TedM

Congratulations on a speculative attempt!

While there of course are some specifics that are problematic, so far this seems quite reasonable to me given the overall evidence in Paul

Ok..still reasonable. That 'time' was likely within no more than a decade or two of Paul at the most since those appearances were to Paul's contemporaries.


Ok, but Paul doesn't reference this as a motivation for himself or others..


Ok, reasonable too. The name IS helpful to your point. What's missing is the scripural support for this imagined Messiah from Paul. As I wrote a few days ago Isaiah 53 would go a long ways toward explaining Paul's Jesus, yet Paul doesn't reference it to do so. Curious.

Not bad. I would still have some reservations about how of a man considered by the earliest Christians to have been unknown to them could successfully be transformed into the very specific man Mark portrayed--a man known to them and/or to their contemporaries. The Jesus of Mark and the Gospels is widely considered by scholars to have been written about only some 10-30 years after Paul, and yet he went from being an unrecognized and unknown suffering servant to one widely known as living recently. There is not even a sign of a transition: Mark's comes out, and within a few years is copied and modified by several presumably Christian authors, without a suggestion of the unknown servant of just a few decades prior which was presumably widely taught by the founders, and believed by the followers. It seems dangerous for Mark to seriously try to do, and if he was writing a 'play' it seems unlikely that others would have accepted it as though it was for the most part known history.

I'm going to have to force myself to not post here for a while. It's become too addictive, time consuming..

take care,

ted

Amaleq13

I would be interested in some specific examples of the allegedly problematic specifics. If you are referring to the list you've compiled, calling them "specifics" is, IMO, not accurate.

There is really only one passages that appears to require a recent crucifixion/burial and that is the reference to James as "the brother of the Lord". If it is taken literally, the temporal implications are obvious but I've already explained elsewhere why I don't think that interpretation is likely. I consider it more likely to be a title.

The only other potentially problematic passage is 1 Cor 15:3-5 (YLT):

for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings, and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve,

Unless there is some linguistic factor of which I am unaware, that he rose three days after being crucified/buried does not require that the appearances took place soon after. This is especially true if the three day time period is "according to the Writings" rather than a recalled historical fact.

I should have attibuted this to Peter and we would have no reason to expect Paul to mention Peter's motivations. The "facts" of the crucifixion, resurrection and appearances were all that mattered.

I agree with the first part but we can't date the second part any earlier than the 2nd century and well after revisions of the original story added significantly to an appearance of history.

Are you kidding? There is nothing but transition from Paul to Mark to the rest. More importantly, there is no reliable sign of history. At least nothing relating to anything theologically relevant.

...and depicts the Unknown Incarnation as a familiar prophet/miracle worker who was apparently "adopted" as the Son at his baptism. None of which relates to Paul and none of which can be shown to be historically reliable.

They are working with an established, created identity. The Unknown Incarnation has already been replaced with a more user-friendly character.

I see no reason to assume Mark's audience accepted his story as history and I've seen nothing in the threads that have discussed that subject to suggest otherwise.

TedM

I was referring to references to brothers and James. Both are problematic, though the degree to which they are a problem is subjective...and I see you addressed the one to James..


I agree, but I would expect something to explain a time delay like "he was raised after three days...and in the fullness of time he appeared first to Cephas, etc..". The way it reads IMO implies a short delay more than a long one. Maybe that's just me though. I agree that it doesn't require it.


I think the immediacy of the copies is evidence of immediate acceptance of a historical Jesus without a transition showing hesitancy to adopt a new viewpoint...Nor is there a trail of such a reluctance among "old school" mythicists -- to my knowledge.


I meant a transition of Christian viewpoints that defined the alleged differences between an original MJ Christian group and an HJ Christian group. Where's the evidence of the transition from MJ to HJ? Is it in 1 John 4:2? Seems a bit weak, though the implication there is that MJ came AFTER HJ.


Maybe we shouldn't assume, but I think evidence supports immediate acceptance as history moreso than as fiction.

ted

Amaleq13

That seems to be the only one worth addressing. All Christians were "brothers".

You are not the only one willing to read a short delay into it but there really isn't anything to suggest it except the Gospel stories.

Since there is no "immediacy of the copies", I consider you bereft of evidence. Seriously, what the hell are you talking about?

Scholars guess that Mark was written around 70CE and Mt/Lk rewrote that story at least a decade or two later but we don't find them asserted as history until the next century. Your use of "immediate" is entirely inappropriate and misleading.

Am I arguing a mythical Jesus? The evidence of a transition from an Unknown Incarnation to a Known Incarnation is between Paul and Mark. Once the Incarnation is given an identity, the vacuum in Paul is filled and the rest (oh, yeah I'm gonna say it) is "history".

TedM

Yes, "brothers in the Lord", "my brother", "our brother". But "brothers OF the Lord"? I think it is just as problematic as the reference to James.


From Kirby's site: Assuming Mark was written around 70 and that around 80AD Luke was aware of "many" who "have undertaken to compile a narrative", and that Luke was aware and used Mark I think it is reasonable to conclude that Mark's work and others like it were accepted as history before 80AD. Perhaps the other works Luke referred to were written before Mark. In any case, 10 years seems pretty fast to me to go from a purely unrecognized J to a very recognized J. It looks to me like your claim that we don't see assertions of such works as history until the 2nd century is contradicted by Luke's claim in 1:1, since he is referring those other narratives and his own as "things which have been accomplished among us".


I think you are arguing that the specific man Mark wrote about was not at all the unspecific man Paul had in mind. To that extent, I think you are arguing that Mark's Jesus was mythical. I was trying to point out the argument that the rapid relative acceptance of Mark's Known Incarnation with all that he describes him to be is problematic for the idea that Paul's converts believed in an Unknown Incarnation, since I see little evidence for an inevitable division on this particular issue in the Christian writings. There are possible explanations for the silence, of course, but it is a silence, and I'm not sure it is one we would expect given the continuing followers of Paul and the growing body of writings.

Here too, I am bowing out.

take care,

ted

Amaleq13

Also from Kirby:
And you'll find arguments at that same site that Luke used Josephus which pushes that text into the last decade of the 1st century.

Seriously, Ted, have you read the entire entries for either text at Peter's website or did you just skim it for a quote with a date you liked? For Pete's sake (pun intended) he gives ranges for both with 80 as the earliest possible.

Luke is retelling the story as history, Ted. That is not the same as evidence folks were buying it as such.

I have no reason to assume that Paul's converts were any more interested in the Incarnated Jesus than he was nor any reason to assume an "inevitable division" to be created if somebody made up a story about him.

TedM

Ok, it could have been later..

Luke isn't just retelling it as history. He is saying that the other narratives were history, so HE bought it as history. But, I guess it is possible that others didn't though we have zero evidence of that.


First, we can't say Paul wasn't "interested" in Mark's Incarnated Jesus, because it was written after Paul died. All we can do is speculate as to how Paul's converts would have responded. I absolutely assume they would have responded strongly to a portrayal of their Savior which was entirely contradictory to their own belief.

You don't think that Paul's converts who worshipped a mysterious man named Jesus as the son of God and celebrated his humble nature as an unrecognized suffering servant would have objected to the suggestion that this guy was a wild miracle worker and sage who lived just 40 years prior, and followed by enormous crowds, and treated like a king upon entry into Jerusalem? I don't think religious people are as maleable as you seem to think. They can be extremely stubborn. It is inconceivable that there would not have been divisions as a result, and if Mark or Luke were deemed to be a story, those cults would have banned their publication and distribution. The fact that not even a hint of such a highly expected response survived is problematic to your thesis about Paul's Jesus. How big a problem is subjective. I suspect you would say it is a very minor concern. I'm not as sure about that.

ted

Chunk

Has any study ever been done on comparing the myth of Jesus to other myths.

Surely there are trends between other myths. The way they are started, the way they develop, the way they evolve over time etc.

My point is, if such a study had been conducted, would it be possible to develop a set of characteristics for myths that could then be applied to Jesus.

I hope that makes sense.

jakejonesiv

Demolished? That is a bit overstated. See Robert Price's review here.

Jake Jones IV

Spincracker

It is an incontrovertible fact that Jesus existed and was crucified. The arguments are over what type of existence that was. Sources outside of the Bible confirm his existence.