John the Baptist was famous. So Jesus has to be famous, too. Velim nolim

[Giuseppe]

I think that Bernard, with all the my sympathy for him, is eclipsing what is the best my argument in this thread, i.e., a clear distinction between what Paul would be doing:

to eclipse deliberately any reference to a historical Jesus

….and what the Christians were reporting after the 70 about the Gospel Jesus: the exact contrary of a deliberate eclipse of a historical Jesus.


I think that this is the reason why Ehrman has to do precisely two things:

1) to deny that there was a deliberate attempt, by Paul & co, to eclipse Jesus. Ehrman's argument is that all knew, therefore no need of allusions that Jesus existed.

2) to despise even more the mythicists than one would do, one who thinks that Paul eclipsed deliberately the historical Jesus. To be short, it is a FACT that Ehrman despises the mythicists more than how much a Bermejo-Rubio would despise the mythicists.

So there is a rational reason behind the Ehrman's contempt against the mythicists: if the reason of the silence of Paul is so banal (mere common knowledge about who was really Jesus) , then who uses that silence against the historical Jesus becomes virtually a crazy in the eyes of Ehrman.

Therefore Ehrman, accordingly to his premise (banal reason behind the Paul's silence), has to confute in the more banal way the mythicists: they are banally crazy people. There is a methodological coherence, here.

What Ehrman is really doing is a deliberate eclipse of what is more surprising: the difference between a Paul who is so silent about the HJ ''because all knew'' and a lot of rumors raised by the Christian propaganda about the HJ, after the 70. What is embarrassing is the abyss between a so common knowledge (not requiring a so massive historicist propaganda) and a so massive historicist propaganda to supply what can only be fatally a lack of common knowledge.

Therefore a more serious (and honest) historicist has to assume that Paul and company eclipsed deliberately the historical Jesus. He has to recognize honestly that there was effectively a drastic break of this previous deliberate silence, after the 70, by the massive Gospel propaganda.


Reflections of this rupture (between new propagandists versus old esoterists) are found in the same Gospels:

From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it.

(Matthew 11:12)


The "violence" that is alluded here, is the violence of the propagandists (remember that, being the ''Kingdom of God'' what was preached publicly by the Gospel Jesus, the violence is made basically against the "Kingdom of heaven''). Someway, the fact that the legend of John the Baptist was famous became, in the eyes of the author of Matthew 11:12, the first sign of the coming violent historicist propaganda. The competition with the Baptist legend was one of the causes of the coming Christian propaganda.

[Giuseppe]

Genesis 49:10
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the staff from between his feet, until Shiloh comes

The last legitimate king of Jews was just the victim of Herod: John Hyrcanus II.

The legend of the death of John marks the advent of the Messiah.

[Giuseppe]

The secret of the essene Teacher is that he was John the Baptist and was the last king of Judea. When the secret was revealed, by the large diffusion of the Baptist legend, the Christians realized that their propaganda had to start, too.

So a good argument for the not-existence of Jesus is that the his historical existence could not be a secret for Paul and the early Christians, since the late propaganda didn't consider it as a secret but as a public revelation that had to reach the largest number of people.

But it is a fact that Paul never revealed it explicitly.

Therefore: Paul never knew it, not even secretly.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,
You wrote:

I think that Bernard, with all the my sympathy for him, is eclipsing what is the best my argument in this thread, i.e., a clear distinction between what Paul would be doing:
to eclipse deliberately any reference to a historical Jesus
….and what the Christians were reporting after the 70 about the Gospel Jesus: the exact contrary of a deliberate eclipse of a historical Jesus.

Dated February 16, 3:45am

I did explain that "eclipse" of mine to your main argument. I wrote:

Paul had no interest about the true historical Jesus except for his crucifixion as Christ. That where he based a lot of his theology/christology. Later gospels author added all kind of embellishments and fiction. But that was after eyewitnesses of Jesus had died or just "disappeared".
But Paul wrote his epistles when eyewitnesses were still alive and could be met in Jerusalem. Peter might have been the only of them traveling outside Judea, at least to Antioch, and very probably to Corinth (he had followers there).

Best answer: because they were inventing all these rumors and hearsay, of which Paul was entirely ignorant.

Exactly. That's what you call late "propagandists did after Paul on that minimal Jesus: outright embellishments and fiction added to the true (minimal) Jesus, to make him look more like the pre-existent heavenly deity and the great eternal savior as postulated by Paul and probably others apostles (in the Spirit).
The true (minimal) Jesus would have left doubts about him being the incarnated Son of God, the Lord: etc. He had to be greatly enhanced.

February 16th, 12:59pm

I want to add now a very telling quote:
Jn 20:31a "But these [miraculous signs] are written that you may believe that Jesus is Christ, the Son of God ..."

Cordially, Bernard