Solo

Ok, fair enough - we do not have an OT or other literary construction manual for Simon, so the mythical panoply that Mark created for the crucifixion has a "hole" in it. So sure, it is possible that Simon of Cyrene was a historical witness known by name (and those of his sons') to the community Mark wrote for. But how probable is it, given that so much around his cameo appearance is symbolical with literary references that we do know about and can decipher ? Why do you feel it is actually 'pointing in the opposite direction ?'

You say it looks like a 'natural conclusion'. But looking at the 'narrative structure in the neighborhood' of Simon of Cyrene travail, historical Simon strikes me as the less likely possibility. To my mind, it would be more probable, as Richard Carrier brightly argues (in The Empty Tomb) that he enters in a Marcan 'reversal of expectation' motif; Simon of Cyrene (from Egypt, the land of the 'dead') is pressed into service as a stand-in for another Simon who should have been the one following and carrying the cross of Jesus.

Be it as it may, I truly doubt there are any specific pointers in a historical direction (though I like to think I have a few myself) such that they could not be instantly challenged by the "Jesus creationists". So weighty and substantial are the OT 'historicized prophecy' and pagan literary parallels that one cannot simply dismiss them or characterize those who deploy them or howl at the assembly (like Chris) in the hope they go away. If the ruckus that Jesus made in the temple includes a short inventory of attacked articles found also in Nehemiah 13, then it cannot be held reasonably that the whip Jesus was cracking points to history since Nehemiah never mentions it. One could say that that there is a certain, fairly high, probability that some public outrage was committed by Jesus in the temple area(was he chased from there ? Jn 8:59 has a close parallel in Egerton Papyrus 2 - I am told - did not see it), but beyond that ? The story was manipulated to such a degree that it is impossible to tell exactly what details have historical grounding and which do not. With the actual setting of the trial and crucifixion there are so many problems that to hold onto any portion of it as history one has to special-plead it. Unless of course you can show me that this view is wrong.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

Thanks, Solo. I must, however, stick to my guns here, as I do not have the time to go into it right now:

Ben.

Clivedurdle

If there had been a real Jesus, I would have him giving a sermon on the mount, doing some psycho-somatic miracles, telling some parables, getting deaded in Jerusalem. Why not moneychangers and flight to Egypt? Where do you draw the line?

Is it correct I would be going too far if I accept that? Who is the HJ people are saying was there? Is there agreement about that?

andrewcriddle

I'm not sure what no "historic footprints" for Jesus compared to say Apollonius of Tyana means.

Jesus is claimed to have originated Christianity which is a more solid historical footprint than anything attributed to Apollonius.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle

Might the idea of Christ have been the origin of Christianity?

andrewcriddle

One point I'm not clear about in Robert Price's article is when and where he believes Paul placed the crucifixion of Jesus.

If he holds that Paul in all probability placed this in Judea during the reign of Tiberius then he seems likely to end up with a HJ but a very minimal one.

If however he feels that this location of the crucifixion is likely a post-Pauline historicization of the original Christian message then he seems to have adopted full-blown mythicism.

Andrew Criddle

Dreadnought

These are questions i would like to have an answer to myself, but having lurked here for quite some time they don't appear to be forthcoming. The HJ'ers have seemingly made sniping their weapon of choice and questions are brushed off with "Question me not, my calling is to question not to answer" or even "Learn Latin, Greek and Hebrew and then I might take you seriously". While still being an HJ agnostic I find myself sliding towards an MJ view against my will. Against my will because I prefer to base opinions on evidence and interpretations and not debating techniques or lack thereof.

So be it. Robert Price, Bart Ehrman and a few others are hopefully in the mail and everything suggests that is a better place to start, but I can't help noticing the difference between this forum and E/C. In E/C everyone comes running with their knowledge when a newbie arrives in spite of being subject to drive-by creationists once a week. The best you can hope for here follows the above formula, but just as often is only a sullen silence.

Jayrok

One thing that has always bothered me is passages like this:

Matthew 22:41-46 -- While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42"What do you think about the Christ? Whose son is he?" "The son of David," they replied. 43He said to them, "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, 44" 'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." 45If then David calls him 'Lord,' how can he be his son?" 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.


Here we have Pharisees, experts in the law, being confounded by Jesus' interpretation of a Psalm they would be familiar with. After reading this I find myself going "huh?". I mean, that's it? They didn't dare to ask him anything else because they were stumped?

This board and various christian boards are prime examples of people's diligence in defending their positions. Are we to honestly believe that the Pharisees were unable to come up with any defense or explanation of Jesus' claims regarding their scriptures?

I haven't read Zindler's book yet, but I read Doherty's review and it appears Zindler touches on similar lines. It's human nature to defend your point of view, even against sound arguments.

Where are the recordings in Jewish Rabbinical writings or from the Pharisees on this preacher who is turning the Hebrew scriptures upside down? If Jesus was so successful in confounding everyone to the point they dared not ask him questions, where is the documentation? Where is the Rabbi Tovia Singer of the first century to defend the classic interpretation of Psalm 110?

If Christianity was live and well in the mid first century, where are the Jewish apologetics? It is their scriptures that are being reinterpreted by these christian mavericks.

The passage above seems to be a fabrication. I find it impossible to believe the Pharisees just dropped their heads and couldn't provide any answers in their defense.

John Kesler

Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't agree about which of Jesus' responses proved so confounding:


Mark's narrative continues with the question-about-David's-son pericope, but the setting is the temple, and Jesus' answer is well-received by "the large crowd" in attendance:

See here for Luke's version (vv 27-44).

Ben C Smith

I think you have overthought this matter. A bit of reflection might assure you that there is no fallacy.

On this analogy, the mythic hero archetype business looks like an absolute necessity. If one does not get cake without butter, flour, and sugar, and if the MHA corresponds to one of these ingredients, then you appear to be saying that the MHA is one of the requirements to conclude that the individual in question is a fiction.

Surely that is mistaken. How high does Ebion score on the scale? A lot of people on this board think that Joseph of Arimathea is a certain invention; do they run his profile through the MHA first?

Now you appear to have changed fields. The red flag imagery no longer appears to make the MHA a requirement. Now it looks like just one more criterion on a list.

At least the no historical footprints criterion is something that should be true of any nonhistorical character (even if not all historical characters will have left historical footprints).

The MHA crosses fields. It identifies clearly (or at least probably) historical characters while missing clear (or at least probable) inventions.

We certainly can, since one of them is indiscriminate when it comes to historicity.

Ben.