The Christ Myth Theory

[T.G.G. Moogly]

[...]

So aside from the impossible and the exaggeration you hold that the gospels are factual accounts and that the Pauline Corpus is about the same person?

N.B.:

Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.

—The contamination principle of Stephen Law [41]

Stephen Law[42] holds that for Jesus—in the context of the contamination principle—we have no good independent evidence for the mundane claim that Jesus existed. Therefore the Gospels' inordinate amount of myth and fabulation about Jesus actually leave us in doubt whether he existed.[41] Concurring with Law, Carrier writes, "The more fabulous the only tales we have of someone are, the more likely we doubt their historicity, unless we have some good mundane corroboration for them. Hence we doubt the existence of Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, and so on" and "Jesus is one of the most mythified persons in human history."[43]

All the exaggeration, miracle claims, religious deification, etc., all these things

So aside from the impossible and the exaggeration you hold that the gospels are factual accounts and that the Pauline Corpus is about the same person?

There is much to doubt in the Gospels. Jesus is portrayed as a preacher, healer and zealot/insurrectionist. Was he really all three of those things? Many parables and aphorisms are attributed to him; were they all really Jesus' words? Probably not. During his trial/execution, Jewish leaders are made the culprits with Pilate and the Romans relatively innocent. Were these details altered to appeal to a Roman Gentile audience?

BUT there are very good reasons to think Paul and the Gospels were talking about the same Jesus. In Galatians Paul meets with Peter, one of the leading figures in the Gospels and Acts. Paul mentions him (as 'Cephas') in 1st Corinthians as well. Christians (Chrestians? ) are active in Rome before Paul ever gets there. (What's the evidence Peter made his way to Rome? I am not a historian.)

The linkage of James to Jesus Christ made by both Paul and Josephus has significant evidentiary value, in my opinion. Could one (or necessarily both) of these mentions have been altered in the 2nd century? Sure, though there is no evidence of that. But for all their prattle, mythicists have been unable to posit even a single scenario that makes such alterations plausible. (For one thing, determined counterfeiters would have set their sights higher than one obscure brothership, and there's no evidence they did.)

Could you just set out the things you think are facts about a singular character? For example you might say that Chrestus of Rome is the person of Christ in the synoptics. You might say that the gospel protagonist was actually baptized by John. You might enumerate a couple of the things in those stories that you think he actually said. Etc.

 

[dbz]

"What The Heck Is The Apostle Paul Up To? | Robyn Faith Walsh PhD". YouTube. MythVision Podcast. 3 June 2022. @TIME:00:10:12

..Paul knows Plato really well . . . his native tongue is Greek...

 

[Swammerdami]

Could you just set out the things you think are facts about a singular character? For example you might say that Chrestus of Rome is the person of Christ in the synoptics. You might say that the gospel protagonist was actually baptized by John. You might enumerate a couple of the things in those stories that you think he actually said. Etc.

I have done that already, more than once in this thread. I think there was a Jesus from Galilee who was executed by order of Pontius Pilate. For some reason he became important to 1st-century cult(s). Period. He probably came from the town of Nazareth, probably was baptized by John the Baptist, and the method of execution was probably crucifixion. He probably had a brother named James.. Period.

Is this a very minimalist notion of the historical Jesus? Absolutely. And that is why I find it astounding that the "mythicists" are unwilling to accept even this much.

 

[Jarhyn]

Could you just set out the things you think are facts about a singular character? For example you might say that Chrestus of Rome is the person of Christ in the synoptics. You might say that the gospel protagonist was actually baptized by John. You might enumerate a couple of the things in those stories that you think he actually said. Etc.

I have done that already, more than once in this thread. I think there was a Jesus from Galilee who was executed by order of Pontius Pilate. For some reason he became important to 1st-century cult(s). Period. He probably came from the town of Nazareth, probably was baptized by John the Baptist, and the method of execution was probably crucifixion. He probably had a brother named James.. Period.

Is this a very minimalist notion of the historical Jesus? Absolutely. And that is why I find it astounding that the "mythicists" are unwilling to accept even this much.

I wouldn't even go so far as to say there is evidence that their name was Jesus.

Rather, on reading the Toledot, there is linguistic evidence to indicate Jesus was a name used to indicate being stricken of a name, as in the copies of the Toledot Yeshu I have read translated, they say "may his name rot", which implies it's being allowed to rot by being "Yeshu", specifically. Combined to the evidence upthread that Yeshu is also an acronym in
Hebrew for "let his name be forgotten" or some such, or perhaps even "may his name rot" (I'll have to check the original text), it may just be the case that Yeshu of TY is JtB.

At this point, minimal historical Yeshu is "some guy possibly from Galilee, possibly with a brother James, who had a questionable birth lived, pissed off the Jewish authorities, and got executed for it. Ostensibly a Pilate was involved in the decision."

You'll get no complaints from me on that front.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Could you just set out the things you think are facts about a singular character? For example you might say that Chrestus of Rome is the person of Christ in the synoptics. You might say that the gospel protagonist was actually baptized by John. You might enumerate a couple of the things in those stories that you think he actually said. Etc.

I have done that already, more than once in this thread. I think there was a Jesus from Galilee who was executed by order of Pontius Pilate. For some reason he became important to 1st-century cult(s). Period. He probably came from the town of Nazareth, probably was baptized by John the Baptist, and the method of execution was probably crucifixion. He probably had a brother named James.. Period.

Is this a very minimalist notion of the historical Jesus? Absolutely. And that is why I find it astounding that the "mythicists" are unwilling to accept even this much.

Okay. Thank-you. There were certainly persons named Jesus that were executed, obviously from Galilee, maybe even baptized into a cult. Crucifixion was real. That there was a singular person I suppose is where we differ. The gospels with all their saying and parables tells me that this was not a person but a story that became historicized. I liken it to the James ossuary of a couple decades ago. I remember discussing it online and the excitement among some believers was astounding. Of course it was all fake and could be proven fake and so it just went away.

I think without the weight of religious identity there would be no interest in a historical Jesus. HJism is almost a cult onto itself but the facts of the case are pretty much a nothing burger. I think that because it is a traditional religious narrative and not just another tale it takes on more weight. We need only observe the rise of Mormonism to understand how these things happen. Who would really give two shits about what Joseph Smith claimed if it were not for religious tendencies in people? The story is bizarro. Is anyone out there attempting to uncover the actual historical experience that led to Mormonism? Shouldn't that be a credible venture? Why isn't it? Why aren't scholars and archeologists and historians attempting to piece together what actually happened, aside from miraculous claims about angels and golden tablets and lost tribes?

Jefferson turned his Jesus into a man of the enlightenment, literally rewriting the stories about Jesus. I think you should do the same thing so I can better appreciate your Jesus. Even if it only amounts to a short paragraph I think you should do it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

At this point, minimal historical Yeshu is "some guy possibly from Galilee, possibly with a brother James, who had a questionable birth lived, pissed off the Jewish authorities, and got executed for it. Ostensibly a Pilate was involved in the decision."

You'll get no complaints from me on that front.

Possibilities are unlimited. Probabilities are what it's all about. When we step back from the Jesus tales, completely extricate ourselves from all religious influence, that such a thing as told possibly and probably, probably happened becomes zero. It's no different than talking about what happened with Joseph Smith. It's possible that everything he said actually happened. And it is this ingredient that feeds religious fervor and credibility. But is it probable that Joseph Smith actually experienced what is written? Not even a chance, yet it is believed by tens of millions.

The gospel protagonist is just an element in a story, no different than golden tablets and an angel called Moroni. I get it. What is most interesting is how so many people do not. Such is the weight of cultural tradition. Finding HJ is the same as looking for Nessie of Bigfoot in my experience.

 

[dbz]

I think there was a Jesus from Galilee who was executed by order of Pontius Pilate. For some reason he became important to 1st-century cult(s). Period. He probably came from the town of Nazareth, probably was baptized by John the Baptist, and the method of execution was probably crucifixion. He probably had a brother named James.. Period.
[...]

Okay. Thank-you. There were certainly persons named Jesus that were executed, obviously from Galilee, maybe even baptized into a cult. Crucifixion was real. That there was a singular person I suppose is where we differ.
[...]

We know next to nothing about this Jesus. He is not the founder of anything that we can recognize as Christianity. He is a mere postulate of historical criticism—a dead leader of a lost cause, to whom sayings could be credited and round whom a legend could be written.

Robertson, Archibald (1946). Jesus: Myth or History?. Thinker's Library, No. 110. London: Watts. p. 107.

Many (including the present writer) are content to infer broadly, from the scanty reliable evidence and the religious developments of the first century, that probably some Jew named Jesus adopted the Persian belief [see Avesta] in the end of the world and, thinking that it was near, left his Essenian monastery [see Essenes] to warn his fellows, and was put to death. They feel that the question of historicity has little importance [...] the very scanty biographical details even as given in the Gospels [see Mark] do not justify the claim of a 'unique personality'...

McCabe, Joseph (1948). "Jesus". A Rationalist Encyclopædia: A Book of Reference on Religion, Philosophy, Ethics and Science. Watts.

[W]hat a historical Jesus could have been like. He was not a teacher or even a leader of any kind. If he went up to Jerusalem with some fellow believers in an imminent Kingdom of God—perhaps a group of John the Baptist’s followers—he was not the leader of the group. Once in Jerusalem he may have done or said something that got him pulled out from the others and crucified. That would have been the end of the story. Except that another member of the group had a vision of him resurrected, and interpreted it as meaning that the Kingdom of God was closer than ever. Jesus thereby began to take on an importance all out of proportion with his real status as a nobody. The accretions began. And the excuses for why no one had taken much notice of him before.

Parvus, Roger (7 March 2019). "Revising the Series “A Simonian Origin for Christianity”, Part 4 / Conclusion - Historical Jesus?". Vridar.

 

[Swammerdami]

Look at some of the following opinions, shown at Wikipedia. Especially intriguing is the version which accepts Jesus' miracles — they do NOT attack the miracle worker for non-existence — but changes good to evil.

Until the early 21st century (with few exceptions), mainstream Jewish and Christian scholars paid little attention to the Toledot Yeshu. The opinion of noted advocate of Christian-Jewish reconciliation, Father Edward H. Flannery, is representative:

This scurrilous fable of the life of Jesus is a medieval work, probably written down in the tenth century. [...] Though its contents enjoyed a certain currency in the oral traditions of the Jewish masses, it was almost totally ignored by official or scholarly Judaism. Antisemites have not failed to employ it as an illustration of the blasphemous character of the Synagogue.​

A recent study reports that more than 100 manuscripts of the Toledot exist, almost all of them late medieval (the oldest manuscript being from the 11th century)"
. . .
Some scholars assert that the source material is no earlier than the 6th century, and the compilation no earlier than the 9th century.
. . .
For example, the "nativity" account in chapter 1 of the Strassburg version of the Toledot is derived from Kallah, a purported Talmudic tractate whose provenance is so uncertain that it did not appear in print until 1864. Moreover, the anecdote in Kallah may not refer to Jesus at all.
. . .
Jews apparently polemicised actively against the new Christian religion, as can be inferred from the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, a fictional dialogue between a Christian and a Jew. In chapter 17 Justin claims that the Jews had sent out "chosen men" throughout the Roman Empire to polemicize against Christianity, calling it a "godless heresy".
. . .
Long unknown to Christians, the Toledot was first translated into Latin by Ramón Martí, a Dominican friar, toward the end of the 13th century.
. . .
(Klausner notes that the Toledot scarcely ever denies Gospel miracles, but merely changes good to evil.)

Judas Iscariot, the hero of the tale, learns the Divine Name as well, and Jesus and Judas fly through the sky engaged in aerial combat, with Judas victorious. The now powerless Jesus is arrested and put to death by being hung upon a carob tree, and buried.
. . .
[Et cetera, et cetera]

Could "some scholars" be wrong, with some Toledot Yeshu source material coming before 500 AD? Sure. But is it not ironic to hear mythicists — insisting that the Gospels were NOT written in the 1st century despite much evidence that they were — pin their case on a document whose "oldest manuscript being from the 11th century"?

There are almost a hundred papyrus fragments of the New Testament datable to the 2nd-, 3rd or 4th-centuries. There are 274 vellum manuscripts attesting Jesus Christ's existence, all older than the very oldest copy of Tacitus' history.

Present company excepted, it seems pathetic to give more historical credence to Toledot Yeshu, so obviously an anti-Christian polemic, than to the New Testament, easily proven to be ancient.

 

[Jarhyn]

Look at some of the following opinions, shown at Wikipedia. Especially intriguing is the version which accepts Jesus' miracles — they do NOT attack the miracle worker for non-existence — but changes good to evil.

Until the early 21st century (with few exceptions), mainstream Jewish and Christian scholars paid little attention to the Toledot Yeshu. The opinion of noted advocate of Christian-Jewish reconciliation, Father Edward H. Flannery, is representative:

This scurrilous fable of the life of Jesus is a medieval work, probably written down in the tenth century. [...] Though its contents enjoyed a certain currency in the oral traditions of the Jewish masses, it was almost totally ignored by official or scholarly Judaism. Antisemites have not failed to employ it as an illustration of the blasphemous character of the Synagogue.​

A recent study reports that more than 100 manuscripts of the Toledot exist, almost all of them late medieval (the oldest manuscript being from the 11th century)"
. . .
Some scholars assert that the source material is no earlier than the 6th century, and the compilation no earlier than the 9th century.
. . .
For example, the "nativity" account in chapter 1 of the Strassburg version of the Toledot is derived from Kallah, a purported Talmudic tractate whose provenance is so uncertain that it did not appear in print until 1864. Moreover, the anecdote in Kallah may not refer to Jesus at all.
. . .
Jews apparently polemicised actively against the new Christian religion, as can be inferred from the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, a fictional dialogue between a Christian and a Jew. In chapter 17 Justin claims that the Jews had sent out "chosen men" throughout the Roman Empire to polemicize against Christianity, calling it a "godless heresy".
. . .
Long unknown to Christians, the Toledot was first translated into Latin by Ramón Martí, a Dominican friar, toward the end of the 13th century.
. . .
(Klausner notes that the Toledot scarcely ever denies Gospel miracles, but merely changes good to evil.)

Judas Iscariot, the hero of the tale, learns the Divine Name as well, and Jesus and Judas fly through the sky engaged in aerial combat, with Judas victorious. The now powerless Jesus is arrested and put to death by being hung upon a carob tree, and buried.
. . .
[Et cetera, et cetera]

Could "some scholars" be wrong, with some Toledot Yeshu source material coming before 500 AD? Sure. But is it not ironic to hear mythicists — insisting that the Gospels were NOT written in the 1st century despite much evidence that they were — pin their case on a document whose "oldest manuscript being from the 11th century"?

There are almost a hundred papyrus fragments of the New Testament datable to he 2nd-, 3rd or 4th-centuries. There are 274 vellum manuscripts attesting Jesus Christ's existence, all older than the oldest copy of Tacitus' history.

Present company excepted, it seems pathetic to give more historical credence to Toledot Yeshu, so obviously an anti-Christian polemic, than to the New Testament, easily proven to be ancient.

The Toledot Yeshu tales, at least in part, are mentioned much earlier particularly by early Christian sources.

I would say it's a fairly early story, contemporary with some of not all the gospel stories. But it is obviously a Polemic based on earlier discussions of Yeshu in Rabbinical lore, and it is important to remember Rabbinical lore tended towards oral traditions for some time before anything ever got written down.

 

[dbz]

[MOOD-MUSIC] "In The Beginning". YouTube. Hans Zimmer.

• Lord IS revealed himself to his first devotee and said many wise thing to him. Said devotee gave Lord IS the cognomem XS, and started a cult called XSians.

This all comes back to discussions of the Demiurge, then, I suppose.

There remains only one explanation: Paul believed … in a divine Christ, before he believed in Jesus.

—William Wrede [6]

In short: Paul believed in the divine XS from the very beginning!

So Paul never knew about XS on Earth until he was told this strange tale:

• The XS cult's Demiurge is then amalgamated with this strange tale:

We know next to nothing about this Jesus. He is not the founder of anything that we can recognize as Christianity. He is a mere postulate of historical criticism—a dead leader of a lost cause, to whom sayings could be credited and round whom a legend could be written.

Robertson, Archibald (1946). Jesus: Myth or History?. Thinker's Library, No. 110. London: Watts. p. 107.

Many (including the present writer) are content to infer broadly, from the scanty reliable evidence and the religious developments of the first century, that probably some Jew named Jesus adopted the Persian belief [see Avesta] in the end of the world and, thinking that it was near, left his Essenian monastery [see Essenes] to warn his fellows, and was put to death. They feel that the question of historicity has little importance [...] the very scanty biographical details even as given in the Gospels [see Mark] do not justify the claim of a 'unique personality'...

McCabe, Joseph (1948). "Jesus". A Rationalist Encyclopædia: A Book of Reference on Religion, Philosophy, Ethics and Science. Watts.

[W]hat a historical Jesus could have been like. He was not a teacher or even a leader of any kind. If he went up to Jerusalem with some fellow believers in an imminent Kingdom of God—perhaps a group of John the Baptist’s followers—he was not the leader of the group. Once in Jerusalem he may have done or said something that got him pulled out from the others and crucified. That would have been the end of the story. Except that another member of the group had a vision of him resurrected, and interpreted it as meaning that the Kingdom of God was closer than ever. Jesus thereby began to take on an importance all out of proportion with his real status as a nobody. The accretions began. And the excuses for why no one had taken much notice of him before.

Parvus, Roger (7 March 2019). "Revising the Series “A Simonian Origin for Christianity”, Part 4 / Conclusion - Historical Jesus?". Vridar.

 

[Jarhyn]

Look at some of the following opinions, shown at Wikipedia. Especially intriguing is the version which accepts Jesus' miracles — they do NOT attack the miracle worker for non-existence — but changes good to evil.

Until the early 21st century (with few exceptions), mainstream Jewish and Christian scholars paid little attention to the Toledot Yeshu. The opinion of noted advocate of Christian-Jewish reconciliation, Father Edward H. Flannery, is representative:

This scurrilous fable of the life of Jesus is a medieval work, probably written down in the tenth century. [...] Though its contents enjoyed a certain currency in the oral traditions of the Jewish masses, it was almost totally ignored by official or scholarly Judaism. Antisemites have not failed to employ it as an illustration of the blasphemous character of the Synagogue.​

A recent study reports that more than 100 manuscripts of the Toledot exist, almost all of them late medieval (the oldest manuscript being from the 11th century)"
. . .
Some scholars assert that the source material is no earlier than the 6th century, and the compilation no earlier than the 9th century.
. . .
For example, the "nativity" account in chapter 1 of the Strassburg version of the Toledot is derived from Kallah, a purported Talmudic tractate whose provenance is so uncertain that it did not appear in print until 1864. Moreover, the anecdote in Kallah may not refer to Jesus at all.
. . .
Jews apparently polemicised actively against the new Christian religion, as can be inferred from the 2nd century Christian writer Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, a fictional dialogue between a Christian and a Jew. In chapter 17 Justin claims that the Jews had sent out "chosen men" throughout the Roman Empire to polemicize against Christianity, calling it a "godless heresy".
. . .
Long unknown to Christians, the Toledot was first translated into Latin by Ramón Martí, a Dominican friar, toward the end of the 13th century.
. . .
(Klausner notes that the Toledot scarcely ever denies Gospel miracles, but merely changes good to evil.)

Judas Iscariot, the hero of the tale, learns the Divine Name as well, and Jesus and Judas fly through the sky engaged in aerial combat, with Judas victorious. The now powerless Jesus is arrested and put to death by being hung upon a carob tree, and buried.
. . .
[Et cetera, et cetera]

Could "some scholars" be wrong, with some Toledot Yeshu source material coming before 500 AD? Sure. But is it not ironic to hear mythicists — insisting that the Gospels were NOT written in the 1st century despite much evidence that they were — pin their case on a document whose "oldest manuscript being from the 11th century"?

There are almost a hundred papyrus fragments of the New Testament datable to he 2nd-, 3rd or 4th-centuries. There are 274 vellum manuscripts attesting Jesus Christ's existence, all older than the oldest copy of Tacitus' history.

Present company excepted, it seems pathetic to give more historical credence to Toledot Yeshu, so obviously an anti-Christian polemic, than to the New Testament, easily proven to be ancient.

The Toledot Yeshu tales, at least in part, are mentioned much earlier particularly by early Christian sources.

I would say it's a fairly early story, contemporary with some of not all the gospel stories. But it is obviously a Polemic based on earlier discussions of Yeshu in Rabbinical lore, and it is important to remember Rabbinical lore tended towards oral traditions for some time before anything ever got written down.

Also, I'll note that the majority of Mythicist arguments here more fall into the bucket of Amalgamism than Ahistoricism.

 

[dbz]

Possibilities are unlimited. Probabilities are what it's all about.

Price explores the possibility that:

• Paul
• Apollos
• Cephas

were originally figureheads of rival sects who became amalgamated together.

PRICE, ROBERT M. (2023). GOSPELS BEHIND THE GOSPELS. PITCHSTONE. ISBN 978-1634312387.

In The Gospels Behind the Gospels, innovative biblical scholar Robert M. Price attempts to reassemble the puzzle pieces, disclosing several earlier gospels of communities who imagined Jesus as the predicted return of the prophet Elijah, the Samaritan Taheb (a second Moses), a resurrected John the Baptist, a theophany of Yahweh, a Gnostic Revealer, a Zealot revolutionary, etc.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Also, I'll note that the majority of Mythicist arguments here more fall into the bucket of Amalgamism than Ahistoricism.

All fictional works are composed this way and we know the gospels are fictional works. I'm not surprised no one touched my Joseph Smith inclusion in the conversation. It's pretty obvious his story is bullshit but it appeals to the religiously inclined. We should ask ourselves why we attempt to historicize characters in fictional accounts yet do not attempt to historicize everything else in the story. Why are the characters so important?

 

[dbz]

We should ask ourselves why we attempt to historicize characters in fictional accounts yet do not attempt to historicize everything else in the story. Why are the characters so important?

It is a sort of personal bargaining chip that people throw out so that they can both agree that the Gospels are exaggerations that don’t tell us anything meaningful and also that mythicism is bunk.

 

[Jarhyn]

Also, I'll note that the majority of Mythicist arguments here more fall into the bucket of Amalgamism than Ahistoricism.

All fictional works are composed this way and we know the gospels are fictional works. I'm not surprised no one touched my Joseph Smith inclusion in the conversation. It's pretty obvious his story is bullshit but it appeals to the religiously inclined. We should ask ourselves why we attempt to historicize characters in fictional accounts yet do not attempt to historicize everything else in the story. Why are the characters so important?

In some respects it comes back around to what No Robots was saying about the need for reification to satisfy certain expectations.

The story written is about the simulation administrator come to the world to forgive people for being born shitty, giving all the answers, and promising to come back and bring everyone who played by the rules they left behind, and he proves it by not staying dead.

If they can't establish that the stories are about someone who really existed actually acted like that, and actually rose from the dead, their claim of "simulation admin proves he has console access, gives all the answers to life, the universe, and everything" the whole religious crazy train of believing you actually have some truth from God himself would fail.

Contrast this with the idea of the unkillable idea resurrected through emergence, something useful that can be taught only if such stories are used as a metaphor rather than a true accounting of events...

 

[dbz]

Why are the characters so important?

Maybe, so we can know how white, "Sweet White Jesus!" is?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Haha! White Jesus. I'm certain that most biblical scholars have an image of white Jesus in their minds as they do their research and make their arguments. The whole cast is probably white just like in the movies.

Live Science has an article. Was Jesus a Real Person? 2011

Jesus was born sometime just before 4 B.C. and grew up in Nazareth, a small village in Galilee, as part of the peasant class. Jesus' father was a carpenter and he became one, too, meaning that they had likely lost their agricultural land at some point. Jesus was raised Jewish and he remained deeply Jewish all of his life; he never intended to create a new religion. Rather, he saw himself as acting within Judaism.

He left Nazareth as an adult and met the prophet John, who baptized him. During his baptism, Jesus likely experienced some sort of divine vision. Shortly afterwards, he began his public preaching with the message that the world could be transformed into a "Kingdom of God." He became a noted teacher and prophet, as well as a healer: More healing stories are told about Jesus than about any other figure in the Jewish tradition.

He was executed by Roman imperial authority, and his followers experienced him after his death. It is clear, Borg said, that they had visions of Jesus as they had known him during his historical life. Only after his death did they declare Jesus to be "lord" or "the son of God."

 

[Politesse]

Haha! White Jesus. I'm certain that most biblical scholars have an image of white Jesus in their minds as they do their research and make their arguments. The whole cast is probably white just like in the movies.

Bullshit, that is. Jesus' appearance is a common topic of conversation among those interested in history.

 

[dbz]

Jesus' appearance is a common topic of conversation among those interested in history.

The portrayal of Jesus as a white, European man has come under renewed scrutiny during this period of introspection over the legacy of racism in society.

As protesters called for the removal of Confederate statues in the U.S., activist Shaun King went further, suggesting that murals and artwork depicting “white Jesus” should “come down”.

"The long history of how Jesus came to resemble a white European". University of South Carolina. 22 July 2020.

• Carrier's peer-reviewed scholarship may be presented against "Sweet White Jesus!" in a court challenge.

In Prescott v. Oklahoma Capitol Preservation Commission, Oklahoma citizens challenged the placement of a Ten Commandments Monument on the grounds of the Oklahoma State Capitol under Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The Court ruled, "We hold that the Ten Commandments Monument violates Article 2, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution, is enjoined, and shall be removed".[17] The 7–2 ruling overturns a decision by a district court judge who determined the monument could stay. It prompted calls by a handful of Republican lawmakers for impeachment of the justices who said the monument must be removed. Since the original monument was erected in 2012, several other groups have asked to put up their own monuments on the Capitol grounds. Among them is a group that wants to erect a 7-foot-tall statue that depicts Satan as Baphomet, a goat-headed figure with horns, wings and a long beard. A Hindu leader in Nevada, an animal rights group, and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster also have made requests.[18]

 

[dbz]

Re: opinion on NT | WHO is this god: the "Father of Truth" ?. Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

by mlinssen » Thu Aug 04, 2022

billd89 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 03, 2022 I wonder if a Gnostic Jesus (an historical personnage) may have lived, well-versed in (Egyptian) 'Sethian' myths. Or that JCers grafted on to a relic (Sethian) Gnostic cult relatively early on, c.50 AD?

I suspect that Gnostic material in John originates from Egypt. That could include: a Jewish Gnostic writer (or small Diaspora network) who carried Sethian/Therapeut ideas away from Alexandria 38-75 AD.

I also suppose this fragment's philosophy is OLDER than the JC bits tacked on to it, that a Samaritan Woman & the Sethian Guru Myth was co-opted by John, from the older cult. It may have been a local Egyptian myth, worked-over and exported by 90 AD, before John's plagiarism. There were communities of 'Samaritans' (or Semites, so-called) in Egypt for hundreds of years; not in Turkey.

I think that Jerusalem still existed when this myth first appeared. It is proto-Valentinian but ascribed to a later teacher-author who may well have copied it from a source 175yrs older, adding bits. We cannot be sure WHEN.

Everything canonical was heavily worked-over, so 1 anachronism may be telling but not conclusive. Overwriting has made a muddle of the NT. That's just my two cents: I've no opinion on your particulars, sorry gryan.

• "Biblical manuscript §. Earliest extant manuscripts". Wikipedia.

Going by that list at a mere glance confirms your theory.

To base conclusions on data sets requires a certain volume of them so we have to be careful, but there is John and Matthew and then nothing much of anything.

Paul? As scarce as Mark and Luke

John from the Chrestian camp as I'll continue to label it, Matthew from the Christian one.
[...]