Richard Carrier
I.
The Pauline Letters mention Jesus as only being met/seen from above.
They never place him in Earth’s history.
Paul does not acknowledge that Jesus spoke to crowds.
II.
The gospels are mythologies.
III.
Paul mentions apostles, not disciples: an apostle receives a revelation, a disciple follows an actual person.
Dennis MacDonald
I want to bring up the views of Joseph Hoffman.
Distinguish between being an atheist and a mythicist.
There were salvation myths in the first century.
Jesus did not come into being as a myth without historical coordinates.
Richard Carrier
Moses is a myth.
Steefen
I would say Moses was a historical person who was mythologized.
There is much about the historical Moses that is not factual–for example, he did not have a showdown with Ramesses II/the Great.
Dennis MacDonald
I believe in a Q document.
Jesus’ mission was to make Jewish Law more compassionate.
The Q document does not support the ideas of Paul. Jesus is a mortal, he is not a revelatory character.
Paul mythologized a mortal Jesus by saying his death and resurrection was salvific.
You say there is no non-gospel sources of Jesus. I disagree. Josephus, not at the the Testimonium Flavianum, Antiquities 18, but at Antiquities 20 where one finds James the brother of Jesus called the Christ.
James and his co-religionists changed Jewish Law. Some found them intolerable and some found them tolerable.
Mark mythologized Jesus of the Q document.
Dennis wrote a book, Mythologizing Jesus: From Jewish Teacher to Epic Hero.
Papias is in the Johanine tradition.
Papias is ignored by people searching for the historical Jesus.
Pick up at 43:00 / 2:04:29
** you do not have permission to see this link **Antiquities 20.9.1. “And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king, desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”
They ended with an energetic difference of interpretation of the Greek of Josephus (Antiquities 20.9.1., in English, above). Those involved are 1) Ananus… “was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders”, 2) James who was accused of being a “breaker of the law”, and 3) the “citizens” who protested against Ananus (“those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done”).
McDonald saw the “citizens” as having a more “accurate” and “tolerant” perspective on “law.”
Carrier says the citizens don’t care about this law-breaker, but instead, their complaint was procedural: “not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent.”
Richard Carrier
Matthew repaints Jesus as Moses.
Dennis MacDonald
And, this is a type of mythologizing.
Richard
Mark reifies Paul’s teachings [reify: make something abstract more concrete or real] by putting Paul’s teachings into the mouth of a Jesus character.
Matthew reifies the New Moses myth.
Steefen
This is the Jesus was a pre-existing angel claim found in Paul.
Richard goes on to say, Mark and Matthew strip that out of his gospel and gives you a Jesus who was not pre-existing.
Dennis presents an alternative to what I put forward. I put forward that the biblical Jesus was a composite character of historical fiction, Dennis says Jesus is fan fiction.
Dennis
The fan fiction expands the character and it is evangelistic. Fan fiction may try to prove the historicity of a character.
Fan fiction can develop for real heroes and fictional heroes.
Steefen
So, strip the pre-existing angel component from Paul and you have the gospels which persuades people Jesus was historical.
pick up at 55:44
Steefen said
Dennis presents an alternative to what I put forward. I put forward that the biblical Jesus was a composite character of historical fiction, Dennis says Jesus is fan fiction…. Fan fiction can develop for real heroes and fictional heroes… So, strip the pre-existing angel component from Paul and you have the gospels which persuades people Jesus was historical.
Steefen: Ok, so do you discern a reflection of “historical Jesus” in Paul’s writings. For example that, according to Galatians, James was the Lord’s “brother” (who Paul knew personally), that Jesus “became of a woman (James’s mother), became under the law (the same degree of observance as James was raised with)”, that Jesus was a teacher (as portrayed in the Q/Matthew) who reinterpreted the whole law with a focus on the law of love (Cf the letter of James), that he had discipled, among others, Cephas/Peter (who Paul knew personally), and that he was crucified?
I’ve been through the “Mythicism Wars” already and find less there than meets the eye. So the only thing I might want to push back on is the assumption that Mark knew Paul without an actual demonstration of it. Also just for the record I don’t buy Prof Macdonald’s contention that the gospel writers used classical Greek literary sources either.
GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said
Steefen said
Dennis presents an alternative to what I put forward. I put forward that the biblical Jesus was a composite character of historical fiction, Dennis says Jesus is fan fiction…. Fan fiction can develop for real heroes and fictional heroes… So, strip the pre-existing angel component from Paul and you have the gospels which persuades people Jesus was historical.
Steefen: Ok, so do you discern a reflection of “historical Jesus” in Paul’s writings. For example that, according to Galatians, James was the Lord’s “brother” (who Paul knew personally), that Jesus “became of a woman (James’s mother), became under the law (the same degree of observance as James was raised with)”, that Jesus was a teacher (as portrayed in the Q/Matthew) who reinterpreted the whole law with a focus on the law of love (Cf the letter of James), that he had discipled, among others, Cephas/Peter (who Paul knew personally), and that he was crucified?
James would have been offended by the biblical Jesus and the biblical Paul promoting “the Last Supper.” See Acts 15: 13, 20.
Stephen said
I’ve been through the “Mythicism Wars” already and find less there than meets the eye. So the only thing I might want to push back on is the assumption that Mark knew Paul without an actual demonstration of it. Also just for the record I don’t buy Prof Macdonald’s contention that the gospel writers used classical Greek literary sources either.
We would like to read MacDonald’s discussion of figs in his book, Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark (published 2000), then read your comments on that. Until then, you are in error.
He also has a more recent book, Mythologizing Jesus: From Jewish Teacher to Epic Hero (published 2015). Is your comment based on both books or just Homeric Epics?
Richard
When Josephus speaks of James being the brother of Jesus, the Christ, he is referring not to a Jesus of the late 20s/early 30s (the biblical Jesus) but to an historical Jesus, Jesus ben Damneus.
Christ was NOT part of Josephus’ account, that was added later. Origen did not find it in his copy of the works of Josephus. (Dennis MacDonald agrees.)
= = =
Bart Ehrman / Was Christ an Angel, According to Paul? 2/23/2020
the “Christ Poem” in ** you do not have permission to see this link **. (Philippians is an authentic letter of Paul)
Christ Jesus
6) who, existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped
7) but emptied Himself taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness
8) and being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death–even death on a cross
9) therefore God exalted Him to highest place and gave Him the name above all names
10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth
11) and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
Christ as an Angel in Paul
Many people no doubt have the same experience I do on occasion, of reading something numerous times, over and over, and not having it register. I have read Paul’s letter to the Galatians literally hundreds of times in both English and Greek. But the clear import of what Paul says in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** simply never registered with me, until, frankly, a few months ago. In this verse Paul indicates that Christ was an angel.
14) And although my illness was a trial to you, you did not despise or reject me. Instead, you welcomed me as if I were an angel of God, as if I were Christ Jesus Himself.
I had always simply read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself. In fact the grammar of the Greek suggests something quite different. As the aforementioned Gieschen has argued, and has now been affirmed in a book on Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett, the verse is not saying that the Galatians received Paul as an angel or as Christ; it is saying that they received him as they would an angel, such as Christ. By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
= = =
Dennis
Do not use “mythological evidence.”
= = =
Pick up at 1:19:13 / 2:04:29
Steefen said
James would have been offended by the biblical Jesus and the biblical Paul promoting “the Last Supper.” See Acts 15: 13, 20.
According to Acts 15:19-21, James said: “…my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from he things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Steefen: Did I underline the relevant words? Could you explain your argument a little bit farther?
Stephen said
So the only thing I might want to push back on is the assumption that Mark knew Paul without an actual demonstration of it.
I’d like to give this one a try. The argument is that Mark was influenced by Paul’s writings.
Consider Mark 14:38, which begins,
γρηγορεῖτε καὶ προσεύχεσθε, ἵνα μὴ ἔλθητε εἰς πειρασμόν
Keep watching and praying that you may not come into temptation
This saying is similar Paul’s advice to spiritual leaders Galatians 6:1,
σκοπῶν σεαυτόν, μὴ καὶ σὺ πειρασθῇς
Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.
Next, in Mark, we hear this wisdom saying:
τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον, ἡ δὲ σὰρξ ἀσθενής.
The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (ESV)
A similar wisdom on the conflict between spirit and flesh is found in Galatians 5:17
ἡ γὰρ σὰρξ ἐπιθυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος,
τὸ δὲ Πνεῦμα κατὰ τῆς σαρκός,
ταῦτα γὰρ ἀλλήλοις ἀντίκειται,
ἵνα μὴ ἃ ἐὰν θέλητε ταῦτα ποιῆτε.
For the flesh desires what is against the spirit,
and the spirit desires what is against the flesh;
these are opposed to each other,
so that you don’t do what you want.
(Bentley Hart translation argues for a small “s” spirit here)
Also, with respect to Mark’s specific characterization of “flesh” as “weak” (σὰρξ ἀσθενής) it is striking that Paul, who “boasted” in “weakness”, also combined the word “flesh” and the word “weakness.” He may have coined the phrase used here:
“You know it was because of a bodily ailment (lit. fleshly weakness, δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκὸς) that I preached the gospel to you at first…” (Gal. 4:13, Cf. Rom. 6:19, Rom. 7:14, 2 Cor. 12:7-9).
So Mark seems to be painting a picture of Peter’s weakness in Pauline language, language all found in Galatians (where Paul tells about an incident of open conflict between him and Peter). But is it possible to establish that Paul’s writings influenced Mark’s gospel? One clue: I don’t think the Jesus portrayed in Q spoke in terms of a spirit/flesh conflict.
I don’t think it can be proven to a resistant reader, but I think a plausible argument for a literary influence of Paul’s writings on Mark’s gospel is possible for this scene and some others with similarly striking parallels.
Stephen: Have I made the case to your satisfaction?
GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said
Steefen said
James would have been offended by the biblical Jesus and the biblical Paul promoting “the Last Supper.” See Acts 15: 13, 20.
According to Acts 15:19-21, James said: “…my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from he things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”
Steefen: Did I underline the relevant words? Could you explain your argument a little bit farther?
Can you make your counterpoint better?
My point was that James said abstain from blood while the biblical Jesus and the biblical Paul were promoting the Last Supper.
The verses clearly say, write to the Gentiles telling them to abstain from blood.
Steefen said
My point was that James said abstain from blood while the biblical Jesus and the biblical Paul were promoting the Last Supper.
The verses clearly say, write to the Gentiles telling them to abstain from blood.
Eucharist isn’t literal blood. It is a paradoxical symbol: forbidden and required. Gentiles were asked to abstain from eating literal blood.
“Gentiles were asked to abstain from eating literal blood”
they could eat and drink human flesh and blood in their imaginations? imagine instead james said, eat flesh of lamb,but think that you are consuming pig in your imagination. literal or not, something doesnt make sense.
In Roman Catholic dogma the atoms and molecules that make up the bread and wine do not change into the atoms and molecules of Jesus’ body and blood. Their ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (ousia, substantia) changes. This concept can be traced back to Aristotle and informed Medieval scholastic philosophy. The SEP article at the link will tell you more than you probably want to know.
The literary dependence of the NT writings is much debated. The critical “pendulum” seems to be swinging back towards the view that supports literary dependence. Few dispute that Matthew and Luke knew Mark but you can still get an argument about Luke’s knowledge of Matthew or John’s knowledge of the Synoptics.
About Paul and Mark I would just point out that while their soteriologies are similar their christologies diverge substantially (pardon the pun). And we should note that the Roman church itself was pre-Pauline. But who knows? It all rests on assumptions. Was Mark composed in Rome as many scholars think? (But when a top scholar like ** you do not have permission to see this link ** disputes this view it gives us pause.) Would Mark have known Paul’s actual letters?
Honestly I have no firm opinion. I want to hear the arguments.
Steefen, I think Mark’s hypothetical sources can be best explained by a knowledge of the OT rather than Classical Greek. Macdonald’s examples of Classical Greek literary dependence seem extremely far-fetched to me. And I question that someone being trained in koine would receive a classical Greek education.
GREGORY HARTZLER-MILLER said
Steefen said
My point was that James said abstain from blood while the biblical Jesus and the biblical Paul were promoting the Last Supper.
The verses clearly say, write to the Gentiles telling them to abstain from blood.
Eucharist isn’t literal blood. It is a paradoxical symbol: forbidden and required. Gentiles were asked to abstain from eating literal blood.
What God has forbidden is not to be twisted in any way, shape, or form, paradox or metaphor. The meaning and punishment for drinking human blood still stands. The meaning is defeat – when God’s people are sieged and defeated, they turn to cannibalism. The punishment is separation from God – God turns his face away from those who eat/drink blood, even Jesus and his metaphorical/literal/paradoxical use. It is spiritual malware inserted by those who wanted shut down the God of the Hebrews.
So what is a paradox? a self-contradictory statement that when investigated or explained is well-founded or true. Yes, Jesus wants you to eat is body and drink his blood BECAUSE the apocalypse failed, messiahs, prophets, and zealots did not win, they were killed; the Son of Man did not come in on clouds ushering in a new kingdom against an empire (duh); the Temple was destroyed. So shut that belief system down, shut down that theology, create a self-destructing virus, the Last Supper/Holy Communion Virus.
transubstantiation (especially in the Roman Catholic Church) the conversion of the substance of the Eucharistic elements into the body and blood of Christ at consecration, only the appearances of bread and wine still remaining.
For my flesh is not metaphor or paradox, it is real food and MY BLOOD IS REAL DRINK.
People have found my teaching too hard, but it is what it is to the fullest extent possible.
John 6: 51-66
With this sacrament of remembering me, you will be separated from the god who failed us.
Read scripture and you will see the code of this Last Supper/Holy Communion Virus:
For they have forsaken me
and made this a place of foreign gods;
they have burned sacrifices in it
to gods
that neither they nor their fathers
nor the kings of Judah
ever knew,
and they have filled this place
with the blood / of the innocent.
Jeremiah 19: 4-5
Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you.
…because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities.
Deuteronomy 28: 53, 55
I [the Lord Almighty] will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters and they will eat one another’s flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.
Jeremiah 19: 9
With their own hands compassionate women have cooked their own children who became their food when my people were destroyed.
Lamentations 4: 10
Any Israelite or any alien living among them who eats any blood—I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from his people.
…I have given the blood to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar…
Leviticus 17: 10-11
Steefen
Furthermore, Gregory, after Jesus and Paul started the Last Supper/Holy Communion sacrament of defeat and atheism (or before Rome said, Kill the Hebrew God by self-defeating virus, so we have no more zealot rebels starting insurrections and Civil Wars on this scale) what actually happened? A son of Mary did cannibalize her son in the Tribulation that was the Jewish Civil War / Jewish Revolt.
Stephen
Steefen, I think Mark’s hypothetical sources can be best explained by a knowledge of the OT rather than Classical Greek. Macdonald’s examples of Classical Greek literary dependence seem extremely far-fetched to me. And I question that someone being trained in koine would receive a classical Greek education.
Steefen
There was a Greek theater in Sepphoris, Galilee. The gospels were written in Greek, evidence of Hellenization. Not for one second are you correct that Homer would not be referenced.
But your erroneous assertions are being ignored until you get to the details of the fig trees in Homer vs the gospels.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)