Richard Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus” now out

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think it's possible to describe the canonical gospels as Greek Biography in format, with midrashic components. I don't think the biography is reliable, obviously. It's theo-biography, really. Theology posing as biography and also posing as history. Acts is similar.

I don't think the arguably midrashic elements in the gospels shed much light on the historicity issue though. In fact, I'd say that given how weak the exegesis of the OT passages often is, it looks more like the interpretations were being shoehorned to fit supposed events.

That does not mean the events described in the gospels happened. They could have been partly or wholly non-factual and/or literary fiction, specifically theological literary fiction, in which the writers (if motivated by genuine religious beliefs, in other words if they were actual woo-heads) may not have been as clear in their own heads that the literary fictional parts were fictional in the way that a secular novelist might be.

Are you familiar with Bram Stoker's Dracula? The author's fictional Dracula was certainly informed, one might say inspired, by an actual person. Is this how you are defining historical?

Further, if you were asked, "Was there an historical counterpart in real life to Bram Stoker's Dracula?" would you answer, "Yes," in the same way that you are claiming the historical Jesus?

Most people would probably answer yes on the Dracula question if sufficiently informed about the background of the novel. I would say no, there is no historical Dracula, rather, that Stoker was using real life experience and information to construct his fictional protagonist.

BTW if you're interested there's a good PBS video on Stoker, Dracula and whole vampire thing. Really interesting historical stuff. The video parallels and explains how I think the Jesus tale was invented and took root.

Vampire Legend

 

[humbleman]

Which you can find on Amazon.

Initial reviews are quite favorable, although it looks like a couple of the reviews and mostly comments are few rabid Christian apologists that have showed up to show their distaste in this book, with some obviously never having read it. I finally finished it myself, and think Carrier really did a great job with it.

I hope others will find the book to their liking, and if so, give it the favorable ratings you think it deserves.

I surely will buy the book.

Long time since I read a good fiction book.

 

[whollygoats]

Which you can find on Amazon.

Initial reviews are quite favorable, although it looks like a couple of the reviews and mostly comments are few rabid Christian apologists that have showed up to show their distaste in this book, with some obviously never having read it. I finally finished it myself, and think Carrier really did a great job with it.

I hope others will find the book to their liking, and if so, give it the favorable ratings you think it deserves.

I surely will buy the book.

Long time since I read a good fiction book.

Yes...understood. Something better than that bad fiction you've been reading so poorly.

 

[humbleman]

Which you can find on Amazon.

Initial reviews are quite favorable, although it looks like a couple of the reviews and mostly comments are few rabid Christian apologists that have showed up to show their distaste in this book, with some obviously never having read it. I finally finished it myself, and think Carrier really did a great job with it.

I hope others will find the book to their liking, and if so, give it the favorable ratings you think it deserves.

I surely will buy the book.

Long time since I read a good fiction book.

Yes...understood. Something better than that bad fiction you've been reading so poorly.

OK. you asked for.

explain here what have you understood of the book. Include the pages numbers so the day I buy the book I will check your points more properly.

 

[Learner]

Are you familiar with Bram Stoker's Dracula? The author's fictional Dracula was certainly informed, one might say inspired, by an actual person. Is this how you are defining historical?

Further, if you were asked, "Was there an historical counterpart in real life to Bram Stoker's Dracula?" would you answer, "Yes," in the same way that you are claiming the historical Jesus?

Most people would probably answer yes on the Dracula question if sufficiently informed about the background of the novel. I would say no, there is no historical Dracula, rather, that Stoker was using real life experience and information to construct his fictional protagonist.

BTW if you're interested there's a good PBS video on Stoker, Dracula and whole vampire thing. Really interesting historical stuff. The video parallels and explains how I think the Jesus tale was invented and took root.

Vampire Legend

You're on to something ... similar to vampire legend your fav .. the superman legend:

The Gospel According to the World's Greatest Superhero
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0736918124/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0736918124&linkCode=as2&tag=praisecom-20&linkId=TJYI4XJIF6ZIYARL

Brief excerpt description:
From above, a heavenly father sends his only son to save the Earth

Sound familiar? It should—because the Superman storytellers based Superman on Jesus on purpose! That’s why the Man of Steel actually champions the truth about the Super Man Himself—Jesus—and this can show readers how to reach friends and family in today’s entertainment–focused culture.

Stephen Skelton’s faster–than–a–speeding–bullet discussions reveal that... the Superman storytellers confirm they modeled Superman on Christ

Superman and his father share the name “El” (Hebrew for “God”)...and his earthly parents were originally named “Mary” and “Joseph”
Superman movies, TV shows, and comics are built on parallels to Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and second coming..

SUPERMAN'S ORIGIN AND LINKS TO THE BIBLE

The original 1930s Superman comic strip, created by Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster in the 1930s, wasn’t supposed to reflect the Gospel story. The two Jewish teenagers simply stumbled onto the symbolic plot when they were creating an adventurous tale about an out-of-this-world superhero.

Siegel and Shuster drew from biblical heroes, such as Samson, who was the strongest man in the Bible, and Moses, who helped free God's people from slavery. The familiar storyline just happened to be one they used because it sounded like the most logical way to layout the story of a great hero.

Superman's origin came out of the loss of Jerry’s father, who was fatally shot by a robber, at a time when America was battling with the Great Depression and the world was just about to begin its fight with Hitler.

“They were looking for a savior figure they could relate to, they could envision, something to give them hope, inspire them,” Skelton says.

(If you bring up superman in your argument again I'll post this book link )

 

[bilby]

Are you familiar with Bram Stoker's Dracula? The author's fictional Dracula was certainly informed, one might say inspired, by an actual person. Is this how you are defining historical?

Further, if you were asked, "Was there an historical counterpart in real life to Bram Stoker's Dracula?" would you answer, "Yes," in the same way that you are claiming the historical Jesus?

Most people would probably answer yes on the Dracula question if sufficiently informed about the background of the novel. I would say no, there is no historical Dracula, rather, that Stoker was using real life experience and information to construct his fictional protagonist.

BTW if you're interested there's a good PBS video on Stoker, Dracula and whole vampire thing. Really interesting historical stuff. The video parallels and explains how I think the Jesus tale was invented and took root.

Vampire Legend

You're on to something ... similar to vampire legend your fav .. the superman legend:

The Gospel According to the World's Greatest Superhero
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0736918124/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0736918124&linkCode=as2&tag=praisecom-20&linkId=TJYI4XJIF6ZIYARL

Brief excerpt description:
From above, a heavenly father sends his only son to save the Earth

Sound familiar? It should—because the Superman storytellers based Superman on Jesus on purpose! That’s why the Man of Steel actually champions the truth about the Super Man Himself—Jesus—and this can show readers how to reach friends and family in today’s entertainment–focused culture.

Stephen Skelton’s faster–than–a–speeding–bullet discussions reveal that... the Superman storytellers confirm they modeled Superman on Christ

Superman and his father share the name “El” (Hebrew for “God”)...and his earthly parents were originally named “Mary” and “Joseph”
Superman movies, TV shows, and comics are built on parallels to Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and second coming..

SUPERMAN'S ORIGIN AND LINKS TO THE BIBLE

The original 1930s Superman comic strip, created by Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster in the 1930s, wasn’t supposed to reflect the Gospel story. The two Jewish teenagers simply stumbled onto the symbolic plot when they were creating an adventurous tale about an out-of-this-world superhero.

Siegel and Shuster drew from biblical heroes, such as Samson, who was the strongest man in the Bible, and Moses, who helped free God's people from slavery. The familiar storyline just happened to be one they used because it sounded like the most logical way to layout the story of a great hero.

Superman's origin came out of the loss of Jerry’s father, who was fatally shot by a robber, at a time when America was battling with the Great Depression and the world was just about to begin its fight with Hitler.

“They were looking for a savior figure they could relate to, they could envision, something to give them hope, inspire them,” Skelton says.

If you bring up superman in your argument I'll post this book link

It is hardly unusual, remarkable or unprecedented for a fictional character to be based on other fictional characters from earlier stories; IF that's what happened with Superman being based on Jesus, then so what? However, based solely on the text you quoted above (particularly the bits I bolded), it would appear that Superman was NOT based on Jesus, but rather was based on a number of fictional characters - and that only a handful of frankly trivial elements of his origin story are possibly based on Jesus. So so what [squared]?

 

[Learner]

It is hardly unusual, remarkable or unprecedented for a fictional character to be based on other fictional characters from earlier stories; IF that's what happened with Superman being based on Jesus, then so what? However, based solely on the text you quoted above (particularly the bits I bolded), it would appear that Superman was NOT based on Jesus, but rather was based on a number of fictional characters - and that only a handful of frankly trivial elements of his origin story are possibly based on Jesus. So so what [squared]?

So what? .. is sort of what I thought of the Bram Stoker but of course I never had a real issue with it. I replied to what I thought was accordingly ... and you have your pov to my post ...

 

[whollygoats]

Are you familiar with Bram Stoker's Dracula? The author's fictional Dracula was certainly informed, one might say inspired, by an actual person. Is this how you are defining historical?

Further, if you were asked, "Was there an historical counterpart in real life to Bram Stoker's Dracula?" would you answer, "Yes," in the same way that you are claiming the historical Jesus?

Most people would probably answer yes on the Dracula question if sufficiently informed about the background of the novel. I would say no, there is no historical Dracula, rather, that Stoker was using real life experience and information to construct his fictional protagonist.

BTW if you're interested there's a good PBS video on Stoker, Dracula and whole vampire thing. Really interesting historical stuff. The video parallels and explains how I think the Jesus tale was invented and took root.

Vampire Legend

You're on to something ... similar to vampire legend your fav .. the superman legend:

The Gospel According to the World's Greatest Superhero
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0736918124/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0736918124&linkCode=as2&tag=praisecom-20&linkId=TJYI4XJIF6ZIYARL

Brief excerpt description:
From above, a heavenly father sends his only son to save the Earth

Sound familiar? It should—because the Superman storytellers based Superman on Jesus on purpose! That’s why the Man of Steel actually champions the truth about the Super Man Himself—Jesus—and this can show readers how to reach friends and family in today’s entertainment–focused culture.

Stephen Skelton’s faster–than–a–speeding–bullet discussions reveal that... the Superman storytellers confirm they modeled Superman on Christ

Superman and his father share the name “El” (Hebrew for “God”)...and his earthly parents were originally named “Mary” and “Joseph”
Superman movies, TV shows, and comics are built on parallels to Christ’s death, burial, resurrection, and second coming..

SUPERMAN'S ORIGIN AND LINKS TO THE BIBLE

The original 1930s Superman comic strip, created by Jerry Siegel and Joel Shuster in the 1930s, wasn’t supposed to reflect the Gospel story. The two Jewish teenagers simply stumbled onto the symbolic plot when they were creating an adventurous tale about an out-of-this-world superhero.

Siegel and Shuster drew from biblical heroes, such as Samson, who was the strongest man in the Bible, and Moses, who helped free God's people from slavery. The familiar storyline just happened to be one they used because it sounded like the most logical way to layout the story of a great hero.

Superman's origin came out of the loss of Jerry’s father, who was fatally shot by a robber, at a time when America was battling with the Great Depression and the world was just about to begin its fight with Hitler.

“They were looking for a savior figure they could relate to, they could envision, something to give them hope, inspire them,” Skelton says.

If you bring up superman in your argument I'll post this book link

It is hardly unusual, remarkable or unprecedented for a fictional character to be based on other fictional characters from earlier stories; IF that's what happened with Superman being based on Jesus, then so what? However, based solely on the text you quoted above (particularly the bits I bolded), it would appear that Superman was NOT based on Jesus, but rather was based on a number of fictional characters - and that only a handful of frankly trivial elements of his origin story are possibly based on Jesus. So so what [squared]?

I personally prefer referencing Peter Parker. But I think it is more like a DC/Marvel franchise thing...y'know, the Israelite franchise. A whole set of spin-off stories, often reworked for slightly different audiences. Indeed, reworking the stories through reinterpretation became an inspired sacred art form. They probably did pesher slams.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I personally prefer referencing Peter Parker. But I think it is more like a DC/Marvel franchise thing...y'know, the Israelite franchise. A whole set of spin-off stories, often reworked for slightly different audiences. Indeed, reworking the stories through reinterpretation became an inspired sacred art form. They probably did pesher slams.

That's precisely what happened. And it happened with Bram Stoker's Dracula the same way, which has spawned lots of spinoffs that continue to this day.

Stoker really researched his subject the same way the gospel writers knew their stuff. They were using scripture and current events to construct their narratives. The unfortunate fact is that the vast majority of these narratives are lost. But we know they were there.

Stoker didn't invent vampires, and he didn't invent Dracula. He invented Dracula the vampire. And the same goes for Superman and Jesus.

 

[Jobar]

More. Paul even plainly says that his savior was "unknown to the world". I remember reading that way back in 1970 or so, and being sorely puzzled by it.

Can you help me find where the epistles say that?

Ruby, my apologies for taking so long getting back to this. I plead RL distractions, mainly- but I also admit to a slight error there. I did a search for 'unknown' in the New Testament at this site, and was puzzled when I got no hits. So I actually went back and read all the epistles, and it turns out the word I should have searched for was 'hidden'. There are several mentions of how the mystery of Christ was hidden- the plainest one is 1 Cor. 2:7 & 8-

7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

See also Ephesians 3:9.

I think I was remembering a specific quote from G.A. Wells' book Did Jesus Exist?, where he was commenting on Paul's version of Christ.

------------
I'd also like to direct attention to a most excellent blog on this subject, which Roo/whollygoats mentioned in a thread at SC some while back.
https://vridar.org/

I've spent much time lately reading Neil Godfrey's extensive commentary on Thomas Brodie's book, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery. There's 24 blogs on the topic, some of them fairly long, and lots of comments from many of Godfrey's readers; not something to skim over in a single evening, to say the least!

Brodie, a Catholic priest and Bible scholar, has become a mythicist due to his years of research on the literary bases of the NT. He argues that there were no 'lost' sources for the Gospels, such as Q or L; he makes an excellent case that the entire Jesus story is derived from the OT, and from other written classical works available to the NT writers. He also argues that there was no 'oral transmission' of any biographical details of the life of a supposed historical Jesus Christ.

The level of scholarship shown by both Brodie and Godfrey is quite a bit above my own, I freely admit. But reading all that has been well worth the time and effort, and further convinced me that there was never any historical JC- just as there was no historical Dracula.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Today I flipped on the TV and searched for a good netflix program, which in my case is usually a documentary or a classic movie. Today's choice ended up being a 2017 Bigfoot documentary.

I couldn't watch the entire show because it turned out being the same standard stuff, which is boring if you're hoping for new information. But the main character in the documentary presented what he claimed was indisputable Bigfoot evidence. He had the standard shadowy partial figure out there, but also a video of apples disappearing, apples that he states he routinely feeds to the Bigfoot creatures.

In the grainy infrared apple video we see something reaching out of the darkness removing apples. The first thought I had was, "why is the camera 30 yards away from the bait? Why isn't it right there to catch the act if you're chumming these guys in with apples like you always do?"

But it was unmistakable that this guy was a Bigfoot evangelist. He honestly wanted people to believe in Bigfoot. He and his friends have even calculated that there are 15,000 bigfoot creatures alive and well in an area compromising just about all of Canada and parts of the U.S. He's really trying to sound convincing and sophisticated.

I thought to myself, "How is this guy any different than the person, Paul, who wrote his letters about his godman?" It's really a side issue whether his godman was fact or fantasy. The point is he wanted others to believe in his cause.

Another similarity to the HJ argument was his use of historical Bigfoot accounts, and there are plenty. At one point one of the presenters even says that a person starts believing in Bigfoot when they "discover" that Bigfoot is real. That comment made me think how we'd be translating that 2000 years hence.

After I got bored with that I decided to see if there is an historical Turin Shroud, and I don't mean the medieval forgery. What got me thinking about the Shroud was flipping through possible programs to watch and the Turin Shroud documentary from some years ago was there. Wiki has a pretty decent write up for those interested. Talk of this shroud happens well before Turin. Turin was merely a present manifestation of a long Shroud history.

I can remember when I believed that certain things were real, things which obviously are not, so I can identify with a person's emotional fascination with things like this.

If there is a core of Paul's letters that were written by the same person, I don't see how this is proof of a real person anymore than the Bigfoot documentary is proof of an actual historical Bigfoot.

 

[ruby sparks]

More. Paul even plainly says that his savior was "unknown to the world". I remember reading that way back in 1970 or so, and being sorely puzzled by it.

Can you help me find where the epistles say that?

Ruby, my apologies for taking so long getting back to this. I plead RL distractions, mainly- but I also admit to a slight error there. I did a search for 'unknown' in the New Testament at this site, and was puzzled when I got no hits. So I actually went back and read all the epistles, and it turns out the word I should have searched for was 'hidden'. There are several mentions of how the mystery of Christ was hidden- the plainest one is 1 Cor. 2:7 & 8-

7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

See also Ephesians 3:9.

It wasn't just that you misremembered 'hidden' as 'unknown (to the world)', you also misremembered that it didn't say the saviour was hidden, it only said the mystery was hidden.

And Ephesians 3:6, for example, says what the hidden mystery was. It was that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, are heirs to the promise of Jesus Christ.

I do hope you didn't lose much sleep about it unnecessarily in 1970, merely for want of reading two verses back from the 'puzzling' one.

In fact, I've seen snaps of you once or twice and I'm having trouble thinking of you as being more than a toddler in 1970.

 

[whollygoats]

Apposite to the conversation in the thread is discussion of Brodie's slant on Rule One for the historian....literary style:

And yet, and yet, and yet. Being first in importance does not necessarily mean being first in the order of investigation. The first thing to be sorted out about a document is not its history or theology — not the truth of background events or its ultimate meaning — but simply its basic nature. For instance, before discussing a will — its possible many references to past events, and its provisions for distributing a legacy — the first thing to be established is whether it is genuine, whether it is a real will. (p. 121, my [NG] bolding)

Its basic nature! The nature of the text we are reading! That’s exactly what I have been saying is the first task in an exploration of Christian origins. We need first to understand the very nature of the evidence or sources we are using. And yes, that means at some level literary analysis if the sources are literary. McGrath is flat wrong when he says literary analysis is not of interest to the historian. It is of the first and utmost importance. How else can the historian know how to interpret the literary source unless he or she understands its literary nature? I told you I think I have found a new like-minded friend for my bookshelf!

 

[ruby sparks]

7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Also read past those two verses 7-8 in 1 Cor 2 to verse 9 for some clarification about who, according to the writer, did not understand.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Apposite to the conversation in the thread is discussion of Brodie's slant on Rule One for the historian....literary style:

And yet, and yet, and yet. Being first in importance does not necessarily mean being first in the order of investigation. The first thing to be sorted out about a document is not its history or theology — not the truth of background events or its ultimate meaning — but simply its basic nature. For instance, before discussing a will — its possible many references to past events, and its provisions for distributing a legacy — the first thing to be established is whether it is genuine, whether it is a real will. (p. 121, my [NG] bolding)

Its basic nature! The nature of the text we are reading! That’s exactly what I have been saying is the first task in an exploration of Christian origins. We need first to understand the very nature of the evidence or sources we are using. And yes, that means at some level literary analysis if the sources are literary. McGrath is flat wrong when he says literary analysis is not of interest to the historian. It is of the first and utmost importance. How else can the historian know how to interpret the literary source unless he or she understands its literary nature? I told you I think I have found a new like-minded friend for my bookshelf!

But it's hard to undo 2000 years of enforcement and comforting tradition.

In past discussions like these I would often bring in popular fictional works to illustrate that fictional writing can be read just like it actually happened. In a way I think that argument is paying off, as I think Neil Godfrey now appreciates. Typically this offering is dismissed out of hand because this is religion and this is jesus, and to think that these sacred writings are nothing more than popular fiction offends folks. But it seems to be getting around.

 

[whollygoats]

7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Also read past those two verses 7-8 in 1 Cor 2 to verse 9 for some clarification about who, according to the writer, did not understand.

Paul...Paul...Paul...So, what if Paul is a literary construct, as well?

 

[Learner]

Apposite to the conversation in the thread is discussion of Brodie's slant on Rule One for the historian....literary style:

And yet, and yet, and yet. Being first in importance does not necessarily mean being first in the order of investigation. The first thing to be sorted out about a document is not its history or theology — not the truth of background events or its ultimate meaning — but simply its basic nature. For instance, before discussing a will — its possible many references to past events, and its provisions for distributing a legacy — the first thing to be established is whether it is genuine, whether it is a real will. (p. 121, my [NG] bolding)

Its basic nature! The nature of the text we are reading! That’s exactly what I have been saying is the first task in an exploration of Christian origins. We need first to understand the very nature of the evidence or sources we are using. And yes, that means at some level literary analysis if the sources are literary. McGrath is flat wrong when he says literary analysis is not of interest to the historian. It is of the first and utmost importance. How else can the historian know how to interpret the literary source unless he or she understands its literary nature? I told you I think I have found a new like-minded friend for my bookshelf!

Given that this method of "literary analysis" is then of interests to historians. Curiously ,has this particular method been applied to conclude what we currently know of ancient characters, such as known Kings, Queens,pharoahs and soldier/warriors - Sumerians,Egyptians and Greeks etc..?

(Ok booked marked link for further reading)

 

[Jobar]

Ruby, my apologies for taking so long getting back to this. I plead RL distractions, mainly- but I also admit to a slight error there. I did a search for 'unknown' in the New Testament at this site, and was puzzled when I got no hits. So I actually went back and read all the epistles, and it turns out the word I should have searched for was 'hidden'. There are several mentions of how the mystery of Christ was hidden- the plainest one is 1 Cor. 2:7 & 8-

7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.
8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

See also Ephesians 3:9.

It wasn't just that you misremembered 'hidden' as 'unknown (to the world)', you also misremembered that it didn't say the saviour was hidden, it only said the mystery was hidden.

And Ephesians 3:6, for example, says what the hidden mystery was. It was that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, are heirs to the promise of Jesus Christ.

I do hope you didn't lose much sleep about it unnecessarily in 1970, merely for want of reading two verses back from the 'puzzling' one.

In fact, I've seen snaps of you once or twice and I'm having trouble thinking of you as being more than a toddler in 1970.

I'm pleased that you think I don't look it, but I was in fact born in 1955. I started reading the Bible cover to cover for the first time at age 14 in 1969, and was calling myself an atheist by the time I was 16.

Even back then, young and callow though I was, I found that Paul's version of Christ matched up very poorly with the Gospels; and really no two of *them* were as consistent as a supposedly inerrant book (which was what Southern Baptists thought of the KJV) should have been. Though that inconsistency wasn't the only reason I eventually rejected the Bible as a worthy guide to life and history, it was something I recall discussing back then.

I do rather wish I had encountered the mythicist hypothesis before I took a 'New Testament as Literature' course at Ga. Tech, in 1976. I'm sure I could have freaked out the many Christians in that course even worse than I actually did- for some of them I was the first 'out' atheist they had ever met, and there were a few instances where the professor had to put the brakes on in-class discussions which were getting too heated and personal.

 

[Jobar]

Back more directly on topic- Ruby, and all, I have linked to this series of YT videos before, but not in this thread. The first dozen or so go into great detail, showing how the book of Mark, the first gospel, was written to purposely parallel Homer's Odyssey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jOzCMy9e5E&list=PL1D58C69D194384D2

Viewing all those videos is another time intensive project. I've watched it through once, but I may decide to go through them again fairly soon; like Vridar, the level of scholarship exhibited is of a very high standard, IMO.

 

[whollygoats]

It wasn't just that you misremembered 'hidden' as 'unknown (to the world)', you also misremembered that it didn't say the saviour was hidden, it only said the mystery was hidden.

And Ephesians 3:6, for example, says what the hidden mystery was. It was that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, are heirs to the promise of Jesus Christ.

I do hope you didn't lose much sleep about it unnecessarily in 1970, merely for want of reading two verses back from the 'puzzling' one.

In fact, I've seen snaps of you once or twice and I'm having trouble thinking of you as being more than a toddler in 1970.

I'm pleased that you think I don't look it, but I was in fact born in 1955. I started reading the Bible cover to cover for the first time at age 14 in 1969, and was calling myself an atheist by the time I was 16.

Even back then, young and callow though I was, I found that Paul's version of Christ matched up very poorly with the Gospels; and really no two of *them* were as consistent as a supposedly inerrant book (which was what Southern Baptists thought of the KJV) should have been. Though that inconsistency wasn't the only reason I eventually rejected the Bible as a worthy guide to life and history, it was something I recall discussing back then.

I do rather wish I had encountered the mythicist hypothesis before I took a 'New Testament as Literature' course at Ga. Tech, in 1976. I'm sure I could have freaked out the many Christians in that course even worse than I actually did- for some of them I was the first 'out' atheist they had ever met, and there were a few instances where the professor had to put the brakes on in-class discussions which were getting too heated and personal.

I understand that, amongst the pastoring types, seminary attendance is the major source of loss of faith. It fits well with my understanding that a thorough and critical reading of the scriptures will alienate any sensilble civilized mind. Thus, I encourage it.