Malachi151

I've never claimed anything about "midrash", that's a Doherty claim. I don't view the Gospels as midrash, I view them as a completely new type of writing that combined Jewish and Greek/Roman styles of writing.

I don't see any reason that any non-Jew would recognize anything about the writing as being fiction other than the supernatural stuff. Without extensive comparative analysis between a Gospel and the Hebrew scriptures this conclusion can't be arrived at.

For someone, like Celsus, who was probably only giving casual attention to this issue, and may have only heard of these stories through second hand accounts, there was no way for him to figure that out. Even if he read a Gospel, most likely Matthew, its doubtful he would have studied it in depth or studied a large volume of Jewish literature and background. You can't come to any conclusion about the Gospels by reading one by itself, this can only be done by reading all of the Gospels, a good volume of Jewish apocalyptic literature, and a large volume of Hebrew scriptures, which also must be the right scritpures. It has taken over a thousand years of analysis to arrive at some of this information, and even at that, having computers really helps today to be able to sort all of this out an identify scriptural references. This type of analysis was impossible back then, and a critic like Celsus would never have been able to come up with such a critique.

Additionally, the allegorical nature of the story is really only present in the Gospel of Mark, none of the others, so unless you read Mark there again would have been no way to figure it out, and by all of the evidence it appears that Mark was one of the least known and least widely read of the Gospels. The most popular seems to have been Matthew, which completely bastardizes the whole thing and isn't written anything like Mark.

We don't know what Jewish scholars thought about it because we have no commentary from them during this early time period. Its doubtful they would have necessarily figured it out either though, since they themselves believed in the truth of their own stories anyway. There were a few, like Phio, who had a different level of understanding of the scriptures, maybe if Philo had been alive and read some of the material he would have figured it out, but that's impossible to speculate on.

I have no idea what audience it was written for. The extensive use of Jewish scripture seems to indicate it was written for a Jewish audience, but I can have no way of knowing. Knowing what was going through the head of the author is almost impossible speculation.

Maybe he thought that people would simply take it as a fictional story, like a parable. Maybe he thought of it as esoteric mystery writing, with secret hidden codes. Maybe he was trying to fool people. Maybe he thought that Jesus was real and that these things happened, but since he had no details or any information about him he simply used the scriptures to provide his details. I don't really know and can only speculate about the writers intentions.

Look at things even in our own time. Look at the War of the Worlds broadcast. What was the intention of Orson Wells in doing the broadcast? What was the intention of G.A. Wells in writing the story? Did either of them intend that the story be taken literally and that people die because of it? In reality, the story was taken literally and people died because of it. Intent has nothing to do with reception, and interpretation is in the eye of the beholder, as any art or literature professor will tell you. Once that work leaves your hands, you have no control over it, no control over its reception, and no control over its effects. American history is replete with the effects of writing on perception.

Where was the gunfight between the Earps and the Clantons? OK Corral?

Nope, it was not at the OK Corral, a story titled "Gunfight and the OK Corral" was later written because the title sounded catchy, and movies then followed suit. Today almost everyone thinks the fight really took place at the OK Corral, but it was really nowhere near there, although there is an OK Corral in Tombstone Arizona. What was the intention of the author? did the author intend to rewrite history? Why do so many people believe that the fight took place at the OK Corral? Why don't they suspect otherwise, etc.?

What about Paul Revere's ride to inform the people of the Read Cots coming? It never happened, the popular account si based on a poem, etc.

Jeffrey Gibson

Didn't you say previously that there were also wide spread Gnostic teachings that Jesus didn't exist?

Umm ... to quote you:

Tell that to Earl.

According to Earl, from Paul and from Hebrews where Jesus' non earthly existence it is plainly stated. And, if I understand you correctly, from a reading of Mark, which given its wholly allegorical character, would have clued Celsus that the whole Jesus story was not to be taken as historical.

Could you please provide some documentation not only that all Gnostics based their views on, let alone solely on, canonical Gospel accounts and that they all viewed their saviour figure Jesus as a phantom, as someone who had no actual physical presence during the time they say he was manifesting himself to disciples like Thomas, etc.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Have you actually read Celsus? Yes or no (and, please, none of "no one can read Celsus since we don't have his work dodge).

What is the basis for your determination of what is land is not likely here? What exactly is the nature and extent of your acquaintance with Celsus?

Jeffrey

Malachi151

Enough of the petty nonsense JG. Would you like to propose how a Roman in the 2nd century could have proven that Jesus didn't exist or could have made a successful argument against his existence?

BTW, its been about a year since I read Contra Celsus.

Jeffrey Gibson

It's only nonsense if your claims about what Mark recognizably is, are nonsense.

He could have pointed to "Christian texts" which said that Jesus had no earthly existence, or noted that the texts upon which Christians based their claim that Jesus lived were fictions/allegories that were built up out of Hebrew scriptures, or that the texts upon which Christians base their claims for Jesus' existence were all interpolated. In other words, in the same way that many here, who are separated from the first century by an even wider expanse of time than Celsus is, "prove" that Jesus didn't exist.

I suggest that you read this again.

And when did you (last) read the Gnostic texts that you've been making global claims about?


Jeffrey

Maximara

The basic problem was that Christianity then as now was not a monolithic belief. In fact the concept of a "Christ" to lead the Jews out from under Roman rule was at least 100 years old by the time the Jesus of the Bible supposedly walked the earth. If you go and actually read the context of famous second quote in Josephus you discover that he is talking about another man called Jesus who was also called Christ NOT as the apologetics claim the Jesus of the Bible (Jesus son of Joshua):

In context is is clear that the "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ" Josephus is referring to is Jesus the son of Damnaeus who was made High Priest which is clearly NOT the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

Also it is important to remember the Jesus we know was settled on in the 4th century when the Canon of the NT was settled on. We now now that where as many as 50 (!) Gospels floating around the Roman Empire by the middle of the 2nd century (when Church fathers start quoting from the four we are familiar with) many of which had Jesus being born and dying (by different means) at different times. Given all this the Roman in all likelihood saw the Christian movement as yet another mystery cult.

Chili

The fact is that Christ did exist and still does exist but the new Christian religion was not the religion that Jesus had in mind.

There was Jesus the Christ as described in Luke and there was Jesus the Christ as described in Matthew. These two are not the same which then is why James is said to be Jesus' brother who did not experinece resurrection in Matthew while Jesus the Christ in Luke did.

Christianity (Christian-ity) is a condition of being reached at the end of religion after the transformation of the mind soul and body and thus not an -ism that is supposed to bring good things about after we die (sic), . . . which cannot be true if following Luke's way we can enjoy heaven on earth, and all we have to do is as much as take Jesus down from the cross and place ourselves upon it (instead of burning with desire at the foot of the cross).

What the Romans were trying to do is stamp out the Christianity of James so that the Christianity of Luke could prosper among them . . . which is the very reason why the NT was written to start with because the Jews where doing the same thing! To wit: they entered the promised land before their own time (by parting the water instead walking on top of the water) and therefore spend 40 years instead of 40 days in the desert and still die nonetheless . . . much like James' Christians since for them good things can only come about after they die.

Note that the crucifixion can only be real if it is a metaphor since in the end only beauty and truth are real with beauty (we call her Mary) being the continuity of truth (we call him Christ).

By edit I should add that it is wrong for a Christians to return to his religion if it is meant to be the end of religon. Notice that Jesus never went beyond the precinct and from there provoked the animosity that got him crucified . . . which is something that only his own religion can do.

Didymus

Celsus, and presumably others Romans as well, thought it quite sufficient to depict him as a criminal and shit-disturber who was crucified along with other scum.

By Roman lights, it was absurd to portray such a man as a god. No proper god would subject himself to such an indignity. And no right-thinking person could possibly worship such a lowlife!

Malachi151 is correct in saying that the Romans had neither the means nor the motivation to challenge Jesus' historicity, any more than they would have challenged the existence of innumerable garden gods, hearth gods. spring gods, pond gods, mountain gods, city gods, provincial gods - or maxi-gods like Jupiter and Venus.

Locals in the Roman Empire were free to openly worship the gods of their choice. Christians were considered to be atheists - subversives who refused to participate in officially ordained sacrifices and ceremonies, thus jeopardizing the well-being of the entire populace.

They were the third century equivalent of tax evaders, or, in wartime, draft dodgers.

Didymus

Chili

Perverts is more like it!