teamonger

But in the birth narrative, Matthew got away with so many other bogus prophecies, mistranslations and misunderstandings. And with Jewish believers like the Ebionites, he did NOT get away with it... their version of Matthew didn't have the birth narrative. But it would've been quite easy to hoodwink Gentiles with such stuff, people unfamiliar with Jewish scripture. And Christians are still hoodwinked by it today, because they don't really read their Bibles.

It's clear that Jesus coming from Nazareth was something to be glossed over, explained away. That's what both birth narratives are about, but their complete inconsistency gives the game away. We see in other places too how embarrassing this was to the early church, and that gives us good reason to accept it as authentic.
t

teamonger

Actually, there is plenty about this preacher's earthly existence that is probable. For one thing, you avoid having to posit a vast fabrication by the likes of Mark, the Q writer, early Jewish gospels, for which there is no good evidence. You avoid having to invent a remarkable "someone else" who came up with all those graphic parables. You don't have to invent a special apostle category "spiritual brother" for James.

Accepting that this cult leader walked the earth simply avoids historical problems. Occam's razor should apply.
t

teamonger

1 Peter is almost certainly fairly early, as it has the same end-times point of view as Paul and Mark. It's not beyond the pale to suggest the historical Peter had something to do with it. 2 Peter is another matter, certainly in the catholicizing stage.

If Paul's parousia was spiritual enlightenment, what's all this about time being short? So from now on, behave as though you have no wife?

I don't know what you mean that Paul's apocalypticsm "counters" any in the gospels.

No, Paul's belief in the end of the world doesn't prove a historical Jesus, but we have a whole bunch of other writers also believing it's the end-times, apparently based upon their Jesus belief.

Sure, it still goes on today, but who is it believing? Mostly people who listen to charismatic preachers. Yes, they've been with us for 10,000 years at least.
t

teamonger

Jesus' early disciples were not Sadducees, but mostly simple folk who often didn't understand him. They wouldn't have thought of him as God incarnate, nor would Jesus have thought of himself as such. That's the later theologians at work. Jesus may not have even thought of himself as the Messiah. In the synoptics, he says very little about who he is, instead asks others what they think.

Yes, after Easter re-interpretation had to take over. In particular, we see the conservative James the brother taking over (perhaps pressed into service?). But Paul was out of his control, and after the war Jewish-Christian influence was largely diminished. The remants apparently became the Ebionites (or "Nazarenes"), who followed a much more human version of Jesus, and regarded Paul as an apostate.
t

aa5874

E. P. Sanders is a Protestant, he expects a reward from Jesus or the father of Jesus when he is dead. E. P. Sanders is an extremely bias historian, he wants to get eternal life in heaven.

I think certain parts of Homer's Achilles are embarrassing, so Achilles existed.

teamonger

Translation: you don't understand the criterion, so would rather smear Sanders instead, ruling out his historical arguments because you don't like his background. Do you think that's a proper procedure?

It's not whether you think it's embarrassing, it's whether the item in question is embarrassing to the agenda, whether it goes against the grain. Whether there is evidence that it was later glossed over. That is a standard way of evaluating any document with an agenda.
t

aa5874

How can it be a smear to repeat the biography of E.P. Sanders. He is Christian, Protestant and most likely wants to go to heaven to be with Jesus when he dies to get eternal life.

Would it surprise you if a Hindu historian claimed that it is a historical fact that Hindu Gods really exist?

So, if in the epistles, a writer claimed he was a Jew, that would not be embarrassing, so it is false, the writer was not a Jew.

The birth and resurrection of Jesus of the NT are not embarrassing, therefore they must be false.

spamandham

True, but it can also be nonhistorical. The same purpose is served either way.

The later you move in church history, the more Jesus sounds like a real person (by the way, this is rather telling), and the more the need to gloss over that which came to be embarassing. That doesn't imply the earliest Christians found it embarassing, nor does it imply they thought it historical. Mark presents Jesus as the son of God, yet he didn't find the baptism embarassing in the least...ratehr, it plays an important role in the story.

Would you agree that anything you or I write is irrelevant to what the first Christians were thinking? If so, just move that same standard back to anyone writing post-Mark. It irrelevant that later writers found it embarrasing, just as it's irrelevant if you or I do.

Honestly, I think you're making way way too big a deal out of this baptism embarrasment argument. It's very weak at best, and you are glossing over the blatant theological/dramatical role it plays in Mark. You can't simply ignore that. As best I can tell, you are starting with an assumption it was a real event , and that's why Mark rolled it in and made a big deal out of it?

If possible, I'd like to concentrate on Mark the genuine Pauline epistles, and anything else contemporary with those. The later writings are irrelevant to determining the historicity of Jesus, IMHO.

teamonger

All I can say is, Sanders is a respected mainstream scholar, and certainly no apologist. For example, he writes that the gospel of John has little value in historical Jesus study. His view is that Jesus was quite mistaken in predicting an imminent end of the world scenario. Just because his background is from a religious context, doesn't mean you understand what he really believes, or that he is necessarily biased.

Your last two comments are laughable, and simply show you don't understand the argument. No, the criterion of embarrassment does not work in reverse.

Let's look at a simple example. Let's say you're interviewing a man for a job, and ask if they've ever been arrested. If he says "yes", wouldn't you be very inclined to believe him? But if he says "no", surely that doesn't mean he is lying.
t

teamonger

Actually, I find quite the reverse to be true. The earliest Jesus in Mark and Q sounds like a real end-times preacher from Galilee. The later you move in history, the more the accounts are varnished up and mythologized with virgin birth, extended resurrection accounts, other embarrassing tidbits glossed over, such as Jesus' family thinking he was mad.


Well, it's not quite the same, if we're talking about just a decade or two later when the tradition was still forming. If the embarrassing item doesn't go away, but is glossed over, that's a sign that it was something so well-known that it couldn't be omitted completely (although the John gospel nearly does so). Anyway, even Mark has John groveling somewhat, saying he is unworthy to untie Jesus' sandals.

No, I didn't start with any assumptions. The baptism not only has the embarrassment criterion going for it, but also multiple attestation (including non-canonical Hebrew gospels). And the baptism is not the only item that fits these criteria. Jesus' coming from Nazareth, his mistaken end-times predictions, his being rejected by family, and the crucifixion itself are believable events.

If possible, I'd like to concentrate on Mark the genuine Pauline epistles, and anything else contemporary with those. The later writings are irrelevant to determining the historicity of Jesus, IMHO.[/QUOTE]

Actually, many scholars think that Q material goes back to a time before Mark. The final form of Matthew was certainly later than Mark, but that doesn't mean all the contents were.
t