douglas

You've done some interesting work here. Have you read Dr. Randall Helms' Gospel Fictions (or via: amazon.co.uk)? It's been awhile since I have, but there are simliarities between what you're doing and his book.

His ASU bio page says that he's currently working on a book on the

Malachi151

True, but so many of the cases are clear, such as the use of Psalm 22 in the crucifixion scene, and so many of the others are specified by the author (all of the T1 references) that this definitely seems to be the modus operandi of the writers. Some correlations, for example the calming of storm scene, may not be a direct scriptural reference, but may reflect common ideas about God rooted in the religious tradition, and this scripture just also happens to reflect that tradition, and this may be the case in some other instances as well, but the point is that every idea and every event in the gospel of Mark and Matthew has a precedent in the Jewish mythos.

You don't need a "real person" to inspire the story of Jesus, the inspiration for the story was already there.

Gamera

If the gospel authors were trying to construct a story from Hebrew Scripture, they did a pretty bad job, as many Skeptics have noted in trying to debunk messianic passages.

I mean, the OT refers to a tree, not a cross, so if you're just making the story up, why not use a tree instead of a cross, instead of having to go through the rigmarole of claiming a cross is like a tree.

If you're starting from scratch, you could have Pilate run out of crosses and have Jesus crucified on a tree.

Most of the so-called messianic prophesies are like that. They fit, kind of, but are off. It looks like the Christian interpreters are "stretching" to make the prophesy fits the facts.

This shouldn't be under your thesis. The fit should be perfect.

Malachi151

Quite a simple explanation here if you actually read the gospel.

Jesus is crucified because he is a sacrifice FOR THE ROMANS, not the Jews, hence the reason that all the apostles don't get it, Pilate tries to save him, the Jews demand his death, and in the end it is a Roman Soldier that says "Surely this man was the Son of God".

I think that "Mark" was a diaspora Jew who viewed the triumph of the Romans over the Jews as evidence that the Romans had the favor of God.

Also, there was already a tradition that claimed Jesus Christ was crucified as part of the Christ mystery religion.

aa5874

Also, there were Christians who believed that Jesus Christ was an apparition and was not crucified.

Gamera

That's not an explanation at all. The messianic prophesies in the OT don't mention a cross, they mention a tree. So if you're making the story up from scratch, you would want to use a tree to make the prophesy fit. You can do that simply by, e.g., having Pilate run out of crosses due to a bad market that year. Or a strike by the cross makers union. Or a hundred other explanations. As fiction the field is open.

But instead the author went with a cross and then had to "fit" the prophesy to a cross. But if he's making up the story, he'd "fit" the story to the prophesy, not the other way round.

So try again.

Gamera

Well, the gospel writers sure didn't and that the narratives in question. Maliki is claiming they constructed a story around Hebrew messianic texts. But as it turned out, the story doesn't fit the prophesies -- which wouldn't happen if the narrative was constructed from them.

Malachi151

As far as I know there are not prophecies or otherwise about being "crucified" on a tree, just being hung from a tree.

Feel free to present your "tree hanging" references that you think would have been a better fit.

Paul was already talking about crucifixions, and whoever wrote Hebrews was taking about a lot of bloodshed, and you don't get bloodshed from hanging or stoning, so I suspect that that had something to do with it.

I'm not even sure what you are arguing here. you can't deny that the crucifixion scene copies from several texts, especially Psalm 22.

Gamera

You're making my point not yours. The messianic prophesy allegedly involvied hanging from a tree. But Jesus gets crucified on a cross in the narrative. If the authors were starting from the prophesies, they would have had him hung from a tree, not crucified on a cross, avoiding the dubious "explanation" that a cross is like a tree and crucifixion is like hanging.

The prophesy doesn't fit and the narrative has to be "massaged" to make it fit. But you claim the narrative came from the prophesy. So your claim seems to have been rebutted.

And this is just one of dozens of examples where there's a bad "fit."

aa5874

It wouldn't have happened if it wasn't fiction. The stories of the people called Jesus are consistent with fiction. All the stories lack credibility in all key areas.

Irenaeus in 'Against Heresies' and Eusebius in 'The Proof' believed that the Christ was based on prophecies in the OT, and the Gospels, as represented in the NT of the Christian Bible, has not been verified as being the true version of Christianity.