Gregg

An announcement:

I've made the decision to withdraw from these debates about MJ vs. HJ until such time as I'm able to do more research and be more confident of my facts. I am simply making too many basic errors in my posts. There are others here who are much better equipped to argue for the mythicist case than I am, so for the time being I leave it in their capable hands.

Gregg

Layman

A Question:

If you admit that you lack knowledge or hold erroneous beliefs about "too many basic" issues related to this discussion, why are you so sure of the Jesus Myth theory?

Ted Hoffman

HIS ignorance if the "basic issues" is not fatal to the Jesus Myth theory. It only cripples his ability to argue his position.

Its like slamming down a two year old with the question: "If you lack "basic knowledge" of quantum mechanics why are you so sure of the truthfulness of Many Worlds Interpretation?
Its an ad-himinem. That is all it is.

Your only option is to demonstrate why the Jesus Myth position is "untenable" or if the arguments in its favour are tenuous - as you so stridently assert. But to make one persons' ignorance an issue is fallacious.

Layman

What are you talking about? We are not in your backyard or on the school playground. Sheesh. I never said his ignorance had any effect on the Jesus Myth's validity per se.

What I was exploring is how he can be so devoted to a position that he knows so little about. In other words, why does he accept the Jesus Myth idea on faith?

Vorkosigan

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I ask you, whose interpretation is more forced and distorted here?

Vinnie -- here is an old post of Peter's in response to this issue during a discussion on XTALK. The whole idea of "the Twelve" is less simple and clear than you think:


>>Nineham says in his commentary on Mark that because it seems that it seems that the twelve did not really play a very significant role in the early church, it is unlikely that they are a later invention.
>
>I don't understood the force of this argument -- it makes no sense to me. Are we to assume the ancient Christians only made up stuff that WAS important? And, for what it's worth, they DO become very important, literarily & theologically, in Luke-Acts.
>
>>This seems to make some sense. I remember this coming up on the list quite a long long time ago. I was wondering if there are any folk on the list now who do *not* believe that the twelve are historical - I would be interested in the reasoning behind this point of view.
>
>I don't. As has already been noted, Jesus presumably DID have followers. But I'm pretty convinced "the twelve" -- as disciples of Jesus -- are a fiction. Reasons for this:
>
>1. The earliest reference to the twelve, in Paul, presents them as witnesses to the resurrection, not disciples of Jesus. Moreover, this reference is exclusive of Peter.
>
>2. The lists of the twelve in the various gospels do not agree with each other.
>
>3. Other sources, including the Talmud, and GThomas, inter alia, present Jesus as having a smaller circle of disciples.
>
>4. The earliest source that presents the twelve as disciples of Jesus is Mark. Not great testimony, IMHO.
>
>5. All of our traditions present Jesus as including women among his inner circle, but none of the lists of 12 include women.
>
>6. As already noted, the number is too significant -- it seems to imply a reconstituted or alternative Israel. Not that it's impossible that Jesus himself had such an agenda . . . but the number itself provides us with the motivation for fictionalizing.
>
>I've probably missed some stuff. None of this is "proof," of course, but these are the reasons I'm more inclined to see this "inner circle" as theological fictionalizing. A good book on this is by Heinz Geunther, _Walking in the Footsteps of Jesus' Twelve_ or something like that.

>Bill
>___________________________
>William Arnal
>Department of Religious Studies
>University of Regina
>Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2
>
>

Reading over this list, I thought of my own comments. Are any of them
novel?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Kirby" <kirby@earthlink.net>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Twelve

> The Secret Book of James mentions the 'twelve disciples' as well as James, Peter, and John.

My list was drawn up hastily, and I may have made an error here. Here is the quote from the Apocryphon of James:

The Lord answered and said: "Do you not know that the head of prophecy was cut off with John?"

This is most obviously a reference to the Baptist (Mark 6:27), although I suppose it could technically be the son of Zebedee, if both sons of thunder were executed at the same time as some suggest. According to Acts 12:2, James the brother of John was beheaded.

> The Gospel of the Ebionites mentions Simon Peter, John and James the sons of Zebedee, Simon, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, James the son of Alphaeus, Thomas, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas the Iscariot.

The name 'Simon' should not appear twice, and the name 'Matthew' must be added.

Here is the translation of the passage in Epiphanius from M. R. James, transcribed by me.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ebionites.html

"In the Gospel they have, called according to Matthew, but not wholly
complete, but falsified and mutilated (they call it the Hebrew Gospel), it
is contained that 'There was a certain man named Jesus, and he was about
thirty years old, who chose us. And coming unto Capernaum he entered into
the house of Simon who was surnamed Peter, and opened his mouth and said: As
I passed by the lake of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of
Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and <Philip and Bartholomew, James the son of
Alphaeus and Thomas> Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Iscariot:
and thee, Matthew, as thou satest as the receipt of custom I called, and
thou followedst me. You therefore I will to be twelve apostles for a
testimony unto (of) Israel."

Here is the quote from Epiphanius in a different translation, which I pulled
off the net somewhere.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...-panarion.html

There appeared a certain man named Jesus of about thirty years of age, who
chose us. And when he came to Capernaum, he entered into the house of Simon
whose surname is Peter, and opened his mouth and said: "As I passed the Lake
of Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and Simon and
Andrew and Thaddeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the Iscariot, and you,
Matthew, I called as you sat at the receipt of custom, and you followed me.
You, therefore, I will to be twelve apostles for a testimony unto Israel."
(Epiphanius, Panarion 30.13.2-3)

> Papias mentions Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, Matthew, and
> Judas.

Here is the quote of Papias from Eusebius as found in the Ante-Nicene
Fathers.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

But I shall not be unwilling to put down, along with my interpretations,
whatsoever instructions I received with care at any time from the elders,
and stored up with care in my memory, assuring you at the same time of their
truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those who spoke
much, but in those who taught the truth; nor in those who related strange
commandments, but in those who rehearsed the commandments given by the Lord
to faith, and proceeding from truth itself. If, then, any one who had
attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what
Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James,
or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which
things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For
I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as
what came from the living and abiding voice.

> The Epistula Apostolorum mentions John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James,
> Philip, Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas as well
as
> Joseph and Mary.

Here is the quote from the Epistula Apostolorum as translated by M. R. James
from the Ethiopic.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ostolorum.html

2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew,
Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east
and the west, of the north and the south, the declaring and imparting unto
you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we
have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead:
and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

Now let me quote from some lists of leaders or disciples found in the
canonical writings.

Mark 3:16-19. "Simon, whom he named Peter; James, son of Zebedee, and John
the brother of James, whom he named Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder;
Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus;
Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him."

Matt 10:2-3. "The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon
called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his
brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector
[note the name change in Mt 9:9 from Levi, son of Alphaeus, as compared with
Mk 2:14]; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and
Judas Iscariot who betrayed him."

Luke 6:14-16. "Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, James,
John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon
who was called a Zealot, and Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who
became a traitor."

Acts 1:13. "When they entered the city they went into the upper room where
they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas,
Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, and Judas
son of James."

The author of Luke-Acts also mentions the seventy and the seven.

Luke 10:1-17. "Now after these things the Lord appointed seventy others
also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place
where he himself was about to come. . . . And the seventy returned with joy,
saying, Lord, even the demons are subject to us through thy name."

Acts 6:3-5. "Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled
with the spirit and wisdom . . ." So they chose Stephen, a man filled with
faith and the holy spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas,
and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism."

Some suggest that John 1:45-51 suggests that Nathanael can take his place
among the college of the apostles. It is often observed that the fourth
gospel has no list of the Twelve, but we do find this list in the Johannine
appendix:

John 21:2. "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas called Didymus, and
Nathanael who was of Cana of Galilee, and the sons of Zebedee, and two
others of his disciples."

If you count these, there are seven disciples mentioned. If you look up
above, you will find that Papias also mentions seven disciples: Andrew,
Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew. Papias mentions Judas
elsewhere but does not mention him as an apostle here. The Gospel of the
Ebionites mentions eight people; the additional four names inserted by M. R.
James are a conjectural emendation so that the list adds up to twelve, in
accord with the mention of the twelve in Epiphanius' quote, but it is
possible that two different traditions are reflected in this quote. If
Judas may be excluded, as he is in Papias, the Jewish-Christian Gospel
mentioned by Epiphanius names seven disciples: John and James the sons of
Zebedee, and Simon and Andrew and Thaddaeus and Simon the Zealot and
Matthew.

So we have three lists of seven: John, Papias, and the Ebionite Gospel
quoted by Epiphanius. Let me repeat the list for each.

Gospel of John: Simon Peter, Thomas called Didymus, Nathanael who was of
Cana of Galilee, son of Zebedee, son of Zebedee, one of two other disciples,
one of two other disciples

Papias in Eusebius: Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, James, John, and Matthew

Ebionite Gospel in Epiphanius: John son of Zebedee, James the son of
Zebedee, Simon, Andrew, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, Matthew.

There are three persons that appear in all these lists of seven, though
without names in the fourth gospel (for his own literary purposes).

= John - Papias - Ebionite =

Simon Peter - Peter - Simon
'sons of Zebedee' - John - John son of Zebedee
'sons of Zebedee' - James - James son of Zebedee

These are the same names found in the Big Three (Gal 2:9; Mark 5:37, 9:2,
13:3, 14:33 and parallels.).

There are then four persons whose names may vary.

= John - Papias - Ebionite =

Thomas called Didymus - Thomas - Thaddaeus/Simon the Zealot
Nathanael - Matthew - Matthew
'two others of his disciples' - Andrew - Andrew
'two others of his disciples' - Philip - Thaddaeus/Simon the Zealot

Here is how I constructed this table. First, I noted that Andrew and Philip
often appear together in the apostolic lists (Mark 3:18, Acts 1:13). Also,
I noted that Andrew and Philip were mentioned in the first chapter of the
fourth gospel (Jn 1:40, 1:43-44). They were therefore obvious candidates
for the two other disciples, and they both appear in Papias separated only
by Peter (the brother of Andrew). Then, it is obvious that Thomas in Papias
should be paired up with Thomas called Didymus in the fourth gospel. After
that, the only name left unmatched in Papias is Matthew, so I placed it next
to Nathanael by a process of elimination. For the Gospel of the Ebionites,
Andrew and Matthew are mentioned and so appear in the table next to the
names in the list from Papias. I saw no clear way to connect
Thaddaeus/Simon the Zealot with Thomas/Philip, so I left these relationships
undefined.

With the exception of Nathanael, all of these names appear in the synoptic
lists of Twelve, but not in the same order. The lack of a common order with
the synoptic Twelve suggests to me that the Seven is a separate tradition
from the Twelve. I am not sure how the apostolic Seven relates to the
Hellenist Seven in Acts. Is the author of Luke-Acts somehow commenting on
an earlier tradition of seven disciples? If so, what is the comment? I
haven't worked that out.

Now we come to the lists of Twelve. The slight discrepancy between the list
in Mark/Matthew and the list in Luke/Acts is well-known, and the time-worn
harmonization tells us that Judas the son of James is Thaddaeus. But not so
well-known is the non-synoptic list of Twelve to be found in the Epistula
Apostolorum. There we find it written:

"We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Batholomew, Matthew,
Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches . . ."

Count them up, and you will reach the number eleven. Add in Judas Iscariot,
excluded from the Twelve after the resurrection (Mt 28:16; Lk 24:9, 24:33),
and what you see in the Epistula Apostolorum is a different list of the
Twelve apostles.

So let us compare the lists of the Eleven (minus the Iscariot) in these
three sources.

Gospel of Mark: Peter, James son of Zebedee, John the brother of James,
Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus,
Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean

The Work of Luke-Acts: Simon whom he named Peter, his brother Andrew, James,
John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon
who was called a Zealot, Judas the son of James

Epistula Apostolorum: John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip,
Batholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, Cephas

The first thing that jumps out at you is that Peter is separated from Cephas
in the Epistula Apostolorum. It has been suggested by some that the name of
Peter was interpolated into the Pauline epistles to replace the name of
Cephas in some places. (http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/barnikol.html) This
list of the Eleven in the Epistula Apostolorum could provide independent
attestation of the tradition that Peter and Cephas were not always
identified, regardless of their etymological similarity.

Other striking points in the Epistula Apostolorum include the priority of
John, paralleled only in the Ebionite Gospel, and the high position given to
Thomas as second, while Thomas usually appears much later. Andrew is
mentioned along with Peter, which is not unusual, but three names now place
a wedge between John and James: did the author of the Epistula Apostolorum
think of them as brothers?

Philip, Bartholomew, and Matthew appear together in the proper order in the
Epistula Apostolorum. So far, all of these names are found in the synoptic
list. But then we see the name of Nathanael: the list that places John
first provides an additional testimony to the apostolate of Nathanael.

Then we come to the apostle that I would dub "Jude the obscure," named here
Judas Zelotes, who could be identified with Simon who was called the Zealot
in Luke-Acts (Simon the Cananean in Matthew/Mark), or who could be
identified with Judas the son of James in Luke-Acts (sometimes identified
with Thaddeus in Matthew/Mark). Is it too much to suggest that a name was
made up on occasion to round out the number of apostles?

From the list in the Epistula Apostolorum, it is apparent that, if Jesus
chose twelve disciples, their names were not committed to memory by the
early church, perhaps analogous to the way they are not committed to memory
in the church today. All the lists remember Peter and the sons of thunder,
and then Andrew or Matthew or Thomas come to mind, but after that the memory
gets fuzzy.

We have examined the traditions of the Seven and of the Twelve. Brief
mention can be made of the other traditions of disciples.

The Two appear in the Apocryphon of James, "a secret book which was revealed
to me and Peter by the Lord," in which Jesus says, "Let me have James and
Peter, in order that I may fill them." Then there is that dynamic duo,
Peter and Paul, mentioned in First Clement together as follows: "Let us set
before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter who by reason of
unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labors, and thus
having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory. By reason
of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the prize of patient
endurance. After that he had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into
exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the
noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness
unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and
when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the
world and went unto the holy place, having been found a notable pattern of
patient endurance."

The triumvirate of James, Peter, and John appear in Paul (Gal 2:9) and the
synoptics (Mark 5:37, 9:2, 13:3, 14:33, parallels). I write in my summary
of Eisenman: "Ancient tradition has it that the first Jewish revolt was
sparked by the unjust execution of James the Just. In order to disassociate
James the Just from his brother Jesus, the Gospels split him into two: on
the one hand, the family of Jesus including James think Jesus is mad; on the
other hand, James the son of Zebedee is one of the trio of James, Peter, and
John as found in the Gospels. Yet the fiction is exposed when we look at the
earlier letters of Paul, in which the trio is James the brother of the Lord,
Peter, and John - what an odd coincidence, which so many scholars take at
face value, that one James the son of Zebedee should have died only to be
conveniently replaced by another by the name of James, the brother of
Jesus!" A lesser-mentioned threesome is found in the Gospel of Thomas in
the form of Simon Peter, Matthew, and Thomas (saying 13).

For the Five, here is the quote from the Talmud. It is from TB Sanhedrin
43a, as given by F. F. Bruce in _Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New
Testament_, p. 62. It comes right after the story of hanging Jesus on the
Passover Eve for sorcery and leading Israel astray into apostasy, which
gives reasonable assurance that Jesus of Nazareth is intended. There
follows a list of offenses supposedly committed by these people, with quotes
from the Hebrew scriptures that pun on their names; giving names that would
create puns may have been the principle behind the selection of names.
Nevertheless it is interesting as providing a testimony to a tradition of a
group of five. "The rabbis taught: Jesus had five disciples: Mathai, Naqai,
Nezer, Buni, and Todah."

Finally, for a group of seventy which would be a separate group from the
apostles in any account, see Luke 10:1-17, which is worth noting for the
sake of completeness. (The references in Paul to himself, Apollos, James
the Lord's brother, the Twelve after the resurrection, "all the apostles" in
addition, and those "prominent among the apostles" could be mentioned here
as well.)

So it seems that we are narrowing our focus prematurely when asking, "Are
the Twelve historical?" We should really be asking, "Are the Two or the
Three or the Five or the Seven or the Twelve or the Seventy historical?" At
the least, I think that the tradition of the Seven deserves consideration
along with the tradition of the Twelve.

best,
Peter Kirby

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Ted Hoffman

Layman:
Why do you want to be in my backyard or school playground Layman and how is that relevant to this discussion?

Who said "per se"?

His ignorance has no effect on Jesus Myth's validity AT ALL. Wrap that tightly around your brain.



Well, that would be his personal choice now wouldnt it? And its irrelevant to the discussion. He has bowed out of the debate with valid reasons and you are still poking him with irrelevant questions.

He could also ask you, why do you accept the existence of God on faith?

Sheesh!

Ted Hoffman

Vork, thanks for that post that exposed us to Kirby's brilliant hermeneutics.

Vorkosigan

I kept that one in my personal files, it was so enjoyable and informative.

Yes, someday we'll all be able to say of Peter that we knew him when. The question is whether he'll admit to knowing us.

Vorkosigan

Gregg

Sorry, I haven't been watching these threads too much since I temporarily bowed out of the discussion.

I didn't say I "lack knowledge" or "hold erroneous beliefs" (I'm not sure what THAT means) about "too many basic issues" I said I was making too many basic errors in my posts. For example, at one point I stated that Hebrews never mentions the crucifixion, but it was pointed out to me that it does, in 12:2. I erroneously stated that Mark worked with Q. I was also getting the dating of some of the letters and gospels wrong. So, I felt I needed to take some time out to refresh my memory so I wouldn't keep making mistakes like this.

But to answer your question, even though I don't have every fact and detail regarding the Bible, Bible scholarship, and the MJ theory at my instant and total recall, that doesn't mean I didn't read and understand these facts and details when I was reading Doherty's thesis. This a little like saying I can't be sure genies don't operate a television just because I can't remember the explanation of how a TV works from my high school science texbook, or I can't be sure that evolution happens because I'd get lost during a technical discussion of DNA.

I think considering the MJ theory to be at least a very strong possibility is just plain common sense. Here are the facts:

1. We know that there was a philosophy called Greek Platonism, which among other things postulated a multi-layered heaven that became progressively more spiritual as you moved upward, until you reached a region of pure spirit where God dwelled.

2. We know that the Platonists further postulated a divine Logos, through which God created the universe and through which God communicated with man, and that this Logos was a spiritual being.

3. We know that in the Platonist universe, earthly things, events, and processes had heavenly archetypes/counterparts, and that events and processes in the heavens could directly affect matters on earth (as above, so below).

4. We know that there were many dying/rising savior god cults in existence at the same time Christianity came on the scene. We know that these cults were remarkably similar to Christianity, some of them even believing that their god had eaten a sacred meal prior to his death and resurrection. However, these cults all believed that their god's sacrifice had taken place either in the primordial past or in a spiritual dimension, not in recent history.

5. We know that references to a historical, "gospel" Jesus in the New Testament letters and epistles are vanishingly rare, and virtually non-existent if we allow for: 1) the fact that events like sacred meals and crucifixions could, in the Platonist worldview, take place in heaven just as easily as on Earth; 2) later interpolation by Christian copyists; 3) Paul's mention of "appearances" meaning spiritual visions just like his, not meetings with a resurrected, physical Christ prior to his ascension; and 4) scholars reading the Gospels back into the letters and epistles when making translation decisions.

6. We know that extra-biblical Christian correspondence is equally silent on an HJ until Ignatius, and that this preponderance of silence on the HJ and the Gospels continues in many quarters until the 2nd century is well underway.

7. We know that there is a profound silence on the HJ in Jewish and pagan writings of the 1st century, with the exception of two highly controversial passages in Josephus. In addition, when HJ "references" do finally start appearing in Jewish and pagan writings, they seem to be simply repeating what Christians have to say about Jesus, so they do not constitute independent attestation.

8. We have a scholarly consensus that places Mark around 65-70 (Doherty places it around 85-90, but I checked with him and his opinion is that the earlier dating doesn't really affect the overall mythicist case). So we have a picture of the first Christians fanning out across the Empire from Jerusalem, spreading the Gospel purely by oral transmission--and nobody bothers to write anything down for AT LEAST 35 years.

9. We have just one person finally saying, "Hey, maybe we should put this on paper." And when he does, his manuscript eventually gets copied and passed around to other churches in the same geographical area, and a few other people undertake to write their own versions--but instead of drawing from their own communities' oral traditions about Jesus and crafting original versions of the gospel story, they copy huge portions of Mark. Even John, though not included with the synoptics, is now believed by many scholars to be heavily dependent on at least one them.

10. We have the rest of the Christian churches across the Empire remaining blissfully unaware of the existence of the gospels for decades, and again, NONE of them undertake to write down a truly independent account of Jesus' earthly ministry (one that can be demonstrated to be a completely original composition, showing little or no awareness of Mark of the other gospels).

11. We have Christians denying the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the physical nature of Jesus Christ. We have Christian apologists speaking of Jesus as a purely spiritual being. We even have a Christian writer defending the validity of the gospels by saying, in effect, "You Greeks have your mythical stories, and we have ours."

12. We have Paul and other Christian writers failing to mention any word or deed of the Lord even when doing so would have added force to an argument ("Why are you even listening to people who say you have to follow the Jewish dietary laws? Don't you remember my telling you what Jesus himself said, "It is not what goes into the mouth but what comes out that defiles'?" or "People are filling your heads with doubts about Jesus' resurrection? Look, I personally met people who saw Jesus after he came out of his tomb. Many of them are still alive, and I can vouch for them. And how do these false apostles explain Lazarus?")

I could go on, but 12 is a nice number, and I think I've made my point. Why shouldn't I be pretty sure of the mythicist case? It's a pretty darn good case. It's consistent with the facts, it's consistent with itself, it clears up a lot of questions. Yes, the evidence is mostly circumstantial, but one of the conceits of modern times is that people tend to equate a 'circumstantial evidence" case with a "weak" case. But the whole thing with a circumstantial evidence case is that while we can allow for one coincidence, perhaps two, maybe even three, eventually you get to a point where there are just too many coincidences and you have to admit, "Yes, it's been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that so-and-so did it" (unless you're a juror on the OJ Simpson case, that is).

Now, I really don't mind that there are people who continue to hold to the HJ position. I can respect Peter Kirby. I can respect Richard Carrier, who doesn't regard Doherty's case as conclusive and has withheld judgment. This is not like denying evolution, the Holocaust, or the fact that OJ Simpson did do it.

No, what bothers me are all these people who freely admit that they've barely even read Doherty's thesis, much less tried to understand it, yet have the gall to cavalierly dismiss it as "weak" and "silly." They can't be bothered to understand the Greek Platonist worldview or the beliefs of the mystery cults, which could not have failed to influence the thinking of men like Paul, yet they practically claim to be able to read his mind!

OK, I've gone on a lot longer than I planned. Back to the books.

Gregg

Radorth

Re Doherty:

This is a good point I think, as far as it goes. Paul's "gospel" is a revelation. But it is hardly a gospel like the synoptics which are stories of Jesus life, sayings and works. He is not even hinting that his "gospel" is like theirs, i.e that Jesus' life and works were supernaturally revealed to him. So how can we use the same definition?

The question must be fairly limited to whether Paul heard of Jesus' life and works and if he did, why he did not repeat them to his hearers. I consider this evidence they were common knowledge, and certainly he had very much else to say. There is no proof here that he did not know the stories, and Doherty only questions he never answers for us. He also implies an enormous conspiracy, and doesn't bother explaining that either, or offering the slightest proof of it. Occam's Razor pretty well shreds his argument in the end.

Rad