Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, all,

Was there the Historical Jesus? Well, it of course depends on our starting assumptions. So, basically, what I'm saying is that, if we assume, with the overwhelming majority of today's biblical profession, that,

-- Mark was the earliest gospel.
-- All four gospels are really 1c documents, and should be always treated as such.
-- The "sacred 7 authentic epistles of Paul" are really authentic.

then the conclusion will follow inevitably that Jesus was indeed a Myth!

So, in my view, what Earl Doherty does, he's simply being a lot more honest than your typical conventional NT scholar today. He simply takes these widely prevalent starting assumptions, and brings them to their logical conclusion.

Indeed, these three are the unshakeable dogmas in today's NT studies, and trying to question them will lead to all sorts of negative consequences. Just look at yours truly, and how many biblical lists I've been expelled from in the last couple of years!

So, in essence, what Earl is saying is, Fine let's accept all these as true. But if so, on the basis of all this, Jesus could have never been historical!

Indeed, how could it be possible that the blatantly Gentile and anti-Jewish canonical Mark, coupled with all those many Gentile/gnostic passages in the "7 authentic epistles of Paul" -- how can all this be reconciled with Jesus the simple Galilean peasant only a generation away, piously quoting the Jewish Scriptures all over the place? Impossible! Hence, no Historical Jesus.

And so, the above 3 Dogmas are really the 3 Whales that, according to some mythological accounts, were supposed to carry the whole Universe on their back. But in a completely logical and naturalistic world, where every true historian is supposed to live, it would be extremely improbable that, in a few short years, a lowly Galilean preacher could have progressed from being arrested and nailed to the cross -- for whatever reasons -- to being promoted to the exalted status of a pre-existent Creator of the Universe, being equal to God himself.

So how could this happen between ca 30 CE, when he was presumably nailed to the cross, and ca 55 CE, when, for Paul, supposedly, he was already the Creator of the whole Universe?

Yes, my friends, the idea is clearly preposterous and bizarre. And this is exactly what Earl is saying! Thus, Earl Doherty is right!

Or else, perhaps these 3 basic starting assumptions, these 3 Mythological Whales that are still carrying our whole Mainstream NT Universe on their back, might be wrong? But this would be a separate subject...

All the best,

Yuri.

"Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road." -=- Voltaire

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Vinnie,

All I'm saying is that, since the earliest movement was unquestionably a movement of religious Jews, then it would have probably stayed this way for a very long time. And in such a case, it's hardly possible to explain all these anti-Judaic and non-Judaic passages in Mark and in Paul (assuming they both date pre-70CE).

This is the basic problem for the canonical story of Jesus. And also, this is the basic problem for modern NT scholarship. Since modern NT scholarship hasn't found any way to deal with this problem -- and since they've been trying very hard to avoid this problem -- then their story of Jesus is a non-sequitur. So IMHO this is what Doherty is pointing out. Thus, Doherty is more honest than your run-of-the-mill NT scholar.

So are you saying that "the church of Mark" didn't represent the Xtian mainstream for their time?

So what exactly happened in these 40 years, according to you? And how did this make "the church of Mark" so anti-Jewish?

Well, then you didn't read Paul very carefully.

But there's also quite a bit of anti-Jewish stuff in Paul. And I don't think there was any such thing as Q.

Regards,

Yuri.

Amos

Well Doherty is wrong because there was a historical Jesus but he existed only in the myth. The crucifixion was also real but only in the myth and the problem here is the meaning of the word real, which, of course, is a metaphysical reality that led to the physical transformation of the body, soul and mind of the man called Jesus. In other words, if the mythical crucifixion is not real the physical transformation can never follow.

Gregg

Why is it so important that there be a historical Jesus at the foundation of Christianity?

I think we can all agree that if this fellow existed, he was nothing like he's portrayed in the Gospels--being born under a wandering star, preaching to huge crowds, working miracles, arousing the alarm and wrath of both the Jewish and Roman authorities with his seditious teachings about the poor and weak overcoming the rich and powerful, and being executed among great signs and wonders. If that had been the case, surely Josephus would have devoted more than a few sentences to him, and many other Jewish, Greek, and Roman chroniclers besides. Why is it so important that we cling to the belief that there was really some obscure, practically unknowable Jewish preacher back of all this mythology?

We acknowledge that there were mystery cults that worshipped dying/rising savior gods much like Jesus (even to the point that some of them ate a sacred meal before being sacrificed), but we don't insist that there must have been an actual person back of THOSE myths.

We acknowledge that for devout Jews at the time, the idea of the one, pure, holy God having any contact with flesh was blasphemy--yet we cheerfully assent to formerly devout Jews embracing the idea of God taking on actual flesh, living a lowly, humble life, and dying an ignominous death as a criminal and rebel, and nowhere having to defend this belief even to their fellow Jews!

We acknowledge that Paul has very little, if anything, to say about a historical Jesus. Yet this simply can't be because there wasn't one. No, it's because Paul was so spiritually advanced he just had no interest in meaningless, trivial, temporal things like what the Incarnate, Eternal Word said and did while he walked the earth. Furthermore, he so effectively dazzled people with his preaching about the crucified and resurrected Christ that they, too, lost all interest in knowing more about this Galilean who was the supposedly the essence of God in the flesh, and whose crucifixion and resurrection had secured their eternal salvation. Strangely, no one thought (at least not until the Middle Ages) to scurry off to Palestine and check out the Garden, Golgotha, or the empty tomb, or squirrel away the Cup of Christ or pieces of the True Cross, or find the boat that the Word From Whom All Things Were Made spoke to the crowds from (remember, this was the heyday of the Roman Empire--the roads were good and travel was relatively safe).

We acknowledge that the cosmology of the era provided a perfect alternative to the Logos taking on actual flesh--by descending to the lowest level of heaven, he could take on the LIKENESS of flesh, which was more than adequate for his sacrifice to provide a salvific benefit for believers (after all, it was enough for other dying/rising savior god cults). But no, we just can't accept this perfectly logical explanation--we just HAVE to shoehorn a real person in there SOMEWHERE!!

I'm sorry if I sound a bit exasperated. Honestly, I don't have any personal beef with the historical Jesus position. I was a historicist for a long time. But for people to argue against the mythicist position by saying it's "weak" or "specious" or "banal" or "based on untenable assumptions" --well, I have to think that they either haven't studied it very carefully, or they have a strong emotional investment in believing Jesus was real, or both.

Gregg

Amos

A good example here is the metamorphosis from caterpaillar to butterfly. The Jesus myth represents the cocoon stage and to say that this is not real is OK but it is needed to make the transformation possible.

dost

What is the date of the composition of the Gospel according to Luke according to most scholars? Is there a concensus on its dating?

And what, again according to most scholars, is the date of death of St. Paul?

I have read that the Gospels were composed after Paul. Is there a chance that Paul, or atleast during his time, there was a written Gospel according to Luke? If you just assume that 1 Timothy was authored by Paul, then in verses 5:18 a logion of Jesus is quoted which is preserved in Luke. Since the quoted logion is identicle to the one found in Luke (the same logion is also found in Mark, but is not identicle in wording to it), some scholars believe that "Paul" had the Gospel according to Luke itself in his hands and quoted from it. I would like to know the mainstream scholarly view on this matter.

Thanks.

Gregg

Why would Paul have needed to quote Luke? These passages appear in Deuteronomy 19:15 and 25:4.

Gregg

dost

Hi Gregg.

I'm sorry, I should have made myself more clear. The verse reads:

"For the Scripture says, 'Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,' and 'The worker deserves his wages.'" 1 Timothy 5:18

Paul mentions Deuteronomy 25:4 along with Luke 10:7:

"Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for **the worker deserves his wages.** Do not move around from house to house." Luke 10:7

Since the wording here is identicule to the one found in 1 Tim., it is argued that the author of Tim, lets assume he is Paul, quoted from the Gospel according to Luke itself, and hence regarded the entire lot as "scripture".

Hence I enquired regarding the scholarly concensus on the dating of Luke and the death of Paul and the likelihood of Paul making use of Luke.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, dost,

The scholarly consensus on the dating of Luke is pre-100 CE. Some date it as late as 110 CE.

But, in my view (based on Loisy), the real story is quite different. From the textual perspective, I see all 4 gospels as dating from ca 180-250 CE.

There's little debate about dating the death of Paul; it was ca 60. As far as the likelihood of Paul making use of Luke, hardly anyone believes in this. Also, 1 Tim is usually seen as not really authored by Paul.

So, yes, the later author of 1 Tim may well have made use of Luke.

Regards,

Yuri.

vtran31

Mark was the earliest gospel.
-- All four gospels are really 1c documents, and should be always treated as such.

may I ask why he assumes this?