Didymus

Was Christianity started by a single event – a notoriously unjust crucifixion? Was Jesus a "one trick pony"?

There's been some discussion of this "virtual mythical Jesus" or "physical Jesus" idea beginning with #686 on the "Jesus Myth Turning Point" thread.

Here's a summary of the hypothesis:

The unjust crucifixion of an enigmatic but saintly Jew named Jesus, most likely in Jerusalem, precipitated rumors that spread like wildfire. (One could imagine a deranged man wandering into the city, shouting in the streets, striking people in the Temple precinct, preaching the apocalypse, etc. But we have no way of ascertaining what actually happened.) Nothing was known of this stranger but his name, but his crucifixion was viewed by some as the fulfillment of expectations of a Wisdom-like rejected messiah, and a "church of God" formed, consisting of small study groups. Rituals began. Messianic fantasists in the Diaspora searched scripture and mythology to formulate a theology around this crucified man (Paul), and, as time went on, a fictional biography of the man himself (Mark).

I think it's a pretty efficient scenario, i.e., it explains the data without requiring us to accept page after page of conjecture. Or preposterous apologetics like "Paul didn't mention the 'details' of Jesus' life because he had other concerns." It doesn't ask us to rule in elements simply because they can't be ruled out, nor does it require that we posit interpolations to make the text fit the hypothesis. It succinctly explains why Paul knew nothing about the life of Jesus, the reason MJ was formulated in the first place.

Because it hypothesizes a crucifee without a known biography, it frees both Paul and Mark of any historical burden, thus allowing Paul to introduce both a rudimentary biography and mystical elements like 2 Cor 12, and Mark to construct a pseudohistorical, scripture-based biography (to which other pseudohistorical elements were added, of course, by ML&J and the writers of the apocryphals).

Of all the allegedly historical elements in the NT that serve as major pivot points, the crucifixion is the most likely to have a historical origin – it was a fact of life in the first-century Roman Empire - and the least likely to have been either derived from Hebrew scripture or thought of as taking place in a spiritual/sublunar dimension. And, best of all :wave: it meets my personal "criterion of motivational sufficiency" test: Unlike the mere writing of an epistle, or one man's report of his visions, it had enough "juice" to capture the imagination of an (admittedly credulous) public. Something had to light that fire, and a notoriously unjust crucifixion would have done the job.

Your thoughts?

Didymus

miniverchivi

I do feel the crucifixion happened, but I feel even that story was elaborated on to sell the idea of Christianity...

Other historical writers have written about the whole event, but the bible is the only book that suggests that Jesus rose from the dead,....How odd

I also think its funny that the real historical writers also mention John and Peter being the only two apostles at the event, yet the bible has eyewitness accounts from Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

I think that a man was unjustly crucified, notice I said 'man'. In fact, I think that Jesus was probably a pretty cool guy, but then King James had to go and screw it up for everyone.

Julian

What did King James have to do with it?

Julian

miniverchivi

I once read a portion of a book while sitting in Borders(I can't think of the name of it), that went in detail about how King James and his translators harshly modified the scrolls found and added things on to scare people into believing....for example, the original scrolls don't even mention the idea of hell....mind you, I'm not saying the scrolls are valid either, but it's just an example.

The scrolls were derived from Jewish writings, the Jews don't believe that Christ is God. Therefore, how did King James's people get a "Jesus is God" based belief system from Jewish writings?

No Robots

This is hokum. You can always look at a parallel NT to see how different versions treat the same passage.

The process of divinization began long before King James.

miniverchivi

True, but the word "Sheol" (which means grave) wasn't interprated as "Hell" (eternal lake of fire) until the King James Version of the Bible, and other followed suit. Using the word grave to make people think that they will burn forever sounds like a pretty good scare tactic...

Also, how do you account for the fact that Matthew, Mark, and Luke all had supposed eyewitness accounts of the crucifixion/raising...yet every other non-biblical writer/scribe all coincide with the fact that John and Peter were the only 2 apostles actually at the scene....

The Bible has been abused and modified to fit certain needs since the time of it's inception.

No Robots

The history of hell is a great thing to study. Keep at it.

No quarrel from me on this.

Didymus

So far so good.

What "other historical writers"? "Only book"? Check into this further, and you might not be so confused. There's no shortage of information out there.

What "real historical writers" are you talking about? The bible does not have eyewitness accounts of the crucixion, the resurrection, or any other event in which Jesus is said to have participated. Read the beginning of Luke's gospel, where he tells you straight out that he was NOT an eyewitness.

Nobody knows what kind of guy Jesus was or what he did. We know roughly what the gospel writers said about him many years after the crucifixion, but they were only guessing. They had to crib a LOT from scripture, since they didn't know him either. None of them even claimed to have interviewed anyone who actually knew Jesus! And that, miniverchivi, makes Jesus a fictional character.

King James had nothing to do with any of this. He sponsored an English translation of a shoddy compilation of dubious manuscripts.

Didymus

darstec

That is indeed a great source however it's main fault lies in the fact that the reader does not know which of the variations the different translations are using. For some passages that is no problem. For others where there is variation in the text, the reader who cannot read the Greek, has no clue to which variation is being translated. And using the Latin sort of implies that there were no variations in the Latin manuscripts.

I think miniverchivi's point still stands especially since some words can have meanings that are not used because those meanings are not couched in the religious venacular and would give a different point of view of the text perhaps even an unholy one.

miniverchivi

The link you posted is apparently saying what I said...

"Indeed, Sheol in many cases does not seem to be an afterlife destination or a location at all, but merely "the grave". "