steve_bnk

My main reference is The Oxford Annotated Bible. I used it back in the 70s for Philosophy Of Religion. Last year I gave my old copy away to a Christian I was having periodic debate with and bought the third edition(NRSV) along with the commentary book by the translators 1400 pages in very small type. I read the bible periodicaly, it is an interesting read, and I like to be able to discuss theolgy with Christians I come into contact with. I've read two histories of Christianity and have read a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In Mathew JC identifies Judas as the one who will betray in front of all, it would not then have been a surprise at the arrest.

JC saying at the last super ‘The one who has dipped his hand in the bowl with me will betray me’ can be seen as Judas being chosen for the task. Judas replies ‘Surely not I Rabbi?’, in the form of a question.

As a literary figure, JC was tragically Shakespearean, consumed with constant foreboding of his end and the fact that he as the fulfillment of the prophesies had to die. He never made a defense for himself and appeared to go willingly to his death. Shakespeare would have to invent a Judas to bring the story to a climax. JC is always talking about things coming to pass as has been said, with predictions of doom for the world, world likely meaning the Jewish state.


According to the detailed commentary by the translators the original language of the arrest in Mark has Judas using a respectful form of affection in addressing JC. The translators take the cynical view that Judas was rubbing it in so speak, adding insult to injury.

That being said, it is entirely plausible Judas was a reluctant part of the plans of JC.

freetrader

Toto:

The hypothesis that he did not exist is improbable. Obviously there are many recognized historical figures who were not written about by someone who knew them personally. Since there were so few writers, and since the public career of Jesus was probably only a year or less, we shouldn't expect to have writings about him from anyone who knew him directly.

The knowledge of him had to spread by word-of-mouth for many years. We shouldn't expect otherwise. That's how most knowledge of events was preserved at first, and then later only the more major of these events from oral tradition were recorded in writing. A huge body of the historical record would be lost if we had to rely only on documents written by direct witnesses to the events.


No, we're talking about the Jesus who was placed into the gospels by whoever invented this new religion. There were hundreds of men named "Jesus" running around, maybe thousands -- it was a common name. We're not obsessing on this particular name here. The question is: Why did they choose this nobody Galilean figure to make a messiah from and go peddling him to the Gentiles?

You can't claim someone made up this new religion and published these "gospel" accounts about a Jesus figure without explaining where they got this figure from. Who is this Jesus figure they scooped up out of Palestine? Why did they use him, when there were plenty of other hero figures who would have been far more appropriate and were of much higher repute.


Your theory needs more to be able to claim Paul was on a "mission". His mission was to promote belief in the Galilean figure described in the gospel accounts (though in Paul's time the knowledge of him was mainly by word-of-mouth). He preached the resurrection of Jesus and obviously was talking about the same Jesus who was the central figure in the early Jerusalem Jesus cult movement in 30-50 AD.

But since you don't believe that particular Jesus existed, then when you talk about a "mission" of Paul, you need to define what "mission" you're talking about. Don't talk about Paul being on a "mission" if you deny the existence of the figure he was preaching about. If you want to redefine his "mission" then give us your redefinition.

Do you believe Paul really had no contact with that early Jesus cult in 30-50 AD?


But they already had real Hebrew heros and Hellenistic heros. Why did they need to create a new fictional hero when they already had heros ready-made for them? There were living Jews and past ones, and there were living and past Greeks who could serve as heros for them.

And why did they put together a composite figure from two different cultures? If there was a need for a composite figure, why not a composite Roman and Greek figure? That makes much more sense.

What made them think the gentiles would be impressed with a Galilean figure? Those who wanted to include some Hebrew features could have added something to it without making the hero to be a Jew from Galilee. It makes no sense.

Do you really think all the biographical details of Jesus were just symbols and none of it was believed literally? Do you believe there is any literal truth whatsoever in the gospel accounts? or that the writers of it considered any part of it to be a literal account of actual historical events and into which they inserted their symbolism? If so, what part of it is literally historical, or was thought by the authors to be literally historical?

Or if you discount all of it and think no part of it is literally historical, then why did the writers of these accounts choose Galilee, e.g., as the place where their hero figure was to appear?

And why did they include some pharisee ingredients and some essene ingredients and some zealot ingredients and some gnostic ingredients -- why did they slosh all these different schools of thought together into one schizophrenic hero figure? Why did they think such a concoction would be successful? What were these guys smoking?

All this can be explained perfectly if we just assume they took a real person from an unlikely place, but a man who really had performed miracles, or was believed to have, and so had a reputation (by 70 AD and beyond) that made him a good candidate for their hero.

And it wasn't just one clique who created the new hero figure, but several groups who jumped into it and each contributed its own symbols to the final mixed picture, but all choosing the same Galilean Jew who had a widely-increasing word-of-mouth reputation as a miracle-worker.

This makes so much more sense out of what otherwise is hopeless chaos.


You're the one who believes they created such a nonsense hero figure. Why do you believe it? You must think it makes some kind of sense. What kind of sense does it make? Can you give an analogy to this from somewhere else in mythmaking?

When did 3 or 4 cultures ever get brought together (cultures that hate and kill each other) and create a composite fictional hero figure and then go out to sell it to the masses?

Why would anyone want to create such a fictional figure to peddle to someone? And if they have to do it, why wouldn't they give the fictional hero better credentials? They could have tied him in with the gods. They could have done much better at tying him to the seed of David, but then also they could have connected him in to Zeus or Juppiter to give him even more credentials.

Since the gentiles they're selling it to are so gullible, they could have had this figure be an offshoot of a marriage between a Jew (from David) and a Roman descended from Aeneas. There are hundreds of ways they could have improved this hero figure to give him higher standing.

And of course they could still incorporate the humility of the manger scene -- that too. A glorious combination of a great son of Zeus, to attract the rich and powerful, but given a humble birth to make an appeal to the poor. Some figure like this could then have been given all the same miracle stories, plus end up getting martyred.

Maybe it would have worked better than the schizophrenic Christ figure you think they created. Maybe if they had created this superior hero figure, it would by now have united the world in peace and brotherhood.

I seriously want to know if you believe every detail in the gospel account was put there for its symbolic value without any attention to the literal details about a literal Galilean Jesus figure who actually existed historically and literally did some of what is described in those gospel accounts. No detail is historical, but all of it put in to serve a symbolic purpose?


It's so easy for you to say that from hindsight and from the Judaeo-Christian culture you've been programmed into. That notion made no sense to Greeks and Romans, nor to half the Jews either. There's no reason to believe such a hero figure would appeal to anyone other than a limited Jewish faction.

And even if we can imagine such a thing, why a Galilean? Why a Jew? There was no respect for the Jewish culture among the Greeks and Romans. The ordinary Greeks and Romans were oblivious to the existence of the Jews and Palestine, and those who knew of them derided the squabbling Jews for having nothing in their temple but scrolls and an altar. No statues? What kind of a puny god is this, with no statues to honor it?

And this absolutely was a mistake for the new religion, choosing a tradition that rejected statues -- it was later corrected by the Christians who erected them everywhere.

You can't claim the framers of the new religion had any insight in choosing a culture which prohibited statues -- that can only be seen as a disadvantage for the new hero cult they were trying to create -- and you think they were too stupid to see this mistake? You give them credit for cleverly creating and marketing this new hero figure, and yet they're such dummies that they choose a Jew who denounces statues?

In Ephesus Paul got into trouble for preaching against idols and almost got killed in a riot, according to Acts 19:23-40. Even if you don't believe that story, it illustrates that the new Christian cult had trouble spreading because of opposition from idol-worshippers and the tradesmen who produced idols.

It makes no sense. Who were these idiots who thought they could sell a god figure to the Greeks and Romans that condemned idol worship or making any graven image? No, that doesn't wash.

No, a much better explanation is that the hero figure already existed -- they didn't create anything except some symbols to attach to the already-existing hero figure who had a word-of-mouth reputation as a miracle-worker over many years by this time and was the only logical choice for a new messiah figure to sell to the masses, because they were already worshipping this figure and making him into a god.

This made it easy to launch the new religion centered on this messiah figure. So far that's the only explanation that makes any sense.


No, you're claiming the Christ figure of the gospels was created later than Paul, like after 70 AD. I'm asking you how the inventors of this new messiah figure were able to coalesce around the Galilean Jesus figure for this.

If they did not somehow come together to create this figure and give it one historical setting -- from Galilee, during the reign of Tiberius, baptized by John, wanders around the Sea of Galilee for a period healing the sick, goes to Jerusalem, arrested and crucified there by Pontius Pilate, resurrects and ascends to Heaven, the new "church" emerges in Jerusalem -- if they did not have a convention somehow to agree on all these details, then each faction would create its own fictional Christ hero.

In that case we would have different Christs from different places. We'd have Christs from Egypt, from Asia Minor, from Macedon, from Italy, from Syria, and everywhere else. So the gospels would have conflicting stories about his birth and where he lived and where he finally got killed and so on. Plus also different time periods -- he would be getting executed in 20 or 30 or 40 or 50 AD and so on -- there would not be one story but several, putting him all around the Mediterannean world in different times and places.

He would be a Greek hero in one version, a Roman in another, an Egyptian in another, a Jew in another, and so on. They'd all call him "Christ" but in addition to Jesus Christ, we'd have Sextus Christ or Abdul Christ or Demetrius Christ and so on, depending on which location or culture he belonged to.

What brought them all together to agree on this one Galilean Christ figure? How could this happen unless they held a Christ convention to put their heads together and hammer out an agreement on all the details to create just one historical setting and one time frame and so on for the new hero they were creating?

Where do you think this convention was held? How did they choose a chairman for this convention? How were the delegates chosen? Who handled security? How did they keep this thing secret?

How can you possibly imagine all the different factions would spontaneously agree to have the hero figure emerge from Galilee and be killed in Jerusalem? Why would they choose such a place for their story?

How could they all just happen to choose the same historical setting for their Christ figure without some kind of meeting to argue over the details and agree that this should be the location where he comes from and here's where he gets killed and here's the local governor in power who orders the execution and so on?

Even if you reject the miracle stories, you need to admit that at least the location, the time and place, during the governorship of Pontius Pilate, etc. -- these basic facts of location and time must be dictated by actual literal events that were assumed to have taken place -- it's ludicrous to think these biographical details were concocted by the inventors of the new cult.

These Christ-makers were not a monolithic group -- they were a hodge-podge of conflicting factions who would have killed each other if they had come together in one place -- it would have eruputed into a massive riot spilling into the streets, ending in no agreement on anything but only a bloodbath. You know there's no way conceivable they could have come together to agree on these details of their new cult and the new messiah figure.


But what "risen Jesus" was he talking about? Do you really think he was talking about anyone other than the Galilean Jesus figure (later) described in the gospel accounts, who was crucified in Jerusalem? Is that who Paul was talking about or not?

It's ludicrous to say Paul got his own independent Christ figure without reference to the figure described in the gospel accounts. You can't possibly believe he would preach about a "resurrected" Jesus figure or "risen Jesus" without meaning the same Galilean figure depicted in the gospel accounts.

Is that your claim? Paul invented his own independent Christ which had nothing to do with the story of the Galilean who was crucified in Jerusalem?

I won't quote again I Cor. 11:23 -- but Paul's Jesus there is obviously the same one described in all 4 gospels. You couldn't possibly suggest that the gospel writers lifted this passage out from Paul and used it, and so Paul invented the whole "last supper" scene and the story of the arrest. What do you imagine? that Paul gave the gospel writers the setting for the arrest but left the details to them? He forced them into inserting this event before the crucifixion?

We have no reason to believe the gospel writers used Paul this way. You cannot possibly fail to see the connection between I Cor. 11:23 and the gospel account of that same event. The connection between the two is obvious -- it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise.

You dig yourself into a hole trying to say Paul's Jesus and that of the gospel accounts are separate, and that Paul got his whole idea of resurrection independently from that one. Even if you reject the miracle stories, how can you deny that there must have been an oral tradition, word-of-mouth, going around which was familiar to both Paul and to the gospel writers, and that he got his Jesus from the same place as they got theirs?


Let's stick to our topic.

Solo

The verb Paul uses for 'handing over' is the same as the gospels (all of them) use for 'betrayal' by Judas - paradidōmi.

Strong G3860

freetrader is right that Paul (or whoever poses as Paul) uses the verb twice in 1 Cr 11:23.

Jiri

Solo

And every indication is that Paul would have dismissed such stories as childlish babble...

1 Cr 1:22-23 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles

In Paul's estimation Jesus was a crackpot and a criminal if seen through unenlightened eyes. I know this may be hard to accept but you may want to think of Paul as trying to replace the miracle-mongering craze among the Jesus freaks of his day with respectable, dignified faith.

Jiri

spamandham

Which documents claim to have been written by a witness? To my knowledge, none of the New Testament texts make such a claim, other than possibly the Gospel of John (there is a case to be made that the post script of John is not a claim of eyewitness).

Toto

The hypothesis that the Jesus character in the NT is mythic cannot be dismissed so easily.

You post seems to be a repetition of the same bad arguments that you have been repeating here for too long. Do you think you are being paid by the word?

Toto

But Paul shows no implications of using that term in the sense of betrayal. And the argument has been made that the word does not mean betrayal in the gospels either - that it is a ritual "handing over."

Amaleq13

IIRC, the same verb is used in one of the Psalms to describe God handing something over. Did Paul intend the meaning found in Hebrew Scripture or the one used in the Gospels that hadn't been written yet?

Ben C Smith

You may be thinking of any of the following: Psalm 27.12 (26.12 LXX); 41.2 (40.3 LXX); 74.19 (73.19 LXX); 78.48, 61 (77.48, 61 LXX); 106.41 (105.41 LXX). And Psalm 63.10 has a passive voice which may refer to God.

Even more to the point, Paul explicitly says that God himself handed Jesus over in Romans 8.32; and the passive voice in 2 Corinthians 4.11 may well indicate God, as well.

But also see S. C. Carlson on the matter.

In any case, betrayed is a secondary, derived meaning for this word. In fact, I think it is the situation, not the word itself, that carries that meaning. If an officer of the court brings you before the judge, the officer has delivered you up. If your best friend does it, your best friend has delivered you up. Since we do not expect a best friend to do such a thing, we think of it as betrayal. But the word itself, I think, simply conveys the meaning that you have been brought before the judge.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Thanks, I keep forgetting about that verse.

And for the clarification.