crazyfingers

As to the original question, there might be a new handy reference to the evidence for and against coming from Italy. Italy court asks: Did Jesus exist?

That is, if this actually ends up going to trial.

Chris Weimer

There's already several threads floating around here somewhere about the trial. As far as I know, it is going to go through. However, the guy who took it to court is a crackpot, his theories full of holes, and has done virtually no serious research. I don't think even the mythicists here would appreciate his work.

crazyfingers

In the back of my mind I suppose I knew that you'd all be on top of it. I'm sad to hear that he's a crackpot. It would be nice to see the question examined in a court, similar to how the Dover ID Trial went down.

Amaleq13

The aforementioned thread may be found here:

Italian judge demands proof of Jesus' existence

Didymus

Well, if it's the biography that's in question, it's the biographical material that's most important!

There seems to be something missing from that first sentence, but it appears that you're referring to Q - and perhaps Thomas. I agree that the hypothetical Q was almost certainly a Markan source, but I don't see how the existence of the Common Sayings Tradition supports historicity, regardless of whether Thomas was part of it. (I'd venture to say that Mark would be a helluva lot more gnostic in tone if the writer had used Thomas. And so would Christianity.)

The fact that legends are in play shouldn't persuade us that those legends are based on fact. If widespread, long-lived rumors were invariably factual, every lovers' lane in America would be teeming with guys with hooks. And thousands of Porsches and Corvettes would have been sold by angry wives and girlfriends for $100 each.

I see the formation of Mark's gospel as similar to the progress of literary flotsam down a fast-moving stream of cultural assumptions, relationships, ambitions and discontents. Various twigs and branches (rumors, cautionary tales, pericopes, bits of Hebrew and Pagan scripture) collide and connect, forming rafts (social circles). Then the rafts collide and merge into flotillas, i.e., communities. When those merge, you have a church, i.e., the mainly gentile sect that was formed from the joining of Pauline Christianity (myth with suggestions of earthly activities) with gospel Christianity (imagined history driven by myth).

Agreed. Where can I find Turton?

I still don't understand what you mean by "valid." According to which "reconstruction"? There are many!

Yes, I do disregard Paul as a source of information about the historical Jesus, mainly because he offers only scant data and he doesn't place Jesus in any historical context. Is that what you meant?

I don't think Paul "knew of" a Jesus from long ago. There may have been a small kernel - the crucifixion of a man with the common name of Jesus - but I think he and others in his circle mainly used scripture (especially the prophesies) and the Mystery religions to "prove" that a crucified redeemer MUST have lived at some point, much in the way that millenarian Christians have used scripture to predict a date certain for the Second Coming.

I think it's safe to say that storytelling and sharing of the "words of wise men" had an important place in the cultures of the Eastern Mediterranean from before the dawn of civilization. The CST reflected in Q may well have been active before 50 CE in places like Galilee, Syria and Egypt. Those kinds of traditions have historically tended to be rural in nature; that's why sociologists think of urban legends as a relatively modern phenomenon. It's pretty clear that Paul ran in more rarified circles - he gives us no sense at all that he was familiar with rural life or with the stories the gospel writers told about Jesus.

I dunno. Pagan Romans ate their sacrifices, why shouldn't Christians enjoy the same privilege?

There has been quite a bit of literature on the deeper meaning and symbolism of god-eating. It's a meal - er, topic - in itself.

If Jesus' actions were so important to Paul, why didn't he tell his far-flung congregations anything about them? In the gospels, there are LOTS of stories about what Jesus did. Most likely, Paul knew nothing of those stories. He doesn't even hint that Peter, James and John told him any stories about Jesus when Paul was visiting with them in Jerusalem. So he couldn't have been TOO concerned about Jesus' actions.

The only acts of Jesus that Paul seems to have deemed important are the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. And even there, he presented no specifics.

Long after! Well into the second century, in fact.

Well, we seem to agree on this. Read the verse itself and I think you'll see what I mean.

Busted! My senility is showing. I better watch my p's and q's. My cred is heading for the crapper.

Why do you feel that way? Sounds like you've fallen for the fundamentalists' anti-JS propaganda. I've read somel of the JS material, and they seem to have made a respectable, good-faith (heh heh) effort to separate fact from fiction, according to their textual analyses and theological premises. You may disagree with those premises, but the JS methodology shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Read their material and decide for yourself.

Not sure what you mean by that. Please explain.

With regard to Paul, "recent history" would include the prefecture of Pontius Pilate.

I daresay that all educated Jews could read Aramaic, but not all educated Jews could read Greek. On the other hand, all educated Gentiles could read Greek. Keep in mind that, according to Luke, Paul, even in his earliest travels, paid only token visits to the synagogues in the diaspora. And look at his position in his dispute with Peter regarding the circumcision of Gentiles! I find it hard to escape the conclusion that Paul was primarily concerned with the care and feeding of Gentile Christians.

Like I said, this hypothesis of a early Christianity as a Gentile religion led in its early stages by Hellenized Jews is only in its infancy. I'm not ready to debate it by any means, but I plan to pursue the question until I'm satisfied that I'm either onto something or chasing rainbows. I'll keep you posted.

Didymus

cajela

So, back to the OP: is this a correct characterisation?

1) MJ is a fringe position, which many posters here think should not be.

2) The mainstream is composed primarily of people with religious training. Most biblical scholars are not secular.

Chris Weimer

Let's be clear on our word choice. We don't want to upset sensibilities. Yes, mythicists are clearly in the minority.

Not quite. There are plenty of non-religious secular scholars in the mainstream. In fact, I'd argue that most are secular scholars. The fact that the gospels receive very little credibility in mainstream scholarship should be evidence of this.

Chris Weimer

I'd relegate the biography under beliefs. The biography will be very fuzzy and vague. The sayings will be tenuous. But the beliefs have the most going for them.

Ok, let's dissect this for a second. First of all, I posit that there are clues to be found in the writings, canonical and not. If we can get to the earliest strata, we could possibly reconstruct the earliest beliefs of Christians leading straight up to the historical Jesus.

And I don't think Mark was so much Gnostic, neither was Thomas though (at least its first layers). Mark was an adoptionist writing, and Thomas was wisdom.

I think there's significant evidence that this legend is based in fact. At least to some extent.

Yeah, this sounds about right. I don't see how its relevant though. I've been arguing Mark is fiction from day 1.

Our resident Vorkosigan.

By valid, I mean able to be used in reconstruction.

Yes, that is what I meant. And I would disagree with your assessment.

Mystery religions? What do you mean?

I don't see how this is relevant. Of course much of the gospels are fiction, er "rural stories".

It remains unparalleled in the Mediterranean as far as I know.

Jesus actions on earth aren't what concerns Paul. It's Jesus' death and resurrection and thus establishing himself as the savior that is important. Paul revolves around that reality.

Why would he?

You think Mark was written in the 2nd century? Why?

I still don't see it. Please spell it out for me.

Quite alright. As long as we clear things up. It's a moot point anyway.

Voting? Er, that part bothers me a bit. I would read it, but I've yet to see good reason for reading anything by them. So far, every review, either fundamentalist or otherwise, have been negative.

Does the whole thing boil down to whether Jesus is merely an amalgam of other deities? I asked for evidence of this in the other thread but nothing was brought forth to show this.

Can we seriously date Paul to after Pilate? How far after Pilate? How do we do this?

What evidence that all educated Jews could read Aramaic? And keep in mind that Acts is most likely 100% fiction.

Please do! This has been a very fruitful debate. I would like to debate it with you for two reasons: my hypothesis is also in its infancy - I could be very wrong. Debate is less about proving someone wrong than it is to prove oneself right. A formal debate here at IIDB would have both of us moving leaps and bounds beyond our normal position until we reach a conclusion or agree to disagree. It would be a great way for both of us to explore our own position more fully. I can give you as much time as you need, as I also need to gather more research as well.

best regards,

Chris

Amaleq13

Taiwan.


The more relevantly true answer is here:

Mark Knew Paul

and here:

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark

jjramsey

When it comes to historical Jesus stuff, there are a lot of religious scholars, though. However, I've noticed that most of them practically check their religion at the door. Crossan is perhaps an extreme example of this, but even a more moderate scholar like John P. Meier, who is Catholic, is quite willing to point out errors in the New Testament.