archibald

That is either a deliberate mischaracterization or an accidental one. Sheesh. You must think people here are not likely to see through that sort of thing.

The rest of your post builds off this silly strawman and as such is useless.

Very few of those who believe that Jesus wasn't mythical (i.e. most people, including, to my knowledge, almost all professional scholars and historaians) don't exclude the possibility. They just consider it not as likely. Furthermore, speculation about motives is not much more than a group ad hom.

IMO, you would be far better served, and taken more seriously, if you would go and get your theories peer-reviewed, inasmuch as this is attainable, given the acknowledgement that there may be some limiting strand of 'institutional bias' among scholars (not that this can't be weighed, of course). Until then, I don't think there is any rational reason to see your ideas as a more liklier alternative to the one which is more widely accepted.

For example, what support do you have from historians and scholars (I make a nominal distinction between the two) regarding whether Paul's writing fits into any kind of pattern or genre for narratives which take place in a sublunar realm?

Kapyong

Gday,

You "conclude" they "would have been" ?
(IF your beliefs are true - the unspoken rider)

Well, I actually checked the facts and what I found is quite different as I showed in my table, and as Earl mentioned too.

Let's have a look at a specific example you mention - the empty tomb - let's see the chronology of Christian writings and which mention the empty tomb when :


50s
Paul - NO empty tomb

60s
Hebrews - NO empty tomb

80s
Colossians - NO empty tomb
1 John - NO empty tomb
James - NO empty tomb

90s
Ephesians - NO empty tomb
2 Thess. - NO empty tomb
1 Peter - NO empty tomb
1 Clement - NO empty tomb
Revelation - NO empty tomb

100s
The Didakhe - NO empty tomb
Jude - NO empty tomb

110s
Barnabas - NO empty tomb

120s
2 John - NO empty tomb
3 John - NO empty tomb
G.Thomas - NO empty tomb

130s
Papias - NO empty tomb
2 Peter - NO empty tomb
The Pastorals - NO empty tomb
G.Peter - NO empty tomb

140s
to Diognetus - NO empty tomb
Ep.Apostles - NO empty tomb
2 Clement - NO empty tomb
Aristides - NO empty tomb


What is noticeable is that the mentions of the GOSPELS themselves show almost exactly the same pattern :

50s
Paul - NO Gospel mentions

60s
Hebrews - NO Gospel mentions

80s
Colossians - NO Gospel mentions
1 John - NO Gospel mentions
James - NO Gospel mentions


90s
Ephesians - NO Gospel mentions
2 Thess. - NO Gospel mentions
1 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
1 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Revelation - NO Gospel mentions

100s
The Didakhe - NO Gospel mentions
Jude - NO Gospel mentions

110s
Barnabas - NO Gospel mentions

120s
2 John - NO Gospel mentions
3 John - NO Gospel mentions
G.Thomas - NO Gospel mentions

130s
Papias - mentions 2 writings, not called Gospels yet
2 Peter - NO Gospel mentions
The Pastorals - NO Gospel mentions
G.Peter - NO Gospel mentions
Ignatius - mentions a Gospel

140s
to Diognetus - NO Gospel mentions
Ep.Apostles - NO Gospel mentions
2 Clement - NO Gospel mentions
Aristides - calls the singular Gospel newly preached in 138-161CE


This pattern can be found for most of the Gospel elements (not to mention author's attributions) - they are generally not known until early-mid 2nd century, have a growing phase over much of the 2nd century, and crystalise out in late 2nd century.

That is - Christians' knowledge ABOUT a historical Jesus of Nazareth came FROM the Gospels - in early-mid 2nd century.


K.

GakuseiDon

No. I'm assuming that the figure went by the name of Jesus, the name used by Paul. Paul arguably was talking about a man who was crucified in Paul's immediate past named Jesus. From the clues we can get from within Paul and other writings like 1 Clement, Paul wrote around 50 CE. This matches what we see in the Gospels.

This is where the misunderstandings start, I think. It's **possible** that Wells is correct: the Gospel Jesus and Paul's Jesus were originally two different people. I just don't see it as being a necessary explanation, esp since IMO Wells is wrong that Paul places Jesus as living at some far earlier point in time.

I think there are two separate questions here: (1) The question of whether a historical Jesus was the origin of Christianity, and (2) the question of how much we can know about that person. These questions can and should be examined separately.

maryhelena

Before one starts debating what 'Paul' thought or did - one has to have the context in which he operated. That context involves JC. Without this fundamental question being settled - is JC historical or pseudo-historical - everything else is blowing in the wind. As I said - stay with a flesh and blood JC - but don't go making any claims for historicity because such claims cannot be substantiated. JC historicists need to bow out of this debate gracefully and be content with their assumption re JC. For those interested in searching for early christian origins, it is historical people and events that must take priority over assumptions re the gospel JC story.

archibald

In your last line, what 'historical people from early Christian origins' do you rely on for this priority? Who's in and who's out, and what are the criteria for choosing?

maryhelena

Actually, my last line reads: "For those interested in searching for early christian origins, it is historical people and events that must take priority over assumptions re the gospel JC story".

Why not get out a history book. Look up Jewish history from the time of Herod the Great, 40 b.c. made king in Rome, to the end of Pilate's rule - normally given as 36 c.e. Keep a look out for the death of Antigonus, the last king and high priest of the Jews. He was bound to a cross, crucified, flogged and beheaded in 37 b.c. Keep a look out for Philip the Tetrarch - who ruled from the death of Herod the Great until, according to present copies of Josephus, to the 20th year of Tiberius, in 33/34 c.e. Keep in mind the gospel JC story that JC had disciples from Bethsaida - which Philip renamed Bethsaida Julius. Keep in mind that the disciples asked JC if he was the messiah - in the territory of Philip, around Casearea Philippi. Keep in mind that Philip was also a travelling man - moving around his territory, like JC, with a group of his chosen friends. Keep in mind that Philip dies (Josephus again) around 33/34 ce - as the gospel JC is crucified, after a 3 year ministry, (gJohn) around 33 c.e. Keep in mind that the crucifixion of JC in 33 c.e. is 70 years from the crucifixion, flogging and beheading of Antigonus in 37 b.c. Keep in mind that gLuke 3:1 is dealing with a 70 year period - from Lysanias of Abilene (40 b.c.) to the 15th year of Tiberius (29/30 c.e.) Keep in mind that the gospel JC is a multi-talented figure - everything from revolutionary man to cynic sage. Keep in mind that Antigonus was a man of war and Philip was a man of peace.

It's not difficult, its really not.....

DCHindley

I think the essential difference between Wells and Doherty is that the dearth of evidence independent of Christian tradition is interpreted as meaning:

Wells: Jesus could have been entirely mythical but could just as easily be a real person who was mythologized by the early Christians from OT passages with some influence from popular culture.

Doherty: The Jesus story was probably entirely a myth developed by early Christians from concepts and beliefs that were circulating in popular culture and OT passages.

Wells has the advantage of an academic background in history, and tends to stick to the facts as known, although his personal opinions are sometimes reflected in his treatment of different sources. However, he doesn't "advocate" one position over another (i.e., "theory X must be the solution ...".

Doherty draws more on his gut feeling after reading primary and secondary sources in translation and sometimes specific passages in the original language (as is the way of most of those interested). However, he is particularly wedded the the MJ position, and I think this position serves as the lens by which he examines the evidence (i.e., sees the world through rose colored lenses).

DCH

PS: No offense, Earl.

Doug Shaver

As a former Bible-beating fundamentalist, I certainly know that feeling. But I've also learned that one simply must get over it. I think part of the paradigm shift I'm talking about will have to be the realization of how easily certain kinds of errors can embed themselves in the minds of even the best and brightest among us.

It seems to me that the best scholars even among historicists accept the fact of doctoring and dishonesty in the transmission of the major documents. I do not believe, though, that any early Christian who knew or even suspected that there was never a real Jesus ever did anything to try to convince anyone that there was one. At least, I'm not aware of any evidence for that having happened. Of course it could have, but I think the evolution of Christ from myth to history can be accounted for without that.

Naturally, such a scenario will always be appealing to those skeptics who regard religion generally, and Christianity especially, as some kind of social pathology. In the protracted conflict between reason and unreason, the battle lines have never separated believers from unbelievers.

archibald

Yes. I knew that. We must have crossed wires or something. I'm not sure I see the distinction. It's not that I'm diagreeing with your statement, which seems very reasonable indeed, and by the way, I very much agree with it and admire anyone who has a breadth of historical knowledge, which I do not. I'm more wondering at what point we decide that some figure or other has 'sufficient' historical evidence.

And (more to the point) when the evidence is 'poor', what to do?

I think this is more relevant to minor figures, obviously, of which there are a host, and I think I'm right in saying that Josephus, for example, contains several which are not referenced anywhere else. What do we do with those figures? John the Baptist (also in the NT of course), and some of the other minor prophet types, Theudas and that Egyptian guy, for example?

I think what is confusing me is that your statement above seems to be contradicted by you making some sort of conclusion here:

Maybe I have misinterpeted you, but I also recall (perhaps inaccurately) that you might have previously mentioned subscribing to some sort of 'two merged historical figures' thesis for Jesus, and I'm not sure how you would do that in tandem with the line at the top of this post.

Sorry. I'm not sure what I might be supposed to conclude from this.

Doug Shaver

From what fact, if any, do you infer that?