Was there a historical Jesus?

[Haruko]

I honestly have not heard from Richard Carrier before in my entire life - and his publication history - PDF warning - does not seem to suggest he is someone who is a leading scholar in ancient theological history or even spends most of his time with it, for there is not a single paper here that was ever published in any reputable journal of ancient history.

I only heard of the guy because he writes for The Secular Web. As for him not being a leading scholar: I'd say. He just got his Ph.D for ancient history a few months ago. He's got several ambitious research projects in the works, but he's got a long way to go before he makes a name for himself.

[Simon_Jester]

What I meant was that if the personal Jesus is as important as fundies say, the authors of the letters (Paul, Peter, James, and so on) should have been jumping up and down to tell the readers about what Jesus said, what he told us, what he did while on earth. If we are to strive to do what Jesus did, don't we need to know what he did? A lot of fundies and evangelicals will say "it's not religion, it's a relationship" - but how can you have a relationship with Jesus if you don't know much about what he did?

Yes, in that sense, this whole mess is good evidence that early Christians did not practice their own religion the way modern Protestant fundamentalists do. This does not seem surprising or odd to me.

Here's another example. Have you heard of the Story Keepers? It's an animated movie series watched by fundie children. Basically, it's about an early Christian named Ben living in Rome, and he has some kids, some are his and some he took in, and it's during the time of Nero, so they have to hide and have all sorts of adventures. Well, Ben is always telling the children stories about Jesus. To him, it's critically important that the kids know what Jesus said and did. He was always like "that reminds me of a time..." and then the show would switch to an animated retelling of the story of the loaves and the fishes, or the water into wine. If such was true, wouldn't people be eager for more stories, and want to learn more from the apostles every chance they could?

Ah. I see.

Of course, the character Ben would then be an example of an early Christian oral tradition... one that didn't get written down, since there is no Book of Ben. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the early Christians were deeply interested in anecdotes about the life of Jesus*, then you'd expect there to be anecdotes in the letters. On the other hand, I can also imagine such anecdotes being transmitted directly by word of mouth, rather than in writing by letters from the apostles.

I can imagine the apostles writing letters about doctrine (the ones we now know) and about anecdotes about Jesus, too... in which case the letters full of anecdotes would either get used as primary sources in the composition of the gospels, or discarded in the second or later centuries for contradicting the gospels, like a lot of the rest of the Christian apocrypha.

It's worth remembering that the Bible as it is now known was compiled by large conferences of clergymen, who generally only included stuff if they thought they had a reason to do so. The apostolic letters that made it in were quite likely to be ones that helped support those clergymen's religious beliefs with theological arguments, not the ones that read like an appendix to one of the gospels.

They already had four separate accounts of the life of Jesus in roughly chronological order in the canon to begin with; it wasn't as if they urgently needed to preserve more for posterity from their point of view.

*Much as early Muslims were deeply interested in anecdotes about the life of Muhammed, and for the same reasons...

[Marcus Aurelius]

I honestly have not heard from Richard Carrier before in my entire life - and his publication history - PDF warning - does not seem to suggest he is someone who is a leading scholar in ancient theological history or even spends most of his time with it, for there is not a single paper here that was ever published in any reputable journal of ancient history.

I only heard of the guy because he writes for The Secular Web. As for him not being a leading scholar: I'd say. He just got his Ph.D for ancient history a few months ago. He's got several ambitious research projects in the works, but he's got a long way to go before he makes a name for himself.

Exactly. So saying that his very cautious endorsement of Doherty's theory is not worth considering is a bit too much negative appeal to authority for my taste. Appeal to authority and scholarly consensus are admittedly useful in fields like history, but nevertheless we must still recognise that most new ideas pretty much start at the fringe and people supporting the established paradigm will at first ignore and resist them. This is more so in fields where experimental repeatability is not possible. My opinion is that In New Testament and early Christianity studies the historicity of Jesus is very much a Kuhnian paradigm; it may be supported by many facts, but facts are also often interpreted according to the paradigm.

The same goes for Thanas' rather quick dismissal of Robert M. Price. He holds a double PhD in Theology from Drew University, which is a well respected school among liberal theologians. Referring to the fact that he currently teaches in an unaccredited school is somewhat disingenuous. The Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary is just what it says it is; it issues only Master of Divinity (M.Div.) degrees and full-time students are required a Bachelors Degree from an accredited college or university.

So, neither Carrier nor Price are certainly not leading scholars in their respective fields, but both are nevertheless bona fide scholars. But as I wrote, there are limits to how useful appeal to authority is and I don't think it's intellectually honest to dismiss Doherty's argument just based on the fact that he is not supported by leading scholars or even based on the article quoted by Liberty Ferall. If one bothers just to read Carriers review of his book, one would know more. One philosophically very important thing to notice is that Doherty's argument is not based primarily on the argument from silence as Thanas seems to think.

[Liberty]

I feel like you guys are completely misunderstanding me here.

Yes, I know that the early Christians were not like modern fundamentalists! I am graduate student in history specializing in the study of Christianity, of course I know that!

My point is that I feel like the content of the letters in the New Testament further invalidates modern fundamentalists, who believe that the early Christians believed as they do and what happened in between (Church Councils, Catholicism, etc.) was simply a perversion. If fundamentalists' current beliefs were held back then, I believe that Jesus' life would have been mentioned more often in the letters in the New Testament.*

I guess it's because there are three points of views here:
1: Simply looking at history (i.e., no faith) - there was no historical Jesus
2: Simply looking at history (i.e., no faith) - there was a historical Jesus, but he was relatively unimportant and had only a few followers. Then, someone took his life and built on it and, over time, created Christianity. This spread over time, and eventually, after a while, some of his followers wrote the gospels, which are largely fictional.
3: Using faith (but pretending to also use history) - there was a Jesus, he was the son of God, he lived his life just as the gospels record, the message of his sacrifice spread through the work of his disciples, and Christianity was born. Oh, and the Bible is inerrant.

So, what I'm saying is the information in this article (about "silences" and such), and looking at what the letters in the NT say, further invalidates option 3. Not option 2 necessarily. And the arguments of various people on this thread have convinced me that option 2, not option 1, is correct. I was only flirting with option 1 in the first place; I found it intriguing and the arguments interest.

And as to the argument that there was an oral tradition, what I'm wondering is exactly what we can assume about that; also, it seems like the writers of the letters in the NT would still have included at least something about Jesus' actual life. (See *)

Finally - I trust what actual scholars have to say and write. I readily admit that I am not an expert on early Christianity (while I have studied it, my historical forte is Christianity 1500 to present). I have taken classes with experts in early Christianity, and I may ask one of my old professors (Chris Shea, who is on the Jesus Seminar) what her take on Doherty is.

I find studying religion fascinating, and I love thinking about historical aspects and trying to make sense of it. And that's all I was trying to do here.

*Some people here have said that Jesus was mentioned all the time in the letters in the NT. What I mean is mentioned beyond "his sacrifice washes away our sins."

James 1:2-3: "Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance."
Why the heck doesn't James mention the sufferings of Jesus here? He doesn't. Wouldn't that encourage the believers? If I were James, I would have mentioned it.

James 2:5-9: "Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong? If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers."
Why doesn't James mention that Jesus was poor when he lived on earth? Or what Jesus said about the eye of the needle, or the widow's mite?

[Thanas]

Exactly. So saying that his very cautious endorsement of Doherty's theory is not worth considering is a bit too much negative appeal to authority for my taste. Appeal to authority and scholarly consensus are admittedly useful in fields like history, but nevertheless we must still recognise that most new ideas pretty much start at the fringe and people supporting the established paradigm will at first ignore and resist them.

Right, so the fact that you cannot name a specialist in the early church who supports these theories must mean that they ignore and resist them. Thank you for that character assassination of ancient historians. You know what? That people dismiss or do not support fringe theories is not an indicator of hostility and a conspiracy. Oftentimes, it is just that the fringe theories are just that - fringe theories.

So, neither Carrier nor Price are certainly not leading scholars in their respective fields, but both are nevertheless bona fide scholars.

Carrier has a bona fide Ph.D., nobody is denying that. However, there is no indication whatsoever that he is an expert in early christianity. There also is no indication that Price is an ancient historian or someone who has spend his life researching Jesus.

Are you telling me that I am supposed to take their word over that of countless experts? As I said, find me a scholar, one who has published several articles about this who endorses this. You are asking me to take the words of unkown people over that of Prof. Rosenau, for example. Look at his publication list as a comparison.

Now, who do you think is better acquinted with the subject matter?

One philosophically very important thing to notice is that Doherty's argument is not based primarily on the argument from silence as Thanas seems to think.

So what is his argument? You allegedly think it superior, so please make it.

[Simon_Jester]

I feel like you guys are completely misunderstanding me here. Yes, I know that the early Christians were not like modern fundamentalists! I am graduate student in history specializing in the study of Christianity, of course I know that!

My apologies.

My point is that I feel like the content of the letters in the New Testament further invalidates modern fundamentalists, who believe that the early Christians believed as they do and what happened in between (Church Councils, Catholicism, etc.) was simply a perversion. If fundamentalists' current beliefs were held back then, I believe that Jesus' life would have been mentioned more often in the letters in the New Testament.*

This is an eminently reasonable point, and one which I tried to address in the other half of my post. Even assuming your option (3), there is an explanation for the "silences" in question. Not an especially good one, of course.

And as to the argument that there was an oral tradition, what I'm wondering is exactly what we can assume about that; also, it seems like the writers of the letters in the NT would still have included at least something about Jesus' actual life. (See *)

This is why I speculate that such letters might have existed and not made the cutting room floor during the Synod of Hippo (or its equivalents in the East). They need not have existed. And it is certainly reasonable to assume that they did not for the sake of argument. I'm just not sure, myself, because I can see a valid reason for the people trying to compile a Bible not to bother incorporating letters full of anecdotes about Jesus in with the Epistles when they'd already stuck in four gospels.

[Thanas]

I feel like you guys are completely misunderstanding me here.

Yes, I know that the early Christians were not like modern fundamentalists! I am graduate student in history specializing in the study of Christianity, of course I know that!

Sorry. But you were the one who started with modern portrayals of fundamentalism, so I think the misunderstanding was an easy one.

My point is that I feel like the content of the letters in the New Testament further invalidates modern fundamentalists, who believe that the early Christians believed as they do and what happened in between (Church Councils, Catholicism, etc.) was simply a perversion. If fundamentalists' current beliefs were held back then, I believe that Jesus' life would have been mentioned more often in the letters in the New Testament.

I am not sure I understand this point, which mainly might be due to me not knowing how the fundamentalists you think of think nowadays. I have met many of them. Maybe you could elaborate on precisely what you mean to avoid another misunderstanding?

I find studying religion fascinating, and I love thinking about historical aspects and trying to make sense of it. And that's all I was trying to do here.

And nobody is attacking you personally for it.

As for the quotes, not being an expert in the epistles, I shall ask someone who is more intimitely familiar with it (that person holding both the highest degree in ancient history and a doctor in theology and being an eminent scholar on christianity).

[Liberty]

It almost seems like figuring this out is impossible, at least so long as someone can say "but they might have said that in their oral tradition, and it wasn't written down" and "well, it might have been written down and just not preserved." As long as those two arguments are made, what can we actually know about early Christianity? It seems like those two arguments might lead to absurdity - or am I missing something?

[Simon_Jester]

It almost seems like figuring this out is impossible, at least so long as someone can say "but they might have said that in their oral tradition, and it wasn't written down" and "well, it might have been written down and just not preserved." As long as those two arguments are made, what can we actually know about early Christianity? It seems like those two arguments might lead to absurdity - or am I missing something?

The trouble is that it approaches certainty that both those things are true: there are so few written sources on antiquity, and so many well known ways for written sources to be lost, that it's almost impossible to believe that the written evidence we have is thorough enough to make an argument from silence. If could be sure we had all the relevant documents we could do that, but when we have only the tiny minority that were both preserved and seen as relevant enough to recopy in later eras... it's a mess.

Likewise for the oral tradition. It's practically guaranteed that there was one, even if that's inconvenient from a historical standpoint. People talked to each other, and they didn't always write stuff down for the benefit of future generations.

I don't want to harp on this too much; I respect attempts to piece together exactly what happened in the distant past very much. But it's a tremendous problem that effectively locks down certain kinds of arguments because the evidence to support them simply cannot be reliably collected.

[Simon_Jester]

Dear Moderators: Please delete this accidental double post. Sorry.

[hongi]

The gospels were written after most of the letters in the New Testament. So why don't the letters refer to the actual life of an actual Jesus?

Because Paul's letters were not written to be narratives of Jesus' life like the Gospels were. Paul wrote and sent those letters, at least the ones we think are directly attributable to him, and not forged in his name, to little groups of Christians for a variety of reasons, usually to do with local concerns.

Jesus had been dead for only a handful of decades. Oral traditions (and maybe even non-extant written accounts of Jesus' life) were prevelant around that time. Paul probably saw no need for a biography and in any case, he had other stuff he was concerned about...like how to manage the nascent Christian community.

A couple of questions, though: The gospels were written after most of the letters; why don't the letters spend much time on the life of Jesus? It seems like that would have been critically important, and for goodness sake, most of the (supposed) letter writers (except for Paul) spent several years living with Jesus! So there does seem to be an odd silence.

I don't mean to be offensive, but actually read the New Testament and you'll realise that it's filled with a variety of different types of literature, from apocalyptic at one end (Revelation) to narrative (Acts of the Apostles) to letters.

Don't be fooled by the contemporary importance of the Gospels. It doesn't mean writing a biography of Jesus was the most pressing thing on the minds of the numerous authors, who were writing their texts for very different reasons.

- We know that the Romans first called christians chrestians, according to the gospel of Lukas

For those who might not get the reference, in Greek, chrestos means useful. Later Christians even made puns on that.

[Thanas]

Another thing to keep in mind when talking about the letters - they are not single works (except for two). They are pieces cobbled together from different letters, as textual analysis has confirmed. For example, the entire letter to the Romans is composed of several letters.

My personal hypotheosis therefore is - and I confirmed this with some experts - that there is not so much mention of Jesus in them because they were cobbled together to contain arguments/informations that is not contained within the gospels. So Paul might very well have also argued with the words of Jesus, but this was omitted due to not being necessary for a compilation.

One has to remember that the christians of old were not above cutting up or even rewriting entire texts to suit their needs.

[Simon_Jester]

Huh. That casts a new light on my argument, too. I was a bit concerned about it at the time because I was thinking in terms of original letters. It did seem odd for the canon-assemblers to be able to find entire letters that make no mention of Jesus or his life. Possible, but odd.

But if they were cut and pasting individual paragraphs from several different letters, all bets are off. Then there's a perfectly good reason for there to be no mention of Jesus in the letters, as you describe.

[Bilbo]

Yes, like I said, the guy who wrote the article above is outside of the mainstream on this. But he makes some interesting arguments. The gospels were written after most of the letters in the New Testament. So why don't the letters refer to the actual life of an actual Jesus?

While I am certainly no expert on the subject this one is fairly easy to answer. First off no onw really wrote down what his normal life was like and the founders of the Church were making Jesus out to be the Son of God. So talking about his normal life and talking about it in the way you would talk about the life of anyone else would kind of take away from that whole divine thing they had going.

Look at it this way. The founders of Christianity had nothing to gain from writing about or recording the actual life of the jewish radical who became Jesus.

[Thanas]

Biblo, please quit repeating what everybody else already said in this thread.

[Bilbo]

Biblo, please quit repeating what everybody else already said in this thread.

Sorry, did not read the entire thread before posting. You want to kill my post and this one for being redundant go ahead. I wont be offended.

[Big Phil]

One has to remember that the christians of old were not above cutting up or even rewriting entire texts to suit their needs.

"Christians of old?" Selective biblical quoting, rewriting, and translations done to better suit one's agenda still happen today. That last piece is particularly important to remember - the bible today is a translation of the original, and has been translated who knows how many times. In other words, it is very difficult for modern day readers of the bible (particularly non-scholars) to understand the meaning and the context of the bible, and reconcile that against errors of omission and commission.

[Thanas]

One has to remember that the christians of old were not above cutting up or even rewriting entire texts to suit their needs.

"Christians of old?" Selective biblical quoting, rewriting, and translations done to better suit one's agenda still happen today. That last piece is particularly important to remember - the bible today is a translation of the original, and has been translated who knows how many times. In other words, it is very difficult for modern day readers of the bible (particularly non-scholars) to understand the meaning and the context of the bible, and reconcile that against errors of omission and commission.

Quoting and rewriting does not equal taking the thing and physically cutting out stuff. As for the rest, we do have a pretty consistent vulgata since the 6th century.

Modern selective quoting does not even compare to that.

[Liberty]

I don't mean to be offensive, but actually read the New Testament and you'll realise that it's filled with a variety of different types of literature, from apocalyptic at one end (Revelation) to narrative (Acts of the Apostles) to letters.

Don't be fooled by the contemporary importance of the Gospels. It doesn't mean writing a biography of Jesus was the most pressing thing on the minds of the numerous authors, who were writing their texts for very different reasons.

Um. I was raised a fundamentalist. So yes. I've, um, actually read the New Testament, front to back, at least three times. When you're told the Bible is the most important thing we have in the entire world, you tend to do that.

And yes, I know there are different types of literature and that just because something is important today doesn't mean it was then. And that's my point. Fundamentalists and evangelicals like to say "it's not religion, it's a relationship," etc, and basically argue that all that matters is Jesus and knowing him. However, it seems that that may have not been all that important to early Christians at all. Which is in itself interesting.

Also, I hadn't realized that the letters in the NT are actually cobbled together compilations of letters. Do you have a link with more info on this? It makes sense, and it's pretty interesting.

[Thanas]

And yes, I know there are different types of literature and that just because something is important today doesn't mean it was then. And that's my point. Fundamentalists and evangelicals like to say "it's not religion, it's a relationship," etc, and basically argue that all that matters is Jesus and knowing him. However, it seems that that may have not been all that important to early Christians at all.

Where do you get that mistaken impression from?

Also, I hadn't realized that the letters in the NT are actually cobbled together compilations of letters. Do you have a link with more info on this? It makes sense, and it's pretty interesting.

No, sorry. I do not have a link about this as I generally do not trust any website about religion and it is not my main field of study.

[Liberty]

And yes, I know there are different types of literature and that just because something is important today doesn't mean it was then. And that's my point. Fundamentalists and evangelicals like to say "it's not religion, it's a relationship," etc, and basically argue that all that matters is Jesus and knowing him. However, it seems that that may have not been all that important to early Christians at all.

Where do you get that mistaken impression from?

What mistaken impression?

[Thanas]

What mistaken impression?

Fundamentalists and evangelicals like to say "it's not religion, it's a relationship," etc, and basically argue that all that matters is Jesus and knowing him. However, it seems that that may have not been all that important to early Christians at all.

You make it sound as if the life of Jesus and his teachings were not the cornerstone of christian religion.

[Big Phil]

What mistaken impression?

Fundamentalists and evangelicals like to say "it's not religion, it's a relationship," etc, and basically argue that all that matters is Jesus and knowing him. However, it seems that that may have not been all that important to early Christians at all.

You make it sound as if the life of Jesus and his teachings were not the cornerstone of christian religion.

Having known some mighty impressive fundies over the years, evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity at the lower levels has started focusing more on having a "personal relationship" with Josh Christ. In the US at least, you're not really expected to read the bible or be able to quote passages as long as you don't argue with the church hierarchy and just accept the old boy as your personal savior. That's why you'll often find fundies "quoting" shit from the bible that their pastor told them about, and it'll be hysterically out of context or just flat out not in there.

For example, how many fundies understand that Josh was a granola eating hippie who mooched off his friends and family, told the rich to give away all of their stuff, and actually encouraged care and respect for people who didn't adhere for his teachings? If you just described the Christman's life to a fundie without telling them his name, they'd probably condemn him to hell and criticize him for being un-Christian

[Thanas]

Oh, that. Yeah, that I certainly agree with (having had more than one american fundie preach to me, including a hilarious field trip where one guy just slammed a bible on the middle of the floor and proceeded to preach gospel to us - which did not match what was actually written in the bible). However, modern fundamentalism is very much removed from old fundamentalism, which had the goal to emulate jesus as much as possible. Which is why christianity was so very much favored by the poor, because it was a religion uniquely suited to them (less so for the rich romans, obviously).

[Liberty]

Oh, that. Yeah, that I certainly agree with (having had more than one american fundie preach to me, including a hilarious field trip where one guy just slammed a bible on the middle of the floor and proceeded to preach gospel to us - which did not match what was actually written in the bible). However, modern fundamentalism is very much removed from old fundamentalism, which had the goal to emulate jesus as much as possible. Which is why christianity was so very much favored by the poor, because it was a religion uniquely suited to them (less so for the rich romans, obviously).

What is the distinction between "modern fundamentalism" and "old fundamentalism"? As a graduate student specializing in the study of twentieth century American religion, I have not heard this distinction made. Is it a different use of the world "fundamentalism?" Because officially the term began in the early twentieth century.