He doesn't care. It might be best to simply ignore him.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus a Mythical Character?
- Thread starter roli
- Start date
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I can't remember all, but here is a cross section of some books I've read related to Christianity off the top of my head:
The Birth of Christianity, John Crossan; Who wrote The Bible? Richard Friedman; Who Wrote The New Testament? Burton Mach; The Acts of Jesus, Robert Funk and The Jesus Seminar; Q The Lost Gospel, Burton Mack; The Jesus Puzzle, Earl Doherty; Gospel Fictions, Randel Helms; The Jesus Myth, G.A.Wells, Isaak Asimov's Guide to The Bible, OT and NT; As well as books about religion in general, Blood Rites, Barbara Ehrenreich; Psychology of Religious Belief, ?; Age of Reason, Thomas Paine; Transcendental Temptation, Paul Kurtz; Fundamentalism, Evans and Berent, etc.
What difference does it make anyways? The questions I ask are rather straight foward. Why can't you just answer them?
I didn't ask you to simply list a bunch of books, I asked you to list scholarly publications which support your view. None of the scholars you list do.
So perhaps, given that you claim to have read these books, you would like to point out how Crossan, Mack, Funk, and the Jesus seminar are all wrong, because they all acknowledge that Jesus was historical and that the gospels are oral tradition.
I did. I listed a number of reasons scholars know that the gospels are based on oral tradition. I also explained that the reasoning behind your last batch of particularly poorly informed questions was faulty; you conception of oral tradition is completely off.
Last edited:
So far throughout this thread there have been two equally implausible theories offered in explanation for the gospels and Christianity other than a historical Jesus somewhere beneath them. The first of these theories is the tired ol mythic godman that somehow wont die because too many people would rather read websites or sensationalist junk instead of history. I have already addressed the numerous problems with this theory both in this thread and in my The Myth of the Jesus Myth thread.
The second theory, offered by dogsgods website citation is that Mark was writing allegorical midrash of some sort, and all the other gospel authors pretty much copied him. There are many, many problems with this theory, all evident in the website (by someone without any background of study in the field). I will also point out just to start that there are several strands of the Jesus tradition independent of Mark (Q, M, L, Thomas, and Paul).
The central issue with dogsgods website is that the guy builds comparisons off of single words or phrases. Basically, he has found a few words in most of the pericopes or narratives in Mark, and found some passage in the bible that contains a word or two (or a phrase) from that piece of Mark. He then claims that Mark is using the old testament for that piece.
The first problem with this is that virtually all of the comparisons are made on almost nothing. The texts address vastly different problems, themes, points, etc, have vastly different language and terminology, syntax, etc. Basically, apart from the few areas where Mark DOES make explicit or implicit scriptural references, the website makes comparisons off of nothing.
There are many techniques which experts use in order to determine if a text is making an implicit scriptural reference. To quote from Louis Painchauds article The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature:
First, a word or a group of words intended as an allusion must show some degree of strangeness or peculiarity in their context; they must appear as incomprehensible, or at least unexpected, their very strangeness being a hint, a signal directed toward the reader. As a matter of fact, an allusion which would fit perfectly within its context would be almost impossible to recognize and would fail as an allusion, unless some extratextual contexte.g. the situation of communication, specific in-group traditions, etc.make it clear. The second criterion would be the light shed on the text by the identification of the allusion. If an allusion is really concealed in a given text, its identification will shed light on that text, its meaning will become clearer, and the sense of obscure details will become apparent. A third criterion, which does not apply in all cases, would be the presence within the same context of other allusions to the same biblical text. (from The Journal of Early Christian Studies, 4:2, 1996, 129-147)
In other words, you cant find a few words in common, and claim that Mark is using that passage as a basis for his own.
The author of the website then fails to deal with the fact that John and parts of Matthew and Luke, as well as Thomas and Paul, are independent of Mark (he claims that Mark used Paul, but only by making the same baseless comparisons as he does with the OT).
Finally, the author doesnt deal with the thousands and thousands of pages of scholarship over the last century by people far more acquainted with the topic which contradict him.
So how do we know that the gospels are records of oral tradition?
The best place to start is with the culture itself. Very few people knew how to read, and even fewer knew how to write. Of those few who were literate, all of them depended more on orally transmitted information rather than written (because of the nature and paucity of the texts). Multiple Christian communities soon came into being after Jesus death. It is just about impossible to explain these without understanding that Jesus teachings and stories concerning him were being reported and transmitted by those who had learned them (first and foremost being the disciples).
Early on in the 20th century, the pioneers of form criticism (formgeschichte), particularly Schmidt, analyzed the oral material which existed underneath the overall narrative of Mark and the other gospels.
Mark (the first gospel) strung together a serious of sayings, teachings, and a few events and narratives, which were being circulated. This is evident for several reasons. The first is that many of the sayings are obviously Aramaic in origin. As Mark was written in Greek, the only explanation for this was that he was either translating the sayings himself (which I doubt) or they had already been translated into Greek for the benefit of the large Greek speaking population of followers. The second indication is the awkward juxtaposition of the various sayings, parables, etc. From analyses of the Greek, it is clear that much of the overall narrative and settings given to the independent pieces of oral tradition has been artificially imposed. In other words, Mark took these various sayings and such and wove them into a type of ancient biography (called a life or bios). Finally, certain parts of Marks work are very unMarkan giving further indication that here he is simply working an independent strain of the Jesus tradition into his gospel.
The other gospels all have the same Marks. Matthew and Luke relied not only on Mark and on sources unique to these authors, but also probably on a sayings gospel known as Q. It is unclear whether this was an oral or written text. I should mention here that verbatim memorization of oral teachings/tradition was very common in the ancient world, not only by the early Christians but by Rabbis (e.g. the oral Torah) and Greeks and Romans (who memorized classical works, teachings of their masters, etc). Again, many of the sayings recorded in Q are translations from Aramaic.
Other than internal evidence, there are a number of important indications from external sources that show the gospels relied on oral traditions of Jesus. First, Paul specifically describes being taught these traditions. He uses technical vocabulary to describe the transmission of the Jesus tradition by the disciples to him. Next, there are descriptions by various early Christian authors (such as Papias) who describe hearing and memorizing the traditions concerning Jesus.
From both the internal and external evidence, scholars have been able to gain a far better understanding of the nature of the oral transmission since Schmidt first analyzed the gospels. By examining various models of oral transmission, particularly those of ancient Judaism, Greece, and Rome (the most obvious parallels) but also modern day peasant Arabia, as well as oral traditions recorded by various anthropologists, we have been able to come closer to the likely model of oral transmission behind the gospels. However, descriptions of this process go well beyond the scope of this thread. For those who are interested, I can provide a number of excellent references on this topic.
The second theory, offered by dogsgods website citation is that Mark was writing allegorical midrash of some sort, and all the other gospel authors pretty much copied him. There are many, many problems with this theory, all evident in the website (by someone without any background of study in the field). I will also point out just to start that there are several strands of the Jesus tradition independent of Mark (Q, M, L, Thomas, and Paul).
The central issue with dogsgods website is that the guy builds comparisons off of single words or phrases. Basically, he has found a few words in most of the pericopes or narratives in Mark, and found some passage in the bible that contains a word or two (or a phrase) from that piece of Mark. He then claims that Mark is using the old testament for that piece.
The first problem with this is that virtually all of the comparisons are made on almost nothing. The texts address vastly different problems, themes, points, etc, have vastly different language and terminology, syntax, etc. Basically, apart from the few areas where Mark DOES make explicit or implicit scriptural references, the website makes comparisons off of nothing.
There are many techniques which experts use in order to determine if a text is making an implicit scriptural reference. To quote from Louis Painchauds article The Use of Scripture in Gnostic Literature:
First, a word or a group of words intended as an allusion must show some degree of strangeness or peculiarity in their context; they must appear as incomprehensible, or at least unexpected, their very strangeness being a hint, a signal directed toward the reader. As a matter of fact, an allusion which would fit perfectly within its context would be almost impossible to recognize and would fail as an allusion, unless some extratextual contexte.g. the situation of communication, specific in-group traditions, etc.make it clear. The second criterion would be the light shed on the text by the identification of the allusion. If an allusion is really concealed in a given text, its identification will shed light on that text, its meaning will become clearer, and the sense of obscure details will become apparent. A third criterion, which does not apply in all cases, would be the presence within the same context of other allusions to the same biblical text. (from The Journal of Early Christian Studies, 4:2, 1996, 129-147)
In other words, you cant find a few words in common, and claim that Mark is using that passage as a basis for his own.
The author of the website then fails to deal with the fact that John and parts of Matthew and Luke, as well as Thomas and Paul, are independent of Mark (he claims that Mark used Paul, but only by making the same baseless comparisons as he does with the OT).
Finally, the author doesnt deal with the thousands and thousands of pages of scholarship over the last century by people far more acquainted with the topic which contradict him.
So how do we know that the gospels are records of oral tradition?
The best place to start is with the culture itself. Very few people knew how to read, and even fewer knew how to write. Of those few who were literate, all of them depended more on orally transmitted information rather than written (because of the nature and paucity of the texts). Multiple Christian communities soon came into being after Jesus death. It is just about impossible to explain these without understanding that Jesus teachings and stories concerning him were being reported and transmitted by those who had learned them (first and foremost being the disciples).
Early on in the 20th century, the pioneers of form criticism (formgeschichte), particularly Schmidt, analyzed the oral material which existed underneath the overall narrative of Mark and the other gospels.
Mark (the first gospel) strung together a serious of sayings, teachings, and a few events and narratives, which were being circulated. This is evident for several reasons. The first is that many of the sayings are obviously Aramaic in origin. As Mark was written in Greek, the only explanation for this was that he was either translating the sayings himself (which I doubt) or they had already been translated into Greek for the benefit of the large Greek speaking population of followers. The second indication is the awkward juxtaposition of the various sayings, parables, etc. From analyses of the Greek, it is clear that much of the overall narrative and settings given to the independent pieces of oral tradition has been artificially imposed. In other words, Mark took these various sayings and such and wove them into a type of ancient biography (called a life or bios). Finally, certain parts of Marks work are very unMarkan giving further indication that here he is simply working an independent strain of the Jesus tradition into his gospel.
The other gospels all have the same Marks. Matthew and Luke relied not only on Mark and on sources unique to these authors, but also probably on a sayings gospel known as Q. It is unclear whether this was an oral or written text. I should mention here that verbatim memorization of oral teachings/tradition was very common in the ancient world, not only by the early Christians but by Rabbis (e.g. the oral Torah) and Greeks and Romans (who memorized classical works, teachings of their masters, etc). Again, many of the sayings recorded in Q are translations from Aramaic.
Other than internal evidence, there are a number of important indications from external sources that show the gospels relied on oral traditions of Jesus. First, Paul specifically describes being taught these traditions. He uses technical vocabulary to describe the transmission of the Jesus tradition by the disciples to him. Next, there are descriptions by various early Christian authors (such as Papias) who describe hearing and memorizing the traditions concerning Jesus.
From both the internal and external evidence, scholars have been able to gain a far better understanding of the nature of the oral transmission since Schmidt first analyzed the gospels. By examining various models of oral transmission, particularly those of ancient Judaism, Greece, and Rome (the most obvious parallels) but also modern day peasant Arabia, as well as oral traditions recorded by various anthropologists, we have been able to come closer to the likely model of oral transmission behind the gospels. However, descriptions of this process go well beyond the scope of this thread. For those who are interested, I can provide a number of excellent references on this topic.
You overreach. Mark 15:24 is clearly inspired by the 22nd Psalm.
I said "virtually" all. I already responded to his quotation from Mark, which I agree alludes to the OT. However, it is one of the few passages in which the website actually gets it right. Most of them are based on nothing.
Wow. Just when I thought I had seen it all...
Thanks for that one.
I understand. I also understand what "virtually" suggests. In any event, I'm glad tha we agree on the persistent Psalm 22. We'll talk about Isaiah later ...
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
"One final observation about Mark's workshop has to do with his reading of the Jewish scriptures. It occurred to him [Mark] to turn to the texts of the prophets as a resource for his story about Jesus... Mark combed through these books for images he could apply to Jesus as prophet, as if the prophets had somehow anticipated his coming. He actually cited Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zechariah, Malachi, and Daniel to create or interpret events crucial to the storyline. It is also the case that other scriptural repetitions, especially from the Psalms, are given the force of prophet fulfillment. So Mark turned the prophet motif into a narrative theme, then used the books of the prophets as a narrative device, in order to link Jesus with the story of Israel as its destined agent of change." pg 161, Burton Mack, Who Wrote The New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth.
That's one.
That's one.
Great. Thanks. Unfortunately (for you, anyway), Mack not only believes that Jesus is a historical figure (which you would know if you have truly read his work), he also agrees that all the authors of gospels rely on oral tradition (either by utilizing the oral Jesus tradition(s) themselves, or by depending on written sources which do. I have already said that the gospel authors used scriptural references to support their conception of Jesus (i.e. Jesus was the messiah which we were expecting, therefore scriptures must reference him, therefore we will comb through the traditional Jewish traditions to support our conception of Jesus). Your quotation from Mack says no more than I have already stated.
Once again, I will ask you to cite references to scholars/historians/experts who support you view. In orther words, I am asking you to provide references to scholarship (and by scholarship I mean historians who have studied the relevent time period, whether biblical scholars, classical scholars, historians of the ancient world, Nt scholars, etc) that argues 1) jesus was not a historical figure and 2) the gospels do not rely on oral tradition.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The Sanhedrin Trial (14:53-72) Mark borrowed from Daniel 6:4 LXX the scene of the crossfire of false accusations (Helms, p. 118): The governors and satraps sought (ezetoun) to find (eurein) occasion against Daniel, but they found against him no accusation. Of this Mark (14:55) has made the following: The chief priests and the whole council sought (ezetoun) testimony against Jesus in order to kill him, but they found none (ouk euriskon).
Mark 14:65, where Jesus suffers blows and mockery as a false prophet, comes from 1 Kings 22:24, Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, How did the spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you? And Micaiah said, Behold, you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide yourself (Miller, p. 350).
Mark has used Micaiahs retort, Behold, you shall see... as the model for Jesus retort that his accusers/attackers will one day behold Jesus enthroned as the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13-14. It is interesting to speculate whether the doctrine of the second coming of Christ did not spring full-blown from Marks reversal of order between the Son of Mans coming with the clouds and sitting on the throne in Daniel 7.
Jesus silence at both trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate (14:60-61; 15:4-5) comes from Isaiah 50:7; 53:7 (Crossan, p. 168).
----------------
There's two
My point is that the gospel writers leaned far more on written traditions, that Christianity itself is reliant on a written tradition, and always was reliant on a written word, rather than on an oral tradition as relating to actual events of a single person that supposedly inspired it all. No doubt oral plays a role, but not as you suggest, Oberon.
--------------
The Scapegoat (15:1-15)
John Dominic Crossan has drawn attention to the singular importance for early Christian typology of the Leviticus 16 scapegoat ritual, tracing its development, as it picked up associations from Zechariah, on its way to the composition of the gospel narrative of the mocking, abuse, and crucifixion of Jesus. Although Crossan assumes the process began with a vague Christian memory/report of Jesus having been crucified, with no details, his own compelling charting of the midrashic trajectory strongly implies something subtly different, that the process began with something like Dohertys scenario of an even vaguer, ahistorical belief in the savior Jesus becoming progressively historicized by means of progressive biblical coloring, until the final stage of evolution was a crucifixion.
As for other details, Crossan (p. 198) points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan, p. 168).
Mark 14:65, where Jesus suffers blows and mockery as a false prophet, comes from 1 Kings 22:24, Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek, and said, How did the spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you? And Micaiah said, Behold, you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide yourself (Miller, p. 350).
Mark has used Micaiahs retort, Behold, you shall see... as the model for Jesus retort that his accusers/attackers will one day behold Jesus enthroned as the Son of Man from Daniel 7:13-14. It is interesting to speculate whether the doctrine of the second coming of Christ did not spring full-blown from Marks reversal of order between the Son of Mans coming with the clouds and sitting on the throne in Daniel 7.
Jesus silence at both trials before the Sanhedrin and Pilate (14:60-61; 15:4-5) comes from Isaiah 50:7; 53:7 (Crossan, p. 168).
----------------
There's two
My point is that the gospel writers leaned far more on written traditions, that Christianity itself is reliant on a written tradition, and always was reliant on a written word, rather than on an oral tradition as relating to actual events of a single person that supposedly inspired it all. No doubt oral plays a role, but not as you suggest, Oberon.
--------------
The Scapegoat (15:1-15)
John Dominic Crossan has drawn attention to the singular importance for early Christian typology of the Leviticus 16 scapegoat ritual, tracing its development, as it picked up associations from Zechariah, on its way to the composition of the gospel narrative of the mocking, abuse, and crucifixion of Jesus. Although Crossan assumes the process began with a vague Christian memory/report of Jesus having been crucified, with no details, his own compelling charting of the midrashic trajectory strongly implies something subtly different, that the process began with something like Dohertys scenario of an even vaguer, ahistorical belief in the savior Jesus becoming progressively historicized by means of progressive biblical coloring, until the final stage of evolution was a crucifixion.
As for other details, Crossan (p. 198) points out that the darkness at noon comes from Amos 8:9, while the vinegar and gall come from Psalm 69:21. It is remarkable that Mark does anything but call attention to the scriptural basis for the crucifixion account. There is nothing said of scripture being fulfilled here. It is all simply presented as the events of Jesus execution. It is we who must ferret out the real sources of the story. This is quite different, e.g., in John, where explicit scripture citations are given, e.g., for Jesus legs not being broken to hasten his death (John 19:36), either Exodus 12:10, Numbers 9:12, or Psalm 34:19-20 (Crossan, p. 168).
You're so good at cut-n-paste. Have you asked yourself why Mack is not a mythicist? Didn't think so ...
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The problem with your quotation here is that it uses a fairly common greek idiom to prove innocence. It does not prove that Mark depended on Daniel.
Once again, you are finding parallels (or rather using the ones others have "found") which rely on a word or two from the OT in order to make a comparison. The two texts you cite above are again different in form, themes, syntax, terminology, etc.
Crossan not only argues that there is certainly a historical Jesus, he also acknowledges that the gospels are oral tradition. All you have suggested he claimed in his work is that Mark used references to scripture
No, that isn't even one. Both your citations disagree with your central point. Neither Mack nor Crossan argue that Jesus never lived, nor that the gospels do not rely on oral tradition.
So I am forced to ask once more (and please don't give us anymore bogus or incomplete references or citations) what scholarship (and please list first and last name, or at least last name and the title of the text) have you read that argues that Jesus is purely mythical and that the gospels are not based on oral tradition?
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
You claim that Crossan and Mack argue that the gospels rely on oral tradition, but you haven't provided any evidence of that. I've shown examples they provide for a written, now do the same for your claim of an oral. And please list first and last name, or at least last name and the title of the text
The 'argument' is:
Mark aligned narrative with Biblical prooftext
It is, in fact, preposterous.therefore there was no historical Jesus
Re Burton Mack.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
If that were the argument, yes it would be preposterous.
First, notice that you did not even ask me to show that Mack and Crossan argue for a "mythical" Jesus, because they don't.
As for oral tradition, on page 59 of Mack's he writes "When and why oral tradition was written down, whether Mark knew Q or some slightly different, parallel, or ealier version, and what to make of yet another selection of sayings in the Gospel of thomas are some of these questions." ("A Myth of Innocence, page 59") Mack discusses the oral tradition behind the gospels more than once in this book.
Also, Crossan in his "birth of Christianity" (which you cite) is fully aware that orality lies behind the gospels, he just disagree with how controlled it was.
Last edited: