TedM

And, I believe Jake has provided some references--Detering in particular. Andrew Criddle began a thread the other day which looks at the Marcion priority question. It's a valid question to ask, and I welcome any attempt to present a case for it. I looked at the "born or a woman" passage comments by Deterring, and didn't find 2 of the 3 arguments convincing. The other was above my knowledge base.

Jake, maybe you would like to present a few of the most compelling examples in favor of Marcion priority for discussion here..?..

ted

No Robots

"Quote mining"? Oowee!! From the defeat of the mythicists to the reimposition of Christian dogma: 1 nanosecond.:down:

Amaleq13

If you replace "isn't credible" with "have not be established as reliable", you will be much closer to my position. The problem is the "identification" only occurs in myth-drenched stories written by authors who had significant theological interests in telling their story and, to my knowledge, no reliable methodology exists to accurately identify what, if anything, can be considered historically true in them.

It wasn't offered so as to easily transfer to the situation but to explain the differentiation being described. It was offered as an explanation of the difference between a "description" and an "identification" but nobody is apparently willing to accept it as such. And that is the source of my ever-increasing frustration. JUST READ WHAT I FREAKING WRITE AND QUIT TRYING TO TURN IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE!!!! (That was not directed specifically just at you, Ted, but it was quite cathartic. )

You don't understand the difference between a description and an identification or you don't understand how it applies to Jesus? I only offered the former and I don't know how to make it more clear. I didn't even have to offer an explanation to my wife. I asked her what the difference was and she looked at me like I was an idiot. "A reddish-brown dog approximately 75lbs that sort of looks like an Irish Setter and answers to the name 'Reese', would be a description." Then pointing at our dog lying on the bed, she said "That dog is the one I am describing is an identification". I'm pretty sure her comprehension of what I consider to be a fairly basic concept did not require the doctorate in veterinary medicine she's earned but perhaps I'm wrong.

First, they are irrelevant to an explanation of the difference between a description and an identification which is what Ben appeared to be having difficulty with. Second, maybe it is just me, but the fact that none of those actual exist seems a bit problematic in considering them reliable evidence of anything. Third, even if we assume they existed, I don't see how it can be shown that they always referred to the same alleged historical figure.

Ben,

I hope you have a better understanding of my frustration now and I also hope you have obtained an understanding of the rather obvious difference between a description and an identification independent of this discussion since that was the point of my earlier post.

I'm still not going to bother with explaining why we can identify some ancient figures but not others because it is much faster to simply tell you what the outcome will be. We will discover that the difference is determined by the available evidence. When we have multiple lines of converging evidence (e.g. independent texts, archaeology), we are able to identify specific individuals and connect them to specific events in history. As I've stated repeatedly, I do not think we have that sort of evidence with regard to Jesus. What we have are letters that focus on the purely spiritual "True Identity" of an Incarnated Form, clearly mythologized expressions of theological beliefs with no reliable methodology for identifying what, if anything, is of historical value, and external references that are of questionable authenticity and/or independence. If you think that an identification of Jesus can be obtained from that mess, then you really don't understand what that concept means.

That said, there appears to be an assumption on the part of others that this somehow equates to denying the historicity of Jesus. That is simply untrue and nothing I have written supports such an assumption. All it does is make establishing historicity much more difficult. You can certainly attempt to build a circumstantial case for a historical figure but I think, given the existing evidence, that will always fall short of actually identifying the guy.

Didymus

Rodney Stark makes a pretty good case that Paul's audience consisted mainly of Hellenized Jews living in the Diaspora. Stark thinks that early "gentilization" of the religion is overemphasized. I'll summarize his arguments if there's interest.

Didymus

Toto

This is a attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Chris and others who doubt interpolations: Please review my review here of Interpolations in the Pauline Letters by William O. Walker, Jr. .

Walker makes what I felt was a very persuasive case that interpolations in ancient literature were commonplace and to be expected, and that a set of criteria can be worked out to show the most likely interpolations. He also argues that the orthodox church around 180 CE was small enough and organized enough to make sure that all surviving copies of Paul's letters reflected the religiously correct line.

Christian apologists try to claim that the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming any interpolation or forgery, and then raise the burden of proof so high that no interpolations can ever be demonstrated. This is just an apologetic smokescreen to avoid confronting the real problems in the text and the high probability of interpolation, forgery, or outright deceit.

This, of course, assumes that there were original pristine letters of "Paul" that the forgers could work on. Robert Price casts some doubts on that in his essay The Evolution of the Pauline Canon.

Amaleq13

I would be interested but it should probably have its own thread.

Toto

We already have about 3 or 4 threads on Stark. (Just search for Stark in this forum.) I think he's probably mostly correct.

Ben C Smith

My purpose for introducing them was consonant with the purpose of this thread, to test for positive evidence of mythicism. In my analogy Jesus was being compared to a Roman emperor and a Spanish explorer; if your adduced method of weighing evidence tends to show that they are mythical (presuming you in fact accept them as historical), then it cannot be trusted.

Your question here, however, reverses the burden of proof vis-a-vis this thread. It tacitly compares Jesus to two mythical deities. That comparison belongs on a thread seeking positive evidence for historicism, in order to test those methods of weighing evidence (that is, if the historicist methods tend to show that these deities are historical, they cannot be trusted).

The short answer is: I do not know of any positive evidence for the historicity of Zeus and Quetzalcoatl, and there is a gap of far too long for any mechanism of tradition to be reasonable. I do know of positive evidence for the historicity of Jesus. You may ask, what evidence? But of course that would be a question for another thread.

Ben.

Edited to add: I almost forgot what may be the most important thing about Zeus. AFAICT, he first appears texts of what I regard as a fictional genre (such as ancient epic).

Ben C Smith

That is a good one. Thanks. One for the list.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I completely understand the difference. What I do not understand is how you would apply it to the average ancient personage.

Sure, I can identify Jesus. He was the brother of James, who in turn was the pillar of the church in Jerusalem and whom Paul interacted with. He had followers during his lifetime, was known as a good teacher, and was executed by the Romans in Jerusalem under Pilate.

But you already know all this, probably dispute every single detail on that list, and are still asking for an identification. What exactly do you want? All of that, if I can provide evidence for it, would be evidence for historicity, right? But my question is about evidence for mythicism.

Hence my confusion. I have no idea what to say to answer your question about identity that has not already been said a thousand times before.

Ben.