Zeichman

Except he's gone on record as saying that we can reconstruct a "soft-focus" vision of Jesus. Hardly something a mythicist would say.

rlogan

Exactly so, and others have made similar comments here.

There is a tremendous amount of hypocrisy in the sneering from "historicists".

Big manly men are the "Historical Paul Bunyan".

Chris Weimer

Not quite. The main difference would be intent. By Mark, yeah, Jesus is fictional. But with Paul - I'm pretty sure he's talking about one man who really existed. How people can throw away Paul so easily is beyond me really. Here's a man to have claimed to met the personal disciples of Jesus.

You're beating a strawman here.

Just because I've discarded the more obvious fictions doesn't mean that the whole thing is entirely made up.

You see, this is where I disagree. I think the genesis of the story is grounded in history and the mythological layers was added on.

Chris Weimer

I see it does. Thanks for the correction Toto.

Chris Weimer

From what I've seen, it's either the fundamentalist historicists sneering or the fundamentalist mythicists sneering. Your quote above appears to be such a sneer. :down:

Toto

Where does Paul say that he met with the personal disciples of Jesus? He describes meeting with people that other sources call the disciples of Jesus, but he doesn't identify them as such or act as if they had any superior knowledge about Jesus.

He does call James the Brother of the Lord, but that is ambiguous - it could be a title, and Lord could be God, not Jesus.

Chris Weimer

Well, I guess it's an inference. He says he met both James and Cephas, right? He also says that the risen Christ first went to Cephas, then James the Brother of the Lord (which I agree is merely a title), and then the Twelve (apostles, who may or may not have been disciples). But that he gives them so much credit seems likely to me because they have a closer connection to Jesus. After all, Paul is the "untimely" apostle, making the other apostles birthed normally?

Didymus

If the lives and acts of multiple real and imagined people were coalesced in the oral (and possibly written) tradition to form the biography that was invented or transcribed by Mark, no, I don't think that constitutes history or a historical Jesus. In fact, I believe that's exactly what happened, i.e., the biography of the Jesus of the gospels was kludged together from elements of various traditions. The fact that some parts of those traditions had a basis in fact doesn't change things. The product is a mythical figure, not a historical one.

Labels are not all bad. They are invaluable as shorthand for very complex ideas. Surely we don't want to have to the reiterate the precepts of Roman Catholic doctrine every time we refer to someone as a "Catholic."

Didymus

Didymus

Paul does NOT, however, give James and Cephas "credit" for having known Jesus during his earthly ministry. He shows no deference whatsoever. In fact, he seems more interested in making his case against their doctrines than in praising them.

Didymus

Toto

Inference upon inference, which would never be made if the later written gospels had not put the ideas in your mind.

James, of course, was never a disciple in the gospels. Cephas and Peter might be the same person, but there are some who would argue that.

The passage recounting the appearances may be an interpolation, but note that the risen Christ appears to an anonymous 500 people before bothering with James. The term "untimely" has gnostic implications, and it would be hard to conclude anything about the other apostles from it.