Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[Dirty Penguin]

Almost every single scene makes use of metaphor and symbolism, as well as literary allusions to the Hebrew scriptures. It demonstrates that Mark did not write down a story that was floating around in oral tradition, but instead took lines from scripture to construct a new story. It was not an uncommon technique. We can see how Matthew and Luke relied on previous writings such as Mark and Q rather than oral tradition. A written tradition rather than an oral is not reason alone to accept the story as a mythology instead of an account of actual and real events, but it's one more piece that adds up.

Maybe there is no "Q" that Mark use rather he just took from the old and added a few herbs and spices of his own (whoever "Mark" was") and voila....there you have it...a new story....

 

[logician]

Maybe there is no "Q" that Mark use rather he just took from the old and added a few herbs and spices of his own (whoever "Mark" was") and voila....there you have it...a new story....

Just to set the record straight, there was no Mark, his book was written by an unknown writer, which in and of itself, makes it less "worthy" as far as being anything of historical import. How much history do we trust in other areas written by unknown authors at unknown places and times? Not many.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Just to set the record straight, there was no Mark, his book was written by an unknown writer, which in and of itself, makes it less "worthy" as far as being anything of historical import. How much history do we trust in other areas written by unknown authors at unknown places and times? Not many.

Yea, that's why I put Mark in parenthesis. It's without a doubt that these scrolls were penned by unnamed sources..shucks....maybe the writer of the gospel of Mark was a playwright. There were plenty of them back then. Maybe he wrote it as a spoof...(Scary Movie).....:biglaugh:....darn funny stuff really.

 

[Oberon]

Just to set the record straight, there was no Mark, his book was written by an unknown writer, which in and of itself, makes it less "worthy" as far as being anything of historical import. How much history do we trust in other areas written by unknown authors at unknown places and times? Not many.

Your wrong on a few points here. Many history texts were written without any title or name to the work, like the gospels (which doesn't actually make them anonymous. It could be that the authors expected their audience to know who was writing. Certainly Luke seems to). Martin Hengel, Richard Bauckham, and others have argued that the gospels received their names very early, which makes it possible that the attributions were correct. We also have testimony from various early authors that the gospels were written by the people they are attributed to. Many scholars do not believe that the attributions are correct.

However, your statement "How much history do we trust in other areas written by unknown authors at unknown places and times" shows how little you know about ancient history. And I am still waiting for you to answer my questions (when did Jesus' parents visit Muturea, etc).

Maybe there is no "Q" that Mark use rather he just took from the old and added a few herbs and spices of his own (whoever "Mark" was") and voila....there you have it...a new story....

There certainly wasn't any "Q" that Mark used. Mark didn't use Q. It was Matthew and Luke.

 

[Oberon]

Dogsgod, I have quoted Mack directly, and Crossan also believes that an oral tradition lies behind the gospels (for example, on page 77 of his "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" he writes "The healing of the leper in Mark 1:40-44 exemplifies...the process by which a tradition is changed from its original situation in the life of Jesus through its oral transmission within the earliest Christian communities").

Also, both scholars argue that Jesus was historical (e.g. Crossan's "The Historical Jesus" and Mack in the very works you cite and claim to have read).

So once again I am forced to ask (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? And no more misrepresenting your sources please. Remember that if I haven't read the text you cite, I will almost certainly be familiar with the author (providing she or he is a scholar in a relevent field)

 

[Dirty Penguin]

However, your statement "How much history do we trust in other areas written by unknown authors at unknown places and times" shows how little you know about ancient history. And I am still waiting for you to answer my questions (when did Jesus' parents visit Muturea, etc).

No such correlation. I think it's some urban rumor. I see it all around the web but I see no, or at least not as of yet, any proof they visited Muturea (wherever it is supposed to be).

There certainly wasn't any "Q" that Mark used. Mark didn't use Q. It was Matthew and Luke.

oooooohhh...!!! thank you for correcting me on that one. Aren't there two hypothesis? One suggesting they (Matthew and Luke) used a "Q" source and the other suggesting they simply used Mark as their source.....I've read that the idea of a "Q" source was to explain the differences they both had in relation to Mark's gospel. I don't normally except an argument or suggestion that some lost text that no one has ever seen or has any proof of to explain the gaps in the story but I can see how they would have used Mark as their source.

 

[Oberon]

Aren't there two hypothesis? One suggesting they (Matthew and Luke) used a "Q" source and the other suggesting they simply used Mark as their source.....I've read that the idea of a "Q" source was to explain the differences they both had in relation to Mark's gospel.

No. The Q hypothesis posits that Matthew and Luke used Q and Mark (possibly along with independent material). The Q hypothesis is based on a large number of sayings in Matthew and Luke that are thought to be too similar (i.e. almost exactly the same) for them to be from different sources. Mark doesn't have this material, however.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

No. The Q hypothesis posits that Matthew and Luke used Q and Mark (possibly along with independent material). The Q hypothesis is based on a large number of sayings in Matthew and Luke that are thought to be too similar (i.e. almost exactly the same) for them to be from different sources. Mark doesn't have this material, however.

I follow you. For me it's a non issue because such a document or collection of sayings has not been proven to exist. I can see how they would have used Mark. Further "evidence" would have to come to light to give credence to the claim of an additional source or sources.

 

[logician]

"However, your statement "How much history do we trust in other areas written by unknown authors at unknown places and times" shows how little you know about ancient history"

And "ancient history" in general cannot be trusted if the writer is unknown, and the place and date of writing is unknown. Certainly during the supposed time of Jesus there were many historians of note whose names were well known, and their writings traceable to a particular date, why is this asking too much for a credible history of the supposed Jesus?

 

[logician]

In my opinion you have 2 possible scenarios,

The first, some teacher, rabbi, prophet etc. made a name for himself in some circles, but not to the extent of being such a widely known person that historians would have known about. The question arises then is how or why the jump from teacher to god’s son in the years that followed? Was this person claiming to be god, the messiah, or both, or were these attributes added after the fact? Why would the stories eventually written about this person be so similar to previous god-man stories?

The second is that there were a number of cults preaching the Gnostic ideas of a spiritual only Christ that developed in the first couple of centuries AD and before. At the same time the gospels were written as fictionalized accounts of a god man for various reasons and purposes later in the first and second centuries. There was an eventual clash between the 2 ideas, and the literalist idea won out over time, supplanting the “spiritual only” Christ of Gnosticism. The 2 beliefs were meshed only to the extent it supported the literalist claim, all other texts were done away with, or dismissed as heretical.

I think the second scenario much more likely, as the first requires a good bit of evidence of this “Christ person” which we seem to be lacking.

 

[Oberon]

And "ancient history" in general cannot be trusted if the writer is unknown, and the place and date of writing is unknown.

Again your statements show you know virtually nothing about ancient historical sources. We do not have an exact date for MOST of the ancient texts. Rather, LIKE THE GOSPELS, we possess fairly accurate approximate dates. The same is true for places. Not only that, but scholars OFTEN use texts which do not name a particular author (either because it was truly anonymous, or because the authors expected their readers to know who they were) but that in no way means that their histories/biographes/etc should be rejected as worthless for historical purposes. You simply haven't studied enough history to come to the conclusions you do.

In my opinion you have 2 possible scenarios,

Unfortunately, this opinion has been formed without the research which would lend it credibility.

The first, some teacher, rabbi, prophet etc. made a name for himself in some circles, but not to the extent of being such a widely known person that historians would have known about.

Once again, this statement indicates that you simply haven't done the required research. For one thing, most of the texts of this period are lost. For another thing, the historians we do know of fail to mention people recorded in other historians all the time (for example, Philo doesn't mention Paul or John the Baptist, but Josephus mentions John the Baptist and we have Pauls letters). And finally, the people most like to write biographies ("lives" or bioi) of Jesus did so. Hence the gospels.

I will also point out that the list of "historians" you are dependent on from Freke and Gandy were for the most part NOT historians at all.

Why would the stories eventually written about this person be so similar to previous god-man stories?

They weren't similar. You are basing this fact on your lack of actual research into the area, depending almost solely on Freke and Gandy (and others with who are equally uninformed). The differences between the gods to which Jesus is compared are extreme. It is only by taking pieces of a VAST variety of myth (including some which postdate Jesus) and then comparing the pieces while ignoring the myths in their entirety that the comparisions are made to look convincing. They aren't.

The second is that there were a number of cults preaching the Gnostic ideas of a spiritual only Christ that developed in the first couple of centuries AD and before. At the same time the gospels were written as fictionalized accounts of a god man for various reasons and purposes later in the first and second centuries. There was an eventual clash between the 2 ideas, and the literalist idea won out over time, supplanting the “spiritual only” Christ of Gnosticism. The 2 beliefs were meshed only to the extent it supported the literalist claim, all other texts were done away with, or dismissed as heretical.

I can only point out that your knowledge of gnosticism is equally uninformed. For one thing, to speak of "gnostics" is misleadingly, because a number of very different beliefs fall under that umbrella term. Also, although many of those referred to as "gnostics" denied that Jesus was actually human (but rather only "appeared" human) they did not deny that he came to earth, taught, "appeared" to be crucified, etc. In other words, for the most part the gnostics did not argue against a "historical" Jesus per se, but rather they argued for a "historical" Jesus even MORE unbelievable than the one recorded in the gospels.

I think the second scenario much more likely, as the first requires a good bit of evidence of this “Christ person” which we seem to be lacking.

Except we aren't. See above

 

[dogsgod]

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.

Crossan argues that there is certainly an historical Jesus? Quote him.

Crossan acknowledges that the gospels are oral tradition? Quote him.

 

[Oberon]

Crossan argues that there is certainly an historical Jesus? Quote him.

He wrote an entire book called The Historical Jesus. In it he argues that Jesus was a cynic-like egalitarian wisdom teacher.

Crossan acknowledges that the gospels are oral tradition? Quote him.[/quote]

I already did.
"for example, on page 77 of his "Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography" he writes "The healing of the leper in Mark 1:40-44 exemplifies...the process by which a tradition is changed from its original situation in the life of Jesus through its oral transmission within the earliest Christian communities")"

 

[dogsgod]

That's it?

 

[Oberon]

That's it?

Crossan devotes two entire books to his reconstruction of the historical Jesus (the longer "The Historical Jesus: The life of a Mediterranean Jewish peasant" and the shorter "Jesus:A Revolutionary Biography." Both of these books not only argue for a historical Jesus (of the type I described above), that is there CENTRAL POINT! How much more could you want? As for oral tradition, if the quote I provided wasn't enough, see his Part II of the Birth of Christianity where he discusses in depth his view of the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition (which he finds less controlled than most, as I already said). How much more could you possibly want before you realize that the only two scholarly sources you cite completely disagree with you? Now, how about citing some that agree?

 

[dogsgod]

So you're not going to quote Crossan, you are just going to point to his books and pretend.

 

[Oberon]

It's difficult to quote when the whole book is on the subject. However (From "The Historical Jesus":

"Jesus was both an exorcist and a healer" 332
"This book is a about the historical Jesus and not about the history of earliest Christainity" 422

"Jesus' baptism by John is one of the surest things we know about them both. " 234
"I have argued that John the Baptist was an apocalyptic prophet praparing his followers for the imminent advent of Goad as the Coming One, but that Jesus after having originally accepted that vision, eventually changed his response some time after the execution of John." 259
"That reading is supported by considering three other beatitudes, all of which derive from Jesus himself." 273
"I contrast that composite prayer with an aphorism on the same subject by Jesus himself" 294
"Jesus' Kingdom of nobodies and undesirables in the here and now of this world was surely a radically egalitarian one..."
"My wager is that magic and meal or miracle and table constitues such a conjunction and that it is the heart of Jesus' program."
etc.

I can continue to find quote after quote after quote in his book on his opinions of the historical Jesus

As for oral tradition, I have already said he devotes an entire section in Part II "Memoray and Orality" of his book "The Birth of Christainity." I find it interesting you argue that Crossan denies an oral tradition or transmission behind the gospels, since he is the only scholar who claims that the Gospel of Peter preserves the earliest oral account of the passion narrative.

So again, how about citing sources (which you have read, and do not misrepresent) which support your view?

 

[Enoch07]

even if he walked on the earth its not like he did much i mean ye he cured couple people and thought about a couple of things but he was hardly the first philosofer or docter, in one year the average hospital cures more people then jesus ever did

This was probably stated before but I am not reading all 50 some odd pages to find out. But your missing the point of why Jesus came here. Not to heal a few wretches of physical ailments, even though it is said that he did. He came here to protect our souls from damnation and to heal us spiritually.

 

[Oberon]

Also, in the book "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan"

J. D. Crossan states very clearly his presuppositions on the NT texts:
"A second presupposition for which there is also a massive consensus (I am simply stating that as a fact) is that in the data of the New Testament Gospels covering Jesus' words and deeds, there are three successibe layers. Let's call the first one, which goes back to Jesus, the original layer; the second layer is the tradtion that took and creatively adapted the sayings and works of JEsus; the third layer comes from the Evangelists themselves." page 34 [emphasis added]

Note here that not only does Crossan specifically state that a "layer" of the gospels goes back to a historical Jesus, he also describes the second later a PRIOR to the written gospels. In other words, the second layer of tradition was AN ORAL tradition.

So once again, stop misrepresenting the only scholarly sources you have managed to quote (which it appears you haven't actually read) and please cite references (complete refences, with first and last name, or last name and titles) which support you view, because you lack of knowledge makes your ability to judge any website as "authoritative" impossible.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can continue to find quote after quote after quote in his book on his opinions of the historical Jesus.

You would be wasting your time. There is simply no effective way to argue against a willfully ignorant dogmatist.