Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Also conveniently side-stepped in Mark is the question of just what kind of resurrection Jesus had. The body disappears, but the lack of resurrection appearances avoided a lot of awkward questions about exactly what kind of resurrection it was.
Only if you think authentic Mark ends at 16:8.

Regardless of what you believe about Mark, 16:9-14 was written not long after, if after at all, the undisputed gospel. So it does show some early Christian's view of what kind of resurrection Jesus had.

The Jesus of verses 9-14 is the subject of visionary experiences by Jesus's survivors, much like Paul's Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.
RandyHelzerman
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:31 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by RandyHelzerman »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 2:28 pm The Jesus of verses 9-14 is the subject of visionary experiences by Jesus's survivors, much like Paul's Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11.
Fascinating. A quick look at all attested endings of mark (shorter, longer, and freer logion) seems to indicate that all of them could be given a reading such that Jesus is spectral.

What is really super-duper weird is that Marcion's gospel contains--like Luke--an appearance where the disciples are afraid because they think they are seeing a spectre. And Jesus explicitly says he has flesh, bones, and proceeds to eat a fish. Tertullian (gotta love him) interjects here that that meant that Jesus had teeth too :-)

Tertullian mentions that Marcion interprets his way out of this, via a not very convincing reading of the text, in service of a docetist Christology.

What, exactly, *is* a "spectre" as in Luke? Why would the disciples be afraid of a spectre? Does it have any antecedent in Judaism or Helenisitc thought? It doesn't seem to be the kind of platonic soul we were talking about before. Where does this concept come from? It seems almost like the gospel has turned into an episode of Scooby-doo, and that a spectre is a direct counterpart for our ghosts, but surely that is anachronistic.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by Michael BG »

dbz wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 3:10 pm
[All] my a fortiori probabilities . . . I meticulous prove are facts, not conjectures (e.g. OHJ, Chs. 1, 4, 5, and 7).
--Carrier (18 October 2021). "How to Correctly Employ Bayesian Probabilities to Describe Historical Reasoning (Jesus Edition)". Richard Carrier Blogs.
Thank you dbz for posting this link. Now I understand Carrier's methodology. I don’t agree with his global approach, but I am happy to engage with his views on different passages in the New Testament.
Michael BG
Posts: 665
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by Michael BG »

As rgprice has not responded to my writing that he hadn’t put forward in this thread his case about the parable of the sower I have looked in the other thread he provided a link to.
rgprice wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 4:30 am One does have to be very careful with this type of speculation, for sure. But there are reasons to justify it. Are the justifications good enough?

I've gone back and read Mark 4 (13-29) and it is very interesting indeed.

13 And he said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? Then how will you understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word. 15 These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. 16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word, they immediately receive it with joy. 17 But they have no root and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. 18 And others are those sown among the thorns: these are the ones who hear the word, 19 but the cares of the age and the lure of wealth and the desire for other things come in and choke the word, and it yields nothing. 20 And these are the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.”

I would submit that this parable describes scenarios within the Gospel itself.

Who is "on the path"?

(Mk 1:2-4) 2 As it is written in the prophet Isaiah, “See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way, 3 the voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord; make his paths straight,’ ”

4 so John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

John the Baptist is on the path where the word is sown. Satan comes and takes him away. It was not Jesus who was being driven into the wilderness and being tested by Satan, it was supposed to be JtB in the original narrative.

Who are the ones on rocky ground? Peter, James and John. When they hear the word they receive it with joy, but they flee when there is trouble and abandon Jesus.

What about the ones lured by wealth? Judas.

Who is the one that bears fruit? Paul.

Romans 7: (4-5)
4 In the same way, my brothers and sisters, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death.

So according to the parable, John, Peter, and Judas are represent types of people who fail accept the word, while Paul is held out as the example of the one who correctly accepts the word.

Now, this only works if John the Baptist is the one driven into the wilderness and tempted by Satan, not Jesus.
I can understand that if the word ‘rock’ was used in Mk 4:5 and 16 there could be a link to Peter (rock), but it seems that the word used is 'rocky places'.
In Mk 4:18 the Greek word εισιν is used which I understand is the third person plural not singular, which makes it unlikely that one person such as Judas Iscariot is being referred to. If verses 16 and 18 do not refer to particular people then it is unlikely that verse 15 refers to John the Baptist.
davidmartin
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by davidmartin »

RandyHelzerman wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 12:18 pm After having given Canonical Mark a good rake-over in another thread, it seems to me that this platonic concept of a soul was *not* what Mark had in mind about Jesus. A holy spirit does descend on him, and it drives him "straightway" all over the place in the gospel of mark. But this spirit seems more akin to the Spirit of the Lord which episodically came over Sampson, and drove him to do his heroic deeds.
From the perspective of the holy spirit it's the baptism that's the 'birth' of the spirit into the world, the point it enters the world
It's weird how Jesus gets all the attention when its the spirit behind the scenes doing everything!

but that's the gospels elsewhere there's a theme of Jesus only being made the son after the resurrection, wouldn't that mean the spirit only appeared then as well?

Romans
who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord
Galatians
At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit.
1 Peter
to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of Christ in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of the Messiah and the glories that would follow. It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits
here the mission of Jesus starts after the resurrection
there's a gospel clashing sound
what was a historical Jesus supposed to even do if he wasn't son of God yet and he hasn't got any power
or was there a historical movement behind the gospels teaching something and the resurrection type of Christianity a later thing popping up with radical new ideas where everything of any importance was post-resurrection?
RandyHelzerman
Posts: 459
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2023 10:31 am

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by RandyHelzerman »

davidmartin wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 5:45 pm It's weird how Jesus gets all the attention when its the spirit behind the scenes doing everything!
Indeed.
but that's the gospels elsewhere there's a theme of Jesus only being made the son after the resurrection, wouldn't that mean the spirit only appeared then as well?
Yet another probing question sidestepped by Mark's mysteious ending....
who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead:
Jesus Christ our Lord
Paul was the only one who early on hyped up the resurrection. All the church fathers before Marcion's Pauline PR campaign emphasized the death of Jesus, and said almost nothing about the resurrection. See "Christ's Resurrection in Early Christianity" by Marcus Vinzent.

Either way, the question is still pressing; what kind of thing *was* Jesus so that he could die and *be* resurrected? To ya'll mythicists, what kind of mythical being was Jesus which could die and be resurrected?
davidmartin
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by davidmartin »

i'm throwing this out as a curveball
what if the epistles are really paraphrases of an earlier set of writings?
i don't mean a marcion/orthodox style edit but a deeper re-write?

it occured to me certain fragments similar to the epistles seem like an older/wiser Paul
for example the nag hammadi prayer of the apostle paul and fragments of a theological treatise bound up in the acts of peter (quoted below)
the epistles are keen to show Paul writing his final letters in chains, no chance of follow-ups.. but maybe there were follow-ups, and these were not so appealing than his older stuff

This sounds like 1 corinthians even following similar order of themes. could Marcion have turned this treatise into 1 Corinthians? or could this be the same author later in life with a gentler more mystic gospel?
this would put a different spin on things
it might imply we're seeing Marcion's personality more than Pauls except maybe bits of Collosians and Ephesians or some other parts.
note in the below there's nothing about the cross humiliating the powers so that's marcion, could this be the real Paul?
Now whereas thou hast made known and revealed these things unto me, O word of life, called now by me wood (or, word called now by me the tree of life), I give thee thanks, not with these lips that are nailed unto the cross, nor with this tongue by which truth and falsehood issue forth, nor with this word which cometh forth by means of art whose nature is material, but with that voice do I give thee thanks, O King, which is perceived (understood) in silence, which is not heard openly, which proceedeth not forth by organs of the body, which goeth not into ears of flesh, which is not heard of corruptible substance, which existeth not in the world, neither is sent forth upon earth, nor written in books, which is owned by one and not by another: but with this, O Jesu Christ, do I give thee thanks, with the silence of a voice, wherewith the spirit that is in me loveth thee, speaketh unto thee, seeth thee, and beseecheth thee. Thou art perceived of the spirit only, thou art unto me father, thou my mother, thou my brother, thou my friend, thou my bondsman, thou my steward: thou art the All and the All is in thee: and thou Art, and there is nought else that is save thee only.

Unto him therefore do ye also, brethren, flee, and if ye learn that in him alone ye exist, ye shall obtain those things whereof he saith unto you: 'which neither eye hath seen nor ear heard, neither have they entered into the heart of man.' We ask, therefore, for that which thou hast promised to give unto us, O thou undefiled Jesu. We praise thee, we give thee thanks, and confess to thee, glorifying thee, even we men that are yet without strength, for thou art God alone, and none other: to whom be glory now and unto all ages
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

RandyHelzerman wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 4:00 pm What, exactly, *is* a "spectre" as in Luke? Why would the disciples be afraid of a spectre? Does it have any antecedent in Judaism or Helenisitc thought? It doesn't seem to be the kind of platonic soul we were talking about before. Where does this concept come from? It seems almost like the gospel has turned into an episode of Scooby-doo, and that a spectre is a direct counterpart for our ghosts, but surely that is anachronistic.
I don't know what Luke's conception of spectre is, much the same way I don't Paul's thoughts on the transporter problem. On the other hand, Luke does have a Christian antecedent for the disciple's being upset emotionally by a spectre. Luke surely knew Mark (perhaps filtered through Matthew, but that's another can of worms).

Mark's discples' first interpretation of Jesus walking on the water is spectral, and their affect is inner turmoil:
6:49 but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost (phantasma), and cried out;
50 for they all saw him and were troubled (etarachthesan - the word root used by Luke's risen Jesus to describe the disciples' inital emotional state at verse 24:38; the narrator uses "fear" words in the preceding verse to describe their state).
If it helps, Luke also uses that "troubled" word root for Zacharias's emotional reaction to encountering the "angel of the lord" at verse 1:12, and both narrator and angel use "fear" words to describe that mental state further.
rgprice
Posts: 2109
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by rgprice »

Michael BG wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2023 4:41 pm As rgprice has not responded to my writing that he hadn’t put forward in this thread his case about the parable of the sower I have looked in the other thread he provided a link to.

...

I can understand that if the word ‘rock’ was used in Mk 4:5 and 16 there could be a link to Peter (rock), but it seems that the word used is 'rocky places'.
In Mk 4:18 the Greek word εισιν is used which I understand is the third person plural not singular, which makes it unlikely that one person such as Judas Iscariot is being referred to. If verses 16 and 18 do not refer to particular people then it is unlikely that verse 15 refers to John the Baptist.
Are you kidding me?

Πέτρον - Petron - Peter
Πετρώδη - Petrōdē - Rocky

16 And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: when they hear the word,they immediately receive it with joy. 17 But they have no root, and endure only for a while; then, when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away.


Mark 1:
16 As Jesus passed along the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake—for they were fishermen. 17 And Jesus said to them, ‘Follow me and I will make you fish for people.’ 18 And immediately they left their nets and followed him.
...
Mark 14:
66 While Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the servant-girls of the high priest came by. 67 When she saw Peter warming himself, she stared at him and said, ‘You also were with Jesus, the man from Nazareth.’ 68 But he denied it, saying, ‘I do not know or understand what you are talking about.’ And he went out into the forecourt. Then the cock crowed. 69 And the servant-girl, on seeing him, began again to say to the bystanders, ‘This man is one of them.’ 70 But again he denied it. Then after a little while the bystanders again said to Peter, ‘Certainly you are one of them; for you are a Galilean.’ 71 But he began to curse, and he swore an oath, ‘I do not know this man you are talking about.’ 72 At that moment the cock crowed for the second time. Then Peter remembered that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the cock crows twice, you will deny me three times.’ And he broke down and wept.

davidmartin
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: Dr. Sarah's Friendly Refutation of all Mythicism

Post by davidmartin »

in support of this the preceding verses to the parable mention a woman (the woman who is his disciple-mother), in Luke I think the forgiven sinful woman appears and... same thing in Thomas where Mary appears in the same spot. Co-incidence?

Thus, this could be better interpreted as Mary bearing the good fruit and Marcion being the thorny since the parable seems attached to mention of a female disciple who is praised
Post Reply