I can’t agree. Cutting out the obvious Christian bits and leaving the rest is a very obvious and very childish trick that shouldn’t fool anyone. The arguments that the meaning would flow far, far better without any of it, combined with all the Josephus-discordant features of even the alleged remaining bits makes your premise fall utterly. It makes zero sense, whether artificially trimmed to please partially skeptical apologists or not.
That’s what I meant. I didn’t claim the Tacitus reference was interpolated, only that it was, as I wrote earlier:
Okay. I’d never read that before, or at least I don’t recall doing so. Don’t know what to make of it.
No, Doherty argues that that reflects a revelation of the spiritual Christ rather than an interpolation.
As have I. But the pros argue interpolations only when the evidence is persuasive that they really are interpolations (barring that Price link, anyway, which I’ll have to find time later to examine)…
Ok, but there would have to have been a few members of the Jewish diaspora who were familiar with the Jesus cult. I find it likely that the author of the Book of Mark would keep things consistent with what they knew. Heck, Mark is full of digs on the sect associated with Saint Peter: am I wrong to assume that the Saint Peter crowd would have some jewish membership?
I need to make a general post on roughly how I envision the notion of the NT Jesus came to be…
It did not happen in Paul’s boardroom or anything like this:
No, it most likely happened something like this (this is a satirical speculation):
[Betty]: Hey, Wilma, I just heard a street preacher say “Blessed are the meek”! Why don’t you add that to your “wise old sayings” collection?
Wilma: Gosh, Betty, I already have 29 scrolls full, do I really have to add this one, too?
[Betty]: C’mon, Wilma! They’re having a hell of a time. Let’s say something nice about them.
Wilma: All right already! What was this one’s name?
[Betty]: I think it was Yeshiva? No, wait, what’s your nephew’s name again?
[Betty]: Yep, that’s the one!
Wilma: Wait! I just noticed that I’d forgotten to attach names to every saying in this scroll! What’ll I do?
[Betty]: Oh, hell. Why don’t you just attribute them all to this Yeshua guy? Who’ll know different?
Wilma: Brilliant! Why don’t I just save the space on these expensive scrolls by attributing all of them to Yeshua?
[Betty]: Good call! Fred will like the savings; savings he can spend in the pool hall on more Kosher Old Milwaukee…
Kidding aside, what I figure happened is that some group or groups from, or descended from, the Qumran community roughly 40-100 BCE gathered up a large collections of sayings and parables, including one or more layers of Q, to associate with their revered but mythical Righteous Teacher combined with the growing concept of an intermediary Son of salvation derived from all kinds of Gnostic mystery religions in order to proselytize on his behalf. Human nature being what it is, it would make for easier preaching if the source of the parables and such had a name and some pseudo-historical attributes, and Yeshua would have been the number one choice for that (the name literally means “salvation”).
The proselytism would proceed apace and spread out and lose coherence and consistency as the distance between preachers and churches grew. At some point many decades later – perhaps a century or more – the origins of the Jesus myth would be lost to history. One or more of the itinerant preachers happened upon one or more of the “Pillars” in Jerusalem, and the rest is genuine history (including Paul’s writing of his epistles) until Mark invents his fictional early novel (forget Cervantes!), based, in part, on some of Homer’s writings along with the totally confused Jesus myth. Matthew and Luke plagiarize Mark with many changes and possibly John goes back to still earlier material to plagiarize and manipulate.
Since Mark’s novel sells and Mark’s novel includes just a hint of a possible historical Jesus, pretty much everyone from then on simply assumes that Jesus was historical even though he clearly wasn’t.
The end.
Note, please, that I’m emphatically NOT arguing that’s how it actually happened! I have no idea. It’s just one possible scenario about how it could have happened without a historical Jesus or his historical ministry that fits what we know.
Skammer’s not here, so I’ll back him up.
“Canonical gospels” refers to the four Gospels present in Christian bibles for about the last 1700 years or so. That’s what “canonical gospels” means- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. You’re right that other gospels existed, and you’re right to not assume that these other gospels like Thomas, Judas, Hebrews, Peter, etc, are not less historically accurate because they weren’t included in the canon by the early church fathers. (They probably are less accurate, with the possible exception of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, but the fact that they’re non-canonical isn’t the reason.) The phrase “canonical gospels” specifically refers to those four and no others. Skammer is nitpicking, but he’s absolutely correct, and you’re way off-base here.
From the second sentence of the Wikipedia entry on “Gospel”:
I’m pretty sure that ambushed knows what the canonical Gospels are. I took him to mean that there are more gospels than just the canonical ones, but he accidentally phrased it badly. From what I’ve read of his posting history on this topic, I would be shocked if he didn’t know what “canonical” meant.
The movement Paul associates with Peter was in Jerusalem, and yes, that would have been primarily a Jewish movement (though we don’t really know anything about what their specific beliefs were, since all we know about them is what Paul tells us, and that’s not much). But after the first Jewish-Roman War, the Jersualem Jesus movement was gone, and Paul’s movement became the de facto “orthodox” version of Christianity. This was pretty much a Gentile movement, and while it may have contained some Hellenistic Jews, it was unlikely to have encountered many, if any, surviving Palestinian Jews who’d been alive in Judea 40-70 years prior, and not especially likely they’d ever have heard of Jesus even if the had been living at the same time and place as he did.
These early churches in Asia Minor were very small and obscure. It’s not like they were on the internet or anything, and the Gospels were not widely distributed. Copies were scarce, and the people (most of whom were not literate anyway) heard them read aloud at meetings of these small congregations in private homes. These were not events which were typically being sought out or attended by hostile Jews, and the odds that some creaky old survivor from the time and place contemporaneous with Jesus was going to wander into one of these little meetings and say “that never happened” (or even KNOW anything about Jesus) was vanishingly small. Even if it had happened, that person would have simply been ignored, since he wouldn’t have been able to prove anything, and facts have never gotten in the way of religion in any case.
Are there correlations between Mark and the Qumran scrolls?
I’ve always heard the significance of the scrolls played down.
I find this idea of an evolution from Essenes to Jesus movement quite an interresting avenue, so could you lead me to a comparison between the two?
If the main portion of your argument contains a major logical flaw then the rest falls apart. A chain of arguments is only as strong as it’s weakest link.
You are actually supporting my argument rather than your own.
You argued that it was impossible that Paul would argue with or consider himself equal to, those who had actually walked with the flesh and blood Jesus. This is another not quite so logical conclusion. Paul’s authority as well as all the apostles authority, came from communion with God and Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Jesus himself established this
He promised them the Holy Spirit would come and lead them into all truth. Since all spiritual knowledge and authority came from the Holy Spirit, Paul’s experience on the road, and the presence of the HS afterwards does give him equal status with those who may have actually walked with Jesus the man. That’s the thrust of the passage you quoted. What you seem to be extrapolating from it simply isn’t there.
That’s what opinion is all right. Since you’ve admitted mythicism may not be correct you’ve identified it as an opinion. An informed opinion is still just an opinion. You’ve used a lot of words but your argument has little solid content. I’ve made no declarative statements about the existance of historical Jesus so I have nothing to prove. I’m just pointing out the flaws in your logic. If this is an example of mythicism logic I’m umimpressed. It’s warped logic using selective interpretations of passages to reach unfounded conclusions based on preconcieved preferences. The believers do that enough alreeady. Quit it.
What a nifty dodge. Why is it you think you bear no burdon after making a declarative staement concerning Jesus but somehow I do, when I’ve no declarative statement about his existance. Yours was just a teaser you say? Great! I didn’t make one at all so clearly there is even less burdon on me.
This is one more example of your consistantly flawed logic.
Since you’ve admitted you don’t know either it’s a mute point. That’s what I’ve said all along. For all your mountains of words you’ve yet to make any compelling argument that the mythacists are correct. In fact you’ve demostrated serious errors in the thinking.
The correct answer is, as I’ve said all along, we can’t be certain one way or the other, whether Jesus was a flesh and blood teacher or not. Whichever side of the argument you prefer is just an opinion, informed or otherwise.
The mythacist arguments look pretty compelling to me - not that Jesus would be any more divine if he’d actually been a genuine itinerant preacher.
What you’re basically arguing here is a ‘Jesus of the gaps’ argument. Everywhere we look there’s no credible evidence of a historical Jesus, even when we look in the places we’re darn near certain such a Jesus would have been commented on, but that doesn’t matter to you because there might have been a stealth Jesus that evaded detection by contemporary historians (and Paul).
Certainly any conclusions one draws on the subject are just “informed opinions”, in much the same way I merely have an informed opinion that I am not a large sentient turnip. (Perhaps I am, and have merely overlooked it.) However, it would be erroneous to say that all “opinions” on the subject have equal credibility or merit.
I’m saying the arguments I’ve seen in this thread are based on faulty logic baseless assumptions about Paul, and interpretations of scriptures that demonstrate a bias to support a preconceived notion.
I’ll say it again; We don’t know if Jesus was an actual historical figure or not , or more accurately, we don’t know of the Jesus of the NT was based on an actual individual and the myths added later.
What historians were Jesus contemporaries and why would you expect them to write about about a minor event of one more Jewish prophet, and the small sect that followed him? Is that a realistic expectation? Is it just as realistic, given the nature of historians and record keeping in that era, that we wouldn’t have the documentation ambushed seems to insist we should have.
Since scholars who know much more about this than either you or I don’t seem to agree then I think I’m safe in saying “The correct answer is we don’t know”, and with our currant information, we can’t know with any real certainty.
Whatever side of the argument you think is likely doesn’t matter to me. I freely admit that I’d prefer there was an actual person that Jesus was based on, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m pretty sure there was because I recognize there’s very little to support that.
Concerning this thread, I’m saying that the arguments I’ve read are unconvincing and flawed in their thinking. I’ve explained why.
Insisting that Paul would have wanted to visit key places of Jesus life is a baseless assumption without weight. Maybe, but maybe not. What’s compelling about that?
To insist that Paul wouldn’t have dared to argue with apostles that walked with flesh and blood Jesus., same thing. It’s baseless assumption without weight or backing. Nothing compelling about that.
Me, I don’t care one way or the other because it’s the teachings I value not the story. However, when someone presents faulty arguments and logic as compelling I am inclined to comment. and that is IMHO.
And I think you’re mischaracterizing the arguments, which casts serious doubt on your credibility. Could Josephus have completely overlooked Jesus? Maybe - but it seems doubtful. Would Paul have argued for a purely spiritual ressurection if he had spoken to numerous people who personally confirmed a physical ressurection? Certainly not. Er, I mean, sure, maybe he got confused. And stayed confused.
Admittedly, when taken alone and individually many of the arguments are kind of uncompelling, just as most single fossils are pretty uncompelling as arguments for evolution. But as you take them together they start to paint a picture, and it’s not a picture that’s particularly consistent with a physical Jesus messiah figure who had been operating as a leading figure of the neophyte christain movement just a few years earlier.
I haven’t done any detailed study of this but from my reading there is a question as to whether he did overlook Jesus.
This is the type of argument that strikes me as illogical. Can we safely say the canonical gospels at the very least contain a lot of hype and myth. Who said any of Jesus original followers believed in a physical resurrection and a literal empty grave? Why do you assume those who walked with a real human Jesus would insist on that? It’s that kind of assumption that leaves me unimpressed by the arguments.
Believe what you will. Sure the pieces of the puzzle can fit together to form that picture if that’s the picture you’d rather see. For myself, when the pieces of this argument are based on unnecessary assumptions like the one you just made and the ones **ambushed ** argued so strongly the whole picture falls apart.
Sure it’s possible and I’ve said that but there is nothing compelling to me about an argument built upon a series of unnecessary and baseless assumptions about the motives of people who lived 2000 years ago in a vastly different culture. That goes for either side of this argument.
Was the mythical Jesus of the NT based on a single real life individual? answer; nobody really knows. Pick which side suits you.
Paul was not interested in the historical Jesus. He saw things in terms of salvation and personal redemption-because of this, he would not have wasted his time in visiting the sites of Jesus’ life.
Whatever your criticisms of Paul, the fact is, he was honest about his convictions:
“if Christ be not risen, our faith is in vain”
Obviously, Paul had a very strong faith.
Since it’s been a while I decided to read some of Paul’s writings with this discussion in mind.
To clarify, I thought the argument was Jesus did not exist historically as a single individual.
We could easily agree that much of the NT is myth, miracles and a physical resurrection from the dead etc. but the discussion here is was that Jesus Christ of the NT based on an actual living human being or not. Isn’t that them discussion?
Regarding that, I started reading in 1st Corinthians.
I include 9:1 only in reference to those who foolishly claim there is a major difference between those who walked with physical Jesus and Paul. There isn’t. In Paul’s mind it was all about the Holy Spirit which they had equally.
a last supper reference
his betrayal and the last supper
I can agree that this may not refer to a physical resurrection , but it does seem to indicate a physical death by an individual.
That’s as far as I’ve gotten and I did leave out several references to Christ’s death and rising from the dead. I can easily see a good argument for Paul believing in a spiritual resurrection rather than a physical one. He clearly stresses man’s relationship with God and Christ through the Holy Spirit. He even makes a rather casual reference to seeing Christ himself, meaning through the HS and revelation.
It also seems fairly clear in light of these passages that he’s referencing a living individual who was killed. I don’t see how anyone can read these and then make a strong argument that Paul himself did not think of Jesus as an actual living individual.
IMO it’s foolish for non believers to use the same selective interpretation technique the more fundamental believers do to try and make some case.
Is it possible there was no historical individual that JC was based on ? Yep
Is it possible that Paul didn’t believe in a living individual JC? also yep, but in light of these passages I’d say there’s a fairly strong indication he may have believed in a living individual person that was Jesus the Christ.
I don’t know how much time I can spend here tonight, but I doubt very much I’ll be able to respond to everyone in the queue. I’ll try to come back tomorrow…
It wasn’t sarcasm, it was astonishment! Paul was a genius who had gone far out of his way to learn everything he could out of longing for wisdom and knowledge of cosmopolitan learning and teachers and all sorts of facts, history, stories, theologies, teachings, allegories, fables, legends and myths of all sorts. No one acquires that kind of vast knowledge without being driven by curiosity. To assert just to defend your silly historicist thesis – as is very obviously the case – that “Paul just wasn’t into all that Jesus stuff” is simply mind-boggling! It’s one of the most blatant cases of special pleading I’ve ever seen.
There really isn’t anything else in that post of yours to respond. Skepticism of my skepticism doesn’t amount to an actual argument.