fatpie42

Cool. Just wanted to clarify that I'm not a Zeitgeist nutjob. That thing often lingers over this debate and a lot of people take it far too seriously.

Ooooh interesting. Do you know about anyone who talks more about this or is it just a general view you happen to have heard?

Um, is that a "yes, I see where you are coming from" answer? Or is that a "yes, true, but the problems still remain" kind of answer?

I mean, I'm sure there are still problems and the fact that you haven't mentioned any makes me a little concerned that you're actually rather unimpressed by my answer but too polite to let me know....

archibald

Someone mentioned it on a thread here, when Buddha came up (the bit about some Buddhists not necessarily thinking he was real, I mean). I hadn't heard it before.



It's sort of neither.

Actually, I'm not sure what's on the table, or what you might be implying in saying that the focus of the epistles appears to be a sacrificial death, so...I can only but agree.

Do you think that 'fact' implies anything in either an MJ or HJ direction?

fatpie42

I don't think I finished reading this post before. Sorry.

Well, as I understood it, Paul came in after the movement was already up and running. He claims to have persecuted Christians before his conversion. But yes, Paul was keen that non-Jews should be allowed into the movement without having to become Jewish first. It wasn't unknown before that for gentiles to join Judaism, but the message of this coming apocalypse clearly made it that much more urgent.

Yes Paul was trying to convert non-Jews, but he was converting them to a form of Judaism (albeit one where he no longer though circumcision should be compulsory).

Yeah, personally I don't have a problem with being agnostic about minor figures from history.

Sorry you are prepared to accept that Paul met people who were taught by the actual historical figure, but you think he might have got the name wrong? That feels the wrong way round somehow.

I wouldn't say that the lack of backstory in the epistles demonstrated anything. It's not surprising that a discussion of theology would focus on the central meanings rather than on events. Then again, Mark's gospel would seem to have been based on pericopes which directly tied teachings to stories of Jesus. It seems that there's a distinct change in the culture of the movement between those two writers.

archibald

I think, ultimately, it is the most rational stance. Leaning slightly one way or the other is also not unreasonable, IMO.

I'm not sure. Maybe his name was Joshua. Maybe Jesus was like a posthumous stage name. OTOH, if Jesus was a common name at the time, and did not necessarily imply 'saviour' then it could have been Jesus. I think it's important to recognize that the texts we have today may have been altered, and as far as I am aware, original papyri just used initials (or Nomina Sacra, to be exact).



Yes. Though one could ask if there was a distinct change in the culture, or if the two writers were just writing in different ways for different reasons. As far as I am aware, there aren't any major contradictions.

I must say, one thing which puzzles me is how or why anyone would convert to Christianity only on the basis of what's in the epistles. It seems to me that would-be converts would be interested to know more, in fact, I would tend to think that, as you say, there may have been other stories circulating, with which the epistles don't deal.

As for Mark, well, there are some here (and elsewhere) who would feel that Mark was writing literary fiction and nothing else, just fiction, even knowingly so. Personally, I'm not persuaded.

Also, presumably, you know about the hypothesis that the writer of the epistles conceived of his figure as never having been on earth. That's another hypothesis I struggle to favour. But I wouldn't entirely rule it out. I wouldn't rule anything out entirely. I find myself mostly making pro-HJ points here, but that's really only because most here, though not all, seem to be anti-HJ, so it makes for a more interesting exchange.

aa5874

<edit> You have no idea whether the Gospels are history.

andrewcriddle

Pilate is mentioned in the Pastorals 1Timothy 6:13 This is almost certainly not by Paul but it is probably independent of the Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

fatpie42

I was considering Paul because his epistles are the earliest writings on Christianity, not because he's independent of the gospels. A later writing might be independent of the gospels, but its not independent of developments in Christianity as a movement.

fatpie42

1) I believe it was archibald's point that we don't really know what's history. Not being prepared to state whether something is history or not without sufficient evidence is called "healthy scepticism".

2) I have as yet to see anyone say that the gospels are an untainted account of history. It is clearly full of mythology. The question is whether that mythology ever had a historical core around which it developed.

Toto

aa5874 is forcing posters who do not support a historical Jesus to defend the possibility that there was a historical Jesus. What's going on here???

Toto

It would not be independent of the gospels if the Pastorals were the product of the author/final editor of Luke-Acts. This is a minority view, but not impossible.