Toto

Getting back to the claims in the OP, Neil Godfrey has some blog posts on the probability of interpolations, based on an anti-mythicist author, A. D. Howell Smith, author of Jesus Not a Myth

James the Bro of the Lord - another case for interpolation

Born of the seed of David an interpolation

Doug Shaver

Abe, these points have all been addressed ad nauseum in this forum. For you to bring them up once more as if they were new arguments for historicity is nothing but argument by repetition. There is no X for which an argument repeated X times becomes valid.

Then it's irrelevant to the discussion.

To claim that these statements were "about the life of Jesus" is begging the question.

Good catch. I should have written "the gospels and Acts."

Very well, my original claim was slightly overstated. I'll fix it in the revision. For the present discussion, I note that I Timothy is one of the pastoral epistles, which according to the modern scholarly consensus are all forgeries, probably from the second century, and therefore worthless as evidence for what Christians believed during the first century.

That is rank proof-texting. You need to show how your interpretation is "more fitting connected" with Mark in light of what the entire epistle has to say about Jesus.

Because they were ordinary human beings.

That is what orthodox Christians have been saying since around 300 CE. To assume that first-century Christians were saying the same thing, and then to base your interpretation of the canonical writings on that assumption, is to argue in a circle.

GakuseiDon

I think the question that goes begging here is: What would we have expected people in the First Century to have written about Jesus, given the beliefs and the writing habits of First Century people?

Instead, all too often the question is framed as: What would we have expected people in the First Century to have written about Jesus, given the beliefs and the writing habits of modern orthodox Christians?

I think Doherty makes some interesting comments in this regard in his book, "Jesus: Neither God Nor Man":

As one can see by this survey, if one leaves aside Justin Martyr there is a silence in the 2nd Century apologists on the subject of the historical Jesus which is virtually equal of that found in the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 485)

And:

Another aspect is the fact that in almost all the apologists we find a total lack of a sense of history. They do not talk of their religion as an ongoing movement with a specific century of development behind it, through a beginning in time, place and circumstances, and a spread in similar specifics. Some of them pronounce it to be very "old" and they look back to roots in the Jewish prophets rather than to the life of a recent historical Jesus. In this, of course, they are much like the 1st century epistle writers. (Page 477)

I agree with both these comments. The wider literature of the day is the framework under which we should analyse the writing habits of the people of that time. What may seem odd to us may not necessarily have been odd to them.

Toto

GDon - this is another argument that you have repeated endlessly, that the silence of second century Christian writers somehow makes the silence of earlier Christian writers part of a normal pattern. Even though you can't explain this pattern, you think that you have scored a point against the lack of any details about the human Jesus in early Christian writings.

Are there any other religious writings that honor an individual but avoid mentioning any identifying details about him? That's the pattern you should be looking at. I can't think of any.

Otherwise, as I argued before, early Christians did not mention any details about Jesus because they didn't know of any, because their Jesus was a spiritual entity. The second century apologists that you claim are historicist accepted that Jesus existed on earth in the flesh for theological reasons, not because they had any evidence that Jesus existed on earth. The common framework is that no one knows anything about a human Jesus.

blastula

The Gethsemane story is clearly fictional. It quotes Jesus's prayer that he allegedly made while everyone else was sleeping at a distance.

ApostateAbe

Be more specific, and I will be able to better help you. Begging what question? Remember, your website first claimed, "From the epistles, we learn nothing of what he said or did between his birth and his death." A critical reviewer of such a claim does NOT need to make a conclusive case that the New Testament texts which seem to refer to the life of Jesus really are referring to the life of Jesus. Since you are the one proposing a probabilistic difficulty and a not-so-obvious solution, then the burden is on you to show that such evidence is in your favor. An informed reader may think, "There doesn't seem to be a problem. So why do we need a solution like that?"
We are in agreement on that point.
OK. So, here is the passage in Hebrews:

"In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission."

All four of the gospels contain accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. There are seven sayings of Jesus contained in that collection, listed below.

1. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
2. Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).
3. Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (John 19:26-27).
4. My God, My God, why have you forsaken me, (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34).
5. I thirst (John 19:28).
6. It is finished (John 19:30).
7. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46).

In this list, there are three prayers, and only one of them is an explicit supplication, item #1--"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." It is found only in the gospel of Luke. It is not a tearful supplication. On the contrary, all throughout the account of the crucifixion of the gospel of Luke, Jesus is exceptionally stoic.

One of them could be counted as an emotional implicit supplication--"My God, My God, why have you forsaken me". On the face of it, it is a question. It is implicitly intended as a request--God, do not forsake me.

The problem with attaching "supplications" with "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me" is with the definition of "supplication." The Greek word is "ἱκετηρίας", defined by Strong's as "(originally: the olive branch held in the hand of the suppliant), supplication, entreaty." In other words, it is a request offered with humility and respect. However, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me," is not a request offered with humility or respect. It is said in anger and contempt.

The alternative hypothesis is that Hebrews 5:7 instead refers to the Agony in the Garden of Gethsamane. Mark 14:32-42, my emphasis:

They went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, ‘Sit here while I pray.’ He took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be distressed and agitated. And he said to them, ‘I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake.’ And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. He said, ‘Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want.’ He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, ‘Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour? Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.’ And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. And once more he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to say to him. He came a third time and said to them, ‘Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand.’

There are prayers, there are supplications, there is distress, and the humility in this passage is explicit. "...not what I want, but what you want." This episode is repeated in Matthew 26:36-46 and Luke 22:39-46 with the same relevant elements, which shows that the myth was common among Christians. It is to be expected that, when Christians speak of "Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death," they are referring to the Agony in the Garden.
Yes, but ordinary humans don't necessarily write about the things they know or care about in writings designed for a different purpose. If you are going to claim that it is a probabilistic difficulty, you need to show that it is strongly expected that that authors of the epistles should have written about the life of Jesus before his crucifixion more than they do.
The reason that such is the perspective of orthodox Christians is seemingly because that is the perspective shared by the authors of the epistles. If you think that the authors of the epistles have a different perspective on the relevant aspects of the life of Jesus, then it is up to you to show it.

ApostateAbe

I agree.

GakuseiDon

True, though note that it isn't just me that sees this pattern as significant. I agree with Doherty that there are similarities there. If there are similarities there, and the Second Century apologists were probably historicists of one sort or another, then we need to ask "how does that affect our expectations on how we read the First Century writers ?"

I've always thought that Tatian was the soft-underbelly of Doherty's theory, and my guess is that once people start to look at that side of Doherty's theories, it will cast new light on how Paul will be interpreted.

Certainly this is the exact kind of analysis that needs to be done. What examples have you looked at? Can you link to them please?

Actually, I think the common framework is that none of them were writing history or biography.

EarlDoherty

If you knew anything, Abe, you would know that those references to what Jesus did in "the days of his flesh" are taken from scripture, not historical tradition, and that many mainstream scholars do NOT regard the "cries and tears, etc." to be a reflection of Gethsemane, since there are significant anomalies. Besides, critical scholars recognize that the scene in Mark is a literary invention of his own, and if Hebrews shows ignorance on anything, it is on anything to do with the Gospel story, partly because Hebrews is generally dated (quite validly) before the Jewish War and before Mark was written.

But you should have known all this from Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, page 227-8....Oh wait! Of course, you've refused to read the leading book by the leading writer on mythicism today, since you already know the truth about the issue, and why confuse your certainty with contrary facts and research? My apologies.

Earl Doherty

Vorkosigan

In what way? I'm going to write a review of Doherty's latest work soon and would like to hear these arguments.

Vorkosigan