Did Jesus Exist?

[doubtingmerle]

Greek philosophy was antithetical to Christian belief.

Many ideas of Christianity appear to come from Greek culture. Many of the Jews that were spread around the empire adopted Greek culture and some of their relition. They were known as Hellenistic Jews (Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Acts refers to the Hellenistic Jews (Blue Letter Bible - Search Results for NASB)

Cynic philosophy (Cynicism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is very close to many of the teachings of Christ. Communion rituals and myths of a dying savior god were common among the greeks.

An incarnate God and a bodily resurrection were inconceivable concepts for classical culture

An incarnate God growing up as a child from a human mother was also inconceivable in Jewish culture. However, if "Jesus" began as a tradition of a spiritual god or Logos, that is very consistant with Greek culture.

The Jews already had that hope. Their Messiah would bring about a return to Edenic conditions, restore Israel's autonomy in their land, and have their temple in Jerusalem as the centre of worship for all of humanity. That would have been Mark's and the other disciples expectation. The delay in Jesus' accomplishing that took a major mind shift. Plus, no temple (we are that temple now), no land (Jesus is the fulfilment of all the covenental promises) and a people consisting of all nations without special favour (one family in Christ) contradicted all Jewish messianic hopes.

Exactly. They had hope of a Messiah, but Jerusalem had recently been sacked, and the Jews were spread into foreign lands.

Mark was an interesting story that a miracle working Messiah had already appeared, and though he was crucified, his grave was found empty, and he said he was coming back to set things straight. Even if the story wasn't true, I can understand how many would have loved it and at least wanted to pretend it was true.

Mark appears modelled on Isaiah according to some recent exegetes. Homer was worlds apart from Jewish thinking.

Yes, Mark and many of the New Testament books modeled their story after Isaiah, but Greek influences such as Homer can also be found. See Review by Richard Carrier of Dennis MacDonald's 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark' .

 

[doubtingmerle]

. The connections that MacDonald tries to draw between Mark and Homer are often very tenuous. For example, he points out that both contain sea voyages, yet it's hard to find much in common between Jesus' brief jaunt on the Sea of Galilee and the Odyssey, which takes place entirely on a voyage. MacDonald mentions that both Jesus and Odysseus visit villages and mountainous landscapes. However, it's hard to see much in that when most of the Mediterranean world had villages and has mountains.

MacDonald may point out some tenuous comparisons, but there are a wealth of similarities between Mark and Homer that have convinced many that Homer was an inspiration to Mark. (See Review by Richard Carrier of Dennis MacDonald's 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark' )

 

[doubtingmerle]

It makes a sharp contrast with passages such as Mark 15:21 :"Then they compelled a certain man, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as he was coming out of the country and passing by, to bear His cross." It makes little sense for Mark to name Simon of Cyrene and his two sons, unless this person was actually well-known in the Christian community.

Good point.

One could also use this argument to say that God did not inspire the book of Mark to be read by 21st century Christians, since mentioning Alexander and Rufus mean absolutely nothing to us. If frivolous names mean the account was written for those who recognize those names, that would be a strike against the view that God inspired Mark for us.

Interestingly, when Matthew and Luke later copied the story from Mark, they left out the names of the two sons. Or could it be that somebody added those names to Mark later? I don't know why those names are there in Mark.

One can also argue that characters like Simon of Cyrene, Joseph of Armimathea, and Mary Magdalene are the invention of Mark, since nobody before Mark mentions them.

For example, all four make references to Jesus quoting, reading, and referencing particular passages of the OT. Quite different from apocryphal writing that only mentions "the scriptures" generally.

That seems to be a key part of the early Christian message: taking references from the Old Testament and interpreting them to the messiah. In that background, it is not at all surprising that a fictional story of a messiah would have him quoting those passages.

There is no reasonable explanation for why Paul would radically alter his Jewish theology except if he believed that the Messiah had appeared. A spiritual intermediary who forgives sins and offers salvation would radically contradict Paul's early beliefs, but the apppearance of the Messiah would be the fulfillment of hopes based on those beliefs.

Why does the messiah need to be on earth to change Paul? After all, Paul only saw a vision of Jesus, not Jesus when he walked on earth. If Paul's conversion was based on a heavenly vision of this Jesus, why does it matter to Paul if that Jesus ever walked on earth before appearing to Paul in a vision? Couldn't Paul have been equally motivated if he thought the messiah's work was always in heaven?

 

[doubtingmerle]

It is impossible for humans to have an un-biased opinion on religious issues.

So, your thinking is pure, unbiased, acultural 'fact'?

You might want to look into the context of why I said that. I said that because another person suggested that I didn't recognize that secular writers of that day would be biased against Jesus. So I wrote that sentence in recognition that secular writers, like all writers, would have a personal bias when it comes to religion.

And yes, when I say that all humans have a bias on religious issues, I was including myself.

So I was quite surprised that somebody would interpret that my statement that all people including secularists have a bias is evidence that I didn't think secularists had a bias!

 

[Harry3142]

doubtingmerle-

The date of 70 A.D. for Mark misses the actual date by decades. By circa 62 A.D., all three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), as well as the book of Acts, had already been completed.

One reason for my accepting this early dating is The Muratorian Fragment, written about 170 A.D. In this fragment it dates the completion of these books. You can read the english translation of the fragment on this website:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

Other arguments for the early writing of the gospels, as well as other New Testament books, can be found on this website:

www.christiancadre.org/topics/dating_nt.html

 

[doubtingmerle]

many people claim that the synoptic gospels were not independant writings but all based upon the same source for the main reason that they all record the same events.

I think you misunderstand the case. It is not that the gospels tell the same stories. It is that the synoptic gospels are ofter nearly word-for-word duplicates of each other. Matthew repeats nearly 90% of Mark, often nearly word for word! If Mark was first, than Matthew and Luke clearly copied much of their material straight from Mark. See http://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem .

As for Paul's statement regarding his equality with the other Apostles... if you look at his statements to that effect in context you will see that he was speaking not of his experience with the Lord, but of his works. In that aspect, he was surpassing the rest of the Apostles as far as we can discern today. Please try to take scripture in it's context.

Excuse me, but Paul says he is behind the chiefest apostles in nothing. He does not say he is behind them in earthly experience, but equal with them in works. He makes this claim right after he describes his spiritual vision. It sure looks in context that he is saying his vision is every bit as valid as the experience of Peter.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Which myth theory in particular were you originally attracted to or think is supported by what evidence?

I find the ideas at Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle fascinating.

 

[doubtingmerle]

1) There are about 5 sources (Diodorus, Quintus Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, Arrian of Nicomedia and Callisthenes of Olynthus) that are considered "good sources" of Alexander's life. All these original manuscripts that have survived are approximately 300 years after the events. It is assumed, as you say, that these writers were drawing from sources written by contemporaries (or near contemporaries) of Alexander but such manuscripts are now lost to us. Now think about this for a moment: there are 5 lengthy manuscripts (the physical evidence) of a man who conquered the known world and these manuscripts are 300 years after the event. You accept that such a man lived while recognizing there may have been some twisting of the facts and mythologization.

I agree.

2) There are 3 really complete NT manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus), all dated to approximately 250-300 years after the events of Jesus. It is assumed that the writers of these manuscripts were drawing from sources written by contemporaries (or near contemporaries) of Jesus but such manuscripts are now lost to us. Now think about this for a moment: there are 3 lengthy manuscripts (the physical evidence) of a man who did very little and certainly didn't conquer the world and these manuscripts are 300 years after the event. You don't accept that such a man lived at all and refuse to recognize that there may have been some twisting of facts and mythologization but rather just reject his entire existence.

What is the difference?

First let me say that the writers of the gospels are more like "near contemporaries" than "contemporaries" of Jesus. The gospels were probably written 40 to 70 years after Christ died (assumining he actually lived and then died around 30 AD). Furthermore, they are written in Greek, not in the native Aramaic, indicating they probably were not written in the land where Jesus walked.

None of this proves Mark was wrong about the existence of Jesus, though it does leave plenty of room for legendary development. The point is not that Mark is too late to the party, but that those who arrived first gave a very different viewpoint of Jesus from Mark. Books that likely preceeded Mark include Q, I Thess., Philippians, Galations, I Cor., 2 Cor., Romans, Philemon, Colossians, Hebrews, Didache, Gospel of Thomas, and James (approximately in that order). If you read them without first reading the gospels or Acts, you will find the story of the earthly Jesus strangely absent. There is no mention of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Judas, Pilate, the trial of Christ, the earthly miracles, etc. The early epistles make no clear reference to his earthly teaching as their source. For instance, when the epsitles speak of love, one of Jesus's favorite topics, they nowhere mention what Jesus taught on earth about love. There is only one mention that the Jews were responsible for his death, (I Thes 2:15) and that is thought to be a later insertion. There is only one detailed story that comes close to describing an earthly Christ, the last supper as told in I Cor. 11, but as this bears a close resemblance to the sacred meals of other mythical gods, Paul may have thought this happened in heaven.

So this is the quandry: If Jesus lived on earth, how can all these early writings not take notice of any of this?

How can you say you're being objectively scientific when presented with nearly identical situations and rejecting one situation and accepting another? I don't care if you believe Jesus is God and Saviour but I do find it unscientific for you to conclude that he simply didn't exist.

I do not conclude definitively that he simply did not exist. I find it very intriguing that he might not have existed.

 

[ElijahW]

I find the ideas at Historical Jesus or Jesus Myth: The Jesus Puzzle fascinating.

I’m familiar with Doherty’s theory. He posts on another forum that I visit trying to defend his idea. Do you post on FRDB or have you read Doherty’s response to GakuseiDon’s recent review of his new book?

I haven’t read it all; I just checked to see if he addressed the same complaint that has been repeated ad nauseum on the other board about his last book. Which was he doesn’t provide evidence of anyone in the ancient world having the metaphysical understanding that he is interpreting Paul by. I’m not saying that there isn’t evidence or people that did believe in his view of the spiritual side but he didn’t come to this understanding by evidence. He came up with the theory and has been looking for the evidence to support it after the fact. That is why I’m asking what actual evidence did you see that convinced you that his myth theory or any myth theory was a possibility? The idea can be fascinating but what does that actual evidence look like that convinced you?

Communion rituals and myths of a dying savior god were common among the greeks.

While I agree completely about the influence of Greek thinking on Judaism to help produce Christianity, I don’t think Homer is who you look at but Plato and Socrates. And I’m not sure about the dying savior gods being common among the Greeks being an idea that is supportable by evidence and maybe, just like the historians who should have mentioned Jesus, is just unsupported propaganda. There are a few skeptics on that board who are fairly good about not letting skeptics repeat that info without letting them know that it’s bunk.

 

[Johnnz]

When I was student in the 60's the 'liberal' views of Scripture were ascendant. A few early scholars, such as FF Bruce (NT), E M Blaicklock (Professor of Classics at Auckland University), and John Wright (biblical historian) were early writers supporting a traditional biblical position. Today, the 'conservative' schools is clearly dominant. Why? The evidence and arguments of the 'liberals' became increasingly unconvincing for intellectually honest scholars. Groups advocating the 'liberal' tradition remain, but they are outside of the main stream of modern biblical scholarship.

The notion of a dying saviour god amongst the Greeks are nothing like the biblical story. For the Greek divinity was compromised by any contact with the mortal. The incarnation would be scandalous and impossible. Life after death was only as some disembodied existence amongst the gods, never as resurrected bodies.

The differences in the gospels and Paul's letters is very real. The Gospels present Jesus, a Jew, preaching to the Jewish people about His being the fulfilment of their long awaited Messiah. Paul, as a Jew, worked amongst a multicultural empire working out the implications of His Messiah's message for that wider audience. Two different audiences in two very different frameworks. There are not two different stories, but two fully compatible and complimentary perspectives of a unified whole.

John
NZ

 

[doubtingmerle]

doubtingmerle-

The date of 70 A.D. for Mark misses the actual date by decades. By circa 62 A.D., all three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), as well as the book of Acts, had already been completed.

One reason for my accepting this early dating is The Muratorian Fragment, written about 170 A.D. In this fragment it dates the completion of these books. You can read the english translation of the fragment on this website:

www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html

The muratorian fragments suggests that Luke the Physician and John the Apostle were authors of two of the gospels, so that would limit the date to their lifetimes. It is doubtful if these men were the authors of those books. The muratorian fragment was written too late (between 170 and 400 AD) to have firsthand knowledge of Luke and John, and it doesn't tell us its soucre.

Many have judged the book of Mark to be post 70 AD, because of anacronisms that would be there if the text had been written earlier. Also, Mark 13 predict clearly the events of 70 AD, and then fails completely in its predictions after 70 AD. The most probable reason for this is that it was written shortly after 70 AD, and the "predictions" of the fall of Jerusalem were written after the fact.

Yes, I know people will say that Jesus could foretell the future, and they have explanations to explain the failures of Mark 13's predictions, but those explanation seem to me to be contrived.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I just checked to see if he addressed the same complaint that has been repeated ad nauseum on the other board about his last book. Which was he doesn’t provide evidence of anyone in the ancient world having the metaphysical understanding that he is interpreting Paul by.

I don't understand. Doherty is interpreting Paul as meaning that Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods. There were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods.

That is why I’m asking what actual evidence did you see that convinced you that his myth theory or any myth theory was a possibility?

I think I have explained my reasoning multiple times in this thread. What more are you asking for?

And I’m not sure about the dying savior gods being common among the Greeks being an idea that is supportable by evidence.

The details of Greek mythology is not the important thing. The issue is that Paul could have combined Hebrew prophecy, Gnostic Jesus ideas, and the Greek mythological spere to produce a gospel of Jesus living in the mythical sphere and fulfilling Hebrew texts.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The differences in the gospels and Paul's letters is very real. The Gospels present Jesus, a Jew, preaching to the Jewish people about His being the fulfilment of their long awaited Messiah. Paul, as a Jew, worked amongst a multicultural empire working out the implications of His Messiah's message for that wider audience.

Really? Where does Paul ever clearly state anything that His Messiah said on earth? If Paul was simply taking Jesus's words, and interpreting them for a different audience, there would be no issue. The problem is that he ignores the story of the earthly Jesus, his miracles, and his sayings. He doesn't even seem to be interested in what the Jerusalem apostles had to say about the story. ( Galatians 1:11-24 - Passage Lookup - New American Standard Bible - BibleGateway.com ) So not only did he not see Jesus on earth, he shows little interest in hearing second hand from those who you say had seen Jesus, and his epistles completely gloss over the story. That is the problem.

 

[ElijahW]

I don't understand. Doherty is interpreting Paul as meaning that Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods. There were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods.

If that was the case he could provide plenty of examples of that thinking but he even seems to admit that he doesn’t have evidence to support the thinking he is suggesting of Paul.

From the review earlier:

So how did Doherty know? For several years I questioned Doherty on this topic, asking him where the evidence for his reading of the mystery cults came from. For example, I referred Doherty to one quote from TJP, page 122:

The Greek salvation myths inhabit the same mythical world. They too can spin stories about their deities, born in caves, slain by other gods, sleeping and dining and speaking. None of these activities were regarded as taking place in history or on earth itself.

I asked him many times for the source of that and similar claims. Finally Doherty responded:

The statement itself is too stark. Unfortunately, it implies that there is direct evidence from pagan writings to demonstrate it. Of course, over the years I have acknowledged to Don that this is not the case. While I have often pointed out and argued for ‘indicators’ of such a view, there is no clear and direct statement about any particular pagan mystery cult deity which says that devotees or philosophers regarded the activities of its myth as taking place in the spiritual dimension, in heavenly layers above the earth (whether above or below the moon).

Despite this acknowledgement, Doherty makes the same “stark” statements again in JNGNM. For example:

Some of these circles--though again not all--envisioned this Jesus as having undergone self-sacrifice in the supernatural world, the same realm where the activities of other savior gods of the era were now seen as having taken place. (Page 85)

I think I have explained my reasoning multiple times in this thread. What more are you asking for?

I’m asking for you to provide evidence for your position, whatever that may be. Instead of being the judge and jury for the evidence of a historical origin, show us what the evidence looks like for the myth theory, to see if it can hold up to the same level of scrutiny.

The details of Greek mythology is not the important thing. The issue is that Paul could have combined Hebrew prophecy, Gnostic Jesus ideas, and the Greek mythological spere to produce a gospel of Jesus living in the mythical sphere and fulfilling Hebrew texts.

I was only pointing out that you were repeating unsupported information/internet memes about savior Gods.

He could have whatever crazy theory you can imagine or he could have had a standard philosophical understanding of the time. I think most people (myself included) would try to interpret Paul within the context of the known thinking of the time before they would go with unsupported understandings.

 

[AlexBP]

MacDonald may point out some tenuous comparisons, but there are a wealth of similarities between Mark and Homer that have convinced many that Homer was an inspiration to Mark. (See Review by Richard Carrier of Dennis MacDonald's 'The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark' )

I've never denied that there are some people who believe in a strong Greek influence on the gospels, whether from Homer elsewhere. All I've said is that it's a position held by a small number of scholars and getting smaller as we come to better understand the Jewish milieu in which Christianity arose. The review that you linked to says, "the evidence is so abundant and clear it cannot be denied" and "this book will revolutionize the field of Gospel studies". To state the obvious, neither statement is true. The great majority of people who have read MacDonald's books have not been convinced by it and it plays no role in mainstream New Testament scholarship. It's worth mentioning that Carrier is a militant atheist who's spent his life trying to drag down Christianity, hence hardly a person to turn to for unbiased, accurate statements about scholarship on the Bible.

In addition to the great many weak and tenuous connections between Mark and Homer already noted, we could simply point out that a lot of the supposed connections are logically inevitable. The first that Carrier mentions is that Odysseus is portrayed as undergoing a great deal of suffering, just like Jesus. But in what narrative does the main character not undergo some sort of trial and tribulation? That's a necessity for making a readable, inevitable narrative. It's also a necessity for realism, since human life necessarily involves suffering. So the existence of suffering in both Mark and Homer just doesn't imply anything.

 

[AlexBP]

Good point.

One could also use this argument to say that God did not inspire the book of Mark to be read by 21st century Christians, since mentioning Alexander and Rufus mean absolutely nothing to us. If frivolous names mean the account was written for those who recognize those names, that would be a strike against the view that God inspired Mark for us.

Interestingly, when Matthew and Luke later copied the story from Mark, they left out the names of the two sons. Or could it be that somebody added those names to Mark later? I don't know why those names are there in Mark.

One can also argue that characters like Simon of Cyrene, Joseph of Armimathea, and Mary Magdalene are the invention of Mark, since nobody before Mark mentions them.

First of all, I seem to recall that archaeological evidence has surfaced verify the existence of all three individuals you list there. I will look that up and try to find the references.

The more general point is this: we can look at ancient texts and analyze whether the authors intended them as fiction or non-fiction based on considerations such as how often they give names and details about characters, provide specific locations, give dates and time information, give details about food, clothing, and the like. The discussion about Simon of Cyrene is just one example of many, throughout all four gospels, showing that the gospel authors were very detail-oriented. This corresponds very well to the non-fiction of the period, and not at all to the fiction.

A further strike against the Mark-as-fiction hypothesis is that it doesn't fit well into any genre of fiction then in existence. Not into fables, nor comedy, nor tragedy, nor epics. But it fits well into biography in every respect.

Why does the messiah need to be on earth to change Paul? After all, Paul only saw a vision of Jesus, not Jesus when he walked on earth. If Paul's conversion was based on a heavenly vision of this Jesus, why does it matter to Paul if that Jesus ever walked on earth before appearing to Paul in a vision? Couldn't Paul have been equally motivated if he thought the messiah's work was always in heaven?

In contemporary Jewish belief, the messiah was a flesh-and-blood human being who walked the earth, and could not possibly be anything else. If Paul thought that the Messiah had arrived in the person of Jesus--and he did, given the number of messianic prophecies Paul applies to Jesus--then he thought that Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I don't understand. Doherty is interpreting Paul as meaning that Jesus did his work in a heavenly sphere in a manner similar to the Greek gods. There were plenty of people who taught about the sphere of the Greek gods.

If that was the case he could provide plenty of examples of that thinking but he even seems to admit that he doesn’t have evidence to support the thinking he is suggesting of Paul.

Are you seriously asking me to provide plenty of examples to prove that Greek gods were mythical? Why? Don't we all believe the Greek gods were mythical?

I’m asking for you to provide evidence for your position, whatever that may be. Instead of being the judge and jury for the evidence of a historical origin, show us what the evidence looks like for the myth theory, to see if it can hold up to the same level of scrutiny.

You want me to repeat my evidence again? Why?

Paul and the other early New Testament writers make no mention of the earthly Jesus, and they describe a being that could easily have done his work in a heavenly sphere instead of on earth. Since these writings come before the stories of an earthly Jesus, it seems to make more sense that Paul was talking of events that happened in a heavenly sphere.

I was only pointing out that you were repeating unsupported information/internet memes about savior Gods.

I mentioned mythical savior gods once I think, and as I explained before that is not at all key to what I am saying. I'll look into it, but it really has very little to do with the point I am making.

I think most people (myself included) would try to interpret Paul within the context of the known thinking of the time before they would go with unsupported understandings.

The known thinking of the time was spirits and angels and demons and gods and other heavenly beings.

 

[Johnnz]

Those objecting to the authenticity/reliability of the historical accounts seem to be within the German tradition known as form criticism. English and American scholars tend more towards an historical/cultural context for understanding the texts.

What I find interesting are the authors of the 'deconstructed' approach seldom confront directly the scholarship of the majority viewpoint, but rather seem to ignore it and go ahead with their own reconstructions. There does not appear to be a genuine academic dialogue but rather talking past the other. But N T Wright does offer very direct evaluations of such minority positions and gives well grounded support for his position.

John
NZ

 

[ElijahW]

Are you seriously asking me to provide plenty of examples to prove that Greek gods were mythical? Why? Don't we all believe the Greek gods were mythical?

No I was saying that if what Doherty or you were suggesting was supportable with evidence, he would have provided it by now. If you think you can do so with evidence then you should and then send an email his way and maybe you can get a nice mention in his next update of the book.

Gods aren’t understood as mythical but myth is understood as trying to describe spiritual elements like Gods/angels/spirits.

You want me to repeat my evidence again? Why?
Paul and the other early New Testament writers make no mention of the earthly Jesus, and they describe a being that could easily have done his work in a heavenly sphere instead of on earth. Since these writings come before the stories of an earthly Jesus, it seems to make more sense that Paul was talking of events that happened in a heavenly sphere.

Because I don’t think you can provide any evidence. Pointing out that your personal expectations aren’t met by evidence of a historical Jesus isn’t evidence of whatever theory you are pushing. If you don’t have any evidence for what you think happened then asking for undeniable evidence for the other side is absurd.

I mentioned mythical savior gods once I think, and as I explained before that is not at all key to what I am saying. I'll look into it, but it really has very little to do with the point I am making.

Isn’t that the context you are trying to interpret the Jesus story by?

The known thinking of the time was spirits and angels and demons and gods and other heavenly beings.

You gave me three terms but you haven’t laid out what the thinking in regards to them was or the evidence you use to support that understanding. We can assume the standard nonsensical understandings of those terms and imagine a magical world where they exist temporally and can be crucified and interact but can you provide evidence that the ancient thinkers literally thought that way back then?

You mentioned Hellenized Jews earlier so you are familiar with the influence but you need to make sure you understand what influence the Greeks had on Jewish thinking. To understand that you need to understand the Greek conflict between Poetry and Philosophy and how they depicted spiritual elements. The poets had Gods that could involve themselves in plots and the platonic philosophers understood them as constant which makes the whole notion of what Doherty is suggesting counter to what the educated people of the time were promoting.

 

[AlexBP]

There is only one mention that the Jews were responsible for his death, (I Thes 2:15) and that is thought to be a later insertion.

Thought by who, exactly? Last night I looked in all three of my Bibles, which are careful to note verses whose authenticity is in question, and find no mention that this verse is. I looked in Dr. Bruce Metzger's three volume series The Text of the New Testament, which is the definitve work on textual reconstruction, and found no mention of any reason to doubt the verse. So obviously the verse is not thought to be a later insertion according to mainstream sources. If the sources you turn to think that it is a later insertion, that begs the question of what basis they have for thinking so.

There is only one detailed story that comes close to describing an earthly Christ, the last supper as told in I Cor. 11, but as this bears a close resemblance to the sacred meals of other mythical gods, Paul may have thought this happened in heaven.

Exactly which mythical gods are supposed to have had a "sacred meal" in any way similar to the last supper narrative? Can you give any evidence that any such narrative for any other god pre-dated Paul's writings about the last supper of Jesus?

The point is not that Mark is too late to the party, but that those who arrived first gave a very different viewpoint of Jesus from Mark. Books that likely preceeded Mark include Q, I Thess., Philippians, Galations, I Cor., 2 Cor., Romans, Philemon, Colossians, Hebrews, Didache, Gospel of Thomas, and James (approximately in that order). If you read them without first reading the gospels or Acts, you will find the story of the earthly Jesus strangely absent. There is no mention of Mary, Joseph, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Judas, Pilate, the trial of Christ, the earthly miracles, etc. The early epistles make no clear reference to his earthly teaching as their source. For instance, when the epsitles speak of love, one of Jesus's favorite topics, they nowhere mention what Jesus taught on earth about love. ... So this is the quandry: If Jesus lived on earth, how can all these early writings not take notice of any of this?

Many people are no aware of how often the epistles make mention of the teaching of Jesus. For example, in Romans 12, Paul mentions: "Bless those who persecute you", also "bless and do not curse", also "Do not repay anyone evil for evil", and others. In Romans 13 Paul gives an abbreviated list from among the ten commandments just as Jesus did, and then concludes that all commandments can be summed up in the commandment to love one's neighbor as oneself, exactly as Jesus did. In addition to the direct quotes there are a great many more passages in Romans alone that include paraphrases of certain sayings and parables by Jesus, or that contain imagery and other clues indicating that Paul had direct knowledge about what Jesus said and taught. Moreover, as Dr. David Wenham has demonstrated in his article "Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition", the order in which Paul presents quotations and other material in Romans matches up well with the order in which we read it in the Gospels. This provides strong evidence against the idea that quotations from Jesus were drifting around in oral tradition and that the gospelers later assembled them into a narrative. Instead, it would suggest that by the time Paul started writing his letters (c. 45-50 AD) the narrative was already in place and he had access to it.

There's that much to be said about Romans alone, and vastly more to be said about the other Pauline epistles, particularly 1 Corinthians. The Epistle of James should not be left out either, because it contains the greatest number of quotes, references, and paraphrases of the teachings of Jesus. Indeed it was probably written with the intention of paralleling a central core of Jesus' sayings well-known within the Christian community. Some scholars believe that James is actually the very earliest book in the New Testament. If so, it would put another nail in the coffin of the argument that the early Christian community knew little of what ended up in the gospels.