Help with an HJ argument

[Sensei Meela]

Stop groaning!! ;)

Yes, I know you guys have been over this...repeatedly...that is why I am appealing to you, now. I'm still making my way through a number of the threads which seem to go back and forth more than two undefeatable Chinese ping-pong champs (read: 'Earl Doherty', 'The reliability of the Gospels..', 'Why SHOULD we believe...' and a few others; if you can add some to my already daunting reading list, feel free)...so bear with me.

Now then, I've been drawn into this argument off-site (http://www.nightly.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=54;t=003872;p=1#000014) [it's very brief and basic], and I've sort of hit a stumbling block. Specifically, I'd like to see your reactions to some points, that I've yet to see addressed in the aforementioned threads, by this post:

The ignominious execution of Jesus as a contemptible criminal provides “the most convincing argument against opponents of the historicity of Jesus,�. Why? Because the execution “encumbered, even hindered, the dispersion of the new faith among Jews and non-Jews.� (Compare 1 Corinthians 1:23.) If the execution of Jesus the Messiah was such an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles, it hardly would have been an invention of the apostles!...

Other events during Jesus’ life are also viewed as internal evidence of the credibility of the Gospels, hence of what they tell us about him. For example, would the followers of Jesus have fabricated his coming from Nazareth, a place seemingly out of favor? Or is it likely that they would have invented his betrayal by Judas, a trusted companion? Does it seem realistic to think that they would have made up a story about Jesus’ being abandoned by the rest of the disciples in such a cowardly manner? It is surely illogical that the disciples would have constructed particulars so detrimental in nature and then proclaimed them far and wide! In addition, the art of teaching employed by Jesus was characterized by a unique style. Jewish literature of the first century contains nothing comparable to his illustrations. Which anonymous person could ever have “invented� such a masterpiece as the Sermon on the Mount? These arguments all tend to corroborate the trustworthiness of the Gospels as reports of Jesus’ life....He seems to know his McDowell.

I've prepared a response (in particular highlighting the errors and inconsistencies which detract from the 'trustworthiness of the Gospels' that he attests to, here) but I could use some assistance regarding some of the parts quoted above. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance (and sorry for the gratuitous redundancy of the topic)!!

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Sensei Meela
Stop groaning!! ;)

Yes, I know you guys have been over this...repeatedly...that is why I am appealing to you, now. I'm still making my way through a number of the threads which seem to go back and forth more than two undefeatable Chinese ping-pong champs (read: 'Earl Doherty', 'The reliability of the Gospels..', 'Why SHOULD we believe...' and a few others; if you can add some to my already daunting reading list, feel free)...so bear with me.

Now then, I've been drawn into this argument off-site (http://www.nightly.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?;f=54;t=003872;=000014) [it's very brief and basic], and I've sort of hit a stumbling block. Specifically, I'd like to see your reactions to some points, that I've yet to see addressed in the aforementioned threads, by this post:

He seems to know his McDowell.

I've prepared a response (in particular highlighting the errors and inconsistencies which detract from the 'trustworthiness of the Gospels' that he attests to, here) but I could use some assistance regarding some of the parts quoted above. Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance (and sorry for the gratuitous redundancy of the topic)!! [/B]

He is correct in that the crucifixion provides good evidence for the historicty of Jesus.

We are hashing this out in this thread here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79598&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

I posed it as an "inherited tradition" and we've been going on from there.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Oh yeah, some of these events do go back to the HJ and some show that the Gospels did not engage in unlimited creation but by no means do they show the Gospels to be historically relaible.

At best only the core material is historical. For example, Jesus was crucified but the Gospel accounts of the passion are all largely and demonstrably embellished. They are not "reliable" historical documents. They are faith documents with some history woven into them.

The retention of some embarrassing material only shows that there were limits on creativity. Using it to assert that the Gospels are historically reliable is a non sequitur.

Vinnie

[Sensei Meela]

I've used the 'embarassment' issue from the criteria on your site, Vinnie (thanks for the recommendation in one of those other threads!!), in my impending response; however, to paraphrase a portion of said response that I am questionable on:

"The Gospels were not intended to focus on the 'embarassing' death of a proposed 'actual' leader, but to emphasize the immateriality of this world for them and their leader and his 'victory' over it."

I meant only that the Gospel authors meant to disseminate transcendance of 'worldly concerns' with their teachings. How does this sit with you?

My position thus far has essentially been that of an HJ "agnostic," and I will not hesitate to stress, even granting an HJ, the illusory nature of anything attributed thereto.

[Llyricist]

Well the trouble, as I pointed out on the other thread, is that Doherty's hypothesis remains untouched by that argument..

The argument is against the Gospel writers making up the story on which to base the religion. Doherty's hypothesis is that Paul....or James et al, created the movement as a purely mystical, heavenly being Christ that got crucified as a salvific act for mankind...on edit : or possibly just the Jews if it is taken that James et al originated it.
Then LATER the gospels were written to place Jesus into history as a human/god, who would also need to be crucified to remain in line with the existing theology.

That's the basics of Doherty's hypothesis as it relates to this argument.

The argument quoted in the OP assumes the gospels came first in the way it is presented, and it leaves untouched Doherty's thesis.

As for other other aspects of Jesus tracing back to a historical figure or figures.....well DUH... ALL fictional characters are based in some way on real people. This argument is a non-starter if you think more than an inch deep.

[Roland]

Anybody familiar with "The Odyssey" knows that Odysseus' men are often portrayed as foolish, mistrustful, confused etc. This scenario is common in stories about heroes because it provides the contrast necessary to both create drama and further enhance the heroic nature of the protagonist. Therefore, I don't see any problem with the negative portrayal of the apostles being merely a literary convention. There is plenty of precedence for it.

The problem for HJers is that they not only can't get their minds around the idea of Jesus not being "historical," they can't grasp that the apostles as portrayed in the gospels and Acts might be unhistorical as well. But if Jesus is an invention, then Peter, John, James etc. are very likely literary "inventions" as well (albeit ones based on real people who, in some way, called themselves "Christians").

[Amaleq13]

Sensei Meela,


From the aforementioned thread:

It is probably more accurate to suggest that Paul found his inspiration for Christ's death in Jewish Wisdom literature rather than "Scripture". There we find "the wise man" persecuted and rejected on earth but, after his death, obtaining vindication. That death is typically shameful in nature.

"Let us examine him with despitefulness and torture, that we may know his meekness, and prove his patience. Let us condemn him with a shameful death: for by his own saying he shall be respected." (Wisdom of Solomon 2:19-20)

I think it is G.A. Wells who originally suggests that Paul has taken the above concept from the Wisdom literature and, under the influence of the mass crucifixions of Jewish holy men over the previous two centuries, concluded that this was the way Christ had been executed.




Is it 4:20 yet?:cool:

[Brother Daniel]

from the argument quoted in the OP:
If the execution of Jesus the Messiah was such an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles, it hardly would have been an invention of the apostles!
This hurts the HJ far more than it hurts the MJ. The fact that the crucifixion of the Messiah was an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles serves to highlight the fact that there is no sign anywhere in the epistles of the Jews being offended on the grounds that a man was being treated as divine. Everyone knows* that this would have been blasphemous to the Jews. But Paul and the other epistle-writers never feel the need to defend the idea. If a known (or postulated) man (especially a crucified one) had been presented as divine, this would have to have created a stink among the Jews. But the "stumbling block to the Jews" of 1 Cor 1:23 is that a known (or postulated) Messiah was presented as crucified. The distinction is important.

* itchy footnote: I'm no expert, but from what I've seen, the MJ-ers are the only people willing to consider the possibility that the Jews (of the first centuries CE) may have been more flexible in this matter than they are usually portrayed. And no wonder: because the HJ-ers need to declare impossible the creation of the Jesus myth through the creative mingling of Jewish and Pagan ideas. Similarities between Jesus and Dionysus (for example) have to be played down by the HJ camp. Upholding the traditional view of the Jews as an insular people, uninterested in Hellenistic ideas, is important for the HJ.

[NOGO]

The ignominious execution of Jesus as a contemptible criminal provides “the most convincing argument against opponents of the historicity of Jesus,�. Why? Because the execution “encumbered, even hindered, the dispersion of the new faith among Jews and non-Jews.� (Compare 1 Corinthians 1:23.) If the execution of Jesus the Messiah was such an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles, it hardly would have been an invention of the apostles!...


If this were true Christianity would never have survived.

After seeing "The Passion" one preacher commented that it was great for the promotion of the faith.

You can see even today why this story is popular.

When people see a movie like The Passion they do not see this idea that Jesus was executed like a common criminal. What they see is what the story emphasizes - Jesus died for your sins!

It is also not difficult to see how this story was contructed, based on the MJ who was supposed to have died for our sins and resurrected.

Every sect has known persecution.
In this particular case one can imagine that a sect leader was executed by crucifixion. His story became the basis for the cricified Jesus of Mark.

Some would say "but that makes Jesus historical does it not?"

No, it does not.
Romans did nail people to poles or crosses.
That much is historical.
It was not Paul's Jesus who was crucified by the Romans.


Other events during Jesus’ life are also viewed as internal evidence of the credibility of the Gospels, hence of what they tell us about him. For example, would the followers of Jesus have fabricated his coming from Nazareth, a place seemingly out of favor? Or is it likely that they would have invented his betrayal by Judas, a trusted companion? Does it seem realistic to think that they would have made up a story about Jesus’ being abandoned by the rest of the disciples in such a cowardly manner?


Juda's betrayal has to do with the fact that Judah (Israel of the time) did not believe in this new faith. It is all symbolic.
Twelve diciples - twelve tribes.
Judah rejected Jesus.

Once the state of Israel had been destroyed by the Romans the authors of the Gosples could have chosen any place for where Jesus was brought up.

About the disciples abandoning Jesus.
This part of the story is clearly told in this way as a warning to the faithful. You can find this warning clearly stated in the Gospels.

"when persecution comes you too will be tempted to deny Jesus"

It is basically an invitation to martyrdom. It is a way of telling the faithful what they should not do, that is, be cowardly.

Peter saying, no not me.
Then he denies.
Then he regrets.

Faithful take note.


It is surely illogical that the disciples would have constructed particulars so detrimental in nature and then proclaimed them far and wide!


This argument assumes that someone created a story and then went out and sold it.
That is not the way it happened.
The story in the Gospels was written later, much later.

Clearly the details were not detrimental to the advancement of Christianity. On the contrary it is fully in keeping with sectarian thinking and is quite an effective way of recruiting new members and hanging on to old ones.

If that were not the case we would not have a Christianity to speak about.


In addition, the art of teaching employed by Jesus was characterized by a unique style. Jewish literature of the first century contains nothing comparable to his illustrations. Which anonymous person could ever have “invented� such a masterpiece as the Sermon on the Mount? These arguments all tend to corroborate the trustworthiness of the Gospels as reports of Jesus’ life....


This is definitely a fundamentalist speaking, probably a Jehovah Witness.

The Gospels tell us that Jesus used parables because it was foretold in scriptures. It is therefore not unique nor new.
Much of what Jesus is suppose to have said comes from the OT.

[Vorkosigan]

If a known (or postulated) man (especially a crucified one) had been presented as divine, this would have to have created a stink among the Jews

What, then, do you make of the various traditions around Melchizadek, Balaam, Enoch, and other semi-divine figures of Jewish lore and tradition?

Vorkosigan

[lpetrich]

Actually, parts of Jesus Christ's teachings, notably those attributed to "Q", have some close parallels with some contemporaries -- the Cynic philosophers. Earl Doherty has some nice discussion of that oddity.

[Sensei Meela]

Thanks, all, for the help!! http://www.iidb.org/ubb/icons/icon14.gif

I have a few remaining questions, though:
Originally posted by Llyricist
Well the trouble, as I pointed out on the other thread, is that Doherty's hypothesis remains untouched by that argument..My opponents argument or my response (or maybe you meant Vinnie's)? ...indeed, I seem to have argued that 'the Gospels writers' (whoever they be) manufactured a 'transcendent victory' story as a diversion to an 'embarassing defeat.' But is that accurate? [From what I've read thus far, I can't tell]
The argument is against the Gospel writers making up the story on which to base the religion. Doherty's hypothesis is that Paul....or James et al, created the movement as a purely mystical, heavenly being Christ that got crucified as a salvific act for mankind...on edit : or possibly just the Jews if it is taken that James et al originated it.
Then LATER the gospels were written to place Jesus into history as a human/god, who would also need to be crucified to remain in line with the existing theology.You refer to the 'Logos'-type theology, yes?

That's the basics of Doherty's hypothesis as it relates to this argument.I see; thank you!! I hate to expose my ignorance of Doherty's work (I'll get the books someday, I swear!!), but to make it clearer to me, can you tell me if this paraphase is accurate?

A) Doherty argues for a 'God-man sacrifice,' first as only theology, and the writers of the Gospels later invented Jesus to fill the role
B) Opponents argue for a failed 'real leader,' Jesus, and the Gospel writers later made him into a God-man sacrifice to account for this

Crude, I know, but (more-or-less) proximate? And which is more plausible?

The argument quoted in the OP assumes the gospels came first in the way it is presented, and it leaves untouched Doherty's thesis.This is a good point that I won't fail to mention.

As for other aspects of Jesus tracing back to a historical figure or figures.....well DUH... ALL fictional characters are based in some way on real people. This argument is a non-starter if you think more than an inch deep. Call me recalictrant, but wouldn't this sort of weaken the Doherty hypothesis? [Maybe not, if I'm not too drunk to 'get it'...it would mean that Paul -- or whomever -- picked 'some guy,' or rather 'grains of truth' about him, to give their (later) personification of said 'salvific deity' a more plausible ring...right?]

Originally posted by Roland:
... I don't see any problem with the negative portrayal of the apostles being merely a literary convention. There is plenty of precedence for it....The problem for HJers is that they not only can't get their minds around the idea of Jesus not being "historical," they can't grasp that the apostles as portrayed in the gospels and Acts might be unhistorical as well.Another excellent point!! 'It's all for the drama;' it is, after all, still a story!!

Amaleq13:
Good call on the Jewish Wisdom literature!! (Interestingly enough, I'd mentioned Wells in passing to him, suggesting that he may have misidentified said as 'H.G. Wells') With that and the above 'literary creations,' I think there is definitely a precedence.

[And, hey, by my watch it's always 4:20 somewhere!! ;)
p.s. New favorite bumper-sticker: "4:21 -- Chronically late" :D]

Originally posted by Brother Daniel:
...The fact that the crucifixion of the Messiah was an effrontery to both Jews and Gentiles serves to highlight the fact that there is no sign anywhere in the epistles of the Jews being offended on the grounds that [i]a man was being treated as divine....the "stumbling block to the Jews" of 1 Cor 1:23 is that a known (or postulated) Messiah was presented as crucified. The distinction is important.Indeed, though (as your "itchy footnote" [:D] indicates) this may not have been as big a problem for the Jews of the time as is usually assumed. Paul, of course, goes on to call them merely 'stubborn' (in Rom 10:21) but it's implied (in Titus 1:14) that "Jewish fables" (regarding the messiah, I'd imagine) "turned from the truth"...straw-manning, maybe?

NOGO:
Your observation on the story's usual reception is most helpful to my point (re: the 'transcendent victory'), and it seems reinforce that a "salvific deity" was indeed the "crux" of the tale; but again, which came first, the chicken or the egg (read: Doherty's 'sacrificed' God or the 'defeated' leader)?

I'd also agree that the apostles (or is it disciples? I can never keep the two straight) held symbolic aspects, including a forewarning to be faithful (see Judas for a 'bad example', yadda yadda), and your assessment of Christianity's success -- in spite of the 'ignimonious' or 'embarassing' elements -- is spot-on.

And, as Lauren mentions, Jesus' teachings most definately resemble both contemporary and (uh..'pre-contemporary'?:confused: ) styles, in form and content.

[for the record, I'm not sure of my opponents denominational affiliations, but I'm certain he isn't a JW!!]

Vorkosigan:
Interesting question...response?

[Llyricist]

Originally posted by Sensei Meela
Thanks, all, for the help!! http://www.iidb.org/ubb/icons/icon14.gif

I have a few remaining questions, though:
My opponents argument or my response (or maybe you meant Vinnie's)? ...indeed, I seem to have argued that 'the Gospels writers' (whoever they be) manufactured a 'transcendent victory' story as a diversion to an 'embarassing defeat.' But is that accurate? [From what I've read thus far, I can't tell]
Well it is one possible response, but my point is that the leading explanatory MJ hypothesis is Doherty's, and it completely circumvents the embarrassment argument. That is, the embarrassment argument basically says that they wouldn't have put the crucifixion in the gospel if it didn't happen... that they were "stuck with it" because it happened. Doherty's hypothesis, however, argues that the gospel writers were indeed stuck with it, BUT they were stuck with it because of the existing THEOLOGY (Paul and the epistles came BEFORE the gospels), NOT because of the existence of an actual crucified person.

You refer to the 'Logos'-type theology, yes?
Indeed

I see; thank you!! I hate to expose my ignorance of Doherty's work (I'll get the books someday, I swear!!), but to make it clearer to me, can you tell me if this paraphase is accurate?

A) Doherty argues for a 'God-man sacrifice,' first as only theology, and the writers of the Gospels later invented Jesus to fill the role
Pretty much, actually, I never got his book, the MEAT of his hypothesis can be found on his website here (http://www.humanists.net/jesuspuzzle/home.htm)
B) Opponents argue for a failed 'real leader,' Jesus, and the Gospel writers later made him into a God-man sacrifice to account for this
Well that's the traditional belief ;) (leaving aside the possibility of his actually BEING that God-man)
Crude, I know, but (more-or-less) proximate? And which is more plausible?
Yes that's more or less proximate. Hey all we have is hypotheticals to work ith on either side.... so I'm undecided leaning toward myth.

There's others too, for a hypothetical HJ that doesn't really resemble the common perception, try Hyam Maccoby's "Mythmaker - Paul and the Invention of Christianity"

This is a good point that I won't fail to mention.
actually that was the entire point! ;)
Call me recalictrant, but wouldn't this sort of [i]weaken the Doherty hypothesis? [Maybe not, if I'm not too drunk to 'get it'...it would mean that Paul -- or whomever -- picked 'some guy,' or rather 'grains of truth' about him, to give their (later) personification of said 'salvific deity' a more plausible ring...right?]
Well to start, it wasn't Paul... it was whoever wrote Mk, Mt, Lk, and Jn. And no, I'm saying that when they created a person, they had to go by their experience and knowledge of actual people to come up with details... not just one person. All fiction works this way, all fictional characters are based on people that the author actually knows.... not usually entirely however, more like.. this or that characteristic from this person, this or that characteristic from another person.. and so on. I don't think that there is "some guy" that the gospels were based on. However there were probably several archetypes and models for Jesus' characteristics and actions.

[Sensei Meela]

Originally posted by Llyricist
actually that was the entire point! ;)It was the primacy of Paul's work to the Gospels that was the good point I referred to. Sorry for the obfuscation.

...I'm saying that when they created a person, they had to go by their experience and knowledge of actual people to come up with details... not just one person.... I don't think that there is "some guy" that the gospels were based on. However there were probably several archetypes and models for Jesus' characteristics and actions. Again, I was unclear; I meant to imply the possibility of several sources for the Jesus character with the 'some guy' remark. Sorry 'bout that!!

Thanks for the summary, link and book referral!!:)

[Brother Daniel]

I rashly claimed:
If a known (or postulated) man (especially a crucified one) had been presented as divine, this would have to have created a stink among the Jews
Vorkosigan responded to me thusly:
What, then, do you make of the various traditions around Melchizadek, Balaam, Enoch, and other semi-divine figures of Jewish lore and tradition?

Good question.

From the very little I've seen on that matter, it seems to me that those Jewish traditions that included semi-divine characters did not treat those characters as truly human, although they appeared as human. (The Bible has angels appearing as humans from time to time, and one can interpret some of the Genesis stories to say that YHWH himself appears as human.) It's not clear to me that Melchizedek et al fit the template of "a known (or postulated) man being treated as divine". That is to say, the very suggestion of divinity suggests a denial of humanity, in traditional Jewish thinking. Or am I wrong on that point? I'm no expert, and I would be interested to see your insights on the matter.

Enoch and Melchizedek are figures from what was already the remote past when they were (probably) first written about. The alleged HJ, on the other hand, is supposedly a figure from recent history who would have been known personally by people who were still around when the first written Gospels appeared. Quite a different setup, I would have thought.

But Vork's objection brings up another point: Just how flexible were the Jews with respect to deviations from what we normally think of as Jewish tradition - where a man is never divine, and pagan ideas are off-limits? To a MJ-er, at least some of the Jews were very flexible, allowing a (probably pagan-inspired) myth to be created. To a traditionalist, the Jews were very inflexible, so that the disciples could not possibly have elevated Jesus to divinity without having been forced to by supernatural evidence, and by the sheer Truth of the matter. Mainstream scholarship, however, seems to play both sides: The Jews could easily turn a real human Jesus (posthumously) into God, but they couldn't possibly create a myth of a Jesus who lived and worked on some divine plane and never appeared physically as a man. A fine balance, don't you think?

I'm probably wrong somewhere in there, but I don't know where. Anyone care to help me out?