Vinnie

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...threadid=66197

In the messianic memoribilia thread Rick had done a wonderful job pointing out the problems with this argument.

This is why I asked when veneration started: '

That is generally where I was going it. I don't have much to add to that thread at all at this point barring new responses to it!

Oh yeah, from that article it says veneration seems to have started in the 4th century. Even more problematic for the mythicist argument here. It also showed paralleled figures and why the claim doesn't follow.

Earl Doherty writes: "The total absence of such things is perhaps the single strongest argument for....

Vinnie

rlogan

Thanks Toto. Been going through them.

I can see why you are burned out.

Vinnie

Me too! Skimming some of them burned me out as well. More polemic than historical discussion....

Vinnie

A question for all the mythicists.

What would happen to your position if it is shown that 1 Thess 2:15-16 is not an interpolation as Doherty argues on pp. 14-15 and in Appendix 1 pp 297-299 of The Jesus Puzzle?

If that is Pauline where does it leave you? I started reading the JP, by the way, review of chapter 1 (reviewing them as I go) will be done soon.

Vinnie

Toto

1 Thess 2:14 For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16 in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last. [or fully]


If this is not an interpolation, it would force a radical revision in our idea of who Paul was, or perhaps when he wrote.

How do you propose to show that it is not Pauline?

Why would Paul say that the Jews killed Jesus, and not the Romans?

Can you be sure that Paul is not either speaking metaphorically, or referring to a Jesus of the distant past, not a 1st c. Galilean preacher?

rlogan

So Toto - went through all of that stuff and the upshot is - ambiguity, of course. :banghead:

Vinnie, I know how it is to stick your neck out on something. None of this is personal.

Now and again I turn my attention to the "Jesus" thing, and the more I read the less evidence I see. It is becoming a myth for me, in its entirety.

But there isn't a "mythicist framework", as you put it. Rather, the Bible as a piece of "evidence" has been steadily melting away. The search for non-Biblical confirmation yields nothing.

The myth point of view arises because the HJ view fails on so many different levels. That is all. Nothing more. There is no structure for you to attack.

What is necessary to prove a historical Jesus is to bring forth some evidence. Although extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, even a shred would be really cool.

Vinnie

"""""""If this is not an interpolation, it would force a radical revision in our idea of who Paul was, or perhaps when he wrote.""""""""

Along the lines of what?

"""""""""How do you propose to show that it is not Pauline?""""""""

I don't. I intend to show that it is Pauline by pointing out Doherty's arguments are weak and unconvincing and that there are good reasons why it should be accepted.

""""""""Why would Paul say that the Jews killed Jesus, and not the Romans?""""""""""

Presumably because he thought they were involved somehow. There is certainly no need to read that with a wooden literalism as if Paul meant the Romans had nothing to do with it. He would have known that crucifixion was Roman practice. We have polemic against Jews here and he must have thought they were involved. God's wrath is upon them (possible restrictive).

This of course would have interesting implications for revisionists!

"""""""Can you be sure that Paul is not either speaking metaphorically, or referring to a Jesus of the distant past, not a 1st c. Galilean preacher?"""""""""

Alone this does not give any time frame by itself. So by itself no. With other parts of the Pauline corpus coming into play, I would say yes.

As far as being metaphorical, thats really a difficult position to swallow for me. Everything in the account are literal things that happened. My comments preceded by this symbol:### Look:

For you, brothers,

### Literal people Paul is addressing

became imitators of

### Literal action on their part

God's churches in Judea which are in Christ Jesus:

### Literal community = literal people and literal PLACE (Judea) with "Christ Jesus faith".

You suffered from your own countrymen

### Literal people undergoing literal persecution by literal people

the same things those churches suffered from the Jews,

### those literal Judean churchs were actually persecuted by literal people (Jews) in the same way

who killed the Lord Jesus

### non literal event??????


and the prophets

###I would think Paul believed in literal or historical prohpets actually killed by Jews! It is also literal Jews who killed Jesus,

and also drove us out.

### Literal real life event .

I mean. Everything in that whole context is "real" and literal down happening on planet earth stuff. Dare I say its special pleading not to interpret the Jews killed Jesus as being literally true--meaning the Jews had some involvelement in Paul's mind with the crucificion (this latter notion being mentioned all over the Pauline corpus) of Jesus?

Vinnie

Amaleq13

Are you talking about prior to 70CE? If so, observations at that time would not have lead to any stories about a torn curtain. Zindler is noting that the curtain from the Temple was placed on display c.75CE. We don't know if it was torn or if the presentation of both curtains might have been misinterpreted as a torn single curtain. Either way, the suggestion is that this should be understood as the basis for that detail in Mark. Knowing there were originally two curtains wouldn't necessarily prevent misunderstanding the display.

An argument from silence is only as strong as the expectation of something other than silence. I contend that there is a very reasonable expectation that Paul would make some passing reference that would locate the crucifixion (or any of the events he describes) in space and/or time. Also, I am not endorsing the idea of veneration of the location of the crucifixion so much as a hint that it took place at a specific place or at a specific time. Paul simply provides nothing of the sort.

I also agree that, even within an historical context, the story of the empty tomb is likely fiction and none of Jesus' followers knew what happened to his body.

I wrote:
It is Paul's consistent failure to provide an historical context when that is a reasonable expectation that serves as a fundamental building block of the mythicist position.

Vinnie replied:
I don't find the assumption warranted because I don't see any of these alleged details from the Gospel portraits of Jesus anywhere in Paul. He gives no description of Jesus conducting a ministry, leading disciples or performing miracles. In short, the only "life" he attributes to his Savior is the one he loses on the cross. Please provide your evidence that Paul was aware of "certain details" from the Gospel portraits. With regard to being constrained by the Gospels, Paul hardly appears constrained by their claims that Jesus performed miracles and was well known when he describes Jesus as having "no reputation".

In reply to your question about my identification of Crossan as a Christian scholar, I wrote:
Um, because he is a Christian and he is a scholar? When you attempt to dismiss Paul's silence, I get the impression you think it is only mythicists and/or atheists who consider it significant. I offer the example of a Christian scholar acknowledging the significance of Paul's silence in opposition to such an impression.

You replied:
As I explained above, you did misread my intent. I was only countering the possible view that only atheists/mythicists consider Paul's relative silence to be significant and requiring explanation.

I am familiar with most of the attempts to explain his silence but I haven't found them to be very credible.

Amaleq13

Why give Jesus four brothers and at least two sisters (Mk6:3), rather than emphasize his uniqueness?

For Mark, the living Jesus seems to have become "unique" only after the baptism. His Jesus is arguably the most human of all the Gospel authors' portraits and having a family seems to have been part of that. Perhaps it was driven by the desire to portray him as being considered crazy by his family which, in turn, seems to have been based on reactions some Q prophets were obtaining.

Why start his public life right after the arrest of John the Baptist...

The connection to JBap is originally made by the Q community which was probably after he was dead. The point where John is arrested is the point where John can no longer be part of the picture. That seems to me to be the obvious place to introduce Jesus' ministry.

Why have Jesus declare "among those born of women there is no one greater than John [the Baptist]" (Lk7:28a/Mt11:11a)?

The Q community seems to have considered JBap a legitimate prophet and so, apparently, did a great many people of the time. It only makes sense to provide him his "props" before asserting that every child of the coming Kingdom would be greater.

Why base him among the uneducated villagers of Capernaum, his new home (Mt4:13), a poor town in Galilee?

This is where the prophets of Q appear to have been operating so that is where Mark portrayed Jesus operating.

Why bother to have him get a "mother-in-law" (Mk1:30) out of bed?

I don't understand why this is significant or in need of explanation.

Why give him a few uneducated fishermen (Mk1:16-20, Ac4:13) as his main followers?

That seems to be consistent with the audience of Q's prophets as well as the inclusion of "sinners", tax collectors, etc.

Why have him say: "you are worth more than many sparrows" (Lk12:7/Mt10:31)?

I would guess because this is something that Q prophets said or later attributed to Jesus.

Why tell of his family wanting "to take charge of him" and saying: "he is out of his mind" (Mk3:21)?

See above.

Why should the disciples be "questioning what the rising from the dead meant" (Mk9:10), after they allegedly saw an alive Moses?

Mark consistently portrays the Disciples as being rather less than bright with regard to following the message of Jesus. Perhaps this is a rejection of unacceptable claims of followers of the original Risen Savior sect (i.e. the Pillars).

Why would the resurrection of Jairus' daughter be kept secret: "But He commanded them [disciples & parents] strictly that no one should know it" (Mk5:42b-43a) and the disciples be "strictly warned ... that they should tell no one about Him [as being the Christ!]" (Mk8:30)?

There is no conclusive evidence that the Q community considered their Jesus to have been the Messiah. To suggest that he was and that he had told his Disciples this requires that it was kept a secret.

Why write "Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John [the Baptist], whether he was the Christ or not" (Lk3:15)?

I would guess that there existed traditions that JBap was, at one time, considered by some to be the Messiah. I'm not sure I understand why this is significant.

Why relate, after John's execution, ""Who do people say that I am?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah"" (Mk8:27b-28a), when Christ is set far above John (and John himself as Elijah: Mk9:12-13)?

Based on similar questions posed to John, I would guess that this was something any prophet had to deal with. The Jewish faith had several expectations that such a figure might fulfill.

Why have Jesus disowned by his companions and crucified, charged as "king of the Jews" (Mk15:26), for Gentile Christians?

The abandonment by the Disciples was a "fact" obtained from the Scripture cited. The "fact" of the crucifixion was obtained from Paul's preaching and/or the beliefs of the Pillars. The charge is logically required given an execution by Romans.

Why would the most reliable early manuscripts of Mark's gospel end as such: "... And they [the women who allegedly witnessed the empty tomb] said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid." (Mk16:8), and with no reappearance?

If we trust Acts when it claims that the Disciples didn't start preaching the Risen Christ until over a month after the fact, Mark has to explain why the delay.

Amaleq13

I accept arguments against authenticity primarily because:

1) It doesn't seem to agree with Paul's other expressed views on the identity of the executioners (i.e. rulers of the age). Even if we decide to interpret this literally, it only makes sense as a reference to the Romans. It also doesn't seem consistent (i.e. too harsh) with his other references to the Jewish people.

2) It is factually inaccurate since the Jews, even if they had been allowed to execute Jesus, would not have used the Roman method of crucifixion.

3) A reference to the full wrath of God coming down upon the Jews doesn't seem consistent with anything happening during Paul's lifetime but it does seem to be a reference to the destruction of the Temple, etc.