dog-on

MJ has the ability to accept the Jesus as portrayed in the writings, as is.

HJ portrays someone not portrayed in the writings.

Doesn't matter whether the NT writers viewed Jesus as human, or not.

GakuseiDon

You would need to specify which MJ. Doherty's theory is pretty much dead in the water. Wells might be closer to the mark, as well as a "Jesus was a creation of the Roman system to pacify the Jews" fictional Jesus. So which MJ best explains the writings of Paul, IYO?

dog-on

Paul is writing about what he imagined (revelation), God/JC had to say. I do not recall Paul every claiming that he had actually, physically , met Jesus Christ.

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the matters that the MJ thesis has to assert the existence of "facts" not in evidence or attested to by first century authors (sub lunar fleshy realm?) in order to have the ability to "accept"(?) the Jesus as portrayed in the NT "as is", and that its proponents frequently engage in eisegesis or in the applea to "interpolation" in order to get NT texts to say what is consistent with the MJ hypothesis, the hidden assumption in your claim is that you understand the writings "as is".

Forgive my bluntness, but I have yet to see anything from you that warrants this conclusion. In fact, it's just the opposite. And since, so far as is apparent, you have the same qualifications as the aaa man vis a vis NT texts, I have no reason to think that you possess the knowledge that is requisite to do so.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I do not recall that Tacitus or Suetonius ever claimed that they had met Augustus or Claudius or Caligula or Nero. Nor Aristotle Socrates. Nor Philostratus Apollonius. So what?

Jeffrey

gstafleu

You are certainly correct that if there are data that are significantly better explained by an HJ than by FBI, then that scores points for HJ. The question of course is: are such data as you list indeed significantly (because of FBI's methodological advantage of known existence) better explained with HJ than with FBI. That of course means digging into the details (Ben would be happy ).

This detail digging has been done ad nauseam here, it may suffice that the least one can say is that there is not exactly a consensus to be had. But still, to nauseate some more, I would think that "internal tensions" would in fact be a primary candidate for FBI. After all, the author "just knows" that his interpretation is the right one, which should make it really easy for his inventiveness to produce something that corresponds to his faith (Cf how a true Jesus believer is inevitably biased in the HJ/MJ debate). As for Nazareth, there have been various explanations, ranging from a confusion with "Nazorene" to a politically correct balance between north and south (Nazareth/Bethlehem). Etc and so on. It is, IOW, far from clear that there are indeed data that are better explained by HJ than by FBI.

An interesting conundrum is the following. FBI is a very powerful tool, it can explain almost everything. How then can the FBI hypothesis be falsifiable? Answer: because FBI is only operative within the mythology, not outside it. So for falsification we look outside the mythology. That is why "non-Christian" data about Jesus is so important. Unfortunately, however, there isn't very much of it, which is why I keep repeating that the little there is, is not sufficient to overthrow a "straightforward" (uses only known-to-exist mechanisms) hypothesis.

[As an aside, for those who wonder about the details of FBI's inner workings (the Lone Gunmen of BC&H, I suppose), have a look at Confabulation. Especially note the paragraph:
(my bold)]

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

But here's the thing: as long as MJ makes about as much sense as HJ, MJ has the advantage because it only uses a known mechanism. In other words, as long as HJ explains the data about as well as MJ, we are in the situation where HJ can also explain the data. But, as we have seen, that is not enough to topple MJ. In order to topple MJ, HJ has to explain something MJ cannot explain, or explain it significantly better. As you can glean from my response to jjramsey, I don't think there is any such data.

Gerard Stafleu

Jeffrey Gibson

But the question is on what basis the MJ makes sense. If it's obtained by having to multiply doubtful hypothesis and by distorting/misreading/ eisegeting the NT evidence it appeals to, what sort of sense is this?

Jeffrey

spamandham

I wouldn't go as far as to say MJ is 'better' than HJ, but I don't think you need a historical figure to explain any of the evidence, including what you mentioned.

Having Jesus' hometown as Nazareth is easily explained as a transliteration error of 'Nazarite'. Josephus refers to multiple Jesuses. There is no reason to believe any of them outside Antiquities of the Jews xviii 3.3 is the Jesus of Christianity.

Further, we have clear and irrefutable evidence of later tampering to 'historicize' key creedal aspects of Jesus into Josephus. The existence of this tampering strongly implies that whatever is in it was under contention at the time the fraud was committed, meaning there was no other strong evidence of those points elsewhere in the ancient historical record to draw on - an argument from silence yes, but one with much more weight than the one in discussion in this thread. The fraudulent "facts" inserted into Jospehus are:

- The existence of the wise man Jesus who drew to himself both Jew and Gentile
- He was known as the Christ
- He performed many miracles
- He was condemned by Pilate to a cross
- The resurrection 3 days later
- The naming of 'Christians' after him

In regards to Paul, we have to consider the evidence from Josephus. It turns out, that 1 Cor 15, which is often drawn upon to show Paul believed in a fleshy human Jesus, has been heavily tampered with (as a minimum) from start to finish (see this post for details). In particular, let's look at the introduction to 1 Cor 15:

"Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain."

Does Paul really need to remind his readers what he taught them when he was with thim, or is this an anachronistic later insertion? RM Price says the latter (and I agree with him, see link above for detailed reference). So what are the key points the later writer felt he needed to put into Paul's mouth pen?

- Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures {hello people, the author is admitting exegesis here rather than history!}
- he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
- he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
- Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Not only that, but entire works that were once attributed to Paul have been found to have been pseudepigraphical. This combination leads me to conclude 1 Cor 15 is probably entirely pseudepigraphical.

In regards to Gal. 1:19, which is what I assume you are referring to, it may very well be genuine. But does it indicate a kin relationship, or is it a title given to James due to his position in the church? Even today, the title 'brother' is bestowed on certain members of the clergy, and Paul uses the term 'brother' liberally throughout his works to refer to spiritual kin rather than biological kin.

So we have strong evidence of not only imaginative mythmaking, but also 'pious' fraud to historicize key aspects of HJ, as well as poetic language. The combination of these is sufficient to explain all evidence of HJ. That isn't to say there was no HJ, but rather, that positing it is unnecessary, and may even make the story more complex.

Jeffrey Gibson

May I ask in all sincerity what makes you think you are qualified to say that the MJ hypothesis makes sense?

To what degree, if any, are you familar with, and genuinely capable of evaluating, let alone affirming, the validity of its claims about neo-Platonist beliefs that it appeals to?

What is it that allows you to evaluate, let alone affirm, the validity of the claims about Greek and the meaning of Greek texts that it rests on?

Jeffrey