Zaphod

Ten Beautiful lies about Jesus -

"...possibly the best ‘capsule summary’ of the mythicist case I’ve ever encountered …within an interesting and accessible approach.”
—Earl Doherty"


Jesus Nazōraios: hidden truths revealed? -

"This short essay reviews the linguistic issues surrounding the cognates Nazareth/Nazoraios/Nazarene. It attempts to show how the title ‘Nazoraion’ led to the name of Jesus’ New Testament hometown. McKenna touches upon lesser-known aspects of the problem including possible Mandaic and Gnostic roots, and offers an excellent bibliography.
—René Salm"

dog-on

I just read the 10 myths pdf. It is a well written summary of the problems with the historicist view. Thanks for the link.

DNAReplicator

Excellent essay – however I do have one or two comments/nit-picks.....

Firstly, I guess I’m a ‘historicist’ of sorts, in that I think that it is (a bit) more likely than not that the gospels are myths that are invented for, or attached to a real human that once walked around Palestine (yeah, yeah...like Popeye and Sherlock Holmes are historical, I guess....)

While the essay does a good job of debunking the opinions of many Christians about the historicity of Jesus, it inadvertently goes some way to confirming my tentative opinion that there was probably some very early core to the Jesus stories by arguing for a very early date for GThomas.

If Thomas pre-dates Paul and was used as a source by Mark (and I think there is some mileage in this argument), then Thomas could indeed be an eye-witness account – which is of course what it claims to be. While this may be of no comfort to a Christian apologist, it does kinda undermine the claims made in debunking ‘Myth 4’ (although the argument is still sound in relation to the canonical gospels).

Of course, if you place Thomas as a late composition (150AD+), then the problem goes away. However I have always rather suspected that the generally accepted late dating of Thomas arises as a result of both Christians and mythicists needing Thomas to be late to support their different cases, rather than a neutral assessment of the evidence.

As another aside, I find the very fleeting reference to Papias odd – whether or not you agree with Eusabius’ position that he had ‘exceedingly small intelligence’ or not, he describes (or at least the transmitted text of his we have describes) a serious (for the era) historical critical method for investigation into the founding of Christianity in about 110AD. Add to that the clear implication from his work that Luke, John and Matthew (at least in its current form) were unknown to him - I would have thought at least worth a mention.

However, overall I thought this was rather good – I’ll certainly keep a copy handy to refer to when taking on the headbangers....

aa5874

Once you believe the gospels are myths then you have NO support for your guess that the gospel myths was based on a SINGLE person.

What is the basis for your speculation that ALL the myths or the gospel myths were based on ONE single character?

Why would HONEST christians virtually lie about everything about Jesus claiming he was the truth and the life, equal to God, born of a virgin without a human father, transfigured, walked on water, and was raised from the dead knowing that he was just a man who lived in Galilee?

What would the REAL human parents of a human Jesus think of the disciples and Paul?

What would the REAL human neighbors of a human Jesus think of the disciples and Paul?

The REAL human parents and neighbors of Jesus would have thought that the disciples and Paul were a BUNCH of LIARS and completely dishonest.

It is FAR more reasonable, based on sources of antiquity, that Jesus was originally just an invented anonymous story very long AFTER the time of Pilate, after the Fall of the Temple, and well away from Judea and was believed by those who were DUPED.

There is SIMPLY no external source of antiquity that can even show that any of the Jesus stories were based on a SINGLE real human.

DNAReplicator

I have not claimed that.
I have not claimed they were honest? Do you think they were?
Probably that they were religious nuts.
Probably that they were religious nuts.
And/or nuts.
Not untypically, you have entirely missed the point of my post, as well as misrepresenting what I said.

My point was that if you argue that Thomas is a source predating Paul and Mark, then you need to consider the possiblility that it is an eye-witness document (as it claims to be). And if it is, then all that virgin/transfiguration/miracle/resurrection nonsense you rile against would not have been included in the earliest known Jesus traditions – which is circumstantial evidence in favour of a naturalistic Jesus being at the root of the later fictional myths (or ‘lies’ if you prefer the term....).

aa5874

Are you not aware that what you posted is recorded.

This is your claim.

Again what is the basis for your speculation that ALL the myths or gospel myths were based on ONE single character?

Toto

The Gospel of Thomas does not actually claim to be an eyewitness account. It is a collection of sayings, with no real narrative. The sayings are attributed to Jesus, but this Jesus is not identified as a crucified would-be messiah or as a Jewish itinerant preacher.

And I don't think that mythicists have had any significant input into the dating of Thomas. For mythicists, there is no historical Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas - the sayings could come from a spiritual savior - so the date is not very significant. The Jesus Seminar and Robert Funk promoted the idea that gThomas is early (see The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk)). Evangelical scholars oppose the idea (see Nicolas Perrin in Thomas, the Other Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk). (But see the review by Mark Goodacre here.)

Solo

Same here...Fitzgerald's little summary illustrates well the mythicists' syndrome: It starts with a complaint that noone takes them seriously and in a paragraph or two it asserts that the way they think is the only way possible.

First of all what is D.F.'s assurance that the Thomasian cimmunity refered to Jesus as "Christ" or "Lord" ? There is nothing in the GoT tmk that would make it clear how Jesus actually died. But we know from Paul (Gal 6:12) that some groups promoted observances only so that they not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. Doherty argued at the Jesus Mysteries forum that the the Judaizers did not believe Christ was crucified. That's odd, isn't it ? My take on it is that, if Paul told the Galatians that his opponents were afraid to be persecuted for a mythical event they themselves did not believe transpired, he would have looked like an idiot.

Myth #4 (Eyewitnesses wrote the gospel) - noone of any stature among the NT academics claims this. (Actually only Luke introduces the notion of autoptes - eyewitnesses. That he does not mean witnessing by actual sight is made plain later on the road to Emmaus. In 24:16 the eyesight of two witnesses is manipulated so they do not recognize Jesus.) This is a red herring used by D.F. and the mythicists, who prefer to argue their case with the fundies evangelical flakes and pretend they have taken on the cutting edge of the NT scholarship.

Some of Thomas appears to be early. Saying 12, e.g. does not make sense to have originated after 62 CE, the death of James the Just. It appears, however that the "living Jesus" is a cryptic description of an oracular source that one acquires contact with when high on the Spirit. Thomes probably used some common sayings current in other Jesus-venerating groups. It is not necessary to assume a common written source for them (Q).


Best,
Jiri

DNAReplicator

what about?

I always assumed that to Thomas the point of the crucifixion was that it set a "gold standard" for the degree to which converts should be prepared to suffer and sacrifice themselves to remain true to their cult. Have I misunderstood?

aa5874

But, tell us what apologetic sources show how Jesus actually died when the NT Canon and Church writings claimed he was RESURRECTED and was SEEN alive on the third day.

When did YOUR Jesus actually die? And how do we know that your source is credible?


We know NOTHING from Paul.

The Pauline writers made CLAIMS that may be FALSE.

We have NO external corroborative sources for Paul and even the author of Acts do not support "Paul" in some instances.

And further, it would appear that the Pauline writers may have been accused of lying when they wrote.


But this passage from the Gospel of Thomas makes no sense on its own.

Examine the Gospel of Thomas 12 1. There is NO author of the NT Canon who mentioned James the Just.

James the Just appears to have been invented AFTER the NT Canon, not even the Pauline writers wrote about James the Just.

2. No author of the NT Canon claimed heaven and earth came into being because of James the Just.

It appears that James the Just was a LATE INVENTION, after the Jesus stories and the Pauline writings.