Vorkosigan

Ilgwamh posted this in another thread and it was lost in the tumble of posts there. Sorry, Vinnie.

1. The Synoptics and writings of Paul provide sufficient evidence of a historical Jesus. (oh yeah...this baby right here will certainly be disputed!) Paul wrote independent of the Gospels as they didn’t exist and I think his stuff was collected and published after the Gospels.

That depends on how one views them. Paul gives little or no historical details of Jesus' life, especially if 1 Cor 15:3-11 turns out to be a later interpolation, as some scholars think. The gospels are compilations of earlier legends, as source criticism has shown, although no one can agree on the sources, and it is possible that the gospelers invented at least some of it.

2. There is a paucity of surviving first century literature.

Yet, nobody who might be interested in him, Seneca, Philo, Justus of Tiberias, etc, not a one mentions him.

3. There is an even greater paucity of 1st century literature in which the author could have even "conceivably" had knowledge of Jesus or even if they did, any reason to mention Jesus.

Yet, nobody who might be interested in him, Seneca, Philo, Justus of Tiberias, etc, not a one mentions him.

4. He died as a criminal, the death of slaves and rebels. I've read that to both the Jews and to the Romans, being crucified was an ultimate in humiliation and Jesus died next to two nameless criminals..

If the stories are true....if the Romans crucified him....if the Jews did....if it took place under Pilate....you're assuming what's at issue here, namely, the veracity of the gospel traditions.

5. It seems that JBap and guys like the Egyptian posed a bigger political threat than did Jesus--who apparently, didn't even object to paying taxes (render unto caesar...).

Hard to tell. But he did manage to get himself executed, if the gospel traditions are accurate.

6. The Gospels seem to tell us that Jesus was an itinerant preacher. He stayed away from the big cities.

If he was a preacher of some kind, and not a nationalist rebel....or a Cynic philosopher, or a composite figure partaking of ideas from many traditions....

[b]7. From Raymond Brown, Intro to the NT: "The appearance of the word euaggelion in Paul covering a content that would have a similar purpose (Rom 1:1-4; I cor 15:1-8; cf. I Cor 11:23-26) means that Mark was certainly not the first to put together Jesus material for a salvific purpose, even though his was the earliest preserved full narrative."[/i]

This means??????

8. The ardent commitment to the point of death that we know Jesus evoked from those who had known him.

Also true of many myths where the principals were unknown, and even when experience thoroughly debunked the power of the mythic leader, whether historical or not. If they had known him....as I recall, none of the early martyrs were said to have been willing martyrs anyway. The sickness didn't start until the second century.

Also, and remember, the Gnostics disdained martyrdom. And they didn't treat Jesus as a very historical personage, but as a stock legendary figure.

9. The two source theory. Matthew and Luke drew off of Mark and also Q, the hypothetical source document. Would Q count as an outside source even though Matthew and Luke drew off of it and its reconstructed from them? I suspect we probably view the Gospels differently but I have read (Raymond Brown in an intro to the NT) that a good number of scholars accept much of what Mark narrates as factual:

I am sure they do. There is no reason not to, and no reason to. Nothing justifies any gospel position. Is it history or legend? Suppose Mark lied about JBap's relationship with Jesus because it covers up an even more embarassing event -- that JBap denounced Jesus as an imposter. Or that JBap and Jesus never even met. Or that Mark was trying to give the Jesus movement JBap's imprimatur. There are lots of possibilities, and no way to know.

It seems like I am just tossing out speculations, but similar legendary material from other cultures suggests that such creative transformations are common. Why should we take this material at face value when we know other legend cycles can not be taken at face value, but instead creatively integrate historical events, sources, and figures to produce legends?

So complete a silence is perhaps more embarrassing for the mythologists than for their opponents. By what right, indeed, should it be permissible to conclude from it that Jesus never existed, and not permissible to deny that a Christian movement existed in Palestine prior to the year 70?

It is not permissable to deny that a Christian movement existed in 70 because evidence forces us to conclude it did. The issue is to what degree the foundational myths of the cult distort the history of its foundation.

....and gain their good graces. To do this he expunged from the picture he drew everything likely to offend or to excite their apprehension. Thus it is that he has scarcely at all spoken of the Messianic cult which nevertheless constituted the center of Jewish thought in the first century. That he did so was because this cult was a menace to Rome, for the Kingdom of the Messiah could only be built upon the ruins of the Empire.

I can hardly credit that Christianity was "the center of Jewish thought in the first century." Is there something not in context here?


Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

[ June 07, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Below I'll listsome reasons why I feel the paucity is no problem. If you or anyone else has objections to these I would like to read them.

1. The Synoptics and writings of Paul provide sufficient evidence of a historical Jesus. (oh yeah...this baby right here will certainly be disputed!) Paul wrote independent of the Gospels as they didn’t exist and I think his stuff was collected and published after the Gospels.
Even if he wrote independent of the Gospels, that would just prove his version was autonomous. That does not make him an eyewitness. Besides, Paul uses abstract languages and does not directly refer to Jesus as a physical man.
2. There is a paucity of surviving first century literature.How come? Did the so called-church fathers burn all the evidence to make room for myth?
Even if there is that paucity what does that prove? That we are at the Mercy of Eusebius?
In summary, whats your point? I thought u set out to prove that the paucity is not a problem?
[b]3. There is an even greater paucity of 1st century literature in which the author could have even "conceivably" had knowledge of Jesus or even if they did, any reason to mention Jesus[/quote]
You have lost me: which author?
4. He died as a criminal, the death of slaves and rebels. I've read that to both the Jews and to the Romans, being crucified was an ultimate in humiliation and Jesus died next to two nameless criminals..yeah, according to the story..And what does this prove? The story also says he resurrected bodily. That greatly diminishes the criminal treatment.
5. It seems that JBap and guys like the Egyptian posed a bigger political threat than did Jesus--who apparently, didn't even object to paying taxes (render unto caesar...).Then why did they crucify him if he was not a threat?
6. The Gospels seem to tell us that Jesus was an itinerant preacher. He stayed away from the big cities.Stayed away from the big cities, stayed in the small cities what a quibble, whats your point? which cities were small? Going into the "big city" on the back of a donkey? which were these big cities? New York?
7. From Raymond Brown, Intro to the NT: "The appearance of the word euaggelion in Paul covering a content that would have a similar purpose (Rom 1:1-4; I cor 15:1-8; cf. I Cor 11:23-26) means that Mark was certainly not the first to put together Jesus material for a salvific purpose, even though his was the earliest preserved full narrative."[/i]

This means??????
This argument can only appeal to people who believe Mark had a factual story and has a salvific purpose for concoting it.
[b]8. The ardent commitment to the point of death that we know Jesus evoked from those who had known him.
Provide examples of people who died for him. In any case, your argument is false, Judas betrayed him, Peter denied him three times, Thomas doubted him and the rest all but disappeared during the time of reckoning. They even refused to believe "the women" when they claimed Jesus had resurrected.
. The two source theory. Matthew and Luke drew off of Mark and also Q, the hypothetical source document. Would Q count as an outside source even though Matthew and Luke drew off of it and its reconstructed from them? I suspect we probably view the Gospels differently but I have read (Raymond Brown in an intro to the NT) that a good number of scholars accept much of what Mark narrates as factual:The gospel of Q could well have been the Homeric Epics or books on Mythras.
So complete a silence is perhaps more embarrassing for the mythologists than for their opponents. By what right, indeed, should it be permissible to conclude from it that Jesus never existed, and not permissible to deny that a Christian movement existed in Palestine prior to the year 70?
By what right? Logic and reason. Existence of a christian movement does not mean the existence of christ. It means existence of a christian movement.
Yeah reminds me of Noahs flood and Sodom and Gomorrah. Ruins indeed.

CX

Eyewitness to what? Paul never met Jesus.

Not likely. The "church" did not exist until well into the 2nd century and had no power until the 4th century. A more likely reason is the perishability of the writing materials used in the first century. Not only that, but the paucity being referred to is with respect to orthodox texts. Certainly these church fathers you imagine wouldn't burn their own texts.

This is positively incoherent. Q is by definition the material GLk and GMt have in common which is not taken over from GMk. It is largely sayings material with extremely few narrative parts. How could this derive in any way from Homer or Mithraism?

Vinnie

“””””Ilgwamh posted this in another thread and it was lost in the tumble of posts there. Sorry, Vinnie.””””

No problem. That thread certainly evolved. I am copying something over for outsiders so they can have a proper understanding of what I meant. The list itself might be a little misleading without the background info.

This is what I said to Peter Kirby which sparked the rest:

“”””””Your treatment was probably the best overall treatment I've seen yet. I find it hard to drag myself into a discussion on this again. I've realized that whether it was paritally or totally forged, it doesn't really change much. People will often talk about the paucity of non-biblical sources for Jesus as if the lack renders his historicity problematic or unlikely. I find talk of that nature to be problematic. I'd rather focus on the Gospels and fine tune that methodology Vorkosigan keeps asking for.””””””””

Even if we accept a partial-TF what does it tell us? It tells us a few facts.

According to Luke Timothy Johnson:

“Stripped of its obvious Christian accretions (indicated here by italics), the passage tells us a number of important things about Jesus, from the perspective of a first-century Jewish historian. Josephus asserts that Jesus was both a teacher and a wonder worker, that he got into trouble with some of the leaders of the Jews, that he was exectuted under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and that his followers continued to exist as the time of Josephus’s writing” LTJ, The Real Jesus, P 114

All in all I think the outside evidence (not only Josephus) can tell us a few things but I don’t think its worth all the debating. I think other areas like the Gospels are worth discussing. I could be wrong though.

The other idea in what I said was this: the paucity of sources for Jesus does not really render his historicity unlikely or problematic. Then I was asked by Vorkosigan :

To which it is my basic response that each case is different. I do not find the paucity of 1st century outsider literature concerning Jesus (and I am only speaking of Jesus here) problematic for several reasons which I outlined.

With that out of the way:

You said Paul gives little or no? Which is it? Are you uncertain. Or is it because of 1 Cor 15:3-11 that you say this? If in interpolation none, if not a little? What is the possible “little” that you speak of.

It should be noted here that Gospels give very little information concerning the details of Jesus’ life. The Gospels focus almost entirely on Jesus’ministry. They are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. They concentrate solely on his ministry and end of his life. Do you mean that Paul gives very little or no details about Jesus’ ministry as found in the synoptics? I think Paul gives us a fair amount of details.

Can you demonstrate how the Gospels are compilations of earlier legends or at least post some evidence concerning it? I would probably say its more than possible that the Gospel authors invented some things. I’d say they did but that’s me.

Going on to numbers two, three, and four:

Of course, you realize that in number 4, where you claim I am “assuming what is at issue here” the same thing is done by those who assert that the paucity presents a problem. In order for one to claim a paucity of literature concerning Jesus in the 1st century renders the likelihood of his historicity improbable then they must do so on the assumption of a Jesus who would catch people’s eyes. A man who would be note worthy. One who would make waves in Rome. I don’t feel a modest picture of Jesus drawn from the Gospels would have caught many eyes. As I quoted Sanders in the other thread:

To throw out an example, If I thought Jesus had invaded the heart of Rome with 10,000 men following him and did all sorts like killing many many Romans (but who was then conquered himself) I WOULD NOT expect such a paucity. Do you understand what I am getting at? The "true Jesus" is largely a determining factor of whether or not there should be copious amounts of outsider literature.

So did the two nameless criminals he died next to if the gospel traditions are accurate.

Your point is well understood. There are many different pictures of Jesus drawn up. Do you agree that to assume a paucity presents a problem is to assume a certain type of Jesus as well? That’s my point, though I certainly have my own bias as to the “true Jesus.”

Well you are arguing around it. Basically ,it probably gets some material back earlier and many scholars are probably under the assumption Jesus died anywhere from 26 to 36 AD. Of ourse you would argue they have no reason to do so. The earliest isn’t necessarily the best but it doesn’t hurt to look for the earliest stratum. Though I think much of the NT (Paul and the Gospels especially) are all consistent if one looks for a ”messianic pattern.”

What are the many myths that you have in mind? How are they similar to the Jesus myth? Also, how does it factor in the cross? In the first century was not the cross a place of horror? A few quotes from Gerald O Collins, Christology:
An ardent commitment to the point of death over something that was scandalously offensive? I read in O Collins’ Christology that when Paul spoke of a Crucified messiah it might have been almost like a smack in the face to his readers (IIRC). Though I guess 1st century Jewish messianic expectations can be argued.

Actually, scholars have different Gospel presuppositions. Crossan goes through some of his in The Birth of Christianity. The chapter is called admitting Gospel presuppositions (IIRC).
Some might ascribe a more sober point of view to Mark than you. I remember Sanders saying a few times in The Historical Figure of Jesus that Christian creativity seemed to be limited. The best place (possibly one of the only places) for us to check is concerning the two source view. We can see how Luke and Matthew omit and add to accounts. We could also look at the creation of miracle accounts and see the level of creativity. IIRC, I remember Sanders at this point saying the creativity was limited. I lent the book to a friend though so I can’t look up the reference.

To answer your question: IMO, its not history or legend.

Well, scholars like Sanders say that Christian creativity wasn’t too high. I don’t see why we can say its all legend or all history. The answer lies in the middle. I agree that it is extremely hard, if not impossible to reconstruct a thourough historical Jesus from the text with current practices. That doesn’t mean nothing is knowable. I just read Luke Timothy Johnson’s the real Jesus and he seemed to mention the lack of methodology that you speak of. Basically he said that those who try to reconstruct Jesus (Meier, Crossan et al) make a fundamental error. The historical method usually strips the Gospel of its narrative framework. Once stripped of that framework the movable pericopes lose their meaning. For example, was Jesus baptized at the beginning, middle or end of his ministry? To Quote Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus, pp. 125-126:

Once you remove the narrative framework the pieces can be put together in multiple ways. Maybe that is why we see so many different pictures of Jesus to the point where, as Crossan says, historical Jesus research is becoming a bit of a scholarly bad joke (IIRC). So Vorkosigan, I might agree with you that the methodology is lacking. We can’t put many of the pieces together reasonably when we abandon the Gospel narratives. We might not be able to historically reconstruct Jesus with real certainty. But that does not mean the basic facts can’t be known according to scholars. Its just we can’t arrange many of them meaningfully. Once you strip the narrative framework we have a list of facts, without context, without meaning—on a purely historical level.

This was quoted before it:

I quoted it in reference to the paucity issue. The issue is does a lack of reference to Jesus from Josephus permit us to argue against his historicity. No, Josephus doesn't mention Christianity of Jesus (if the Tf is all forged and the other reference is like 6 words or something). If the silence means we can infer Jesus never existed why doesn't it mean we can infer Christianity didn’t exist? That is what I meant by the quote. Its addressing an argument from silence. Josepuhs is largely silent about Christianity and Jesus. If the TF is not forged, as Sander says, in the eyes of the historian Josephus, Jesus warranted a paragraph. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yeah, I’m not so sure it was either. The point I agreed with was this:

Then he goes on to call the messianic cult the center of Christian thought.

Vinnie

Vinnie

“””””Even if he wrote independent of the Gospels, that would just prove his version was autonomous.”””””

That’s it? What about converging lines of evidence or multiple attestation (MA). Do you deny MA as a valid historical tool?

Also, what do you mean by “prove”? History works in terms of probability and rarely in terms of certainty doesn’t it? Certain things may be historically certain but that’s not how all history works is it? History = reconstruction based off of limited knowledge. I don’t think it is an exact science.

“”””That does not make him an eyewitness. “”””””

CX is right. Paul, buy his own admission never knew the historical Jesus. No one here is claiming he is an eyewitness. Some might claim he met and spoke with eyewitnesses though.

“””””””””Besides, Paul uses abstract languages and does not directly refer to Jesus as a physical man.”””””””””

Are you saying Paul’s intended audience probably didn’t understand many of his words or that you don’t as a person reading them 2,000 years later? Also, I think Paul shows genuine knowledge of a human Jesus (from traditions passed on to him). He seems to have assumed his audiences heard of the Jesus story in some of his writings as well.

“””””How come? Did the so called-church fathers burn all the evidence to make room for myth? “”””
Hey, I once read that the book burning wasn’t as bad as its sometimes portrayed. Care to comment on that?

Since those seem to be rhetorical questions why don’t you answer them for us. That or see CX’s response.

“””””””In summary, whats your point? I thought u set out to prove that the paucity is not a problem?”””””

I set out against the idea that a paucity of outside sources for Jesus renders his historicity problematic or unlikely. The FACT that we do not have very much surviving first century literature amputates that claim severely. The best one can do is as Vorkosigan has done. Name a FEW authors that “possibly could have had interest” in Jesus. After all is said and done it’s a weak argument from silence.


“”””yeah, according to the story..And what does this prove? The story also says he resurrected bodily. That greatly diminishes the criminal treatment.””””””

How does it greatly diminish the criminal treatment? I think you need to brush up on miracles and the ancient world. View them from the perspective of their respective ancient writers rather than from the post Enlightenment world. I could be wrong though.

“”””””Then why did they crucify him if he was not a threat?””””

I never said he was not a threat. I said others were bigger threats. I also qualified threatwith the world political. I admit I may have had a quote from Blomberg in mind when I wrote it:

“”””When we realize that ancient historians focused almost entirely on the exploits of political and military leaders or officially recognized religious and philosophical spokespersons, one should not be surprised…… Jesus Under Fire 40 Craig Blomberg”””””””

Sander’s argues he was crucified because of the temple incident but see my comments to Vorkosigan above on that.

“””Stayed away from the big cities, stayed in the small cities what a quibble, whats your point?””””

Who said anything about small cities? My point is that he was an itinerant preacher who taught in the obscure backwaters of the Roman empire.


“””””””Going into the "big city" on the back of a donkey? which were these big cities? New York?”””””””

Yeah, they were originally the “triplet towers” but Jesus crashed his donkey into one of them destroying it. I honestly have no clue as to what you are talking about. What does New York have to do with anything here? Can you please clarify?

I can’t get to the rest of your responses. I fear the quality of my comments is deteriorating. I sense a lot of sarcasm, assumptions and rhetoric (I could be wrong, Its hard to judge thoughts behind text on a message board sometimes) in your post. I am having trouble not succumbing to the level which I subjectively see as being of lower quality. My apologies to all.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Thanks Ilgwamh for the clarification.
CXSo we meet again
Eyewitness to what? Paul never met Jesus.
Eyewitness to christs deeds, speeches, actions and life. My point was that because of that, Pauls testimony can not be used as evidence for existence of a historical Jesus (as Ilgwamh had said) because it is hearsay not a reliable eyewitness account.
Are we clear?
Not likely. The "church" did not exist until well into the 2nd century and had no power until the 4th century. A more likely reason is the perishability of the writing materials used in the first century. Not only that, but the paucity being referred to is with respect to orthodox texts. Certainly these church fathers you imagine wouldn't burn their own texts.
If the perishability was the issue, tell us how the old testament Pentateuch survived through the ages.
Dont you consider the OT orthodox? What materials did they write on that was so perishable? The Babylonoian civilization(1728-1686 B.C.E. (old)
625-539 B.C.E. (new), Sumerian Civilization (3200-2360 B.C.E.) and Egyptian Civilization 2850-715 B.C.E had advanced in the art of writing and its incomprehensible that the art of writing on parchments and papyri, stones etc which were fairly "durable" was not available for those who would want to write orthodox texts. What about the Council of Nicenes (325 C.E.) dont you think is possible that through their deciion, a lot of text could have been destroyed?
This is positively incoherent. Q is by definition the material GLk and GMt have in common which is not taken over from GMk. It is largely sayings material with extremely few narrative parts. How could this derive in any way from Homer or Mithraism?
Don't beat yourself to death about it. I said "Could have" (hence speculation) you have asserted "could not have". Its not incoherent. Its incorrect and I agree with you.
anyway, Ilgwamh said "...a good number of scholars accept much of what Mark narrates as factual "
First of all as already agreed upon, concensus means nothing in biblical scholarship and is not to be compared with consensus in other "exact" fields with laid out methodologies like science.
Secondly, Mark narrating them as factual does not make them factual.

Ilgwamh
I don’t feel a modest picture of Jesus drawn from the Gospels would have caught many eyes
Modest picture? rising from the dead? claiming that he was the son of God? raising people from the dead? seeing the future? cursing trees? walking on water? changing water to wine? multiplying food? whipping the money changers out of church? calling gentiles dogs? threatening people that there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Are those the acts of a modest person?

What modest picture are you talking about? the one that is inexistent?

on Sanders quote:
See, to them. So he is talking about opinion. Viewpoints, NOT facts.
We are not interested in what he was to them: we are interested in what he was - TO everyone who knew anything about him. The whole picture NOT an angle.
In any case, the Romans could not have known the day-to-day Jesus as could the Jews, whom he lived among. So their viewpoint really can't hold much water.
...The "true Jesus" is largely a determining factor of whether or not there should be copious amounts of outsider literature.
This is a valid point BUT, how come the Jews did not write about his life until many years later?
The "true Jesus" could have been of little fame because people outside his "area of influence" found the belief about him ridiculous. You need to debunk this hypothesis. The Jews at that time were in great psychological need of a messiah and were prone to "hero-making" or hero-worship maybe the acts and role they attributed to Jesus were completely baseless and thus other people treated Jesus like the ordinary man that he was. Even some Jews (Judaists) today still dont share the beliefs some of the ancient Jews held regarding Jesus.
So your main challenge would be to demonstrate how such a "extraordinary " individual managed to live such an ordinary life. I believe all sorts of ailments were afflicting people those days and I would imagine people would travel from far places to come and get healed by Jesus. So even if he desired to lead a "smalltime" life, his fame would have spread and he would have been reknown at least outside the region he lived. Thus the Romans would have ended up mentioning a lot about him. But that is not the case as you have said. Why?

If he was just an ordinary man who came for the Jews, why are we discussing about him?

Ilgwamh: It seems that JBap and guys like the Egyptian posed a bigger political threat than did Jesus--who apparently, didn't even object to paying taxes (render unto caesar...).
Vorkosigan: Hard to tell. But he did manage to get himself executed, if the gospel traditions are accurate.

Ilgwamh: So did the two nameless criminals he died next to if the gospel traditions are accurate.
The two nameless criminals had no inscription on their crosses saying "King of the Jews".
They were not marched in the streets. Before being crucified. Why was that "necessary" for Jesus.
They did not rise from the dead. Their bodies, I would imagine, did not go missing.

Do you agree that to assume a paucity presents a problem is to assume a certain type of Jesus as well?
I disagree. If there is insufficient evidence, we should withhold judgement. You are implying that we have such a desperate need to have a Jesus so that if there is conflict in the images presented of Jesus or if there is paucity of evidence, we conjure an image that we find most plausible. If there is a conflict in evidence or insufficient evidence then we lack a basis for conceiving what kind of being Jesus was.
And as you have said: ...That’s my point, though I certainly have my own bias as to the “true Jesus.” We will all end up concoting some image of Jesus that appeals to us then we will end up with many Jesuses. That would only serve to distort the truth further (assuming there is any truth in that morass of propaganda, myth and fabrication).

...We can’t put many of the pieces together reasonably when we abandon the Gospel narratives. We might not be able to historically reconstruct Jesus with real certainty. But that does not mean the basic facts can’t be known according to scholars. Its just we can’t arrange many of them meaningfully. Once you strip the narrative framework we have a list of facts, without context, without meaning—on a purely historical level.
If it cant survive without the narrative framework, then it cant be history.
To ask us to force ourselves to peer at the events through the smog of narrative framework is a form of special pleading. It has to be subjected to the thorough scrutiny bereft of the mysterious cloak of narrative hyperbole like any other event in history.

If the silence means we can infer Jesus never existed why doesn't it mean we can infer Christianity didn’t exist? That is what I meant by the quote. Its addressing an argument from silence. Josepuhs is largely silent about Christianity and Jesus. If the TF is not forged, as Sander says, in the eyes of the historian Josephus, Jesus warranted a paragraph. Nothing more, nothing less.
That paragraph was used extensively by Eusebius. So you can't wave it away just because it was the only one. It declared Jesus as a Miracle worker and as a Messiah. That was enough.
The birth of Christianity is largely credited to Paul, who preached to the gentiles. Jesus never did that. He never bothered to write to people outside his proximity to bolster their faith and bring a sense of togetherness.
And you are comitting a logical fallacy of false cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc) by associating the existence of christ to the existence of christianity. The Jews had a belief that the messiah would come before Jesus. And Jesus need not have existed physically for christianity to have flourished. Does the existence of Hare Krishna adherents prove that Krishna existed? History has shown that religions are based on shared belief not on verified facts.
That’s it? What about converging lines of evidence or multiple attestation (MA). Do you deny MA as a valid historical tool? Yes I do, BUT MA cannot be applied meaningfully to the Gospels because of the rampant plagiarism evident in them. To ask us to apply MA in the gospels is to commit the locical fallacy of appeal to common practice. MA has exceptions. In any case, the credibility they gospels could have gleaned from MA are hugely eroded by the evident contradictions, falsifiable incidences, lack of naturalistic plausibility and incoherent nature of the narratives.
Also, what do you mean by “prove”? History works in terms of probability and rarely in terms of certainty doesn’t it? Certain things may be historically certain but that’s not how all history works is it? History = reconstruction based off of limited knowledge. I don’t think it is an exact science.
I agree with u that history is not an exact science. BUT history does not claim that people walked on water and that tombs opened and the dead walked from death. When a story does that, then it is not history and cannot be subjected to the same treatment historical materials are subjected to.
We then politely demand for supporting evidence for the extraordinary claims before they can be accepted in the annals of history.

CX is right. Paul, buy his own admission never knew the historical Jesus. No one here is claiming he is an eyewitness. Some might claim he met and spoke with eyewitnesses though.I reiterate my agreement with you on this. My point was, there is no need to mention Paul because his writings are not of any evidentiary value in the quest for a historical christ. His narratives are just evidence of exisence of a belief.

Are you saying Paul’s intended audience probably didn’t understand many of his words or that you don’t as a person reading them 2,000 years later? Also, I think Paul shows genuine knowledge of a human Jesus (from traditions passed on to him). He seems to have assumed his audiences heard of the Jesus story in some of his writings as well.
Ditto
Hey, I once read that the book burning wasn’t as bad as its sometimes portrayed. Care to comment on that?

Since those seem to be rhetorical questions why don’t you answer them for us. That or see CX’s response.
They were not meant to be rhetorical. A theory that leaves many related questions unanswered is considered invalid. Well, he(CX) answered it quite well by responding that the perishability of the writing materials was the cause of the paucity of the orthodox texts. I was thinking more in the line of "the Romans burned them"
Why do you see them as rhetorical?
I set out against the idea that a paucity of outside sources for Jesus renders his historicity problematic or unlikely. The FACT that we do not have very much surviving first century literature amputates that claim severely. The best one can do is as Vorkosigan has done. Name a FEW authors that “possibly could have had interest” in Jesus. After all is said and done it’s a weak argument from silence.
Sure some believe that Julius Caesar existed. Even without evidence. There is nothing he did that was outside the realm of nature. Its not the same to believe that a man was born of a virgin, raised people from the dead, walked on water etc.
One would demand for hard evidence in order to believe such a person existed.
Lack of evidence (the paucity in question) would serve to reinforce the unlikelihood of such a person existing.

Argument from silence is not weak when the silence is pervasive and is found where none is expected. As Earl Doherty states:
To appeal to the "argument from silence" fallacy is to commit another fallacy of appeal to common practice. We cannot just apply common principles blindly even while good sense dictates that its judicious in some cases to sidestep such practices. We are not slaves to guidelines we have designed.
I don't buy it.
And the literature does not have to be 1st century lit (this is an attempt to shift focus - a red herring). What's important is that the silence is there even in those 2nd - 5th century literatures.

How does it greatly diminish the criminal treatment? I think you need to brush up on miracles and the ancient world. View them from the perspective of their respective ancient writers rather than from the post Enlightenment world. I could be wrong though.
When a man dies as a criminal, then he rises from the dead, the fact that he rose from the dead overrides his death as a criminal. So to tell us he died like a criminal is to call our attention to a trivial issue. A quibble.

I never said he was not a threat. I said others were bigger threats. I also qualified threatwith the world political. I admit I may have had a quote from Blomberg in mind when I wrote it:
Point taken
Intensity: Stayed away from the big cities, stayed in the small cities what a quibble, whats your point?
Ilwagmh: Who said anything about small cities? My point is that he was an itinerant preacher who taught in the obscure backwaters of the Roman empire.
Stayed away from the big cities means he stayed in the small (or medium if u will) cities. I dont see the point his being an intinerant preacher proves. How is it relevant? He was also a kind of a hermit (wandering in the wilderness for 40 days), he was a party person (transfrom water into wine at a wedding) he was an emotional freak (sweating blood), he was a loving person who loved kids (let the children come to me), he had a sense of justice (let he who has never sinned cast the first stone), he was a pacifist(turn the other cheek) a wise man (those parables), a magician( water to wine, 2/5 pieces of loaves or and/or fish to many), a healer (lepers healed, blind saw), an itinerant preacher and so on and so on.
So, why should his being an itinerant preacher be so important while he had so many facets?
Yeah, they were originally the “triplet towers” but Jesus crashed his donkey into one of them destroying it. I honestly have no clue as to what you are talking about. What does New York have to do with anything here? Can you please clarify?My point was, I thought Jerusalem was a big city then. If U say he stayed away from the big cities, then which big cities were those?
The NY part was rhetorical, I admit and apologise. (You don't seem to like rhetorical questions very much - dont you know they are a literary device?)
I am having trouble not succumbing to the level which I subjectively see as being of lower quality. My apologies to all.
Lower quality? My God.

Vinnie

”””””Eyewitness to christs deeds, speeches, actions and life. My point was that because of that, Pauls testimony can not be used as evidence for existence of a historical Jesus (as Ilgwamh had said) because it is hearsay not a reliable eyewitness account. Are we clear?”””””

Actually, Paul can be used to reflect the current situation in certain areas. My readings tell me that his letters assume his audience has heard of the Jesus story in a few places. Paul also did believe Jesus to be a historical figure as reflected in his writings. Paul, by his own admission never knew Jesus but it can be argued that he hung around with the guys who did and received the tradition they passed on. (that’s all repetitive thought)

Also look at Acts 20: 35 In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.' "

Of course that is Lukan and not Pauline, but words are ascribed to Paul here. Paul is quoting a saying not found in the fourfold Gospel. A historical reminiscence? Or is that hearsay as well because Luke (a companion of Paul!?) is putting the words in his mouth.


Are you saying that you only accept eyewitness accounts?

To go with the general scholarly approach today, the Gospels are considered secondary sources. They drew on earlier sources. So you will only accept primary sources? The individual must be an eyewitness? I’ve once read “If you expect contemporary primary source material on every historical individual, be it Plato, Apollonius, Alex the great, etc., there would be no history.”

I’m not sure we can label something hearsay and unreliable on a historical level because its not an eyewitness account. That doesn’t seem to be how historians operate or how historical methodology works but I’m not 100% sure. Can you quote a history textbook or something where it says “Only eyewitness texts are taken into account in studies of the ancient world.” That view is completely new to me.

“”””””I don’t feel a modest picture of Jesus drawn from the Gospels would have caught many eyes
Modest picture? rising from the dead? claiming that he was the son of God? raising people from the dead? seeing the future? cursing trees? walking on water? changing water to wine? multiplying food? whipping the money changers out of church? calling gentiles dogs? threatening people that there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Are those the acts of a modest person?
What modest picture are you talking about? the one that is inexistent?”””””

I meant “DRAWN” in the sense that we have to pull it out through meticulous and painstaking research (if we even can but I can go reduction ad absurdum anyways so its irrelevant). The point is that Jesus would not have caught many eyes. The Gospels are religious texts, not exact biographical history. I think you should do a study on miracles and the ancient world. Try to understand the text without your post-enlightenment reasoning. The belief in miracles was widespread in the ancient world. Are all of the all of the "miracle" accounts in the ancient world deliberate falsehoods? The placebo effect. Modern medical science would accept pyschosomatic healings as genuine and scientifically plausible. Ancient society was more susceptible to miracles than our post-enlightenment world. At one point didn't Jesus express the idea that faith was necessary for healing? Also, to ancient people, one miracle was just as good as another. If God could heal a person he could allow a man to walk on water etc. They didn't have the same distinction as we do. From E.P. Sanders:

Some who accept that certain "miracles" are impossible will use these as basic explanations (paraphrased from Sanders, Ibid.):

1. Pyschosomatic cures or mind over body. These type of cures could cover exorcisms, healing of the blind, deaf, dumb, paralysed and possible the woman with hte haemorrage.

2. Some could have developed from coincidences. Maybe during the sotrm Jesus said something like "Peace, be still" and the stormed died out.

3. Some miracles may have been only apparent. For instance, the walking on water. Perhaps he was on land but a low mist made it look like sea or he knew where there were submerged rocks.

4. Group psychology has been often used to explain the feeding miracles. Everyone brought food but was afraid of having to share it. When Jesus and the disciples started sharing everyone saw it and did the same and there was sufficient and to spare.

5. Some may be historicizing legends like Peter walking on water. His character failings are mentioned a few times in the gospels and the account of him walking on water could only be a pictorial representation of his character failing. It delineates his weakness by narrating a brief legend.

Regarding number 4 it is interesting to note the crowd reaction during the feeding miracles. Great public impact was attributed to a "minor" miracle by Mark (1.28) while the feeding of a multitude drew very little response it seems from the Gospel accounts. "They ate and were satisfied." Highly suspicisous isn’t it? More likely than not, some Christian creativity went into the miracle accounts.

The accounts may be highly ridiculous to you but we need to understand them as historical texts in light of their context and situation. Miracle workers were common back then and very few people probably doubted miracles IMO. The modest picture (to people in the first century!!!) is gleaned through reconstruction, not through post-enlightenment eyes and inaccurately taking everything the Gospels say as accurate (whether you assume this as a reductio ad absurdum argument or whatever). I’m not sure the picture of Jesus can be “modest” to you given modern assumptions. My charge of modest applies to the first century.

“””””””See, to them. So he is talking about opinion. Viewpoints, NOT facts.
We are not interested in what he was to them: we are interested in what he was - TO everyone who knew anything about him. The whole picture NOT an angle.
In any case, the Romans could not have known the day-to-day Jesus as could the Jews, whom he lived among. So their viewpoint really can't hold much water.””””””

Are we discussing the same issue here? The paucity of outside literature? The point is to them (if they had ever heard of him) he was just a rabble-rouser. As Sanders said “Most of the first-century literature that survives was written by members of the very small elite class of the Roman empire. To them, Jesus (if they heard of him at all) was merely a troublesome rabble-rouser and magician in a small, backward part of the world.” Whats so hard to understand? We are discussing the paucity of outside sources and why they aren’t a problem IMO aren’t we? And Sanders also said concerning “the them” that most of our surviving first century literature is from them. Why are we not interested in that issue given the topic at hand?


“””””””Ilgwamh: So did the two nameless criminals he died next to if the gospel traditions are accurate.
The two nameless criminals had no inscription on their crosses saying "King of the Jews".
They were not marched in the streets. Before being crucified. Why was that "necessary" for Jesus.
They did not rise from the dead. Their bodies, I would imagine, did not go missing.”””””

Again, this is in the context of outside references, the paucity and why its not an issue.

“”””””Do you agree that to assume a paucity presents a problem is to assume a certain type of Jesus as well?
I disagree. If there is insufficient evidence, we should withhold judgement. You are implying that we have such a desperate need to have a Jesus so that if there is conflict in the images presented of Jesus or if there is paucity of evidence, we conjure an image that we find most plausible. If there is a conflict in evidence or insufficient evidence then we lack a basis for conceiving what kind of being Jesus was.”””””””

That makes no sense. You disagree with what? You are talking about something completely different than what you quoted from me. Earlier I said “...The "true Jesus" is largely a determining factor of whether or not there should be copious amounts of outsider literature.” To which you said “This is a valid point.” You offered a “but” after the admission but now you disagree with it entirely? Again, the context is outside references. I think you might be missing this point.

If there is insufficient evidence then yes, withhold judgement.


“”””””That paragraph was used extensively by Eusebius. So you can't wave it away just because it was the only one. It declared Jesus as a Miracle worker and as a Messiah. That was enough.””””””

The majority of reasonable people are under the impression that Josephus would not call Jesus the messiah.

“””""The birth of Christianity is largely credited to Paul, who preached to the gentiles.””””"""

By who? Prove that Christianity was created by Paul.


“””And you are comitting a logical fallacy of false cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc) by associating the existence of christ to the existence of christianity.”””

No, I think you are reading what I am arguing wrong. I’m finding it evident that you have all these evangelical and fundamentalist assumptions that permeate through your arguments. Do you argue with fundamentalists and evangelicals a lot or did you use to be one?

“”””””That’s it? What about converging lines of evidence or multiple attestation (MA). Do you deny MA as a valid historical tool? Yes I do, BUT MA cannot be applied meaningfully to the Gospels because of the rampant plagiarism evident in them. To ask us to apply MA in the gospels is to commit the locical fallacy of appeal to common practice. MA has exceptions. In any case, the credibility they gospels could have gleaned from MA are hugely eroded by the evident contradictions, falsifiable incidences, lack of naturalistic plausibility and incoherent nature of the narratives.””””””””

Yes, Mark, Luke and Matthew cannot be seen as 3 totally independent witnesses because of Marcan priority. But we have Q, Mark, Paul, possibly John. Plus if you posit Luke and Matthew used other sources and can reconstruct those with any level or certainty we have those. Most scholars are under the impression that Matthew and Luke wrote independent of one another though there are some who argue against that. I’d throw a partially reconstructed TF in there as well. Tacitus, Suetonius may be brought up as well but Tacitus was probably going off what he heard. Also, Paul wrote independent of the Gospels.

“””””"When a man dies as a criminal, then he rises from the dead, the fact that he rose from the dead overrides his death as a criminal. So to tell us he died like a criminal is to call our attention to a trivial issue. A quibble.”””””

If this actually happened are you saying that there was no early polemic against it?

“”””"”how come the Jews did not write about his life until many years later? “””””

Why should they have and how do you know no one did?


””””””The "true Jesus" could have been of little fame because people outside his "area of influence" found the belief about him ridiculous. “””””””

The same thing can be said today

“”””””You need to debunk this hypothesis. The Jews at that time were in great psychological need of a messiah and were prone to "hero-making" or hero-worship maybe the acts and role they attributed to Jesus were completely baseless and thus other people treated Jesus like the ordinary man that he was.”””””””

I’ll attempt a debunking once you substantiate that Jews were in great need of a messiah and were prone to hero making and this is what happened to Jesus.

“”””””””So your main challenge would be to demonstrate how such a "extraordinary " individual managed to live such an ordinary life. I believe all sorts of ailments were afflicting people those days and I would imagine people would travel from far places to come and get healed by Jesus. “””””””””””

Ever hear of the “messianic secret”. Your reductio ad absurdum argument is not applicable in my case. I don’t accept all the miracle accounts as genuine nor the details of the story.

“”””If he was just an ordinary man who came for the Jews, why are we discussing about him?””””””

Well, if he wasn’t anointed by God I take it we would be discussing him because of the huge impact this man has had on western civilization. Unless you’re a Christ-myther because then we would be discussing why this religion that started out as a small cult has had such a huge impact on the world.

Vinnie

CX

Evidently. I'll try to contain my enthusiasm.

Indeed and I agree. We cannot take Paul's testimony as proof of the HJ, but it seems reasonable to conclude, as some dispute, that Paul believed Jesus was an historical person. Though that is perhaps neither here nor there with respect to the current discussion.

The earliest orthodox texts of the OT we have actual MSS are quite a bit later than the hypothesized original composition. So it seems to me the case of the OT is perfectly analogous and proves my point. By the time we have MSS attestation to the OT we also have an established Temple Cult system and the Jewish Temple Cult has some measure of power and influence politically. This is precisely the same thing we see in Xianity. Early on there is nothing; later (4th century) once the church is more highly structured and has some measure of socio-politcal influence, there are MSS. Perhaps I should have emphasized the combination of perishable writing materials with limited numbers of adherents and non-existant politcal power.
It's not just incorrect it doesn't make sense. I can see no way to even compare Q with the homeric epics or the Avesta. That the Judeo-Xian mythos may have elements of other religions in it is plausible, but equating Q with anything besides what it is is nonsensical.

Ted Hoffman

Ilgwamh

Of course that is Lukan and not Pauline, but words are ascribed to Paul here. Paul is quoting a saying not found in the fourfold Gospel. A historical reminiscence? Or is that hearsay as well because Luke (a companion of Paul!?) is putting the words in his mouth.
Hearsay my dear. Hearsay testimony is not reliable. Thats why it is not allowed in court.

Are you saying that you only accept eyewitness accounts?
For people who have bias (believers) I need eyewitnesses. Multiple attestation also applies in the absence of plagiarism and embellishment.
Then we can consider archaeological evidence and what historians of that time wrote that is relevant.
Then naturalistic plausibility.
Then resistance to falsification and so on. So even an eyewitness will have to go through the whole drill.
“If you expect contemporary primary source material on every historical individual, be it Plato, Apollonius, Alex the great, etc., there would be no history.”
It depends on what the so called "secondary sources" are claiming. If they claim a man resurrected, we need more info. If someone comes and tells me "Hey, there lived a man in 2000 BCE called Ilgwamh who had six wives and loved fishing". I can believe that. But if you say "He talked to the fish and his women got pregnant without having intercourse" you bet, I will ask for more.
Appolonius of Tyanas story is easily dismissible. No one is promoting it as factual anyway.

I’m not sure we can label something hearsay and unreliable on a historical level because its not an eyewitness account. That doesn’t seem to be how historians operate or how historical methodology works but I’m not 100% sure
A historian does not have to be skeptical. But we the people who read stuff from historians decide what to accept and what to question and what to reject. Hostorians have had no problem with ordinary folks because they dont claim that people rise from the dead or walk on water. So even non-eyewitness accounts are acceptable.
The guiding factor is the claims being made. Outrageous claims demand strict treatment you have a problem with that?

Try to understand the text without your post-enlightenment reasoning.
My post-enlightenement reasoning is all I have. You are resorting to special pleading.
You are like someone asking one to stop using a microscope while examining bacteria.

The accounts may be highly ridiculous to you but we need to understand them as historical texts in light of their context and situation
They are simply incredible. We have a duty to take them apart and expose them for what they are: absurd.

The belief in miracles was widespread in the ancient world. Are all of the all of the "miracle" accounts in the ancient world deliberate falsehoods?
Some were, most were based on ignorance which begets gullibility. They had no critical thinking skills.

I’m not sure the picture of Jesus can be “modest” to you given modern assumptions. My charge of modest applies to the first century.
Come on, he would not have been killed if he was modest. Modest people dont whip money-changers, even in the 1st century, it was not a modest thing to claim to be the son of God. It is not a modest thing to turn water into wine (or you wanna tell me he put some alcohol in the water?) this modest picture you are insisting on is immanent in your mind: its not evident.

Why are we not interested in that issue given the topic at hand?
Ok, so if they say what he was to them, that is evidence that the paucity outside sources is not a problem?
My point was that because it was opinion, it was not info that can be used to establish the historicity of Jesus. With or without paucity.

If there is insufficient evidence then yes, withhold judgement
Oh, thank you so much.
I disagreed with you saying that "to assume a paucity presents a problem is to assume a certain type of Jesus as well". Without adequate evidence, there is no case, there is no Jesus. To assume a certain type of Jesus without adequate info would be very speculative and fallacious.
In the face of paucity of info, I believe the best way would be the agnostic way. Not the "certain" type way. Because the "certain type" way can result in the following types of Jesuses:

• A miracle worker
  A healer
  A rebel
  A hermit(40 days alone in the desert)
  A revolutionary
  A prophet
  A Rabbi (so called Rabbi Yeoshua)
  A messiah
  A modest son of a carpenter

And so on and so forth. The we will have people clinging to the "type" that they find most applealing or useful to them.
And that would only serve to distort the truth further.

The majority of reasonable people are under the impression that Josephus would not call Jesus the messiahThen please leave it out of this discussion.

By who? Prove that Christianity was created by Paul.Jesus never called the Gentiles to him. He never declared that he came for Gentiles. He chose 12 disciples to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. He never travelled to other countries to preach. He restricted himself to Jews.
Paul travelled all over and said Jesus did not come for the Jews alone. He modelled christianity to be consumable by Romans and others.
Thus Christianity was born.
Thats as far as my "proof" goes. You can research more on this. I do not need any authors to tell me who preached to the gentiles. If you do, thats fine, but you will have to seek them out or reject my assertion. Its not that important to me that you accept it.

No, I think you are reading what I am arguing wrong. I’m finding it evident that you have all these evangelical and fundamentalist assumptions that permeate through your arguments. Do you argue with fundamentalists and evangelicals a lot or did you use to be one?Irrelevant question. This is what you asked:

If the silence means we can infer Jesus never existed why doesn't it mean we can infer Christianity didn’t exist? and I said:
you are comitting a logical fallacy of false cause (Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc) by associating the existence of christ to the existence of christianity

Now, what am I reading wrong?

Yes, Mark, Luke and Matthew cannot be seen as 3 totally independent witnesses because of Marcan priority. But we have Q, Mark, Paul, possibly John. Plus if you posit Luke and Matthew used other sources and can reconstruct those with any level or certainty we have those. Most scholars are under the impression that Matthew and Luke wrote independent of one another though there are some who argue against that. I’d throw a partially reconstructed TF in there as well. Tacitus, Suetonius may be brought up as well but Tacitus was probably going off what he heard. Also, Paul wrote independent of the Gospels.
This is irrelevant. The point is, MA cannot be used to argue for the authenticity of the gospels for the rasons you have given and those I gave.

Because you had said earlier:
That’s it? What about converging lines of evidence or multiple attestation (MA). Do you deny MA as a valid historical tool?

I said:
When a man dies as a criminal, then he rises from the dead, the fact that he rose from the dead overrides his death as a criminal. So to tell us he died like a criminal is to call our attention to a trivial issue. A quibble
You then asked:
If this actually happened are you saying that there was no early polemic against it?
How is the presence of early polemic against it relevant? Why do you choose to use the word "polemic". Are you advocating for the idea that he actually rose from the dead?
If you meant people doubted the claims, the answer is yes. Earl Doherty has covered this issue extensively. There were skeptics, but they were drowned by the psychological wave for a messiah, and the high rate of gullibility the people in the early centuries had. In Acts, they were willing to believe Paul and Barnabas were gods just because one of them (Paul) survived a snake bite.

Why should they have and how do you know no ne did?
They should have if he did all those miracles he is claimed to have done. They had scribes didnt they?
No one did because there is no evidence that none did. Earliest references are in 70 AD.

Intensity: The "true Jesus" could have been of little fame because people outside his "area of influence" found the belief about him ridiculous.

Ilgwamh: The same thing can be said today
Its because they are ridiculous.
I’ll attempt a debunking once you substantiate that Jews were in great need of a messiah and were prone to hero making and this is what happened to Jesus.
How many times did they ask Jesus whether he was the messiah? How many Prophets prophesised the coming of the messiah?
Even Herods baby-killing act can be taken as evidence that there was anticipation of a messiah.
There was an overriding expectation that one day a messiah would come who would liberate them (the Jews) from the opression they were under Roman rule.

You want specific verses, you get them.

I don’t accept all the miracle accounts as genuine nor the details of the story.
What do you accept then? Because derobed of the miraculous garb, all we have is an ordinary man. If that is the case, Christianity (a religion you adhere to) is based on a lie (redemption, resurrection, virgin birth, judgement day etc).

Well, if he wasn’t anointed by God I take it we would be discussing him because of the huge impact this man has had on western civilization. Unless you’re a Christ-myther because then we would be discussing why this religion that started out as a small cult has had such a huge impact on the world.
Where is the evidence that he was anointed by God? A dove and a voice from heaven?
If you believe that, you then have to explain why you dont believe in the miracles.
If it started as a small cult, what made their beliefs significant over those held by other cults? Remember there were many cults and miracle workers those days.

CX

Indeed and I agree. We cannot take Paul's testimony as proof of the HJ, but it seems reasonable to conclude, as some dispute, that Paul believed Jesus was an historical person. Though that is perhaps neither here nor there with respect to the current discussion.
I concur.

By the time we have MSS attestation to the OT we also have an established Temple Cult system and the Jewish Temple Cult has some measure of power and influence politically. This is precisely the same thing we see in Xianity. Early on there is nothing; later (4th century) once the church is more highly structured and has some measure of socio-politcal influence, there are MSS
So you assert that the earliest MSS for the OT can be dated to around 4th Century? So, where did they get all that stuff about "let us make man in our own image" and Lots wife turning to a pillar of salt? and the stuff about women having sex with angels?

Is there any glimmer of truth in those texts or they are just products of imagination and folklore? I mean, I am asking U being sbdy who has studied these things.

It's not just incorrect it doesn't make sense. I can see no way to even compare Q with the homeric epics or the Avesta. That the Judeo-Xian mythos may have elements of other religions in it is plausible, but equating Q with anything besides what it is is nonsensical.
Ok, CX let me provide some examples of how Q sayings could have been derived/ borrowed from Mithraism. I will just quote from my source:

Among the sayings in Q is one labelled
"Rock/sand"
Mithra was born from a rock [Firmicus, /De errore/, xxi.; etc.], as shown in Mithraic sculptures, being sometimes termed ''the god out of the rock'', and his worship was always conducted in a cave; and the general belief in the early Church that Jesus was born in a cave is a direct instance of the taking over of Mithraic ideas. The words of Paul, "They drank of that spiritual rock ... and that rock was Christ'' [I Corinthians x. 4.] are borrowed from the Mithraic scriptures; for not only was Mithra "the Rock'', but one of his mythological acts, which also appears in the acts of Moses, was the striking of the rock and the producing of water from it which his followers eagerly drank. Justin Martyr [Justin Martyr, /Dial. with Trypho/, ch. 70.] complains that the prophetic words in the Book of Daniel [Daniel ii. 34.] regarding a stone which was cut out of the rock without hands were also used in the Mithraic ritual; and it is apparent that the great importance attached by the early Church to the supposed words of Jesus in regard to Peter --- "Upon this rock I will build my church" [Matthew xvi. 18.] --- was due to their approximation to the Mithraic idea of the /Theos ek Petras/, the "God from the Rock''. Indeed, it may be that the reason of the Vatican hill at Rome being regarded as sacred to Peter, the Christian "Rock'', was that it was already sacred to Mithra, for Mithraic remains have been found there.

Another Q saying is the one labelled "Sheep/wolves"
"Behold, I send you out as sheep among wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves" (Matthew 10:16).
The verse as a whole has the emphasis on the danger rather than on the sending out. The Matthean order is better because the saying then provides a context for being hated (Mt 10:22). It also better retains Luke's order of the woes assuming the pairing is correct. Matthew's (and sQ's) "Go nowhere among the Gentiles ..." (10:5b) indicates the sending out. Luke, having rejected this anti-Gentile text, had to move Sheep/wolves forward in order to achieve a sending out between Harvest and Instructions

Although it is generally agreed that the figure of Jesus carrying a lamb is taken from the statues of Hermes Kriophoros [Pausanias, iv. 33.], the kid-carrying god, Mithra is sometimes shown carrying a bull across his shoulders, and Apollo, who, in his solar aspect and as the patron of the rocks [/Hymn to the Delian Apollo./], is to be identified with Mithra, is often called "The Good Shepherd". At the birth of Mithra the child was adored by shepherds, who brought gifts to him [/Encyc. Brit./, 11th ed., vol. xvii., p. 623.].

Refute these, CX.

[ June 15, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>