The fallacy of the "newspaper reporter's" Jesus

[mlinssen]

This random and almost unknown Jew whom Christians called Jesus is not attested by any document from the first century

Apart from the gospel of Thomas
So a mystical preacher who gains a following by his teachings is later (add a few decades and some wars in between) the Christ of the Christians
He gets exalted, then his actual teachings are steamrollered and even his death is repurposed by a new influx of charismatic late entrants to the party who "know the real message" (ie their own message). Soon anyone merely adhering to the original guys ideas is labelled a heretic - for failing to "get with the program". The apostle Paul is one of the chief of these renegades, and there may be Judaics who further muddy the waters using him to advance their version of Judaism. Then, all these new guys start fighting with each other over who is authentic when none of them are. All we see are fragments of the original, except the Gospel of Thomas preserves his basic teachings which undermine the whole freaking lot of them
That's the simplest most distilled down explanation.

It would still be necessary to demonstrate that Thomas is a text prior to Paul and Mark. This is very complicated.

It's been done numerous times already. Not with Paul, because it is impossible to prove that Paul is either earlier or later than anyone else, precisely because he doesn't say anything, do anything, mean anything.
And I've done it based even on Lambdin and WEB, notoriously bad translations.
How could it even be complicated, Sinouhe? It is blatantly evident that Thomas precedes Mark exactly for what david is saying here, and then we haven't even looked at how Mark repurposes the Thomasine content

[GakuseiDon]

(You also tried to appeal to Paul as taking about a human Jesus; but that's highly debateable: I refer you and others to my post above)

I appeal to Paul and other texts as talking about a humble Jesus. Yes, I agree they are "wishy-washy", but we have what we have.

If Dr Carrier or rgprice construct a theory where (2) is true, then noting how (1) is false tells us nothing about (2).

Sure. And they haven't just constructed a theory about (2) - "the Gospels were built from passages in the OT" - they've written substantive arguments in books and blogposts about that.

YES!

Yet (1) - whether "the Gospels were built on the life and sayings of an amazing man" - is, afaics, unknowable.

YES! So why use (1) "the Gospels were built on the life and sayings of an amazing man" AT ALL? Doesn't arguing against (1) become a strawman, assuming (2) is true?

That's what the fallacy is about: if "the Gospels were built from passages in the OT", then isn't "the Gospels were built on the life and sayings of an amazing man" redundant?

Again, I go back to what I wrote in my OP: I also see the same view popping up here all the time as well: "The Gospels were made up from the Old Testament" AND "people of the time should have noted the Gospel events". Both expectations can't be true.

In trying to argue 'we should not be expecting better early accounts of the life of Jesus,' you've obliquely admitted that there should have been.

I don't see how. I gave passages that suggest to me that Jesus was "humble", "emptied of reputation", etc, which isn't consistent to the idea of a "newspaper reporter's Jesus". Would a humble man who came as a servant have been noticeable to the 'newspaper reporter' equivalents of the time? I doubt it.

You gave wish-washy passages from the Pauline Epistles, including from Philippians 2:5-11 which many people, including many scholars, think are about Jesus being an angel; Hebrews; and Acts of the Apostles, which were largely written to reify Paul and other 'apostles', as the passages yo selected shows.

It could be, but it's a separate argument. IF Paul was writing about a man, then he considered that man as "humble", etc. It goes against the idea that Jesus was seen as an amazing man in life.

And, as I noted, Paul's and others' letters in those days would have (or indeed could have) been the equivalent of newspapers (in the case of conveying accounts of Jesus to a wider audience; as you virtually admit)

True enough, but ones heavily based on finding Jesus's death and resurrection and its significance in the OT. Not based on the life and activities of that Jesus.

As for you trying to invoke and have a dig at Carrier and rgprice:

... back to the point that I made in my OP about using the fallacy of "the newspaper reporter's Jesus" and Dr Carrier's argument about 1 Clement being dated to the 60s. Based on what I've highlighted above, you seem to use the same fallacy all the time -- no disrespect meant!

• No, none. at. all /sarcasm (and I've addressed your fallacy fallacy (sic) in this post)

I think it is a valid criticism. Does mythicism rise and fall on the beliefs of theologians? I don't think so. It's fair enough to criticise the mainstream and theologian positions to show that we need to search elsewhere for answers. It's vitally important, even.

But once a theory has eliminated the idea that Jesus was an amazing man such that people would have written about him even if he wasn't thought to have been resurrected, then "the newspaper reporter's Jesus" becomes pointless.

Tell me if you agree with the following two statements:

(1) If there was a historical Jesus, then we'd expect the people of that time to have noticed his amazing actions and sayings
(2) The Gospel accounts were built off passages from the Old Testament

You have to admit: there is a little bit of tension between the two statements.

[neilgodfrey]

Again, I go back to what I wrote in my OP: I also see the same view popping up here all the time as well: "The Gospels were made up from the Old Testament" AND "people of the time should have noted the Gospel events". Both expectations can't be true.

I don't follow.

The claim that the gospels were derived from the OT is (for mythicists) a claim that the narratives were literary fictions.

The claim that people of the time should have noted the gospel events is based on the premise that IF they are NOT literary fictions, people would have noticed something going on.

No contradiction that I can see.

[Sinouhe]

Concerning the fact that Mark, the first biography of Jesus, is a succession of imitations (and pesharim) of ancient narratives…. We have the example of the book of Judith or the book of Esther which proceed in the same way (although less provided with imitations) and which scholars classify without any problem as legendary narratives and Judith/Esther as fictional characters.

Logic would dictate that the case of Jesus, even more loaded with imitations and even less credible than Judith or Esther, should also be classified in this category. But the consequences are obviously not the same.

But even without being so radical, one can at least recognize that imitating the Jewish scriptures during the second temple period was a common practice and that it was more likely to be used to tell fictional stories than historical ones.

It's been done numerous times already. Not with Paul, because it is impossible to prove that Paul is either earlier or later than anyone else, precisely because he doesn't say anything

Not agree.

do anything, mean anything.

Not agree.

And I've done it based even on Lambdin and WEB, notoriously bad translations.
How could it even be complicated, Sinouhe? It is blatantly evident that Thomas precedes Mark exactly for what david is saying here, and then we haven't even looked at how Mark repurposes the Thomasine content

Trying to show that Thomas is prior to Paul and Mark is certainly not so complicated. It is being convincing that is.
And what I find especially strange here is that you say that Paul says nothing and is useless concerning the historical Jesus when he says much more useful things about Jesus than Thomas.

So to reject Paul on these grounds seems illogical to me. Paul is useful. There is much to be said about the Messianism in Paul even if it is embarrassing to some mythicist theories.

[mlinssen]

Trying to show that Thomas is prior to Paul and Mark is certainly not so complicated. It is being convincing that is.

Well, then unconvince me of the fact that it is convincing

And what I find especially strange here is that you say that Paul says nothing and is useless concerning the historical Jesus when he says much more useful things about Jesus than Thomas.

I never said anything of the kind. But feel free to point me to where I did.
There is no historical Jesus, and there never will be. All we can do is to establish direction of dependence between the various texts.
And naturally you assume that your Paul said useful things about your Jesus because the IS of Thomas is about something entirely different, and stands at the beginning of it all, decades or even centuries before the Christians changed everything that had been changed from Thomas

So to reject Paul on these grounds seems illogical to me. Paul is useful. There is much to be said about the Messianism in Paul even if it is embarrassing to some mythicist theories.

Again, you have an uncanny ability to read your own thoughts into what others write. I reject Paul because his bullshit bingo is typical Roman rhetoric worthy of the first prize in a debating contest: he leaves the audience and everyone else completely confused and speechless and, most importantly, utterly undecided of anything.
Naturally he says useful things about messianism, just as he makes completely nonsensical claims about it. Paul people pleases both sides of the fence, Chrestian as well as Judaic, and he does that but displeasing both sides of the fence

Just stop focusing on what you want to read and stop discarding what you don't want to read, and read Paul in its entirety

[Sinouhe]

Well, then unconvince me of the fact that it is convincing

You are the one trying to convince everyone that Thomas is the first Christian text. A theory overwhelmingly rejected by historicists and even mythicists. So it is up to you to prove things.

I never said anything of the kind. But feel free to point me to where I did.

---->

he doesn't say anything, do anything, mean anything.

There is no historical Jesus, and there never will be.

I tend to agree. But this does not prevent us from studying the possibility that a historical Jesus existed. This is what I am doing, at least on a personal basis.

All we can do is to establish direction of dependence between the various texts.
And naturally you assume that your Paul said useful things about your Jesus because the IS of Thomas is about something entirely different, and stands at the beginning of it all, decades or even centuries before the Christians changed everything that had been changed from Thomas

I assume that Paul is prior to the gospels because that's what it looks like and because it is the most logical theory IMO.

Again, you have an uncanny ability to read your own thoughts into what others write. I reject Paul because his bullshit bingo is typical Roman rhetoric worthy of the first prize in a debating contest: he leaves the audience and everyone else completely confused and speechless and, most importantly, utterly undecided of anything.

If you consider Paul to be too complicated, then I advise you to read him and make an effort to understand him.

Just stop focusing on what you want to read and stop discarding what you don't want to read, and read Paul in its entirety

Thanks for the advice but obviously you should try to apply your own advice here because I personally have no problem with Paul.

[mlinssen]

Well, then unconvince me of the fact that it is convincing

You are the one trying to convince everyone that Thomas is the first Christian text.

Completely incorrect. Thomas has nothing to do with any Jesus that we know, certainly not with any form of Christianity, not even Chrestianity.
Thomas is a deeply psychological text about Ego and Self, and when John took it into a narrative the Chrestian origins were fixated in history

A theory overwhelmingly rejected by historicists and even mythicists. So it is up to you to prove things.

I abundantly demonstrate Thomasine priority via redaction criticism: the text of Thomas precedes that of the canonicals, and that is embraced by quite a few of the brass. So there's nothing to prove anymore, but for those who disagree the task is to disprove what has been proven.
The text of Thomas gets reused - and utterly repurposed - by the canonicals. Blatantly evident to all really, but the outcome of the conclusion that such would lead to is rather nuclear, namely that all of Christianity is based on a text that says nothing about any of the core, pivotal, quintessential, Christian thingies

Which would mean that there is a likelihood that those were all made up afterwards

I never said anything of the kind. But feel free to point me to where I did.

---->

he doesn't say anything, do anything, mean anything.

It is striking how you leave out your own part / quote here. Let me fix that for you:

And what I find especially strange here is that you say that Paul says nothing and is useless concerning the historical Jesus when he says much more useful things about Jesus than Thomas.

I never said anything of the kind. But feel free to point me to where I did.

There is no historical Jesus, and there never will be.

I tend to agree. But this does not prevent us from studying the possibility that a historical Jesus existed. This is what I am doing, at least on a personal basis.

That's perfectly fine

All we can do is to establish direction of dependence between the various texts.
And naturally you assume that your Paul said useful things about your Jesus because the IS of Thomas is about something entirely different, and stands at the beginning of it all, decades or even centuries before the Christians changed everything that had been changed from Thomas

I assume that Paul is prior to the gospels because that's what it looks like and because it is the most logical theory IMO.

Why would a text that explicitly is placed after the death of IS come prior to texts that explicitly are placed during his life?
It is only your most logical theory because there is almost nothing in Paul about IS, which conveniently allows you to be unable to demonstrate that whatever Paul says about IS (which is nothing but a handful of his own claims) does not contest his alleged historicity

Again, you have an uncanny ability to read your own thoughts into what others write. I reject Paul because his bullshit bingo is typical Roman rhetoric worthy of the first prize in a debating contest: he leaves the audience and everyone else completely confused and speechless and, most importantly, utterly undecided of anything.

If you consider Paul to be too complicated, then I advise you to read him and make an effort to understand him.

I understand Paul perfectly well, thank you, and just very concisely summarised all of him

Just stop focusing on what you want to read and stop discarding what you don't want to read, and read Paul in its entirety

Thanks for the advice but obviously you should try to apply your own advice here because I personally have no problem with Paul.

Naturally. He perfectly suits your goal, which is to not disprove the historicity of your Jesus.
Take the gospels and you would fail hard, of course - evidently that is almost all irrefutable fiction, and so is Acts. But Paul?
Paul refrains from action, decisions, anything conclusive. Paul just creates, counters, leaves it all in the dark. Paul delivers half-products only, with the sole intent to keep everyone busy.
Well, he's pretty successful still after all those years, isn't he

[davidmartin]

Paul's schtick is a basic ruse, he obscures the human Jesus in such a way that he slots himself into the role and makes it all about him, of course he doesn't mention the life of Jesus or his words - he is like the proto-type big shot church preacher with his own private jet and swanky apartment
Paul's lack of historical Jesus information is just self promotion because of how egotistical he was, it's poor evidence that there was no historical Jesus it's just the historical ego of the apostle won't let him say or do anything in case it detracts from himself. I think the apostle is intentionally obscuring information, not that there was no information to obscure. It amazes me when people don't see what he is up to, it's pretty obvious really

[davidmartin]

KK, sigh, nice try trying to brush me with a persecution complex, lol - it is understandable that a simple theory that goes against a lot of spilt ink would not be taken seriously. I get that.

[mlinssen]

Paul's schtick is a basic ruse, he obscures the human Jesus in such a way that he slots himself into the role and makes it all about him, of course he doesn't mention the life of Jesus or his words - he is like the proto-type big shot church preacher with his own private jet and swanky apartment
Paul's lack of historical Jesus information is just self promotion because of how egotistical he was, it's poor evidence that there was no historical Jesus it's just the historical ego of the apostle won't let him say or do anything in case it detracts from himself. I think the apostle is intentionally obscuring information, not that there was no information to obscure. It amazes me when people don't see what he is up to, it's pretty obvious really

It is absolutely obvious that Paul is the prototype evangelical.
I am not saying that Paul's absence of evidence of any historicity is evidence of absence of that - 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

Sinouhe might as well read Harry Potter in stead, any historical Jesus in, below or behind Paul will always be perfectly safe from exposure - and debunking