How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[Copernicus]

The lady might, but Paul is not continuing the previous thought. I would have thought that the use of the particle de indicated that, but perhaps here too your knowledge far surpasses mine, and you can explain why Denniston's classic text, or even Greek particles in the New Testament such that your analysis would be clear, and make Macbeth a better guide to the Greek here. And while you explain it to those people, like myself, who are incapable of your ability to understand academia and these texts, perhaps you might explain why the kinship construction used by Paul is here. Also, it would be nice to know why your comparison to Lady Macbeth here is relevant given both the kinship construction Paul used, and the completely obvious (except, that is, for Greek experts such as yourself) transition in Gal. 1:20 that give you this "jarring" impression.

FWIW, I believe I have explained clearly why it appeared jarring to me. You are correct that I am not an expert on Greek and certainly not on Paul's writings. Not being a classicist, I am unfamiliar with Denniston's classic text. So there you have it. You know stuff I do not, and you believe that I would arrive at a different conclusion if I knew what you do. You may be right, but I don't know what you do. So who can say?

So if you would explain history and Greek to an ignorant classicist who can't tell the difference between classical studies and real ancient historical studies, I'd love to hear your analysis of these Greek lines.

Given that classicists and biblical scholars are biased morons who can't match those with degrees in "ancient history", and your thorough understanding of the fields relevant here, I'd value such and explanation. So please explain to such an stupid biased moron like myself why your reading of the Greek of galations in the context both of the Greek language and of letter writing of the period would help those of us who lack your expertise to understand this text.

I have not called anyone a moron, and I would appreciate it if you stopped attributing that attitude to me. For the record, I do not think historicists idiots, and I admit that they may even be right. Before I accept historicity, however, I need to feel that the evidence is as convincing as historicists say it is. So far, I'm finding it less impressive than I expected it to be, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to changing my mind. If your argument is that I should stop challenging people who know more about the subject than I do, then I'm afraid I don't buy your argument.

 

[steeltoes]

From all that I've read, this reference to James as the brother of Jesus is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that people use to prove historicity. That is why mythicists try so hard to undermine it, and it is why historicists try so hard to defend it as a solid factual depiction. What interested me was Paul's denial that he was lying about it. Clearly, his veracity had been called into question. He does mention that someone was trying to attack his credibility to the Galatians, and this letter was his defense of his bona fides.

It was common to use the word "brother" to refer to a close associate in a "brotherhood" of men. Ehrman gives a number of reasons why he dismisses this interpretation of "brother", but I did not find them very compelling. He knows a lot more about the history and literature than I do, and I could choose to believe him on that basis. For one thing, he says that Paul never referred to Cephas as a "brother of Christ". But didn't Paul have something of a grudge against Peter? He considered James to be the true head of the religion. So maybe he had an ulterior motive for not giving Peter that label. Or maybe not.

Anyway, there are too many ways that this statement could be taken less significantly than historicists take it. Perhaps Paul really was lying, despite his denial. People who lie sometimes do deny that they are lying. Perhaps he never visited James and Peter, but he was completely deluded. Maybe the Galatians had good reason to suspect he wasn't telling the truth about his relationship with Peter and James. He certainly did have his differences with them. Finally, it could actually be an interpolation in the record that showed up in the intervening centuries between the original document and the copies that we now work from. Does that mean that we can conclude that the record was not a literal record of the truth? Not at all. The point of dragging out alternative speculations is only to highlight the weakness of the overall case, which is built on textual evidence alone. I do not believe that mythicism can be dismissed with the certainty that it has been merely on the grounds of a few passages in text that may or may not have been compromised.

Reading the passage in context reveals that Paul might not only be denying his lying about his meeting with the Jerusalem group but his calling in general. People questioned Pauls' apostleship because he tried to destroy the church of God, now he is trying to explain his case:

Greeting

1 Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers[a] who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:
3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

No Other Gospel

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

Paul Called by God

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel.[c] 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born,[d] and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to[e] me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone;[f] 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

 

[fallingblood]

From all that I've read, this reference to James as the brother of Jesus is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that people use to prove historicity. That is why mythicists try so hard to undermine it, and it is why historicists try so hard to defend it as a solid factual depiction. What interested me was Paul's denial that he was lying about it. Clearly, his veracity had been called into question. He does mention that someone was trying to attack his credibility to the Galatians, and this letter was his defense of his bona fides.

It was common to use the word "brother" to refer to a close associate in a "brotherhood" of men. Ehrman gives a number of reasons why he dismisses this interpretation of "brother", but I did not find them very compelling. He knows a lot more about the history and literature than I do, and I could choose to believe him on that basis. For one thing, he says that Paul never referred to Cephas as a "brother of Christ". But didn't Paul have something of a grudge against Peter? He considered James to be the true head of the religion. So maybe he had an ulterior motive for not giving Peter that label. Or maybe not.

Anyway, there are too many ways that this statement could be taken less significantly than historicists take it. Perhaps Paul really was lying, despite his denial. People who lie sometimes do deny that they are lying. Perhaps he never visited James and Peter, but he was completely deluded. Maybe the Galatians had good reason to suspect he wasn't telling the truth about his relationship with Peter and James. He certainly did have his differences with them. Finally, it could actually be an interpolation in the record that showed up in the intervening centuries between the original document and the copies that we now work from. Does that mean that we can conclude that the record was not a literal record of the truth? Not at all. The point of dragging out alternative speculations is only to highlight the weakness of the overall case, which is built on textual evidence alone. I do not believe that mythicism can be dismissed with the certainty that it has been merely on the grounds of a few passages in text that may or may not have been compromised.

What I found most interesting about his passage is also partially that he is trying to support his credibility, while stating that he received nothing from man, but then states that he spent around a week with Cephas/Peter. The Greek suggests that this was actually Paul learning from Peter, that he was receiving probably some sort of tradition.

That is a main reason I accept what Paul is stating here. While arguing that what he received was from Jesus, he also admits (and I do not think it was easy for him) that he received something from Peter as well.

 

[steeltoes]

This is what I mean by context

Notice in Galatians that:

1Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father

Paul reiterates this as it concerns his gospel:

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Passages such as these included in the letter, 1Galatians, are ignored by pulling "brother of the Lord" out of its context. An earthly Jesus would have been considered to be a man, the very being that Paul claims his good news does not come from. In this context "brother of the Lord" can mean anything but a literal brother of the Lord living on earth. However, putting blinders on and reading this as evidence for an historical Jesus is excellent evidence if one is looking for an historical Jesus from the likes of Paul.

 

[Copernicus]

I do think that the entire context is important, so I did go back to reread Galatians before posting. I know that Paul felt his ministry under attack and was being very defensive throughout the letter. I just found it intriguing that he would pick that point in the text to assure his readers that he was telling the truth, because it is that very text that historicists cite so often as evidence that Jesus really did exist. How well did Paul really know Peter and James? Did they endorse his ministry, or were they the ones undermining it? Were there details about Jesus that Paul had simply misunderstood or gotten wrong?

Thanks for your comments, Fallingblood. I was particularly interested in your take on this. The tension between Peter and Paul is quite interesting, because there seems to have been so much more going on that we know nothing about--a lot of missing drama.

 

[steeltoes]

What I found most interesting about his passage is also partially that he is trying to support his credibility, while stating that he received nothing from man, but then states that he spent around a week with Cephas/Peter. The Greek suggests that this was actually Paul learning from Peter, that he was receiving probably some sort of tradition.

That is a main reason I accept what Paul is stating here. While arguing that what he received was from Jesus, he also admits (and I do not think it was easy for him) that he received something from Peter as well.

What does Paul get from Peter, how Peter receives his revelations from Christ? How he interprets scripture?

 

[outhouse]

This is what I mean by context

Notice in Galatians that:

1Paul, an apostle—not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father

Paul reiterates this as it concerns his gospel:

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Passages such as these included in the letter, 1Galatians, are ignored by pulling "brother of the Lord" out of its context. An historical Jesus would have been considered to be a man, the very being that Paul claims his good news does not come from. In this context "brother of the Lord" can mean anything but a literal brother of the Lord living on earth. However, putting blinders on and reading this as evidence for an historical Jesus is excellent evidence if one is looking for an historical Jesus from the likes of Paul.

Paul cannot tell the truth because he really learned of the movement murdering the few leaders this sect had.

Paul wants to be a real apostle very badly. the only way one can be sent forth is from the master.


And last. Jesus was dead, and Paul places his Jesus in heaven. So nothing Is unusual here or points to a celestial "only" Jesus

 

[fallingblood]

Excellent, we need to address this.

A Hebrew, a born and raised Israelite.

Not some Hellenist who worships Judaism and claims to be Jewish.


Was Judaism at this time multicultural?

How could anyone be raised an Israelite though if Israel no longer existed? What about Jews born to Hebrew parents in the Diaspora? Or those communities in the Diaspora that were Jewish and had been Jewish for centuries? Are they still Hellenists?

I have never actually heard anyone use the term that you have, so I am very curious as to what it means.

Also, no one worshipped Judaism.

These are the details the NT paints about John for us. It has nothing to do with me trying to paint another picture.

It does have to do with you trying to paint another picture as it leaves out Josephus, archeological records, as well as information about First Century Judaism that would factor in. Since when do you rely on solely the NT?

There were very desperate times and very primitive people. It has nothing to do with discrediting him, and not my intent.

Primitive as in what way? And John was not out in the desert because of desperation. There is a thing called asceticism.

Eating bugs was normal and better then starvation, cultures all around the world not even hungry eat bugs to this day. Sorry living in a cave is still homeless.

Living in a cave is not homeless. If he made it into a home, he had a home. And if eating bugs was normal, why bring it up?

It goes to show why would Romans make their poor enemies a deity

When did the Romans make a poor Jewish man a deity?

If you haven't noticed, not a single myther would dare to answer the question, because they cannot.

Of course they can't, as you set up a strawman.

I can easily answer your question. Why would a Roman create a rising-dying god-man? Because the current mystery religions did not work for them, and having a character that related more like them would have been great. After all, many Romans, Hellenists, and Gentiles also opposed the Roman dominance as it made them poor as well.


The actual question that can't be answered is why would Jews make a messiah out of someone like Jesus? There really is no answer for that. But as for why Romans would create a deity out of Jesus, that is much easier to answer.

 

[outhouse]

Judaism was factually wide and diverse and multicultural.

You can try and fault me for describing the difference, but your getting no where.

Hellenistic Judaism, and scores of Hellenistic Proselytes to Judaism existed, and Hellenistic Gentiles were Pauls targets. These are the people that factually grew into Christianity.

Christianity is a product of the split, between original real Judaism, and the Hellenistic version Paul taught within Hellenistic communities.

 

[Copernicus]

The actual question that can't be answered is why would Jews make a messiah out of someone like Jesus? There really is no answer for that. But as for why Romans would create a deity out of Jesus, that is much easier to answer.

That is a very good question. Israel Knohl had what he thought was a good answer--that the defeat of Simon of Peraea and crucifixion of his followers in 4 BC might have served as a model for a new type of messiah--one that was resurrected by God to restore Israel. I don't know whether Knohl still holds with that theory, because I don't think that they were ever able to establish a clear connection between his stone tablet and Simon, let alone the exact wording of his controversial translation. However, one can see how a small messianic movement might come up with this twist on the more standard concept of a messiah as a conquering hero. One can also see why other Jews would react rather violently against such a messiah concept.

 

[outhouse]

That is a very good question. .

Really?

The Jews realy did not make a messiah out of Jesus.

Pauls Judaism is debated,and the gospels were written by Gentile converts to the movement.

Jesus was a failed messiah the day he died, and while alive he was not that popular or even well known, due to teaching in small poor villages.


According to the bible Jews killed Jesus, and that is the tradition the unknown authors wanted to be passed down. That is because he was a Hellenistic deity, Jesus only found fame after death in communities the exact opposite of the real Jews he taught.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the gospels were written by Gentile converts to the movement.

Evidence? Or yet another example of intellectual pretense?

 

[steeltoes]

Evidence? Or yet another example of intellectual pretense?

I was looking for information on who the author of gMark may have been and whether or not he was Jewish or a gentile. Robert G. Price is willing to comment:

As Jews continuously faced problems and setbacks they asked themselves "why", and their answer was often that bad things happen to them because they failed to properly worship their god and hold his commandments. The Gospel of Mark just builds on this tradition, writing a story about a savior who is unrecognized by the Jews and eventually killed by them. There are many Jewish stories where a certain faction of Jews are blamed for bringing destruction on Jews as a whole. In the story of Mark the killing of Jesus serves an allegorical role. "Mark" presents the killing of Jesus as the reason for the destruction of Judea. The author of Mark is writing either during the war or shortly after it, and basically the rejection of Jesus by the Jews is symbolic of the failure of the Jews to keep the favor of their god, resulting in the destruction brought upon them by the Romans. This type of mentality was really typical of Jewish culture and nothing new, surprising, or unique, though it may have seemed new and unique to many non-Jews.


Why is "Jesus Christ" a character in "Mark's" story? It's impossible to say for sure, but the author of Mark may have been a member of a diaspora Jewish community that taught about "Jesus Christ", perhaps along the lines of the Pauline tradition. The concept of "Jesus Christ" as a crucified savior did come before the writing of the Gospel of Mark, and the Gospel of Mark does correspond to the idea of Jesus as a crucified savior figure, so the author of Mark was influenced by some pre-existing tradition, but there was probably no biographical information about Jesus before Mark (for reasons we will discuss). The author of Mark probably made all of the biographical information up himself based on the existing "Old Testament" scriptures.


It is quite likely that the Gospel of Mark is primarily a story that reflects the personal views of the author. As we will explore in the next section, the Gospels, especially the Gospel of Mark, are based heavily on the Hebrew scriptures. It is significant that the very first scriptural reference in the Gospel of Mark refers to a passage in the Hebrew scriptures that talks about the destruction of Israel.
Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

 

[outhouse]

Evidence? Or yet another example of intellectual pretense?

Many scholars claim the author of Gmark may have been those influenced by Paul.

Who were influenced by Paul? Paul tells us they were Hellenistic Proselytes to Judaism and Gentiles.

 

[fallingblood]

Many scholars claim the author of Gmark may have been those influenced by Paul.

Who were influenced by Paul? Paul tells us they were Hellenistic Proselytes to Judaism and Gentiles.

What scholars? I would like to see some scholars who claim that the author of Mark was influenced by Paul.

Also, Paul influenced Jews in Jewish communities. This is known from his letters, where he mentions a number of Jews.

Judaism was factually wide and diverse and multicultural.

So? It still is. I don't get the point you're trying to make. Sure, it was diverse back then, and it still is.

You can try and fault me for describing the difference, but your getting no where.

When one refuses to accept any other statement, of course a person is going to get no where.

Hellenistic Judaism, and scores of Hellenistic Proselytes to Judaism existed, and Hellenistic Gentiles were Pauls targets. These are the people that factually grew into Christianity.

Your whole idea of Hellenistic Judaism is out of date. All Judaism was Hellenized to a point. The distinction you try to make simply is not there. More so, there were Jews in Paul's congregations. We know this because Paul addresses such.

Christianity is a product of the split, between original real Judaism, and the Hellenistic version Paul taught within Hellenistic communities.

Paul wasn't teaching a Hellenistic version of Judaism that was opposed to some mythical original real Judaism. There was no original real Judaism. That is a fantasy. How can there be an original real Judaism when you just said that Judaism was diverse? You can't have both.

I honestly don't think you know what Hellenism is. You keep labeling thing Hellenistic, but everything was influenced by Hellenism.

 

[fallingblood]

The Jews realy did not make a messiah out of Jesus.

Paul was a Jew. the earliest followers of the Jesus movement were Jews. The Gospel writers (for sure Matthew and John, and possibly Mark) were Jews. The idea that Jesus was the Messiah started with the Jews.

Pauls Judaism is debated,and the gospels were written by Gentile converts to the movement.

I showed how Paul's Judaism is not debated in another thread, so I won't touch it here. As for Gentile converts, that simply is not true. Scholars agree that Matthew and John were Jews. Raymond Brown, one of the foremost authorities on John, states that John was a Jew (or the community that created John).

Bart Ehrman, in his Introduction to the New Testament, also show that both Matthew and John were Jews, and I believe he ascribes Mark as possibly being a Jew.

Jesus was a failed messiah the day he died, and while alive he was not that popular or even well known, due to teaching in small poor villages.

He was known enough, and being known is not a matter of being the Messiah. More so, while most of Judaism would have seen Jesus as being a failed Messiah, other Jews in fact saw him as the Messiah, and redefined what the Messiah was.

According to the bible Jews killed Jesus, and that is the tradition the unknown authors wanted to be passed down. That is because he was a Hellenistic deity, Jesus only found fame after death in communities the exact opposite of the real Jews he taught.

According to the Bible, it was the Romans who killed Jesus. John may get close to suggesting that it was the "Jews" who did the actual killing, but the synoptics show that it was in fact the Romans.

More so, when John states that the "Jews" killed Jesus, he is not talking about all Jews. He is talking about a group of Jews. This is clear as John also accepts that Jesus and his followers were Jews.

If you look at the communities in which Paul went, there were all communities that had a considerable Jewish presence. And the earliest followers were in fact Jews. All scholars agree on this.

 

[fallingblood]

That is a very good question. Israel Knohl had what he thought was a good answer--that the defeat of Simon of Peraea and crucifixion of his followers in 4 BC might have served as a model for a new type of messiah--one that was resurrected by God to restore Israel. I don't know whether Knohl still holds with that theory, because I don't think that they were ever able to establish a clear connection between his stone tablet and Simon, let alone the exact wording of his controversial translation. However, one can see how a small messianic movement might come up with this twist on the more standard concept of a messiah as a conquering hero. One can also see why other Jews would react rather violently against such a messiah concept.

I have to say that I am unaware of Israel Knohl's argument. I will have to check that out.

 

[oldbadger]

We don't know if John had a home. It could be, as Tabor and some other scholars have suggested, that John lived in a cave (or made a home in a cave). That wouldn't be homeless.

OK....... or knew of several locations where he could rest. Maybe several caves and other venues. This could mean that he was an itinerant. = no 'home' as such. If JtB was stoic (or possibly cynic?) then 'itinerant' might fit better?

Did he eat locusts? Maybe; however he would not have been the only one. In fact, it would have been quite common for the additional protein. And the idea that he only ate locust is unfounded.

I've never eaten a locust, but have heard how good they are! Locusts and honey (to me) suggests a nomadic diet, and simply means (to me) a taking advantage of all things wild that present themselves. A beautiful precis..... As in 'What do you eat?' Answer:- 'Whatever comes my way, like locusts and honey!'

The problem with John is that we do have very little information to go on (just the Gospels and Josephus). What needs to be done is to compare John to other ascetics. There were a number of them. It is also much more honest in a description.

Compare? How do you compare such an individual? Why compare? This man came out of the wilds, sustained by the wilds, clothed by the wilds, needing nothing from mankind, arrived to give to mankind that which could not be gained elsewhere, to give peace of mind freely and valuable lessons for life (and death?). How shall we compare him? What more do we need to learn about him?

To call John just a homeless guy who eats locust is only a way to discredit him and make him look insane. There is much more to John than that, and such a brief description, as Outhouse made, is dishonest.

Not exactly so! That is how the world that we live in would see and judge him now! Most of the world....... But (I) some of us would see that differently. And 'the more'in John would be his vast knowledge of the wilds, and survival in the wilds, needing nothing from anybody else, which is the amazing depth that that 'nomadic and locust diet' tells me. No insult there, Fallingblood. And no insanity with JtB either. There's many a living person who dreams of breaking free to live like that, but who is chained up to...... mammon.

 

[oldbadger]

Reading the passage in context reveals that Paul might not only be denying his lying about his meeting with the Jerusalem group but his calling in general. People questioned Pauls' apostleship because he tried to destroy the church of God, now he is trying to explain his case.

Paul Called by God
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!)

Good point....... and how far from Jesus he was! Jesus criticised Oath takers, 'Let your yes mean yes'? Paul came nowhere near Jesus....... in anything. imo

 

[Copernicus]

I have to say that I am unaware of Israel Knohl's argument. I will have to check that out.

You can view the National Geographic video on the subject here: The First Jesus | National Geographic Channel. It is basically a documentary that features Knohl himself, but it takes about 45 minutes. In Three Days, You Shall Live is a 2007 article he published in Haaretz, and it nicely summarizes his initial argument. I did read somewhere that he may have retreated somewhat from that position, but I can't find the reference now.