The Jesus Myth, and it's failures

[HansMustermann]

I think the main failure of the Jesus Myth of people like Carrier and Doherty, is the lack of evidence for any Second Temple Jewish Cult following a Messiah who wasn't made of flesh and blood. Being made of flesh and blood was kind of fundamental to the whole thing, even more than the triumphant liberation that he was supposed to bring.

We also have no proof that there was a pre-Joseph Smith, Christian cult of the religion of Alma The Elder and the others in his new religion, so, you know, he couldn't have made that up. We also have no evidence before Rastafarianism of a cult that thought Jesus would come back as the insignificant king of a craphole like Ethiopia, nor that such a craphole would be their new promised land. We also have no evidence before the Kemet Orthodoxy of a Wicca sect that worshipped the ancient Egyptian gods, or at that, that would make a monotheism out of it. In fact, reinventing monotheism goes against what the Wicca are usually about. We also have no evidence that Family International grew out of some other Christian cult that was about prostitution and apparently imagining being boned by Jesus. I mean, come on, he loves you, but not that way Etc.

Let's face it, the whole point of coming up with a new religion or sect is that it has some different twist.

If Mormonism didn't have some twist that goes against what pre-existing protestant Christians believed in, it wouldn't be a new religion, it would be just protestant Christianity. If Rastafarianism didn't have the peculiar twist o worshipping the king of Ethiopia, it wouldn't be a new religion either. If the Kemet Orthodoxy was just the usual Wicca without the Egyptian monotheism twist, it would be just Wicca. And if Family International didn't have the sex twist it would just be mainstream Christianity. Etc.

Pretending to know that oh noes, a new religion couldn't have come with an original twist, and that it actually was perfectly in line with the old religion, is not just illogical, but fails when tested on the four examples above. And probably a hundred others.

 

[HansMustermann]

As for the woman taken in adultery, most secular scholars agree that it's a late addition. As in, it doesn't even appear in any manuscripts until the late 4'th century, AND according to Ehrman it contains words that don't fit John's usual vocabulary.

Heck, we even have St Augustine's confirmation that it's missing in earlier manuscripts, but he thinks it's still authentic, because, he rationalizes, people just removed it so their own wives wouldn't think Jesus endorses adultery. Gotta love a good rationalization

Also, pretty much nobody refers to it before that time either. Papias may have mentioned there was a story circulating "about a woman falsely accused before the Lord of many sins", or at least Eusebius says he did. But Eusebius himself is 4th century, and we know he wasn't above making stuff up. But be it as it may, the story he mentions in Papias is about a woman falsely accused, not one caught in the act, and of "many sins", not specifically adultery. It's hard to see how the two could have even told the same story, since showing mercy to someone falsely accused isn't mercy, it's justice. There is no point in telling people they can still stone her if they're without sin, when she doesn't deserve to be stoned in any case. In fact, it would be a recklessly dangerous thing to say, since it only takes one idiot throwing one stone anyway for the rest to follow, and you just approved killing an innocent.

It's also worth mentioning that whoever came up with that story was not even familiar with how it worked in the OT, and it's a story more in line with their own Greek society. See, the OT doesn't say to just punish the woman, but the guy... more power to him if he found some nookie on the side. The OT says BOTH have to be stoned.

Leviticus 20:10: "If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death."

Deuteronomy 22:24: "you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you."

If it was a trap, the easiest way to turn it around would have been to spring just that on them: wait, you're not doing what the Law actually says.

Add the unrealistic reaction of the crowd, and you have another Black Hole Sue story by someone who hadn't even seen the place, and one that's three and a half centuries too late to have any first hand information about what Jesus actually did or said.

So, you know, taking that as an example of what Jesus actually said or did is a bit illogical.

 

[eight bits]

Hans

Carrier proposes that there was a pre-Gospel "Jesus" cult that worshipped some incorporeal being, like Gabriel and Moroni, who then became Carrier-Euhemerized as the hero of stories set on Earth.

www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf

See physical slides 5 and 6. The lack of evidence for the specific hypothesis was among the problems criticized in what you quoted.

On the woman taken in adultery pericope, there is some consensus is that it doesn't belong in John. It is interesting to puzzle out how it might have ended up there (at 8: 3-11), but it has a constituency as a Gospel-era story rather than a later addition to the canon. I like Luke myself, but its authorship is not a major concern in my life.

There is nothing at all in the canonical story about what happened to the man. The story doesn't say the man wasn't accused. There's also no indication what her accusers plan to do with the woman, if anything, nor is it clear what they could prudently do under Roman occupation.

As to the realism of the crowd reaction, the only "crowd" in the story is the one that has gathered to hear Jesus teach. The Scribes and Pharisess, who bring the woman to Jesus, interrupt him for the purpose of this confrontation. There is no indication of how the crowd gathered to hear Jesus reacted to any of this, except that Jesus resumes talking to them afterwards, at 8: 12.

As to whether or not the woman is guilty, the S&P say that she was caught in the act, but don't explain how they know that, nor are they specific about who, when, where, etc. As you yourself observe, they seem to be one perp short of a "very act." In Christian company, self-serving conclusory S&P statements don't enjoy a presumption of truth or candor.

There's no hint of S&P interest in the case except to catch Jesus in some awkward public statement. When that doesn't materialize, the S&P simply leave. Jesus then wraps it up. There are no available witnesses. Jesus asks the woman whether anybody accuses her. She says no. Jesus makes a prophetic hedge, telling her to sin no more, but he makes no finding about what sins she's already committed, in particular, Jesus makes no finding about the S&P accusations.

So, a patristic author, by your lights, fudged the difference between a false charge made by disreputable accusers with a hidden agenda and an unresolved charge made by the same calibre of accusers that was abandoned without finding for which no witnesses were ever produced. OK, but that's not much of a reason to think that an altogether different story was being discussed.

 

[HansMustermann]

Oh, not only I know those slides already, I know the lecture he used them in.

It's still a completely different thing than what Brainache was saying. Brainache was asking for a "Second Temple Jewish Cult following a Messiah who wasn't made of flesh and blood". Carrier actually talks about Paul's cult, which wasn't very Jewish, and the evidence is the interpretation of that text.

It may seem a bit thin to rely on Bible interpretation for history, and it is, really. But then as you undoubtedly know, we don't really have anything else (well, anything else believable, as opposed to 4'th century martyr fantasies) about either Paul's sect or the supposed group in Jerusalem either. The opposing version doesn't have any better evidence either. Nobody ever dug up independent evidence of what Paul or Peter or James or anyone else from that period actually believed in either.

So at the end of the day it's Bible interpretation vs Bible interpretation. Which on one hand is why I still say that Carrier makes a good case that that's possible, but doesn't really meet the burden of proof that that IS the case either. But then neither does the opposing side. So giving only one side (either side) the blame of not having more evidence is missing the point that neither does the other side.

It's like complaining that my friend's rooster doesn't lay eggs. You know, unlike the other roosters, which don't lay eggs either

 

[eight bits]

It's still a completely different thing than what Brainache was saying. Brainache was asking for a "Second Temple Jewish Cult following a Messiah who wasn't made of flesh and blood".

Carrier proposes a Second Temple Jewish cult following a Messiah who wasn't made of flesh and blood. Paul lived and died as a Second Temple Jew. In his surviving writings, Paul's trying to covince other Second Temple Jews to accept his Gentiles as sister and brother cultists. According to Carrier (recently, at least) Paul's Jesus wasn't made of flesh and blood. See for example physical slide 23 of the set already cited.

Brainache fairly described Carrier's recent position. That has nothing to do with whether Paul's own cult was especially Jewish, but rather that Paul witnesses the existence of a Jewish cult, during the Second Temple period.

We all seem to be in agreement, Brainache, you and I, that evidence about the actual content of the beliefs taught by the other Jews whom Paul wrote about is thin. Kumbaya.

 

[IanS]

Hans

Carrier proposes that there was a pre-Gospel "Jesus" cult that worshipped some incorporeal being, like Gabriel and Moroni, who then became Carrier-Euhemerized as the hero of stories set on Earth.

www.richardcarrier.info/Historicity_of_Jesus.pdf

See physical slides 5 and 6. The lack of evidence for the specific hypothesis was among the problems criticized in what you quoted.

Nice textural slide show from Carrier. Clear summary of what he actually said in the YouTube video that I linked in the "What Counts" thread, ie the one which Piggy repeatedly refused to watch or listen to (ditto Craig, who also refused to look at it).

But ... which slides are you referencing to as numbers "5" and "6"? In the first few slides, Carrier is simply stating his hypothesis, as opposed to giving the evidence to support that hypothesis ... the rest of the slides then proceed to set out the evidence for his hypothesis.

His forthcoming book "promises" to set all of that out in full detail, with full references. The book may or may not live up to that promise, and I am certainly not claiming it will. But what I do say about his hypothesis and the explanation he gives, is that it is at least (a)a very clearly laid out attempt to explain not only why the biblical writing cannot be a reliable source as evidence of a real Jesus, but also (b)a very clear and direct explanation of how and why the bible stories may have arisen from a figure who was only ever mythical.

Almost in passing, two interesting points that Carrier's slides make, are -

1. In Paul’s letters, as our earliest biblical account mentioning Jesus, when Paul talks of existing Christian believers and talks of his own experience of Jesus, he only ever talks of people experiencing visions of Jesus after his death … “Jesus is not said to appear to people before his death”.

2. In Paul’s letters, he says that his knowledge of even the last supper also comes to him not as the result of any Man telling him about that event, but again as a revelation from a heavenly Jesus and from Scripture. That’s quite a specific account from Paul, but apparently not an account that anyone on earth described to him.

On the woman taken in adultery pericope, there is some consensus is that it doesn't belong in John. It is interesting to puzzle out how it might have ended up there (at 8: 3-11), but it has a constituency as a Gospel-era story rather than a later addition to the canon. I like Luke myself, but its authorship is not a major concern in my life.

There is nothing at all in the canonical story about what happened to the man. The story doesn't say the man wasn't accused. There's also no indication what her accusers plan to do with the woman, if anything, nor is it clear what they could prudently do under Roman occupation.

As to the realism of the crowd reaction, the only "crowd" in the story is the one that has gathered to hear Jesus teach. The Scribes and Pharisess, who bring the woman to Jesus, interrupt him for the purpose of this confrontation. There is no indication of how the crowd gathered to hear Jesus reacted to any of this, except that Jesus resumes talking to them afterwards, at 8: 12.

As to whether or not the woman is guilty, the S&P say that she was caught in the act, but don't explain how they know that, nor are they specific about who, when, where, etc. As you yourself observe, they seem to be one perp short of a "very act." In Christian company, self-serving conclusory S&P statements don't enjoy a presumption of truth or candor.

There's no hint of S&P interest in the case except to catch Jesus in some awkward public statement. When that doesn't materialize, the S&P simply leave. Jesus then wraps it up. There are no available witnesses. Jesus asks the woman whether anybody accuses her. She says no. Jesus makes a prophetic hedge, telling her to sin no more, but he makes no finding about what sins she's already committed, in particular, Jesus makes no finding about the S&P accusations.

So, a patristic author, by your lights, fudged the difference between a false charge made by disreputable accusers with a hidden agenda and an unresolved charge made by the same calibre of accusers that was abandoned without finding for which no witnesses were ever produced. OK, but that's not much of a reason to think that an altogether different story was being discussed.

Are you saying that you believe that these sort of biblical stories are accurate truth/factual?

Just from what you have described of this passage above, it sounds to me more like the preaching of a parable, as opposed to ever being a supposedly factual set of events.

That is - like almost all of the biblical writing, it seems to me all the Jesus stories make more sense as parables being preached at some later date (ie long after Jesus was thought to have died), by Christian preachers who were telling the stories as a means of moral instruction to their listeners …. telling the listeners how Jesus had behaved, and therefore how they the listeners should now behave as faithful followers in the example of Jesus.

 

[pakeha]

...
2. In Paul’s letters, he says that his knowledge of even the last supper also comes to him not as the result of any Man telling him about that event, but again as a revelation from a heavenly Jesus and from Scripture. That’s quite a specific account from Paul, but apparently not an account that anyone on earth described to him. ...

That's interesting to read, IanS.
I'd never quite realised how much the Eucharist is based on Paul's revelations.
Still, I'm left with the question I've had for some time now, of how the idea of eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood, even vicariously, entered the Christian ceremonies.

 

[eight bits]

IanS

But ... which slides are you referencing to as numbers "5" and "6"?

My pdf reader (Adobe 8.1.0) has a page counter; each slide is a page. Slides 5 and 6 are successive "pop ups" that appear atop slide #4, which is entitled "The Divine Analogy."

he only ever talks of people experiencing visions of Jesus after his death … “Jesus is not said to appear to people before his death”.

Apart from the institution narrative (see below), which, however Paul found about it, takes place before Jesus' death, Paul says that earthly human beings killed Jesus. (Carrier may think that that is an interpolation.)

2. In Paul’s letters, he says that his knowledge of even the last supper also comes to him not as the result of any Man telling him about that event, but again as a revelation from a heavenly Jesus and from Scripture.

Yes, I was aware that you and piggy are in agreement about that. I disagree with that interpretation, for the reasons I explained to piggy in the "What counts...?" thread.

Are you saying that you believe that these sort of biblical stories are accurate truth/factual?

No, Hans and I were discussing the manuscript situation for this specific pericope. He and I agree that it isn't originally part of John. I'm 60-40 in favor of a historical Jesus who counts, which for me includes his having been a teacher for a while. The pericope depicts him teaching and being interrupted. So, put me down for 60% that he did the teaching part. Whether this interruption happened, I haven't thought much about. Not a lot actually happens in the story, especially when compared with how the incident has been dramatized. I've seen versions where the bad guys are warming up, ready to throw stones. Cool idea, but nowhere on the page.

Just from what you have described of this passage above, it sounds to me more like the preaching of a parable, as opposed to ever being a supposedly factual set of events.

That could be, too.

ETA-

pakeha

Still, I'm left with the question I've had for some time now, of how the idea of eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood, even vicariously, entered the Christian ceremonies.

Not through Jewish table manners.

Paul doesn't place the event at a supper, and doesn't depict who, if anybody, ate the food that Jesus has played with. It appears that Paul's Gentile congregation re-enacted the scene at a ritual meal, and they do seem to have consumed the food.

Hey, it's a discussion board. My best guess is that the earliest version of the story was in the Passion narrative, as Jesus' last words to the disciples in Gethsemane, just before Judas approaches.

There is an obvious "build of three" structure to the prayerful Jesus versus sleepy disciples business, with the third round, the climax, simply cut off in Mark. Jesus talks about a cup throughout his prayer speeches. He could eat and drink his own body and blood with no Jewish upset tummies as would be expected if he suggested play-acting vampirism and cannibalism at a dinner table. Placed at Gethsemane, the bit would also explain that Jesus is deciding not to run. That needs explaining, since it is dark, the arrest squad is spotted at a distance, and Jesus has twelve decoys (11 loyalists and that mysterious young man). Odds are excellent that Jesus could have run away, and lived.

 

[IanS]

IanS



Apart from the institution narrative (see below), which, however Paul found about it, takes place before Jesus' death, Paul says that earthly human beings killed Jesus. (Carrier may think that that is an interpolation.)

You mean the brief few words in 1-Thessalonians 2:14 ?

Yes, I was aware that you and piggy are in agreement about that. I disagree with that interpretation, for the reasons I explained to piggy in the "What counts...?" thread.

I don't know what Piggy thinks about it. But I was just quoting what Carrier said (rather than anything I might think about it).

 

[eight bits]

You mean the brief few words in 1-Thessalonians 2:14 ?

Yes.

I don't know what Piggy thinks about it.

Piggy thinks Paul held himself out as getting the institution narrative information from specrtral Jesus, but that Paul was being untruthful about it.

But I was just quoting what Carrier said (rather than anything I might think about it).

OK, thanks for clarifying. You and I have discussed how much can be read into the narrative that spans the first two chapters of Galatians. You took Paul's scope for divine and scriptural sourcing very broadly. If "Paul's Gospel" doesn't extend to this information, in your view, then that is excellent news, and I am delighted to be corrected.

 

[pakeha]

pakeha


Not through Jewish table manners.

Paul doesn't place the event at a supper, and doesn't depict who, if anybody, ate the food that Jesus has played with. It appears that Paul's Gentile congregation re-enacted the scene at a ritual meal, and they do seem to have consumed the food.

Hey, it's a discussion board. My best guess is that the earliest version of the story was in the Passion narrative, as Jesus' last words to the disciples in Gethsemane, just before Judas approaches.

There is an obvious "build of three" structure to the prayerful Jesus versus sleepy disciples business, with the third round, the climax, simply cut off in Mark. Jesus talks about a cup throughout his prayer speeches. He could eat and drink his own body and blood with no Jewish upset tummies as would be expected if he suggested play-acting vampirism and cannibalism at a dinner table. Placed at Gethsemane, the bit would also explain that Jesus is deciding not to run. That needs explaining, since it is dark, the arrest squad is spotted at a distance, and Jesus has twelve decoys (11 loyalists and that mysterious young man). Odds are excellent that Jesus could have run away, and lived.

That's a good guess about Paul's (possibly) theatre-loving Greeks converts.
Oddly enough, in another forum, I read speculation about Mark being essentially written as a script, sans stage directions, for the faithful to enact the gospel, especially the passion.
It's not an entirely crazy idea, after all.
We know of the medieval tradition of passion plays; indeed, this tradition lives on in Spain, where entire communities take part in the yearly performance of the passion.
For an overview of Passion plays, as always, wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passion_Play

As for the cup as a literary devise, yes indeed, most effective.

Mark 14:32-58

King James Version (KJV)

32 And they came to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray.

33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;

34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?

38 Watch ye and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly is ready, but the flesh is weak.

39 And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words.

40 And when he returned, he found them asleep again, (for their eyes were heavy,) neither wist they what to answer him.

41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.

42 Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.

43 And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.

44 And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.

45 And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.

46 And they laid their hands on him, and took him.

47 And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear.

48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take me?

49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but the scriptures must be fulfilled.

50 And they all forsook him, and fled.

But yes, a literary devise.
Who was the witness to record that thrice repeated prayer?

Could the entire sequence from the entry into Jerusalem to the Last Supper to the arrest be a literary retro-fit to expand on Paul's vision?
I Corinthians 11:23-26

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you,that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;
24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said,
"This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me."
25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying,
"This cup is the new covenant in My blood;
do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."

26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup,
you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.

My hiliting to indicate the visionary nature of Paul's teaching on the subject of the Last Supper.

 

[HansMustermann]

The bigger problem IMHO with 1 Thes 2:15 isn't just that it might be an interpolation, but the verb used: ἀποκτεινάντων. It may mean literally that the Jews had killed Jesus and the prophets, but the same word can mean they abolished Jesus and the prophets. Which is an entirely different thing and doesn't really need a physical Jesus.

 

[eight bits]

pakeha

Oddly enough, in another forum, I read speculation about Mark being essentially written as a script, sans stage directions, for the faithful to enact the gospel, especially the passion.

I've also heard it about Matthew, which is more "theatrical" than Mark. You can see the staging of the scene at the tomb, for instance, where the angel descends, etc.

But if you like the theater, then why

But yes, a literary devise.

Why not stage it with a cup in Jesus' hands? He's just come from a place where there were plenty of cups, wine and bread. He (or Judas, actually) paid for the food and drink; if there were leftovers, they're his. He travels, he'd have a wineskin in his kit. If he does decide to surrender, then that would be a good time for a snack and a drink - he's got a tough row to hoe.

The witness question is interesting. The young man is unaccounted for throughout the scene in Mark, until he runs off naked. Some people like him to be the "Beloved Disciple" (and like him whether or not he's actually John, who along with Simon Peter and James was stationed between Jesus and the other disciples). Of course, Mark doesn't say that it was written from witnesses' reports. Maybe not

Could the entire sequence from the entry into Jerusalem to the Last Supper to the arrest be a literary retro-fit to expand on Paul's vision?

Mark certainly could be a "fleshing out" of what Paul hints at - both here and elsewhere, too. Personally, I think the eucharist is like baptism for Paul - something that was already in Jewish Christian practice before Paul joined, which he then brought to the Gentiles, possibly with his own explanation of why it's a good idea. That still leaves room for his visions, and room for others to expand on his visions later on. I simply don't know how it all came together.

Hans

The bigger problem IMHO with 1 Thes 2:15 isn't just that it might be an interpolation, but the verb used: ἀποκτεινάντων. It may mean literally that the Jews had killed Jesus and the prophets, but the same word can mean they abolished Jesus and the prophets. Which is an entirely different thing and doesn't really need a physical Jesus.

Perhaps so. Every concrete verb or noun can be used figuratively. That's a feature of human speech. Nevertheless, Paul's Jesus does things that ordinary people can do - like in the 1 Thessalonians passage, or like handling food and wine, and breaking the bread.

"Oh, well, Casper the Friendly Ghost can perform telekinesis, so Paul doesn't necessarily mean that a physical Jesus changed a solid object. Besides, the noun used there is woopteedoodion, which sometimes means bread in the abstract sense of sustenance, which, when you think about it, could be spiritual sustenance. Assuming it's not an interpolation."

Paul's Jesus doesn't necessarily exist at all, not physically, not as a celestial being, not as anything. How Paul describes him in work that reaches us is all we can discuss. The first unusual thing Jesus does in history, according to Paul, occurs after Jesus died; speaking of things that physical human beings do. And even that unusual thing, according to Paul, is typical of physical flesh and blood human beings, folks like his readers. Jesus' distinction is that God did it for him first.

 

[HansMustermann]

Doing things that ordinary people could do was actually rather common for the heaven/hell/underworld/whatever of other cultures.

The concept of a ghost that doesn't interact with matter except via some magic is actually a modern thing, mostly an effect of the "god of the gaps" phenomenon. We have had half a millennium of physics telling us that there is no physical land above the sky dome, and no physical underground hell under our feet. Hence not just God is shrinking to just about everything we didn't disprove yet, but all other supernatural concepts become ethereal things outside of normal reality, and which normally don't interact with it or behave like physical objects.

Most ancient religions (maybe with the exception of Buddhism) had no such limitations. Their afterlife was just as physical as the real world. You could not just do physical stuff there, but you could die there.

E.g., for the Egyptians not only you could break the bread after being dead, but had to grow crops in the afterlife, and could suffer droughts, famines, and possibly die (finally) in the afterlife. That's why they tried to provide their dead relatives with extra supplies, just in case. Or later with mighty spells to conjure such supplies. Heck, you could be eaten (and killed, final) by a croco-lion-hippo.

E.g., for the Akkadians, Inanna didn't die and go to hell, she went to hell and THEN was killed while there. And had her body hanged on meat hooks for a couple of days, which might sound a bit physical for a ghost.

E.g., for the Greeks, Sysiphus wasn't some Casper moving ethereal rocks with telekinesis, but an actual guy pushing a heavy rock. Plus, Orpheus went to Hades as a living person, and almost got his dead wife back. Among others that went there totally not in ghostly form.

Etc.

The idea that if it weren't on Earth it would involve some Casper-like kinda blob and telekinesis is... misguided, when it comes to ancient people. Their concepts of an afterlife are at best more like you'd call an alternate reality, sorta like the mirror universe in Star Trek, but for most they're actual places in the same universe. If you told one that <insert demigod> had a dinner in heaven, telekinesis wouldn't even come to mind.

 

[The Norseman]

I like your posts and your points of view on this subject. I have only one minor point to make and that is

pakeha


I've also heard it about Matthew, which is more "theatrical" than Mark. You can see the staging of the scene at the tomb, for instance, where the angel descends, etc.

But if you like the theater, then why


Why not stage it with a cup in Jesus' hands? He's just come from a place where there were plenty of cups, wine and bread. He (or Judas, actually) paid for the food and drink; if there were leftovers, they're his. He travels, he'd have a wineskin in his kit. If he does decide to surrender, then that would be a good time for a snack and a drink - he's got a tough row to hoe.

since we're all second-guessing what could have happened around two thousand years ago, I'd then suggest that the storyteller's audience did not require such attention to detail. It's that simple. They didn't think about it like that; they didn't watch a play to pick out its inconsistencies (much like we often do today) but rather to be reminded of whatever the underlying message was.

To me, that makes more sense.

I do get tired sometimes, of all of the so-called bible scholars who go to extraordinary lengths to read into a situation, try and second-guess what went on in a culture that, in many respects, is as far from our modern ones culturally as the years between us. We have guesses, and that's about it. When looking for evidence to support what was written in the bible, guess what? Not much of anything there -- for anything at all.

So -- does the "Jesus myth" really fail? Sure, why not. The "Jesus as a real person" supposition seems to fail pretty hard too. It's all speculation.

 

[IanS]

Yes.

Do you think Thessalonians is convincing then?

I don’t think it’s very convincing at all.

What I have for it is this (below) -

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage...ans+2:1-4,1+Thessalonians+2:11-16&version=KJV

1 Thessalonians 2:11-16
King James Version (KJV)

11 As ye know how we exhorted and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father doth his children,
12 That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath called you unto his kingdom and glory.
13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.



I don’t think the above should be taken as anything very explicit in saying Jesus was actually killed on earth by any mortal humans. For one thing Paul repeatedly says that he gets all such information not from any mortal man on earth, but from OT scripture and by messages from the “Lord” in heaven.

So if we take Paul at his word, then he is not deriving sentences like that from any earthly discussions with anyone who knew Jesus. He is instead preaching his theological interpretation of what he believes to be the meaning of what he thinks had been written in the OT about persecution of the messiah, supported and confirmed to him via his spiritual discourse with the “Lord” in heaven.

That’s apart from any questions about how accurate translations like that actually are and what was actually being used as the “original” copy of what the author of Paul actually wrote.

 

[IanS]

Paul's Jesus doesn't necessarily exist at all, not physically, not as a celestial being, not as anything. How Paul describes him in work that reaches us is all we can discuss. The first unusual thing Jesus does in history, according to Paul, occurs after Jesus died; speaking of things that physical human beings do. And even that unusual thing, according to Paul, is typical of physical flesh and blood human beings, folks like his readers. Jesus' distinction is that God did it for him first.

But all "gods", spirits, angels, demons etc., are always described doing human-like things on earth. Afaik that's true for all of them, from thousands of years before Jesus to the present day.

Of course they also did all sorts of amazing superhuman things. That after all, is what made it worth telling the stories of their wondrous legendary deeds (otherwise there would be no story to tell). But the stories of their deeds always have the gods presented in human-like forms, and with human type actions familiar at the time.

The gods/angels/demons/etc. never have appearance so utterly different or ever do anything so utterly different from human behaviour that the storytellers of the time couldn’t possibly have ever invented the stories. They never reveal things that were truly unknown at the time. They never mention DNA, or suggest building a telescope, they are never described as visiting earth in an aeroplane.

Instead what the superhuman gods do is, for example, fly into the air (like familiar birds), raise & restore dead prostrate humans to upright walking life (people get sick, but recover naturally anyway), walk on the water of local lakes where ordinary men have to swim (or sink) or else float about in a wooden boat, etc.

Jesus appears on earth like any other human (though he is the superhuman scion of a supernatural God in heaven). He performs many wondrous miracles (though they are always the sort of things anyone at the time could have imagined), he tells of many wondrous things and makes all sorts of prophetic statements with great insight etc (though he never reveals anything at all unknown to the proto-science or medicine of the time), etc.

People in Paul’s time know all this of Jesus, not because they have ever met Jesus, but because they have been told it in the preaching of people like Paul, who also had never known Jesus, but apparently "received" it from the Lord in heaven, in accordance with ancient OT scripture (as the sacred word of Yahweh).

 

[IanS]

I like your posts and your points of view on this subject. I have only one minor point to make and that is




since we're all second-guessing what could have happened around two thousand years ago, I'd then suggest that the storyteller's audience did not require such attention to detail. It's that simple. They didn't think about it like that; they didn't watch a play to pick out its inconsistencies (much like we often do today) but rather to be reminded of whatever the underlying message was.

To me, that makes more sense.

I do get tired sometimes, of all of the so-called bible scholars who go to extraordinary lengths to read into a situation, try and second-guess what went on in a culture that, in many respects, is as far from our modern ones culturally as the years between us. We have guesses, and that's about it. When looking for evidence to support what was written in the bible, guess what? Not much of anything there -- for anything at all.

So -- does the "Jesus myth" really fail? Sure, why not. The "Jesus as a real person" supposition seems to fail pretty hard too. It's all speculation.

I think that is probably an important factor in all this. And it seems to get overlooked in most of these discussions, even as you say, by academic bible scholars writing as research on this subject.

I was trying to make a similar point in the What Counts thread when I said that we overlook the fact that in Paul’s day people did not just believe in miracles, they were completely certain that miracles happened constantly. So at that time nobody would ever have thought to question any preaching which said Jesus had raised the dead, walked on water and risen from his grave. Even if they followed some other religious belief not connected with Christianity, they would still hear those Jesus stories and simply accept that this person was a miraculous wonder worker.

However, when bible scholars examine those stories today, it's seems they are forced into saying the wondrous stuff can all be discarded from the bible and still leave something which is true of a real Jesus. Though if you tried to do that in biblical times, when the stories were actually being told, then there would have been no story to tell and anyone listening to a preacher like that would have instantly told the preacher he was a lunatic wasting everyone’s time with nothing useful to preach at all.

More generally, I suppose preaching about the wonders of a messiah or other gods, was a form of community entertainment. There was presumably not much other form of recreation. No books to read, no films to see, probably not even any paintings or drawings for common people to see. Instead people told stories to one another. And the best and most exciting stories were probably stories like the amazing deeds of the messiah Jesus.

 

[tsig]

I think that is probably an important factor in all this. And it seems to get overlooked in most of these discussions, even as you say, by academic bible scholars writing as research on this subject.

I was trying to make a similar point in the What Counts thread when I said that we overlook the fact that in Paul’s day people did not just believe in miracles, they were completely certain that miracles happened constantly. So at that time nobody would ever have thought to question any preaching which said Jesus had raised the dead, walked on water and risen from his grave. Even if they followed some other religious belief not connected with Christianity, they would still hear those Jesus stories and simply accept that this person was a miraculous wonder worker.

However, when bible scholars examine those stories today, it's seems they are forced into saying the wondrous stuff can all be discarded from the bible and still leave something which is true of a real Jesus. Though if you tried to do that in biblical times, when the stories were actually being told, then there would have been no story to tell and anyone listening to a preacher like that would have instantly told the preacher he was a lunatic wasting everyone’s time with nothing useful to preach at all.

More generally, I suppose preaching about the wonders of a messiah or other gods, was a form of community entertainment. There was presumably not much other form of recreation. No books to read, no films to see, probably not even any paintings or drawings for common people to see. Instead people told stories to one another. And the best and most exciting stories were probably stories like the amazing deeds of the messiah Jesus.

Jesus was god came to Earth did nothing special and died the death of a common criminal seems to be the HJ position nowadays.

 

[HansMustermann]

But all "gods", spirits, angels, demons etc., are always described doing human-like things on earth. Afaik that's true for all of them, from thousands of years before Jesus to the present day.

Not just on Earth. My point is that in heavens or hell or whatever, they still envisioned their super-beings as doing human-like things.

Homer and a few others for example tells us of a banquet given by Zeus, and Eris screws it up with a very physical apple, which a mortal (Paris) can then handle for them. Or Statius tells us that Thetis took her baby, very much a bodily creature judging by the whole rest of the stories about him, and dipped him into the river Styx to make him immortal. Etc.

None of these were ghostly or symbolic things. Their gods could very much throw a banquet, eat, drink, screw, and do all sorts of human-like things without needing to be incarnated as a mortal human for that.

Or continuing that theme, Hercules for example goes to Hades not by dying, but by finding his way there through a cave, talks to the owner of the place, and wrestles Cerberus to kidnap it. Then goes back to Hades to return the puppy. Really, check out his 12th labor.