Amaleq13

I started this in another thread but it seems appropriate here and I might get more feedback.

Regarding the historical Jesus mentioned above, can we agree on the following very brief outline?:

1) Unsuccessful ministry (i.e. rejected frequently, few converts)

2) Sudden/unexpected death

3) Resurrection experiences* by followers leading to reinterpretation or new understanding of Jesus and/or his teachings.


*I'm trying to keep this vague enough to avoid a physical vs spiritual resurrection sidetrack.

Vinnie

"""""""""The most glaring problem is that you keep ignoring everyone else. Anything concrete anyone writes, Vinnie, you just ignore. """"""""

I didn't ignore the person who emailed me.

"""""""For example, the Table of Contents that does not list the TF. """"""""""

I will address that when my article on Josephus is done. Presumably Kirby is your source for this.

"""""The presence of a seam. """"""""

This is the worst possible argument one can raise. Can you say sometimes sloppy, patchwork writer?

""""And of course, the fact that it recounts a story that is essentially fictional.""""

A Jewish man named Jesus with a brother named James preached to the people. He was accused of being bad by Jews and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. Yet his followers persisted in their belief after his death. Yeah, looks like a whole lot of fiction to me!

Score another evidence in favor of mythicism being a religion.

Vinnie

Doctor X

Vinnie:

You last post is one large argumen [No Latin!--Ed.] t to ignorance.

I am not asking you to post the e-mail, but the fact you deigned to answer it but not the posts here does little for your position.

I, myself, am not a "mythicist" in that I do t "believe" no figure ever existed. However, I am also willing to admit that the evidence for existence is scant. Vorkosigan makes a very good point:

. . . your response:

lacks evidence, particularly with regards to "accused of being bad by Jews" and, given the unreliable Synoptic passion stories, "crucified by Pontius Pilate."

On the contrary, if anyone is preaching religion, it is you. I can understand, and even support, an argument against a "strict mythicist"--but I need more substance that what you offer here. Fallacy cut it not.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

Your logic is completely wrong. The presence of sloppy patchwork writing elsewhere does not mean that you have explained the obvious seam in the TF. The following paragraph refers to the previous section. You cannot explain away the seam with illogic like above.

You accuse mythicism of being a "religion" while simply going with religious inertia yourself. James was never the brother of the son of God; he was retrojected into the story by later writers in the theological and political in-fighting of the early cult era. The Passion is fiction and no detail in it may be trusted. There are multiple stories of Jesus' death -- and in some Pilate does not do the whacking (Gospel of Peter). That indicates that the early Christians had no concrete idea of how or when Jesus died, and later stories are inventions. Like that in the TF.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Amaleq, I really only buy (1) above. I think that Q2 is traceable to a single mind; it doesn't read like a communal product, at least to me. The stories then got mixed up and combined in the usual syncretic fashion of religion. I think the Passion is entirely fake, and that Doherty is correct in arguing that it was a complete myth to start out with.

Vorkosigan

Doctor X

Doherty is not the only one to argue or raise this question. Mack in his Myth of Innocence on Mk wonders if Mk "made the whole thing up."

This, of course, leads us to one of those great "unanswerable questions"--what happened?

IF we assume that the passion narratives were somehow . . . in some manner . . . perhaps slightly . . . with oodles of qualifiers . . . based on an actual execution, we have an "answer," but the reasons for the execution, the details, and all of that remain speculation.

IF we assume that the passion narratives and execution are myth . . . what happened? Of course, if one argues that "no one" existed at the base of the myth, you have an answer: "nothing happened." On the other hand, if you argue that "someone was behind the myth" then you have no reliable details as to what he said or did.

Which makes all of this so much fun, frankly.

--J.D.

Amaleq13

Vorkosigan,


Thanks for the reply.


1) Unsuccessful ministry (i.e. rejected frequently, few converts)

I also think an unsuccessful living ministry is consistent with Paul's minimal reference to the living Jesus, Mark's "messianic secret" theme, and the absence of extra-biblical references.

Q seems to consider Jesus more like God's Wisdom than the Messiah. Can we assume that his followers only considered him the Messiah after his death/resurrection?

2) Sudden/unexpected death

The Passion doesn't have to be historical for Jesus to have died suddenly and/or unexpectedly. There is no explicit death described in Q, though some scholars read some passages as assuming it, but it doesn't seem reasonable to suggest he died an old man. Actually, I think there was a Church Father who made that claim (Irenaeus?).

How do you think the historical Jesus died? It seems to me to be easier to see crucifixion as a Scripturally-based fabrication within a mythicist context.

3) Resurrection experiences* by followers leading to reinterpretation or new understanding of Jesus and/or his teachings.

You indicated you only accepted 1) but you didn't explain why you object 3). I tend to consider this to be an historical fact regardless of the context (i.e. myth vs historical).

Doctor X

Amaleq13:

Not to intrude, but I think that Mk and the rest of the Synoptic's attack on the disciples' inability to recognize Junior as divine suggests that "the real followers" did not. I also think that the tradition--in Mk and the others--of him not coming out and declaring it comes from the fact that the historical Junior never made such a claim . . . assuming he existed. . . .

Man, I love the certainty of all of this. . . .

--J.D.

Amaleq13

I'm interested in discovering if any sort of consensus can be reached between "myth-leaners" and "historical supporters" so any input is useful.

"When one admits that nothing is certain, one must, I think, also add
that some things are much more nearly certain than others."
--Bertrand Russell

Doctor X

I will admit I lean towards the "historical with a lot of myth." I tout Paul's Galatian reference because, in my mind, it seems just too much of a conspiracy to imagine that all of these authors would make someone up--like a brother.

Yet . . . what does that get us? Also, seeing that this is the "40th Aniversary of JFK" and we all know there was a conspiracy involving the Mafia, LBJ, FBI, KGB, CIA, and Star Fleet Command . . . and some idiots trying to find curry . . . who knows?

I mentioned somewhere that I read an interesting book on the origins of King Arthur--too long ago for me to comment on whether or not it was credible. Anyways, the various "historical Arthurs" are really nothing like the guy we all know and love. My analogy is this: it is highly unlikely that the "historical Arthur" was mortally wounded by a Mordred . . . to the accompaniment of Wagner's funeral music from Gotterdamerung. . . .

So too, methinks, the historical Junior.

The other problem is that people have emotional currency invested "the Answer." Few people care, I think, "who" the "real" Arthur was--not enough to bomb someone else's village. For those who would love it all to be a myth--because that would certainly invalidate any Christian religion--there is that potential bias. Add in the "I Know the SECRET" feeling.

For those who have some degree of belief in a Christian religion, just the mere possibility that "someone" existed is enough to attach current dogma to.

. . . and never shall the twain meet. . . .

--J.D.