Did Jesus do something noteworthy, or did he not?
If he did not, then
stop pretending that he was noteworthy
when you try to explain what really happened.
THE SOURCES
And it is from the alleged Q source. So I concede: although the mention is very brief and probably just shows that accounts of such miracles were in circulation very early, there are THREE sources for Jesus raising the dead (setting aside Jesus' own "resurrection"): proto-Mark, proto-John and Q.
No, there are more sources than only these hypothetical "sources" you're preaching here to the exclusion of others (even real ones). This is just your scheme for eliminating certain sources you want to exclude and including others which are only hypothetical, all artificially glued together so you can reduce the total number of sources down to fewer in order to prop up your contrived theory.
Your artificial scheme ignores that one of the raising-the-dead stories is Luke 7:11-17, and this is NOT in the Q category because it's in Luke only, not also in Matthew. So you have to add this as a 4th source.
This shows the phoniness of pretending to reduce down the number of sources based on these theories about hypothetical sources, or about "primary source" vs. "secondary source." When you start relying on theories and hypothetical this or that, or speculating where the author got his material or whether he was "dependent" or "independent," you go off into imaginary worlds where you can make up your own facts and probably find a way to prove or disprove anything you want, to just confirm your prejudice rather than find reliable facts about what happened.
The scholarship you rely on does NOT say there are only 2 Gospels rather than 4, or that these "sources" are fewer than the 4 (Gospel accounts) plus 1 (Paul Epistles). No, these are 4 (5) real sources, our main sources for the historical Jesus. The "2-Source Hypothesis" and "3-Source Hypothesis") which you rely on do not say that the 4 Gospels are not 4 sources. Virtually all scholars recognize that our main sources for the Historical Jesus are the 4 Gospels (4 sources) and the Paul Epistles (a 5th source). These sources are not reduced to a smaller number simply because there might be other sources also, mostly hypothetical, or because they quote from another source.
All we know is that we have the 4 Gospels, which are 4 genuine Sources, plus we have the Epistles of Paul = a genuine Source for the Resurrection = 5 sources for this major Jesus miracle. And actually there might be more than these 4 (5) sources -- e.g., some of the Paul Epistles are falsely attributed to him, in which case they're additional sources which might also make reference to the Resurrection, thus adding 2 or 3 more sources for this. So there are 5 main sources + a few other minor sources also.
So it's more straightforward and honest to simply recognize the 4 (5) real sources we have -- not hypothetical, not calculated by speculating on what they might have relied on or if they were "independent" or not. No, these 4 (5) sources really exist, in the form of real manuscripts existing in museums and studied by scholars who recognize them as separate documents. The identification of the sources should begin with and depend on what's real, what's known for sure, rather than hypothetical writings or fantasies on what or who they depended on.
(I plan sometime to go through Mt and Lk carefully to find the exact number of miracle stories there which are not from Mk or Q. There are a few of these. Bart Ehrman names more than only the 5 sources, because some examples are that which is from Matthew only, which is called the "M" source, and others are the "L" source, from Luke only. So there are many "source" theories.
And the truth is that there is NO CONSENSUS among the scholars how many sources there are. This is subjective, whimsical, each expert having his own particular scheme for identifying the number of sources, and giving their names to each one. But it's a recognized fact that the 4 Gospels and Paul Epistles do exist. These are REAL UNcontested 5 sources. And it's wacko to say these are not 5 but really on 3 or 2 sources.
It's more honest to just recognize the real documents we have, recognize that they are ALL legitimate sources, in the normal sense, and then give the details on some differences, and note where the same text is quoted by another. But it is dishonest to reduce the number of sources down and say it's really only 2 rather than 4. Again -- you haven't answered this -- where else do scholars do this with literature? history sources? reducing the number of sources down only because 1 or 2 of them quote from another? Unless you can give another case where scholars do this with some other kind of literature, you have to admit that this is a
double-standard being applied to NT literature only and to no other literature.
Consider this excerpt from the Quran, apparently written mostly by Islam's Prophet himself and finalized soon after his death.
Quran said:
And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the messenger of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of a Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be Ahmad [Mohammad]." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"
Jesus is mentioned in the Quran, shows "Clear Signs" and compares himself with another Messenger, Mohammad.
There are miracles attributed both to Mohammad and to the Buddha.
Yes, but -- you already know this? -- in both cases the attributions are not until 200 or more years later, from writers not near to the time they lived. Most Muslims don't believe the later miracle stories about Mohammed.
I think those miracles are down-played in part because attention focuses on Mohammad's and Buddha's own writings.
But they're downplayed mainly by the fact that everyone knows there are no good sources for them. The Muslims and Buddhists themselves just don't believe those stories, and for good reason, which is that there is no good evidence, i.e., no sources for them dating from near the time when the Teacher-Hero lived. Whereas the Jesus miracle stories were and are still believed because there is legitimate evidence that the events really happened, based on normal historical evidence, with extra evidence, or more evidence than is normally required for ancient history events.
WAS JESUS NOTEWORTHY OR NOT?
But Jesus left no direct writings. You ask What accounts for Jesus' uniqueness as an alleged miracle worker?
That question has been answered, and you're still not responding, or giving any other answer. He's the only reputed miracle-worker for whom there is any evidence. The evidence is very abundant, from 1st-century writings, near his time, as opposed to the pagan heroes for whom there is no such evidence. And he's virtually the most written-about historical figure of the 1st century, with possibly Caesar Augustus and Nero etc. as a few cases maybe more written about in the 1st-century record. What was special about the rich and powerful Emperors that we have writings about them? Well of course, they were rich and powerful and famous elites, and such people are 90% of the subject matter in the writings. We know what they did to become recognized as important.
So then, what did Jesus do to become recognized as important? No one has any answer, as long as they reject the accounts which say he did the miracle acts. Those reported acts are the only possible answer. What is your answer?
What accounts for Jesus' uniqueness as an alleged miracle worker? Could it mainly be just that Jesus and his inner circle lacked the wherewithal (literacy, money for papyrus) to create a major textbook?
What? He was poor? This made him important? brought him recognition to be made into the miracle Messiah and Son of God? like Caesar was also a son of God? This made him stand out as noteworthy? that he was poor? Do you realize how many millions of poor people there were? You think every poor person in history stands out as important and so is to be mythologized into a miracle-working resurrected Messiah Son of God Hero and founder of a new religion? Who is left to be the members of this new religion if ALL the poor people are now the Hero Son of God to be worshiped? Who is left to be his followers? So you think that being poor explains how Jesus became written about and made famous in the 1st-century writings? This would mean that every homeless person in our cities is also a miracle-working Messiah Son of God.
Obviously you're not taking the question seriously. You just start out with the assumption that Jesus is a noteworthy 1st-century historical figure, because of what you've been taught in your 20th-century education. Just as we in the West have all been taught this for centuries. This is what has planted in our minds the idea that he was noteworthy, and we just accept this as a given fact which has no explanation outside the indoctrination we received from having been raised in this Western culture.
The question is why are we taught this, or what is it that makes him important. What is told to us about him, from the record, or from the traditions or teachings about him, to raise him to such recognition or status? If there's more, from the entire history record, to explain what made him stand out -- then tell us what it is. If the tradition is in error, then what is the correct version of the facts which explains what made him stand out?
He was poor?
This kind of non-answer is just one more proof, one further indication that he must have done the miracle acts. All you're really saying is that the reported miracle acts (which apparently happened) are the only answer, and yet you're unable to acknowledge this because it causes you to choke up to say such forbidden words. Or, this answer is politically incorrect, because we're now indoctrinated that nothing like this is allowed as an answer, and so there is no answer, or the answer is taboo, forbidden, and we can either keep silent or we can say some unintelligible gibberish and pretend to have answered it.
So instead it was exciting fantasies that were memorized and passed on.
That makes no sense. But if somehow it does, it means we should find hundreds or thousands of miracle-workers in the writings, "Gospel" accounts and "Epistles" such as in the Jesus example, each along with the exciting fantasies the followers or inner circle in each case memorized and passed on. You're giving no reason why this should happen only in the case of Jesus in 30 AD. No explanation why there's not any other example of such a miracle-worker, even though there were easily thousands of others, even millions, who did the same as Jesus. I.e., he was poor, didn't have resources, lacked the "wherewithal" or papyrus or literacy. Like 99% of the population at that time, and so because he was such a common insignificant nobody, he therefore became famous, was mythologized into a miracle god-hero-messiah.
So, because he was a nothing, therefore he got made into a somebody. That's how to become important -- to be a poor nothing nobody, and everyone who accomplishes this then becomes an important somebody. This is what happens to all poor nobodies you're saying? All of them become mythologized into famous somebodies?
But the main reason most of us do not believe Jesus worked supernatural miracles is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
No, that's just poetry. What such claims require is extra evidence. Same kind of evidence as for all facts, but more of it, or more than is required for normal events. Extra evidence, more sources, etc. The same as for any other unusual claims that are in the doubtful category. And we do have the extra evidence for the Jesus miracle acts, just as we have extra evidence for some other "extraordinary" historical events.
Even if your argument multiplies the a priori chance of such miracles by a million, the miracles remain unlikely if the a priori chance was one in a trillion.
The Jesus miracle acts are not one in a trillion, except in the sense that there are many facts of history which are "one a trillion" because of the unusual element. The Resurrection is in the same category as many unusual facts of history, because we have confirmed cases of "dead" bodies reviving after several hours. Nothing about it defies biology or laws of nature, etc. It's just in the very doubtful category because it's rare, or the cases of this that are confirmed are for several hours -- not longer than one day. But who's to say how long it could go before the body revives? There's no science to fix the time at 24 hours and no longer. Scientists have not determined what caused some "dead" bodies to return to life, or how long it could have continued. It's not known how it happens --
But it has happened several times, in documented cases. In this one case 2000 years ago it was for a longer time period, maybe twice as long. And in many cases like this one there is no explanation. You can call it "extraordinary" and other metaphors if you wish, but that does not erase the facts of history we know from the evidence, or the reported cases, in the written accounts. Those "extraordinary" cases are proven, or shown as probable, because of the extra evidence in each case.
And scientists have not proved that all those "dead" bodies were not really dead. There have been many cases of this, and the scientists who investigate it have not determined for sure exactly what "death" is vs. the ones who were not really "dead" but only appeared dead. This has not been figured out. All that's known is that it's very rare -- yes, maybe one in a million. Or 100 million. Or a billion. But that still means several cases in a world population in the billions, maybe 10-15 billion over 1000 or 2000 years etc. So even if there have not been millions of cases, there could possibly be several thousand. And maybe the ones who revived in only 30 minutes or so reduces the percentage way down. But still, there's nothing unrealistic about maybe several thousand cases over 100 or 500 years (or 1000). It's not one in a trillion. So the Jesus Resurrection is just one more of many unusual events ("one in a million" etc.) documented by the historical evidence.
ETA: Also: while proto-Mark, proto-John and Q may have been written VERY early, they all probably post-date the crucifixion and alleged resurrection. As part of the method of midrash, retrofitting fictitious accounts of "raising the dead" into pre-crucifixion stories might have been normal.
There are easily thousands of Jews, before Jesus and during his time, who were more important than he was and who should have been credited with "raising the dead" stories if this was "normal." Yet there is not one, except perhaps Elijah/Elisha (9th century BC), said to have done this. Even if we assume these Jesus miracles were later put into the record as fiction, or mythologizing, there's no explanation why Jesus is the only person chosen to be mythologized and no one else.
Again, you always commit the same error: You assume (for no reason) that Jesus was noteworthy, was worshiped as a god or messiah or savior who did miracles even though he did no such thing any more than anyone else did, and he had no status or recognition for anything important. You assume he was important and had status, even though you acknowledge that he did not have any special status or importance.
It's only your 20th-century upbringing which has taught you that he had status and recognition. You keep forgetting that it's only in the later Western Culture that he acquired this status (if he didn't do the miracle acts). You subconsciously maintain this picture of him, as someone important and to whom mythologizing could happen, and you keep forgetting that
he did not have any such status or recognition in the 1st century when these accounts were written. You can't (subconsciously) give him this status and then say he got mythologized for this reason, while at the same time recognizing that he did not have any such status in the 1st century when the accounts of him were written -- in which accounts he is said to have done these things. You keep assuming he must have had some status at that time, when the claims originated (and mythologizing took place), even though you also assume he had no such distinction at that time because he did nothing noteworthy.
As long as your theory continues to be based on this blatant contradiction, you are disproving your theory. And therefore it's reasonable to believe the evidence of history, which is that he did perform the miracle acts. Since any other theory repeatedly falls back on the blatant contradiction, trying to slip in an assumption that he was noteworthy, while at the same time claiming he did nothing noteworthy, or denying all the reported facts that make him noteworthy at that time.
] or "in the desert" [as in Isaias 40:3], I feel like the iconoclast here! Should I feel ashamed to join with 99% of non-Christian historians? They believe, as I do, that JC existed but not that he worked miracles. I think there are a FEW others here that agree with the 99% but mostly we see supporters of Richard Carrier on the one hand (joined by those who use Toledot Yeshu as JC's biography), and at least one Infidel arguing for the truths of the miracles.
I lack the emotional energy to mount another detailed discussion of Carrier's stupidities but one fact about the "Rank-Raglan mythotype" is worth repeating: Neither Rank nor Raglan advocated its use as a way of distinguishing historical persons from mythical persons.
George Washington existed but probably didn't chop down the cherry tree.