Gamaliel Never Existed

[Minimalist]

I have an electronic version of it. If you'd like, PM me an email address and I'll send it to you.

He does deal with this whole question of the "proto-orthodox" re-writing history because they were the eventual winners over the gnostic groups.

In his field, the jesus myth position is like a 3d rail. Much like "Atlantis" in archaeology, anyone who espouses either theory is reduced to the status of crackpot by the establishment. These guys, after all, have a financial interest in maintaining the jesus story for the dolts. The fact that Ehrman could not come up with any actual evidence either for his position suggested to me that he was merely going along with the herd.

[DeistPaladin]

I like your version DeistPaladin, except for the fact that you refer to a number of things and people for which there simply isn't any good evidence. You refer to these "early Hebrew books", when there is simply no evidence that they existed until the second century BCE.

I refer to the apparent progression of Jewish theology. The "early" books, the Torah, suggested there is no afterlife. This view is echoed in some of the Psalms and Lamentations. Later Jewish theology seemed to entertain the idea of an afterlife, such as when King Saul summons the ghost of Samuel.

And I am aware of no contemporaneous accounts for "Marcion's" life.

Using the principle of ECREE and considering the sociological forces that shape folklore, I hold the possible existence of demigods and folk heroes (Hercules, Jesus, Romulus, Beowulf, etc.) to a different standard than mundane-though-perhaps-talented mortals who may have been influential in some field (Socrates, Plato, Julius Caesar, etc.). There is a process by which parables and folk tales can morph into "this really happened" tales, where figures of the dreams of a culture become real people of history. Such sociological forces aren't known to create talented but natural mortal figures in history, like Plato. ECREE also works here. I see no inconsistency that I take Plato at face value as a figure of history but demand a higher standard of evidence for putting supernatural beings into history.

A strong point in your version is the bit about the Christians rewriting history. I think this line of enquiry has a lot of potential. If there was a complete rewriting of 1st century history to make room for their "Jesus" character (or characters), an interesting question arises for consideration:

What rewrite was even needed? Other than to gloss over the variance of Christianities (dismissing them as schismatics and heretics) and insist that mythology is a historical account of a real person, what else needed to be rewritten?

after Bart came out as saying that Jesus existed I've been very put off from reading his work

Sometimes people can have strange beliefs in one field but have a lot to offer in another. Sir Issac Newton had truly wacky beliefs about alchemy, numerology and his own brand of Christianity. None of that takes away from his authority in physics. Be careful about "poisoning the well".

[Minimalist]

"He ["Jesus"] could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them." Mark 6:5

You do need to read the whole section there, Nimz. That's the bit about a prophet getting no honor in his hometown. Besides, "Mark" let's him do a few healings anyway just to show he hasn't lost his touch.

Besides, there are bigger problems with "Mark" than that....like there being no resurrection at the original ending!

[Nimzo]

I have an electronic version of it. If you'd like, PM me an email address and I'll send it to you.

No thanks. Any "scholar" who has seriously looked into the sources would never come to the conclusion that Jesus was anything but a fairy tale.

He does deal with this whole question of the "proto-orthodox" re-writing history because they were the eventual winners over the gnostic groups.

How much rewriting is he willing to admit from his conservative anti-skeptical position?

In his field, the jesus myth position is like a 3d rail. Much like "Atlantis" in archaeology, anyone who espouses either theory is reduced to the status of crackpot by the establishment. These guys, after all, have a financial interest in maintaining the jesus story for the dolts. The fact that Ehrman could not come up with any actual evidence either for his position suggested to me that he was merely going along with the herd.

I agree. In fact more than that; I suspect that there is a lot of peer pressure in "Historical Jesus" circles just so that these "scholars" can have a subject to study!

[Minimalist]

How much rewriting is he willing to admit from his conservative anti-skeptical position?

Quite a bit, actually. Then there is his new book....


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Forged/...0062012616

Which promises to piss off fundies endlessly.

[Nimzo]

You do need to read the whole section there, Nimz. That's the bit about a prophet getting no honor in his hometown. Besides, "Mark" let's him do a few healings anyway just to show he hasn't lost his touch.

I still think that the "Criterion of Embarrassment" would apply - remember that "Mark" is writing a fictional story to show that "Jesus" is a Jewish version of a dying and rising sun-god. Having him fail to do miracles would appear to be, prima facie, embarrassing material. But this just shows that the Criterion of Embarrassment is not a helpful historical tool. It is obvious that "Mark" is setting up "Jesus'" hometown as a foil for his "real home" in heaven. Hence, his hometown don't trust him (cf. Mark 10:20 where Jesus commends those who have "left home") - but in Jerusalem he gets a flippin' parade!

Besides, there are bigger problems with "Mark" than that....like there being no resurrection at the original ending!

Textually that seems unlikely - obviously Mark 16:9-20 is a later addition, but it seems pretty unlikely (grammatically) that "Mark's" original story would end at verse 8. Remember that "Mark" has "Jesus" prophecy his own resurrection, and the whole point of the gospel is that Jesus is a dying and rising figure. Think about it - if there's no resurrection story in "Mark", then "Mark" must be setting "Jesus" up as something else. But we know that "Mark's" "Jesus" is a sun-god - so the original must have had some kind of Resurrection story, fulfilling the "prophecies".

Then there is his new book....

From the reviews it sounds like Ehrman thinks "Paul" wrote Romans! I mean, how pathetic can you get!

---

I refer to the apparent progression of Jewish theology.

Reffering to appearances is very slippery. Creationists appeal to the "appearance of design" all the time. The fact is that there is no such progression in the manuscripts we actually have - they are all 2nd century, and there is no evidence that they ever existed before that.

Using the principle of ECREE

This is another principle I find hard to understand - there is nothing remarkable about "Gamaliel" either, but he obviously didn't exist. ECREE assumes that unremarkable characters would not be created by Christian forgers - an assumption which is plainly false.

What rewrite was even needed? Other than to gloss over the variance of Christianities (dismissing them as schismatics and heretics) and insist that mythology is a historical account of a real person, what else needed to be rewritten?

There are no contemporaneous accounts that "Josephus" actually existed. All we know about "Josephus" comes from writings said to be written by him! We already know that Christian forgers were extremely skilled, able to create characters out of whole cloth and impose them on the naive. Do you think it is a coincidence that we find John the Baptist and Ananias and Caiaphas in his writings? And what about Pontius Pilate, another figure who only appears in sources known to be tampered with by Christians? The whole thing smells of rotten fish.

Sometimes people can have strange beliefs in one field but have a lot to offer in another. Sir Issac Newton had truly wacky beliefs about alchemy, numerology and his own brand of Christianity. None of that takes away from his authority in physics. Be careful about "poisoning the well".

The obvious difference is the Ehrman is a scholar and writer about the "Historical Jesus" - he has a whole book on the thing! It's not like he spends most of his time studying cosmology, and only does Christian Origins study in his spare time! You'd think that a scholar of any worth whose job was to study the existence of "Jesus" would realise that "Jesus" never existed at all! What a waste of space.

[Minimalist]

I agree that Criteria of Embarrassment has to be applied with caution but that does not discredit it. In far too many cases people apply it in the sense of "I would be embarrassed to write this" instead of "what would an author writing 1500 to 2500 years ago think?" Example: I often hear fundies proclaim that the exodus MUST be true because who would make up a story about being slaves? However, put in in the context of a time when there actually were slaves and the plot line becomes obvious. Even "slaves" can defeat mighty armies with 'god's' help.

Let's be honest, xtians were not embarrassed to write about a giant, talking cross coming out of the fucking tomb so it would take quite a lot to embarrass those shitheads.

[Nimzo]

I agree that Criteria of Embarrassment has to be applied with caution but that does not discredit it. In far too many cases people apply it in the sense of "I would be embarrassed to write this" instead of "what would an author writing 1500 to 2500 years ago think?" Example: I often hear fundies proclaim that the exodus MUST be true because who would make up a story about being slaves? However, put in in the context of a time when there actually were slaves and the plot line becomes obvious. Even "slaves" can defeat mighty armies with 'god's' help.

Let's be honest, xtians were not embarrassed to write about a giant, talking cross coming out of the fucking tomb so it would take quite a lot to embarrass those shitheads.

I did exactly as you described - I talked about why "Mark", given his intentions for the gospel, should have written the verse differently given the aims of what he was trying to achieve. He is trying to sell/impose "Jesus" as the ultimate sun-god even more powerful than the pagan ones, but appears to imply that he did not have the power to do something. All appearances suggest that this would be embarrassing to his story - the problem is, that we know that appearances are deceiving (precisely because "Mark's" gospel-fiction is pure deceit through-and-through!). Your example of the Exodus is yet another example where the criterion falls through. Jews and Christians were deceiving people all over the place - and they new how to make something appear historical when really it isn't. The criterion is intrinsically unreliable precisely because it relies on appearances and guesswork about the authors feelings. I say chuck the criterion and just stick to the hard evidence.

[Minimalist]

He is trying to sell/impose "Jesus" as the ultimate sun-god

Yes, indeed. He then proceeds to the bullshit story about feeding the multitude just to show that his boy still had his touch. I won't pretend to know what point the author was making with that story about jesus getting run out of "Nazareth." Maybe it was just his way of moving out onto a bigger stage as a plot device?

I also disagree about exodus. The purpose of that bit of bullshit is crystal clear.

[Nimzo]

At this point, I think I'd better come clean so that those people who have been reading this thread see the point of it. I do not believe almost anything of the posts I have written in this thread - the OP (and subsequent posts) was intended to be a parody of the kind of arguments people use against the existence of Jesus and Paul. My posts contain numerous claims to knowledge which are unsubstantiated, a methodology which could bring about doubt about the existence of almost any figure in the first century, and take for granted certain rarely-held historical positions about sources which are entirely unsupported. I have provided a just-so story of how it could be possible that all of first century history was rewritten by Christian and Jewish forgers - a story which no positive evidence for it whatsoever, relying on inferences which take the available evidence out of all proportion.