The Jesus Myth

Originally posted by vistesd
Having read through the material (although really skimming some chunks of it), here are my comments:

First, with regard to the opening comments about midrash and aggadah, I generally concur; and I especially liked the notion of midrash/aggadah being “a species of hypertext”, since the process (as seen in the written Midrashim) seems a lot like “hyper-text ...[text shortened]... iro, Hasidic Tales

* Conventionally translated “in the beginning” or “with beginning.”

Ooops! My meandering comments missed the whole point! 🙁 Try again—

Do Prices’ voluminous examples lead necessarily to the conclusion that Jesus was wholly a “midrashic” creation, with no historical reality? No.

First, a Galilean proto-rabbi of the period would have likely been steeped in both written and oral Torah, including midrashic methodology (even if the Galileans were not as halachically strict as their Judean counterparts). (See, e.g., Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew.) As such, J would be expected to utter a lot of “spins” on all that material as he gave his torah (also a rabbinic expression).

Given the degree of exposure in Galilee to Greek culture, borrowings from a few of those stories would not be impossible either. But even if those came from the gospel-writer himself, that does not mean that the central figure was invented out of whole cloth.

Second, How much does wording have to change before one says that it might be original? Some of the examples in Price’s paper seem open to that question. But I will use an example that I don’t recall being in that paper (though maybe I just missed it):



Jesus is reported as saying: “Do unto other as you would have them to do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31)

Rabbi Hillel is reported as saying: “What is hateful to you, do not do to the other.” (Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbat 31a)

Now, Hillel died in 10 C.E., when the historical Jesus would have been about 10-14 years old. It is likely that Hillel’s version (itself possibly spun from proverbial wisdom in the extra-canonical works of Tobit and Sirach) would have been known, as Hillel’s was one of the two principal rabbinic houses.

Now, does the simple reworking of Hillel’s formulation into a “do” from a “don’t do” imply in any way that the J who putatively taught that form had to be made up? Why could such a person, J, not have spun this new torah himself? Indeed, how come a real figure, called J, could no have spun most of the teaching midrash that the gospel writers (and the Q folks, if the Q hyptothesis is correct) attribute to him—no matter how much of the “biographical” materials might be midrash (aggadah) of another sort?

That is, focus on the parallels in the "biographical" portions, does not lead one to conclude that the figure of the "teachings" was not, let alone could not have been, a real figure.

At bottom, I still suspect that the older view—aside from that of biblical literalist/historicists—is more likely: There was a Galilean torah-teacher who we can call J, whose teachings, and some doings, were recalled—first orally, and then in written form—and also expanded upon for messianic/theological reasons.

Of the more well-known “historical Jesus” scholars, I tend to follow Geza Vermes (himself a Jew, and an Oxford scholar, especially of the Dead Sea Scrolls). He thinks that a historical layer can be identified in the gospels, but that it is minimal; one from which some historical conclusions can be, at least tentatively, drawn—but that they are not extensive.

Jesus is a sign without a referent -- what do you think?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Jesus is a sign without a referent -- what do you think?

That is true only if we conceive of 'god' in theistic terms. Although it is certain that this is what Jesus himself did, it must be remembered that he lived in a pre-scientific world. The question is 'what would Jesus believe if he were around today?' If Jesus knew about Darwin, for example, would he still think of god in a first century manner? My wager is that he would not. I would bet that if Jesus had been born in the 21st century, his conception of god would probably be more in line with that of Bishop Spong. I think he would agree that a theistic conception of god is no longer viable.

Originally posted by rwingett
That is true only if we conceive of 'god' in theistic terms. Although it is certain that this is what Jesus himself did, it must be remembered that he lived in a pre-scientific world. The question is 'what would Jesus believe if he were around today?' If Jesus knew about Darwin, for example, would he still think of god in a first century manner? My wager is ...[text shortened]... Bishop Spong. I think he would agree that a theistic conception of god is no longer viable.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but Jesus could have been a pickle salesman from Panama and still be a sign without a referent -- if, for some reason, his name survived but his history disappeared. Of course I am excluding the legend of Jesus here.

It's very difficult to guess what Jesus would believe today without assigning the legend a degree of historicity. Imagine a Jesus raised in an ultraorthodox family of West Bank settlers -- he might very well have precisely the same viewpoint attributed to, uh, Jesus ...

Originally posted by vistesd
At bottom, I still suspect that the older view—aside from that of biblical literalist/historicists—is more likely: There was a Galilean torah-teacher who we can call J, whose teachings, and some doings, were recalled—first orally, and then in written form—and also expanded upon for messianic/theological reasons.

But why should it be more likely? Do we not see a large number fictional characters across many cultures of whom there were stories where they spread their wisdom?

Nasruddin, Hitar Petar, Baj Ganio, Svejk, Ivan Chonkin, Till Eulenspiegel or Portugal's own Ze Povinho... The list goes on. All these characters were simply the form by which cultural and collective wisdom was spread.

The sheer amount of examples of characters upon which collective wisdom was poured onto is staggering. We may not have proof that the older ones (like Nasrudin) were based on some putative real person, but we clearly see that all the recent ones were fictional and it did not diminish their success as vehicles of such collective wisdom.

Originally posted by Palynka
But why should it be more likely? Do we not see a large number fictional characters across many cultures of whom there were stories where they spread their wisdom?

The argument would be based on the type of character represented by Jesus; his story would have to be analysed against known fictions with the same narrative function. Certainly Jesus is no Eulenspiegel, Nasruddin or Svejk, although he does occasionally reflect their archetype, the trickster.

Jesus can be compared to Gautama, but Gautama's historicity is not disputed (as far as I know). And the considerable body of legend around Gautama helps understand the transformation from person in time to figure of myth.

Is Ze Povinho a trickster at all?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The argument would be based on the type of character represented by Jesus; his story would have to be analysed against known fictions with the same narrative function. Certainly Jesus is no Eulenspiegel, Nasruddin or Svejk, although he does occasionally reflect their archetype, the trickster.

Jesus can be compared to Gautama, but Gautama's historic ...[text shortened]... the transformation from person in time to figure of myth.

Is Ze Povinho a trickster at all?

Well, like Jesus, all we know of Gautama is from Buddhist sources. So the evidence for his existence is not very different from that of the characters above or Zeus, for that matter.

Also, those characters are not exactly the same type. Each reflects an historic period, a particular society,etc. But the general archetype of the trickster, the man of the people, against the powers that be but not really in favour of other powers, seems to fit quite well.

For example, the anecdote of “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s" is EXACTLY like something out of any of these characters.

Here I'm disputing mostly the commonly accepted view that it's much more "likely" that the man existed and the myth was then built upon him. This is too easily accepted by too many people, and I really don't think it's as clear as most people think.

Originally posted by Palynka
But why should it be more likely? Do we not see a large number fictional characters across many cultures of whom there were stories where they spread their wisdom?

Nasruddin, Hitar Petar, Baj Ganio, Svejk, Ivan Chonkin, Till Eulenspiegel or Portugal's own Ze Povinho... The list goes on. All these characters were simply the form by which cultural and coll ...[text shortened]... nes were fictional and it did not diminish their success as vehicles of such collective wisdom.

Point well-taken. First, let me stress that I am in no way committed to a real person Jesus; I just lean that way based on the “search for the historical Jesus” research I’ve read, leaning especially on Geza Vermes, a Jew himself, who therefore can be expected not to have any particular bias in trying to “prove” Jesus.

I have here really only looked at that one essay, since that was what piqued my interest—as you knew it would! 🙂 And I don’t think the evidence is as conclusive as Price seems to think. In fact, I think it is as weak as saying--with regard to a novel set in New York City--"See, I can show how all these things are fictional, so I conclude (having never been there, of course: we're just talking about documentary evidence here) that New York is a fiction too. I’ll take a gander at the other essays, though, so as to better get at it; maybe I’ll find a stronger case in them.

The problem—if it is that—is that Christians by and large stake their whole theology on the historical reality of the person Jesus, rather than the teachings, whoever they come from. A Taoist, on the other hand, examine the teachings, and become a Taoist based on agreement with those—without regard to whether Lao Tzu was a real person, or several real persons conflated, or just a made-up vehicle to present the teachings. The same with most Buddhists, so far as I know; “the Buddha” is (supposed to have) said that all his teachings were to be tested, not accepted because “the Buddha” said them. So, whether or not the Buddha or Lao Tzu existed is just not of more than incidental interest to those folks.

I come at Judaism (as my Reb Reuven story was intended to indicate) from a similar perspective.

Okay, you know all that already. And I’m belaboring the point. Part of the problem here may be that you are not getting any responses from Christians who are committed to the existence of the person Jesus, and who will try to make a historical argument. So none of us are providing enough “edge” to work the argument.

One of my concerns for a long time has been the seeming acceptance that the Biblicist/literalist/historicist approach to these texts is, or ought to be, somehow normative—that the texts were intended to be read that way. I don’t think they were, even if there are some underlying historical facts behind the stories. But maybe I’m making the same kind of a priori “default” error that I am criticizing here, by assuming that the conventional view ought to be taken as the default.

Okay, I’ll take a look at the other sources you cited… Sorry if I went off the tracks somewhat from the aim of the thead. Maybe I'll come to the conclusion that one view is as likely as the other...

____________________________________________

EDIT: I may have caused some confusion here, since I have been referring to the midrashic piece as the "Price essay", and now I see he is the author of the first reference as well. Sorry about that...

Originally posted by vistesd
Point well-taken. First, let me stress that I am in no way committed to a real person Jesus; I just lean that way based on the “search for the historical Jesus” research I’ve read, leaning especially on Geza Vermes, a Jew himself, who therefore can be expected not to have any particular bias in trying to “prove” Jesus.

I have here really only looked a im of the thead. Maybe I'll come to the conclusion that one view is as likely as the other...

I’m just reposting this bit from above, because I think it is what you are getting at—removed from my other meanderings:

One of my concerns for a long time has been the seeming acceptance that the Biblicist/literalist/historicist approach to these texts is, or ought to be, somehow normative—that the texts were intended to be read that way. I don’t think they were, even if there are some underlying historical facts behind the stories. But maybe I’m making the same kind of a priori “default” error that I am criticizing here, by assuming that the conventional view (among historians, not just the faithful) ought to be taken as the default.

_______________________________________________

And I think you’re right. Maybe we are being too sanguine about accepting that as the default.

His story, too, conforms exactly to the Mythic Hero Archetype. To a lesser extent, so does Caesar Augustus, of whom miracles were told. The difference is that Jesus has left no footprint on profane history as these others managed to do. The famous texts of Josephus and Tacitus, even if genuine, amount merely to references to the preaching of contemporary Christians, not reporting about Jesus as a contemporary.

I think this is Price’s strongest argument. It is the flip-side of my “novel set in New York City” analogy: that we do have a “profane footprint” for New York City.

One should not assume that a story that has fictional elements does not also have historical/factual elements as well; nor should one assume that the discovery of some historical/factual elements mean that the story has no fictional elements (which seems to be what some arguments from “Biblical archeaology” do: We have discovered remains of the real city Jericho that tell us such-and-such about Jericho’s real history—therefore the whole Biblical story must be true!).

I might posit a scenario like this:

A single storyteller, or small group of collaborators—Galilean most likely—who have a body of Jewish wisdom they want to convey; a wisdom different in some ways from that of the Judean Jews (whether Pharisees or Sadducess, or other proto-rabbinical groups). Maybe one of them is named Yeshua (or Yehoshua); maybe not. But they decide to present their teachings in an aggadahic form: story.

The core story may have been closer to the Q construct hypothesized by many textutal scholars: mainly aphoristic teachings in a very loose narrative (but not biographical) binding. They may have been told orally at first; maybe that core was written down fairly early.

Later writers—Price’s midrashists—embellished the stories, and they grew to what was extant by the end of the first century.

One thing to note about Price’s midrash/aggadah hypothesis, is that these end up being far more sustained aggadah—or knit into more sustained aggadah—than the norm for that literature. Most Aggadah takes the form of very short stories, often no more than a few paragraphs. Further, although the midrashic technique may be in evidence, most Midrash—using the capital M to denote specific literary corpus, as opposed to the methodology— is very short bursts of exegesis (and eisegesis) by various rabbis, often in conflict with one another.

______________________________________________

In the end, I don’t know if either hypothesis can be said—at this point—to be “more likely” than the other. I have just tried to briefly flesh out the counter-hypothesis (to the conventional one) here, in a way that would seem plausible at first blush.

Originally posted by vistesd
In the end, I don’t know if either hypothesis can be said—at this point—to be “more likely” than the other. I have just tried to briefly flesh out the counter-hypothesis (to the conventional one) here, in a way that would seem plausible at first blush.

Thanks again for your input and for your ability to always go to the heart of what I'm trying to say.

I also don't know which one is more likely. I definitely agree that Price overdoes the myth position. He seems to have an axe to grind, while I have not. I'm interested in this subject because not only I like ancient history, but it's also something that seems to contradict conventional wisdom.

The vast majority of people stopped asking the question. Much like they do not question that the Earth is not flat, they also do not question the historicity of Jesus. Mention the hypothesis and the first reaction is invariably one of incredulity. "Everybody knows the person existed, but there's argument about what he said or did". But how does everybody know?

Sure. I do not deny it. The evidence against his historical existence is flimsy, but that's to be expected under the null hypothesis. And the evidence may also flimsy, but due to the nature of history and the character itself, we also cannot expect much historical evidence.

So I definitely agree with your statement that it's hard at this point to decide which one is more likely. I hold my hands up. But to get people to even accept that the balance isn't exactly tipping for either side is a very hard thing to do.

Originally posted by Palynka
Thanks again for your input and for your ability to always go to the heart of what I'm trying to say.

I also don't know which one is more likely. I definitely agree that Price overdoes the myth position. He seems to have an axe to grind, while I have not. I'm interested in this subject because not only I like ancient history, but it's also something that ...[text shortened]... ept that the balance isn't exactly tipping for either side is a very hard thing to do.

I’m glad that you pressed the point.

Although I had at one time read a bunch of the “search for the historical Jesus stuff” (folks like Crossan and Vermes and Mack)—and I think some of those guys seem good at “document archeology” (Vermes is a Dead Sea Scrolls expert, for example)—I really don’t know a lot about their underlying methodology.

But the question, which took me a while to realize is (since you brought statistics lingo into it 🙂 ) did they fail to disprove the null hypothesis? Did they really—even as expert scholars and historians—really consider the null hypothesis? Or were they really just trying to identify which of the alternative hypotheses best fit the data?

I’m a bit embarrassed that it took me so long to get it. It wasn’t until I thought again about my complaint that even non-religionist too readily accept the “fundamentalist” view that the Biblical texts are supposed to be read in a literalist/historicist manner, that I realized that I was accepting the conventional view of Jesus’ historicity in much the same way. That is why, then, I tried to imagine an alternative story.

Again, thanks for patiently pressing the point! (If I eventually got to the heart of what you were saying, I certainly took a circuitous route!)

_____________________________________

One more quick comment: Even though the historicity of Jesus (or Lao Tzu, or Jacob or Moses) might be of little more than incidental interest to some of us, failure to look at alternative possibilities (in this case, considering the null hypothesis) nevertheless impoverishes us somewhat, since we become blind to possible stories that—whether fact or fiction in the end—could lend insight into the range of human experience, and the quest for meaning. So, you are absolutely right on that score.

The postings on this thread reminded me of a Bertrand Russel quote which i believe is applicable -

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible”

Originally posted by Proper Knob
The postings on this thread reminded me of a Bertrand Russel quote which i believe is applicable -

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a wide-spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible”

Of course, the consideration here was not whether a man called Jesus of Nazareth was a divine god-man (etc., etc.), but whether there was a historical personage at the center of whatever stories and beliefs arose with respect to him. Some scholars who do not believe in the divinity of said person, nevertheless thought that there was a historical person behind the stories. That hardly fits Russell's quote.