Minimalist

Yes.

If "Robin Hood" is a myth so are his "Merry Men."

If "King Arthur" is a myth so are the "Knights of the Round Table."

If "Jason" is a myth so are the "Argonauts."


Everyone needs an entourage apparently.

ApostateAbe

I think that is a reasonable argument. Given the premise that Jesus was merely myth, it follows that his associations, wound up in the same myths, would also be merely myths. That is why I count Paul's report of meeting Cephas (Peter) and his account of Cephas, James and John as pillars of the church, both in the epistle to the Galatians, as strong evidence against the idea that Jesus was merely myth. There are several counters from the skeptical camp and the mythicist camp, mainly that genuine people can be incorporated as characters in a mythical or fictional storyline. They may also say that Paul never actually wrote the epistle to the Galatians. Possibilities are often treated as though they count as serious rebuttals, though such possibilities strike me as sort of hair-brained if they both lack evidence and don't fit into a consistent and sensible model of the history of Christianity.

Toto

Why is it "strong" evidence when Paul never identifies Cephas, James, or John as having any relationship to Jesus and pays them no respect?

You see how you have shifted the burden of proof here? Why claim that there is no evidence that Paul never wrote Galantians, except to divert attention from the fact that no one can prove that Paul did write Galantians?

If you are going to use Galantians as evidence, you need to show that Paul wrote it, not claim that the possibility that it was forged is "hair-brained."

As far as a "sensible" model of the history of Christianity, I think there any many plausible models that fit the evidence we have. The evidence includes clear proof that there are forged documents at every point in Christian history.

Clivedurdle

Brilliant summary in fact preached on by a myriad pentecostal preachers that these examples are prophetic of Jesus!

Which raises another possibility - that Mark is a fictional summary saying what the Christ would be like and what he will do..

Dake continually references verses in the gospel to the Hebrew Bible. I was once quite skilled at listening to a preacher saying and Jesus said and in 1 Kings it says and then following these references in my Bible. It was expected that the congregation would do this.

Doug Shaver

I don't. The nonexistence of the main character in a work of fiction implies nothing necessarily about the real existence of any other character. Granted that it could warrant a prima facie supposition that they're all fictional, but that supposition can be overcome by any ordinary evidence for their actual existence.

What Paul says about them implies their existence and something about their status within the Jerusalem church. He says nothing, however, to imply their having had any association with a historical founder of that church.

You mean like, it's possible that Cephas, James, and John told Paul everything they knew firsthand about Jesus' earthly ministry but Paul couldn't think of any reason to mention any of it in any of his writings?

ApostateAbe

I take it as strong evidence, because the gospels identify those people as associates of Jesus, which I think is all that is really needed, unless there is a sensible competing theory to explain this set of real people being incorporated into myth. And, in fact Paul does seem to give a few hints. In Galatians 3:1, for example:

You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed {as} crucified?

Paul would be referring the bewitchers here, in this context, who would be his religious rivals, the reputed pillars.

It is somewhat analogous to there being external evidence that Lancelot and Guinevere existed. Even if there is only a loose and questionable connection to King Arthur, then suddenly, the established position that King Arthur never existed looks a whole lot more unlikely. I know I can't persuade you of this Toto, but I hope the argument is beginning to make sense all the same so I don't look like a mere partisan.
OK, that's cool. Sometimes, there is a little confusion as to whether or not the disciples of Jesus existed. Many members of the debate may propose that the disciples never existed, just as a rebuttal, a negative attack against the establishment, and they may not realize that their criticisms taken together do not fit consistently into a sensible model of history. For example, they may propose that Paul founded Christianity as a mystical cult, based on evidence of the writings of Paul, and then turn around in a different argument and propose that there is no evidence that Paul wrote any of the epistles.

As you know, it is impossible to prove anything in the study of history. The best we can do is to show probability. Galatians has Paul's name in the introduction, which narrows down the potential authorship--either it was Paul or it was a Christian forger writing as though it was Paul. In chapter 2 and onward, we have a perspective that we would expect from Paul, not from a forger. If it were a forger, then we may expect roughly the same perspective of the council of Jerusalem as we see in the rest of the canon. Instead, it is a perspective of animosity toward the other founding figures, something we would very much expect of Paul, not a forger. That is the main reason I accept, and there are probably a handful of other reasons, but, no, that certainly doesn't prove that Paul wrote Galatians--it only tilts the probabilities toward one side of it.

ApostateAbe

I don't disagree too much with you, because, yes, the specific evidence is a lot more important than the general patterns. I'll give you a similar thought experiment as I did with Toto:

Evidence is discovered that Lancelot and Guinevere existed. Their descriptions have a loose but matching resemblance to Lancelot and Guinevere in the King Arthur myths. Then suddenly, the established position that King Arthur never existed looks a whole lot more unlikely. Agree or disagree?
I don't think anyone is proposing that as a possibility, and I don't know exactly what you mean. Please be explicit and clear (not hyperbolic). My brain can't easily process a complex subject like this with written sarcasm thrown in.

aa5874

Once the veracity of the Pauline writers are challenged then using the Pauline letters as their own corroborative sources cannot be accepted when even APOLOGETIC sources contradict the Pauline writers.

The Pauline writings are NOT strong evidence but QUESTIONABLE.

1. Luke, the supposed close companion of Paul, contradicted the chronology given by the Pauline writer for his travels to Jerusalem.

2. An Apologetic source claimed the Pauline writers was aware of gLuke.

3. Apologetic sources claimed Jesus was a GOD/MAN.

4. A Pauline writer claimed that he was NOT the apostle of a man but Jesus Christ who was RAISED from the dead.

5. A Pauline writer claimed JESUS was the Creator of everything in Heaven and Earth.

6. Justin Martyr did not NAME a single NEW follower or believer of Jesus after Jesus supposedly ascended to heaven and up to the time of Justin Martyr's own conversion.

There is just no external source to corroborate the Pauline writings and even INTERNALLY the veracity of the Pauline writers have been contradicted.

Toto

But you yourself have admitted that the gospels are not reliable as history.

Wow, you have just added some completely new speculation to this passage. I see no reason to assume that the bewitchers were the pillars.

There is no "established" position that King Arthur never existed. The existence of Arthur is treated as unknown. No one feels compelled to draw a conclusion on insufficient evidence.

In fact, your argument makes no sense. Even if you can identify the Cephas of the letters with the Peter of the Gospels, it doesn't take any great theorizing to posit that the gospel myth maker picked up the name of a real person.

Doherty has proposed that Paul spoke about a spiritual Jesus. Other, different mythicists may proposed that Paul's letters were either forged or heavily interpolated. I don't know of anyone who confused those two arguments. Doherty does believe that Christianity started before 70 CE, while the second group would probably date Christianity to post 70 CE or even post 132 CE.

"Either Paul or a Christian forger" omits the possibility that the forger was Marcion or a Marcionite, and that the letter was absorbed into the canon in spite of its perspective on the pillars. There goes your probability argument.

Toto

This is precisely what some historicists propose - that Paul learned about the historical Jesus on one of his stays with Peter.