Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Our Bernard has quoted a nice list of similarities between Lincoln and Kennedy (as a counterargument). Even if you disagree with him, it's great fun! Note especially the last point.

Don't tell me. Bernard completely sidesteps Carrier's and dozens of other scholars' arguments related to the literary practice of mimesis of the day.

Knowing Bernard he could use the Kennedy-Johnson parallels to prove that a child who is the spitting image of its parents was really adopted or that identical twins are not genetically related.

Certainly, I have no idea how many unfair discussion partners have frustrated you. But without some humor it would be so German.

[MrMacSon]

Just because they mention Pilate in the Jesus story doesn't mean the Jesus story can't be a rewrite of an older story.

If it was a completely fictitious story like Romeo and Juliet that would be true. But the theory breaks down when you realize that Christians have always believed that this is the story of the means by which all the world was saved. In other words, the story needs to be 'true' in order to have any salvatory power.

That they needed to think the story was true or meaningful, in their theologically-centered world, might 'require' the use of real people, real places, & real events, but a large part or most of it can still be a myth-fiction construct, no matter how unwitting the builders or carpenters of that construct were.

It seems to have been meme-making.

Moreover the specific timing of the story to the age of Pilate is shown as early as the second century. Why on earth an important chronological marker like 'Pilate' would be referenced (as opposed to a generic 'the governor,' 'the Roman procurator' when this anonymous reference was certainly possible) is a strong argument in favor of the proper dating for the story.

There was passing reference to Baroness Emma Orczy earlier - she published The Scarlet Pimpernel in 1905; it was set in the French Revolution in 1792 ie. authors set tales in the past all the time,in past events.

[Stephan Huller]

But the gospel wasn't fiction. Mythicists make this leap but there is no evidence that any ancient Christians thought this was anything other than an actual encounter with an angel (or later the Christ, son of David). Not the same thing

[neilgodfrey]

But the gospel wasn't fiction. Mythicists make this leap but there is no evidence that any ancient Christians thought this was anything other than an actual encounter with an angel (or later the Christ, son of David). Not the same thing

Fwiw, my understanding is that Doherty et al do argue just that -- that Christianity essentially began with visions of the Christ that were certainly believed to be real encounters with the Christ. Hurtado even indicates the same in his work and, to his chagrin, supporting the mythicist claims.

[MrMacSon]

But the gospel wasn't fiction. Mythicists make this leap but there is no evidence that any ancient Christians thought this was anything other than an actual encounter with an angel (or later the Christ, son of David). Not the same thing

Fwiw, my understanding is that Doherty et al do argue just that -- that Christianity essentially began with visions of the Christ that were certainly believed to be real encounters with the Christ. Hurtado even indicates the same in his work and, to his chagrin, supporting the mythicist claims.

Another possibility is some people recounted 'visions' and those hearing the recounts believed them: one 'account' could be spread with many retellings of that one account of an alleged vision - a theological Ponzi scheme

[Stephan Huller]

But I don't necessarily see that the visions attributed to Paul or Simon Magus weren't layered on top of what was supposed to be an historical encounter with an angel.

[MrMacSon]

But I don't necessarily see that the visions attributed to Paul or Simon Magus weren't layered on top of what was supposed to be an historical encounter with an angel.

Can you re-frame that without the negatives; the double-negative?

eg.
"I see that the visions attributed to Paul or Simon Magus were layered on top of what was supposed to be an historical encounter with an angel"??

are you saying the narratives about the visions were layered on a primary account (or on recounts of it)?

[Stephan Huller]

When Tertullian references Paul writing a gospel according to revelation it is a spiritual rewriting of Peter's psychic (presumably historical) gospel.

For the purpose of scoffing at some ignorance in the Apostles, the heretics bring forward the point that Peter and his companions were blamed by Paul. "Something therefore," say they, "was lacking in them." They say this in order to build up that other contention of theirs, that a fuller knowledge might afterwards have come to them, such as came to Paul who blamed his predecessors. Now here I may say to those who reject the Acts of the Apostles: "The first thing for you to do is to shew who this Paul was both what he was before he was an Apostle, and how he became an Apostle".; since at other times they make very great use of him in disputed matters. For though he himself declares that from a persecutor he became an Apostle, that statement is not sufficient for one who yields credence only after proof. For not even the Lord Himself bore witness concerning Himself. But let them believe without the Scriptures that they may believe against the Scriptures. Yet they must shew from the instance adduced of Peter being blamed by Paul that another form of Gospel was introduced by Paul beside that which Peter and the rest had previously put forth.

As I have noted here many times, the same formula (i.e. of a secondary individual 'spiritualizing' Peter's psychic gospel is at the heart of the report regarding Mark 'the interpreter of Peter' and the 'mystical' or 'secret' gospel in Clement's Letter to Theodore. I read 1 Corinthians chapter 2 (and 3 all the way to the 'master builder' reference) the same way. There was a historical/psychic gospel which was established by Peter and which Paul originally subscribed to (see the controversy in Galatians 1 and 2. At some point he had an out of body experience, ascended to the third heaven and came back with spiritual insight which took the gospel associated with Peter and the apostles to the next level of perfection. I believe this came to be the form of the gospel which the canonical gospels were based on.

[ghost]

If you and Mary can remove all boundaries and argue for EITHER Caesar or Antigonus how are we to differentiate between the two? In other words, if anything goes can't Jesus have been any murdered individual in antiquity? Or perhaps we can go one step further and say not only is the dating of the narrative (wrong), not only the names of important characters (wrong), not only the location (wrong) but the fact that the main protagonist was crucified (wrong). In fact if you are going to make Caesar = Jesus you have to do that as well.

To this I have to say the Roman imperial cult preceeded Christianity in the same region (the Roman empire), and the protagonist of the Roman imperial cult is Caesar, not Antigonus. It's not just a question of whether a story influences another story, but also of how much a story influences another story. That two or more stories influence another story doesn't mean they influence that other story equally. That a character is a composite doesn't mean the components have equal weight.

[Stephan Huller]

My point here is to emphasize as always the short-comings of describing the belief that Jesus was an angel as 'mythicism' (a term which the vulgar exploit to mean something like 'fictitious). The early Christians believed the angel's descent was historical. It happened in a particular year in 'real time.' This angel walked on the earth in the same way as Bob Marley imagines God to have communicated with Adam and Eve in the Garden. 'Almighty God is a living man' isn't just some lyric that came to the lead singer of the Wailers while high. It is a distinguishing feature of Coptic Christianity noted by early missionaries to Ethiopia http://books.google.com/books?id=4Zs3Cc ... an&f=false It must have been a very ancient Hebrew belief because God is originally described as possessing anthropomorphic features. As such when Jesus came down to earth, there would certainly have been Hebrews who would have accepted or even 'recognized' the idea that a supernatural being could have come to earth in the form of man.