J-D

I never said I could. But what you said was that the ben Pandera legend was evidence that the Palestinians Jews didn’t know who Jesus was supposed to be and that there were no Christians in first or second century Palestine. And it isn’t. Indeed, if there were no Christians in first or second century Palestine, what would have led to Jews in first or second century Palestine recounting the ben Pandera legend? It seems to me that the fact that they even told the story implies that they must have heard something about Jesus, although I don’t know what it was specifically.You are confusing two separate issues. If there were no miracles (and I hope it’s clear that I don’t believe in them), then there would be no eyewitness reports of them. The possibility I’m canvassing is a non-miracle-working flesh-and-blood Jesus. What sort of reports would you expect to find of that sort of Jesus?Again, what sort of archaeological, palaeographic, or epigraphic evidence would you expect to find? Are you suggesting that there can’t have been any Christians if there weren’t any church buildings?I’m not insisting on which is the better explanation. All I’m saying is that there are alternative explanations. Note that it isn’t necessary to assert the ahistoricity of Mohammed, or of Joseph Smith, to explain ‘disbelief’ in them. And note also that the people who told, or made up, the ‘ben Pandera’ story didn’t assert the ahistoricity of Jesus.

J-D

Yes, that is precisely the possibility I am canvassing. It seems possible to me that Paul was deeply dishonest, a dissembler and deceiver (possibly also a self-deceiver). If he was consciously and deliberately spreading a message at variance with that of the Pillars, he would want to do as little as possible to draw attention to their superior knowledge of Jesus and the superior authority that might derive from it. But it's still possible that he found making some sort of limited reference to his contact with them either strategically advisable or impossible to avoid.

J-D

OK, sorry for the misunderstanding. I think I now have a somewhat clearer idea of what you're saying.

You seem to be saying that there are different possible versions of this story, some which include a historical flesh-and-blood Jesus and some which don't. And you also seem to be saying that you don't attach much importance to the difference between the two. Well, you may even be right about that. But I still think that that is the difference this thread is about. So I want to look a little more closely at the version of the story which does not includ a historical flesh-and-blood Jesus.

Now, how is that supposed to work? As far as I can make out, it must be something like this:

There's a group of Jews who have gathered together to study why the Messiah has not come. One of them announces that he's had an inspired vision, which has revealed to him that the Messiah will not be a flesh-and-blood martial hero (as previously generally believed). Instead, he will be or has been an immaterial spiritual manifestation who will be or has been the victim in a mystical sacrifice which will ensure redemption.

This scenario still gives essentially the same problem I mentioned before. Having repudiated the doctrine of a flesh-and-blood Messiah in favour of a spiritual and immaterial one, the new religion soon after reverts to the doctrine of a flesh-and-blood Messiah and completely purges all reference to the original repudiation of that doctrine.

I acknowledge that the version of your story that includes a historical Jesus doesn't have the same problem. But if you admit the version with a historical Jesus, then you admit a historical Jesus!

Clivedurdle

Far too clear cut!

There were large groups of diasporic Jews - essenes, with sub sects and sub cults. One ( might be several independently!) of these sub groups - like a cancerous growth, fixated on the concept that their mediator god - remember the Judaic god is exhausting emotionally because he is perfect and holy - was part god part man and this evolved into fully god fully man - an old idea - in genesis the gods lay with women and had children.

I suppose a search for these god genes would be evidence for the Lord Jesus Christ - not of his existence directly but of other god genes in humanity. Or maybe it is easier to note the fascinating similarities with all other myths, legends, hero stories religions and superstitions!

The statements in Genesis about gods laying with women are now testable genetically!

J-D

Well, you can do what you like, but when I'm evaluating explanations I don't treat vagueness as a positive feature.Well, perhaps. But this looks to me like a different idea from the one I was discussing (the one Amaleq13 put forward), because it doesn't appear to involve any visions.

Clivedurdle

I've stated my clear position in favour of visions and other hallucinogenics in various places.

Vagueness is not a correct way to look at this, I am attempting to get the gestalt, the overview clear before focussing down. Premature attempts at focus have led to the major errors i see with HJists. They are too certain!

Amaleq13

I started out my participation in this discussion focusing specifically on offering insight into collective hallucinations countering the notion that the alleged appearances required or were only explicable given a historical Jesus.

No, I contend that the alleged resurrection appearances can be explained by the same psychological phenomenon regardless of whether Jesus was historical or not.

I think one crucial factor you left out is that this group believed it found evidence in Scripture that a resurrected Messiah should have been expected all along. I think a strong but not, IMO, conclusive argument can be made that this processed followed the resurrection experiences and that seems to me to clearly favor an historical Jesus. I also think that an MJ theory requires that the Scriptural "discovery" preceded the experiences.

I think the sacrifice has to be understood to have taken place prior to the discovery in all scenarios.

I think "soon after" is a misleading. You have to take into account distance (from Jerusalem), change in membership (from Jewish) and the first Jewish War (massive disruption and discontinuity even within traditional Judiasm) rather than simply counting years between the onset of the movement and the onset of the change of focus from the risen Christ to the living man who became the risen Christ.

I've never denied that it was a possibility. I would think that identifying myself as "agnostic" pretty much requires that assumption.

Didymus

Do you really think that all those allusions to scripture just found their way into Mark's gospel by accident? Or through his subconscious?

And you don't think Mark himself would have have engaged in some "very forced applications of the OT"? Do you think that constructing a plausible gospel from ancient texts would be easy? Are you claiming that the great majority of Markan passages don't reflect OT scripture? Or what?

Again, what is your hypothesis? And what evidence do you have to support it? Most particularly, aside from your speculations that Mk could have been taken from the oral tradition, what evidence do you have of a pre-Markan oral tradition?

What I don't understand is this: Why would you assume the source for a Markan passage is oral tradition when you have a) no evidence of a pre-Markan oral tradition and b) a corresponding OT passage staring you in the face?

Okay, "omitting." If you can't address the real issue, find a word to quibble about!

As I have said repeatedly, Mark's readers would have regarded the Pillars' role as Jesus' companions as previously unknown information that Paul didn't record. If they accepted Mark's Jesus as historical, they would have thought, just as you do, that Paul had his reasons.

Once again, have you really read Paul's epistles? I am astonished that you would thrice characterize them as "letters addressing local church problems." I think I can safely say that no reputable theologian, church historian or bible scholar would deprecate them in that way.

Paul himself made no such weak excuses. He never said anything like "There is an Egyptian papyrus crisis, so we must leave aside some details like the three years our Lord preached in Galilee, the trial of our Lord before Pilate and his crucifixion by Roman soldiers. Instead, I send greetings from my fellow laborers Timothy and Lucian and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen."

And so on. But you seem to think that Paul was thinking in exactly that manner.



So how is that showing respect for Peter's authority? Or acknowledging Peter's familiarity with the teachings of Jesus?

Didymus

Didymus

No, I didn't say that the ben Pandera legend was evidence that the Palestinian Jews didn't know who Jesus was supposed to be.

Read what I actually said:

Italics added.

I stand by what I said. There is a lack of evidence to support a) the commonly held Christian belief that first century Jews knew about the Jesus of the gospels and rejected him for theological reasons, and b) the belief that there was a thriving Jewish Christian community in Palestine at any time before the third century.

Ominous reports about the heretical cult of Christians from their friends and relatives in the Diaspora.

That depends, not on whether he worked miracles or didn't, but on whether he was believed by Palestinian Jews to have have done so.

If no Palestinians regarded Jesus as divine, I wouldn't expect to find anything, regardless of whether the "real" Jesus was historical or mythical.

It's my contention that Palestinian Jews "rejected Jesus" because they didn't believe existed, let alone perform miracles. They had heard of no such person from their local compatriots, and had no reason to believe rumors from the Diaspora about such a messiah in their own backyard.

It's my belief that first century Christianity was a cult of the Diaspora. It was created from afar by Greek-speaking messianic Jews who had only a scant knowledge of Palestinian geography and history and who used a Greek translation (the Septuagint) of the Torah as their primary source of information about their savior. Their audience consisted of other messianic Jews, God-fearers and Pagans, none of whom lived in Palestine. With the possible exception of Luke, none of the 2nd century church fathers were Jewish; by that time, it had become a wholly gentile religion.

Of course not! House churches were used until the Romans began to liberalize their policy toward Christians in the late third century.

The ben Pandera legend doesn't claim that Jesus was not a historical figure, and there's no attestation to that effect from 1st or 2nd century Jews. On the other hand, it certainly doesn't acknowledge the Jesus of the gospels as historical. And it does suggest ignorance of gospel beliefs.

Didymus

driver8

It would appear to me that there is actually evidence for the opposite:

http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/Nazarenes.htm

I find it interesting that if the "King of the Jews" had already manifested himself, there would remain such a protracted search for the messiah. Perhaps the word just didn't get around.