Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-23-2007, 04:57 PM

Raymond Brown has written The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) and A Risen Christ in Eastertime: Essays on the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection (or via: amazon.co.uk), both of which seem to be aimed at a general readership. One of the reviews states:

Quote:

In terms of his exegetical stance, Father Brown might be broadly classified as a moderate. He doesn't advocate the literal historicity of every detail in scripture, but he never denies, and in fact often defends, the underlying historicity of the essential events narrated. His theology is fully in keeping with Vatican II (not its "spirit" but its intent).

JoeWallack · 12-24-2007, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Brown was an excellent scholar by Christian Bible scholarship standards but a poor scholar by Scientific standards. The book he needed to write from a scholarship standpoint was The Resurrection of the Messiah since that is what Christianity is based on but I would assume his Priestly standing would not let him since he knew that because the Canonical resurrection accounts are so different he would primarily be creating Doubt with such a book.

Presume away. But I once asked Ray about whether he was going to write a full length book about the Resurrection narratives and his reason for not doing so was only one of time.

JW:
Yea, he wanted to spend more time with his family. What's your excuse? Speaking of Priests, whenever I go into a Confessional now I always say "You first.". They've redesigned them now to include slots for quarters and moist towelettes.

Actually, towards the end Brown said in an interview (a real one) that the reason he never wrote The Resurrection of the Messiah is he wanted to find out about that one first-hand.

Quote:

Moreover, your claim, Joseph, about Ray's priestly status preventing him from writing on the resurrection accounts and detailing their differences is belied by a fact that you seem to be totally (but not atypically) ignorant of: that he was commissioned by Roman Catholic priests to write the article on the resurrection accounts from a "scholarship standpoint" for the Jerome Biblical Commentary (or via: amazon.co.uk), and that he took up the task.

You also seem to be unaware that prior to this, he had already written a book on the Resurrection.

Good one Joe!

Jeffrey

JW:
Like I said, he wrote the Critical Commentary Bible on the Birth and Death. Why not write it on the Resurrection which Christianity is based on and which people are most interested in reading about? He had the tools, talent and time to do it and his writings on the subject identified now in this Thread make it clear he thought the Resurrection accounts had major problems as to historicity. In this situation, for a scholar not to do it is the type of malfeasance imagined only by Mr. Potter.

Regarding his efforts on the subject:

New Jerome Biblical Commentary

5 pages on the Resurrection 3 of which deal with differences. No conclusions, like he had with Birth and Death, which people would be most interested in, as to likely/unlikely Historicity comparison.

A Risen Christ in Eastertime: Essays on the Gospel Narratives of the Resurrection

Separate essays on each Resurrection account, "Mark" gets 14 pages. Little attempt to consider differences. Looks more like something an Apologist would write.

The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus

57 pages on the Resurrection but no separate sections on the different accounts like he does for Birth and Death. Here at least he does make a definite Conclusion:

http://www.simpletoremember.com/vita...redibility.htm

Quote:

I. Post-Resurrectional Appearances: Galilee or Jerusalem?

In an essay carrying the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (official declarations by the Catholic Church that a book is "free of doctrinal or moral error"), Brown admits that the apparent contradiction in records of the post-resurrectional appearances is real. "It is quite obvious," Brown writes, "that the Gospels do not agree as to where and to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection."[1] "Just as the Jerusalem tradition leaves little or no room for subsequent Galilean appearances," explains Brown, "the Galilean narratives seem to rule out any prior appearances of Jesus to the Twelve in Jerusalem."[2] Citing immense textual evidence, Brown then declares his disapproval of the simples solution to the contradiction: "We must reject the thesis that the Gospels can be harmonized through a rearrangement whereby Jesus appears several times to the Twelve, first in Jerusalem, then in Galilee."[3] Rather, concludes the Church spokesman, "Variations in place and time may stem in part from the evangelists themselves who are trying to fit the account of an appearance into a consecutive narrative."[4] Brown makes clear that the post-resurrection appearance accounts are creative, substantially non-historical attempts to reconstruct events never witnessed by their respective authors.

JW:
But who besides your Search Engine of 12-23-07 has ever heard of this book? By Contrast The Death of the Messiah is 1,608 pages.

And since I have to write another post on the subject, Brown has the usual Christian Bible scholar problem that he tries to be officially Neutral as to the Possibility of the Impossible but occasionally slips and Apologizes that a difficulty goes away if there was an Impossible event.

Joseph

Ieousiscity.The Argument For HJ. A Skeptical Reconstruction

Mythra · 12-24-2007, 08:15 AM

The question, in my mind, was always - "if the crucifixion and resurrection did not actually happen, then where did these ideas come from?"

Although I give lots and lots of credit to human imagination, I've always thought that the pagan borrowing thing and the solar deity imagery seemed kind of contrived and unsupportable.

But, Burton Mack points out some concepts that were definitely present in the eastern mediterranean during the birth of the christian ideas. And, one doesn't have to look very hard to see how these ideas MIGHT (for you - Jeffrey Gibson) have been slightly adapted and weaved into the gospels. They are:

1. The Greek concept of the Noble Death. A death was considered "noble" in Greek culture if a teacher remained steadfast to his teachings, and died for them.

2. The Jewish concept of the Persecuted Sage. The "widom's child" stories. The first element in these stories is that of an "unjust charge". An unfair trial. The second part of the saga was always the discovery of the piety and wisdom of the sage, with the result being a restoration to a position of honor. And, finally - a scene of vindication.

3. The Jewish martyr mythology, of which the Maccabees' saga played a major role. In 4 Maccabees it talks of the martyr's "purifying the land". Freeing the land from foreign domination. And there is a scene in 4 Maccabees of scourging and mockery that is highly reminiscent of Jesus' passion event.

4. "The Cross" was a Stoic and Cynic metaphor for having one's mettle tested.

Michael Dravis

Mythra · 12-24-2007, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Under your assumptions you are correct. Belief in the resurrection is a matter of faith. However under your assumptions Josephus is of tremendous value for the HJ camp that says Jesus walked this earth, preached, was crucified, and believed to have been resurrected.

Sorry for going back so far in the thread, Ted. But I was going back over it and something stood out.

Given what you're saying here - couldn't we also say - based on the set of assumptions -

That Josephus is of tremendous value for the HJ camp that says Jesus walked this earth, preached, and was believed to have been crucified and resurrected?

TedM · 12-25-2007, 08:50 PM

JW:
Let's speed things up.

Quote:
1 Peter 2:24 perhaps since the author says he was a witness

Quote:

JW:
He says he was Peter the apostle but he wasn't and that he witnessed the crucifixion but he didn't.

I don't know enough to agree with you on this. Sounding like Paul means nothing, because we have nothing else from Peter to compare it to. Maybe Peter indeed sounded like Paul.

Quote
1 John 3:16 perhaps since it says he laid down his life for us and since the author seems to be saying he saw and touched Jesus himself in the first verses

Quote:

JW:
Does not say Jesus was crucified.

True. Just that he 'laid down his life' somehow.

Quote:
The passion account of the Gospel of John since the author claims to have been the beloved disciple

Quote:

JW:
"John" refers to the beloved disciple. It is not by the beloved disciple.

Not clear actually. What do you think 21:24 is saying about authorship?

Quote:

A summary so far:

1) Nothing from Jesus claiming he was crucified.

2) Probably nothing from anyone who knew Jesus claiming he was crucified.

3) Probably a few Christian Forgeries claiming that someone who knew Jesus claimed he was crucified.

I'm ok with 1 and 3, and not sure about 2.

Quote:

Paul looks like the earliest extant witness who Promotes Crucified Jesus but:

1) Emphasizes Revelation.

Must be careful here. It is never clear from him that he emphasizes that Jesus' crucifixion is known through revelation. One might say he is unexpectedly silent about that, if that were his stance. Rather, the emphasis on revelation appears to be with regard to his gospel of universal salvation through faith in the resurrection of Jesus.

Quote:

2) Has little interest in Historical witness.

3) Claims a Crucified Jesus as the basis of Faith.

ok

Quote:

4) Proof-texts a Crucified Jesus with a Tree hanging from the Jewish Bible.

He does reference the OT to make a point about the meaning of Jesus' crucifixion, but I don't think we can say one way or another that the OT is the source for his belief in or knowledge of the crucifixion.

Quote:

So let's make this easier:

Do you have anything from anyone who knew someone who knew Jesus stating that the person who knew Jesus said he was crucified?

No, I don't think so, unless John 21:24 can be interpreted as such.

ted

TedM · 12-25-2007, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mythra

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Under your assumptions you are correct. Belief in the resurrection is a matter of faith. However under your assumptions Josephus is of tremendous value for the HJ camp that says Jesus walked this earth, preached, was crucified, and believed to have been resurrected.

Sorry for going back so far in the thread, Ted. But I was going back over it and something stood out.

Given what you're saying here - couldn't we also say - based on the set of assumptions -

That Josephus is of tremendous value for the HJ camp that says Jesus walked this earth, preached, and was believed to have been crucified and resurrected?

Yes. For that matter you could say that he was believed to have walked this earth, believed to have preached, believed to have been crucified, and believed to have been resurrected. If Josephus was the one who wrote it about someone who lived in such a recent past, I would be inclined to accept as likely history the truth of the non-supernatural elements of that passage.

ted

JoeWallack · 12-26-2007, 02:13 PM

JW:
This Thread is demonstrating the lack of quality witness of any Individual to Jesus' supposed crucifixion. HJ's therefore tend to rely more on supposed oral history/tradition to assert a Group witness to Jesus' crucufixion.

In Jesus and the Eyewitnesses Bauckham Assumes the crucifixion is historical and claims Eyewitness support for the basic Gospel Narrative (whatever that is). His basic argument is:

1) Aristion and John the Elder were witnesses to Jesus.

2) Aristion and John the Elder were alive while Papias was alive.

3) Papias communicated with Disciples of Aristion and John the Elder.

4) John the Elder communicated to Papias the existence of "Mark" and "Matthew".

5) Because John the Elder was historical witness to Jesus and communicated to Papias that "Mark" and "Matthew" represented historical witness to Jesus, "Mark" and "Matthew" are historical witness to Jesus.

Despite the consensus of Christian Bible scholarship disagreeing with all 5 above and Bauckham confessing that the extant Papias anecdotes are not Canonical Bauckham writes

Quote:

But we should probably assume that the majority were simply versions of stories and sayings to be found in the Gospels, of which, by the time he wrote his book, Papias knew at least those of Matthew, Mark, and John. (Papias book probably consisted of collections of Gospel traditions along with commentary on them,

So per Bauckham, while on a holy mission to find support for the Canonical Gospels, in 5 books Eusebius only quotes from Papias stories not in the Canonical gospels. Bon appetite MJs. Here we have the supposed witness providing clear evidence that the witness he received was not Canonical as every anecdote he leaves us is not Canonical. The early Christian Historian Eusebius though takes it as historical support for the Gospel story and the modern Christian Historian Bauckham than takes Eusebius as historical support for the Gospel story. Hymn Lo! What is wrong with this Naivity story?

For the love of god. Can one of the intellectual HJs here like Weimer, Zeichman, Walt or Gibson please make a beter argument for oral transmission as historical witness than Bauckham?

Joseph

Dogfish · 12-26-2007, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Presume away. But I once asked Ray about whether he was going to write a full length book about the Resurrection narratives and his reason for not doing so was only one of time.

JW:
Yea, he wanted to spend more time with his family. What's your excuse? Speaking of Priests, whenever I go into a Confessional now I always say "You first.". They've redesigned them now to include slots for quarters and moist towelettes.

Wouldn't that be a "glory hole"?

:rolling:

TedM · 12-27-2007, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

So per Bauckham, while on a holy mission to find support for the Canonical Gospels, in 5 books Eusebius only quotes from Papias stories not in the Canonical gospels. Bon appetite MJs. Here we have the supposed witness providing clear evidence that the witness he received was not Canonical as every anecdote he leaves us is not Canonical. The early Christian Historian Eusebius though takes it as historical support for the Gospel story and the modern Christian Historian Bauckham than takes Eusebius as historical support for the Gospel story. Hymn Lo! What is wrong with this Naivity story?

Let's take a look at what Papias allegedly wrote, and see how much is "Canonical" and how much isn't. From earlychristianwritings.com:

FRAGMENTS OF PAPIAS FROM THE EXPOSITION OF THE ORACLES OF THE LORD.

I.

[THE writings of Papias in common circulation are five in number, and these are called an Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "Now testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John, and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him." Thus wrote Irenaeus. Moreover, Papias himself, in the introduction to his books, makes it manifest that he was not himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles; but he tells us that he received the truths of our religion from those who were aquainted with them [the apostles] in the following words:]

Quote:

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations, whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders, and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

He asserts that there were "disciples" of Jesus named Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew, Aristion, and presbyter John. The first 7 are identical to what we find in the gospels as representing the most prominent of the disciples. The last two are implied to have not been direct disciples; rather as two disciples that passed along the words of the direct disciples.

Quote:

III.

Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out.

This is very interesting. While the story of his death is different than that in Matthew and Acts, the following is worth noting:

By the time of Papias there apparantly was a tradition which agrees with the Canon in the following respects:

1. Judas was a relevant character, and was considered to have done something improper. Eusebius likely understood Papias to be referring to the disciple of Jesus, and to the one who betrayed him, though the fragment doesn't confirm this. All 4 gospels, and Acts mention Judas as the disciple who betrayed Jesus.

2. Judas' death was worthy of mention. This we also see in Matthew and Acts.

3. Judas' death was not natural. Also in agreement with Matthew and Acts.

4. Judas' death included his bowels "gushing out". This is similar to language used in Acts 1:18"(Now this man (AL)acquired a field with (AM)the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. "

That by the time of Papias there existed with the above characteristics is quite interesting. Where did this tradition come from? Aristion or Presbyter John? Mark's writings? or Matthew's writings?

Quote:

IV.

[As the elders who saw John the disciple of the Lord remembered that they had heard from him how the Lord taught in regard to those times, and said]:

Jesus was a teacher. This wasn't derived from Paul certainly. It agrees with the Canon though.

Quote:

"The days will come in which vines shall grow, having each ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in every one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five-and-twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, 'I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.' In like manner, [He said] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear would have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds of clear, pure, fine flour; and that apples, and seeds, and grass would produce in similar proportions; and that all animals, feeding then only on the productions of the earth, would become peaceable and harmonious, and be in perfect subjection to man."

Jesus taught in parables. Jesus taught of the future. Jesus taught using references to vines and wheat. He also taught using exponential numbers in a similar way. All of these concepts are Canonical.

Quote:

[Testimony is borne to these things in writing by Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp, in the fourth of his books; for five books were composed by him. And he added, saying, "Now these things are credible to believers. And Judas the traitor," says he, "not believing, and asking, 'How shall such growths be accomplished by the Lord?' the Lord said, 'They shall see who shall come to them.' These, then, are the times mentioned by the prophet Isaiah: 'And the wolf shall lie, down with the lamb,' etc. (Isa. xi. 6 ff.)."]

Judas here is called the traitor, and unbelieving. Same as in the Canon. Jesus quotes from Isaiah, as he does in the Canon.

Quote:

V.

As the presbyters say, then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shah enjoy the delights of Paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour will be seen, according as they shall be worthy who see Him. But that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundredfold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold; for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second class will dwell in Paradise, and the last will inhabit the city;

Jesus in the gospels taught of the kingdom of heaven, and how each will be rewarded in proportion to how much fruit he produces. This comment about what the presbyters say is very much in sinc with the gospel teachings.

Quote:

and that on this account the Lord said, "In my Father's house are many mansions:"

This directly matches a verse in the gospel of John. Note too that Jesus is calling God his "Father".

Quote:

for all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place, even as His word says, that a share is given to all by the Father, according as each one is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch in which they shall recline who feast, being invited to the wedding.

Gospel parables refer to the "feast" and the "wedding" regarding the future afterlife in the kingdom of God.

Quote:

The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; and that, moreover, they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father; and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." For in the times of the kingdom the just man who is on the earth shall forget to die. "But when He saith all things are put under Him, it is manifest that He is excepted which did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

THis sounds like it is not a claim about Jesus' teachings here, but is what the discples believed. The "apostle" sounds like it may be Paul. If so, there is no sign that an early HJr (Papias) had a problem with Paul's theology.

Quote:

VI.

[Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions. Our notice of these circumstances may not be without its use. It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition. The residence of the Apostle Philip with his daughters in Hierapolis has been mentioned above.

Hierapolis? Not mentioned in Acts or in relation to Philip. However, it is mentioned in Colossions 4 as a place where Christians lived:

Quote:

10My fellow prisoner Aristarchus sends you his greetings, as does Mark, the cousin of Barnabas. (You have received instructions about him; if he comes to you, welcome him.) 11Jesus, who is called Justus, also sends greetings. These are the only Jews among my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, and they have proved a comfort to me. 12Epaphras, who is one of you and a servant of Christ Jesus, sends greetings. He is always wrestling in prayer for you, that you may stand firm in all the will of God, mature and fully assured. 13I vouch for him that he is working hard for you and for those at Laodicea and Hierapolis.

Quote:

He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words]: And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark; but with regard to Matthew he has made the following statements]: Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could. [The same person uses proofs from the First Epistle of John, and from the Epistle of Peter in like manner. And he also gives another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is to be fount in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.]

These arent' claims of Jesus, but are of course of great interest. The last sentence sounds as though it is a match to the story of the adulteress in GJohn.

Quote:

IX.

Taking occasion from Papias of Hierapolis

If Eusebius quotes correctly, then Papias was from the same city that the he claims Philip had taken up residence, where he talked to the daughters of Philip.

Quote:

, the illustrious, a disciple of the apostle who leaned on the bosom of Christ, and Clemens, and Pantaenus the priest of [the Church] of the Alexandrians, and the wise Ammonius, the ancient and first expositors, who agreed with each other, who understood the work of the six days as referring to Christ and the whole Church.

Only in GJohn does a disciple lean on the bosom of Christ.

Quote:

X.

(1) Mary the mother of the Lord; (2) Mary the wife of Cleophas or Alphaeus, who was the mother of James the bishop and apostle, and of Simon and Thaddeus, and of one Joseph; (3) Mary Salome, wife of Zebedee, mother of John the evangelist and James; (4) Mary Magdalene. These four are found in the Gospel. James and Judas and Joseph were sons of an aunt (2) of the Lord's. James also and John were sons of another aunt (3) of the Lord's. Mary (2), mother of James the Less and Joseph, wife of Alphaeus was the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom John names of Cleophas, either from her father or from the family of the clan, or for some other reason. Mary Salome (3) is called Salome either from her husband or her village. Some affirm that she is the same as Mary of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.

Lots of references to characters found in the gospels here..

So, we have from Papias a number of interesting corroberations of the Canonical record:

*7 of Jesus' closest disciples mentioned as disciples, and by name
*Judas the traitor, and with an unnatural death
*Jesus, teacher using parables
*a number of similar teachings
*a direct teaching quote found in GJohn, and a second reference found only in GJohn
*clarification of who was who of many names of family members and associates found in the gospels

What are we to glean from this information about a HJ? Nothing?

ted

JoeWallack · 12-27-2007, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

So, we have from Papias a number of interesting corroberations of the Canonical record:

*7 of Jesus' closest disciples mentioned as disciples, and by name
*Judas the traitor, and with an unnatural death
*Jesus, teacher using parables
*a number of similar teachings
*a direct teaching quote found in GJohn, and a second reference found only in GJohn
*clarification of who was who of many names of family members and associates found in the gospels

What are we to glean from this information about a HJ? Nothing?

ted

JW:
If only we had the title of this Thread. Papias does not appear to be a witness for the Passion. Maybe Papias did communicate with HJ witness. But is this the same Jesus as "Mark's"? Per the original Gospel Jesus' teaching is unimportant, everything he does is Impossible and his Disciples never understand him. The point of "Mark" is the Passion which Papias seems to be unaware of. Evidence that the Passion is "Mark's" creation?

Doesn't look like the supposed crucifxion of Jesus is Historically likely, does it?

Joseph

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-24-2007, 08:15 AM	#63
Mythra Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: BFE Posts: 416	The question, in my mind, was always - "if the crucifixion and resurrection did not actually happen, then where did these ideas come from?" Although I give lots and lots of credit to human imagination, I've always thought that the pagan borrowing thing and the solar deity imagery seemed kind of contrived and unsupportable. But, Burton Mack points out some concepts that were definitely present in the eastern mediterranean during the birth of the christian ideas. And, one doesn't have to look very hard to see how these ideas MIGHT (for you - Jeffrey Gibson) have been slightly adapted and weaved into the gospels. They are: 1. The Greek concept of the Noble Death. A death was considered "noble" in Greek culture if a teacher remained steadfast to his teachings, and died for them. 2. The Jewish concept of the Persecuted Sage. The "widom's child" stories. The first element in these stories is that of an "unjust charge". An unfair trial. The second part of the saga was always the discovery of the piety and wisdom of the sage, with the result being a restoration to a position of honor. And, finally - a scene of vindication. 3. The Jewish martyr mythology, of which the Maccabees' saga played a major role. In 4 Maccabees it talks of the martyr's "purifying the land". Freeing the land from foreign domination. And there is a scene in 4 Maccabees of scourging and mockery that is highly reminiscent of Jesus' passion event. 4. "The Cross" was a Stoic and Cynic metaphor for having one's mettle tested. Michael Dravis

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.