Layman

Thanks. I actually found another instance when Josephus used the term the first person plural, in the possessive. He spoke about "our leading men."

Okay, you can read Johnson's mind, I'll stick to reading his books.



[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

I'm afraid you will have to read his book to find out what facts he thinks we get from Paul and Hebrews. It's a nice little book, The Real Jesus, by LTJ.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan, have you actually read The Real Jesus?

Steven Carr

But not from anything Michael Grant may have read or written.

Incidentally, I have read that he was an atheist (I read it in one of your posts). So now you can count me as a sceptic who has read that Michael Grant is an atheist. Even more support for you!

Ted Hoffman

Because some people disagree

Steven Carr

To find out what Paul and Hebrews say about Jesus, should people read Paul and Hebrews or Johnson?

rodahi

Steven, I think you make an excellent point here. The best sources are the PRIMARY sources.

Skeptical

I actually just recently finished reading LTJ's "the real Jesus" and found it interesting on some accounts and curious on others. I agree with your assessment of LTJ, he unequivocally not only believes that christian faith cannot be based on the HJ, he also believes, as do many other NT scholars, that all such constructions inevitably lead far beyond what the evidence supports. (he does give a list of some basic statements he believes are facts about J based on Paul, Heb. and Joseph.)

I'd be interested in starting a thread on his ideas about the basis of christian faith not founded on an HJ if anyone here would be interested.

Vinnie

Paul and hebrews first. Then go to the commentaries. Vorkosigan made some claims about Johnson that seemed to misinterpret the nature of his book. I am wondering if he has read it firsthand or going off what others have said about the book. That's all.

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi
Your main arguments for the possibility that there existed a historical Jesus behind marks narrative:
1. That Mark used a negative portrait for his main character/ hero which you asserted only makes sense if Mark was ariting about a real person.

My response: I gave verses that indicated Mark introduces Jesus with pomp and drama. He is the harbinger of a new era of Baptism with spirit and not in water. The skies open and God proclaims that Jesus is not only his beloved son, but with whom he is pleased. Mark takes us through Jesus acts of compassion (indicating the man was humane, empathic and full of love), he casts out demons, heals the sich and raises people from the dead, EVEN when some times he fails. Thus Mark portrays Jesus as a man full of confidence about his abilities. Mark shows Jesus power over nature when Jesus calms storms and Jesus is so loved by the people that he has to avoid the enthusiastic crowds. Jesus' wisdom and intellectual "sophistication" is demonstrated by his use of parables like the parable of the Mustard seed. Jesus' great gift as a teacher is demonstrated in the way he "changes" the laws concerning sabbath and his interpretation of the scriptures which leave the people amazed. Then Mark crowns it up by demonstrating that Jesus had power over death by resurrecting in a dramatic manner. He then "transfigures" with Moses and Elijah.
This is clearly a hagiography so your "negative portrait" complaint goes out the window.

2. You objected that someone who "uses poor Greek, poor grammar, and lacks the literary skill of many writers of his day is not likely to have the intellectual prowess to create a fictional hero of the type that Jesus obviously is", so Mark must have been writing about a real person.

This argument is false because ones creativity is not based on linguistic skills or talents. In any case, midrash did not demand that a writer "hatch" ideas ex-nihilo, they just needed to copy, interpret and expound from the Old Testament writings. Your clinging on the possibility of existence of a historical Jesus because you "have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for WHY an unsophisticated writer would create a story using a setting he is unfamiliar with "to satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends."" is fallacious because existence of a historical Jesus is not dependent on an explanation you find "satisfactory", but on evidence. Persuasive explanations do NOT create history out of myth.

Out the window too.

3. That Jesus was a "nobody" can not be sustained in the face of Mark saying Jesus went ALL OVER Galilee casting out demons and healing the sick. Mark also adds that Jesus had to avoid the excited and expectant crowds to get some quiet time with his disciples.
Out the window.

If you have any new arguments, offer them.

How do you KNOW it is a work of fiction, IntenSity? With respect to Jesus' negative qualities, they are in the narrative for all to see.
A claim so far. On what basis have you reached the conclusion that the "negative qualities" are too much for you to accept the story as that of a mythical figure? Have you established that all mythical figures in antiquity have only positive attributes?

Which mythical figures are you comparing Jesus with? If you have none, then you are basing that judgement on personal taste, which is invalid.
Because Mark had a personal taste too, and we dont know what he thought about what you label "negative qualities". Remember Jesus did NOT comission Mark to write about him, so Mark could write as he saw fit.

Rodahi said to Steven Carr
Would you like to explain how this proves that Jesus is a fictional character?
It demonstrates that your argument (2) above is invalid.

I have no idea if the writer of Mark was highly intelligent or not.
What exactly do you mean highly intelligent? Highly imaginative? Highly creative? with a high IQ? Are you about to conflate linguistic skill with intelligence?
Would you say that the writer of Leviticus was highly intelligent?

Layman
I would appreciate it if you could offer some trenchant argument(s) against the Jesus Myth idea since you keep parotting senselessly and incessantly that its a loony idea. If "herd mentality" is what is behind the "loony" tune you are harping, then you should know by now that "big names" don't sway us much over here. Bring your arguments.

Vorkosigan
I agree, though, that it is loony to publicly advocate mythicism, given how quickly one can be ostracized from the scholarly community or even canned.
So it should be secretly advocated behind the scenes? Earl Doherty and Professor G. A. Wells must be loony indeed. It makes me imagine of how people thought of Galileo Galilei when he said the earth was round:
Loony.