ApostateAbe

I would consider them to be close to the consensus that I described, except maybe the apocalypticism. Their model of Jesus is that of a wise sage, reportedly. Robert Funk, a leading founder of the Seminar, attributes the apocalyptic preaching to the apostles. An apocalyptic Jesus is probably closer to the consensus of non-religious scholars.
Bart Ehrman is my preferred scholar. He makes a good case for an apocalyptic Jesus in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. He doesn't make a case against a purely mythical Jesus position. For that, you may have to go back 100 years.

spamandham

I have not read that book, but scanning the introduction on Amazon, it does not look to me that it has anything to do with making a case for a historical Jesus, but instead, like almost everything else, starts with the assumption that Jesus was historical and attempts to reconstruct who he was.

The problem with that approach is, it works just as well if Jesus is a nonhistorical character. If early Christians were a doomsday cult, then of course Jesus is going to be depicted preaching the eminent end of the world, regardless of whether he is historical.

ApostateAbe

You may still find it a useful book. He lays out his methods for discerning the historical truths from the Christian texts, including the criterion of dissimilarity, where he gives an example that it is probable that Jesus was crucified from the fact that it was very difficult to convince Jews that the messiah would be crucified and would not be a great military hero (1 Cor 1:23). The existence of Jesus follows from his arguments for his model of Jesus, which means it is not an assumption. One of my preferred arguments for the existence of Jesus is that an actual human cult leader is much more likely to predict the imminent end of the world than a merely mythical or ideological character.

I'll make you an offer: I'll buy the book for you. Just send me your mailing address by PM.

spamandham

This difficulty might explain why Christianity was successful among gentiles rather than Jews. You might even call it a stumbling block to the Jews.

The problem is, Paul implies in multiple places that his crucifixion/resurrection gospel is derived from scripture/revelation...and sure enough, it actually is in the Jewish scriptures.

Go read Gal 3:13, and tell me that you think Paul is referring to a recent historical event rather than an idea he constructed from Deuteronomy 21. The gospel story's rush to get Jesus buried is derived from this same source.

That leader is easily seen as Paul rather than Jesus.

Not necessary, but thanks for the offer.

ApostateAbe

That is certainly correct, precisely the reason Christianity was more popular among Gentiles.
OK, here is Galatians 3:13

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

It was a quote from Deuteronomy 21:22-23

²² If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, ²³ you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

You propose that story of Jesus was constructed from scripture like this. In order for that to be accepted as plausible (as you prefer), then it must be shown to be more plausible than the competing explanation: that Jewish scripture was fitted to the Jesus story ad hoc.

There seems to be a good reason to favor the competing explanation: Deuteronomy 21:22-23 is not about crucifixion, and a cross was not really a tree--it was a plank of wood. For sure, Christians called it a "tree," perhaps in large part because of this passage.

It seems to be part of a larger pattern among the earliest Christians--they would change the apparent meaning of passages in the Jewish canon to fit their own positions. As another example, Isaiah 53 was never thought to be a messianic prophecy until Christianity--most of the "prophecy" is in past tense!

But, it does go both ways. Sometimes, Christians change their own story to fit the Old Testament, as in the birth story in Bethlehem, included in Matthew, Luke and John, but not in Mark or Q. Jesus was not from Bethlehem (his title was Jesus of Nazareth), but the story was apparently invented to fulfill Micah 5:2. Even then, the meaning of the prophecy was changed to make "Bethlehem" refer to the town, and not the ancestral clan.
You can certainly see it that way, but I don't see it as easy. Seeing Jesus as a living human being requires much less elaborate story-telling and invention. Not that Paul and the other apostles were not skilled liars, but the normal pattern of apocalyptic cults (and cults of all sort) is that one living leader (or more than one) succeeds the single living founder. You can get an overview of cults here: http://www.neirr.org/ncultlst.html

ApostateAbe

Oh, and that offer stands.

aa5874

So this would mean that it was YOUR HJ that was fitting Jewish scripture to his own life.

Once you assume Jesus did actually exist then it was Jesus himself who mis-interpreted and twisted the Septuagint or who was completely unfamiliar with the fact that there was NO messianic prophecy about himself.

Your HJ claimed he would be killed and be raised on the third day by twisting non-prophecy in the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture.

It most bizzarre that your HJ mis-interpreted and twisted the Septuagint or Hebrew Scripture and yet managed to fulfill all of the non-prophecies except the one that was supposed to occur after the fall of the Temple.

Only in a story can we have mis-interpreted and twisted non-prophecies fulfilled.

spamandham

Uhg. I spent a good hour constructing a detailed reply, copying to the clipboard on occasion, only to have a complete system crash and lose everything. I don't have the energy to reconstruct it, but here are the highlights.

Read the context, not just that single verse. The context is why the law is not important. This is why he twists what was written about Abraham. Paul feels the need to justify the abandonment of the law, and the crucifixion is what he came up with.

I have seen the references on this board before (though I don't have them memorized enough to recall), that it was widely understood by Jews of the time that 'hung on a tree' meant Roman crucifixion. So Paul's reference to it is not a contortion at all, but is how Jews of his day understood Deuteronomy 21.

If Jesus was not historical and early Christians knew it, then there is no problem with Isaiah 53 being in the past. This is an HJ problem, not an MJ problem, and you must invent an ad hoc explanation for it as a result, which you then use as evidence of a general pattern of scriptural twisting.

This is possible of course, but it's contrived to force fit an HJ, not because it's a priori evident.

Was the story invented to fulfill Micah, which otherwise gets short shrift, or was it invented to undermine the claims of the John the Baptist cult that Jesus was a Nasoraean (a member of their cult), by having him be from Nazareth instead, and adding insult to injury by using scripture to prove he was born in Bethlehem and a descendant of David rather than a John cultist?

This fits the rest of the gospel pattern of showing that the authority of John was passed onto Jesus. Obviously, there was conflict between the cults, and the birth narrative helps to undermine John's cult.

Not really. An HJ hypothesis requires numerous contrivances, of which I've pointed out many to you in our exchanges.

The non-HJ hypothesis is pretty simple, and has a lot of explanatory power as it helps us understand how Christianity transformed from Paul's mostly mystical ideas into a flesh and blood Jesus on a cross whose birth narrative and passion stories are nonetheless constructed from scripture.

It's very difficult for the HJ premise to explain how Paul could be so oblivious to Jesus' teachings, or even what made him so special that his crucifixion has magical properties. But it's easy if we start with a theologically constructed crucifixion and move forward.