dog-on

Relatively normal, as opposed to Jesus Christ, who was by no means, was ever considered relatively normal.

ApostateAbe

I am not saying that Jesus was normal. I would claim only that Jesus in Mark and Q was "relatively normal," as in normal relative to the Jesus in the gospel of John. The issue is whether it is typical for culture heroes to start out as having boring normal elements in their lives.

dog-on

Not sure that I follow your logic here. Jesus in Mark is not normal and I have never seen a copy of Q.

So the issue is that you seem to want us to ignore the fact that Mark's Jesus is anything but normal in order to do what exactly?

ApostateAbe

I think I would like to confine the conversation on this with Jaybees, sorry.

show_no_mercy

It's odd, though, that the examples that Steven Carr points out are the things that make gospels like Matthew and Luke "biographies" in the ancient sense. Most bioi start with the birth of the hero, either by divine provenance or their birth being "foretold" or some other means. Mark and John, however, do not have that sort of purpose.

Both of those gospels are a series of episodes meant to show that Jesus has authority. They are not about Jesus per se, but about his authority as the messiah. They couldn't care less about displaying Jesus' character so that you empathize with him or identify with any mistakes he makes. They just want to establish that he's the new boss in town. We can read other biographies written around the same time (like Plutarch's) and they are written closer to how Matt and Luke wrote; though Matt and Luke restrict themselves by more or less just inserting the above bioi elements into Mark.

Look at the birth of Apollonius, it's basically the same sort of birth that Jesus had (except the virginity) in Matt and Luke:

Apollonius' home, then, was Tyana, a Greek city amidst a population of Cappadocians. His father was of the same name, and the family descended from the first settlers. It excelled in wealth the surrounding families, though the district is a rich one. To his mother, just before he was born, there came an apparition of Proteus, who changes his form so much in Homer, in the guise of an Egyptian demon. She was in no way frightened, but asked him what sort of child she would bear. And he answered: "Myself."

"And who are you?" she asked.
"Proteus," answered he, "the god of Egypt."

Well, I need hardly explain to readers of the poets the quality of Proteus and his reputation as regards wisdom; how versatile he was, and for ever changing his form, and defying capture, and how he had a reputation of knowing both past and future. And we must bear Proteus in mind all the more, when my advancing story shows its hero to have been more of a prophet than Proteus, and to have triumphed over many difficulties and dangers in the moment when they beset him most closely.

Now he is said to have been born in a meadow, hard by which there has been now erected a sumptuous temple to him; and let us not pass by the manner of his birth. For just as the hour of his birth was approaching, his mother was warned in a dream to walk out into the meadow and pluck the flowers; and in due course she came there and her maids attended to the flowers, scattering themselves over the meadow, while she fell asleep lying on the grass.

Thereupon the swans who fed in the meadow set up a dance around her as she slept, and lifting their wings, as they are wont to do, cried out aloud all at once, for there was somewhat of a breeze blowing in the meadow. She then leaped up at the sound of their song and bore her child, for any sudden fright is apt to bring on a premature delivery.

But the people of the country say that just at the moment of the birth, a thunderbolt seemed about to fall to earth and then rose up into the air and disappeared aloft; and the gods thereby indicated, I think, the great distinction to which the sage was to attain, and hinted in advance how he should transcend all things upon earth and approach the gods, and signified all the things that he would achieve.

Apollonius of Tyana seems to be a comparable case study to Jesus. The one thing that Apollonius scores in favor of his historicity that Jesus doesn't have is that there's possibly a letter written by his own hand. Well that, and he lived a lot longer . I don't find it so completely insane to doubt the existence of Apollonius.

ApostateAbe

I think that is well-argued, and I don't disagree with anything you wrote. It is a fine example.

aa5874

It is EXTREMELY strange or ABNORMAL that you would claim Jesus was "relatively normal in "Q" when NO-ONE has EVER seen "Q".

Please state EXACTLY what you SAW in "Q" about Jesus that was "relatively normal".

Now, in gMark, the very little there is of the life of Jesus is NOT "relatively normal".

Let us go through gMark, chapter by chapter. There is NOTHING about Jesus until he met John and was baptized.

Mark 1.

1. When Jesus was baptized a "relatively ABNORMAL" thing happened, a Ghost like a Dove entered Jesus.

2. Jesus was TEMPTED by the Devil for 40 days which is "relatively ABNORMAL."

3. Jesus cured a LEPER in a "relatively ABNORMAL" way.

Mark 2.

Jesus forgave the sins of THE SICK which WAS exceedingly ABNORMAL. Only God can forgive the Sins of Mankind in the NT.

Mark 3.

Evil SPIRITS recognised as the Son of God which is "relatively ABNORMAL".

Mark 4.

Jesus was at SEA when there was a STORM and Jesus SPOKE to the SEA-STORM which is "relatively ABNORMAL".

Mark 5.

Jesus in a "relatively abnormal way" granted the wishes of evil Spirits to enter into pigs.

Mark 6.

1. Jesus fed thousand with 5 pieces of bread and fish which is "reatively ABNORMAL".

2. Jesus WALKED on water which is "relatively ABNORMAL".

Mark. 7

Jesus used SPIT, in a "relatively ABNORMAL" way, to heal incurable diseases.

Mark 8.

Jesus continues to FEED thousands in a "relatively ABNORMAL" way.

Mark. 9

Jesus TRANSFIGURED with the resurrected Moses and Elijah which is "relatively ABNORMAL".

Mark 10.

Jesus made a "relatively ABNORMAL" claim that he would be Killed and be RAISED from the dead on the third day.

Mark 16.

A "relatively ABNORMAL" resurrection of Jesus occurred.

It is Clear that Jesus in gMark was "relatively ABNORMAL".

bacht

Because of Jewish monotheism on the one hand, and gnostic dualism on the other. Catholics wanted to balance the two.

There was a lot of debate about the nature of Christ, even after Constantine tried to nail it down. Meanwhile the gnostics added a higher god to the OT Yhwh, also various emanations or intermediaries between the high god and earth, like Sophia.

Jewish Christians apparently saw Jesus as more or less human, a prophet or sage.

Steven Carr

So Matthew and Luke tick your mythical Jesus boxes, but that just ain't enough?

Goalposts to the left - quick march!

ApostateAbe

That really is the basic idea. I really do believe in a mythical Jesus. He just didn't start out that way. If that is moving the goalposts, well, then OK. I know what my position has been for years, but that really shouldn't matter, anyway. What matters most is how to make the best sense of the evidence, not clinging on tightly to one static position regardless of the evidence. Whose model fits the evidence the best, in your opinion?