Toto

How do you evaluate probability? I think that your feeling that some things are more probable than others only reflects how you have internalized the historical Jesus story.

The easiest, most probable explanation of the Jesus story is just that it was made up. We see people around us making things up all the time.

ApostateAbe

I take it that you can no longer help me concerning what I asked you previously, and maybe I have asked too much. It seems especially difficult to find the complete arguments about the dating of the gospels. I may have to pay to get them.

I really have integrated the historical Jesus theory into my fundamental perspective of interpretation of the Christian religion, so it is become a strong influence on my bias. The corruption of reasoning that follows from such biases tend to become apparent when the reasoning is laid out in detail and it is challenged. For example, there are some normalskeptics and mythicists (not all) whose model requires interpolations without direct evidence. They tend to be ad hoc interpolations, identifiable as such because such theorists would not suspect such interpolations if their model did not require it.

For example, spamandham thinks that Josephus' mention of "James, brother of Jesus, called Christ," is all or part interpolation, and his reasoning is that the Testimonium Flavianum is interpolation and they are the only two places that Josephus ever uses the word Christ. The evidence seems to have a much easier explanation than an interpolation (with unknown motive that isn't consistent with the language of the known interpolation), which is that the word "Christ" was closely associated with Jesus of the Christian religion that was well-known among the Greeks at the time. In truth, it seems more of a speculation that wouldn't occur to anyone whose model did not require it.

There is a Mormon in this forum who argued something similar with me. He suggested that Mark 13:30 was a "corruption" of the text that was then corrected by Joseph Smith, which helps to explain how Jesus did not necessarily believe that "this generation" was Jesus' own generation but instead it was the generation that would see the signs of the end times.

The point is that interpolations and any such speculations can be used by anyone to keep their model consistent. Just one such arbitrary interpolation can be a big problem for a theory.

My model, on the other hand, does not seem to require interpolation of any sort--that the words as we know them can be the same words that the general original author wrote. That isn't to say that interpolations don't exist--they most certainly do--but at no point do I posit an interpolation that isn't well-evidenced and generally accepted. I don't even need the generally-accepted interpolations to keep my model consistent and plausible, save perhaps the Testimonium Flavianum (which may mean we simply can't trust Josephus on anything else he says about Jesus or JtB if there were no interpolation).

I believe Earl Doherty claimed that he doesn't need such interpolations, either. If so, then an equal problem, equally violating the criterion of less ad hoc, would be using seemingly very unlikely and arbitrary interpretations for passages that would contradict the model. It must or should be very difficult, for example, to explain "born of a woman" of Galatians 4:4 in terms of a merely spiritual or visionary Jesus. Likewise for "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David" of Romans 1:3. Likewise for "The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it... In the same way, after supper he took the cup..." of 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. As an illustration of the problem of ad hoc in explanations that involve not-at-all-obvious interpretations of such passages, there are a considerable normalskeptics who choose the explanation, again, that such passages are interpolations, as though such an explanation is favorable to choosing some weird explanation that Doherty would choose.

I like to think that I take the most literal (the most plain and obvious) interpretations of all of the Christian texts. I am much more of a literalist than the most die-hard Christian fundamentalist apologist, which I think is appropriate, because it minimizes the problem of ad hoc for my model. I would love to be proved wrong on this point. Find a passage where I can not accept the most plain and obvious interpretation.

So, I will ask you what I asked the others. If you think: "The easiest, most probable explanation of the Jesus story is just that it was made up," then lay out the complete case. Write out your preferred model of how you think the stories were made up, and link it to the evidence. Then we can compare.

Toto

There are some previous threads from years ago. You might have to search the archives. Sorry I can't do all your work for you.

Have you actually examined the case for interpolations? You can read most of William O Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk) online on Google Books. The case for interpolations is based on actual reasons, and is not based on the need for such interpolations.

On the contrary, the TF has been pegged as an obvious Christian forgery for centuries, based on its underlying viewpoint and language, and the shorter mention of Jesus called Christ is linguistically awkward in the Greek, as if a scribe had copied a marginal note into the text.

Which shows that you do not actually understand the case for interpolations.

I don't think that you believe that Jesus was born of a virgin or rose from the dead, so I don't think you take the most literal interpretations of the Christian texts.

ApostateAbe

Well, thanks regardless. I really have asked too much, but at least you gave me a potential lead.
Once again, you err on the side of me being a dolt, and it hurts my feelings. There are many cases for interpolations. That book covers interpolations in the Pauline letters that are irrelevant to the debate; unless the argument is, "There is evidence for interpolations in some other parts of the Pauline epistles, so it is significantly less ad hoc to claim arbitrary and otherwise-unevidenced interpolations for here, here and there," and then... it is actually hardly less of a problem for the criterion of less ad hoc. Do you disagree?
The TF really is an obvious interpolation which seems to contradict nothing of what I said, so I hope you didn't misunderstand (often I express myself in a way that is misleading).

You made an argument about Greek, and I don't know Greek, nor do I have access to the Greek Josephus, so I can't really challenge that, but thanks for letting me know of it.
I should have foreseen the common misunderstanding, that literal interpretation is the same as literal belief. Obviously, I do not believe the claims contained within the most literal (plain and obvious) interpretations of the Christian texts (though I do believe some of them), but I almost universally interpret the texts exactly as they seem to intend. When Paul wrote that "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman," in Galatians 4:4, then I don't believe that God actually sent forth His Son, but I know what Paul professed to believe, and I make that judgment based on the plainest and most obvious interpretation.

spamandham

I didn't mean to say that JtB is only found in the gospels. The point I was trying to make was that JtB is *not* found in Paul, and so the Jesus/John interaction we find in the gospels does not exist in Paul. You're retrojecting the gospels onto Paul again.

The Gospels depict JtB as an apocalyptic prophet, and the Gospels depict Jesus as apocalyptic (albeit an anachronistic fashion). But what we don't see is Paul depicting either John or Jesus as apocalyptic.

{As an aside, it is not at all clear to me that Paul is apocalyptic. He is using apocalyptic language to refer to spiritual matters, IMHO.}

...whos doomsday descriptions are obvious anachronisms. Jesus tells us about the razing of the temple describing it in detail in a way that only a writer writing afterward could know. Obviously then, a pre-temple Jesus did not predict this. Jesus provides convenient explanations as to why the apocalypse attributed to him is late. These too are obvious anachronisms inserted by a later writer trying to explain why the apocalypse hasn't yet come. When you remove the anachronisms, there's very little if anything left to indicate that Jesus, assuming he was historical, was apocalyptic.

Upon what then are you basing the claim that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet?

I don't think that's possible, since plausibility is totally subjective. All I can do is point out the flaws that you *should* be paying attention to, but for some reason don't seem to.

spamandham

I think you are confusing my position with that of someone else. I have no solid opinion on whether or not "James, brother of Jesus, called Christ" is fully or partially interpolated or genuine. My position is that if Christians commonly referred to James as "brother of the lord", and I think it's reasonable to conclude that to be the case based on Paul, then what we see in Josephus is entirely expected even if Jesus is pure myth and 'brother of the lord" is a title for James.

If you were Josephus, and having only a surface knowledge of the Christian cult you heard Christians referring to James as "brother of the lord", how would you choose to incorporate a reference to James?

aa5874

An historical Jesus simply needs more ADD-HOC explanations than a fabricated story which was invented decades after the supposed events that was believed to be completely plausible in antiquity.

The Jesus story with its fabled conception by the Holy Ghost and third day resurrection were nothing new in antiquity. There was similar MYTHOLOGY that even believers recognized.

This is Justin Martyr establishing the Jesus story was like Greek/Roman Mythology.

First Apology XXI Jesus came into the world through MYTH.

Jesus acted as a MYTH.

Jesus left earth through MYTHOLOGY.

Jesus accomplished salvation of mankind through the MYTH resurrection.

Jesus was a MYTH STORY that was READILY believed since it was NOTHING different to what people ALREADY believed in antiquity.

Even Marcion's Phantom MYTH Christ Story was READILY believed in antiquity and believers of the Marcion's MYTH taught their Phantom was the TRUE Christ.

By far the simplest explanation supported by the abundance of evidence and ABE is that JESUS was a just an invented non-historical STORY believed to be TRUE.

ApostateAbe

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding, and I think I may need to make my argument a little more clear as well. I am not retrojecting John the Baptist on to Paul. The point is that Jesus is sandwiched in between two apocalyptic human beings. Our evidence found in the gospels claims that John the Baptist was apocalyptic. Our evidence found in the writings of Paul shows that Paul was apocalyptic. Before Jesus, we had an apocalyptic human being. After Jesus, we had an apocalyptic human being. Jesus is the character linked between the two: Jesus is associated with John the Baptist, and Jesus is associated with Paul. Both John the Baptist and Paul seem to be apocalyptic human beings. The gospels portray Jesus as an apocalyptic human being. Therefore, it is entirely consistent with the evidence to explain Jesus as an apocalyptic human being. It is inconsistent with the evidence to think that Jesus was apocalyptic mythical/fictional character. Such an explanation would require that the mythical character Jesus was reportedly a religious heir to the actual human John the Baptist, and an actual human Paul was a religious heir to the mythical Jesus. Why not think that all three of them are human?
My particular argument in this case does not require that Paul describes Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (though a sound such inference can be made from 1 Thessalonians 4:15). My argument requires merely that Paul was an apocalyptic preacher. Paul's language is apocalyptic (he even has the same apocalyptic deadline as Jesus found in 1 Corinthians 15:51--"We will not all die..."). If you think that it is all spiritual stuff, nothing to do with overthrowing Earthly rulers, then fine. Show that it is the best explanation, and it will make a difference.
OK, so here is the complete apocalyptic passage in Mark (chapter 13) that includes the anachronistic "prediction" of the destruction of the temple. I put in bold all of the prophecies.

As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ Then Jesus asked him, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’

When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, ‘Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?’ Then Jesus began to say to them, ‘Beware that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name and say, “I am he!” and they will lead many astray. When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs.

‘As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

‘But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; someone on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away; someone in the field must not turn back to get a coat. Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not be in winter. For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days. And if anyone says to you at that time, “Look! Here is the Messiah!” or “Look! There he is!”—do not believe it. False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be alert; I have already told you everything.

‘But in those days, after that suffering,
the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light,
and the stars will be falling from heaven,
and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Then they will see “the Son of Man coming in clouds” with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

‘From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

‘But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.’

For completeness, here is the apocalyptic predictions of Mark 8-9:

Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’

And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’

In other words, the apocalyptic predictions are a helluva lot more than the destruction of the temple, and they can not all be explained as a retroactive prediction. What is your more complete explanation, then? You know my explanation.
OK, let me know if I missed anything this time around.

ApostateAbe

Sorry about that. Maybe it was show_no_mercy. I often get the two of you confused.

aa5874

The simplest explanation based on the abundance of evidence and ABE is that Jesus was just a fabricated story by an anonymous author that was believed in antiquity.

In antiquity there were competing MYTH stories about Jesus and it appears that the Gospels are very good examples of the COMPETING MYTHS of Jesus that were most likely propagated by Jesus cults to increase cult membership.

It must be completely obvious that the author of GJohn did NOT require an actual human Jesus to develop the MYTHOLOGICAL FABLE that Jesus was GOD and the Creator.

All that mattered to the author of gJohn was that he PRESENTED a Plausible God/Man entity that was COMPATIBLE to EXISTING beliefs. There need not be any history just philosophy

In gJohn 1.1, the author claimed Jesus was the Word and that the Word was God but the Word, Logos, was originally accepted as completely philosophical, the Word of God which was used to bring the world into existence, there was no actual human element attached to the Logos.

This is Athenagoras explaining that the Son of God was believed to be completely philosophical.

"Plea for the Christians" X Based on the abundance of evidence and ABE, the simplest explanation is that Jesus was just a fabricated story based on Hebrew Scripture, Josephus, Greek/Roman Mythology and including the doctrine of the Logos.