Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[dogsgod]

The only college "textbook" (there are literally hundreds of scholarly books) I know of that is entirely devoted to the historical Jesus is Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz's Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. I believe it is available in an english translation, although I can't recall the title off the top of my head (the translation of the german title is "The Historical Jesus: A Textbook"). If you would like a good and fair introduction to historical Jesus scholarship, I would recommend John P. Meier's three (soon to be four) volume work "A Marginal Jew." A basic starting point he uses is what scholars of diverse religious backgrounds (atheist, agnostic, Christian, Jews, etc) could agree on concerning the historical Jesus.



Again you display a lack of familiarity with the genre of ancient history. Copying from other sources, with or without reference, was common practice. The authors of Matthew and Luke would have expected their audience to know that they were reworking other sources, oral and written, and would not have cared. Plaigiarism is a modern invention. Stealing from sources, writing letters pseudonymously, etc, was common practice.

Reworking ancient scriptures as in the practice of midrash was one thing, but outright copying was probably another matter. Besides, I'm not even discussing the "genre of ancient history," I was referring to ancient religious texts, allegorical fictions, the Hollywood of its day. Why don't you try and stay on topic?

 

[Oberon]

Reworking ancient scriptures as in the practice of midrash was one thing, but outright copying was probably another matter. Besides, I'm not even discussing the "genre of ancient history", I was referring to ancient religious texts, allegorical fictions, the Hollywood of its day. Why don't you try and stay on topic?

I am on topic, because I (possessing as I do the required familiarity with ancient works, unlike you) am arguing that the gospels fall rather well into a particular genre of ancient history ("lives").

In any case, you are still wrong. Ancient religious texts stole even more than historical texts without reference to the work being used. Matthew and Luke would still have expected their audience to know that they were reworking older traditions. Nobody would have been concerned about "plaigarism" and for you to even use the word is anachronistic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Textual transmission followed the same 'guidelines' as the oral transmission that spawned it.

 

[dogsgod]

.



The following demonstrates a reliance on written tradition, no doubt there is a spattering of oral tradition sprinkled about the gospel storyline here and there, but the gospel of Mark shows the use of scriptures dominate his allegorical fiction. I can provide the same for almost if not every scene described in the gospel.
-------------

"The Cursing of the Fig Tree and the Disruption at the Temple:
The cursing of the fig tree and the clearing of the temple in the Gospel of Mark are based on a passage from the Hebrew scriptures. This is a significant scene and use of literary allusion because the cursing of the fig tree seems very hard to explain or understand if one does not understand that the scene is actually a reference to another text. This is also significant because it undermines the historical credibility of the temple scenario.

Mark 11:
12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13 Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. 14 Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.15 On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, "Is it not written:
"'My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations'? But you have made it 'a den of robbers.'"18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
19 When evening came, they went out of the city.20 In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!"
​

This entire scene is based on Hosea 9, and refers to the destruction of Israel.

NIV
Hosea 9:
1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; ...
7 The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. Let Israel know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac.
8 The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God.
9 They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins.
10 'When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert; when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree. But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved.
11 Ephraim's glory will fly away like a bird—no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
12 Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one. Woe to them when I turn away from them!
13 I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre, planted in a pleasant place. But Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer."
14 Give them, O LORD—what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.
15 "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there. Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house. I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious.
16 Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit. Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.'
17 My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him;​

We can clearly see here that the author of Mark uses Hosea 9 for his motif, because in Mark 11 the fig tree is in leaf but not in season, meaning that it was early in the growing season. Then Jesus goes to the temple to drive the people "out of his house". After that they return to the fig tree where they see that it was withered "from the root." This makes the parallel between Mark and Hosea 9 very clear, and shows that Hosea 9 was the inspiration for all of these scenes. The author of Mark was also clearly making a reference to the meaning in the text of Hosea 9. Hosea 9 is talking about the destruction of Israel in no uncertain terms.
This is quite significant because it strongly undercuts the temple disruption scene as a historical event, despite the fact that the temple scene is contained in all three of the other Gospels. The temple scenes in all three of the other Gospels are based on this scene in the Gospel of Mark, which is really a literary allusion."
The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

------------

Now perhaps you can provide evidence for an oral tradition that "spawned it."



.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What was there about the sentence "Textual transmission followed the same 'guidelines' as the oral transmission that spawned it." that you do not understand?

 

[dogsgod]

What was there about the sentence "Textual transmission followed the same 'guidelines' as the oral transmission that spawned it." that you do not understand?

Show us how it follows the same guidelines.

 

[doppelganger]

What does that have to do with the question of whether Jesus is found in history books?

The question: "Is the historical Jesus addressed in history texts?"
Jay's response: Quotes Will Durant for the idea that the Synoptics have a lot of overlap and this is proof of the historicity of Jesus.
My response: That assumes facts not in evidence - namely that the gospels were written as "history," and that the Synoptics represent independent accounts - the first is speculative, the second is rejected by most scholars today.


Seems pretty obvious to me what it has to do with the question . . .

 

[Oberon]

The following demonstrates a reliance on written tradition...

First I would like to point out again that you have failed to respond to criticisms (like your anachronistic use of "plaigarism") which indicate a lack of understanding and knowledge on your part of the relevent issues.

Second, once again you choose to use a random nobody as a source for your opinions, rather than someone who specializes in this area.

Third, you are dealing once again with someone who a) can't read the texts themselves and b) is simply ripping pieces from their contexts in order to make comparisons.

Let's look at the two verses in detail.
Hos (from the LXX, which Mark, writing in Greek, was probably familiar with):

9:1Μὴ χαῖρε, Ισραηλ, μηδὲ εὐφραίνου καθὼς οἱ λαοί· διότι ἐπόρνευσας ἀπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ σου, ἠγάπησας δόματα ἐπὶ πάντα ἅλωνα σίτου.
9:2ἅλων καὶ ληνὸς οὐκ ἔγνω αὐτούς, καὶ ὁ οἶνος ἐψεύσατο αὐτούς.
9:3οὐ κατῴκησαν ἐν τῇ γῇ τοῦ κυρίου· κατῴκησεν Εφραιμ εἰς Αἴγυπτον, καὶ ἐν Ἀσσυρίοις ἀκάθαρτα φάγονται.
9:4οὐκ ἔσπεισαν τῷ κυρίῳ οἶνον καὶ οὐχ ἥδυναν αὐτῷ· αἱ θυσίαι αὐτῶν ὡς ἄρτος πένθους αὐτοῖς, πάντες οἱ ἔσθοντες αὐτὰ μιανθήσονται, διότι οἱ ἄρτοι αὐτῶν ταῖς ψυχαῖς αὐτῶν οὐκ εἰσελεύσονται εἰς τὸν οἶκον κυρίου.
9:5τί ποιήσετε ἐν ἡμέρᾳ πανηγύρεως καὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἑορτῆς τοῦ κυρίου;
9:6διὰ τοῦτο ἰδοὺ πορεύσονται ἐκ ταλαιπωρίας Αἰγύπτου, καὶ ἐκδέξεται αὐτοὺς Μέμφις, καὶ θάψει αὐτοὺς Μαχμας· τὸ ἀργύριον αὐτῶν ὄλεθρος κληρονομήσει, ἄκανθαι ἐν τοῖς σκηνώμασιν αὐτῶν.
9:7ἥκασιν αἱ ἡμέραι τῆς ἐκδικήσεως, ἥκασιν αἱ ἡμέραι τῆς ἀνταποδόσεώς σου, καὶ κακωθήσεται Ισραηλ ὥσπερ ὁ προφήτης ὁ παρεξεστηκώς, ἄνθρωπος ὁ πνευματοφόρος· ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους τῶν ἀδικιῶν σου ἐπληθύνθη μανία σου.
9:8σκοπὸς Εφραιμ μετὰ θεοῦ· προφήτης, παγὶς σκολιὰ ἐπὶ πάσας τὰς ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ· μανίαν ἐν οἴκῳ κυρίου κατέπηξαν.
9:9ἐφθάρησαν κατὰ τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ βουνοῦ· μνησθήσεται ἀδικίας αὐτοῦ, ἐκδικήσει ἁμαρτίας αὐτοῦ.
9:10Ὡς σταφυλὴν ἐν ἐρήμῳ εὗρον τὸν Ισραηλ καὶ ὡς σκοπὸν ἐν συκῇ πρόιμον εἶδον πατέρας αὐτῶν· αὐτοὶ εἰσῆλθον πρὸς τὸν Βεελφεγωρ καὶ ἀπηλλοτριώθησαν εἰς αἰσχύνην, καὶ ἐγένοντο οἱ ἠγαπημένοι ὡς οἱ ἐβδελυγμένοι.
9:11Εφραιμ ὡς ὄρνεον ἐξεπετάσθη, αἱ δόξαι αὐτῶν ἐκ τόκων καὶ ὠδίνων καὶ συλλήμψεων·
9:12διότι καὶ ἐὰν ἐκθρέψωσιν τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν, ἀτεκνωθήσονται ἐξ ἀνθρώπων· διότι καὶ οὐαὶ αὐτοῖς ἐστιν, σάρξ μου ἐξ αὐτῶν.
9:13Εφραιμ, ὃν τρόπον εἶδον, εἰς θήραν παρέστησαν τὰ τέκνα αὐτῶν, καὶ Εφραιμ τοῦ ἐξαγαγεῖν εἰς ἀποκέντησιν τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ.
9:14δὸς αὐτοῖς, κύριε· τί δώσεις αὐτοῖς; δὸς αὐτοῖς μήτραν ἀτεκνοῦσαν καὶ μαστοὺς ξηρούς.
9:15πᾶσαι αἱ κακίαι αὐτῶν εἰς Γαλγαλ, ὅτι ἐκεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐμίσησα· διὰ τὰς κακίας τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων αὐτῶν ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου μου ἐκβαλῶ αὐτούς, οὐ μὴ προσθήσω τοῦ ἀγαπῆσαι αὐτούς· πάντες οἱ ἄρχοντες αὐτῶν ἀπειθοῦντες.
9:16ἐπόνεσεν Εφραιμ, τὰς ῥίζας αὐτοῦ ἐξηράνθη, καρπὸν οὐκέτι μὴ ἐνέγκῃ· διότι καὶ ἐὰν γεννήσωσιν, ἀποκτενῶ τὰ ἐπιθυμήματα κοιλίας αὐτῶν.
9:17ἀπώσεται αὐτοὺς ὁ θεός, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσήκουσαν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται πλανῆται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν.

Mark
11:12Καὶ τῇ ἐπαύριον ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Βηθανίας, ἐπείνασε.Mar 11:13καὶ ἰδὼν συκῆν ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἔχουσαν φύλλα, ἦλθεν εἰ ἄρα τι εὑρήσει ἐν αὐτῇ· καὶ ἐλθὼν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὴν οὐδὲν εὗρεν εἰ μὴ φύλλα· οὐ γὰρ ἦν καιρὸς σύκων.Mar 11:14καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτῇ· μηκέτι ἐκ σοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα μηδεὶς καρπὸν φάγοι. καὶ ἤκουον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ.Mar 11:15Καὶ ἔρχονται εἰς ῾Ιεροσόλυμα· καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἤρξατο ἐκβάλλειν τοὺς πωλοῦντας καὶ τοὺς ἀγοράζοντας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, καὶ τὰς τραπέζας τῶν κολλυβιστῶν καὶ τὰς καθέδρας τῶν πωλούντων τὰς περιστερὰς κατέστρεψε,Mar 11:16καὶ οὐκ ἤφιεν ἵνα τις διενέγκῃ σκεῦος διὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ,Mar 11:17καὶ ἐδίδασκε λέγων αὐτοῖς· οὐ γέγραπται ὅτι ὁ οἶκός μου οἶκος προσευχῆς κληθήσεται πᾶσι τοῖς ἔθνεσιν; ὑμεῖς δὲ ἐποιήσατε αὐτὸν σπήλαιον λῃστῶν.Mar 11:18καὶ ἤκουσαν οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ ἀρχιερεῖς, καὶ ἐζήτουν πῶς αὐτὸν ἀπολέσωσιν· ἐφοβοῦντο γὰρ αὐτόν, ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὄχλος ἐξεπλήσσετο ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ.Mar 11:19καὶ ὅτε ὀψὲ ἐγένετο, ἐξεπορεύετο ἔξω τῆς πόλεως.Mar 11:20Καὶ παραπορευόμενοι πρωῒ εἶδον τὴν συκῆν ἐξηραμμένην ἐκ ῥιζῶν.Mar 11:21καὶ ἀναμνησθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει αὐτῷ· ῥαββί, ἴδε ἡ συκῆ ἦν κατηράσω ἐξήρανται.

As you can see, the texts are very different. They differ greatly not only in overal plot and terminology, but in grammar and syntax as well. There are no internal indications that Mark is dependent on Hosea here. Basically, all the texts have in common is the fig tree/συκῆν. Using trees and plants as metaphors was common for OT authors (not just in Hosea) and Jesus and his followers would have been familiar with such usage. To say that Mark used Hosea here based on the above is a very pathetic arguement.

 

[Oberon]

My response: That assumes facts not in evidence - namely that the gospels were written as "history," and that the Synoptics represent independent accounts - the first is speculative, the second is rejected by most scholars today.

I have already cited numerous works on the gospels as a type of ancient history. If you are going to enter into the discussion, please be familiar with the type of "facts in evidence."

 

[doppelganger]

I have already cited numerous works on the gospels as a type of ancient history. If you are going to enter into the discussion, please be familiar with the type of "facts in evidence."

I'm quite familiar with them. The Gospels are themselves historical artifacts, but their content as history is nevertheless speculative. Trying to piece together what can and cannot be justified as the actual history/biography of "Jesus" is an ongoing project of thousands of scholars with no clear consensus. In other words, to claim that they are themselves written or intended as "history" in the sense that we use that term today is to assume facts not in evidence.

 

[Oberon]

I'm quite familiar with them. The Gospels are themselves historical artifacts, but their content as history is nevertheless speculative. Trying to piece together what can and cannot be justified as the actual history/biography of "Jesus" is an ongoing project of thousands of scholars with no clear consensus. In other words, to claim that they are themselves written or intended as "history" in the sense that we use that term today is to assume facts not in evidence.

By your standard, nothing written in that time period would qualify, because none of it is "'history' in the sense that we use that term today."

 

[doppelganger]

By your standard, nothing written in that time period would qualify, because none of it is "'history' in the sense that we use that term today."

You don't get out much. There's quite a bit that is quite a bit more obviously the sort of thing we now think of as "history", actually. Plutarch, Polybius, Titus Livius, etc., etc. . .

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The question: "Is the historical Jesus addressed in history texts?"
Jay's response: Quotes Will Durant for the idea that the Synoptics have a lot of overlap and this is proof of the historicity of Jesus.

That's a pathetic distortion. I quoted Durant solely to counter the assertion that "Jesus isn't found in history books."

 

[Oberon]

Comparison in greater detail:

.

We can clearly see here that the author of Mark uses Hosea 9 for his motif, because in Mark 11 the fig tree is in leaf but not in season, meaning that it was early in the growing season.

When people (at least people who know what they are talking about) wish to show dependence between texts, they show that one text uses the SAME WORDS and syntax and grammar (in general) as the second. In fact, it helps if the author of the dependent text changes his usual syntax in order to match the text he or she is supposed to be dependent on.

Here, Mark says kai elthon ep' auten ouden heuren ei me phulla; ou gar en kairos sukon/and coming upon it he found except leave, for it was not the right time/season for figs.

Hosea, on the other hand, first uses uses grapes/staphulen rather than figs, and only secondly uses figs.

Then Jesus goes to the temple to drive the people "out of his house".

Jesus does not ever say "out of my house"/ek oikou mou as Hosea does. Again the comparison is superficial.

After that they return to the fig tree where they see that it was withered "from the root."

Hosea has eponesen Ephraim, tas rizas autou exeranthe/ Ephraim suffers, the roots of it are dried up
whereas Mark has exerammenen ek rizon/ having been dried up from the roots, using a prepositional phrase along with a participle, instead of the verb and possesive genitive in Hosea.


So from these examples we can see clearly the differences in the texts are wide, and that's without getting into the fact that they are clearly talking about two very, very different things.

 

[Oberon]

You don't get out much. There's quite a bit that is quite a bit more obviously the sort of thing we now think of as "history", actually. Plutarch, Polybius, Titus Livius, etc., etc. . .

And you don't read enough history. I already quoted Livy's use of miracle and myth within his "history." None of those "historians" you quote would be historians by today's standards.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And you don't read enough history. I already quoted Livy's use of miracle and myth within his "history." None of those "historians" you quote would be historians by today's standards.

Including Josephus.

 

[Oberon]

Including Josephus.

Precisely. Josephus is inconsistent even between his works, let alone when compared against others.

 

[Tristesse]

I've said it many times, but I have no problem saying jesus existed. The problem, however, arises when we find that there were no contemporaries who wrote about jesus (outside of the bible). It's at best, hearsay. Could their hearsay be an accurate depiction of jesus? Sure. But it's not the mythological jesus portrayed in the bible. oh And thanks for the book recommendations, I speak german so that will be great!

 

[dogsgod]

The following makes more sense than reading the gospels as a history. The following is from a website, it's an excellent source of information:

• The Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE
• The Gospel of Mark was written as an allegorical fiction
• The author of Mark was a Christian follower of a Pauline sect
• The author of Mark was familiar with the letters of Paul
• The Gospel of Mark is not based on any prior narratives about Jesus
• Almost all the scenes in the Gospel of Mark are symbolic and/or literary allusions to the Hebrew scriptures
• The author of Mark regarded the earlier Jewish oriented Christ movement as a failure

Throughout history many scholars have considered the Gospel of Mark a puzzling, and at times incoherent, work. This is yet another reason why this Gospel was so little regarded for so long, but what I hope to demonstrate here is that confusion over the Gospel of Mark stems from supposing that it is something which it is not, and that once you realize that the Gospel of Mark was not written as a foundational religious document at all, but that it was written as an allegorical story to portray the Judean Jews and the early Christian apostles as fools who brought destruction upon themselves, then the work makes perfect sense.


As a story that was written in reaction to the destruction of Jerusalem the Gospel of Mark is a story of absurdity and despair. This story of loss, despair, and destruction, was only later transformed into a story of hope and resurrection by the later Gospel writers, and by those who edited the Gospel of Mark and added the portions after Mark 16:8.


Indeed, the Gospel of Mark may have been written by a disaffected ex-Christian who viewed the Christian movement in general as a failure. That such a bizarre and disaffected story would have become the basis for the other narratives which portray a life of Jesus (the other Gospels) can only indicate the sheer lack of other biographical material.


The Gospel of Mark as Reaction and Allegory

 

[dogsgod]

Comparison in greater detail:



When people (at least people who know what they are talking about) wish to show dependence between texts, they show that one text uses the SAME WORDS and syntax and grammar (in general) as the second. In fact, it helps if the author of the dependent text changes his usual syntax in order to match the text he or she is supposed to be dependent on.

Here, Mark says kai elthon ep' auten ouden heuren ei me phulla; ou gar en kairos sukon/and coming upon it he found except leave, for it was not the right time/season for figs.

Hosea, on the other hand, first uses uses grapes/staphulen rather than figs, and only secondly uses figs.


Jesus does not ever say "out of my house"/ek oikou mou as Hosea does. Again the comparison is superficial.



Hosea has eponesen Ephraim, tas rizas autou exeranthe/ Ephraim suffers, the roots of it are dried up
whereas Mark has exerammenen ek rizon/ having been dried up from the roots, using a prepositional phrase along with a participle, instead of the verb and possesive genitive in Hosea.


So from these examples we can see clearly the differences in the texts are wide, and that's without getting into the fact that they are clearly talking about two very, very different things.

The differences you point out are superficial at best. I think you have difficulty understanding what you are reading. The gospels were never written or intended to be read as a record of actual events. I think it's best if you present your own reasons for believing that Jesus was an historical figure, in other words show how your claims holds up to scrutiny based on its own merits. Attempting to disprove a mythological Jesus doesn't mean that an historical Jesus is a given.