Historical Jesus

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But the point here is that there is no evidence of a global flood.

Is that the same as saying that a biblical global flood is 100% fiction?

Yes, it's fiction. Floods are very easy to spot. There is no evidence for a global flood. The Black Seas flood referenced above wasn't noticed by most of the world.

Thanks for the response. Right. The global flood in the bible is fiction. There isn't an historical biblical global flood. That's why I say that the biblical Jesus is fiction, which I assume you would also agree. For me it's the use of the word "historical" and the fact that people use it to legitimize biblical tales about same.

So when I hear about the "historical Jesus" it's an anonymous author telling a story. If we want to defictionalize the story we need proof that certain things happened such as you and others have submitted with regards to the biblical global flood. Without that proof it's still fiction just as a biblical global flood is fiction.

Agreed. There was no global flood. The problem with the Noah story is that it is just too remote in time to verify. Same with the Iliad. I believe the flood was sometime around 7000 BC or so. We have no other supporting historical records from that time. We don’t know of anyone alive at that time. The new testament and other apocrypha though are full of undeniable historical characters and events that we have extensive documentation Of.

You make it sound like you are ready to believe something as fantastic as the claim that the earth was completely inundated with water in 7000BCE and that you would except that it's just too remote a time in the past to be sure, that we have no contemporaneous records to verify it. I'm left to wonder if you even appreciate the difference between saying something is historical and something is fictional.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are lots of stories today about bigfoot, superheroes, aliens, etc. Based on the criteria submitted to legitimize a historical Jesus we could legitimize any of these contemporary tales and find our "historical" _________(fill in the blank).

 

[SLD]

There are lots of stories today about bigfoot, superheroes, aliens, etc. Based on the criteria submitted to legitimize a historical Jesus we could legitimize any of these contemporary tales and find our "historical" _________(fill in the blank).

No. We know such figures are not historical. Their very existence would violate the laws of physics and biology. We know Tony Stark for example was made up in the minds of Marvel comic writers. Big foot is patently absurd and we have no serious writings about it, not to mention, dead ones, fossils, etc. A historical Jesus is very plausible, and lots of Atheists and other non Christians believe that he likely existed and he’s the best explanation for the beginnings of Christianity.

 

[SLD]

But the point here is that there is no evidence of a global flood.

Is that the same as saying that a biblical global flood is 100% fiction?

Yes, it's fiction. Floods are very easy to spot. There is no evidence for a global flood. The Black Seas flood referenced above wasn't noticed by most of the world.

Thanks for the response. Right. The global flood in the bible is fiction. There isn't an historical biblical global flood. That's why I say that the biblical Jesus is fiction, which I assume you would also agree. For me it's the use of the word "historical" and the fact that people use it to legitimize biblical tales about same.

So when I hear about the "historical Jesus" it's an anonymous author telling a story. If we want to defictionalize the story we need proof that certain things happened such as you and others have submitted with regards to the biblical global flood. Without that proof it's still fiction just as a biblical global flood is fiction.

Agreed. There was no global flood. The problem with the Noah story is that it is just too remote in time to verify. Same with the Iliad. I believe the flood was sometime around 7000 BC or so. We have no other supporting historical records from that time. We don’t know of anyone alive at that time. The new testament and other apocrypha though are full of undeniable historical characters and events that we have extensive documentation Of.

You make it sound like you are ready to believe something as fantastic as the claim that the earth was completely inundated with water in 7000BCE and that you would except that it's just too remote a time in the past to be sure, that we have no contemporaneous records to verify it. I'm left to wonder if you even appreciate the difference between saying something is historical and something is fictional.

No. I meant that I cannot be so sure that the origins of the Noah story is related to the Black Sea flood. It’s pure speculation, but not completely illogical, that it is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are lots of stories today about bigfoot, superheroes, aliens, etc. Based on the criteria submitted to legitimize a historical Jesus we could legitimize any of these contemporary tales and find our "historical" _________(fill in the blank).

No. We know such figures are not historical. Their very existence would violate the laws of physics and biology. We know Tony Stark for example was made up in the minds of Marvel comic writers. Big foot is patently absurd and we have no serious writings about it, not to mention, dead ones, fossils, etc. A historical Jesus is very plausible, and lots of Atheists and other non Christians believe that he likely existed and he’s the best explanation for the beginnings of Christianity.

A historical gospel Jesus is not plausible. A historical bigfoot is certainly plausible if the historical bigfoot is just a mountain gorilla. Now if we had a mountain gorilla that worked miracles and preached in Times Square our bullshit meters would be going off.

But if you think are no serious accounts of bigfoot you need to get out more. I agree it's all as unscientific and fictional and legendary as is gospel Jesus but for some reason you give Jesus fiction a break. Have you ever heard about General Abraham's exploits at the battle of Gettysburg?

 

[Copernicus]

...A historical Jesus is very plausible, and lots of Atheists and other non Christians believe that he likely existed and he’s the best explanation for the beginnings of Christianity.

Neither plausibility nor blatant appeal to authority justifies the assumption that some person we now call "Jesus" existed. Some contemporaneous historical evidence to corroborate his existence would help, but we have none. Otherwise, the historicity of Jesus is little more than a very popular belief and a lot of social pressure to maintain that belief. It is easy to show that people have embellished the historical facts with false claims about the historical person. What is difficult to show is that any particular claim ever made was true.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...the historicity of Jesus is little more than a very popular belief and a lot of social pressure to maintain that belief.

Exactly. Why blackball yourself with the truth? It's historicized fiction out of which is squeezed a nugget of authenticity owing to religious and economic necessity. Speak the obvious truth and you become a pariah. You won't be selling many books or making many speaking engagements either if you aren't satisfying market demand for a historical Jesus.

Was Jesus a Real Person?

 

[SLD]

...A historical Jesus is very plausible, and lots of Atheists and other non Christians believe that he likely existed and he’s the best explanation for the beginnings of Christianity.

Neither plausibility nor blatant appeal to authority justifies the assumption that some person we now call "Jesus" existed. Some contemporaneous historical evidence to corroborate his existence would help, but we have none. Otherwise, the historicity of Jesus is little more than a very popular belief and a lot of social pressure to maintain that belief. It is easy to show that people have embellished the historical facts with false claims about the historical person. What is difficult to show is that any particular claim ever made was true.

contemporaneous historical evidence? How much more do you need? We have 27 books in the New Testament discussing either him or his movement. We have dozens more in the apocrypha discussing him. All within the lifetimes of his original followers, and one, quite possibly, from someone supposedly his brother.

compare that to our records of the battle of Guagamela that I discussed above. And many, many other historical figures whom we accept as existing.

I think the social pressures are on atheists like me. It’s like we’re not really atheists if we think there was an historical character of Jesus who started it all. The social pressures I feel in my community are to believe that Jesus is lord and savior and rose from the dead. I think it’s all rubbish of course. I’m actually still angry at being lied to about this nonsense for decades. I don’t feel any social pressures for the stand I’m taking. I suspect I’m quite in the minority - a non believer who thinks he actually existed. I believe that because I find it simply more plausible as the source of the religion rather than a completely fictional character.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's all evidence for historicized fiction, bits of holy hardware in the historical record that amount to evidence of religious zeal. Nothing new about that, but a lot of selection pressure along the way to tow the religious line or perish, which explains the phenomenon.

 

[Swammerdami]

Let me settle some of these controversies! There was no "global flood" but if there had been: How would anyone know? There were no telegraphs or satellite imagery when the great flood myths evolved.

There may have been a stupendous inundation of the Black Sea basin but that might have occurred 6000 BC or even earlier. There were also plenty of other major floods in the Fertile Crescent region, severe enough to contribute to a Great Flood myth.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My understanding is that the Romans crucified plenty of prisoners, but that gruesome punishment was reserved for insurrectionists. Is this correct? Occam's Razor suggests to me that one of these crucifixees was a Jesus from Nazareth: If some cabal wanted to start a religion based on such a crucifixion, why invent a victim? There were plenty of real crucifixees to choose from. The loss of a beloved man this way would motivate a resurrection myth (dying young and disappearing is not inspirational), and Jesus probably had disciples who could impersonate some of his techniques.

Was Jesus especially noted during his life as a preacher? A healer? A miracle worker? An insurrectionist? It may be hard to get a good handle on his life but whatever his nature, he almost certainly existed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For me, the most interesting puzzle associated with the Bible is the origin of the Jewish people and their religion. I started a thread nine months ago reviewing some of the evidence. Note that the words "Hebrew," "Yahweh" and "Israel" all appear in Egyptian documents written long BEFORE the alleged Kingdom of David.

The details are unclear and if the stories of Exodus are based on fact at all, those facts have been subjected to huge conflations, distortions and exaggerations. (For starters, Pharaoh wanted to drive the Hebrews away, not bring them back.) But still the dim outlines of early Jewish history can be guessed.

Just as one tidbit, Psalm 104 (allegedly written by King David) is almost a word-for-word translation of the Hymn to Aten, allegedly written by the Pharaoh Akhenaton during Egypt's brief experiment in monotheism.

 

[steve_bank]

A flesh and blood Jesus would have been one of a number wandering Jewish prophets, using the term loosely.

Some were radical militants. Sedition against Rome was in the air. Jewish nationalism.

The gospel Jesus may be a composite. What became know as Aesop's Fables are not attributed to one person. Gospel Jesus swings between tranquility and anger, the bipolar Jesus?

Look at the Palestinians toda. and Israel. Palestinians want their own homeland. A mix of religion and militant nationalism. It is not hard to see want Israel was like in the day.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Was Jesus especially noted during his life as a preacher? A healer? A miracle worker? An insurrectionist? It may be hard to get a good handle on his life but whatever his nature, he almost certainly existed.

But existed as what? Did Superman really exist as Clark Kent? Clark Kent is quite believable.

It's obvious gospel Jesus is a composite of many different traits and with many things attributed to the character and many fine words put into his mouth. That's likely why Jesus is whatever you want him to be. He's been reinvented so many times as so many different things to so many different groups and that's been happening since the tale was first written. It's actually how the tale got first written and nothing has changed since.

 

[Copernicus]

...A historical Jesus is very plausible, and lots of Atheists and other non Christians believe that he likely existed and he’s the best explanation for the beginnings of Christianity.

Neither plausibility nor blatant appeal to authority justifies the assumption that some person we now call "Jesus" existed. Some contemporaneous historical evidence to corroborate his existence would help, but we have none. Otherwise, the historicity of Jesus is little more than a very popular belief and a lot of social pressure to maintain that belief. It is easy to show that people have embellished the historical facts with false claims about the historical person. What is difficult to show is that any particular claim ever made was true.

contemporaneous historical evidence? How much more do you need? We have 27 books in the New Testament discussing either him or his movement. We have dozens more in the apocrypha discussing him. All within the lifetimes of his original followers, and one, quite possibly, from someone supposedly his brother.

Let's start with more than zero. Zero is what we have now. Paul was apparently locked in a struggle with Peter over who should control the growing cult missions among gentiles. In particular, Paul didn't think that Gentiles needed to submit to circumcision or always eating kosher. Peter and James apparently disagreed. So Paul promoted his credentials to those in the Christian cults that might be tempted to break away from his teachings. In his letter to Galatians, Paul claims to have met Peter and James. He describes the latter as the "brother" of Jesus, but cult members speaking Greek also used that rubric to describe fellow members of the cult. This meeting allegedly happened three years after Paul was converted and well after the alleged crucifixion. If you choose to believe hearsay from Paul, fine. That's the best evidence we have. It isn't contemporary with the life of Jesus, and I don't find it particularly convincing.

compare that to our records of the battle of Guagamela that I discussed above. And many, many other historical figures whom we accept as existing.

Er, okay. Did you actually intend to do that? The evidence for the battle of Gaugamela is actually quite good, as it is for many, many other historical figures. For Jesus, not so good. The Achaemenid Empire was actually crushed by Alexander the Great, you know, and there is a lot of historical and archaeological evidence to support that fact. You didn't dispute it in your point above. You just focused on one detail. If we compare that to the evidence for Jesus, we have zero contemporaneous evidence, only works written decades after the fact. And there is physical evidence for Alexander's conquests but none for any detail of Jesus's existence or public appearances during the alleged time of his life. Not even a record of his trial or his popular following.

I think the social pressures are on atheists like me. It’s like we’re not really atheists if we think there was an historical character of Jesus who started it all. The social pressures I feel in my community are to believe that Jesus is lord and savior and rose from the dead. I think it’s all rubbish of course. I’m actually still angry at being lied to about this nonsense for decades. I don’t feel any social pressures for the stand I’m taking. I suspect I’m quite in the minority - a non believer who thinks he actually existed. I believe that because I find it simply more plausible as the source of the religion rather than a completely fictional character.

Right, but I wasn't making this about you. The social pressure to believe in the existence of Jesus is quite pervasive, and it doesn't just come from Christians. A lot of it is from people who think that challenging the historicity of Jesus is needlessly and outrageously insulting to believers. When I hear these repeated claims about the majority of scholars believe, I wonder just how the people making those claims came to know that. If they are thinking of actual surveys that have been conducted, how were the "scholars" defined? And how did they collect their sample of scholars to survey? I'm not sure that most historical scholars would even bother to participate in such a survey. But I suspect that the claim is taken for granted because it is repeated so often. Even so, what would it prove in the face of all that social pressure to believe it? It would still be a fallacy based on popularity of a belief.

 

[Swammerdami]

Do those who think Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist think that John the Baptist existed? AFAIK, the earliest sources are the same for the two men: Josephus' Antiquities and the Gospels. (John may have been more "famous", in part because his death was more interesting!)

Let's not succumb to circular arguments. "If Jesus really fed a large crowd with five loaves and three fish, someone in the crowd might have been impressed enough to hire a scribe and write about the incident on a clay tablet." But few, if any, of us here believe in the literal truth of such stories and anyway, few of his followers could afford to hire a scribe. How many non-Roman documents of ANY sort survive from Syria or Judea in that era?

No, Jesus would have been MUCH less famous than, say, Pontius Pilate and we would expect MUCH less to be written about Jesus than about Pilate. And yet, documentary proof that Pontius Pilate existed is almost non-existent. Until a minor archaeological find in 1961 the best evidence that Pilate existed was from Roman histories which mentioned that Procurator in connection with Jesus' crucifixion! IIRC the earliest surviving histories of Alexander the Great — one of the most famous persons in ancient times — were written about two centuries AFTER his death! Sure, those histories cite the memories and prior writings of men who knew Alexander personally. ... But similarly the New Testament cites people who knew Jesus personally.

If I were on the jury and a suspect's guilt depended on Jesus' historicity being "certain beyond any reasonable doubt" would I acquit or convict? Acquit, perhaps. Jesus' historicity is an inference: there may be no obvious "smoking gun." It is Occam's Razor which leads me to the high probability that Pontius Pilate DID order the crucifixation of a Nazarene named Jesus.

contemporaneous historical evidence? How much more do you need? We have 27 books in the New Testament discussing either him or his movement. We have dozens more in the apocrypha discussing him. All within the lifetimes of his original followers, and one, quite possibly, from someone supposedly his brother.

Let's start with more than zero. Zero is what we have now. Paul was apparently locked in a struggle with Peter over who should control the growing cult missions among gentiles. In particular, Paul didn't think that Gentiles needed to submit to circumcision or always eating kosher. Peter and James apparently disagreed. So Paul promoted his credentials to those in the Christian cults that might be tempted to break away from his teachings. In his letter to Galatians, Paul claims to have met Peter and James. He describes the latter as the "brother" of Jesus, but cult members speaking Greek also used that rubric to describe fellow members of the cult. This meeting allegedly happened three years after Paul was converted and well after the alleged crucifixion. If you choose to believe hearsay from Paul, fine. That's the best evidence we have. It isn't contemporary with the life of Jesus, and I don't find it particularly convincing.

The apparent struggle between Peter and Paul, at a time when many people would have remembered a living Jesus, is good evidence of historicity. If Peter and Paul dared to introduce fictional Messiahs at all, why — if they were in conflict — would they use the SAME fiction?

The kinship between Jesus and James is also mentioned in Antiquities of the Jews:

But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; ...

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So what is the evidence to support the claim there was a Historical Jesus?

All we have are stories and testimonies about Jesus. We have nothing he wrote nor do we have any solid evidence for him.

I'm not aware of any and don't think there is any so this should not take long. ...
Bring it,

There is a lot of evidence for Jesus, but that evidence is very weak and ambiguous. It's like my saying I have a lot of money, but that money is a bathtub full of pennies.

Anyway, I'm not sure if the Jesus who inspired the New Testament existed or not. A piece of papyrus will stand still for writing about an imaginary person as readily as it will stand still for writing about a real person. In fact, we have writings about both real and imaginary people. Both kinds of documents were popular in antiquity.

 

[Copernicus]

Do those who think Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist think that John the Baptist existed? AFAIK, the earliest sources are the same for the two men: Josephus' Antiquities and the Gospels. (John may have been more "famous", in part because his death was more interesting!)

Josephus was not the earliest reference to Jesus. That is Paul. Josephus wrote between 75-79 AD, and the authenticity of his references to Jesus is in dispute. Unfortunately, most of the text concerning early Christianity has been filtered through later Christian scribes, who were known to make mistakes, reinterpret, and embellish things from time to time.

Let's not succumb to circular arguments. "If Jesus really fed a large crowd with five loaves and three fish, someone in the crowd might have been impressed enough to hire a scribe and write about the incident on a clay tablet." But few, if any, of us here believe in the literal truth of such stories and anyway, few of his followers could afford to hire a scribe. How many non-Roman documents of ANY sort survive from Syria or Judea in that era?

Quite a few actually. Some owned literate slaves. Paul himself had an amanuensis. It was common for illiterates to hire scribes to record things that they wished preserved, and there were apparently a lot of cults back then that left traces of their presence. It's odd that we have nothing from anyone who had dealings with his followers, if he was as popular as reported in the gospels.

No, Jesus would have been MUCH less famous than, say, Pontius Pilate and we would expect MUCH less to be written about Jesus than about Pilate. And yet, documentary proof that Pontius Pilate existed is almost non-existent. Until a minor archaeological find in 1961 the best evidence that Pilate existed was from Roman histories which mentioned that Procurator in connection with Jesus' crucifixion! IIRC the earliest surviving histories of Alexander the Great — one of the most famous persons in ancient times — were written about two centuries AFTER his death! Sure, those histories cite the memories and prior writings of men who knew Alexander personally. ... But similarly the New Testament cites people who knew Jesus personally.

There is too much physical archaeological evidence and contemporary mention of Alexander to dismiss him as fictional, not to mention the fact that there are no alternative theories of how the world changed the way it did in that time and location. You really need to pick a lesser known figure to make your argument. All we have for Jesus is texts written by Christians decades and centuries after his crucifixion. The smattering of early non-Christian sources either just speak about the existence of a cult (Tacitus, Pliny) and are somewhat contested as possible interpolations. As for Pontius Pilate, the archaeological evidence only corroborates his existence, not any connection to the trial of Jesus. I think that there are other sources to corroborate his existence, as well, but not in the exact capacity attributed to him in the NT.

...The apparent struggle between Peter and Paul, at a time when many people would have remembered a living Jesus, is good evidence of historicity. If Peter and Paul dared to introduce fictional Messiahs at all, why — if they were in conflict — would they use the SAME fiction?

It is evidence of nothing other than a struggle between Paul and Peter over the spread of the Jesus cult beyond the Jewish community and among gentiles. Paul never even met Jesus, who had allegedly died well before Paul converted. For all we know, he was scammed by Peter and some guy claiming to be Jesus's brother. Don't forget that these people were all professional cult leaders. That's how they made their living. They wouldn't be the first religious scammers to exist, and there are plenty of modern ones around even in modern times. This kind of evidence for historicity is really flimsy.

BTW, I'm not going to get into a discussion of the Flavian texts here. Josephus is a notoriously controversial source of information, and the authenticity of those passages are debated by people far more knowledgeable about them than me. I would only point out that Josephus wrote decades after the alleged crucifixion, so even the authenticity of his opinions is little more than that of someone with no contemporary perspective on the events.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The only explanation I've heard that makes me think a historical Jesus might have existed is the Criterion of Embarrassment. Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist kind of makes Jesus look less than godlike. Being hung or nailed to a tree is also usually the fate of the most worthless people according to Jewish tradition, so it's less likely to be made up.

There are numerous problems with the Criterion of Embarrassment. One difficulty is that we can't mindread the Gospel writers to see what they were truly ashamed of. Another quandary is that if the Gospel writers were embarrassed by anything they wrote, then it seems less likely that they would have recorded it at all. Besides, many of the early Christians seemed quote proud of what they wrote including the crucifixion story. If we place that story in its proper context, then we see that it sets up the resurrection. A Messiah who can overcome death is very impressive indeed! So I can easily see how the Gospel writers might make up the crucifixion story. Finally, it was the Romans who thought of those they crucified as worthless rather than the Jews. Many of the Jews of that day could have seen crucified Jews as courageous and heroic.

But it does seem a bit odd that none of the Roman historians mentioned this guy during his lifetime if he was supposedly performing miracles all over the place.

The common argument from real-Jesus apologists regarding this matter is that Jesus was only a "smalltime preacher," and therefore he wouldn't have attracted the attention of the historians of his day. This argument contradicts the Gospels which say Jesus was very famous at that time. Also, if nobody bothered to write about a smalltime Jesus while he lived, then it seems reasonable to me that they would have been even less likely to have written about him decades later.

If the story of Jesus is supposed to be the most important message from God that mankind ever received, you would hope God would make the story a little more different than all the other myths we have created.

Now we're talking theology rather than history. You are correct, though; any God who knew what he was doing is not likely to act in ways very similar to the ways of "false" gods.

 

[steve_bank]

Christianity sholud be called Paulism. He dipsensed with the Jewish requirements.

Paraphrasing Peter on Paul, dude I was there!!!

 

[Swammerdami]

Let's suppose for a moment that Jesus of Nazareth was a fiction, that some group wanted to start a new religion and invented some "Messiah" to suit their purposes. What stories would they invent about him? Preaching, healing, transfiguration, insurrection — these all fit. (Though one might as well start with a non-fictional preacher/insurrectionist and add on a transfiguration myth.) But, as mentioned above, they might avoid stories that were embarrassing or easily disproven. Baptism by John might be embarrassing; and what about "without honor in his own country" — what was the didactic purpose of revealing that embarrassment? Crucifixation on a specific date would be too easily disproven. The Christian church was flourishing about ten years after Jesus' death: there would be many people who'd recall that no "Jesus" was crucified that day; yet non-existence was never raised as an objection to the Jesus cult for many centuries.

But they'd want to focus on something very special. In Jesus' case this was the Resurrection. Let's listen to what Mark, the earliest Gospel, says about that (omitting the verses generally agreed to be later additions):

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

"[H]e goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." THAT'S IT!! That's the entirety of what Mark writes about the Resurrection. Serious question: What do the Non-historicity fans say about this? The cabal forgot to clue Mark in that he was writing a fiction?

 

[bilby]

Let's suppose for a moment that Jesus of Nazareth was a fiction, that some group wanted to start a new religion and invented some "Messiah" to suit their purposes. What stories would they invent about him? Preaching, healing, transfiguration, insurrection — these all fit. (Though one might as well start with a non-fictional preacher/insurrectionist and add on a transfiguration myth.) But, as mentioned above, they might avoid stories that were embarrassing or easily disproven. Baptism by John might be embarrassing; and what about "without honor in his own country" — what was the didactic purpose of revealing that embarrassment? Crucifixation on a specific date would be too easily disproven. The Christian church was flourishing about ten years after Jesus' death: there would be many people who'd recall that no "Jesus" was crucified that day; yet non-existence was never raised as an objection to the Jesus cult for many centuries.

But they'd want to focus on something very special. In Jesus' case this was the Resurrection. Let's listen to what Mark, the earliest Gospel, says about that (omitting the verses generally agreed to be later additions):

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

"[H]e goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." THAT'S IT!! That's the entirety of what Mark writes about the Resurrection. Serious question: What do the Non-historicity fans say about this? The cabal forgot to clue Mark in that he was writing a fiction?

Your argument here appears to be that badly written fiction must be true, because people don't write truly awful, even embarrassingly awful, fiction, without realising how embarrassingly bad it is and at least editing it somewhat.

I can think of a dozen modern works off the top of my head that refute this hypothesis.

And the idea that Mark's failure to explicitly expound upon a critical plot point makes the whole set of tales more plausible (or even just less awful), is hilarious.

"It's shit, therefore it must be true!"