Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

From the Intro to the book:

An Iraqi scholar, Ibn Ishaq (c. 760), wrote a book that is the basis of all biographies of Muhammad. No biographical sketches of Muhammad exist that do not depend on Ibn Ishaq. If an analysis of Ibn Ishaq's book establishes that for whatever reason it cannot be seen as a historical source, all knowledge we possess about Muhammad evaporates. When Ibn Ishaq's much-quoted and popular book turns out to be nothing but pious fiction, we will have to accept that it is not likely we will ever discover the truth about Muhammad. Next to Ibn Ishaq, the Qur'an itself looks like reasonably reliable testimony about Muhammad and his career. But we run into trouble when we want to reconstruct Muhammad's life and teachings from the Qur'an, for the book as we know it today may not be an authentic reproduction of an Arabic text dictated to Muhammad in the early seventh century. There are reasons to believe that the Qur'an took its present shape not in the seventh century but later or even much later. The Arabic alphabet in which the Qur'an is written did not yet exist in the early seventh century, so it is improbable that Muhammad's secretaries, if brought back to life, would be able to recognize a modern edition of the Qur'an as part of the holy text that was dictated to them in fragments during Muhammad's lifetime—that is, if such dictation occurred. The collections of Islamic traditions known as the Hadith form the third source from which Muhammad's life may be reconstructed. The Hadith are actually not one source but rather a group of sources, of unequal quality. Some of the traditions are unreliable even according to Muslim scholarly opinion. Muslim scribes and scholars accuse some of the transmitters of this material of fabricating their stories. It is perfectly possible to fabricate stories about real persons (see any newspaper, or Facebook), but to form a picture of the life of someone as eminent as Muhammad, one would rather not make use of stories that may have been fabricated.

To find out the truth about Richard Nixon was difficult, and it would have been impossible without the tapes. In the case of Muhammad, there are no tapes. There is not much at all. There actually is so little that the gravest suspicions are justified.

--Johannes J. G. Jansen

Spencer, Robert. Did Muhammad Exist?: An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins

This is not what I was looking for but I found it first.  I'll continue researching.

Now let's just educate Mr. Spencer ...

Archaeological Evidence:

Practitioners of Islam first entered Somalia in the northwestern city of Zeila during prophet Muhammad's lifetime whereupon they built the Labo-qibla mosque.

Islam was introduced to the northern Somali coast early on from the Arabian peninsula, shortly after the hijra. Zeila's two-mihrab Masjid al-Qiblatayn dates to the 7th century, and is the oldest mosque in the city

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Somalia

Textual Evidence:

In the late 9th century, Al-Yaqubi wrote that Muslims were living along the northern Somali seaboard. He also mentioned that the Adal kingdom had its capital in the city, suggesting that the Adal Sultanate with Zeila as its headquarters dates back to at least the 9th or 10th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Somalia

So ... you know?

What does Robert Spencer know?

[Minimalist]

Ah, this is more like it:

But with Muhammad held up as an exemplar, the Hadith became political weapons in the hands of warring factions within the Islamic world. And as is always the case with weapons in wartime, they began to be manufactured wholesale. The early Islamic scholar Muhammad ibn Shihab az-Zuhri, who died in 741, sixty years before the death of Malik ibn Anas, complained even in his day that the “emirs forced people to write hadiths.”17 Even the caliph al-Mahdi (775–785) was known as someone who fabricated hadiths.18

Spencer, Robert. Did Muhammad Exist?:

Not too different from when xhristard "bishops" needed an authority to tell their congregations to shut the fuck up and do what they were told..... so they wrote a bunch of shit from this "paul" character.

[Alan V]

Why does Minimalist think historical Muslims are liars? The simplest explanation is that there was a lot of confusion back then because of lack of good recorded information, and different groups fell out with each other over their preferred interpretations.

[Free]

Why does Minimalist think historical Muslims are liars?  The simplest explanation is that there was a lot of confusion back then because of lack of good recorded information, and different groups fell out with each other over their preferred interpretations.

Well ... don't you know? 

"No religious leader is permitted to exist under any circumstances and if any evidence to the contrary is ever presented we must, by necessity, ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist either!!!"

Denialism:

"In the psychology of human behavior, denialism is a person's choice to deny reality as a way to avoid a psychologically uncomfortable truth. Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

In short, it's a sickness and he can't help himself.

[Phaedrus]

Five reasons to suspect Jesus never existed

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

[Minimalist]

Why does Minimalist think historical Muslims are liars?  The simplest explanation is that there was a lot of confusion back then because of lack of good recorded information, and different groups fell out with each other over their preferred interpretations.

For the same reason I think historical jesus freaks are liars.  They were pushing an agenda designed to make them the top dogs and fuck everyone else.

Today, we call that republicuntism.

[Free]

Five reasons to suspect Jesus never existed

1. No first century secular evidence whatsoever exists to support the actuality of Yeshua ben Yosef.

No such thing as true secular in the 1st century in that environment. Everything we read, including the work of ancient historians, has a religious slant to it.

2. The earliest New Testament writers seem ignorant of the details of Jesus’ life, which become more crystalized in later texts.

That would be Paul. He was a con artist who tried to cash in on what the actual apostles were doing in Jerusalem, but they thought he was a dork and kicked him to the curb. So he took the little he did know about Jesus and created a fucking cult.

3. Even the New Testament stories don’t claim to be first-hand accounts.

That's because they're not.

4. The gospels, our only accounts of a historical Jesus, contradict each other.

They are not our only accounts. And of course they contradict each other, and also have different things. But the commonality between them all is ... Jesus who was called Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate, a consistent theme we find in multiple other sources.

5. Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real historical Jesus depict wildly different persons.

They have a thesis, not guaranteed to be historical.

[Minimalist]

Here’s an example of the kind of stuff that Free and his theological pals set their stock in.
 
Saint Scrotumsniffer of Ephesos once wrote that he spoke to one of the lesser apostles, Schlomo bar Schlemiel who told him that not only did Iesou Chresto feed the multitude but instead of bread he served hot, cinnamon raisin bagels with cream cheese.  We don’t actually have the account of Saint Scrotumsniffer but his story was written down by Saint Anus Sextus in his book, Horseshitticus Ecclesiastica.  Sadly, that work also no longer survives but we are assured by the famed church propagandist, Eusebius, that he once read it and why should we doubt him?

Why indeed!

[mordant]

Why does Minimalist think historical Muslims are liars?  The simplest explanation is that there was a lot of confusion back then because of lack of good recorded information, and different groups fell out with each other over their preferred interpretations.

I don't know if I would assume they are outright lying, but it would be my default assumption that they are at least ignoring inconvenient truths, because it's what the religious do. They don't allow fact to contradict dogma, ever. That is rule #1.

Beyond my default assumption, it is illogical to assume they are telling the truth, as Free does.

[Alan V]

Why does Minimalist think historical Muslims are liars?  The simplest explanation is that there was a lot of confusion back then because of lack of good recorded information, and different groups fell out with each other over their preferred interpretations.

I don't know if I would assume they are outright lying, but it would be my default assumption that they are at least ignoring inconvenient truths, because it's what the religious do. They don't allow fact to contradict dogma, ever. That is rule #1.

Beyond my default assumption, it is illogical to assume they are telling the truth, as Free does.

Off the top of my head, I thought of one Hadith which reported Muhammad's young wife challenging one of his revelations:

https://sunnah.com/muslim/17/64

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: "I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this: 'You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)' (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire."

[mordant]

Off the top of my head, I thought of one Hadith which reported Muhammad's young wife challenging one of his revelations:

https://sunnah.com/muslim/17/64

'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported: "I felt jealous of the women who offered themselves to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). Then when Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, revealed this: 'You may defer any one of them you wish, and take to yourself any you wish; and if you desire any you have set aside (no sin is chargeable to you)' (xxxiii. 51), I ('A'isha.) said: It seems to me that your Lord hastens to satisfy your desire."

I do not contend that they never go out on a limb. They are, after all, commentaries, from different and sometimes competing sources. However ... you can take it to the bank that they won't go very far out, very often. And I am not picking on religious sources. One must always consider the source, whatever it may be.

[Free]

Beyond my default assumption, it is illogical to assume they are telling the truth, as Free does.

"Truth" is not my position. My position is, and always has been, the best argument to explain the evidence. 

And actually, it's far more illogical to assume that multiple sources that transcend the 3 different cultures involved are not telling the truth. When you have a collective of intelligence in which you have a consensus it can be compared to multiple witnesses at a hearing. Thereby, the truth value of the proposition increases substantially when you have a+b+c+d+e.

The truth will never be known, therefore the best you can do is approximate it as best as possible according to all available information.

[Minimalist]

"Truth" is not my position. My position is, and always has been, the best argument to explain the evidence.

As long as you don't have to think outside your comfort zone.  There is nothing scary out there.  None of this shit is real.  No one ever learned anything by saying "I know I'm right and I don't have to think anymore."

[Phaedrus]

The truth may never be known eventually becomes indistinguishable from its apparent non-existence.

[Free]

The truth may never be known eventually becomes indistinguishable from its apparent non-existence.

That's because there is a difference between situations where the truth can only be approximated and situations where it is axiomatic.

[Free]

"Truth" is not my position. My position is, and always has been, the best argument to explain the evidence.

As long as you don't have to think outside your comfort zone.  There is nothing scary out there.  None of this shit is real.  No one ever learned anything by saying "I know I'm right and I don't have to think anymore."

That's the difference between you and me. My only claim here is the argument for historicity is better than non historicity.

But you make a positive claim of truth with "Jesus didn't exist," a claim of absolute knowledge.

[NorthernBen]

Who cares if someone known by some as Jesus was knocking around some backwater 2000 years ago? Even if we could prove that he did exist and could link him 100% to the bible scribblings, so what? Nothing changes.

 In other words, in 2000 years time, only idiots will believe that David Blaine actually walked on water.

[mordant]

Beyond my default assumption, it is illogical to assume they are telling the truth, as Free does.

"Truth" is not my position. My position is, and always has been, the best argument to explain the evidence. 

And actually, it's far more illogical to assume that multiple sources that transcend the 3 different cultures involved are not telling the truth. When you have a collective of intelligence in which you have a consensus it can be compared to multiple witnesses at a hearing. Thereby, the truth value of the proposition increases substantially when you have a+b+c+d+e.

It is more like a+b+c+d+e-f-g-h-i (5 bits of evidence for, 4 against, from a paucity of evidence given the consequentiality of the question).

You are arguing for preponderance of available evidence, but in my view you're ignoring the limitations of that process, which is that sometimes the best judgment is to say, we simply don't have enough information to know what is real. If the historical perspective leans toward, e.g., Mohammed's tomb being what it is claimed to be, or the Biblical Jesus having some sort of foundation in a real, historical Jesus, well and good. But in both cases, we don't KNOW. And it is highly unlikely that we ever will, unless some really ironclad bombshell bit of evidence surfaces to help us out.

What is left, is that the sources for Bible Jesus and Dead Mohammed's resting place, are primarily sectarian and in our experience as a species that is, -- well, let's just say, "less than objective", so I can't see how a skeptic cannot diverge from some historian's specialist view in these cases. We skeptics need more certainty than that to hold a view.

I hasten to add, my view is NOT that there wasn't, or couldn't be, a historic Jesus or that Mohammed isn't, or couldn't be, buried in his alleged tomb. I simply don't have enough information to stake a knowledge claim concerning it; and absent that, it's hard to form any beliefs about it.

[Free]

Beyond my default assumption, it is illogical to assume they are telling the truth, as Free does.

"Truth" is not my position. My position is, and always has been, the best argument to explain the evidence. 

And actually, it's far more illogical to assume that multiple sources that transcend the 3 different cultures involved are not telling the truth. When you have a collective of intelligence in which you have a consensus it can be compared to multiple witnesses at a hearing. Thereby, the truth value of the proposition increases substantially when you have a+b+c+d+e.

It is more like a+b+c+d+e-f-g-h-i (5 bits of evidence for, 4 against, from a paucity of evidence given the consequentiality of the question).

You are arguing for preponderance of available evidence, but in my view you're ignoring the limitations of that process, which is that sometimes the best judgment is to say, we simply don't have enough information to know what is real. If the historical perspective leans toward, e.g., Mohammed's tomb being what it is claimed to be, or the Biblical Jesus having some sort of foundation in a real, historical Jesus, well and good. But in both cases, we don't KNOW. And it is highly unlikely that we ever will, unless some really ironclad bombshell bit of evidence surfaces to help us out.

What is left, is that the sources for Bible Jesus and Dead Mohammed's resting place, are primarily sectarian and in our experience as a species that is, -- well, let's just say, "less than objective", so I can't see how a skeptic cannot diverge from some historian's specialist view in these cases. We skeptics need more certainty than that to hold a view.

I hasten to add, my view is NOT that there wasn't, or couldn't be, a historic Jesus or that Mohammed isn't, or couldn't be, buried in his alleged tomb. I simply don't have enough information to stake a knowledge claim concerning it; and absent that, it's hard to form any beliefs about it.

Contrary to your assertion, the argument against historicity has absolutely no direct evidence at all.

If you think it does, please present your -f+g+h+I.

The floor is yours. I can wait. Take all the time you need.

[mordant]

"Truth" is not my position. My position is, and always has been, the best argument to explain the evidence. 

And actually, it's far more illogical to assume that multiple sources that transcend the 3 different cultures involved are not telling the truth. When you have a collective of intelligence in which you have a consensus it can be compared to multiple witnesses at a hearing. Thereby, the truth value of the proposition increases substantially when you have a+b+c+d+e.

It is more like a+b+c+d+e-f-g-h-i (5 bits of evidence for, 4 against, from a paucity of evidence given the consequentiality of the question).

You are arguing for preponderance of available evidence, but in my view you're ignoring the limitations of that process, which is that sometimes the best judgment is to say, we simply don't have enough information to know what is real. If the historical perspective leans toward, e.g., Mohammed's tomb being what it is claimed to be, or the Biblical Jesus having some sort of foundation in a real, historical Jesus, well and good. But in both cases, we don't KNOW. And it is highly unlikely that we ever will, unless some really ironclad bombshell bit of evidence surfaces to help us out.

What is left, is that the sources for Bible Jesus and Dead Mohammed's resting place, are primarily sectarian and in our experience as a species that is, -- well, let's just say, "less than objective", so I can't see how a skeptic cannot diverge from some historian's specialist view in these cases. We skeptics need more certainty than that to hold a view.

I hasten to add, my view is NOT that there wasn't, or couldn't be, a historic Jesus or that Mohammed isn't, or couldn't be, buried in his alleged tomb. I simply don't have enough information to stake a knowledge claim concerning it; and absent that, it's hard to form any beliefs about it.

Contrary to your assertion, the argument against historicity has absolutely no direct evidence at all.

If you think it does, please present your -f+g+h+I.

The floor is yours. I can wait. Take all the time you need.

Nope, not taking the bait. Everyone here has presented their evidence already, and it's pretty clear the lines are drawn and anyone who is persuadable has already been persuaded one way or the other. I do not see direct evidence either way, and it's irrelevant in any case -- a historical Jesus-founder does not make the patent nonsense of Christianity more coherent or less harmful, or change my views on that belief system.

[Free]

It is more like a+b+c+d+e-f-g-h-i (5 bits of evidence for, 4 against, from a paucity of evidence given the consequentiality of the question).

You are arguing for preponderance of available evidence, but in my view you're ignoring the limitations of that process, which is that sometimes the best judgment is to say, we simply don't have enough information to know what is real. If the historical perspective leans toward, e.g., Mohammed's tomb being what it is claimed to be, or the Biblical Jesus having some sort of foundation in a real, historical Jesus, well and good. But in both cases, we don't KNOW. And it is highly unlikely that we ever will, unless some really ironclad bombshell bit of evidence surfaces to help us out.

What is left, is that the sources for Bible Jesus and Dead Mohammed's resting place, are primarily sectarian and in our experience as a species that is, -- well, let's just say, "less than objective", so I can't see how a skeptic cannot diverge from some historian's specialist view in these cases. We skeptics need more certainty than that to hold a view.

I hasten to add, my view is NOT that there wasn't, or couldn't be, a historic Jesus or that Mohammed isn't, or couldn't be, buried in his alleged tomb. I simply don't have enough information to stake a knowledge claim concerning it; and absent that, it's hard to form any beliefs about it.

Contrary to your assertion, the argument against historicity has absolutely no direct evidence at all.

If you think it does, please present your -f+g+h+I.

The floor is yours. I can wait. Take all the time you need.

Nope, not taking the bait. Everyone here has presented their evidence already, and it's pretty clear the lines are drawn and anyone who is persuadable has already been persuaded one way or the other. I do not see direct evidence either way, and it's irrelevant in any case -- a historical Jesus-founder does not make the patent nonsense of Christianity more coherent or less harmful, or change my views on that belief system.

Correction.

No one has supplied any evidence at all contesting the historicity argument. None.

So there's that.

[Cavebear]

Beyond my default assumption, it is illogical to assume they are telling the truth, as Free does.

"Truth" is not my position. My position is, and always has been, the best argument to explain the evidence. 

And actually, it's far more illogical to assume that multiple sources that transcend the 3 different cultures involved are not telling the truth. When you have a collective of intelligence in which you have a consensus it can be compared to multiple witnesses at a hearing. Thereby, the truth value of the proposition increases substantially when you have a+b+c+d+e.

The truth will never be known, therefore the best you can do is approximate it as best as possible according to all available information.

Your assumption that the claims of the various monotheistic religions are "evidence" is the fault in your presentation.

[Aractus]

I have discovered something through redaction criticism that has never been asked in NT critical studies, at least not academically by biblical scholars. For sufficient background you will need to read the following papers:

• Busch, A. (2008, November). Resurrection in Mark—or Not. *In SBL annual meeting, Boston* (Vol. 22). http://home.nwciowa.edu/wacome/AustinBusch.pdf
  
• Scroggs, R., & Groff, K. I. (1973). Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ. *JBL, 92*(4), 531-548.
  
• Spong, J. S. (2009). Challenging Biblical fundamentalism by seeking the influence of the synagogue in the formation of the synoptic gospels. *Verbum et Ecclesia, 30*(1), 243-259. http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/vee/v30n1/12.pdf
  

And ideally this one as well:

• Miller, R. C. (2010). Mark's Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity. *JBL, 129*(4), 759-776.
  

Just use Sci-Hub if needed to access the ones without links.

What's under question here is Mark's passion tradition through to the end. So v.14:1-16:8. The above 5 scholars all address problems with the narrative through the lens of redaction criticism. I.e. what is the purpose of this.

What we see from the above analysis is that much of the narrative is pure theatrics, theologically employed by the writer. The problem of the young man character is effectively solved by Scroggs & Groff 1973, their analysis is remarkable. Busch adds a different perspective that also helps to understand the narrative. Put simply this is not a person from history, Mark's νεανίσκος (young man) is a theologically created character that plays an integral role in the crucifixion and resurrection narrative in Mark. He first shows up immediately after all the followers of Jesus have deserted him, as he has predicted they will do three times, despite his command in v.8:34-38. Then he deserts Jesus in a way taken straight out of Amos 2. He leaves behind his σινδών (linen cloth) as he flees away naked. This is the same word used later for the burial shroud of Jesus. Yet this deserter later appears in the tomb, sitting calmly, clothed in white and announcing the resurrection to anyone who passes by (Mk 16:5-7).

Christians for over two millennia have read this as history, and mostly though the lens of Matthew which they thought was written first. In Matthew the young man's desertion is removed, and he no longer appears in the tomb either being replaced by an angel. Even today scholars look at Mark 16:5-7, the episode where the character re-appears, and take him to be an angel.

For our purposes here all you need to know is that the νεανίσκος is the same in both verses, there is no other anonymous νεανίσκος in Mark. So the fact that there is a connection has been long known, but what it was wasn't solved until Scroggs & Groff. Many scholars are not at all motivated to accept their solution, indeed as Miller 2010 writes:

"Struggling under the weight of contemporary, socioreligious demands, pre­vailing scholarship regarding Marks enigmatic ending may prove nothing short of delusional."

That's the very first sentence of that paper. Scroggs & Groff show, effectively, that the νεανίσκος participates in the death and resurrection of Jesus through the imagery of the ritual of baptism. Busch also notes that a deserter has no authority to announce the resurrection, and his shameful act was described in the "harshest terms imaginable". Yet there he is, sitting in the tomb, fully restored. This is not a character from history, it's a fictional character there to represent present-day followers, someone they can identify with since they were not disciples and never met Jesus. It conveys the meaning the death and resurrection of Christ is for them.

Now onto my discovery. I want to make sense of two things. First why does Mark have Jesus buried by one of the Sanhedrin that just participated in having him crucified (v.14:64), literally earlier that same day? And why do the women at the end "tell no one"? All three other gospels have redacted the Markan tradition to remove both of those problems. Just like they did with the character of the young man.

I believe the answer is simple. Mark's tradition, that he built his narrative upon, had Jesus buried by the Jews in a tomb. That tradition is found in Acts 13:29:

When they had carried out everything that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.

He may not have had it in exactly that form (Acts is written much later, obviously), but it must have been very similar. Mark's gospel is the only one that does not contradict this tradition. That's why he has an enemy bury Jesus. That's why he can't have the women participate in the burial.

What it means is that it seems to me to be very likely that Mark started out with what you see above in Acts 13:29, and everything else you see attached to the burial has been redacted theologically into the story, with the result being that Mark has created a theatrical narrative. The character of Joseph of Arimathea who, for some reason, has his family tomb in Jerusalem instead of in Arimathea. The tomb itself. The women who intend to anoint an already buried corpse. The young man announcing the resurrection in the "empty" tomb (Mark doesn't say the tomb is empty BTW as Busch effectively argues Mark intentionally leaves room for doubt that a resurrection occurred, he's not an apologist and somewhat mislabelled as an "evangelist").

We already know why the women fail, their failures are the same as when the men deserted Jesus in Mk 14:50-52. The whole of the female following was there watching Jesus die (Mk 15:40-41), then none of them help with the burial at all. Then when one of the people who had condemned him, taken him to Pilate to be crucified, comes and takes the body - the three women (two Mary's and Salome) follow and watch, but don't help. The rest of the women are now gone, they've deserted Christ. Then finally when the three women are given the message by the young man, they run away and fail to deliver that message to the disciples, failing him once again.

[mordant]

I have discovered something through redaction criticism that has never been asked in NT critical studies, at least not academically by biblical scholars. For sufficient background you will need to read the following papers:

• Busch, A. (2008, November). Resurrection in Mark—or Not. *In SBL annual meeting, Boston* (Vol. 22). http://home.nwciowa.edu/wacome/AustinBusch.pdf
  
• Scroggs, R., & Groff, K. I. (1973). Baptism in Mark: Dying and Rising with Christ. *JBL, 92*(4), 531-548.
  
• Spong, J. S. (2009). Challenging Biblical fundamentalism by seeking the influence of the synagogue in the formation of the synoptic gospels. *Verbum et Ecclesia, 30*(1), 243-259. http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/vee/v30n1/12.pdf
  

And ideally this one as well:

• Miller, R. C. (2010). Mark's Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity. *JBL, 129*(4), 759-776.
  

Just use Sci-Hub if needed to access the ones without links.

What's under question here is Mark's passion tradition through to the end. So v.14:1-16:8. The above 5 scholars all address problems with the narrative through the lens of redaction criticism. I.e. what is the purpose of this.

This whole thread isn't about the fabulist mythos of the Jesus in the gospels, but whether there was a real human by that name who either originated Christianity or upon which it is based by others. That question can't really be answered by an appeal to the subsequent mythos, other than the weak argument that a myth must have some basis in reality, especially if it has been an enduring one (hint: no, it does not have to have the slightest basis in reality).

Still, this line of thinking is very interesting indeed, as it has the courage to evaluate the gospel record skeptically rather than being hobbled by some sort of theological obligation to accepted dogma.

[Aractus]

I have shown, I believe, through redaction criticism that Mark 15:42-16:8 is based on an existing burial tradition (Acts 13:29). This provides an answer to the question "how much history is in that narrative".

It also answers other questions. As Miller 2010 demonstrates it's a typical Hellenistic/Roman translation fable. Which means here Mark is envisioning that Christ has been translated and achieved divinity. The Marcan Christ in his ministry is human. Of course he is, that's why they call it the passion! Unlike Luke who has a passionless-passion. This answers another question - the transfiguration episode (Mk 9:2-8). Mark wants to describe the translated Christ, but he can't do it at the end of his gospel, so he brings it in earlier. This too is based on an existing tradition, something similar to Acts 10:43 probably. Mark is much more theologically advanced than he's given credit for, he shows full knowledge of the christophanies but declines to include any because he wants to end on the climax of the translation of Christ.