gurugeorge

Yes I agree with that. And if the tales were all fantastic with no normal-sounding bits in them at all, there would be no reason to posit a hypothetical human Jesus. It's the presence of normal-sounding, potentially historical bits, that makes a human Jesus a viable hypothesis. For large chunks of the stories, the "Jesus" character is described as doing things any human being could do.

That's all fair enough, it's just that to me the HJ idea can't get seem to get any further than that, than just a plausible hypothesis, on the evidence available, and meanwhile the MJ idea has more positive support principally in "Paul"'s avowal of visionary experience and the "occult" nature of the doings in his congregation. Also such investigations as Vridar is doing at the moment, based on Schmittals, showing that "Paul" was a Gnostic contending with other Jewish Gnostics. Also April DeConick's investigations into the gospel of Judas, showing the gnostic view of orthodoxy. Also the investigations people are doing into the Judaism of the period that show it to be more varied, quite a bit weirder, more "magic"-oriented and less stolidly "Jewish"-looking than previously thought. Also the slightly later circumstantial evidence shown by Bauer, that orthodoxy is relatively late on the scene.

Stuff like that - seems to point more to a visionary origin for the character "Jesus" than an earthly one. It's with investigations like that that we have a bit more of a wedge into the "who", showing that they're more like Simon & Shuster than Woodward & Bernstein.

maryhelena

Not so simple, Jake. That the gospel JC story was set prior to 70 c.e. does not mean that that story was 'retrojected' into a past that was of no significance to the writers of that story. That the gospel JC is not historical does not mean that the historical time period in which the gospel JC story has been set down is of no significance. To assume that the pre 70 c.e. dating has ulterior 'safety' motives, ie that no check could be made on the gospel story - is an unwarranted assumption.

And that 'black hole'? Perhaps that's more in ones understanding of early christian origins than actuality. If, as is the ahistoricist/mythicist position, there was no historical gospel JC - then - is not the historical field wide open for alternative scenarios? If one thinks some sort of fraud has been committed with the gospel JC story, some attempt to mislead it's readers, then, if, according to this view, a crime has been committed - what does one do is such a situation?

Surely, one looks for suspects...Suspects that lived during the relevant time slot - both pre 70 c.e. and later. Who are they? Top suspects must be those who have left written evidence behind, ie something which one can investigate. In this case we have two figures who have done so. Two figures who have, like that famous crime story about the dog that did not bark, remained silent. Philo and Josephus. It is a silence that speaks volumes. No, of course not, re that gospel JC - but silence regarding developments re messianic ideals. That such developments took place we have evidence in the gospel JC figure.

No, I don't have all the answers - but what I do know is that these two figures, Philo and Josephus, had the wherewithal to be able to contribute to any such developing messianic ideas. They fill the gap between the close of the gospel JC story and the later emerging christian literature. One a Jewish philosopher; the other a Jewish prophet, a prophetic historian - of Hasmonean descent.

Doug Shaver

Yes, it does seem so.

mountainman

Please cut the unjustified dramatics! The question cannot be answered authoritatively. From what authority or evidence does such an implied assumed authority derive? The answer is the 5th century Doctor of Heresiology Cyril. What an authority!


What is clear is that "Contra Julian" (from which REFUTATIONAL text "Against the Christians" was reconstructed) was authored by the corrupt heresiologist Cyril of Alexandria who refuted Julian's three books with ten of his own.

The "fabrication of the Galilaeans" refers to the "fabrication of the Christians" whom in Julian's rule, due to his laws, were legally called "Galilaeans". It is arguable whether Cyril's "Against Julian" can be used as a authoritative source for Julian on the basis that Cyril was a low down murdering thug, terrorist boss, pyromaniac and general anathetizing scumbag who cannot be viewed as anything else other than a HOSTILE WITNESS for Julian.

" "When Cyril of Alexandria died in 444 CE one person suggested that
a heavy stone be placed on his grave to prevent his soul returning
to the world when it was thrown out of hell as being evil even for there."

-- Cited from Charles Freeman's "Closing of the Western Mind"

Academics know that Cyril misrepresented the cases and statements of those whom he refuted and anathemetized, such as - for example - Nestorius. If Cyril consistently misrepresents the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople (Nestorius), do you expect him to be fair in representing a pagan and anti-Christian emperor?


Black Hole?

We have no direct evidence for "Black Holes" - they are theoretical objects - but I do get the analogy JJ3. The Christian Black Hole was formed not by gravity but by Roman GRAVITAS, and its appearance in antiquity before the 4th century has no direct and unambiguous evidence (setting aside the inferences drawn from Dura-Europos, from palaeographic assessment and from the assertions of imperial 4th century heresiologists).

Toto

some posts were split off

Solo

Much of the redaction of the original Mark seems to have been effected to bring the original script in line with the Matthean theology and values. The circular design of the gospel was destroyed. Jesus' resurrection is made manifest: he appears in flesh after death which apparently caused a lot of friction in the communities with Pauline dissenters running away and creating docetic schools. The messianic secret was wiped out (became redundant in the follow-up gospels), the hapless disciples with Peter at the head were upsized and substituted the Twelve (as twelve disciples minus one), the two robbers symbolizing Simon/Mark and Paul who are crucified with Jesus, are made to revile him (a la Matthew), the lampooning of the disciples was either deleted or diluted and their abandonment of Jesus is no longer an obstacle to their receiving resurrection which in Mark was reserved only for the faithful of his own community.

So, I would say that what is left of Mark does not make much sense on its own and represents a compromised authorial plan.

Best,
Jiri

jakejonesiv

Hi maryhelena,

You have introduced a subtlety different argument. I didn't write that setting of the gospel fictions had no significance. The setting was derived from the Septuagint which was a major source for concoting the details of the alleged life of Jesus. So the story is placed before the destruction which made this venue impossible.

From which figure does our NT hero derive his very name?

Justin. Chapter 75 of Dialogue with Trypho.
"De Mutt. Nom.", 21 (On the Change of Names, Chapter 21), Philo

Indeed, one could read about Iesous in the Septuagint before there were any New Testament texts.

N/ABut my questions stem around Christianity as we have come to know it.

What hard evidence do we have of the exitence of first century Christianity? According to Joan E. Taylor, there is no evidence of Jewish-Christians in Judea in the first century CE. See Christians and the Holy Places: The Myth of Jewish-Christian Origins, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993.

What first century Christian artifacts do we find in Judea?
What first century Christian artifacts do we find in Corinth? Pompeii? Alexandria? Rome? I am interested things that unambigously demonstrate the existence of Chrsitian communities in the first centurty; Christian Funerary art, tombs, inscriptions, murals, engravings, ossuaries, and holy sites that are genuine to the alleged time of Christ. The Catholic Church even claims to have found St. Peter's bones, so if someone (not you Mary) wants to argue for relics of the Saints please be my guest.

Jake

maryhelena

OK - exactly where is the time period of the 15th year of Tiberius mentioned in the Septuagint? Jake, if one is going with some prophetic interpretation re that specific time period - then one is moving away from any sort of 'scholarly' approach to that time period - and thus to the gospel JC story.

Jake, if it's "Christianity as we have come to know it" that is/was the subject of your post - then why even begin to look pre 70 c.e.? If it's Christianity as we know it that concerns one - then perhaps mountainman has something to offer.....

Jake, nothing at all re Christian artifacts in Judea.....
It's the Jewish roots that are important to identify - and that's why I think it's questions related to Jewish history that should be asked and investigated - and, of course, Jewish writers of the relevant gospel time frame. Concentrating on 'christian' history - and one will indeed find your Black Hole - but it's Jewish questions we should be asking - at least to my mind...

dog-on

I am not sure I agree Mary.

Tell me. What in the crop of Christian writings could not have been produced by people other than Jews?

maryhelena

Sure, perhaps someone, some people, decided to do a Jewish storyboard and used the OT and Jewish history as a source. It's possible I suppose. Such a possibility would raise the question of why on earth go to the bother of using Jewish sources - unless there was something within those sources that would 'sell' the storyline? And if that is/was the case, then having the real deal - the authentic Jewish perspective, from a Jewish source, would be a bigger 'sell'. It's the genuine article people pay big bucks for - not the cheap spin-offs. If there is money to be made - and one has got the goods - one is not going to sit back and let strangers steal the jackpot....