Doug Shaver

We have data. I think its reliability is among the issues in contention.

Doug Shaver

I don't recall Earl saying that.

I don't think he said that, either.

Late relative to whom? Paul is the first Christian about whom we know anything reliable beyond his name.

Obviously, Christianity existed before Paul joined it, but -- absent historicist presuppositions -- we don't know how long it had been around. The "pillars" could have been its founders, but we can't discern that from his testimony.

Yeah, it just might -- but only if we assume that the gospels were intended as historical accounts of how the religion got started. Lose that assumption, and this argument has nothing going for it.

maryhelena

Yes, the conflict between Paul and the 'pillars' would make more sense if the root of the conflict revolved around a historical figure that the pre-christian groups had found to be inspirational etc. This would be a big time conflict!

Mythicists seem eager to explain Paul's lack of interest in the assumed historical Jesus on the basis that there was no historical Jesus there for Paul to show any interest in. However, if the source of Paul's lack of interest in a historical figure relevant to pre-christian history was not because, re the mythicist position there was no Jesus there - but because the historical figure that was there, a historical figure relevant to pre-christian history, was a historical figure that Paul consciously and stubbornly wanted to side-step, wanted to put on the back burner in order to focus on his new construct of his spiritual christ figure.

I doubt the historicity of John the Baptist - probably just a figment in the mind of Josephus. For christian origins to have an anchor in historical events it needs to have that anchor, that root, in a man whose historicity is itself beyond doubt. Anything less is simply speculation, assumptions and chasing after the wind...Fine if its just spirituality that one seeks - from whence it came has no bearing on its value - but a historical claim needs a historical foundation....

Ultimately of course, what came before Paul, what actual historical events took place, is purely of academic interest. Paul chose to raise the game plan and follow a primarily spiritual path - and it is that path that has proven to be the relevant path for christian history. No man having any inherent salvation potential -

aa5874

But, you really have no basis to doubt the historicity of John the Baptist. You have no basis to claim that John the Baptist was probably a figment in the mind of Josephus when you HAVE no EVIDENCE or source of antiquity that claimed that there was not a character called John the Baptist.

John the Baptist, unlike Jesus, was not described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost, but a mere man, so it is far more probable that it was Jesus who was a figment in the mind of the anonymous Gospel story writers.

The PaULINE Jesus is no more spiritual than the Jesus of the Gospels, it is just that the Pauline writings are about the REVELATIONS from Jesus AFTER he ascended through the clouds.

The Pauline writer RECEIVED HIS GOSPEL and RECEIVED the Spiritfrom JESUS AFTER he went through the clouds.

This is a Pauline writer.

Co 2:12 - And this is the author of gJohn on some things that Jesus would say after he had ascended through the clouds.

John 16.12-13 The PaULINE writer received the Spirit and propagated the things he RECEIVED from Jesus in heaven through the Spirit.

It must be noted that in Acts of the Apostles it was Jesus FROM heaven who INITIATED CONTACT with Paul.

ApostateAbe

My apologies. Earl Doherty didn't say that. Somebody in this forum believes it, and I can't remember who.
Right. The important thing is that Paul wasn't there in the beginning, and there were predecessors and probably a single founder who wasn't Paul.
There is nothing wrong with the assumption if it is actually a reasonable inference. The idea that the gospels were intended as historical narratives seems to be the best fit when you read them, though I know opinions differ. The gospel of Luke, however, is explicit about it from the beginning.

¹Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. ³Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, ⁴so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The styles of the other three canonical gospels are closely analogous, so I don't think there should be a serious question that the gospels were intended to be read as historical narratives, even if they were only sourced from myths. If the gospels are instead more likely to be intended as works of fiction, like The Lord of the Rings, then, yeah, it would not at all be unexpected that there can be fully-developed characters that are not intended to have any resemblance to people alive or dead.

aa5874

But, your assumption is NOT reasonable when the description of the origin of Jesus and the activities of Jesus are taken into account.

Jesus was described as the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin, who was on the pinnacle of the Temple with the Devil, walked on water, cursed a tree to kill it from the roots, talked to sea-storms, was transfigured, was resurrected and ascended through the clouds.

And, then the author of gLuke immediately writes a fictitious birth narrative story which contradicted the fictitious conception story in gMatthew.

But, once the gospels were myths then the author of gLuke should have acknowledged that there were REALLY no witnesses and advised Theophilus that he was writing mythical fables.

bacht

I agree that Paul's silence about the life of Jesus can be explained more than one way.

As for John the Baptist, I was thinking about Mark's treatment, where John is the inferior forerunner of the 'real' messiah Jesus. This echos the prophecy of Malachi, so Mark could have invented the character of John. But then what about the Mandeans, who was their inspiration?

maryhelena

I don't think a character needs to be historical in order to generate a following - as the Jesus story amply testifies to. Once the storyboard is created its characters can take on a 'life' of their own...

Slavonic Josephus has a John the Baptist storyline running from 6 ce.
In Antiquities Josephus has JtB killed prior to the war with Aretas - around 36 ce. Hence a 30 year public life - which no one else, as far as I'm aware bothered to record. Philo, I don't think makes any mention of JtB.

aa5874

But, when was Slavonic Josephus written? And Slavonic Josephus was not used by any Church writer up to the 4th century, not even by Eusebius to account for John the Baptist.

maryhelena

I don't think the 11th century dating for Slavonic Josephus has much to do with the dating of its source document. The important issue is whether what Slavonic Josephus has to say, in regard to questions related to the gospel storyline, are sayings that can be attributed to Josephus.

Sure, controversy might exist re the issue - but lets not overlook the fact that controversy exists re the Jesus storyline anyway. And it would depend upon where one is coming from re the Jesus storyline that would have consequences on how one would understand the Slavonic Josephus material.

Indeed, material in Slavonic Josephus is later contradicted in Antiquities. Why this is so is perhaps an interesting question - but so is the question of why Luke decides to contradict Matthew re the birth date for Jesus - and yet Christians are able to keep both books within the NT canon....

Regarding the earlier material in Slavonic Josephus - perhaps someone had a soft spot for collecting and safe-keeping first editions.....