The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Sinouhe
Posts: 495
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2021 1:12 pm

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by Sinouhe »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 6:33 am I am just saying that it is clear to everyone in the entire world that Paul will never be able to be used as a witness to any historicity or non historicity of any Jesus that we know
However, it is Paul who is used by the academic world to defend the historicity of Jesus. Rejecting Paul because he "says nothing, does nothing, and means nothing" is certainly very convenient, but it will hardly be convincing for people who are not already committed to your cause.
Naturally. He perfectly suits your goal, which is to not disprove the historicity of your Jesus.
My Jesus did not exist.
Take the gospels and you would fail hard, of course
On the contrary, it is much easier to disprove the existence of Jesus with the gospels than with Paul. This is why Paul is used by historicists.
Demonstrating that all of Mark's stories are imitations of some OT narratives, are pesharim of the prophetic books and a rewriting of Paul's letters is very easy. The same for Luke and Matthew.

Saying that Marcion is the first narrative gospel with his Jesus descending from heaven, the Roman plot and rejecting Paul is even more convenient to demonstrate that Jesus is a fiction.
But taking Paul for what he is, with his problematic verses used by every scholars to defend Jesus' historicty, does not seem to me to be practical or helpful.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by rgprice »

The funny thing is that the title of this thread led me to think that GD was going to be making the opposite case. Because it has long been historicists who have claimed that the Gospel writers were like newspaper reporters.

What mainstream "biblical scholars", i.e. theologians, have long argued is that the Gospel writers were merely like newspaper reporters, simply recording either what they witnessed first hand or, at the very least, simply recording the "word on the street".

It has been very important for theologians to make the case that whatever the Gospels contain, they reflect genuinely held beliefs that existed among a population of followers of Jesus. For them, the greatest "terror" is the idea that, perhaps, the writers themselves were creative inventors. Nothing is worse in biblical scholarship than the idea that the writers themselves invented any line of the works that their hands produced. What cannot be is the claim that anything on the page came from the mind of the writer.

No, no. It has to be that the writers were "mere scribes", simple beat reporters recording the words of others and teachings of communities.

But the fact is, all of the evidence points in the opposite direction! The Gospel writers were not "newspaper reporters", they were instead creative novelists!

What all of the evidence shows is not that the Gospels are records of widely held beliefs, but rather the Gospel are invented stories that spawned widely held beliefs!

This is the thing people can't get over. The writers made it all up and people believed the writings. That's it.

There isn't a shred of evidence showing that anyone's belief in the "humanity of Jesus" stemmed from any source other than the Gospel stories. Every single defense of the humanity of Jesus relies entirely on the Gospels and/or Jewish scripters. That's it. That is the only source ever used to defend the humanity of Jesus, period.

And all of those people who used the Gospels to defend the humanity of Jesus believed that the Gospels were reliable accounts of real events that had effectively been produced by "newspaper reporters". But they aren't. We can prove that they aren't. They are creative literature, invented in the minds of writers, written in reaction to the destruction of the Temple and later modified and expanded upon in reaction to claims that Jesus, as a spiritual heavenly being, had not fulfilled prophecies of Jewish scriptures. That Jesus was a real person was a theological requirement to prove that he had fulfilled prophecy, which was desired to show that the messianic dreams of the Jews had already been fulfilled, much like the oracles of Oedipus, in ways that the Jews had not themselves foreseen.

This is all f*ing literature, there isn't a shred of history behind it.
dbz
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by dbz »

rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 7:51 am The funny thing is that the title of this thread led me to think that GD was going to be making the opposite case. Because it has long been historicists who have claimed that the Gospel writers were like newspaper reporters.

What mainstream "biblical scholars", i.e. theologians, have long argued is that the Gospel writers were merely like newspaper reporters, simply recording either what they witnessed first hand or, at the very least, simply recording the "word on the street".
In the 1920's the idea that Mark was written by an author was replaced by the current view that he was nothing more than a collector of traditions. The Gospels were regarded as Kleinliteratur, the products of the transmission of tradition by illiterate, unknown persons — a collective community (see Schmidt 1923 & Güttgemanns 1970). Mark’s task was to collect these traditions and to put them into a narrative framework. His contribution was limited to the collection of material which he knitted into a loose composition of episodes concerning the deeds and works of Jesus. Mark was regarded as a stringer of pearls (see Schmidt 1923:127f) or a collector of traditions (Dibelius 1971:3). This should be understood against the background of the emphasis on the interest in what lies behind the text and not what is in the text.

The situation changed in the late 1950's with the rise of the so-called redaction-critical approach to the Gospels (see Marxsen 1959 & Peabody 1987). The material in the Gospel was increasingly regarded as edited tradition — an idea which goes far back, but one that had only recently developed. Although the Gospel as a whole came into focus, the interest was in the redaction of tradition. This resulted in detailed investigations concerning tradition and redaction in the Gospels. In the case of Mark it was extremely difficult to determine exactly what could be regarded as tradition and what could not, because of the absence of copies of the presumed sources. On the basis of style, regular occurrence of certain words and phrases, views that were peculiar to the specific Gospel, so-called seams or breaks in the text and other features, scholars reached a certain degree of consensus about redaction and tradition in the Gospel of Mark.

Mark’s (theological) emphasis was determined by interpreting his redaction of tradition. At least a certain amount of creativity — however limited — was ascribed to the redactor. Mark’s own contribution to the story of Jesus came into focus despite the fact that he was soon described as a conservative redactor (see Pesch 1976). The emphasis which Wrede (1969) had put on Mark’s creativity in 1906 was newly appreciated.

In circles where Mark was regarded as a composer, he received more credit for what he had achieved, and attention was given to the Gospel message as a whole. It was, however, only in the late 1970’s that scholars started paying serious attention to Mark’s Gospel as a narrative, and to Mark as an author or author/narrator and to the Gospel as an autonomous text.

Vorster, Willem S. (1993).  "2. MARK AND ITS PREDECESSORS". The production of the Gospel of Mark – An essay on intertextuality.

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 7:51 am The funny thing is that the title of this thread led me to think that GD was going to be making the opposite case. Because it has long been historicists who have claimed that the Gospel writers were like newspaper reporters.

What mainstream "biblical scholars", i.e. theologians, have long argued is that the Gospel writers were merely like newspaper reporters, simply recording either what they witnessed first hand or, at the very least, simply recording the "word on the street".

It has been very important for theologians to make the case that whatever the Gospels contain, they reflect genuinely held beliefs that existed among a population of followers of Jesus. For them, the greatest "terror" is the idea that, perhaps, the writers themselves were creative inventors. Nothing is worse in biblical scholarship than the idea that the writers themselves invented any line of the works that their hands produced. What cannot be is the claim that anything on the page came from the mind of the writer.

No, no. It has to be that the writers were "mere scribes", simple beat reporters recording the words of others and teachings of communities.

But the fact is, all of the evidence points in the opposite direction! The Gospel writers were not "newspaper reporters", they were instead creative novelists!

What all of the evidence shows is not that the Gospels are records of widely held beliefs, but rather the Gospel are invented stories that spawned widely held beliefs!

This is the thing people can't get over. The writers made it all up and people believed the writings. That's it.

There isn't a shred of evidence showing that anyone's belief in the "humanity of Jesus" stemmed from any source other than the Gospel stories. Every single defense of the humanity of Jesus relies entirely on the Gospels and/or Jewish scripters. That's it. That is the only source ever used to defend the humanity of Jesus, period.

And all of those people who used the Gospels to defend the humanity of Jesus believed that the Gospels were reliable accounts of real events that had effectively been produced by "newspaper reporters". But they aren't. We can prove that they aren't. They are creative literature, invented in the minds of writers, written in reaction to the destruction of the Temple and later modified and expanded upon in reaction to claims that Jesus, as a spiritual heavenly being, had not fulfilled prophecies of Jewish scriptures. That Jesus was a real person was a theological requirement to prove that he had fulfilled prophecy, which was desired to show that the messianic dreams of the Jews had already been fulfilled, much like the oracles of Oedipus, in ways that the Jews had not themselves foreseen.

This is all f*ing literature, there isn't a shred of history behind it.
Aye to all of that, save for that little bit: that merely demonstrated, allegedly, that a) IS preceded that moment and b) was a prophet of some kind.
And even Thomas just invented all the characters, and there is 100% Tanakh behind Jacob the Righteous, as is there behind Johannes the Immerser, and Adam of course: 3 names that don't do anything in Thomas.
Matthew is the proverbial disciple, Simon Peter is da Rock of course. I'm just unsure about Salome, does she really represent Peace?
And Mari.ham is a witness to Need / craftsmanship, but how? It is evident that her name made it into early MSS precisely like that: Mariham

Anyway, Geoff: yes, stories drive historicity, and redaction criticism demonstrates that all of these stories were passed down via writing alone, Luke and Matthew are all literal copies of Mark. Take the parable of the sower, the mustard seed, anything from the triple tradition: 80% of what they share is verbatim, 10% has a different tense, a prefix to a verb or a suffix, a different declension - it is all copy paste.
I mean even if Matthew did witness a living Jesus that Mark missed out on, hoe come he tells what Mark had in almost exactly the same words? It never works that way, we always get the original story completely differently when we tell it ourselves
Last edited by mlinssen on Tue Jan 03, 2023 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by rgprice »

The pertinent question that arises once one recognizes that the Gospels are entirely fictional, is: Why would the life or death of any real person have inspired this worship?

The Gospel stories explained why Jesus was worshiped. He was worshiped because he performed miracles, gathered a great number of followers through his teachings, was crucified in a spectacle and rose from the dead as witnessed by his devout followers.

But all of that is made up. None of that actually happened. So if none of that happened, then why would anyone have been worshiping this person?

Crucifixion? According to Josephus thousands upon thousands of Jews were crucified in the first century, by both Jews and Romans. Why would this person stand out? Teachings? Why do none of the pre-Gospel claims about Jesus give even the slightest indicate that Jesus was known for teachings?

Pre-Gospel writings are fixated only on divine aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is in heaven, he will judge the world, he has conquered death, he will create a new paradise, he is the agent of Creation, etc. None of those things are attributed to a real person. Why would anyone ascribe those attributes to a real person? Again, the answer for the church fathers was that those attributes were ascribed to Jesus because of the things the Gospels tell us he did. He performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies, therefore godly powers were ascribed to him.

But as we can see, it didn't happen like that. The miracles and prophecy fulfillment are all the invention of writers. So we are left again with the question: Why would anyone ascribe purely godly powers to a real person, who did not perform miracles, fulfill prophecies or rise from the dead? The answer is simple. They wouldn't! The godly powers were ascribed to a god, not a person. The god was later personified via stories.

We know for sure that this happened all the time in the ancient world. We have countless examples of this happening over and over again!

p.s. thanks dbz.
Last edited by rgprice on Tue Jan 03, 2023 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
dbz
Posts: 510
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 9:48 am

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by dbz »

mlinssen wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 8:15 am Take the partake of the sower, the mustard seed, anything from the triple tradition: 80% of what they share is verbatim, 10% has a different tense, a prefix to a verb or a suffix, a different declension - it is all copy paste.
Should that datum be catalogued as a topic of the "Intertextual production of the Gospel of Mark". Wikipedia. ?
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by davidmartin »

I suppose I am saying that Paul is conspiratorially obscuring the the historical Jesus. What motivates me is a sense of justice, I'm not sure how it matters much whether there was a historical Jesus, I just don't see why not. An obscured figure isn't much different from one that never existed, but I think he did and the stories are garbled accounts of him. It seems to me it is a matter of preference, do you like plain yoghurt or one with bits of fruit in? It isn't a big difference but I think a historical figure has the advantage of having a historical movement, however small which then explains more of the evidence. Like, who said the words of the gospel of Thomas
davidmartin
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by davidmartin »

"There isn't a shred of evidence showing that anyone's belief in the "humanity of Jesus" stemmed from any source other than the Gospel stories. Every single defense of the humanity of Jesus relies entirely on the Gospels and/or Jewish scripters. That's it. That is the only source ever used to defend the humanity of Jesus, period"
and this here from RG. Why couldn't some guy have lived and inspired all the stuff that got written. It's as likely as not, why the obsession with proving it was all fiction. Now, if that best solved the problems I'd agree but it doesn't. It just looks like an obsession to say how something came from nothing. How come all these sects popping up swearing they are the true followers - without a historical base, how did that happen?
And what point does it connect with the historical record, at some point it does obviously
The argument is simply whether it is later or earlier, not whether it does or not

No, simplest answer is there was some historical smidgeon, some bunch of dudes that make a brief mark in their chalk of land and got stomped all over by later entrants to the party and it split into a thousand pieces, decades before we really get any decent information
Added to that the obscuring apostle who pulls every trick in the book to not only hide the details of the historical Jesus as if it were kryptonite also is hell bent on wiping out his competition, who perhaps might have actually known him. The apostle is exactly the kind of person who would obscure a historical figure for his own ends - exactly. Given that, we are all supposed to place weight on his testimony or lack of it? The apostle has all the hallmarks of a deceiver, even down to trying to get rich off his dupes. The epitome of a fraud, and he is the 'solid argument' there was no historical Jesus?
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by mlinssen »

rgprice wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 8:26 am The pertinent question that arises once one recognizes that the Gospels are entirely fictional, is: Why would the life or death of any real person have inspired this worship?
It is always mere stories that inspire, nothing else. Hence why people are eager to demonstrate that there are no facts behind a story, as that is the almost only way to sidetrack a story
The Gospel stories explained why Jesus was worshiped. He was worshiped because he performed miracles, gathered a great number of followers through his teachings, was crucified in a spectacle and rose from the dead as witnessed by his devout followers.
Actually, they don't. None of the texts state that IS was awesome because xyz - that is the story that we drive from the gospels
But all of that is made up. None of that actually happened. So if none of that happened, then why would anyone have been worshiping this person?
Because his story inspired. Didn't you love Santa with all your heart and mind?
Crucifixion? According to Josephus thousands upon thousands of Jews were crucified in the first century, by both Jews and Romans. Why would this person stand out? Teachings? Why do none of the pre-Gospel claims about Jesus give even the slightest indicate that Jesus was known for teachings?
We all adore the rebel, the contrarian. Even when you strip him of the eschatology and prophecies, a man remains who defied authorities (check), did things others can only dream of (check), and was defiant t even when staked (check)
Pre-Gospel writings are fixated only on divine aspects of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is in heaven, he will judge the world, he has conquered death, he will create a new paradise, he is the agent of Creation, etc.
You mean post-gospel writings I presume?
None of those things are attributed to a real person. Why would anyone ascribe those attributes to a real person?
Because there was none of the above prior to Churchianity. Not even the Christian gospels proclaim his divinity
Again, the answer for the church fathers was that those attributes were ascribed to Jesus because of the things the Gospels tell us he did. He performed miracles and fulfilled prophecies, therefore godly powers were ascribed to him.
The FF needed to make him divine because Mark invented the resurrection and average human beings usually don't survive death
But as we can see, it didn't happen like that. The miracles and prophecy fulfillment are all the invention of writers. So we are left again with the question: Why would anyone ascribe purely godly powers to a real person, who did not perform miracles, fulfill prophecies or rise from the dead? The answer is simple. They wouldn't! The godly powers were ascribed to a god, not a person. The god was later personified via stories.
Ah I fell for it LOL, congrats. Yes
We know for sure that this happened all the time in the ancient world. We have countless examples of this happening over and over again!

p.s. thanks dbz.
Thanks dbz as well!
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

Post by mlinssen »

dbz wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 8:28 am
mlinssen wrote: Tue Jan 03, 2023 8:15 am Take the partake of the sower, the mustard seed, anything from the triple tradition: 80% of what they share is verbatim, 10% has a different tense, a prefix to a verb or a suffix, a different declension - it is all copy paste.
Should that datum be catalogued as a topic of the "Intertextual production of the Gospel of Mark". Wikipedia. ?
I'll go with Mack there:

Burton L. Mack maintains that Mark's Gospel was "not a pious transmission of revered tradition. It was composed at a desk in a scholar's study lined with texts and open to discourse with other intellectuals. In Mark's Study were chains of miracle stories, collections of pronouncement stories." Mack assumes that Mark had different Hellenistic Jewish texts, the Scriptures and other Christian texts in his study as a possible influence in the production of the Markan text in the first century (Mack 1988:322-323). [12]

By the way I fixed the 'partake' in my post, ta
Post Reply