Gooch's dad

Why would someone invent a Messiah from Galilee? Why wouldn't they simply invent a Messiah who was born in Bethlehem, since that is apparently what the Jews of that time expected?

I'm not saying that the Micah verses are intended as a prophecy, but it appears that the Jews of that time saw them in that light.

It makes no sense to invent a Jesus who is from Galilee. That was my point.

I don't see the virgin birth story as anything besides fabrication, btw.

Ted Hoffman

This reminds me of a beautiful discussion I once had with Amos - he said:
To which I responded:
I apply the same reasoning with Jesus story - even if there are fragments of truth/historicity in the story - the story in its totality - is a myth.
Even if we try and salvage a historical man from the story - well, it wont be the same person in the story.

So, all these attempts - embarrasment criterion, use of pericodes etc - will just give us fragments.
Those fragments were put together to make a mythical being.
The way an actual horn is stuck to an actual horse to make a unicorn.
Unicorns remain mythical.

But more to the point, a mythical Jesus theory has greater explanatory power over a H. Jesus theory. And there are a lot of things to be explained.
The mythical Jesus explains almost everything that was happening in first century galilee.

Toto

I think that this verse is more likely anti-Jewish propaganda rather than a surviving embarrassing piece of evidence. It provides a reason for the Jews to reject Jesus. Read it in context:

Ted Hoffman

Timeless question.
I would like to see an answer for this. Reminds me of the arguments concerning Eusebius and his use of The TF.
Words like "unimaginative" etc come to mind.

Gooch's dad

Yes, Toto, quite possibly that is just anti-Jewish polemic. But doesn't it also give the Jews a solid reason to think that Jesus could not be the messiah?

What if the author(s) of GoJ had said that Jesus was from Bethlehem? Then the Jews wouldn't have an excuse for rejecting Jesus as Messiah. It seems to me that would work far better as anti-Jewish propaganda.

As it is written, those verses show that the Jews are simply following what they believe are the requirements for the Messiah.

It isn't anything close to ironclad proof; not even close. I just think it leans towards an actual historical Galilean as the basis for the stories.

-Kelly

mike_decock

The quest for the "Historical Jesus" is like trying to remove the horn from the mythical unicorn to uncover the real horse the unicorn myth is based on.

Most myth is based in history.

-Mike...

mike_decock

I think the author was addressing the resistence his community was getting in those passages.

Because it is perfectly logical to conclude that they would have added the virgin birth to the legendary (historical) person at a later date to confirm the deity of their Messiah.

"See, he was born of a virgin, too. Just like many of your Gods!"

Nor did he appear to be well acquanted to with the geography of ancient Palestine. If you assume that he was writing down a collection of oral traditions which had been passed around for 40 years (which, apparently, many scholars do), you can assume that the urban myth was based on a real event or person.

-Mike...

godfry n. glad

How do you figure that?

It seems like a wholly unjustified assumption on your part.

godfry

mike_decock

I assume that there is was a Historical Jesus simply because many scholars do. Granted that may not be the best place to start, but I gotta start somewhere. Perhaps it's just a little remnant of my prior beliefs that the Gospels are the "Gospel Truth".

So far, in my amateurish research, I haven't been convinced that Jesus is completely mythical and that there is no historical person on whom the stories are based. So far, the evidence I have explored fits the assumption.

I'm not "fully convinced" that there is a Historical Jesus and I'm not opposed to being convinced otherwise.

-Mike...

godfry n. glad

So....

If I collected all the stories I've heard about Clark Kent and put them all together into a single narrative, you'd assume that Clark Kent existed, as did Superman, his alter ego? Or, would you accept Clark and dispose of Superman as an unbelieveable construct?

So....

You're saying that all mythic creations are based upon historic individuals? Like Pecos Bill and Paul Bunyan? I'd be more likely to accept that many of the tales were invented whole cloth to illustrate or demonstrate some lesson the cultural elders thought important. No need to refer to an actual individual, just invent one, or elaborate upon an existing invention, and the story to go with it and use that to make one's point.

If I remember correctly, this was very common with Judaic teachers. Indeed, I think the term "pesher" is fairly common with Judaic teachers, even as far back as the 1st century BCE.

godfry