First of all, I did say that there probably was a Jesus cult around for Paul to pull from. Its completely inconsequential to my case though. My case would be the same if Paul was fictional and know Jesus cult appeared until after Mark was written.
My case is simple. The writings of “Jesus” by Judeans predate entirely the first century CE. Mark is just another Judean (though it is written in Greek, probably in Judea) writing yet another Jesus story in 70 AD.
Why would you need a sect or evidence of a cult? Their was not a cult of Moses or Abraham or Isaiah. These stories were known by all the sects. So there is no need for it to be a sect. (Though I did waste awhile trying to fit it neatly into one sect or another.) I have tried to look at whether Jesus ben Jozadak would represent the Aaronids or priestly caste version of the Jesus story, and if Jesus ben Nun represents the popular hero, since Eleazar is always placed ahead of Jesus ben Nun when they are both mentioned. I would see the book of Joshua (should I say “book of Jesus?”) as originally popular hero story with Priestly overwriting including putting Eleazar ahead of Jesus ben Nun and the division of lands echoing Nehemiah.
My case is simple. The writings of “Jesus” by Judeans predate entirely the first century CE. Mark is just another Judean (though it is written in Greek, probably in Judea) writing yet another Jesus story in 70 AD.
Nah. The author of Mark was almost certainly a gentile probably writing from Rome but almost certainly somewhere outside Palestine. If you’re actually interested in what scholars with expertise say, try ** you do not have permission to see this link **. You should probably get them both even though they’re pricey.
Stephen said
Less YouTube. More books.
Yeah, this idea was germinated from Bible Gateway’s search function more than anything else. I do not give much credence to videos because it is hard to look up their credentials and their notes.
I have watched a few Bart Ehrman debates on Youtube, and just today saw his Mythvision talk on youtube. It was a nice introductory video of Erhman v. fundamentalist so i skimmed through it. Did not see the promised mention of mithicism on the video, but I did see his points to Dr. Price (on a different video) on the lack of structural dedication and lack of insider educational pedigree amongst mythicists. I agree with all that. Maybe I will change that once I retire, get a real education so i can be legit!!
FocusMyView said
First of all, I did say that there probably was a Jesus cult around for Paul to pull from. Its completely inconsequential to my case though. My case would be the same if Paul was fictional and know Jesus cult appeared until after Mark was written.My case is simple. The writings of “Jesus” by Judeans predate entirely the first century CE. Mark is just another Judean (though it is written in Greek, probably in Judea) writing yet another Jesus story in 70 AD.
Why would you need a sect or evidence of a cult? Their was not a cult of Moses or Abraham or Isaiah. These stories were known by all the sects. So there is no need for it to be a sect. (Though I did waste awhile trying to fit it neatly into one sect or another.) I have tried to look at whether Jesus ben Jozadak would represent the Aaronids or priestly caste version of the Jesus story, and if Jesus ben Nun represents the popular hero, since Eleazar is always placed ahead of Jesus ben Nun when they are both mentioned. I would see the book of Joshua (should I say “book of Jesus?”) as originally popular hero story with Priestly overwriting including putting Eleazar ahead of Jesus ben Nun and the division of lands echoing Nehemiah.
What’s behind the notion that Jesus must die for the nation’s sins? I do not find the answer in the Old Testament. The Torah states that God forgives everyone’s sins, one a year, on Yom Kippur, so there is need to have a savior die for one’s sins.
I found the answer in the Apocrypha, a Hellenistic Era series of books. Specifically 4 Maccabees 17: 17-22 praises those who die for their devotion to God’s laws “..they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an expiation, divine Providence preserved Israel that had previously afflicted.”
The Old Testament knows nothing about Human sacrifices to please God, this appears to be an aspect of Hellenistic Judaism. I understand Christianity is a Hellenistic Religion, having assimilated certain Hellenistic Greek concepts, recasting them, to tell the story of Jesus’ mission: To die for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus’ teachings about giving away all of one’s wealth and seeking after virtue, appears to be borrowed from the Hellenistic Cynic School of Philosophy.
Robert said
Sapiensape43 said
What’s behind the notion that Jesus must die for the nation’s sins? I do not find the answer in the Old Testament. The Torah states that God forgives everyone’s sins, one a year, on Yom Kippur, so there is need to have a savior die for one’s sins.
I found the answer in the Apocrypha, a Hellenistic Era series of books. Specifically 4 Maccabees 17: 17-22 praises those who die for their devotion to God’s laws “..they having become, as it were, a ransom for the sin of our nation. And through the blood of those devout ones and their death as an expiation, divine Providence preserved Israel that had previously afflicted.”
Are you familiar with Stanley Stowers’ use of the Maccabean literature in interpreting Paul within the Judaism of his time? If not, definitely worth a read.
No, I am not familiar with Stower’s book, thanks for the suggestion.
Do you also believe that Abraham Lincoln did not exist because of earlier stories about Abraham the father of Isaac, Ibn Ezra, or later stories about Rabbi Abraham Heschel, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, Abraham Maslow the psychologist, or Abe Vigoda who played Fish on Barney Miller? Why does the fact that different people sometimes have the same or similar names imply or demonstrate nonhistoricity?
Put simply: because these guys did most of the same things as Markan Jesus did. One of the main tenets of historicity is the sudden introduction of Jesus to an unexpected world. I think the prexistent hero story doing many of the same things as Mark’s Jesus but in a different time eradicated the need for a historical Jesus. Instead all we need is Mark writing in 70 CE and placing Jesus’s prediction 40 years earlier.
More complicated: my understanding of the OT is based on various authors using the same source material now lost to us. The Book of Jashar and the Wars of YHWH are two examples if books quoted. But the Hezekiah and Josiah escapades are an example of a source used in Isaiah, 2 Kings, Jeremiah, and possibly Ezekiel but not quoted.
Similarities in the function of the Joshua narrative and the Nehemiah narrative hinted to me that these Jesuses were connected. Jesus son of Nun is a warrior take on how the land came to be divided among the tribes and families. Nehemiah is the gentle Jesus the son of YHWH the Righteous’s story of how the land got distributed, but hijacked by EzraNehemiah’s author.
Combined with Elisha, I think there is reason to believe there was a Jesus hero story that was used by the author’s of Joshua, 2 Kings, Haggai, Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
In my view Joshua’s earlier escapades with Moses may or may not have been written later, with the book of Joshua as its source.
Back to the crux of your question. If there was another Abraham Lincoln origin story where he becomes president in 1960, I would recognize the character Abraham Lincoln. If there was a story about Abraham Lincoln having to sacrifice his son to God, that’s obviously most likely a fiction narrative.
But if no one from the 1800 had ever met this Abraham Lincoln, he came from Ur, had a child with the maid named Ishmael and then another named Isaac, and he saw visions and regularly put his wife in rich men’s harmed… Wouldn’t you think it was a retelling of the Abraham from the Bible?
I like to compare it to updated superhero movies. Mark’s Jesus Christ is not 2 Kings Elisha anymore than Toney Macguire’s Spiderman is Tom Holland’s Spderman. But they are both fictional Spider-Man.
Robert said
FocusMyView said
Put simply: because these guys did most of the same things as Markan Jesus did.
No, they did not. Joshua son of Nun was a great military leader. Joshua son of Yehozadak was a high priest. Jesus was portrayed as a prophet who advocated nonviolence, disrupted temple activities, predicted its destruction, and was handed over to Pilate by the high priests.
It is generally accepted that the Jesus miracle stories are colored by Elijah/Elisha cycle of stories, two earlier Northern prophets (not surprising), but neither of them are named Jesus.
Joshua son of Nun may only be similar in the cosmic event where the sun and moon were told to stand still while he vanquished his enemies. Perhaps the Book of Jashar is this source?
What pulls him in is his similarities with Joshua Ben Jehozadak in being a leader of Israelites displacing others and dividing the lands among the families. So no real similarities with Markan Jesus, but I think it’s a different take on the original story than Jesus the Son of YHWH the Righteous. The Markan Jesus clearly is more like Zechariah s Jesus than Joshua’s
RobeYhwNeither is אֱלִישׁוּעַ a more archaic form of אֵלִיָּהוּ. You made that up out of whole cloth, didn’t you?
Lol. I couldn’t remember at first. You are not going to believe this, but I got it from Abiram, an online resource for Jewish names. Not exactly a scholastic listing I suppose…
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)