Vorkosigan

I inferred from the following quote that you are not exactly a Jesus Myther. Unless we have sects of Jesus Mythers. You were categorical that you specifically believed that the Jesus of the Gospels is mythical. Why? Does that mean you find other Jesuses historical? Which other Jesuses? From the Apocryphal Gospels(GThomas?, GPeter, Didache?)? From Josephus (Ant 18? Ant 20)?

"I am NOT nuetral" means that my position is that of someone with an ax to grind. I make no pretense of objectivity, though my position mutates as new information comes in.

I am a Jesus Myther in the sense that I believe the Jesus of the Gospels to be entirely fictional, but at least some of the underlying figure(s) to be real.

Vorkosigan

aikido7

By looking at what can be approximated as the authentic speech of Jesus, one can study those short sayings and parables in context and hazard a best scholarly guess as to what Jesus may have been "getting at." Brandon Scott, among many others, has begun a methodological and daunting study of the parables which paint a congruent picture of a first-century Jew who had a vision for his culture ("Y'all come!") and was executed by the ruling government for preaching that vision.

Simple answer: when it makes contextual sense. Surely Jesus' parable about the sower is not to be taken as an instructive discourse on how to produce various cereal yields in lower Galilee....

I still feel misunderstood here, IntenSity. What you would term "sensless palaver," I argue, would be immediately and transparently understood by any devout Jew within earshot of Jesus' preaching, as he recycled and retold themes echoed in stories heard from infancy on. What was unique about Jesus, I am discovering, is that he would deliberately lampoon or frustrate his listeners' cultural expectations--usually before they knew what was happening. Getting them to confront the contradiction not only upset their collective sense of shared myth, but it obviously (in some cases) "jump-started" a whole new way of seeing and dealing with that shared myth .

In closing, I would submit that the principle of Occam's Razor does not apply to parable and only marginally to allegory. In any case, most of the contemporary scholarship on Jesus' parables shows that he "sets up" clear meanings, exaggerates them and then lets the story overturn the "conventional wisdom" of his audience.


I agree with some current scholarship that says that the biblical interpretations of Jesus' parables were added by redactors at a later date.

One more clarification in my point of view: what may seem metaphorical and symbolic to our age may be reality itself to an ancient age.... When we read the New Testament we come up against wholly different--but understandable-- categories of perception.

BTW--Thanks for your feedback!

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

boneyard bill

Intensity writes:

Regarding the first question, Paul may not have known the name of the mother of Jesus and he may not have known where Jesus was born. Jesus' mother may not even have been named Mary. There is no reason to assume that everything in the gospels is accurate to assume that certain things point to a historical figure underlying the events depicted. The context doesn't require that he refer to the son as Jesus. The phrase "while we were children probably refers to the period before Christians became Christian when they were still under the law.

I don't see how the other passages that you cite are relevant to the verse. Paul clearly seems to be referring to a real person here. What evidence is there to suggest that "born of woman, born under the law" would refer to a mythical character existing in a realm intermediate to heaven and earth?

It wouldn't be mysterious at all if the sect originated in Galilee AND was led by a Galilean preacher who was the basis for the story. But if one is trying to explain Christianity based on Paul and the O.T. there is no reason to bring Galilee into the picture even if the sect did originate there. Galilee serves no religious, symbolic, or polemical purpose. Galilee is a problem for the narrative. It produces two contradictory birth stories because somehow the birth has to be in Bethlehem but the protagonist is from Galilee. Yet the climax of the story doesn't take place in Galilee either. It takes place in Jerusalem. Why, then, would anyone have a need to invent the Galilean parts of the story? A Galilean locus for the sect doesn't suffice because the thesis is that the gospels are Midrashic works and there is no reason, from Midrash, to locate any events in Galilee much less choose Galilee as the hometown of the savior.

Vorkosigan

A galilean locus isn't difficult to understand once one sees that the gospels are composites. A midrashic origin is not true of all myth-claims, and in any case, even the most ruthlessly midrashic do not claim all events in the gospels are midrashic in origin.

Ted Hoffman

Boneyard Bill
Beautiful response.
You say that Paul probably didnt know the name of Jesus' mother or Jesus' birthplace. You are right although you seem hesitant to accept the truth that is staring at you: Paul didnt know Mary or even that Jesus had been born physically.

Remember, as Earl Doherty says "the contexts of both the passage tends to belie the convenient interpretation everyone would like to give them"

The nexus of the interpretation of the passage is your understanding of what "born of woman" or "born of the flesh" aka "according to the flesh" "kata sarka or en sarki. Paul was using the allegorical meaning, not the literal meaning.

This phrase, "born of woman" was also used in reference to Dionysos and it did not mean Dionysos was born ON earth. And interpretation of the passage should be based on Isaiah 7:14. Paul heavily used esoteric terms and we can think of him as a gnostic for example:Col. 2:12 "...having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, " and Gal. 2:20 "I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me."

He says he now lives the life in the flesh. What does that mean?

The "ancient" worldview had the word divided in "layers" and this was Paul's worldview Earl Doherty explains So, being born of the flesh actually means "in the sphere of the flesh". In Romans 1:3, Paul also makes it clear he is relying on the OT reference of the Messiah, NOT the Jesus of the Gosplels. Earl Adds: "Platonism was the dominant way of perceiving these things, and Christ was regarded as operating in a spiritual realm, not a primordial historical one. The 'material' characteristics he is given, such as the 'likeness' of flesh and blood, and aspects like a relationship to David, are not only derived from scripture, they fit into the Platonic scheme of things"

So Paul was merely propagating the salvific story in the OT and was either unaware that some people claimed existence of a historical Jesus, or did not espouse the historical claims behind such soteriology. As with other extant pagan salvation cults, he eheumerised christ in a sublunar realm that was not necessarily earthly.

If you insist he was referring to a historical Jesus literally born of a physical human, you need to come up with cogent reasons why he does not refer to her by name or to his birthplace. You will also need to reconcile that with the incongruous Romans 1:3 which makes it clear that Paul embraced a messiah of a Davinic descent in the flesh and you will need to explain what he means by "according to the flesh" in Romans 1:3.

The context doesn't require that he refer to the son as Jesus
How did you arrive at this? He is addressing the Galatians - why should he use esoteric terms?

The phrase "while we were children probably refers to the period before Christians became Christian when they were still under the law
When did they stop to be under the law?

You raise very good points.

Luke 2:4 says " And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David "(KJV)
Doesn't this indicate the prophecy in 5:2 (concerning the birthplace) came true?
Did the prophecy entail the location of the "climax of the story"?
The prophecy did not say the parents of the messiah would have to be from bethlehem and in bethlehem. It just talked of the birth.

Even then, the evangelists had to pick a "setting" - does a meaningless setting lend any historicity to a myth?

rodahi

Rodahi
Your main arguments for the possibility that there existed a historical Jesus behind marks narrative:
1. That Mark used a negative portrait for his main character/ hero which you asserted only makes sense if Mark was ariting about a real person.
IntenSity:
My response: I gave verses that indicated Mark introduces Jesus with pomp and drama. He is the harbinger of a new era of Baptism with spirit and not in water. The skies open and God proclaims that Jesus is not only his beloved son, but with whom he is pleased. Mark takes us through Jesus acts of compassion (indicating the man was humane, empathic and full of love), he casts out demons, heals the sich and raises people from the dead, EVEN when some times he fails. Thus Mark portrays Jesus as a man full of confidence about his abilities. Mark shows Jesus power over nature when Jesus calms storms and Jesus is so loved by the people that he has to avoid the enthusiastic crowds. Jesus' wisdom and intellectual "sophistication" is demonstrated by his use of parables like the parable of the Mustard seed. Jesus' great gift as a teacher is demonstrated in the way he "changes" the laws concerning sabbath and his interpretation of the scriptures which leave the people amazed. Then Mark crowns it up by demonstrating that Jesus had power over death by resurrecting in a dramatic manner. He then "transfigures" with Moses and Elijah.
This is clearly a hagiography so your "negative portrait" complaint goes out the window.

As I have stated numerous times, an honest reading of Mark's narrative would convince most reasonable people that Jesus is presented in a generally negative light. All you have done is given a Christian apologist's summary of the narrative, conveniently leaving out anything which might damage your argument. I know you have said you are no longer a Christian, but your summary is precisely the same as what a Christian would give. Not one thing I have stated has gone "out the window."

rodahi

IntenSity: 2. You objected that someone who "uses poor Greek, poor grammar, and lacks the literary skill of many writers of his day is not likely to have the intellectual prowess to create a fictional hero of the type that Jesus obviously is", so Mark must have been writing about a real person.

No, no, no! Your last sentence invalidates your whole argument. I have never stated, nor do I think, "Mark must have been writing about a real person." I have merely, on EVERY occasion, stated my OPINION that the writer POSSIBLY wrote about incidents in a historical personage's life. There is a substantial amount of negative material in Mark's narrative. That makes me think it possible that the writer's hero actually did some of the things he is said to have done.

IntenSity: This argument is false because ones creativity is not based on linguistic skills or talents.

Strawman fallacy!!!!!!!!!!!! I NEVER stated, nor do I think, that the writer of Mark was not creative or that he had no skill as a writer.

I think a COMBINATION of factors leads me to think his hero may have been a historical personage. First of all, Mark's main character is presented in a generally negative way. Second, the writer uses poor grammar. Third, the writer uses poor Greek. Fourth, the writer does not seem to be intellectually sophisticated enough to create a character of Jesus' obvious complexity. Fifth, the writer's hero died an extremely undignified death.

NOW, pay close attention all those who KNOW Jesus is mythical (here I mean fictional): Even if a gifted writer had used perfect grammar and Greek and depicted a hero who had ONLY positive characteristics and died a glorious death--NOTHING would be PROVEN absolutely.

IntenSity: In any case, midrash did not demand that a writer "hatch" ideas ex-nihilo, they just needed to copy, interpret and expound from the Old Testament writings.

Give an example of an OT fictional hero who was a magician. Give an example of an OT fictional hero who quarreled with virtually all who he came into contact with. Give an example of an OT fictional hero who was thought to be crazy by his family and opponents. Give an example of an OT fictional hero who predicted the Day of Yahweh. Give an example of an OT fictional hero who died as a result of crucifixion. FINALLY, give an example of an OT fictional hero who had ALL the above apply to him.

IntenSity: Your clinging on the possibility of existence of a historical Jesus because you "have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for WHY an unsophisticated writer would create a story using a setting he is unfamiliar with "to satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends."" is fallacious because existence of a historical Jesus is not dependent on an explanation you find "satisfactory", but on evidence.

I cling to nothing; I deal with possibilities and probabilities BASED on a careful analysis of as much EVIDENCE as I can get hold of. It is you who is the "clinger." You would like people to think you KNOW that Jesus is a fictional character. You know no such thing. Neither does anyone else. Further, you have yet to give a satisfactory explanation for WHY an unsophisticated writer would create a story using a setting he is unfamiliar with "to satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends. WHY can't you give an explanation, IntenSity?

IntenSity: Persuasive explanations do NOT create history out of myth.

I have no desire to "create history out of myth." BUT, you certainly seem hellbent on PROVING that Jesus is a fictional character. Why?

IntenSity: Out the window too.

Nope. Your statement (and some others) reminds me of many made by J.P. Holding. Your declaring something to be true does not make it true, IntenSity.

rodahi

IntenSity: 3. That Jesus was a "nobody" can not be sustained in the face of Mark saying Jesus went ALL OVER Galilee casting out demons and healing the sick. Mark also adds that Jesus had to avoid the excited and expectant crowds to get some quiet time with his disciples.
Out the window.

It is certainly possible that the writer exaggerated, no? There is hard EVIDENCE that virtually all "historians" exaggerated at times. I do not doubt that Mark's Jesus had audiences, but that does not mean he drew enough attention to himself during his lifetime for a non-Christian to concern himself with writing about Jesus.

IntenSity: If you have any new arguments, offer them.

I don't need any. See above.

rodahi

rodahi: How do you KNOW it is a work of fiction, IntenSity? With respect to Jesus' negative qualities, they are in the narrative for all to see.

IntenSity: A claim so far.

Thank you for admitting that you are making only a "claim." That is not what you have been doing up to this point.

IntenSity: On what basis have you reached the conclusion that the "negative qualities" are too much for you to accept the story as that of a mythical figure?

As I have stated, and I guess I will have to keep stating, I see no good reason to think the writer created a mythical character. Obviously, you do. Perhaps someday you will be proven correct. That day has not arrived.

IntenSity: Have you established that all mythical figures in antiquity have only positive attributes?

No, I have not. But, I have established the fact that mythical heroes generally have "heroic" qualities and they usually die in some glorious way. Finding an exception to this rule would not prove Jesus to be mythical (fictional). It would merely make it a possibility.

rodahi

IntenSity: Which mythical figures are you comparing Jesus with? If you have none, then you are basing that judgement on personal taste, which is invalid.

Since I am not attempting to prove Jesus' existence or non-existence, nothing I have said is actually "invalid." Remember, I deal with possibilities, probabilities, and evidence.


IntenSity: Because Mark had a personal taste too, and we dont know what he thought about what you label "negative qualities". Remember Jesus did NOT comission Mark to write about him, so Mark could write as he saw fit.

The writer wrote about a man he considered worthy of following. You are correct about our not knowing what he thought. None of this proves that the writer wrote a fictional work.