Ted Hoffman

Not that Antiquities 20 was that problematic to mythers (Doherty comfortably demonstrated a mythical Jesus in its face) but Now that Metacrocks Jesus Variants has been refuted by Kirby in the Jesus variants thread (it was in many ways similar to Vinnies' "bedrock facts" argument - which was taken out by a Robin Hood analogy) and authenticity of Antiquities 20 has been refuted by Kirby in Ant 20.9.1 (for Bede) thread. This is despite Bedes "I am not convinced" mantra - Kirby's argument stand unrefuted.

And the passion narrative has been proved to have been constructed through mimesis (not leaving out midrash and literary borrowing) in the passion narrative and Philo thread. Toto has shown, Right from Robert Prices Of Myth and Men, where Price indicates borrowing of aspects of the PN from the story of Isis and her husband Osiris parallels Jesus anointment at Bethany and Mary Magdalene seeking the body of Jesus), borrowings from Diodorus Siculus ("remember me when you come into your Kingdom"), Doubting Thomas scene and Appolonius of Tyana's "proof" to his dumbfounded disciples, Jesus ascencion and cloud concealement parallels both Romulus and Josephan account of Moses' ascencison before his disciples.

Toto has aslo addressed Mark Goodacre's argument that parts of the PN were borrowed from the OT similar to Crossans "prophecy historicized". He has gone further to display Harold Leidners thesis from his Fabrication of Christ Myth where Leidner identifies 24 points of literary influence between Philo's Concerning Flaccus and the Passion Narrative. Among them, the mockery scene (which Crossan traced to Philo's Against Flaccus), (questionable)betrayal by a Judas figure, crucifiction at the third hour, mob swaying a Roman govenor, arrest by armed Roman soldiers, cowardly and disloyal companions and how some of these borrowings make sense in Philo's narration but are incongruous in the PN.

He has also forayed to MacDonalds Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark and which demonstrates Markan borrowings from the Homeric Epics Illiad and Oddysey and shown MacDonalds criteria among them Criterion of Analogy, Criterion of Accessibility, of Density, of Order, of Distinctiveness and criterion of Intelligibility. Toto has gone further and extrapolated Ted Weedens thesis in his Crosstalk post and explained the concept of Mimesis which was taught in the schools in the Hellenistic Greco-Roman world. The art of imitation and its influence in the creation of the story of Jesus.

Factor in the evident Markan ignorance of Jewish culture and Galilean geography, the writings of the gospels many years after Jesus death, the late emergence of christian icon of crucifiction and you are home.

And Vork has, with reference to arguments by eminent scholars (Crossan), taken out meiers MA, embarrasment criterion and has also demonstrated that Crossans stratums are nothing more than a rocking chair - keeps you busy but takes you nowhere.

No methodology in sight for gleaning a HJ from the mountain of myth, interpolations and paucity of untainted historical writings.

No evidence in sight either for a HJ.

What are the remaining arguments for the historicity of Jesus?

Kirby still embraces a HJ per Paul and Toto is still agnostic.
What is holding back those agnostic to the historicity of Jesus from being mythers?
the historicity of Jesus from being mythers?

Evangelion

Faith.

Layman

You, IM.

You are easily impressed with theories that confirm your own uninformed predispositions.

Evangelion

Vinnie

Layman, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Vinnie doesn't remember presenting arguments for the bedrock facts of Jesus of Nazareth. He merely listed them. This shows how close you were following.

Do me a favor, though. Explain the paucity of Gentile related material in the synoptics and explain the account where dog is used as a metaphor for Gentile. Please do better than "it was embarrassing for Achilles to get shot in the heel" which was the only and most substantial answer I received here. Such a non-response is worthy of no counter-rebuttal and it only seerves to show that the mythicists here are incapable of providing an adequate response.

Furthermore, you are jumping the gun on Ant. 20. Nothing was demonstrated and Ant 20, though not even remotely necessary for historicity, does devistate mythicism when coupled with Paul and Mark.

Vinnie

Evangelion

And of all people, Vinnie would know!

Vinnie

I'm not so sure. I've heard some crazy stories about that guy!



Vinnie

Evangelion

And of course, you would know!

Er... I think.

Um... every time you respond, you crank the paradox factor up a couple of notches. It's getting difficult to follow your self-references here.

Vinnie

Paradox? Vinnie once told this guy that he went back in time and killed his grandfather before he impregnated his grandmother

Vinnie

Toto

There is not enough evidence to justify coming to a conclusion. And there is no need to come to a conclusion. The Jesus of the Gospels was myth; any human being named Jesus at the start of Christianity was not a god and will not be returning with power within the lifetime of those 1st c. Palestinian peasants, or any other time. (And may lightening strike my computer if I am wrong.)

I think that Doherty's theory makes a lot of sense. But it depends on accepting Paul's letters as dating to the mid- first century in more or less their current state. If Paul's letters are all outright forgeries, or heavily interpolated, then Doherty's theory would need to be revised.

I think Leidner has the start of the right idea, but his thesis needs more interaction with a scholarly community that could test it. He also accepts the basic veracity of Paul's letters, which I am starting to doubt.