James Still

Nice work Bede! I enjoyed the article very much and think it makes a great contribution toward understanding NT biblical criticism.

Jayman

Why do you think they're obviously myths?

Toto

Also you have "tendez" where I think you mean "tendenz" or "Tendenz".

[ June 20, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Randomly:

• (1) Founder figures are always mythologized
  (2) The earliest writings, Paul's, contain little if any historical detail, as do other first century writings -- until the gospels.
  (3) Jesus' life and career follows the Hero's life well.
  (4) The gospel writers and redactors did not regard what they were writing as history, but as sacred history. They compiled it out of OT legends, prophecies and stories. They felt free to move units and sayings around, incorporate traditions from outside the Jesus tradition, and change details where they conflicted with theology and dcotrine. Clearly the gospel writers did not regard what they were writing as history in the sense that Polybius, Thucydides or Tacitus did.
  (5) There's no evidence outside the NT that Jesus ever lived. All evidence is late and dependent on Christian sources.
  (6) The existence of conflicting traditions within Christianity on the very point of Jesus' historicity, and on practically every aspect of his story.
  (7) The existence of positive arguments by scholars for mythicist positions.

I am sure others can add other reasons.

Vorkosigan

RyanS2

"why the embarrassment criterion fails here"

If I may add a meagre contribution, in Islamic studies, one favorite method for the value of the historical content of a Hadith was to see how "favorable" it presented Muhammad. The idea was that the less favorable the portrait was to Muhammad, the more likely it was to be authentic. However, as Lammens shows, since we don't know what was "favorable" or "unfavorable" to the writers of the Hadith, we really can't use that as a criteria, particularly because different Hadith represent totally different Muhammads.

Jayman

I won't push you on this assertion since it would take you forever to respond. But let's assume that we know for a fact that every other religious founder other than Jesus had legends written about them. This in no way means that Jesus had legends or myths written about him and therefore this point fails. AFAIK Paul is the only source before Mark. What other writings are you talking about? Assuming this to be true it again has no bearing on the historocity of the Gospels. Don't know where you got the "Hero's life" from so I won't comment on it. What! This is coming from the same person who said we don't know the author's intent. "The problem is that the criterion of embarrassment can only be applied if we know the author's point of view -- and we do not know what Mark thought of the whole affair." First, a prophet could mold themselves into the image of the biblical prophets and therefore would appear to take on the "legends and stories" of the OT. Second, you reject the possibility of someone fulfilling prophecies. That is a biased opinion. I don't buy this point. How does the man who says we don't know what the authors were thinking now believe he knows their motives? I think Jospehus counts as evidence. However, even if all the sources were Christian it doesn't mean that the Gospels don't contain history. All Christian sources from the first century seem to say that Jesus was an historical figure. Please present those that say otherwise. Furthermore, they do not conflict on "practically every aspect of his story." There's plenty they agree on. Here's a brief sketch: Jesus grew up in Nazareth. He was baptized by John the Baptist. He then began his own public ministry where he preached about the kingdom of God. He performed miracles such as healings, exorcisms, and raising the dead. His last week was spent in Jerusalem during Passover time. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was resurrected the following Sunday. I don't buy this either. FOX broadcast a TV shows supposedly refuting the moon landing. However, I never jumped to the conclusion that the moon landing must be legend or myth.

By the way, if it appears I misunderstood what you meant by "positive arguments" please define the term. Thanks.

Vorkosigan

I won't push you on this assertion since it would take you forever to respond. But let's assume that we know for a fact that every other religious founder other than Jesus had legends written about them. This in no way means that Jesus had legends or myths written about him and therefore this point fails.

Sure -- if there were no other reason to think otherwise, we might possibly consider that Jesus is the one major Founder Figure not mythologized. But as it is, what you're doing here looks like special pleading. Why is it only your figure whose legends are to be regarded as history?

AFAIK Paul is the only source before Mark. What other writings are you talking about? Assuming this to be true it again has no bearing on the historocity of the Gospels.

First, depending on how you date them, several writings, such as the Didache or GThom, could be from the period before Mark; in fact, if you date Mark in the second century as is entirely possible.....

Second, Paul's writings -- assuming they actually date from the first century (which I believe they do) -- show that the legend had not yet begun to be fleshed out.

So to speak.

Don't know where you got the "Hero's life" from so I won't comment on it.

See Campbell: Hero with a Thousand Faces. The Hero follows a definite path in his life, and Jesus follows it to a T.

What! This is coming from the same person who said we don't know the author's intent. "The problem is that the criterion of embarrassment can only be applied if we know the author's point of view -- and we do not know what Mark thought of the whole affair."

Oh please. We don't have to know what Mark et al meant by using the OT in order to know that they drew on the OT for stories, prophecies and inspiration.

First, a prophet could mold themselves into the image of the biblical prophets and therefore would appear to take on the "legends and stories" of the OT. Second, you reject the possibility of someone fulfilling prophecies. That is a biased opinion. I don't buy this point.

You don't have to buy it. Just give me an example of any specific OT prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. We'll be waiting a long time on that one....

Prophecy in the sense you mean cannot exist. There's nothing "biased" about using sound scholarly method -- one of which is to reject the possibility of magic prophecy.

How does the man who says we don't know what the authors were thinking now believe he knows their motives?

You know, you think you've caught me in some mistake, and have stopped reading as a result. That's sad.

It is obvious the authors and redactors of the gospel legends felt free to move stories around, deleting some and rearranging others, BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DID SO. They did not treat it as "history" in any sense that we know the word.

I think Jospehus counts as evidence. However, even if all the sources were Christian it doesn't mean that the Gospels don't contain history.

I am sure that somewhere down there they contain history. Which things are historical is impossible to know with any certainty.

All Christian sources from the first century seem to say that Jesus was an historical figure.

None of them give any details of his life, beyond the formulas already present in Paul.

Please present those that say otherwise.

The question should be framed 180 degrees different. Please present any outside the gospels that do give some details about the mythical savior's life.

Furthermore, they do not conflict on "practically every aspect of his story." There's plenty they agree on. Here's a brief sketch: Jesus grew up in Nazareth.

They don't agree on some things you identify here. Jesus is not baptized in John. The timing of Jesus' crucifixion is different from the Synoptics.

However, you are correct, I did exaggerate. Such general agreement signals nothing, however, only that the outline of the legend was starting to emerge. All extant Taoist writings say the Prince of Huai-nan ascended to heaven with his flocks, holdings and entourage. However, dynastic histories indicate that the good Prince died in a revolt, executed.

By the way, if it appears I misunderstood what you meant by "positive arguments" please define the term. Thanks.

I only meant that in addition to the negative evidence like no Jesus outside Christian writings, there is also positive argument by people like Doherty or Eisenman explaining how the myth grew.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

""""""""It is obvious the authors and redactors of the gospel legends felt free to move stories around, deleting some and rearranging others, BECAUSE THEY ACTUALLY DID SO. They did not treat it as "history" in any sense that we know the word.""""""""""

I agree but how do you know the author of Mark felt he could move and rearrange and do this and that? If we accept Markan priority we can see how pericopes and the like are used. We can see how Matthew and Luke rearranged, added and subtracted from Mark. What does that tell us about Mark? Nothing. Your assuming all the authors did that. I am not saying that I doubt Mark did do that, but you can't infer what you said from the completed process. We can infer it regarding Matthew and Luke based upon Marcan priority. If they felt compelled to rearrange marks material, add to it, delte from it etc then you can say they didn't regard it as history in the sense that we understand history.

I think you can establish your argument through diffferent means. I don't rememberoff the top of my head but if the feeding miracle is found in Mark you could base an argument off that. But we can't use Marcan priority to argue Mark was not writing history in our commen understanding of the term history. It can be used to say Luke and Matthew who drew off of Mark weren't.

Vinnie

Koyaanisqatsi

Ummm...just to point out a pet peeve of mine that is always overlooked and never addressed (especially by Bede that I can recall), the tomb WAS NOT EMPTY!

Mark tells us quite clearly that a "man" is sitting in the tomb when the gaggle of girls enter the already opened tomb.

No one asks who this "man" is or what he did with the body or anything at all about why some total stranger is just sitting there.

Nor, by the way, is it claimed in Mark that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. It isn't until later cult mythicists corrected Mark's mistakes that the myth grows into a bodily-resurrected Jesus.

So what does that mean? It means the author of Mark was a terrible writer (or the only one telling the truth) and later cult authors had to correct his myths so that Jesus took on more divine qualities at the same time the mundane truth of what happened got further obfuscated with each subsequent re-write (i.e., members of the Jesus cult simply decided to take advantage of his death by creating such a mythology to begin with).

Regardless, the dead do not and have never and will never rise from their graves. That is an absolute fact of existence that no amount of fiction will ever change, except in the minds of the gullible, and as such offer proof of mythology alone. The only possible thing that could have happened was that someone revived themselves at or around the time that Jesus came near them or held them or the like, but that's it.

Quite literally, only a child would believe anything other, but since desperate people and operant conditioning go hand and hand, this charade continues on a global scale.

Add in the fact that it would not be possible for any author--no matter how skilled a reporter--to have actually accompanied Jesus on his Mr. Satan's Wild Temptation Ride, we know conclusively that these are nothing more than myths; fictional, imaginary musings like all other Middle Eastern-Hellenistic cult mythologies, based on their martyred dead leader; a region/time period specific literary style accepted by everyone back then to be nothing more than Shakespeare's plays are to us today.

Yes, they are fictionalized accounts--flights of fantasy used to entertain and inform--based upon people who actually lived.

Period.

Why that is so difficult to comprehend when you consider the Koran to be the exact same thing as I have here outlined is truly beyond me and a matter for your respective psychotherapists, IMHO.

Vorkosigan

I wasn't thinking specifically of Mark, but the others. But you are right...that is hardest to show in the case of Mark.

Instead, you have to point out that Mark builds off of Biblical, Homeric and other sources. While I do not buy every parallel of McDonald's, certainly several from the early stages are very convincing. Additionally, antiquity knew of several versions of Mark running around. Which one do we have now?

Again, Mark's gospel is a good example of what assumptions you make about its evolution. What's your position on Secret Mark? If you think it is not a forgery, then you have to concede that the Mark we have now is heavily redacted. Powell and Streeter both argued that John 21 was originally the ending of Mark -- instead, it was moved, and we have four endings for Mark. Again, that would imply something about how the historicity of Mark was viewed in its own time, and how it was written.

Numerous errors indicate that either Mark or his sources knew nothing of Palestine. Stories that contain geographical oddities and impossibilities are probably made up. That is also true of the miracle stories.

Further, at least some Markan stories appear to have been created for theological/political reasons. Jesus wasn't executed at Passover like the lamb, but in the fall, according to Michael Goulder's argument. The framework for Jesus sending the pigs into the sea may well be Homeric, but the story itself, in the opinion of many scholars, refers to the emblem of the Roman legion occupying Jersualem, a pig. There are other similar references to the period 70-75. In other words, Mark utilized Jesus to refract events in his own time, and re-arranged his story to suit his theology. He also borrowed from the OT and inserted those references into Jesus' life. Clearly, he was writing sacred history.

Vorkosigan

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>