I assume he’s referring to things like:
and so on. The pagan myths are full of stories like that, to the point where anyone promoting a new god to the Gentiles pretty much had to claim similar stuff for Jesus, just to get them to listen. Which is a very good reason for stripping them out.
I’m guessing this is a whoosh (and it’s clear you aren’t defending the theory), but IMO you might be confusing the traditional Matthew (who was a tax collector and, despite the ascription, probably wasn’t the author of the first Gospel) with Paul (who I believe had a pretty good tent business before becoming a Pharisee).
For the final point, we can consider the story of Moses, which the Gospel writers certainly new. Plus the rather odd flight to Egypt.
Then why was Christianity illegal and persecuted until the reign of Constantine?!
:rolleyes: Oh, get moving!
Why, all Christian churches would disband, of course!
Correct. The gospel of Matthew was certainly written for Jews, since it’s filled with references to the Hebrew Bible which would mean nothing to a Gentile, and it’s the only one that mentions the Slaughter of the Innocents and the time young Jesus spent in Egypt, which has obvious parallels with Moses.
Luke not only fails to mention these rather notable events in his otherwise detailed account of Jesus’s infancy, he directly contradicts them.
Indeed. And who was it that bought leather tents, wholesale?
Paulus worked for the Roman army.
One could imagine a scene, like from a movie.
Legate: “Right, Quintus, and how do we find jews to implement this plan of yours to subvert these rebels with your new message?”
Quitus:“Errm, well, errm…”
Centurion:“Excuse me Sir!”
Legate:“What!?”
Centurion: “Well, Sir. There’s this tentmaker I know, Sir. Loyal fellow. Says he’s been raised as a Jewish priest, Sir”
In Desire of the Everlasting Hills, Thomas Cahill remarks that tentmaker was simply a useful trade for an itinerant evangelist. Every town had its marketplace, every merchant who could afford one sat under a tent or an awning (awfully bright hot sun in the Near East), and all of those needed repairs occasionally. Paul could come to a new town, head straight for the bazaar, find some work, earn some money to live on, and then get on with the preaching, for which a marketplace is a good location.
Exactly my point. We can tell from the form of Shakespeare’s work when he is pulling from earlier tropes to write fiction, exactly the same way we see in the new testament.
Probably the number one literary source for the new testament was… The old testament. Other contemporary sources likely played a part as well. If you want to take a really deep dive might I suggest reading the link below, it covers in a lot of detail how new testament stories, through the Jewish cultural practice of midrash, may have become the meat on the bones of the Savior myth.
Sorry. Meant old testament, but it won’t let me edit.
I dunno, this sounds rather apologetic. Kind of like the argument that Paul would not have worked with leather, because that, supposedly, would be an unclean profession.
It seems unlikely to me you could earn your way repairing tents and awnings here and there. That’s stuff people easily did themselves.
Awnings are simple stuff, a piece of cloth and some sticks. Anyone can make them and merchants would probably make them themselves, to fit their stall.
Aquila and Priscilla were tentmakers by profession, it says.
Making leather tents takes more skill. Making stitches that are waterproof is not that easy, plus you need special needles, knives etc.
So, while the occasional caravan merchant might be in need of a new tent I think it much more likely that for 3 people, at least, to earn a steady income, the bulk of tent making work would have been for the Roman army.
The army, after all, needed thousands upon thousands of tents.
It is possible that Jesus was a historical person but John 10 seems to indicate that he was no more God than other humans when he was accused of Blasphemy, He reminded the Pharisee’s that their fathers were also called gods and sons of God by the Psalmist.
I would think propaganda Jesus would have fan fiction containing less contradictions and plot holes.
Tertullian: I believe because it is absurd.
The rest of us: we doubt, because it is absurd.
Fan service could have been better - if the publisher hadn’t been so stingy with new material. Waiting nearly 2000 years to release moldly copies of the Nag Hamaddhi Collectors Editions? Jesus. That’s really bullshit.
He’s not the messiah. He’s a very naughty boy. Now piss off!
Actually, Shakespeare got the character and basic story of Lear from (most likely) Holinshed’s Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland, who in turn probably got most of his information from Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae. While Monmouth’s work is recognized as largely fictional today, it was widely accepted as fact up until the 17th century.
Since seeing the page linked in the OP (in my facebook feed), I’ve been poking around the Mythicist areas of the internet, looking for the more respectable stuff.
This one’s not foolish at all. In fact it’s downright plausible. Look at the introduction to the material on this page for a very broad summary of the reasoning.
Basically, if you go with the scholarly consensus as to the order in which the words in the NT were written, you get a pretty clear development from people talking about Christ as though he were a purely spiritual being giving revelations to people in the church, to (over the course of a hundred years or so) people elaborating more and more on a historical narrative. The guy makes a damn good case that Paul, for example, has no conception of a historical person named Jesus, but instead conceives of Christ as a spiritual being who has undergone a death-and-resurrection in one of the lower heavens, and who reveals all this to people on earth through visions. The weakest link of the argument is there are a couple of places where Paul writes that Jesus is of “Abraham’s seed” and he’s “born of a woman,” but he has something to say about that, and anyway this has to be weighed with all the other evidence the guy adduces.
The guy (Earl Doherty) isn’t a professional scholar of religion or history, but his work has been characterized by actual historians as, basically, “pretty damn good for an amateur.” Indeed the historian (of Rome, IIRC) Richard Carrier is on record as having had his mind changed from “probably Jesus existed but I’m not sure” to “Probably Jesus didn’t exist but I’m not sure” after having read Doherty’s stuff. (Relevant book review at previous link.)
It’s not Murdoch-style grasping at least-plausible-available-interpretations, and it’s not Atwill-style Bible-code type reasoning. This guy Doherty is sensible, and his arguments are bothersomely plausible almost all throughout.