Asha'man

I'm currently reading Doherty's book, but your summary look spot on. I'll tell you if I spot anything else to add in a few days.

In the mean time, I think this summary is well worth keeping. Newcomers to this forum often have no idea about the MJ theory. Perhaps you should extract it into a locked sticky thread?

Vinnie

If Josephus did not mention Jesus it would not constitue evidence that the historical Jesus did not exist. it would constitute evidence that Josephus did not write about him. You have to first demonstrate why Josephus would mention him. This silence probably works in the case of Herod's claughtering of the infants not being found in Josephus but I am not sure why Josephus is required to mention Jesus. If Jo does mention him then it happens to be evidence for him but we already have that without Josephus. The TF and shorter reference just add to the data.



Its not the conclusion that is absurd. Its the premises that the conclusion follows that are absurd. Come on, look at this:

"All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark."

It is impossible to maintain that Mark created his material whole cloth. A number of sources underlie the Gospel and several references are found in a fist stratum corpus. Further, it looks more like Mark was passing on material according to some scholars. This Gospel must be dated early. All the material which goes against the theological grain and so forth.

This whjole charade is nothing but nonsense.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Make no mistake that the text was lifted straight from Doherty's own summary. The only thing that I did was to copy it and to rearrange it.

I reserve the right to change my position daily. Indeed it does not matter what view I take in my exposition of the issues and analysis of the value of the evidence. I am much more committed to being open-minded and clear than to being a myther or HJer. I am not sure which one I am, because we haven't agreed on the definition of the terms. "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been a myther."

Whatever debate there may be over the existence of the Four Gospel Jesus need not concern infidels discussing amongst themselves in the twenty-first century. That's a dead issue to me.

Maybe you should research this, as well as the chronology of his writings? That is, if you'd like to advance Philo of Alexandria as evidence.

What would it mean for the Gospels to be considered "histories"? My guess is that the Gospels were taken literally for it to be worthwhile to modify details like, e.g., the sweating of blood in Luke.

This was discussed on JesusMysteries and resulted in a program that would collate data on mentions and arguments in order to generate the probable range of authorship's date. The program was applied to GJohn, but I didn't go on to do GMark because enough interest wasn't expressed in the case of GJohn. In any case, an argument from silence is only effective when you can show (a) that the author would have known about the event if it happened (i.e. that the Gospel of Mark would have been read by the author if it were already written) and (b) that the author would have written about the event if it were known (i.e. that the Gospel of Mark would have been quoted). I see both premises as dubious in any particular case, and especially the latter if the author didn't consider GMark to be scripture. Perhaps you can demonstrate the premises needed (with something other than intuition, which varies).

How early do you think were the earliest notes on the life of a human Jesus?

No problem.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I disagree. I see the historicity of Jesus to be a fundamental issue in the study of early Christianity and the Gospel tradition. It is obviously a presupposition of historical Jesus studies. So the question arises, on what foundation is this statement made that there was a historical Jesus? Perhaps you can lay out a summary of the evidence in a similar manner to what Doherty and Vorkosigan have provided.

Exploration of the question can only benefit scholarship. Many of the relevant issues are also interesting in themselves. For example, you say that the Gospel of Mark "must be dated early." How early would you date the Gospel of Mark and why would you do so?

You state, "It is impossible to maintain that Mark created his material whole cloth." Isn't the real question, where did the author of Mark get his material? MacDonald says Homer, and many others say the Old Testament. Some say Peter, but we've dismissed that. Was it some fund of oral tradition? But how do we know that this oral tradition went back to a ground zero with the historical Jesus? It could have been filled out with traditions that went back to half a dozen actual rabbis and magicians, none of them necessarily named Jesus. Doherty says that the author of Mark took the Kingdom of God Jesus that was invented by the Q community and made it into the savior of the Pauline-type Christ cult. I think that is questionable, but the question is, how do we show it to be false? And I think the answer would be edifying, not a waste of time.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

"All the Gospels derive their basic story of Jesus of Nazareth from one source: whoever wrote the Gospel of Mark."

It is impossible to maintain that Mark created his material whole cloth.

Vinnie, there is no contradiction between the original post and your response. It is entirely possible that all gospels descend from Mark. The alternative is that this unique genre was invented not once but several times, all over the Mediterranean, and all within a century or so.

A number of sources underlie the Gospel and several references are found in a fist stratum corpus. Further, it looks more like Mark was passing on material according to some scholars.

Of course there are sources. But they weren't other gospels. Mark's was the grandaddy of them all.

This Gospel must be dated early. All the material which goes against the theological grain and so forth.

......is proof of nothing. For one thing, Mark may have been passing along the confusion in his sources.....the embarrassment and related criteria are useful only if you know something about the author. We cannot even say who wrote Mark.....

Vorkosigan