angelo

I don't wish to answer for anyone, but as a whole, in my opinion even though I was not asked is, Earl's book, along with R.M. Price's and R. G. Price's work build up a strong case for a MJ. These a little more researched than say, Freke and Gandy's books.

angelo

According to R. G. Price's book Jesus, A Very Jewish Myth the tale began as a historicized as someone whom people believed really existed. The belief in a literal human Jesus most likely emerged as Eucharist rituals and theology developed around the concept of the " flesh and blood" of Christ and these concepts merged with allegorical narratives about the figure.
In short: the O/T morphed into the N/T.

maryhelena

Oh - don't forget George Wells. I, personally, find his approach to be the more forward moving as he attempts to make some sense out of the gospel storyline instead of writing it off as merely 'fiction'. Methinks too much riding that magic carpet of Paul's has resulted in some mythicists not able to connect with terra-firma anymore......

Happy New Year, angelo - :wave:

maryhelena

Never read Price's book - nor Doherty's (only a bit of his website). Nor Wells for that matter (again only website and google books views..). I did read Freke and Gandy (it re-motivated my own interest in the Jesus issues..).

It's great if Price has a real human figure in mind - ie that he has not gone the way of saying that it's all mythical ie speculation, imagination without any grounding in reality. However, to leave things there - to run with the idea that such a human figure not only can't be established historically but that such a human figure is irrelevant to early chrisitian origins - would be something else entirely. That's giving up the search - playing things too easy. Got to keep going...

avi

I suppose I must disagree with you, on your idea from this message.
I have no idea who wrote, or who was responsible for issuance of the gospels.
I seriously doubt, however, that the gospel writers were Syriac/Aramaic speaking Galilean farmers and fishermen. Doesn't Mark reveal an unfamiliarity with the geography of the decapolis region, sufficient to rule out local authorship--at least Matthew and Luke thought so, if we can ascribe to them the motive of "cleaning up" Mark's careless descriptions of the region around Lake Galilee.

I don't even understand your concept of three tiers.
Sorry to be so dense.

Palestine, had been ruled by the Persians, then, conquered by Alexander of Macedonia--> Greek influence, with probable Hittite invasions throughout ancient times, then Roman domination from Julius Caesar onwards. Three tiers? Hebrew/Greek/Latin?? What about Turkic, Persian, Coptic and Syriac?

Three religious pillars? What, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Gnosticism? What about the Greek "pagans"?

confused,
avi

judge

Ok , fair enough.
What was the evidence that supported this "strong case"?

Doug Shaver

One must always decide, before one buys a book, whether it will be worth the cost to oneself. I have on occasion bought apologetic books just in order to be able to respond intelligently to Christians who assured me that those books contained cogent arguments in support of their beliefs.

Your experience seems to differ from mine. I'm not sure what else I can say about that.

This thread is not the only thread in this forum in which Earl's thesis has been discussed. It is disingenuous of you to act as if this was the first time you've ever heard anything about it.

I'm afraid the logic behind that assertion escapes me.

I have not yet read Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, but it should be arriving in the mail any day now. I have, however, read its predecessor, The Jesus Puzzle. What I found good about it was that it presented a cogent argument for Jesus' historical nonexistence along with a plausible interpretation of Paul's writings made independently of any presuppositions about his awareness of stories that showed up in the gospels many decades after his death.

maryhelena

I’m afraid its this type of argument re Paul and the gospels that I find so nonsensical:

Interpreting the words of Paul as though he knows nothing about the ‘church’ that he previously had been persecuting is nonsense. What the hell was Paul persecuting them for if he knows nothing, zero, nil, about them?? No, it’s not necessary to read the gospels into Paul (however dating is itself a problematic issue...). All that’s necessary is a little bit of common sense. Paul knows something about those he has been persecuting (taking the storyline as it is...). Paul is not operating in a vacuum and relying only on his own vision.

Creating a scenario re early Christian origins that fails to acknowledge that Paul had some other knowledge - knowledge apart from his vision - is to create a scenario that is totally unrealistic. Fine - leave the gospels aside if that is a bugbear - but what can’t be done is to deprive Paul of having some first hand knowledge of the history of the early ‘church’ that preceded his vision. How Paul chose to use, or not use, that knowledge is another question entirely. But to assume that because he does not spell out the knowledge he had re the ‘church’ that preceded him, therefore, he actually does not have it - is ridicules. As Wells has now come to appreciate - it is not all 'mythical'.

It's not a case of the epistles of Paul and then the gospels - as though that scenario settles the matter in favor of Paul's vision. Its a case of history, the history of the 'church' that preceded Paul, then the vision and epistles of Paul and then the gospels. That popular saying - don't read the gospels into Paul might indeed have some merit - but the converse also has some merit - don't read Paul into the gospels. Chances are we have two interpretations, two understandings, of that early pre-Paul 'church'. To view them as antagonistic - or that one is more 'real' or 'true' than the other - is to short-circuit any attempt to get to an understanding of that pre-Paul early 'church'.

Anyway, just a couple of points to keep in mind when reading your new book....

Oh, and a Happy New's Year's Eve to anybody reading this - just 40 minutes to go my way....

spin

I doubt anyone considers that Paul was operating in a vacuum, but the onus is on anyone who thinks they know what Paul means by the terms he uses to demonstrate the meaning in them rather than assuming them.

One terrible blunder is to retroject the christian notion of "church" into Paul's use of εκκλησια. The word is frequently used in the LXX, but is never translated as church. That's the world where Paul's language comes from.

What Greek word would one have used for an assembly of (Jewish) messianists (such as the followers of JtB), if not εκκλησια?

This seems to be your linguistic problem. No religion is created in a vacuum. How did the diaspora Jewish religion continue without meetings? We have the idea that the JtB supporter Apollos went around proselytizing. Did they not meet to maintain their new faith?

So what exactly can you tell me of the beliefs of the people in the "assemblies" of Judea that are in christ? -- I mean, beyond the fact that they were messianists?


spin

aa5874

There are no facts that there were "messianists". You cannot assume your own facts.

The "Pauline writings" contain UNCORROBORATED claims. And it may be that "Paul" was lying.

Ro 3:7 -