Philosophy

Many thanks for this Boltonian. Vermes is a very impressive writer. I’ve not read this book (I think you have done it for me but I did read ‘Jesus the Jew’ and ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls’ many years ago. The conclusions he makes here seem very reasonable and well argued.

Thanks for this; the context of contemporaneous thinking must be important, however I would like to know why the position “of the non-existence of the historical Jesus” was dismissed as creating “more problems than it solves”.

Of course if this position is that everything was completely fabricated then I would understand, however if the Jesus figure is taken to be a compendium from various mythical and real figures from the region, does this really create more problems? How does he (if he does) account for similarities with the Mithras story? Is his position simply that there was a Jesus prototype to which various other myths and traditions were attached? This is fairly plausible, however it seems, from discussions of cif and other places, that there is no single identifiable figure outside the bible, who can be identified with the biblical Jesus. I have seen it claimed that there were many religious splinter groups/sects at the time.(which would make identification of the Jesus one more difficult).

Martin:

He does not enlarge on this in the book but I know from other writings of his that he does not take the non-existence of a historical figure on which the Gospel writers and Paul based their work very seriously.

We know that there were other charismatic, eschatological preachers around at that time and it is just possible, I suppose, that the NT figure is a composite one.

It is also true that Vermes has built at least one part of his career on identifying the historical Jesus so it might be said that his view is somewhat biased (as are all historians). The Jesus Seminar, for example, also thinks that Jesus was a historical figure but not of the type Vermes suggests. They think that he was a wisdom teacher who revolutionised Jewish religious and moral thinking but I have not read enough of their literature to make a judgement.

One thing to take into account, although not a clinching argument, is that almost all serious scholars of the that period think that a Jewish Jesus movement was the precursor of the early church and that this was based on the teachings of a historical figure.

The problem I have with the alternative is that there isn’t a coherent alternative (at least that I have heard). Where, for example, did the figure come from if he was mythical? What was the inspiration for the movement? Why did it arise in the first place and why at this time? Dispensing with the historical figure leads to more complex solutions and fairly evidence-free speculation.

I have read quite extensively on this period and I would say that, on balance, it is more likely than not that such a figure existed. But I can quite accept that others might read the same evidence and come to a different conclusion. I generally take the simplest road until it is refuted.

Yes one should always look for the simplest explanation. To me this would be that there was an historical Jesus preacher/prophet/seer, to which a lot of baggage from myth and other similar characters have been attached.

Although there is not so much reason why one idiosyncratic preacher should attract much documentation, Herod (died 4BC) and the massacre of the innocents are a different cases. The Bethlehem story does not seem to reflect Roman taxation practice. The question must be: what events related in the gospels can be relied upon?

Martin:

I do not believe it is possible to re-construct an irrefutable scenario (is it ever?) because of the difficulties of separating the chronicles of the early church from historical events. All we can realistically say is that x is more likely to have been the case than y.

Paul and the Gospel writers were not concerned with compiling an accurate historical document and so a huge amount of forensic analysis of the NT and other sources is required to work out what might or might not be the actual events on which the writings are based.

Each of the Gospels has its shortcomings but Mark is the earliest (by common consent) and the most reliable (except for the last 14 verses which are later additions). The nativity and census reasons for travelling to Bethlehem in Matthew are certainly fiction (trying to justify His Messiahship). John is the last to be written, the most numinous, the most influenced by Greek thought and almost certainly the least useful so far as trying to establish historical accuracy is concerned. Paul’s motives are concerned with establishing the early church, particularly among gentiles and it is his energy and determination that rescued the Jesus movement from oblivion.

The difficulties are legion, including identifying what the original Gospel writers actually wrote. Textual analysis carried out by such scholars as Bart Ehrman (see the article on the subject by Elephantschild and me) is very helpful but not sufficient. A deep knowledge of contemporary society and Jewish religious thought is an essential pre-requisite and Vermes is steeped in the period.

Thanks Boltonian, though I am still uncertain what ‘x’ is in this case. I really know little about this area and have found that assumptions that I has long held have been demonstrated to be groundless.

I have read that the crucifixion is a puzzle too, since it was a Roman rather than a Jewish form of execution and it is unclear how Jesus had offended Rome. Still it is obvious that the origins of Christianity are much more obscure than received opinion suggests. I suppose this goes for most if not all religions.

Martin:

I would say that ‘x’ is the existence of a historic figure that provided the inspiration for Paul and the Gospel writers.

The crucifixion is interesting. It is certainly a Roman, rather than a Jewish, form of execution. Jews were only allowed to execute those guilty of blasphemy (with the permission of the Governor) and stoning was the only allowable method. Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy (which was, and presumably still is, a very strictly defined offence in Judaism) even if he went round saying that he was the Messiah 40 times a day.

Vermes’ view is that Jesus and his gang of Galilean followers caused a disturbance in the Temple’s Court of Gentiles which, during the overcrowded and highly charged atmosphere of Passover in Jerusalem, caused Pilate to send in his troops to arrest them.

There would have been little sympathy from the locals as Galileans were regarded by the urban classes as hot-headed yokels. Pilate had a reputation as a ruthless Governor who executed troublemakers first and then didn’t bother too much with the questions afterwards. The Emperor Tiberias removed him from office in 36 AD for being overly brutal and so risking a Jewish uprising.

So, in this hypothesis Pilate took advantage of the general hostility towards this group of uneducated backwoodsmen to get rid of their disruptive and turbulent leader, ‘Pour encourager les autres.’

Martin

“To me this would be that there was an historical Jesus preacher/prophet/seer, to which a lot of baggage from myth and other similar characters have been attached.”

That seems to me to be a very reasonable position. By contrast, one difficulty with the Earl Doherty thesis is that if there is no character upon which the Christ of Faith is based then where are the documents from the first century condemning the fabrication of the NT authors? If these are not required to support the case for complete fabrication then why should third party documents be required to support the historical Jesus claim? Furthermore if the NT authors conspired to create a myth from nothing, one might have expected them to get their story straight the inconsistencies are a problem for the devout and the sceptical alike. Another problem for the ‘purely mythological’ school of thought is the sheer number of words atrributed to the Jesus character not that this somehow proves Jesus’ existence but it does make an important difference between Jesus and Horus or Mithras. Strip away the mythological elements of the Jesus story and you still have a substantial piece of work there, The Sermon on the Mount, The Good Samaritan, The Prodigal Son etc. It does seem to me to be far fetched for a group of authors to sit around together concoct these teachings and attribute them to a man they knew never existed. While not knowing if this is what Vermes is referring to I can see why the non-existence of Jesus is more problematic than your scenario or indeed his.

Yes Gordy, this is where an analysis of contemporaneous thought must be invaluable: how much of the ideas in the episodes that you mention contain strikingly new thinking? The more original the thought the stronger the likelihood that ‘Jesus’ represents a specific character.

Martin:

I agree. Some thoughts…Allow me to refer to two teachings where new thinking seems evident both from Mark’s gospel(often regarded as the earliest).

Jesus’ teaching on the Sabbath namely that it was created for the good of man not vice versa appears to be new and strikingly so as it is this that is the very issue which according to the author inspires the plot against Jesus (Mk3:6).

Secondly with regard to the two greatest commandments, love of God and of neighbour. So far as I understand it the claim that any one of the 613 commandments was more important than any other would have put Jesus way outside contemporary rabbinical thought.

(Intriguingly in Matthew’s account of this story there is a casual use of carpentry imagery where the law and the prophets hang from these two commandments as a door hangs on its hinges. Matthew’s gospel also includes the other bit of carpentry imagery in the NT with the metaphor for taking a splinter of wood from the eye of one’s brother. Proof of nothing in one respect but interesting all the same)

Other suggestions that point to the Gospel writers drawing on actual historical events are things that would have embarrassed early Christians. One of which was the cross - this ignominious and foreign mode of death would have been acutely painful to Jesus’ followers. Another is Jesus’ famous words on the cross, usually translated as, ‘Father, father, why hast thou forsaken me.’ There are others.

Vermes suggests that Jesus and His followers genuinely believed that they were living in the, ‘End times,’ and that eschaton would happen before His death. Paul thought that Jesus had merely got the timing slightly wrong and that the end would come during his (Paul’s) lifetime.

The teaching regarding the greatest of the commandments may not have been unique to Jesus. Something similar is attributed to the Rabbi Hillel - an older contemporary of Jesus and a Pharisee: ‘What is hateful to yourself, do not to your fellow man. That is the whole of the Torah and the remainder is but commentary’.

One argument against those who would compare Jesus with mythological figures such as Osiris or Mithras is that, unlike any of the others, he is located in a specific historical context. It is more likely that the mythological elements in Christian beliefs, such as the narratives of the Nativity and the Resurrection, were the result of interpretation of purely Jewish concepts by Gentiles in terms of myths they were familiar with - hence the correspondence with Mithras and Osiris. For example, according to Vermes the term ‘Son of God’ would have had specific messianic connotations to Jews of the period, but might have been taken more literally by non-Jews. Similarly, the idea of the virgin birth could well have begun with a misunderstanding of the prophecy in Isaiah. The word ‘parthenos’, used in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT which was commonly in use at the time among Greek speakers, was a translation of a Hebrew word - almah - meaning simply a young woman. (The anachronisms and inconsistencies in the narratives of the Nativity probably resulted from attempts to link passages in the OT which were considered to foretell the coming of the Messiah with the historical person of Jesus). Similarly, the Resurrection may have originated as a metaphor which later came to be taken literally; Paul’s references to the risen Christ are decidedly ambiguous.

E

With regards to Rabbi Hillel, point taken but Ithink it is possible to distinguish between an attempt to sum up the Mitzvah (as Rabbi Hillel did and Jesus is supposed to have done - Matt 7:12) and to identify two being greater than the other 611 as Jesus is reported to have said (Mk 12:29).

The Mishnah or Oral Tradition appears quite explicit in stressing the equality of all 613 - see for example:

http://www.jewfaq.org/10.htm

The fact that most scholars date the birth and resurrection narratives as twenty years later than Mark’s gospel supports the points you make about these.