Toto

Tercel - there's no sense quoting Bede at this point until he has had a chance to react to <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml" target="_blank">Richard Carrier's essay</a>. (Not that Bede counts as an authority in any case.)

Rodahi - I think the cite that you gave was an extended version of the criteria of embarrassment. All of his objections have been covered in either Doherty's work or in MacDonald's <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/homerandmark.html" target="_blank">Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark</a>, although I'm not prepared to enter into an extensive discussion of it.

rodahi

I have read Doherty's book. In my opinion, Earl does not address the issues raised by Guignebert satisfactorily.

Further, I hope someone will give a specific and detailed critique of Guignebert's quote.

Vorkosigan

But the God of the Christian cult dies openly, at the hands of the Roman authorities, after a public trial; this has nothing in common with a Mystery, or anything like it.

There is nothing really too difficult about this. If Doherty is right, then Mark represents the last stage in the evolution from the Jesus who gets executed on the sublunar plane to one who has become historicized. Ellegaard tells this story very clearly.

If the legend of the god is purely imaginary, divorced from all foundation in fact, it is strange that it should have been left so full of gaps and inconsistencies, that is should have been encumbered with the details of a common human existence, which serves no useful purpose, and are even shocking.

But this is common in legend and myth. If you read something like the Roland cycle, or the Sagas of Iceland, people in legend often have gaps, inconsistencies and shocking stupidity.

Why take the trouble to speak of the brothers and sisters of the god, and even give their names?

This one is too easy to answer: it's called politics.

Why represent the family as believing him ‘beside himself’? Why show him exhibiting anger and grief, and weeping over himself and others?

Verisimulitude. These sorts of questions presuppose that the gospel writers are too dumb to lie or think creatively. One could ask right back: why so few human details? What was Jesus favorite food? Did he sleep on his back or his stomach? Did he keep any pets? What kind of personality did he have? Did he finished what he started, or did he try doing too many things at once? Was he short-tempered? Did he favor any political parties? This man was the Son of God! The real question is why there is so little detail, not so much.

Why cause him to reject the designation of himself and good and proclaim that God alone is good?

Given the wide range of views in early Christianity regarding the exact status of Jesus, it would not be suprising that there was contradictory material in the gospels on this point. This question only makes sense if you read back into the text the orthodox view.

Why should he, who has come down to proclaim and to bring about salvation, declare that he does not know when the great day, his own day, from the Pauline point of view, will come?

The way I see it, it is equally strange for a real person to do that. Did you ever know anyone who predicted the imminent end of the world to not have a close date for it? This actually makes more sense if Jesus is largely legendary and later writers are trying to recosntruct him in light of the knowledge that the world did not end.

And why is his last cry, at the very moment of his consummation of the divine mystery, one of despair (‘My God, why hast thou forsaken me?’) To explain all this as an attempt at verisimilitude, is surely to attribute an incredible amount of method and consistency to men who are, in other respects, so conspicuously lacing in either.

In the gnostic view, Jesus spirit left his body at this point. In any case, Luke and John gave different last words; the Gospel of Peter is quite close to Mark's. Since we know that Luke and John were willing to tinker with the story that Mark handed them, the issue becomes why we should assume that Mark didn't.

How are we to reconcile this with so much vagueness and ambiguity in the teaching, so that even today the exact meaning is sometimes doubtful?

Yes, weird, if the teaching is connected to the historical figure...not very weird, though, if it is a composite story.

Above all, why did those who created the myth , place their hero of it in their own time, instead of, in accordance with the universal practice of religions, seeking to avail themselves of the enormous prestige of antiquity?”

A good point, but explainable in terms of Church politics. A historical connection was needed to promote the Peter faction over the James faction; so Jesus had to be located in time close to the living Church of the late first and second century that a connection was plausible....

I have no idea whether the NT narratives depict an historical person, but I do think the anonymous narrative attributed to Mark tells the story of a HUMAN Jesus. Mark's Jesus is not a pleasant fellow to be around. Would someone CREATE a story about an imaginary Jewish peasant and attribute to him such negative characteristics?

Ya got me.

Ted Hoffman

Tercel,
Your point about Scholarship is clear and your criteria for judging "serious scholarship" sounds fine. However, you must aslo agree that it depends on which side someone is ON regarding a particular subject and that persons exposure to other scholars. For example, I am sure many christians regard Josh McDowell as a serious scholar.

Berean summed up the situation well: You won't find many arguments against the Christ-myth idea from "serious scholars", largely because mainstream NT scholars consider the idea of no real merit and ignore it.
Or CX's: Almost unianimously the academic community does not take christ mythicism seriously enough to merit a repsonse.
Please tell me why Professor G. A. Wells, Earl Doherty, Robert M. Price and Hermann Detering cannot be considered serious scholars.

Michael Lendo, thanks for the suggestion

Rodahi
Mark's Jesus is not a pleasant fellow to be around. Would someone CREATE a story about an imaginary Jewish peasant and attribute to him such negative characteristics?
Yes
If so, why?
There are also positive characteristics. Just like with every human (we all have strengths ane weaknesses). The author wanted to portray him as a human being with fear(sweating blood), anger, frustration, impatience etc. But he was also humble (washing the disciples feet), foriving (the prostitute), flexible(unlike the priests and pharisees - regarding the sabbath), wise(all those parables), brave, peaceful (turning the other cheek) etc.

On one part, he was to be son of man. OTOH he was the son of God (resurrecting, healing the sick, calming storms etc).

But of course the whole story was made up.

Tercel

I quoted Bede? Huh?

Tercel

Of course. However, basically Josh McDowell writes for the public with the primary aim in mind of convincing the public of Christianty's truth. I would therefore call him an Apologist. Serious scholars IMO must be people whos primary interest is academic not apologetic and whose works is primarily aimed at other scholarly professionals and academics not the public at large.

Aren't Well's qualifications in German studies or something?? Whatever the case I think he flunks just about every single criteria I suggested for a "serious scholar".

I suggested that part of what constitutes serious scholarship is the recognition by other members of the academic community. This comes from large amounts of recognised work being published and accepted in peer reviewed journals. It comes from other academics recognising the value of the points being made, quoting them, refering to their arguments etc.

Now it might be argued that a person like Doherty is simply too new to the academic community to be widely recognised, and possibly that is true. However Jesus mything is nothing new and its proponents remain outside the bounds of peer-recognised scholarship because the arguments they present are simply not recognised as good enough.

Ted Hoffman

Tercel
However Jesus mything is nothing new and its proponents remain outside the bounds of peer-recognised scholarship because the arguments they present are simply not recognised as good enough.
Good enough for what? for social reasons? I think its got more to do with "they upset established tradition" I bet some people(scholars) might even lose their jobs if they conceded that Jesus was a myth.

rodahi

I will begin by addressing your final statement: "
But of course the whole story was made up."

Based on all available evidence, we don't know with a high degree of certainty whether or not the writer of Mark made the whole story up. If we did we wouldn't be discussing it.

I agree that Mark's Jesus does have a few positive characteristics, but the negative far outweigh the positive, in my opinion.

With respect to Jesus' sweating blood, Mark does not speak of that. (See Luke 22:44.)Mark's Jesus does beg Yahweh to spare his life. (See 14:36 and 14:39.) This is not a very heroic thing to do, but very human.

Mark's Jesus does not wash the disciple's feet. That incident is in the anonymous narrative attributed to John. (See 13:12.) Mark does not depict a humble Jesus. In many passages Jesus is somewhat arrogant.

In Mark's narrative, Jesus does not ask anyone to "turn the other cheek". Mark does not depict a passive Jesus.

Please point out where in Mark's narrative Jesus is depicted as being "brave" or "wise".

In point of fact, Mark's Jesus quarrels with (or snaps at) just about anyone who comes into contact with him: his disciples, his family, his Judean neighbors, the people he magically cures, nature, etc. Jesus is not always successful with his magical cures. He curses people. He frightens people. He confuses people. Some, including his own family, think he is crazy. Others ask him to leave their region because he has caused too much trouble. Mark's Jesus is not a heroic character.

I see no good reason why someone would CREATE a character like Mark's Jesus.

Ted Hoffman

Rodahi
Please point out where in Mark's narrative Jesus is depicted as being "brave" or "wise".
The parables and facing his death (he could have hidden in some barn - but he did not).
I see no good reason why someone would CREATE a character like Mark's Jesus.
You want to say the character of Jesus in Mark is bad because its real? Maybe Marks focus was elsewhere in the story. Or maybe he could not see Jesus as bad himself.
A bad fiction is still fiction. Fiction doesnt have to have perfect heroes.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

RyanS2

Hercules was a whore-mongering idiot in Greek mythology. I guess that makes him non-mythological, who wants a son of God who chases tail and gets stumped easily?