Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ben C. Smith wrote:

There is of course the possibility to remove the date from the time of Pilate by making it more recent, like under Claudius or something, but eliminating the 1st century BC also helps to narrow down the space of options. In addition, it eliminates the Talmud as a witness for an option for this Jesus attested by Simon and the disciple (by the argument), since that passage is the 1st century BC option.

I am not sure that is true, if I am understanding you aright. The structure and composition of the Talmud makes me doubt that any and all traditions about Jesus have to be applied to the first century BC. The one in Sanhedrin 43a lacks chronological markers (besides the "eve of Passover" bit, which does not specify a year). But maybe I am not understanding your point here.

I just meant that, if we are looking for specified different dates--which we find in parts of the Talmud (1st century BC)--that is not very compatible with the witness of the GMark or GJohn, very easily (barring radical source theories).

Giuseppe wrote:While if they wrote their gospels as followers of their previous human leader, then they can not be considered Christians at all

Okay, let's call it that, if that's what makes you happy. These radical misfits (apparently not true mythicists) are suggesting that the author of the first Gospel and his community, followers of the historical Jesus crucified under Pilate, all, cannot really be considered Christians at all. And you seem to hate this idea, while at the same time wanting to make it "not really a thing." Your simultaneous revulsion and attempt to eliminate only tells everyone that it is something different from your mythicism.

What I am saying is that the cult of the mythic Jesus-Christ requires a so totalizing faith by his old and new devotees that, even if you was a follower of a human being (crucified by Pilate) and you want to call him as 'Jesus-Christ' and write a biography about him, you can do so only by de facto reducing your previous human star to the passive role of ''data mined'' and only that. You are already fallen in the (more powerful) vortex of the mythic Jesus-Christ from the first istant when you start your gospel as ''The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God'', Amen and so on.

Peter Kirby wrote:Evidence for me that the author of Mark did not inherit the reference to Alexander and Rufus is that it is eliminated by everyone who comes after him: Matthew, Luke, John certainly; presumably (but harder to check) also the relevant apocryphal texts. Not a slam dunk, but it tends to support both the historicist reading of the text and the idea that it belongs to the autograph, with the most recent author (and just before the oldest scribes).

It is the "hardest" evidence that we have that it was not being read in some non-historicist fashion in antiquity. It also points to the idea that, when Alexander and Rufus were not in the author's community, they rightly dispose of the phrase. If another author doesn't, then does the phrase even mean what we suppose it does--and if it did, would it not be dropped from a revision for a community who did not know them?

Yes, good points. And I agree that the tendency seems to have been to drop obscure, unnecessary information like that. But there is a wrinkle here insofar as the gospel of Mark (at least in its final stages) is often thought to have a Roman provenance, and is sometimes thought to betray knowledge of Pauline thought. And there is that Rufus in Mark 16.13.... If the final author/redactor of the gospel knew that verse in Romans, s/he may have retained the reference in Mark 15.21 on the same exact grounds that modern readers sometimes make the connection, not from any personal knowledge of either man, but from the mere assumption (or at least the possibility, and it is a possibility) that the two men were the same individual. This would keep the possibility (that word again) open that Pilate and Simon (and sons) were added at different times to the tradition.

But I still agree that Pilate is the easiest solution to this entire line of inquiry.

Peter Kirby wrote:

Ben C. Smith wrote:

There is of course the possibility to remove the date from the time of Pilate by making it more recent, like under Claudius or something, but eliminating the 1st century BC also helps to narrow down the space of options. In addition, it eliminates the Talmud as a witness for an option for this Jesus attested by Simon and the disciple (by the argument), since that passage is the 1st century BC option.

I am not sure that is true, if I am understanding you aright. The structure and composition of the Talmud makes me doubt that any and all traditions about Jesus have to be applied to the first century BC. The one in Sanhedrin 43a lacks chronological markers (besides the "eve of Passover" bit, which does not specify a year). But maybe I am not understanding your point here.

I just meant that, if we are looking for specified different dates--which we find in parts of the Talmud (1st century BC)--that is not very compatible with the witness of the GMark or GJohn, very easily (barring radical source theories).

Ah, okay. I see. Granted.

These radical misfits (apparently not true mythicists) are suggesting that the author of the first Gospel and his community, followers of the historical Jesus crucified under Pilate, all, cannot really be considered Christians at all.

Well, that is just the view of Eric Laupot! According to him, the historical Jesus was Judas the Galilean, and ''Mark'' and company were Roman conspirators (or ex-Zealots) who eclipsed deliberately Judas behind the euhemerized biography of the mythic Jesus-Christ of Paul (if Paul wasn't one of them). In this sense my requisite above is fully satisfied: you have, in the Gospels, the life of a true ''historical Jesus'' described by real not-Christians (''Mark'', ''Matthew'' and co).

Giuseppe wrote:... ''Mark'' and company were Roman conspirators (or ex-Zealots) who eclipsed deliberately Judas behind the euhemerized biography of the mythic Jesus-ns (''Mark'', ''Matthew'' and co).

Where in the gospel of Mark is the man Jesus "euhemerized"

Giuseppe wrote:What I am saying is that the cult of the mythic Jesus-Christ requires a so totalizing faith by his old and new devotees that, even if you was a follower of a human being (crucified by Pilate) and you want to call him as 'Jesus-Christ' and write a biography about him, you can do so only by de facto reducing your previous human star to the passive role of ''data mined'' and only that. You are already fallen in the (more powerful) vortex of the mythic Jesus-Christ from the first istant when you start your gospel as ''The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God'', Amen and so on.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

That's just, like, your opinion, man.

Not just only the my opinion. Bob Price wrote a lot about the failed cooptation, by the followers of John the Baptist (and Simon Magus), of the tradition about the mythical Christ. The result was that John (or Simon Magus) did end coopted by the Christian tradition, as proof that that vortex was more powerful than their legacy. The question would arise: why are John or Simon remembered in the historical record (assuming Josephus is genuine about John or that the Fathers confirm the historicity of the Magus), while there was no trace of the your ''historical Jesus'' as distinct from the his role as ''data mined'' by the evangelists?

Giuseppe wrote:... from the his role as ''data mined'' by the evangelists?

"Data mined" what do you have in mind?