supper based on a spiritual experience? The Greek 'apo tou kuriou' is more obviously explained by the following commands themselve, rather than presume that Paul is relating a spiritual experience. But regardless, followwing your interpretation, if that is your interpretation and you persist in it, Paul would seem to present Jesus as doing something "on the night he was betrayed". Paul is either making, perhaps even inventing, a false historical claim or a true one. This is not a 'legalistic situation,' just a discussion of historical sources. You seem to posit a spiritual, revelatory experience of Paul as a source. And yet there is no record whatsoever that anyone with whom Paul was in dispute, some of whom claimed historical connections with this Jesus, ever challenged Paul on the accuracy and audacity of such an invention? Do you also think that Paul may have invented the characters of Cephas and James? Or, with respect to the existence of Cephas and James, are you content to read the gospels into Paul?

Can you show me where Paul ever claims that either Cephas or James ever met the historical Jesus? As far as what Paul actually relates, I see no evidence to support the assumption that either Cephas, or James experienced Jesus any different from how he did. Without assuming the Gospel story in the first place, Paul could have easily been speaking of revelatory experiences, not physical ones.

How much of the Pauline description of "historical Jesus" can be sourced from the pre-existing Jewish literature? What is your guess?

No, I do not assume that Mark intended to write history, at least not in any modern sense of the word, nor in the prevailing contemporary sense of the word. You keep trying to bring Mark into this discussion. For no good reason, I think. Why do you assume we are even speaking about the gospel of Mark? I generally presume 'Mark's' gospel was written around 70-75 CE, and do not think his text informs us of the Paul's knowledge of Jesus in his writings some 20 or so years earlier.

Because with out Mark, you really have no story upon which to make the assumption in the first place. As I alluded to above, Paul never claimed to have met, nor claimed that anyone had actually met Jesus, in other than a spiritual sense.

[robrecht]

Can you show me where Paul ever claims that either Cephas or James ever met the historical Jesus?

I think Paul probably assumed this and as far as I know never directly addressed this question. His interests in writing his letters were much different than trying to write a modern history of Jesus. So you acknowledge the historicity of Cephas and James?

As far as what Paul actually relates, I see no evidence to support the assumption that either Cephas, or James experienced Jesus any different from how he did. Without assuming the Gospel story in the first place, Paul could have easily been speaking of revelatory experiences, not physical ones.

Paul does distinguish his experience of the risen Jesus from that of the earlier disciples. He feels a need to explain that he was later, one untimely born. He also at times seems somewhat insecure as to his status as an apostle.

How much of the Pauline description of "historical Jesus" can be sourced from the pre-existing Jewish literature? What is your guess?

Hard to quantify. The passion is based, at least in part, on Isaiah's Suffering Servant. Jesus is probably partly modeled on those who announce good tidings in Isaiah, and the John the Baptizer is therefore compared with Isaiah's prior voice crying in the wilderness, and with Elijah. But there is a difference in fabricating a nonexistant person out of whole cloth and illustrating his significance with allusions to the scriptures. The latter does not imply the former as we see clearly with John the Baptizer. The illustrative and interpretative parallels also contain unique material that is distinctly different than what should be expected from such a pure literary creation. For example, why would Mark feel a need to explain that Jesus or the Messiah was not necessarily a descenent of David? Contrary to expectations based on scripture and contrary to Paul's own preaching, as I pointed out earlier.

Because with out Mark, you really have no story upon which to make the assumption in the first place. As I alluded to above, Paul never claimed to have met, nor claimed that anyone had actually met Jesus, in other than a spiritual sense.

But the presumption is not that Mark's gospel is particularly reliable in any of its details. It is merely that the historical person (ie, born and died) that Paul speaks of was not a complete and total fabrication. Do you have evidence that Paul fabricated other nonexistent people?

[robertb]

I think Paul probably assumed this and as far as I know never directly addressed this question. His interests in writing his letters were much different than trying to write a modern history of Jesus. So you acknowledge the historicity of Cephas and James?

You assume this because you assume historicity in the first place. I have no doubt that his interests were not to write a modern history, beyond that, other than to preach his theology, I cannot actually comment of his intentions. I have no good evidence from which to do so.

Did Cephas and James exist? Perhaps, perhaps not. We do have existing evidence of a dispute about this issue as early as the second century.

Paul does distinguish his experience of the risen Jesus from that of the earlier disciples. He feels a need to explain that he was later, one untimely born. He also at times seems somewhat insecure as to his status as an apostle.

Perhaps, though this only argues that Paul did not invent Christianity, a position I see no issue with. It does not say anything about the historical existence of Jesus. Unless of course, you assume the existence of Jesus in the first place.

Hard to quantify. The passion is based, at least in part, on Isaiah's Suffering Servant. Jesus is probably partly modeled on those who announce good tidings in Isaiah, and the John the Baptizer is therefore compared with Isaiah's prior voice crying in the wilderness, and with Elijah. But there is a difference in fabricating a nonexistant person out of whole cloth and illustrating his significance with allusions to the scriptures. The latter does not imply the former as we see clearly with John the Baptizer. The illustrative and interpretative parallels also contain unique material that is distinctly different than what should be expected from such a pure literary creation. For example, why would Mark feel a need to explain that Jesus or the Messiah was not necessarily a descenent of David? Contrary to expectations based on scripture and contrary to Paul's own preaching, as I pointed out earlier.

I can think of one that is actually in evidence, Marcion.

But the presumption is not that Mark's gospel is particularly reliable in any of its details. It is merely that the historical person (ie, born and died) that Paul speaks of was not a complete and total fabrication. Do you have evidence that Paul fabricated other nonexistent people?

Correct, the assumption is that the historical person is not a complete and total fabrication. Thank you.

I have no evidence that Paul fabricated anyone, nor do I have evidence that he, in fact, did not. With regards to Jesus, Paul spoke of the mystery, hidden during ages past, but revealed through the prophetic writings and by the revelation of Jesus Christ, in him, by God.

[robrecht]

You assume this because you assume historicity in the first place. I have no doubt that his interests were not to write a modern history, beyond that, other than to preach his theology, I cannot actually comment of his intentions. I have no good evidence from which to do so.

Did Cephas and James exist? Perhaps, perhaps not. We do have existing evidence of a dispute about this issue as early as the second century.

Perhaps, though this only argues that Paul did not invent Christianity, a position I see no issue with. It does not say anything about the historical existence of Jesus. Unless of course, you assume the existence of Jesus in the first place.

I can think of one that is actually in evidence, Marcion.

Correct, the assumption is that the historical person is not a complete and total fabrication. Thank you.

I have no evidence that Paul fabricated anyone, nor do I have evidence that he, in fact, did not. With regards to Jesus, Paul spoke of the mystery, hidden during ages past, but revealed through the prophetic writings and by the revelation of Jesus Christ, in him, by God.

1. You assert my supposed assumptions much too simplistically for my tastes. Not appreciated.

2. You have the evidence of Paul's writings from which to try and interpret his intentions. Clearly he is not only preaching his theology, nor is he only speaking about hidden mysteries; he is also dealing with practical issues and defending his own authority.

3. What is the point you are trying to make about Marcion? You say that he is 'one that is actually in evidence' but I do not see how that responds to what you quoted from me above that statement.

[robertb]

1. You assert my supposed assumptions much too simplistically for my tastes. Not appreciated.

My apologies, but I simply pointed out that your statement

"I think Paul probably assumed this and as far as I know never directly addressed this question"

assumes that there was an historical question to address.

2. You have the evidence of Paul's writings from which to try and interpret his intentions. Clearly he is not only preaching his theology, nor is he only speaking about hidden mysteries; he is also dealing with practical issues and defending his own authority.

True, I suppose I rap his authority and his discussion of practical issues into his theology, but I see your point.

3. What is the point you are trying to make about Marcion? You say that he is 'one that is actually in evidence' but I do not see how that responds to what you quoted from me above that statement.

You asked:

For example, why would Mark feel a need to explain that Jesus or the Messiah was not necessarily a descenent of David? Contrary to expectations based on scripture and contrary to Paul's own preaching, as I pointed out earlier.

Marcion, based on the evidence of the counter-apologetics did, in fact, dispute that the Christ was a descendant of David and even disputed that those bits, found in Paul, were original to the text.

It's not a new argument. It is about as old as Christianity itself, or so it seems.

[robrecht]

My apologies, but I simply pointed out that your statement ... assumes that there was an historical question to address.

Quite the contrary! Paul evidences no need to address this question whatsoever--he merely speaks of Jesus as a historical person who was born and who died.

Marcion, based on the evidence of the counter-apologetics did, in fact, dispute that the Christ was a descendant of David and even disputed that those bits, found in Paul, were original to the text. ... It's not a new argument. It is about as old as Christianity itself, or so it seems.

But my point was that it was already an issue when Mark's gospel was written so Marcion seems irrelevant here, unless you are also disputing Paul's belief in Jesus' descent from David. Do I need to start speaking Dutch again?

[robertb]

Quite the contrary! Paul evidences no need to address this question whatsoever--he merely speaks of Jesus as a historical person who was born and who died.
But my point was that it was already an issue when Mark's gospel was written so Marcion seems irrelevant here, unless you are also disputing Paul's belief in Jesus' descent from David. Do I need to start speaking Dutch again?

I am sorry, but you continue to make assumptions.

1. You assume that Paul was speaking of a historical person.

2. You assume that Marcion's position was original to Marcion, which is disputed by those same apologetics and that Mark was written prior to the genesis of such a belief.

3. I need not dispute anything, but the evidence does clearly indicate that there were those, like Marcion, that did dispute that Paul believed that Jesus descended from David. As such, one cannot simply assume that Paul actually believed that Jesus was descended from David and the evidence we have is that this has been disputed since the earliest appearance of the evidence itself. We cannot simply wish that away if our intention is to be honest with the sources.

[robrecht]

I am sorry, but you continue to make assumptions.

1. You assume that Paul was speaking of a historical person.

No I observed that Paul speaks of an historical person and defined such as someone who was born and died. Paul speaks of Jesus as someone who was born and died. That is the text of Paul as accepted by the consensus of scholars. Do you claim that it is not the authentic text of Paul?

2. You assume that Marcion's position was original to Marcion, which is disputed by those same apologetics and that Mark was written prior to the genesis of such a belief.

No I did not! I said this position predated Marcion, at least as early as the gospel of Mark.

3. I need not dispute anything, but the evidence does clearly indicate that there were those, like Marcion, that did dispute that Paul believed that Jesus descended from David. As such, one cannot simply assume that Paul actually believed that Jesus was descended from David and the evidence we have is that this has been disputed since the earliest appearance of the evidence itself. We cannot simply wish that away if our intention is to be honest with the sources.

Present Marcion's arguments as best as they are known and we can deal with this issue properly. Marcion's position is much more involved than a simple discussion of reconstructing Paul's authentic text.

[robertb]

No I observed that Paul speaks of an historical person and defined such as someone who was born and died. Paul speaks of Jesus as someone who was born and died. That is the text of Paul as accepted by the consensus of scholars. Do you claim that it is not the authentic text of Paul?

Does the mention of someone being born and dying, from the literature of the time, necessarily mean that the author viewed the subject in a historical context?

Regarding authenticity,my view is that the evidence shows that the content of the Pauline epistles has been in contention from the time they first appear in the historical record.

No I did not! I said this position predated Marcion, at least as early as the gospel of Mark.

Ok, then we agree, my insertion of Marcion was simply to show that such a position is evidenced to have actually existed, outside of the gospel story itself, as using Mark alone to support it could be arguable, based on how one interpreted Mark.

Present Marcion's arguments as best as they are known and we can deal with this issue properly. Marcion's position is much more involved than a simple discussion of reconstructing Paul's authentic text.

It would probably be good to start another thread, if you wish to discuss Marcion. My point here was simply to answer your question:

For example, why would Mark feel a need to explain that Jesus or the Messiah was not necessarily a descenent of David? Contrary to expectations based on scripture and contrary to Paul's own preaching, as I pointed out earlier

In that, the evidence shows that this question can be found among some of the earliest surviving Christian commentary and that, as such, there is really no reason to assume that this question wasn't asked at the genesis. Of course, I think Paul's comment in Galatians about those teaching other gospels may not mean what tradition has taught us it means. If, in fact, Paul was who Marcion claimed that he was, Paul could very well have been lamenting what later became the Orthodoxy. We simply do not have the necessary evidence available to determine the fact of the matter.

[robrecht]

Does the mention of someone being born and dying, from the literature of the time, necessarily mean that the author viewed the subject in a historical context?

For my intents and purposes, it seems to be close enough. I see no reason to doubt that when Paul speaks of Jesus having been born and having died he intends to speak of an actual person who was actually born and who actually did die. Pretty much common sense. If you think this component of a minimally historical referent is not at all present in Paul, make a case that his texts can be credibly interpreted in such a manner. Otherwise I will stand by the plain meaning of the text.

Regarding authenticity,my view is that the evidence shows that the content of the Pauline epistles has been in contention from the time they first appear in the historical record.

Not an answer to my question. You seem to use agnosticism as evasion. Maybe as a crutch. Or laziness. If you do not think the commonly accepted text of Paul is correct, say so and explain why. If you do not have the training to engage in textual criticism yourself, look for the published work of a credible scholar who does know how to do this work. If you just whine that nobody can know anything, why should anyone care to know what you have to say?

Ok, then we agree, my insertion of Marcion was simply to show that such a position is evidenced to have actually existed, outside of the gospel story itself, as using Mark alone to support it could be arguable, based on how one interpreted Mark.

There is not much room to misunderstand Mark on this point. Your use of Marcion is much more suspect.

It would probably be good to start another thread, if you wish to discuss Marcion. ...

You brought up Marcion--I just didn't want you to use him in a completely anachronistic or simplistic manner.

Of course, I think Paul's comment in Galatians about those teaching other gospels may not mean what tradition has taught us it means. If, in fact, Paul was who Marcion claimed that he was, Paul could very well have been lamenting what later became the Orthodoxy. We simply do not have the necessary evidence available to determine the fact of the matter.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make above, and if it may or may not relate to what I have said, but am not surprised that you do not feel you have enough evidence to determine the fact of whatever matter it is that you are (or are not) discussing here.

If you decide to discuss the issue of this thread in the future, let me know, I think there are quite a few unanswered questions that I will be happy to engage you on.