David B

So where would my tentitive, but working, hypothesis fit on that scale?

It is that there was a historical Jesus, who believed that he was the Messiah, and may well have had grounds (rightly or wrongly) for thinking that he was descended from David and fitted some OT references about what the Messiah should be.

And who was as mistaken as Koresh, Manson, and other charismatic cult founders of their ilk, about their quasi divinity.

David B

Chris Weimer

With some tweaking, it's #3.

jeffevnz

But is he an expert on the NT, or on what other people believe? He was being cited for the second one.

Zeichman

The book Mr. Robots cites is one ABOUT the question of anti-Semitism and a Jewish Jesus. The man has researched the topic heavily, going back quite some time in secondary resources on the topic. If you don't think he knows what he's talking about, you should provide a counter-example. Otherwise, the word of one who has researched the topic in great depth will be preferred.

Your objection might also be more worthwhile if we were in a courtroom, but alas, this is no episode of Law & Order. :grin: The scholarly community is not one governed by the same concerns as a court, and the whole enterprise of secondary sources is essentially "hearsay", but one cannot dismiss their opinions on Christian origins because they were not there are commenting on primary source documents.

Simply said, to be an NT expert, one must be an expert on the opinions of others.
*doink doink*

jeffevnz

What a bizarre response.

My question was whether MJ is a common point of view among experts. I'm not questioning Arnal's expertize on the NT and I never have. I don't know why you're challenging me about that. I just question whether he speaks for all of academia. Also, I have no idea what the topics of antisemitism and a Jewish Jesus have to do with this.

Zeichman

I assumed that your post at the beginning of page two was in reference to No Robots' citation of Arnal's book, and the idea that no scholar challenges the Jewishness of Jesus.

If I was wrong I apologize for any additional confusion I caused.

I'm now rather confused as to what is going on.

No Robots

I shall attempt to clarify...ahem:

jeffevnz thinks that when Arnal says, "No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew", he is making a claim, not about the NT, but about what NT scholars believe; and that Arnal is unqualified to make this claim. It is like saying that when a chemist says that no chemist doubts the accuracy of the periodic table, he is making an illegitimate statement about the beliefs of other chemists. Why jeffevnz thinks that Arnal cannot back up his claim is a mystery. The fact is that not even Arnal, an atheist, gives the slightest consideration to the mythicist position. Perhaps jeffevnz thinks that there is a vast, secret, mythicist majority in academia that somehow has never revealed itself publicly.

spamandham

The only significant thing I've observed on this board among many threads regarding Jesus, is that those who say he existed will use endless arguments from parsimony to make such a claim, but when cornered to show you just 1 single fact about the life of the man that can be substantiated, they draw a blank. It's as if to say "I can prove he existed even though I can't tell you even one salient feature about him. I don't know who he was, when he lived, or how he lived, but the evidence he existed is overwhelming nonetheless".

None of that is directly related to what you said, but it seems in my mind to be an important background theme in the discussion about the spectrum. Others will no doubt disagree on that.

Malachi151

Well, I've come up with this:



1. The Gospels are inerrant and absolutely historically true. Jesus is the Son of God who was predicted by the Hebrew scriptures, who came to earth in human form, was born of a virgin, preached, and was crucified by Pilate, then rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of God. The Gospels are historical eyewitness accounts or based on solid eyewitness accounts.

2. The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus who had a following of people who thought he was the Son of God. He wasn't born of a virgin and didn't walk on water or perform miracles or rise from the dead, but the Gospels reflect his true teachings and the basic events of his life, and he was crucified by Pilate. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with a little legend.

3. The Gospels are generally true but somewhat exaggerated accounts of a real Jesus who was influential in the region. He may or may not have really been crucified by Pilate. He was later mythologized and elevated in status. The Gospels come from eye witness accounts mixed with legend.

4. The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real Jesus. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still loosely based on the actions of a real Jesus whom we don't know very much about.

5. The Gospels are mostly fabricated stories inspired by a real a person or persons from a spectrum of time, perhaps from events as far back as 200 years before the supposed life of Jesus. Over time stories were put together that cobbled various political events and persons into a single "Jesus Christ" figure. The events and teachings in the Gospels are mythologized, but based on real-life events that took place over time and were done by a person or various people. The Gospels come almost entirely from legends and scriptures, but are still based on the actions of some real people, without which the story of Jesus would never have come into existence.

6. The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on scripture, legends, and the mystical beliefs of existing Jewish cults. There is no human figure at the center of the Gospel stories at all. The Gospels were generally written in the same manner that most scholars claim, during the late 1st century to early 2nd century, but there is no person at the core of them, whether all of the writers themselves knew it or not.

7. The Gospels are completely fabricated stories based on pagan myths about figures such as Dionysus and Mithras. The Gospels were written by directly mixing Jewish and non-Jewish religions and beliefs into a combined stories that borrow from both traditions. The meaning of the Gospels has been largely lost and generally has little to do with Judaism.

8. The Gospels are completely fabricated stories that were intentionally crafted to deceive people, and there is no historical person at their core. The Gospels were really written anywhere from the 2nd century to the 4th century and much of early Christian history has been fabricated. The writers of the Gospels knew that there was no Jesus and the whole crafting of the religion was part of a political tool by Roman Emperors or others of a similar kind.

jeffevnz

I'm sorry for talking out of my ass a little about the prevalance of MJ. I think we both got thrown a little by the Arnal ref... Friends?