Toto

Not an official blurb, but a private review.

There is a lengthy essay here: ‘TWO POWERS’ AND EARLY JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN MONOTHEISM

spamandham

It's more than just "the legend had time to grow". If that's all it, was, the MJ p[osition would simply be apologetics.

There are a lot of purplexing unanswered questions the HJers must sweep aside that the MJers don't need to address at all:

1. The earliest records of Christianity (presumed to be Paul's writings, and this argument changes if that isn't true) have almost no details at all about Jesus. Paul's Christ appears to be either purely mystical, or a figure from the indetermnate distant past, not someone who had recently lived.

2. Within the earliest writings, there are already several churches with divergent teachings. This makes little sense if those teachings were based on what a recent cult figure had been spreading.

3. Many of the stories attributed to Jesus are rooted in Pythagorean and Egyptian mysticism. Certainly these could have been attached as the legend grew, but it would be easier for them to be attached to a mythical figure no-one really knew anything about than to a recent historical figure who's ministry would be rememebred and passed down by those who knew him.

4. There are clear signs of attempts to syncretize other beliefs in the earliest records of Christain writings. The Jesus of the Bible was clearly neither Jewish nor a follower of John the Baptist. Yet early writings would have us believe both. It smells like a work of fiction invented to unite disparate religious beliefs for political purposes.

5. Follow the money: It DID in fact unite an empire that was in turmoil within.

6. There are no contemporary records of followers of Jesus. In light of the overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence recorded by followers of John the Baptist, the oral tradition argument simply holds no water. Granted, this is an argument from ignorance, but a powerful one IMHO. It simply isn't reasonable that the same culture that would have made shrines in honor of John the Baptist would not have done the same for an even greater cult figure, unless you take the position that John the Baptist IS the historical Jesus, or unless you take the position Jesus was not a big cult figure in his day, but was turned into one later on by someone else. But in this latter case, it doesn't seem reasonable to claim he was an itinerate preacher. The proper position in the latter case would be that we know nothing at all about the historical Jesus, including when or where he lived (assuming he did).

None of this proves there was no historical Jesus, but to me at least, it alters the parsimony argument to the mythicist's court. If you start with the assumption Jesus is a myth, all these problems go away, and as far as I can tell, no serious problems are caused by such a position. Once such a myth got started, there would be no reason for anyone unfamiliar with these problems to question the historicity of Jesus.

Clearly, neither Tacitus nor Josephus would have reason to be familiar with these problems, as clearly, neither had much knowledge of Christianity.

No Robots

If you look, you will see that, while it was posted by an individual reviewer, it is identified as "publisher info". It is clearly identified as such here.

Very interesting. From my perspective, the important point is that neither Segal nor the critical paper in any way lead one to the conclusion that there is a correlation between the "Two Powers" and the kind of mythical neo-Platonic realm that Doherty postulates.

No Robots

No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew. -The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity / William Arnal. (p. 5)

gurugeorge

Great post, and the above about JTB is a good point that hadn't even occurred to me, thanks!

GakuseiDon

"Once such a myth got started" becomes the key, then. In your opinion, when did it start, and what was the mechanism by which a mythical Jesus became historicized by the time of Tacitus?

GakuseiDon

Wow. I never heard that there was "overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence recorded by followers of John the Baptist". It would be great if there is, but I thought it all dated from about the Second or Third Century CE. Can you or spamandham give details on the contemporary evidence?

Toto

The only contemporary or even close to contemporary evidence for JtB is Josephus. It is only "overwhelming" in comparison with the evidence for Jesus.

spamandham

Thanks for the info! This counters what I've read elsewhere.

Solo

Why wouldn't the letters of Paul qualify, I wonder ?

what "overwhelming amount of contemporary evidence" is there for JtB ?

Puhleeze.....

What "culture" and what "shrines" are you talking about ? The first big one I am aware of was the Yahia shrine in Damascus built under the Umayaad (where John's head is said to have been interred). Of course the followers of JtB, called "the Mandaeans" became quite a cult in the Persian Gulf, but that is not much earlier than first Christian churches either.

Incidentally, the Mandaean tradition say that John the Baptist did baptize Jesus but that it was a mistake, because Jesus became a deceiver.

Many modern theologians following Bultmann have taken that very position....

Jiri