Layman

Ah yes,

As the Jesys Myth wanes, partially on the basis of Doherty's faulty analysis of the Paulines and Hebrews, we must move on to the Paul Myth.

Which, of course, will eventually have to give rise to the Peter Myth, the James Myth, the Clement of Rome Myth and the Ignatius Myth.

Biff the unclean

So Paul made up his conversion experience based on Euripides?
That would be "Luke" who copied Euripides

Do you have primary evidence of this story so the rest of us can decide for ourselves the similarities?
Heeeellllooo…knock, knock, knock…Euripides The Bacchae

As the Jesys Myth wanes,…
Oh, I wasn't aware that there was any evidence for Jesus. Out side of Christian arrogance that is.

…we must move on to the Paul Myth.
Which, of course, will eventually have to give rise to the Peter Myth, the James Myth, the Clement of Rome Myth and the Ignatius Myth.

Well that's what happens when the early Byzantine church made an industry out of pious fraud. There isn't much difference between adding fictitious magical events to a person's life to having completely fictional characters.
After a cock & bull story like that of Jesus as the base of their religion it's obvious that facts were of little importance to these people, there's no reason to trust them.

Vinnie

If anything that simply disproves Jesus mythicism. But at any rate, some of Paul's stuff was "venerated". We talk about several of them here on this forum.

Vinnie

Vinnie

I got that. It could even be argued Luke was aware of some of the details I mentioned from the Pauline corpus and that was his inpisration.

But at the same time, I have to say that the persecution of something, then epiphany, then supporting it is not an altogether uncommon theme. Its too vague in itself to aply to anything. But major similarities or verbatim agreements between Jesus' speech in Acts and the "Dionysus . . . "Kicking at pricks" speech" would be of much more persuasive value to me.

Vinnie

Vinnie

PK has an article on this:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/euripidesluke.html



Vinnie

Haran

Biff,

Here is a link to Euripides' Bacchae.

Would you mind pointing out some of the points where the play is the same, "point by point as the Paul story"? I would be interested in seeing the parallels.

Thanks.

Vinnie

PK concluded that:

But he doesn't discuss the conversion story. He discusses "
1) the prison escape scenes found in Acts 5:17-20, 12:6-11, and 16:23-30 and (2) the statement of the risen Christ in Paul's speech found in Acts 26:14."

Vinnie

Biff the unclean

It could even be argued Luke was aware of some of the details I mentioned from the Pauline corpus and that was his inpisration.
Sure.
It could also be argued that Luke was a big theatre goer and that the details in the Pauline corpus were inspired by him.

But at the same time, I have to say that the persecution of something, then epiphany, then supporting it is not an altogether uncommon theme. Its too vague in itself to aply to anything.
And having a God appear to you on a road in the Damascus region while you were hurrying off to do his followers harm wasn't uncommon?

But major similarities or verbatim agreements between Jesus' speech in Acts and the "Dionysus . . . "Kicking at pricks" speech" would be of much more persuasive value to me.
Euripides "kicking at pricks" speech (which stands out so because the meaning of the word humorously changed) was as famous as Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" speech in "Luke's" day. I can't imagine why he used it. "Luke" changed the end of Euripides story, which is a tragedy, where Pentheus is killed, but kept everything up to the epiphany the same.

rlogan

Uh, I didn't quite understand Vinnie. Are you saying my quote disproved mythicism? Or are you saying that there was veneration of Paul stuff so he's historical?

Paul, the "tent-maker/scribe/sherriff/famous first church president/martyr" is a myth to me. Whatever he was, it wasn't all that. Mythical stuff appended to an uncertain base.

Would someone please provide a working definition of Mythicism somewhere so we're all on the same page? i don't beliee there has been a "decision" that Doherty's position is the monopoly on "mythicism". Once we start applying it to paul and others then we're going to get into misunderstandings.

Vinnie

The Pauline corpus predates Luke, that is the problem. The connection has to go the other way artound. Luke had some ifno about Paul (that is obvious!) and he simply supplemented it. I was actaully posing speculation that agrees with you (in case you didn't notice).

Quote:

But at the same time, I have to say that the persecution of something, then epiphany, then supporting it is not an altogether uncommon theme. Its too vague in itself to aply to anything. And having a God appear to you on a road in the Damascus region while you were hurrying off to do his followers harm wasn't uncommon?

We are discussing literary depdnence. Not miracles. My idea is that the general sentiments are common. We need precise textual arguments//similarities. If those are not forthcoming we can't make much of the details. If they are, it has much more merit.

But major similarities or verbatim agreements between Jesus' speech in Acts and the "Dionysus . . . "Kicking at pricks" speech" would be of much more persuasive value to me.
Euripides "kicking at pricks" speech (which stands out so because the meaning of the word humorously changed) was as famous as Shakespeare's "To be or not to be" speech in "Luke's" day. I can't imagine why he used it. "Luke" changed the end of Euripides story, which is a tragedy, where Pentheus is killed, but kept everything up to the epiphany the same. [/QUOTE]

Yes, I went a searching. This is what I found:

http://members.cox.net/galatians/history.htm

Vinnie