To be honest, I have no real idea what your argument is, and re-reading the OP isn’t helping. I assumed it had something to do with not believing Jesus really existed, and so remarks aimed at explaining why, under the circumstances, believing he really existed as a historical figure would be relevant.
How about this: can you explain, in a single summary thesis statement or paragraph, what exactly your argument is? thanks in advance. 
The basic idea is: For all we can tell, Paul and Mark didn’t intend to write about a historical figure, and this makes the hypothesis that Jesus wasn’t a historical figure plausible. So then, for all we can tell, Jesus wasn’t a historical figure.
Wait a minute. You think it’s not possible to argue for or against the existence of a historical figure but yet you CAN argue for the INTENT of a historical writer?
Uh, yeah. :rolleyes:
I do not understand this at all. You seem(?) to be ascribing to me a view that it’s impossible to argue for or against the existence of a historical figure–but I’ve said nothing like that to my knowledge, and I certainly don’t believe it. You then express surprise at the idea that we can argue about the intent of a historical writer? But that seems utterly obviously true to me. Is it not?
Umm, no. Of the two, physical existence and intent, one is certainly more evanescent than the other. So if you think physical existence is more elusive, I’m not sure what sorts of standards you’re using.
Would be interesting, it occurs to me, to try to take biographical information about a known historical figure of similar scope and resolution as that found in Mark, and see if episodes and sequences of episodese within it can be made to “fit” stories from ancient literature.
As I said, I have no idea where you’re getting this from. I haven’t said anything at all about how elusive or hard to argue about physical existence is. To my knowledge, I’ve offered no opinion on that at all.
Having said that, I actually do think that intentions are pretty easy to reason about reliably in many cases.
Thanks! That makes it much clearer.
My take is three-fold:
(1) A plain reading of the text of the gospels does not give the impression the person being described was not intended to be a literal figure. I know you disagree, but there it is.
(2) Rather, he appears to have been extensive mythologized - that is, stories and legends were attached to his name. This is not exactly unexpected. Most famous historical figures, in a pre-evidence age, are extensively mythologized and stories attached to them that have parallels to other myths, etc. This applies to ancient figures like Alexander the Great and to more contemporary figures like Robert the Bruce - both people who really existed, but about whom legends were attached. Not to mention good old Togril, a/k/a Prester John! 
(3) The fact that the figure of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels was extensively mythologized does not mean that he, literally, never existed. It doesn’t even make ot more likely he never existed. Yiou would get mythologizing whether he existed or not.
OK sure. I’m beginning to get the feeling there isn’t much point to this debate anymore anyway.
Well, when one person seems to be arguing against claims the other guy plainly never made, what you say may be true…
Did I say it’s hard to argue about physical existence or not? There’s a fact to this matter.
Did I say it’s easier to talk about intent or not? Again, there’s a fact to this matter.
I’m not sure what your argument is at this point and not to be rude but I’m not sure you do either.
I also will not be rude.
Right, the argument I’ve presented turns on the question of the first item you listed. If it’s wrong, then extensive mythologization is definitely a plausible route to follow.
Yes. Sort of. But we don’t need to shy away from assigning it meaning.
The Greek word aion, as used by Paul had two meanings. Sometimes it referred to an eternity, with God’s eternal reign in view. For instance, in Gal 1:5, “to whom be glory for ever and ever”. Other times it refers to the present earthly world. One can tell which definition is in view by the grammar, usually just by the preceding preposition. For the first definition, Paul would use eis aion. For the second, toutou aion always indicates “this world” as opposed to God’s heavenly world. See, for instance, Romans 12:2, 1 Cor 1:20, 1 Cor 3:18, and others. Now in 1 Cor 2:6-8, Paul uses toutou aion twice. If he desired to refer to purely spiritual beings, why would he use exactly the phrase that he just used moments earlier to indicate human beings contrasted against spiritual?
First, there’d be nothing strange about Paul repeating a thought in two consecutive sentences. Paul did so often, and it was a common rhetorical tactic in ancient writing.
In the verses following verse 8, Paul continues direct criticism of specifically human wisdom, so he didn’t finish with the topic at verse 5. We have two theories:
[ul]
[li]The whole passage, from ch. 1 to the end of ch. 2, deals with false human wisdom as opposed to the genuine wisdom that Christians possess.[/li][li]Paul started with a focus on false human wisdom. Then he decided to throw in a short comment about the false wisdom taught by the demon princes who crucified Jesus, a false wisdom which he never mentioned anywhere else. He decided to do this using language that, normally, denoted human things and not spiritual things. And after this short comment on the demon princes, he went immediately back to criticizing human wisdom.[/li][/ul]
The second theory seems needlessly complex when the first theory explains the passage quite simply. The larger point being that, in order to make your overall theory work, you need to butcher not only this passage but many others, such as the one in Romans already discussed. Whereas those of us who believe that Paul viewed Jesus as an earthly being can simply read Paul as meaning what he said, without having to argue that he used ever other word to mean the exact opposite of what, to the best of our knowledge, it meant.
As I said before, you definitely keep your arguments more on the reasonable side than most folks who crusade for the “Jesus didn’t exist” camp. You’ve limited yourself to saying that you find it plausible that Jesus did not exist. Since plausible is a word that can’t be nailed down, obviously no one can fully prove that your viewpoint is wrong.
When you say something like this:
It’s not that Mark “can be read” as fiction–its that practically everything about it invites the reader to understand it as fiction.
Then we could actually discuss whether that’s true, assuming that you were willing to actually name aspects of Mark that invite an understanding as fiction. But now you seem to be backing off that claim–correct me if I’m wrong–and only claiming that there is one scholarly work that treats Mark that way. Well, there’s a massive body of research about New Testament studies and Christian origins: hundreds of books, thousands of papers and articles. Is the conclusions of each one automatically a plausible thing to believe? If not, then it what sense does MacDonald’s hypothesis become more plausible than the rest, since it is, for reasons already stated, a pretty off-the-wall one?
Yes, that’s the very line that had me wincing when I re-read it. I was trying to characterize the argument that Mark is fiction, and I do sympathize with it, but was going way beyond what I intended to argue in this thread. So while I do think the above statement is true, it’s something I know I’m in no position to defend right now, and in this thread, I really intended to keep things in the “for all I know because experts are doing such-and-such” realm.
I could (slowly, without ready comebacks) answer arguments against the Mark/Homer thing, showing why I don’t find them sufficient to throw out the idea. But the thesis itself is not something I could positively argue for and defend.
Sorry, I didn’t answer your question. The Mark/Homer thesis seems very plausible to me right now, but that’s not necessary for a conclusion that for all we know there was no Jesus. Lot’s of other, incompatible theses about Mark are also plausible. Really, just the fact that there are incompatible theses among experts which experts take seriously is enough for me to not know what to say about the truth behind the gospel. And if it’s possible for all I know that Mark is constructed from Homeric and OT elements combined imaginatively, then it’s possible for all I know that it’s just fiction. Of course it’s also possible for all I know that it’s an imaginative retelling of some actual events mixed with those other elements. But if the “it’s fiction” possibility seems to reinforce the impression I’m getting from reading Paul as described previously in the thread, that just compounds the plausibility of the fictional reading of Mark.
Like I say in the OP, I’m “starting to stop thinking Jesus existed.” I’m not there yet, and at the most what I’m moving toward is state of not knowing.
Wither Jesus was just a human being or not makes me wonder why his very close friends and relatives were not looking for the Resurrection he seemed to have said would happen after 3 days. Why would they go to the tomb to anoint his body if he was going to resurrect ? I know if my son told me that he was going to die on Friday afternoon and return on Sunday morning, I just would ask him if He wanted me to fix him breakfast. His apostles were also said to have been surprised when he came through a wall to greet them, but showed Thomas his wounds because he didn’t believe he was in the flesh. Maybe it is just me, but it doesn’t ring true.
I wonder if back in those days if people were in a coma they were considered dead? I have read that in the 1800s some people had been buried alive. Later they were discovered and brought up from the grave? True or not…I don’t know.
In a frightful spat of irony, this ad for the Mormon Church was posted at the bottom of the page:
“Jesus Christ’s resurrection gives us all hope and saves us from death”
Only tools would believe such nonsense. You will die whether or not you believe Jesus is the Son of God. There is no saving man from his demise; thus we invent mythologies and adorn ourselves with “faith” to simply delude that undeniable reality. Religion is for the weak.
/rant
Stringbean, your use of ‘tools’ referring to believers is close to being a direct insult to those in this thread who do believe. As you know - or should - insulting others is a violation of the SDMB rules for Great Debates.
I encourage you to join the discussion, but please do so in a respectful manner and without insulting others.
No warning issued.