Playing out religious hopes and desires

[dastardly stem]

I know of some believers who can't wait to create worlds just for hunting animals. Some who look forward to multiple wives. And some who just love the idea of eternal worship with their families. Such a strange world religious ideas create.

Yeah...I can't imagine an eternal world described by Mormonism as something to look forward to, if one stops and thinks about it.

[huckelberry]

We both know full well that the sources we have are second or third hand. So what?

I would just point out that the sources are at best second or third hand. The big problem we have here is the sources of Jesus' life, the gospels, don't seem to be written with telling an accurate history as its goal. If not, I suppose we can eek out some useful history out of them, but we'd need any such eeking to be information found elsewhere.

But the gospels were written to tell an accurate story. People were curious and wanted to know. The groups of Christian believers wanted to preserve the story. Stem your objection is just some made up what if.
Stem,
Perhaps a step back can be made. The basic pattern of historical understanding of Jesus runs like this. There was a Jewish preacher, prophet who gained followers as he went about preaching in the early first century. He ran into trouble with the authorities and was executed by the Roman soldiers. His followers came to believe that God raised him from the dead. With that belief the group of followers expanded and became a widespread movement we call Christianity. Of course the final step in that story is overwhelmingly evidenced. It is the first steps you question.

The standard story has simple advantages. It explains the result in simple cause and effect stages. Those stages fit the general picture of culture people and events of that time. It requires no weird tricks . It does not require and surprising conspiracy. It can be interpreted naturalisticly as Ehrman does or as miraculous as most Christians would. It is the pattern of events seen in many academic studies of Jesus.(I mentioned a pile of books) Those studies interpret this Jesus in ways that can vary but the general pattern remains the same. Even with the various interpretations the basic pattern I pointed out is there. It is used because it is the pattern which fits all of the evidence.

People who question this usual story do not propose evidence. Instead they point out the incomplete aspects of the existing evidence and say there is room to speculate a different story. It goes like this. There was a group of rather secretive Jews who used an apocalyptic book, Ascension of Isaiah, which if you squint just right proposes an angel dying in the lower heavens for peoples salvation. Some Jews thought it important to believe in this angel and were a movement. Paul became part of this movement after persecuting it for unknown reasons. He was never clear just where this Jesus angel existed but he was somehow Jewish. After Paul was unclear some people decided to invent a story about some guy named Jesus who would take the place of this rather colorless vague angel. If people believed he was a real guy it would be more attractive than that angel. So Mark was written as an experiment in fiction and the other gospels later expanded on the idea.

This alternative history has difficulties. There is little to no evidence of a movement before Paul worshiping a dying rising angel. There is no evidence of a transition. This change of basic story to a real Jew named Jesus is no mean trick. It appears quite miraculous. How would people be introduced to this new improved belief in the second half of the first century? This alternate history is like an overly complicated machine that really does not explain anything more clearly than the normal story. Because of its uselessness very few scholars spend time with it.

[Manetho]

Perhaps a step back can be made. The basic pattern of historical understanding of Jesus runs like this. There was a Jewish preacher, prophet who gained followers as he went about preaching in the early first century. He ran into trouble with the authorities and was executed by the Roman soldiers. His followers came to believe that God raised him from the dead. With that belief the group of followers expanded and became a widespread movement we call Christianity. Of course the final step in that story is overwhelmingly evidenced. It is the first steps you question.

The standard story has simple advantages. It explains the result in simple cause and effect stages. Those stages fit the general picture of culture people and events of that time. It requires no weird tricks . It does not require and surprising conspiracy. It can be interpreted naturalisticly as Ehrman does or as miraculous as most Christians would. It is the pattern of events seen in many academic studies of Jesus.(I mentioned a pile of books) Those studies interpret this Jesus in ways that can vary but the general pattern remains the same. Even with the various interpretations the basic pattern I pointed out is there. It is used because it is the pattern which fits all of the evidence.

People who question this usual story do not propose evidence. Instead they point out the incomplete aspects of the existing evidence and say there is room to speculate a different story. It goes like this. There was a group of rather secretive Jews who used an apocalyptic book, Ascension of Isaiah, which if you squint just right proposes an angel dying in the lower heavens for peoples salvation. Some Jews thought it important to believe in this angel and were a movement. Paul became part of this movement after persecuting it for unknown reasons. He was never clear just where this Jesus angel existed but he was somehow Jewish. After Paul was unclear some people decided to invent a story about some guy named Jesus who would take the place of this rather colorless vague angel. If people believed he was a real guy it would be more attractive than that angel. So Mark was written as an experiment in fiction and the other gospels later expanded on the idea.

This alternative history has difficulties. There is little to no evidence of a movement before Paul worshiping a dying rising angel. There is no evidence of a transition. This change of basic story to a real Jew named Jesus is no mean trick. It appears quite miraculous. How would people be introduced to this new improved belief in the second half of the first century? This alternate history is like an overly complicated machine that really does not explain anything more clearly than the normal story. Because of its uselessness very few scholars spend time with it.

Well said.

[drumdude]

Perhaps a step back can be made. The basic pattern of historical understanding of Jesus runs like this. There was a Jewish preacher, prophet who gained followers as he went about preaching in the early first century. He ran into trouble with the authorities and was executed by the Roman soldiers. His followers came to believe that God raised him from the dead. With that belief the group of followers expanded and became a widespread movement we call Christianity. Of course the final step in that story is overwhelmingly evidenced. It is the first steps you question.

The standard story has simple advantages. It explains the result in simple cause and effect stages. Those stages fit the general picture of culture people and events of that time. It requires no weird tricks . It does not require and surprising conspiracy. It can be interpreted naturalisticly as Ehrman does or as miraculous as most Christians would. It is the pattern of events seen in many academic studies of Jesus.(I mentioned a pile of books) Those studies interpret this Jesus in ways that can vary but the general pattern remains the same. Even with the various interpretations the basic pattern I pointed out is there. It is used because it is the pattern which fits all of the evidence.

People who question this usual story do not propose evidence. Instead they point out the incomplete aspects of the existing evidence and say there is room to speculate a different story. It goes like this. There was a group of rather secretive Jews who used an apocalyptic book, Ascension of Isaiah, which if you squint just right proposes an angel dying in the lower heavens for peoples salvation. Some Jews thought it important to believe in this angel and were a movement. Paul became part of this movement after persecuting it for unknown reasons. He was never clear just where this Jesus angel existed but he was somehow Jewish. After Paul was unclear some people decided to invent a story about some guy named Jesus who would take the place of this rather colorless vague angel. If people believed he was a real guy it would be more attractive than that angel. So Mark was written as an experiment in fiction and the other gospels later expanded on the idea.

This alternative history has difficulties. There is little to no evidence of a movement before Paul worshiping a dying rising angel. There is no evidence of a transition. This change of basic story to a real Jew named Jesus is no mean trick. It appears quite miraculous. How would people be introduced to this new improved belief in the second half of the first century? This alternate history is like an overly complicated machine that really does not explain anything more clearly than the normal story. Because of its uselessness very few scholars spend time with it.

Well said.

Agreed. The alternative hypothesis has a large mountain to climb to reach parity with Bart Ehrman’s position.

[huckelberry]

I noticed Menetho and Drumdude left out my proposal that the gospels intend an accurate history. I suppose there real room to say I overreached there.I do think that people were naturally curious and would want know the story of what happened. That is a strong enough human curiosity that I cannot imagine that early Christians and inquirers failed to ask who is this Jesus and what did he do ? It is often observed that the gospels are not objective newsreports. They have a theological and spiritual message which is held to be primary. I realize that could mean some stretchers got included to make a point.There could be some parables that got turned into events in time. It is clear that the sequence of events outside of the crucifixion at the end is assembled arbitrarily.

But my thought is that people by nature are curious and would have wanted to know about this Jesus. People that Paul taught would never have been satisfied with the cursory treatment of Jesus life found in his letters. I cannot imagine that people waited 20 years to ask who or what was Jesus. I see groups of people following Jesus to have had some pieces of a Jesus story so that in writing letters Paul did not need to fill a curiosity all ready well covered.

[dastardly stem]

Thanks huckelberry and guys. I’ve paid some pretty good attention to this issue and have read quite a few works, so I feel I have a fairly good idea of what it’s all about. I’m not convinced you’ve paid much attention to the ahistoricist side, which is the region encompassing the space I find myself, which also also includies mythicism. The attempted explanation you gave seems to misunderstand the situation. I know we’ve been over some of it in past threads. And people often will believe what they already believe particularly if they aren’t interested in the actual data and scholarship. It may be time in my mind to go ahead and start a new thread containing elements of scholarship I’ve caught myself up on since the last threads. There is definitely some really good stuff out there and much of it gives some interesting information and hints on this topic. I recognize some posters here are ready to get upset over it so I’ve been a bit reticent. Hopefully we can make it fruitful though.

In this thread I was interested in any particular scholarly work that argues for a historicity position. That’s what I was asking you for. I don’t think it’s out there. Most tend to be comfortable assuming historicity. And by “most” I mean scholars—although there is a growing group of scholars moving into the area of accepting the viability of opposing arguments and being convinced by them.

I’ve read Ehrman’s popular-level book, and a dozen or so other of his books, and have considered his take as offered in various media. He’s been really bad on this topic for some odd reason even going so far as relying on hypothesized sources as if they actually exist, as the basis for his position. That’s been the type of problem common on this.

To be clear I’m happy to think a historicity position is possible. I’d even say a qualified expert could likely give a pretty good even exhaustive case for historicity if any wish to try. No one, at least, for over 100 years have really tried (Ehrman and Casey ‘s popular works notwithstanding). It’s about time someone attempts it. The conversation ends quite often with a more dogmatic sort of stance from historicists like Ehrman declaring things like 99% certainty for their position without addressing ahistoricist concerns, arguments nor the actual data. It’s really kind of absurd. To achieve 99% certainty on a given question in history, particularly from the era we’re speaking of, on its own sounds a bit nutty. To claim such a level without any effort to reveal the actual evaluation taken to arrive at that level of certainty is just much worse. That’s all pretty disconcerting. But I’m feeling pretty hopeful someone out there who is well thought and qualified will give us some good work. It just takes some sustained effort to keep the questions and issue out there.

All my best.

[huckelberry]

Thanks huckelberry and guys. I’ve paid some pretty good attention to this issue and have read quite a few works, so I feel I have a fairly good idea of what it’s all about. I’m not convinced you’ve paid much attention to the ahistoricist side, which is the region encompassing the space I find myself, which also also includies mythicism. The attempted explanation you gave seems to misunderstand the situation. I know we’ve been over some of it in past threads. And people often will believe what they already believe particularly if they aren’t interested in the actual data and scholarship. It may be time in my mind to go ahead and start a new thread containing elements of scholarship I’ve caught myself up on since the last threads. There is definitely some really good stuff out there and much of it gives some interesting information and hints on this topic. I recognize some posters here are ready to get upset over it so I’ve been a bit reticent. Hopefully we can make it fruitful though.

Hi Stem, I find some enjoyment and interest in our exchanges. I may at moments also feel some frustration at times like when you say I misunderstand without explaining what or how I misunderstand. Perhaps your proposal of a thread would give you a chance to explain what I misunderstood. You probably suspect that I think I have at least a fair beginning of an understanding. I hope my disagreement with you does not come across as hostility or anger towards you. I certainly would not like to discourage you from your investigation or from posting what you see or understand. I would rather think I was encouraging curiosity not putting up barriers.

[drumdude]

This is from Bart Ehrman's blog a week ago:

Would I Be Personally Upset if the Mythicists Were Right (That Jesus Never Existed)?
October 8, 2022

Ever since I wrote my book Did Jesus Exist (where I argue that, well, yeah–whatever else you say about him, however much legend you think is in the Gospels, there certainly was a historical figure, Jesus), I have had people ask me if I have an axe to grind on this one or if it would be personally painful or professional ruinous to admit that the “mythicists” — those who claim that Jesus is a *complete* myth (never existed) were right.

I don’t address this in the book, and I think it is a terrific question! The reason I do is this. I think every historian of religion who makes a case for one thing or another needs to be queried: what is at stake for you in the matter?

Did Jesus Exist, Historically?

For example, I have participated a number of public debates with conservative evangelical Christian scholars who have wanted to insist that they can PROVE, historically, that Jesus was raised from the dead. Now I should state with vigor and emphasis – the only people on the face of the planet who think that it is possible to use historical methods to prove that Jesus was raised from the dead are precisely Christians who personally believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. No one else thinks so.

I’m not saying that all Christians think Jesus’ resurrection is susceptible of historical proof. There are obviously plenty of Christians, especially those who know anything about how history works, who are quite happy to say that No, the resurrection cannot be proved. It is a matter of faith. What I am saying is that they only ones who think that the resurrection can be proved are people who already believe in it. And they believed in it long before they started thinking about it historically. When they did start thinking about it historically – lo and behold, history proved what they already believed!!

In my view this is not history. It is theology. These people are trying to use history to support their theological beliefs. And that’s not an appropriate use of history.

So too, on the opposite end of the spectrum, the mythicists. They – to a person, so far as I know – are atheists (or strong agnostics) who think Christianity is wrongheaded. They thought that well before they started looking into the historical Jesus. And when they did look into the historical Jesus (will wonders never cease??), they found that Jesus was a myth, so that the religion they rejected and thought was dangerous turned out to be nothing but a fairy tale. Again, their historical views have not been arrived at by a disinterested application of historical criteria to the material.

Making Jesus in Our Own Image


So too in another but related realm. Albert Schweitzer long ago argued that every generation of scholars portrays Jesus in their own image. The same is true of individual scholars, who tell you what Jesus was really like and — mirabile dictu — it turns out that Jesus looks a lot like them! And so, for example, a believer like Ben Witherington who, I suppose from his early days, has believed in Jesus as the miracle-working son of God, portrays Jesus precisely as a miracle-working son of God; a believer like John Dominic Crossan who is deeply invested in issues of justice and who works against oppression (e.g., of woman, minorities, people in developing countries) portrays Jesus as a first-century Jew who was principally interested in working for justice and against oppression. Some feminist New Testament scholars see in Jesus a proto-feminist; some Marxist New Testament scholars see in Jesus a proto-Marxist. And so on and on, world without end.

I myself am not a believer in Jesus, and I must say, my portrayal of Jesus does not coincide with the way I would like him to be, in major and fundamental respects. My view of Jesus is that he was an apocalyptic prophet who expected that God would very soon intervene in the course of history to overthrow the forces of evil in a cataclysmic act of judgment, in order to bring in a miraculous utopian kingdom on earth in which there was no more pain, misery, or suffering. I think Jesus was completely wrong about this, and this is not my view of the world. It is not about to end with a cataclysmic break in history to be followed by a utopian existence here on earth.

When I started my serious study of the New Testament, on the other hand, I had a view of Jesus very much like the one most conservative evangelicals have: Jesus was a miracle-working son of God who came to earth principally to die for sins. My historical studies eventually changed my views of Jesus. I think every historian should be willing to change his views based on his study of the evidence. Scholars who do not change their views – but come out of a study with the same views they brought into it – are highly suspect.

So, What does the Evidence Say?


And so, one might ask, what about the existence of Jesus? Didn’t I start my study of the historical Jesus thinking he existed, and didn’t I come out of my study with the same view, so isn’t that view suspect?

I think that is an entirely appropriate and fair question. My response is this: I looked at all the evidence I could, as hard as I could. I examined every surviving source that refers to Jesus in all the relevant ancient languages. I read what scores and scores of scholars had to say about Jesus. And on that basis I decided whether I was right or not. I decided that the vast majority of scholars (all but one or two, out of many thousands) are absolutely right. Jesus did exist.

Would I be devastated to learn I was wrong? Absolutely NOT!!! Quite the contrary – throughout my scholarly career I have changed my views on lots of lots of issues, if the evidence seemed to demand it (I know scholars who have never changed their views on much of anything. That should give one pause….). And I simply adapt my personal views according to my historical findings. Since I am an agnostic who does not believe in Jesus, one could easily argue that a mythicist position would be more attractive to me personally. I too could then argue, as a scholar, that Jesus did not exist and that people should seriously consider leaving the Christian faith as I myself did.

So why don’t I argue that, if it would be more palatable with my personal view of the world? Because I’m a historian, and I think evidence really matters, and it matters that we get history right, so far as we can. If we rewrite history according to our own agendas and in light of our own deeply vested interests, how are we any better than other ideologues — for example those that made such a mess of the twentieth century, in various parts of the world, with their rewriting of history? We simply cannot allow ourselves to rewrite history to suit our purposes.

But if based on our historical investigations we come to learn something we did not know before, or come to see something we did not believe before, or find out that our previous views of something were wrong – we need to change what we think! This applies to believers and non-believers both. No one should be afraid to go where they think the “truth” (however you define it) is leading them.

Would I be traumatized if the mythicists were right after all? Not in the least. I would probably feel energized. But I can’t allow that expected outcome determine what I find when I engage in the difficult task of coming to understand what happened in the past.

I would love if you could find a similarly open-minded mythsist or ahistorist. As Ehrman points out, there are to a person all publicly out atheists. They have a clear bias towards proving their personal religious convictions. Even though a historical Jesus is not at all a threat to the atheist position.

[huckelberry]

Drumdude, I think the Ehrman statement you provided is worth a read. Even though I am a believer I can see that Ehrman provides a significant argument for an atheist position. Stronger observations at least to my mind than theories of no human Jesus.

New Testament Wright has extensive consideration on how Jesus's thought about the kingdom near may have developed.

[drumdude]

Drumdude, I think the Ehrman statement you provided is worth a read. Even though I am a believer I can see that Ehrman provides a significant argument for an atheist position. Stronger observations at least to my mind than theories of no human Jesus.

New Testament Wright has extensive consideration on how Jesus's thought about the kingdom near may have developed.

I'll have to check New Testament Wright out.

I think a strong point about Ehrman is that he doesn't have a dog in the hunt. If anything, he has a strong motivation to go against the scholarly consensus to make more of a name for himself. Confirming the consensus is boring, but honest academic work.