The Jesus Myth Theory

[civilwarbuff]

edit

 

[He is Risen 72]

I’ll watch it for $1000.00.



Praise the Risen Lord Jesus Christ who sets all men free of their bondage!

 

[ChetSinger]

And I asked you for 10-15 minutes for one video and even that is too much. I find it odd that you're replying here, given what I said in the OP, if you don't even have 15 spare minutes.

Oh, I've got spare time. But not for watching anything as discredited as the Jesus Myth.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Oh, I've got spare time. But not for watching anything as discredited as the Jesus Myth.

Then why are you posting on this thread? There's a word for what you're doing - it rhymes with roll and toll.

 

[He is Risen 72]

And why are you posting on this SITE? Guess what it rhymes with? Dave?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey again 2PV. I appreciate your willingness to "pick up the gauntlet." My expectations have been lowered considerably and at this point I just want someone to watch episode 9A of Excavating the Empty Tomb.

Hi NV!

I appreciate that you've lowered the bar for our Olympic high-jump here. You're willingness to do that is, I surmise, probably not the easiest thing to do since you have quite the keen mind and a razor-sharp sense of logic.

Anyway, I'd be happy to watch episode 9A in its entirety and offer some "exploratory" comments. But, just so you know, I've already hopped, skipped, and jumped through a dozen bits and pieces from the 37 episodes in the first series to get a feel for TruthSurge's style of presentation, so at the moment I have a rough idea about his approach to his material.

Before I watch 9A, or any other episode, I just want to be clear that I'm not here to debate or persuade, just to explore and discuss the ideas (or truths?) on a philosophical level to which you are wanting to direct our attention, something that I see you've already stated, for the most part, as being your actual intention in the OP.

**********************

Ok. I’ve watched episode 9A, and I’ll admit that I found TruthSurge’s presentation about Castor and Polydeuces (Pollux) to be quite interesting. I remember having run across these mythological names somewhere in my readings years ago, but whatever it was I read back then was brief and unrelated to any kind of analysis that someone might in turn apply to biblical entities, such as in this case, the brothers James and John. Needless to say, TruthSurge’s claim about Mark having had drawn from the mythology of Castor and Polydeuces on the one hand, and then applying it to James and John on the other hand, was new to me.

TruthSurge’s claims in E-9A are definitely interesting. They aren’t convincing to me, but they are definitely interesting to ponder, nevertheless. At a general level, I can see how Castor and Polydeuces would make for a very iconic pair in the minds of those living in (or under) Roman culture during the first century. And with what was probably a common presence of these two figures in Roman reliefs built into various Roman architecture and edifices, whatever social/religious meaning the Romans attributed to them was likely readily at hand to use for framing discussions about Roman values in society at large.

For me, the problem here with TS’s claim in connecting the Dioscuri with James and John is that I don’t see that his assertions establish any direct, historical connection, and barely even a circumstantial one, if we simply want to connect this by some inferences. Sure, there is a small resemblance in the arrangement and use of a couple of underlying motifs, but I don’t think this establishes any conclusion that Mark, as an author, was writing whole-cloth fiction by resorting to the use of Castor and Polydeuces. As I sit here writing this, I’m reading through an old (non-Christian) book by a guy named Dan Sperber, titled, Rethinking Symbolism (1974). Some of his content has spurred my thinking here …

One specific thing I think TS fails to do is draw out the semiotic differences of meaning(s) between what the Dioscuri represented—as a distinct, social, philosophical entity--for the Roman mind at an everyday cultural level, and as this representation might contrast with whatever intended meaning Mark may have had if he did resort to the use of the Dioscuri motif; again, assuming that he indeed did draw upon the Dioscuri. Maybe he did, and maybe he did not. (I’m going to go mirror Kaku’s type of response in physics and apply that here by saying that, ultimately, “It’s Undecidable…!”)

It doesn’t seem to me that TS’s presentation establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that even if Mark did draw upon the symbolism of the Dioscuri as a framing literary device for John and James, that Mark’s intentions were therefore also to produce a parallel symbolism. How do we know that Mark didn’t intend some other semiotic structure, even perhaps an inverse of social or religious meaning that would contrast with that of the Roman symbolism, one that Roman readers would pick up on and understand the implications? TS needs to refine and further buttress his claims here, because they’re kind of fleating. I don’t see a substantial reason to posit a direct causation, nor do I see that even if Mark was influenced by the Dioscuri, that he intended an analogical meaning.

So, my hypothetical summation at this point is this: Mark may have used a cultural, Roman motif that signified a customary signification of position or power, one that Roman hearers/readers would have been somewhat familiar with. But in utilizing this motif as a literary device to frame James and John, Mark intended to do something akin to me telling my son that the Salad Fork goes on the outside left of the dinner fork. It’s just a customary symbol of position applied to the story; it’s what people expect in a certain situation. The catch is, Mark does it with a semiotic twist. In other words, maybe Mark borrowed the “form” of the custom related to Castor and Polydeuces to tell his representation of James and John as they live in relation to Jesus and His implied deity (a quasi-parallel of implication?), but without the social and moral “substance” of position actually implied in the Dioscuri motif (a contrasting twist in the relational meaning?).

Mark’s point in doing so would contrast with the Roman use of Castor and Polydeuces since they “flank” various deities, and by implication, have honor extolled upon their positions due to their positions in association with a deity. However, in the case of James and John, we see Jesus verbally “demoting” both of them, down from the height of potential arrogance, and dismissing their request for position and power. I think the point to be made by Mark in all of this—by showing the weaknesses of James and John—is to form a moral for Mark's readers and hearers to contemplate: Christians are not to seek fame, honor, position, advantage, or power, even though they have a relation to Jesus as the Son of God (the Pantocrator).

Of course, without doing further research myself, that is about all I can comment on at the moment without having yet gone beyond what TruthSurge relates to us and having delved into the semiotics of the Dioscuri as the Romans would have perceived them at that time, or without having yet done deeper research regarding the relevant passages in Mark that TS cites.

So, NV, this is where I stand on this at the moment. Were you persuaded by TruthSurges presention of material in E-9A?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Reference​

Sperber, Dan. (1974). Rethinking symbolism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

*********

P.S. I (later) came across these articles which I think are relevant to the overall inquiry here.

1) http://www.ancient.eu/Castor_and_Pollux/

2) Luciano, S. O. C. (2015). There Can Be Only One: Roman Conceptions of Twins in the Augustan Succession (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University). [Found in scholar.google.com]

3) Champlin, E. (2011). Tiberius and the heavenly twins. Journal of Roman Studies, 101, 73-99. [Found in scholar.google.com]

4) Sumi, G. S. (2009). Monuments and memory: The aedes Castoris in the formation of Augustan Ideology. The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 59(01), 167-186. [Found in scholar.google.com]

 

[IAMANOBODY2015]

Read "The Historical Jesus," by Dr. Gary Habermas. I have done so and am convinced - as are the majority of scholars whose expertise is in this area - that Jesus was a real figure in history. Why you would think I ought to wade through multiple hours of convoluted denials of this fact is rather beyond me. TruthSurge is not the first to assert that Jesus never existed and he won't be the last. The answers to such assertions, as Dr. Habermas demonstrates, are many and exhaustive. Asked and answered.



No, the Jesus Myth is not gaining in popularity. It is a thoroughly defeated notion. We don't need to do your research for you. You're the one wondering about this matter so YOU ought to do the research on it. Start with the book I mentioned.

Selah.

I am definitely getting that book myself. I believe in Christ, but it sounds like an interesting book.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Hi NV!

I appreciate that you've lowered the bar for our Olympic high-jump here. You're willingness to do that is, I surmise, probably not the easiest thing to do since you have quite the keen mind and a razor-sharp sense of logic.

Anyway, I'd be happy to watch episode 9A in its entirety and offer some "exploratory" comments. But, just so you know, I've already hopped, skipped, and jumped through a dozen bits and pieces from the 37 episodes in the first series to get a feel for TruthSurge's style of presentation, so at the moment I have a rough idea about his approach to his material.

Before I watch 9A, or any other episode, I just want to be clear that I'm not here to debate or persuade, just to explore and discuss the ideas (or truths?) on a philosophical level to which you are wanting to direct our attention, something that I see you've already stated, for the most part, as being your actual intention in the OP.

**********************

Ok. I’ve watched episode 9A, and I’ll admit that I found TruthSurge’s presentation about Castor and Polydeuces (Pollux) to be quite interesting. I remember having run across these mythological names somewhere in my readings years ago, but whatever it was I read back then was brief and unrelated to any kind of analysis that someone might in turn apply to biblical entities, such as in this case, the brothers James and John. Needless to say, TruthSurge’s claim about Mark having had drawn from the mythology of Castor and Polydeuces on the one hand, and then applying it to James and John on the other hand, was new to me.

TruthSurge’s claims in E-9A are definitely interesting. They aren’t convincing to me, but they are definitely interesting to ponder, nevertheless. At a general level, I can see how Castor and Polydeuces would make for a very iconic pair in the minds of those living in (or under) Roman culture during the first century. And with what was probably a common presence of these two figures in Roman reliefs built into various Roman architecture and edifices, whatever social/religious meaning the Romans attributed to them was likely readily at hand to use for framing discussions about Roman values in society at large.

For me, the problem here with TS’s claim in connecting the Dioscuri with James and John is that I don’t see that his assertions establish any direct, historical connection, and barely even a circumstantial one, if we simply want to connect this by some inferences. Sure, there is a small resemblance in the arrangement and use of a couple of underlying motifs, but I don’t think this establishes any conclusion that Mark, as an author, was writing whole-cloth fiction by resorting to the use of Castor and Polydeuces. As I sit here writing this, I’m reading through an old (non-Christian) book by a guy named Dan Sperber, titled, Rethinking Symbolism (1974). Some of his content has spurred my thinking here …

One specific thing I think TS fails to do is draw out the semiotic differences of meaning(s) between what the Dioscuri represented—as a distinct, social, philosophical entity--for the Roman mind at an everyday cultural level, and as this representation might contrast with whatever intended meaning Mark may have had if he did resort to the use of the Dioscuri motif; again, assuming that he indeed did draw upon the Dioscuri. Maybe he did, and maybe he did not. (I’m going to go mirror Kaku’s type of response in physics and apply that here by saying that, ultimately, “It’s Undecidable…!”)

It doesn’t seem to me that TS’s presentation establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that even if Mark did draw upon the symbolism of the Dioscuri as a framing literary device for John and James, that Mark’s intentions were therefore also to produce a parallel symbolism. How do we know that Mark didn’t intend some other semiotic structure, even perhaps an inverse of social or religious meaning that would contrast with that of the Roman symbolism, one that Roman readers would pick up on and understand the implications? TS needs to refine and further buttress his claims here, because they’re kind of fleating. I don’t see a substantial reason to posit a direct causation, nor do I see that even if Mark was influenced by the Dioscuri, that he intended an analogical meaning.

So, my hypothetical summation at this point is this: Mark may have used a cultural, Roman motif that signified a customary signification of position or power, one that Roman hearers/readers would have been somewhat familiar with. But in utilizing this motif as a literary device to frame James and John, Mark intended to do something akin to me telling my son that the Salad Fork goes on the outside left of the dinner fork. It’s just a customary symbol of position applied to the story; it’s what people expect in a certain situation. The catch is, Mark does it with a semiotic twist. In other words, maybe Mark borrowed the “form” of the custom related to Castor and Polydeuces to tell his representation of James and John as they live in relation to Jesus and His implied deity (a quasi-parallel of implication?), but without the social and moral “substance” of position actually implied in the Dioscuri motif (a contrasting twist in the relational meaning?).

Mark’s point in doing so would contrast with the Roman use of Castor and Polydeuces since they “flank” various deities, and by implication, have honor extolled upon their positions due to their positions in association with a deity. However, in the case of James and John, we see Jesus verbally “demoting” both of them, down from the height of potential arrogance, and dismissing their request for position and power. I think the point to be made by Mark in all of this—by showing the weaknesses of James and John—is to form a moral for Mark's readers and hearers to contemplate: Christians are not to seek fame, honor, position, advantage, or power, even though they have a relation to Jesus as the Son of God (the Pantocrator).

Of course, without doing further research myself, that is about all I can comment on at the moment without having yet gone beyond what TruthSurge relates to us and having delved into the semiotics of the Dioscuri as the Romans would have perceived them at that time, or without having yet done deeper research regarding the relevant passages in Mark that TS cites.

So, NV, this is where I stand on this at the moment. Were you persuaded by TruthSurges presention of material in E-9A?

Peace
2PhiloVoid

Reference​

Sperber, Dan. (1974). Rethinking symbolism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

*********

P.S. I (later) came across these articles which I think are relevant to the overall inquiry here.

1) http://www.ancient.eu/Castor_and_Pollux/

2) Luciano, S. O. C. (2015). There Can Be Only One: Roman Conceptions of Twins in the Augustan Succession (Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University). [Found in scholar.google.com]

3) Champlin, E. (2011). Tiberius and the heavenly twins. Journal of Roman Studies, 101, 73-99. [Found in scholar.google.com]

4) Sumi, G. S. (2009). Monuments and memory: The aedes Castoris in the formation of Augustan Ideology. The Classical Quarterly (New Series), 59(01), 167-186. [Found in scholar.google.com]

Thank you for indulging me and watching the video, on top of the bits and pieces you also saw from other videos.

You ask if I was convinced by TruthSurge's presentation in episode 9A. Well, yes I was. I appreciate that you are trying to show the parallels are not quite so parallel, and on top of this that there is little discernible meaning in the pseudo-parallelism, but you have yet to wrestle with the fact that Mark refers to James and John as the sons of thunder.

I think you have a valid point in that Jesus refuses James and John their flanking positions, but I do think that TruthSurge, in his previous videos, did lay the groundwork for why this makes sense.

TruthSurge claims that Mark borrowed heavily from Homer's Odyssey, but in some cases he inverted elements. For example, consider the scene when Jesus casts demons out of a man. I will bold the parts that are inverted, and italicize the parts that are pseudo-parallel, or not quite parallel, and I will underline the one parallel.

Jesus arrives by boat; Odysseus arrives by boat.
Jesus tells his 12 disciples to wait in the boat; Odysseus tells all but 12 of his men to wait in the boat.
Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man coming out of a tomb; Odysseus encounters a cyclops in a cave.
Jesus asks the man his name; the cyclops asks Odysseus his name.
The man says his name is Legion; Odysseus says his name is nobody.
The demons flee by possessing pigs; Odysseus and his men flee by riding under sheep.
When leaving on the boat, Jesus gives the glory to God; while leaving on the boat, Odysseus mocks the cyclops.

So I think with James and John it was another case of taking a well-known theme and inverting certain elements of it. They were the sons of thunder, they were always together, and they had the natural inclination to flank a deity. Had they actually flanked Jesus in his "glory" they would have been crucified on his left and his right. But that wouldn't be right, since Castor and Polydeuces don't die together. In their legend, Castor dies and Polydeuces is immortal. Polydeuces then shares his immortality with his brother. As for James and John, James is the first disciple to die, and John was the one who was thought to be immortal. Not only did he survive being boiled in a vat before being shipped to Patmos, but some believe that John never died at all so as to fulfill Jesus' words in Matthew 16:28.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for indulging me and watching the video, on top of the bits and pieces you also saw from other videos.

You ask if I was convinced by TruthSurge's presentation in episode 9A. Well, yes I was. I appreciate that you are trying to show the parallels are not quite so parallel, and on top of this that there is little discernible meaning in the pseudo-parallelism, but you have yet to wrestle with the fact that Mark refers to James and John as the sons of thunder.

Yes, I'll have to continue to wrestle with the "Boanerges" reference that Mark makes. But, after reading those journal articles that I cited at the bottom of my previous post, I'm starting to think that this kind of "nick-naming" in reference to Castor and Pollux was perhaps quite common during the 1st century ... something that Jesus might possibly have known about and used in jest when interacting with James and John, since those two brothers were known to have condemning attitudes at the first.

I think you have a valid point in that Jesus refuses James and John their flanking positions, but I do think that TruthSurge, in his previous videos, did lay the groundwork for why this makes sense.

Really? Ok. I guess I'll back up and watch the previous video if that lays out some additional background detail.

TruthSurge claims that Mark borrowed heavily from Homer's Odyssey, but in some cases he inverted elements. For example, consider the scene when Jesus casts demons out of a man. I will bold the parts that are inverted, and italicize the parts that are pseudo-parallel, or not quite parallel, and I will underline the one parallel.

Jesus arrives by boat; Odysseus arrives by boat.
Jesus tells his 12 disciples to wait in the boat; Odysseus tells all but 12 of his men to wait in the boat.
Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man coming out of a tomb; Odysseus encounters a cyclops in a cave.
Jesus asks the man his name; the cyclops asks Odysseus his name.
The man says his name is Legion; Odysseus says his name is nobody.
The demons flee by possessing pigs; Odysseus and his men flee by riding under sheep.
When leaving on the boat, Jesus gives the glory to God; while leaving on the boat, Odysseus mocks the cyclops.

So I think with James and John it was another case of taking a well-known theme and inverting certain elements of it. They were the sons of thunder, they were always together, and they had the natural inclination to flank a deity. Had they actually flanked Jesus in his "glory" they would have been crucified on his left and his right. But that wouldn't be right, since Castor and Polydeuces don't die together. In their legend, Castor dies and Polydeuces is immortal. Polydeuces then shares his immortality with his brother. As for James and John, James is the first disciple to die, and John was the one who was thought to be immortal. Not only did he survive being boiled in a vat before being shipped to Patmos, but some believe that John never died at all so as to fulfill Jesus' words in Matthew 16:28.

Yeah, I'm not one to reject the notion that Mark could have used various literary and/or narration devices that may have been common during the 1st century. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. I'll look further, but those journal articles I found are something of an additional surprise to me; detail that I'm not sure Truthsurge takes into account in considering the coherence of it all. But, I could be wrong. Anyway, I'll watch that previous video you mentioned.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you for indulging me and watching the video, on top of the bits and pieces you also saw from other videos.

You ask if I was convinced by TruthSurge's presentation in episode 9A. Well, yes I was. I appreciate that you are trying to show the parallels are not quite so parallel, and on top of this that there is little discernible meaning in the pseudo-parallelism, but you have yet to wrestle with the fact that Mark refers to James and John as the sons of thunder.

I think you have a valid point in that Jesus refuses James and John their flanking positions, but I do think that TruthSurge, in his previous videos, did lay the groundwork for why this makes sense.

TruthSurge claims that Mark borrowed heavily from Homer's Odyssey, but in some cases he inverted elements. For example, consider the scene when Jesus casts demons out of a man. I will bold the parts that are inverted, and italicize the parts that are pseudo-parallel, or not quite parallel, and I will underline the one parallel.

Jesus arrives by boat; Odysseus arrives by boat.
Jesus tells his 12 disciples to wait in the boat; Odysseus tells all but 12 of his men to wait in the boat.
Jesus encounters a demon-possessed man coming out of a tomb; Odysseus encounters a cyclops in a cave.
Jesus asks the man his name; the cyclops asks Odysseus his name.
The man says his name is Legion; Odysseus says his name is nobody.
The demons flee by possessing pigs; Odysseus and his men flee by riding under sheep.
When leaving on the boat, Jesus gives the glory to God; while leaving on the boat, Odysseus mocks the cyclops.

So I think with James and John it was another case of taking a well-known theme and inverting certain elements of it. They were the sons of thunder, they were always together, and they had the natural inclination to flank a deity. Had they actually flanked Jesus in his "glory" they would have been crucified on his left and his right. But that wouldn't be right, since Castor and Polydeuces don't die together. In their legend, Castor dies and Polydeuces is immortal. Polydeuces then shares his immortality with his brother. As for James and John, James is the first disciple to die, and John was the one who was thought to be immortal. Not only did he survive being boiled in a vat before being shipped to Patmos, but some believe that John never died at all so as to fulfill Jesus' words in Matthew 16:28.

Ok. I've watched and noted the videos 1 through 9A. As I said previously, this is all very interesting material and the specific approach to literary criticism provided by D.R. McDonald (whom TruthSurge draws from) is new to me. It's not new in the sense that I have read Bible scholars who deconstruct the literary structures of the Bible, scholars such as Kenton L. Sparks and Peter Enns, but rather, it is new in the sense that an analysis of the Gospel of Mark is presented by looking at things along Homerian lines. And I can see the relevance and cogency of McDonald's position; in fact, I can't say that Mark definitely didn't draw from Homer--he may very well have since that kind of writing was not unheard of among Greek/Roman people. It's just...this doesn't upset me and fits with many of the other composite positions that I've studied over the years. I've never believed the Bible was some ultra-literal book anyway, dropped from the heavens and perfect in every way. I don't think it needs to be.

While I appreciate TruthSurge's video efforts, there are some things that he seems to assume to be highly substantial but doesn't really delve into deep enough. Although, to be fair, since I haven't yet watched the whole series, I'm not going to say that he doesn't cover some other distinguishing details. It's just right now, up to episode 9A, all that I think he's established--with the help of McDonald's book--is that Mark used some well known literary techniques and devices to frame some details about Jesus.

One problem for me here is that we don't know how much of the frame is really fiction, and how much of the frame is a container for presenting characteristics about Jesus' life and work that they (early Christians) knew about at that time. A second problem is that, thus far, the whole issue of Mark's many Inversions, and as to why they are or are not to be expected, seems to be quickly glossed over by TruthSurge. He highlights as many parallels as he can find, but then does little to investigate much of any of the differences between Mark's Gospel and Homer's works, or the place in which older Oral Jesus traditions may have come into play in the writing, such as Q material or Pauline material, or any other odds and ends "rumours" about Jesus that may have been floating around during the 1st century, or even motifs that mirror the Old Testament and its figures, such as those that exist between Moses and Jesus (~ they both went 40 days without food/water, etc.).

Anyway, this is where I am with this today, NV. I guess since I'm educated, along with the fact that I've never been a Biblical Innerrantist, or a "Fundamentalist" in the usual American use of that term, I'm therefore not too surprised if Mark used some framing techniques borrowed from Homer. The extent to which this means the Gospel of Mark is a work of "fiction" isn't so clear. It's seems to me to be more like a patchwork quilt ... and the ratio of "fact" to "fiction" is something I can't comment on since I don't know.

Right now I'm reading parts of the two references I've cited below to see if they've got anything interesting to say, contra TruthSurge and Mcdonald.

What are your thoughts on it?

2PhiloVoid

References​

Eddy, P. R., & Boyd, G. A. (2007). The Jesus legend: A case for the historical reliability of the synoptic Jesus tradition. Baker Academic.

Sandnes, K. O. (2005). Imitatio Homeri? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald's" Mimesis Criticism". Journal of Biblical Literature, 124(4), 715-732.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. I've watched and noted the videos 1 through 9A. As I said previously, this is all very interesting material and the specific approach to literary criticism provided by D.R. McDonald (whom TruthSurge draws from) is new to me. It's not new in the sense that I have read Bible scholars who deconstruct the literary structures of the Bible, scholars such as Kenton L. Sparks and Peter Enns, but rather, it is new in the sense that an analysis of the Gospel of Mark is presented by looking at things along Homerian lines. And I can see the relevance and cogency of McDonald's position; in fact, I can't say that Mark definitely didn't draw from Homer--he may very well have since that kind of writing was not unheard of among Greek/Roman people. It's just...this doesn't upset me and fits with many of the other composite positions that I've studied over the years. I've never believed the Bible was some ultra-literal book anyway, dropped from the heavens and perfect in every way. I don't think it needs to be.

While I appreciate TruthSurge's video efforts, there are some things that he seems to assume to be highly substantial but doesn't really delve into deep enough. Although, to be fair, since I haven't yet watched the whole series, I'm not going to say that he doesn't cover some other distinguishing details. It's just right now, up to episode 9A, all that I think he's established--with the help of McDonald's book--is that Mark used some well known literary techniques and devices to frame some details about Jesus.

One problem for me here is that we don't know how much of the frame is really fiction, and how much of the frame is a container for presenting characteristics about Jesus' life and work that they (early Christians) knew about at that time. A second problem is that, thus far, the whole issue of Mark's many Inversions, and as to why they are or are not to be expected, seems to be quickly glossed over by TruthSurge. He highlights as many parallels as he can find, but then does little to investigate much of any of the differences between Mark's Gospel and Homer's works, or the place in which older Oral Jesus traditions may have come into play in the writing, such as Q material or Pauline material, or any other odds and ends "rumours" about Jesus that may have been floating around during the 1st century, or even motifs that mirror the Old Testament and its figures, such as those that exist between Moses and Jesus (~ they both went 40 days without food/water, etc.).

Anyway, this is where I am with this today, NV. I guess since I'm educated, along with the fact that I've never been a Biblical Innerrantist, or a "Fundamentalist" in the usual American use of that term, I'm therefore not too surprised if Mark used some framing techniques borrowed from Homer. The extent to which this means the Gospel of Mark is a work of "fiction" isn't so clear. It's seems to me to be more like a patchwork quilt ... and the ratio of "fact" to "fiction" is something I can't comment on since I don't know.

Right now I'm reading parts of the two references I've cited below to see if they've got anything interesting to say, contra TruthSurge and Mcdonald.

What are your thoughts on it?

2PhiloVoid

References​

Eddy, P. R., & Boyd, G. A. (2007). The Jesus legend: A case for the historical reliability of the synoptic Jesus tradition. Baker Academic.

Sandnes, K. O. (2005). Imitatio Homeri? An Appraisal of Dennis R. MacDonald's" Mimesis Criticism". Journal of Biblical Literature, 124(4), 715-732.

I see that your faith is as pliable as ever. How much of the gospel can be a work of fiction, or a patchwork quilt, or allegory, or parable, or myth? Are you fine as long as the crucifiction and resurrection are literal events in history?

As you can see it's more or less beyond dispute that at least some of the gospel is borrowed from Homer's epic. Of course, the Odyssey is not the only work that influenced the Gospel of Mark. Many other parts are cultural and mythological references. But the gospel narrative is disconnected from the roots of Christianity, following the same pattern of when other deities were Euhemerized (that is, fictitiously placed in history).

Many religions start through divine revelation and then eventually the savior deity is placed in literal history as a way of cementing the current beliefs and precluding others from having their own contradictory revelations. Just as the Mormon religion was supposedly revealed by the angel Moroni to the apostle Joseph Smith, and just as the Muslim religion was supposedly revealed by the angel Gabriel to the apostle Muhammad, the Christian religion was revealed by the arch angel Jesus to the apostle Paul. The Euhemerization of Jesus occurred later.

If you read Paul's epistles without the gospel narrative in the forefront of your mind, Paul seems to be talking about a mythical/celestial Jesus who was crucified before the world began. There's only one reference to Jesus ever being on earth, and that is when Paul references the 500 eyewitnesses. There's good reason to believe that is a later insertion, and the videos cover that (I believe it's the other set of videos - Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah). Paul says repeatedly that he did not hear of the gospel from any man, but from the scriptures and from divine revelation.

If you don't mind a detour to the video series you're already on, I'll recommend Richard Carrier's 6-year analysis of the historicity of Jesus:

 

[He is Risen 72]

Should convicted psycho felons work with children? Jesus knows the answer. Praise the risen lord!!! Jesus has the keys to everything, even handcuffs.

 

[lesliedellow]

I recommend watching them in this order even though he made the videos in the reverse order because the newer videos are of a better quality in all aspects and are also covering, in my opinion, the more pertinent details of the theory.

The Jesus myth theory was discredited amongst academics as far back as the 1930s. It has only acquired a new lease of life because of the Internet, where anybody can post any old rubbish.

 

[lesliedellow]

but you have yet to wrestle with the fact that Mark refers to James and John as the sons of thunder.

A clue as to why Jesus nick named them sons of thunder could perhaps be found in the fact that they wanted to call down fire and brimstone on a village which hadn't given them a warm welcome. It was a comment upon their temperament.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Jesus myth theory was discredited amongst academics as far back as the 1930s. It has only acquired a new lease of life because of the Internet, where anybody can post any old rubbish.

Christianity has been discredited as rubbish for centuries. Your position deviates from that of the scholars more than mine.

 

[lesliedellow]

Christianity has been discredited as rubbish for centuries. Your position deviates from that of the scholars more than mine.

Atheists are still atheists, and theists are still theists. As for Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, as I said, that became discredited in academia following the publication of a series of scholarly articles in the 1930s. Nothing about the bovine excrement the new atheists come out with is really new.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Atheists are still atheists, and theists are still theists. As for Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, as I said, that became discredited in academia following the publication of a series of scholarly articles in the 1930s. Nothing about the bovine excrement the new atheists come out with is really new.

I'm well aware that there are a lot of bogus Myth Theories. And a bogus theory will get itself debunked. Dr. Carrier will say the same thing. I don't care if you want to look at the Myth Theory or not, but since you clearly don't, I don't know why you're here on this thread. I made this thread so you all could combine efforts and debunk the videos. Saying that the Myth Theory has been debunked in the past is a waste of my time.

And again, let's not pretend for a second that your position is represented by the academic majority. You can't believe in the resurrection without believing in alien abductions because the evidence for the latter is vastly superior. And I'm not convinced that aliens have visited us. Your position is therefore biased and unscholarly.

 

[lesliedellow]

And again, let's not pretend for a second that your position is represented by the academic majority

I am on this thread because it irritates me to see the same old nonsense being recycled over, and over, and over again. As for my position being represented by the academic majority, there is a reason why atheists, without exception, always come up with the same name. They are a bit short of historians to lend weight to their bunkum.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I am on this thread because it irritates me to see the same old nonsense being recycled over, and over, and over again. As for my position being represented by the academic majority, there is a reason why atheists, without exception, always come up with the same name. They are a bit short of historians to lend weight to their bunkum.

It's not the same old nonsense as before, and I bet you don't even know the arguments being used here. Like I said, there are a lot of bogus Myth Theories out there. What you're doing is analogous to a former LDS refusing to listen to a normal Christian because he's heard that Jesus nonsense before.

Now have an open mind, or get off my thread. You're being rude at this point.

 

[lesliedellow]

It's not the same old nonsense as before, and I bet you don't even know the arguments being used here. Like I said, there are a lot of bogus Myth Theories out there. What you're doing is analogous to a former LDS refusing to listen to a normal Christian because he's heard that Jesus nonsense before.

Now have an open mind, or get off my thread. You're being rude at this point.

When I hear somebody coming up with Mithras as a parallel to Jesus, which I have heard out of Mr Carrier's mouth, I just think, "Not that one again."

The fact that he writes off people like D M Murdock, as being even worse than himself, is neither here nor there.