ApostateAbe

Maybe you can elaborate? I don't see problems. The quote, "let the reader understand," seems to be explained as the author emphasizing a certain point--he was sourcing his information from oral myth (if Mark, Q, L or Signs), but he was still writing from the perspective of an author with readers (or listeners) being his intended audience. The scriptural quotes--I don't know which ones you would be referring to--would also be passed on in myth.

Steven Carr

In which case, A/Abe has single-handedly destroyed the claim that Christians would have taken a crucified person as the Messiah.

Christians will howl in protest and declare to their dying breath that the Jews had prophesied that the Messiah would be killed.

Daniel 9
"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing

It was obvious to Jews in the 1st half of the first century that their god had not sent them a Messiah to crush the Romans.

So some of them read Scripture and invented a different Messiah.

Romans 16
Now to him who is able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past, but now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey him.

bacht

I think there's been research that demonstrates clearly the literary dependence of Matthew, Luke and John on Mark and each other. gThomas on the other hand might actually be sourced from memory (pace Robert Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk))

When the canon was more or less finalized in the 4th C then yes, the texts became frozen. Jerome's Latin translation effectively fixed the NT texts for a millenium.

ApostateAbe

Cool. I figure that myths remain relatively inert when they are written down, not necessarily as late as when they are canonized. You can be sure that Christians would treat their own written texts as though they were the word of God, the same as canonical. You can see it in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2, and most emphatically in Revelation 22:18-19.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.

I would love to hear Robert Price's reasoning, but that seems to be yet another tangent.

ApostateAbe

Modern Jewish and scholarly interpretations of Daniel 9 seem to regard that passage as descriptions of events and people of the past, a postdiction, though I wouldn't know how Jews of around the first century would have viewed it. Certainly, "Messiah" would not necessarily refer to the messiah, but anyone who is anointed, such as king, judge or prophet. If Jews of the first century would have classified Daniel 9 as messianic prophecy that has yet to be fulfilled, then it would be a very good counterpoint and disproof of my proposition.

aa5874

The dominancy of belief in the NT Jesus was NOT related to the crucifixion but was DIRECTLY related to the Emperor Constantine.

It was the Emperor's call. Whatever religious belief the Emperor ACCEPTED would be dominant.

This fact is augmented when Julian became Emperor of Rome. The Emperor Julian REVERSED Constantine's decision and Julian did so without taking the crucifixion into account.

Before Constantine, Jesus believers at least up to Origen's "Against Celsus", or up to the early 3rd century, were in essence an underground movement rumored to be cannibals and atheists.

There is no evidence from antiquity that show the crucifixion story made Jesus believers dominant. In the 2nd century the crucifixion story may have them the laughing stock of Marcion and the Marcionites.

mountainman

Additionally the archaeologists would have us believe that the appearance of the cross in the ancient archaeological historical record awaits for the later 4th century. We might be even tempted to argue that it was Constantine's mother Helena who popularised the importance of the cross by conducting one of the very first "Pilgrimages" to the very "Holy Land". This was no pilgrimage - it was a high technology archaeological expedition which was blessed with extremely positive results and "hard findings". Helena found the one true timber cross upon which Our Man was affixed. Not content with this momentous find, she also turned up the holy nails used in the said affixion. Constantine used these nails as a bridle for his horse. How touching!

We are dealing with a "Gangster" and a fascist military supremacist who's rule was described as "Neronian". It was a throw back - things went backwards under this gangster, who had supreme and absolute power.

And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands,
all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.
History has proven that. Power corrupts,
and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

--- Acton

spamandham

I often use this verse as proof that redaction was rampant at the time. Why else would such a harsh warning be included at all?

mountainman

Assertion of ultimate authority was common.
For example a 5th century Inscription

mountainman

The problem with many is that they do not perceive the logic of including within the overall theory space adequate provision for the type of myth that may be simply translated as common fiction.



Three separate regions of theory space

Region (1): Purely Historical

The region marked (1) above, totally in red depicts those theories which consider themselves to be wholly based on an historical Jesus. No element of myth is considered existent in this segment of theory space. Examples of this class of theories are represented on the Early Christian Writings website, on the page Historical Jesus Theories. It is notable that all theories in this category will generally accept the historical core postulate.


Region (2): Mixture - Both Historical and Mythical

The region marked (2) above, totally in yellow/orange depicts those theories which consider themselves to be a mixture of both history and myth. The images of Sol Invictus, and the Helios-Christ depictions will find themselves in this second category. Examples of this class of theories are also represented on the Early Christian Writings website, on the same page, prefaced Jesus the Myth. It is notable that all theories in this category do not generally accept the historical core postulate, and that their basic postulate is somewhere between the core historical (unexamined) postulate, and the core mythical postulate. It should be stated at this point that practically all theories advanced to date will fall into either Region (1) or Region (2). Those in Region (1) think of themselves as supporting the unexamined postulate of an historical jesus, while those in Region (2) depend at least to some degree upon the notion that there may have been some element of truth to an historical jesus.

Region (3): Purely Mythical or Fictional

The region marked (3) above, totally in green depicts those theories which consider themselves to be wholly based on a mythical Jesus. No element of history is considered existent in this segment of theory space. The entire class of theories involving fiction and/or fraud are in this segment. It is notable that all theories in this category do not at all accept the (unexamined) postulate of the historical core, and may in fact have some other corresponding postulate for the mythical core, such as for example, the Eusebian Fiction Postulate. Many of these theories remain entirely unexamined, despite the need to be thorough in the analysis of all possibilities concerning the history of antiquity.


SPECTRUM of theories in the theory space concerning "Christian Origins"

One of the best summaries around might be that of RG Price - Jesus Myth Part II - Follow-up, Commentary, and Expansion February 5, 2007.

The spectrum of theories was presented diagramatically as follows: