Peter Kirby

Metacrock, are you trying to suggest that the historical evidence for the existence of Julius Caesar is inferior to that for Jesus?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Have you read Doherty's book? Were you aware that Doherty suggests the date of 85-90 CE for the Gospel of Mark?

Why do you assume that it reached its "final form" in the 90s?

I would suggest, to disconfirm Doherty's theory, trying to show evidence for HJ traditions prior to the First Jewish Revolt. (And not just "Koester says.")

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Peter,

Be fair. Meta is showing the mythic critieria apply to people who were undoubtably real. His argument depends on the evidence for Julius Caesar being beyond doubt.

Iasion,

The proportional time is irrelevant as I was granting that the Constitution was a genuine fourth century document that needed no confirmation. Stop clutching at straws. Meta has sorted you out on the mythic criteria so let's hear no more of that nonsense.

Please explain why the vast majority of sources that state Jesus existed should be trumped by your readings (without knowledge of the language) of a few sources that you claim show there was doubt about Jesus's existence. In other words, why believe the few flat earthers you have tracked down over the general consensus of everyone else? Besides, most of them do not deny Jesus existed but do deny divine attributes. Celsus claims the Gospels contain myth as most liberal Christians will admit. It would be simple minded to automatically extrapolate to the idea that because the Gospels contain some myth, the whole thing is total fiction. You are surely not suggesting anything so naive.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vinnie

I found Meta's post to be hysterical.

"Why don't those writtings say anything about his graduation form highschool?" That was great!

Reminds me of that mythicism parody I did a while back

Vinnie

Vinnie

That seems to be very easy. Mark/Paul overlaps. Mark/Q overlaps. Q/Thomas_&_several_other_work overlapps. Can we call it a day, now?

Vinnie

keyser_soze

Hey vinnie, could you go to the thread called forgery and weigh in on it. We may disagree about some methods, but I admire your neutrality on the historical side.

Llyricist

Vinnie,

I've read the other thread and your page regarding this. You seem to present this argument as if Paul and "Mark" wrote in a vacuum. That Mark would have had to been aware of Paul's writings to say some of the same things he did unless Jesus WAS historical.

This isn't the case, there was a Christian movement before Paul ever wrote about it, and it continued to evolve to the time that Mark wrote. They had specific beliefs in Paul's time that actually made them "Christian" and many of those beliefs must have continued to Mark's time. That there were parellels and similarities is to be expected regardless of whether Jesus was historical.

As for Meta's retort about J. Caesar, it's cute, but not hysterical. And further misses the point that it was all those pieces of evidence in total, not any individual piece that solidifies J Caesar's historocity. and those pieces in total add up to a great deal more than what we have for Jesus.

Peter Kirby

In order to show Mark/Paul overlaps, you have to show that Paul accepted the humanity of Jesus. That in itself would discredit Doherty's theory. Doherty realizes this, and so Doherty has written quite a lot on his interpretation of Paul.

As for Q, Doherty theorizes that the document developed a founder figure at a late stage. See the last third of his book The Jesus Puzzle (which is not found on his web site). I myself have doubts about Q.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I completely disagree, for several reasons. First, showing that overlaps exist proves nothing in and of itself, only that Mark knew Paul. It says nothing about the interpretation of Paul in Mark's head, and furthermore, attributes an honesty to Mark that we are not in a position to attribute -- it implies that Mark honestly followed his sources, which is a shaky assumption at best. Further, there is no reason that Mark might not have understood Paul the same way we do today: as referring to an historical Jesus who had lived in his own time.

Of course, if the Dutch Radicals are right and all are late and forged for political and theological purposes, then this argument would not hold either.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I didn't say that the existence of Mark/Paul overlaps would prove anything--that is Vinnie's statement. I responded by saying that, in order to show that Mark and Paul both have a tradition about an earthly Jesus, you would have to show first that Paul believed in the humanity of Jesus. If you could do that in the first place, you would have discredited Doherty's theory that Paul disbelieved that Jesus was a human being, and then there is no need to rely on overlapping with the Gospel of Mark--the very point that Paul has HJ traditions would go against Doherty's theory, if it could be proven.

The inauthenticity of all Pauline epistles would definitely change the rules of the game, but that is not Earl's theory.

And when you say that overlaps between two sources prove that one knew the other, aren't you leaving out the possibility that both depended on a prior source, perhaps even history itself?

best,
Peter Kirby