Vorkosigan

1. The entire Jesus story in Mark is made up out of literary source material using the conventions of the hellenistic historical romances and similar. Subsequent writers know this and make up their stories similarly.

2. Scholars do not possess a reliable methodology for assessing the gospels and other jesus materials and discovering what is historical.

3. The genre of the Jesus tales remains in dispute.

4. The early epistles do not know these or any other tales of jesus.

5. The epistles themselves give every appearance of being literary/theological forgeries. Like the gospels which are rooted in the hellenistic historical romances, they have literary parallels in the epistolary novels of the era.

In addition to individuals like Sai Baba or Sabbatai Zevi or Rabbi Schneerson, another set of parallels to the Jesus story are the Mormons and Scientology, who used the techniques and conventions of then-popular literary narrative styles to produce a religion.

Vorkosigan

mountainman

comparitive historicity (Apollonius of Tyana c.f. Jesus of Nazareth)

Apollonius of Tyana

Apollonius has associated with him some extremely compelling "historical indicators, such as the recently found inscription:

Iskander

Theology is supposed to be the father of Jesus, but theology is an invention and it cannot possibly be the father of a man.

Jesus is the son of Mary and Joseph or perhaps Panthera but I am a gentleman and I’ll say Joseph whatever the truth.

Theology is a phantasm and it is impotent.


I see that this forum is fascinated by the Christian writings and what is worse they believe! The invitation to read Celsus is rather unexpected, what next?

aa5874

You are merely PRESUMING your own history from imagination. You have already admitted that Agnosticism is the better approach.

You have no way of confirming or substantiating that the Jesus stories were close to the time of 'Paul'.

Once you have NO credible sources of antiquity then you are DOOMED to fail.

MCalavera

This is countered by the theological embarrassments found in the Bible.

Your argument here for mythicism is so broad that you can't consider it one specified argument for it. That's basically the whole idea why mythicists reject the historical Jesus.

aa5874

We have NOTHING at all for a man from Nazareth.

Jesus of the NT was PUBLICLY described as a Child of Ghost.

Why should Ghost stories contain the history of a man?

Adam

I don't know how you have been asking me questions on my thread
"Gospel Eyewitnesses" without reading the thread? I'm now up to six of my seven purported eyewitnesses to Jesus.

Horatio Parker

I read a bit of your theory. I'm not among the hard core bible geeks here; I'm more interested in the interpretative angle.

But it looks to be a hard sell to me. Even assuming that generations of editing, copying and translating have not obscured the styles you attempt to analyze, your choices of witnesses appears to be pure speculation. I couldn't get into it; couldn't take it seriously.

And again, from a spiritual point of view, which I assume is your motivation, I don't see the point. Eternal truth that depends on singular historical instances is lunacy to me.

mountainman

Perhaps the greatest indicator that I can think of related to the identification of both myth and history is termed "historicity". Historicity is essentially the probability that some event or person or artefact etc is historical and may therefore be legitimately expressed as a percentage. Zero percentage corresponds to no history whatsoever (i.e. myth) whereas if the value of historicity exceeds 50% then this represents the instance in which it is more likely to be historical than mythical. If something is said to have an extremely high historicity value (e.g. 90% then it is claimed that it is almost certainly historical.

Returing to your questions in this and other threads, it is possible to associate a spectrum of historicity values to the various positions that comprise the spectrum of beliefs about the historicity (or otherwise) of Jesus. The following table shows "historicity value", and has been copied from another recent thread entitled Developing table as beginner's guide to Jesus positions

[T2]{r:bg=lightgray}{c:bg=slategray;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Type of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}HISTORICITY% of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Status of Jesus
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Characteristics
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Worth of the gospels
|
{c:w=45;ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Use of Myth
|
{c:ah=center;b-b=2,solid,black}Published Proponents
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;av=top}Maximal
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}90% to 100%
|
{c:bg=#00C000;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:av=top}The gospels are seen as reliable documentary evidence and record the known events in the life of the man who started the religion.
|
{c:bg=#0070B0;av=top}Basically historical material
|
{c:bg=#ffe4b0;av=top}Minimal
|
Joseph Klausner, Birger Gerhardsson, Luke Timothy Johnson
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}40% to 90%
|
{c:bg=#00C000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Existed in real world
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}The record is problematical, but literary records--gospels, church fathers and even pagan sources--contain vestiges of real world knowledge of a preacher, who was crucified.
|
{c:bg=#0090D0;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Historical data obscured by transmission problems
|
{c:bg=#f6d480;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Some, causing source problems
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, Burton Mack, & Jesus seminar
||
{c:bg=#80C0C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}"Accreted"
|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}5% to 40%|
{c:bg=#A0FFA0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}A core preacher existed
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of various sources including knowledge of a real person, as can be found in "Q". This position does not see the crucifixion as historical.
|
{c:bg=#60B0FF;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Little of historical value
|
{c:bg=#F0C060;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Yes
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}G.A. Wells
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Traditional
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown (tradition doesn't permit clarification)
|
{c:av=top}Tradition doesn't distinguish between real and non-real. It merely takes accepted elements ("accepted" -> believed to be real) and passes them on with associated transmission distortions.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A complex of traditions with complex transmission, making veracity unverifiable
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}[-]
||
{c:bg=RoyalBlue;av=top}Jesus agnostic
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}A Spectrum from 100% to 0% to N/A
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}Unknown
|
{c:av=top}Due to the nature of available information there is insufficient evidence to decide on the existence of Jesus.
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}No current way of evaluating for veracity
|
{c:bg=#D0D0B0;av=top}[-]
|
{c:av=top}Robert M. Price
||
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Spiritual realm
|
{c:bg=DarkOrchid;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Zero% or N/A?
|
{c:bg=#FF2050;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Existed in spiritual realm, not the mundane world
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Purely theological in origin, Jesus died in our stead not in this mundane world, but in a spiritual realm. Later this spiritual being became reconceived as having acted in this world and reified.
|
{c:bg=#E060C0;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Embody a complex myth & reflect honest belief distorted by reification
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=3,double,black;av=top}Earl Doherty (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Mythological composite
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of mainly pagan mythological elements, be they solar myth (Acharya S) or dying & resurrection myths of Osiris/Dionysis (Freke & Gandy).
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Nothing but cobbled myths
|
{c:bg=Orange;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Full
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Acharya S, Freke & Gandy
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Fictional
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Authorial invention
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of purely literary activity. A Roman emperor constructed a new religion. In the Atwill version, it was Titus with the aid of Josephus who tried to gain control over the unruly Jews.
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}A tool for deceiving & manipulating people
|
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Pious Forgery of Myth
|
{c:b-b=2,dashed,black;av=top}Joe Atwill (*)
||
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Transformed
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}N/A (null)
|
{c:bg=#F00000;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Did not exist
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Jesus was the product of corrupted retelling of events relating to Julius Caesar. Under Vespasian the story was developed into a new religion.
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Underlying history garbled beyond recognition
|
{c:bg=#B05070;b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Pious Forgery of Myth
|
{c:b-b=2,solid,black;av=top}Francesco Carotta
[/T2]

archibald

I'll agree that they do not seem to. This is probably the main reason I might suspect he was possibly non-historical. It's first on my own list at my 'Nutshell' thread, which I started at the same time as this one. There are explanatons for 'Paul's' omissions, from scholars, but I'm not sure I'm especially convinced.

Are there any glaring contradictions in the epistles? If not, then can we conclusively say 'didn't know' or do we have to stick to 'didn't write about in these letters', even if we agree that this seems odd, to us now? Personally, I do think it an odd omission, and since, in this thread, I am trying to explore, in some ways, both sides of the case, I would be interested in you elaborating on that specific question (the one in my previous sentence).

It's only fair to add that I have read material from Gakuseidon which suggests it only 'seems odd to us' rather than being odd or indeed unusual for such writings. However, I still think Paul's letters are an odd start to the accounts which have survived. I do think that he refers to an earthly jesus, and I do think it possible that there were other, early (possibly even earlier) accounts. The gospel writers (arguably not that far removed, by the standards of ancient history) cite stories transmitted orally, allegedly originating (handed down) from eyewitnesses, and there is the possible 'Q' strand, and the fact that 'Q-ish' material turns up imnn egypt (Gospel of Thomas). The arguably pre-Pauline hymn in Phillipans would be another hint at this. I am not inclined to think that Paul was likely the first or only source, but the lack of bio is an odd-seeming feature.

Hi V,

Hm. Not entirely sure about this. I know it's a popular theory around here, but I'm not sure. It certainly seems incorrect to say the 'entire story' has only literary source material. Parallells with literary sources are very much to be expected in the circumstances, I think. Arguably, there is other material also.

This is one part which puzzles me. Which writers? Not Luke, for example. He appears to treat his sources ( including Mark, temporarily assuming he does use it) like history, and starts his own 'history' accordingly.

Granted, it's not objective history, especially not objective history as we know it today, but this was 2000 years ago, and historiography was in its infancy.

Well, perhaps that's not entirely fair. You would have to go back a few hundred years to people like Herodotus to get 'fruity' history of this sort (though even Herodotus is described as one of the fathers of historical writing).

But no, I would say that even by the time of Luke, there WAS better history writing, elsewhere. Luke's is not so objective, by any means, compared to that. I would see his stuff as unreliable religious history.

But the point is, he appears to believe it. He treats his sources (including Mark, perhaps) as something other than an allegory or story. In a nutshell, he appears to think it's historical. He tells us this in his opening lines.

So, the idea that mark's Gospel was essentially seen as allegory or literary fiction seems to be a very recent notion, and I can't quite take your point above. Unless you can show me that some other later writers viewed such material as literary rather than historical.


I agree, to an extent. Even the best methodology is limited. Having said that, the methods they use have been very effective down the years in stripping away a lot of the accretions and interpolations and stories which may be non-historical (birth narrative for example). I think they have, on the whole, does quite a good job of decimating their own texts. But it can never be conclusive as to whether they have winnowed out an historical core.

Yes. Of course, writing in a certain genre is one thing. Including historical material is another, and one doesn't rule out the other.

Perhaps it's better to say 'material believed to be historical' or 'stories received', since the Gospel writers almost certainly didn't have anything more than that to work with. But to say they only had, or used, literary sources is speculation. Luke himself refers to eyewitness accounts which have been 'handed down', for example. I see no reason not to believe that he also incorporated such material. That doesn't mean the material was historically accurate, of course. But it was probably not (at the estimated time of Luke writing) too late, historically, in the circumstances (where there may very likely have been few written accounts and many oral ones) for someone to be reporting passing on alleged eyewitness accounts indirectly, that is to say from stories.


You think? Not sure. See above.

Religions fruit up their texts. What isn't clear is whether there is an historical core, in individual cases.

Interestingly, if Sai Baba had lived in those times, later writers wouldn't have had to fruit up the stories much. It's possible Jesus was similar.