Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[Free]

In all fairness we don't really have any original copies of anything from antiquity. And besides, how would ever know that Paul was the one who put the pen to the parchment? Or anyone else for that matter?

I think that expectation is untenable, and beyond anything reasonable.

We know much from antiquity.  I offer this LINK

But regarding Christian documentation, there is none documented from the time of the alleged Christ.  Most is written decades or a century later at best.

Given the detailed writings of Romans and the records of the legions, the lack of mention of "Jesus" is informative.

You're making the same mistake many make, and I will demonstrate that by asking you a question.

Why should we expect that the Romans would have any detailed records at all about some obscure Jew named Jesus who was crucified in Judea?

[Bucky Ball]

We know much from antiquity.  I offer this LINK

But regarding Christian documentation, there is none documented from the time of the alleged Christ.  Most is written decades or a century later at best.

Given the detailed writings of Romans and the records of the legions, the lack of mention of "Jesus" is informative.

You're making the same mistake many make, and I will demonstrate that by asking you a question.

Why should we expect that the Romans would have any detailed records at all about some obscure Jew named Jesus who was crucified in Judea?

I tend to agree with that.
The Romans in general had a policy of remailing out of the local religious squabbles in the provinces.
Trouble-makers in the provinces during the Pax Romana were summarily executed, by standing order, with no trial, then tossed into a common grave.
In my opinion, the only reason anyone heard about a "Jesus of Nazareth" was not because of "himself", but because various groups of believers had arisen with various and diverse beliefs about him. The reason they heard about him was not that he was any different from the other preachers and miracle workers, but because for some reason, the Way sect found his "persona" consistent with what they were waiting for. There were no different reasons to believe he was any different than any of the others thought to be messiah pretenders.

[Minimalist]

We know much from antiquity.  I offer this LINK

But regarding Christian documentation, there is none documented from the time of the alleged Christ.  Most is written decades or a century later at best.

Given the detailed writings of Romans and the records of the legions, the lack of mention of "Jesus" is informative.

You're making the same mistake many make, and I will demonstrate that by asking you a question.

Why should we expect that the Romans would have any detailed records at all about some obscure Jew named Jesus who was crucified in Judea?

Again we agree, sort of.  Frankly I think the Romans knew fuckall about jesus because he did not exist until he was invented sometime in the 2d century.

[jimhabegger]

Again we agree, sort of.  Frankly I think the Romans knew fuckall about jesus because he did not exist until he was invented sometime in the 2d century.

I'm thinking that maybe I agree with you, sort of. 

[Rhythmcs]

In fact.....that it was seen as a successful prophecy, is, itself, an argument for placing the narratives construction after the temples destruction.

Where in the synoptics is the temple’s destruction seen as a successful prophecy?

It's a story Jim, it's seen that way...by the reader.  Intentionally so.

[Inkubus]

You're making the same mistake many make, and I will demonstrate that by asking you a question.

Why should we expect that the Romans would have any detailed records at all about some obscure Jew named Jesus who was crucified in Judea?

Tell me again about Tacitus, Jesus and Roman records.

[Minimalist]

Tacitus never heard of "jesus."


Someone did mention some shithead named "christos" to him.... unless that is a forgery in which case all he heard of was "chrestos."

[jimhabegger]

deleted

[Free]

You're making the same mistake many make, and I will demonstrate that by asking you a question.

Why should we expect that the Romans would have any detailed records at all about some obscure Jew named Jesus who was crucified in Judea?

Again we agree, sort of.  Frankly I think the Romans knew fuckall about jesus because he did not exist until he was invented sometime in the 2d century.

All the Romans knew was that Pontius Pilate executed someone called Christ during the reign of Tiberias, and from that we got the Christians. They never knew anyone named Jesus, since the name "Jesus" was not likely well and widespread translated from the Hebrew to the Greek. But Christ was an interpretation of Messiah, and a word the Romans already understood.

[Minimalist]

You're making apologies for them again.

[Free]

You're making apologies for them again.

Hardly an apology. Just stating what should be obvious to us all. 

The Romans were the conquerors. The conquerors do not bow down to the conquered to adopt and/or respect their traditions or language. The Romans did not learn Hebrew, but many Jews learned to read and write Greek and Latin. It would be up to the Jews to translate names/titles etc. for the Romans. Titles would be easy since they can be easily compared between cultures, such as Messiah to Christ. 

But how do you translate a name such as Yeshua? It's far more easier for the Romans to remember a title such as Christ than it would be to remember a name such as Yeshua, especially since the title of Christ was already understood and already in the lexicon.

[Bucky Ball]

Again we agree, sort of.  Frankly I think the Romans knew fuckall about jesus because he did not exist until he was invented sometime in the 2d century.

All the Romans knew was that Pontius Pilate executed someone called Christ during the reign of Tiberias, and from that we got the Christians. They never knew anyone named Jesus, since the name "Jesus" was not likely well and widespread translated from the Hebrew to the Greek. But Christ was an interpretation of Messiah, and a word the Romans already understood.

There may be a partial problem with this.
Eventually he came to be understood as a "christ". (By the time the Romans were talking about him, that time may have elapsed.)
Pilate didn't execute a christ. He executed someone who eventually came to be understood as the christ.
That took a while, and the fact jesus didn't get the christ's job done didn't help.

[Inkubus]

You're making the same mistake many make, and I will demonstrate that by asking you a question.

Why should we expect that the Romans would have any detailed records at all about some obscure Jew named Jesus who was crucified in Judea?

Tell me again about Tacitus, Jesus and Roman records.

There's nothing.
The fact that there were believers proves nothing.
If they had blamed the Vestal Virgins for the fire, would that prove Vesta was real ?
LOL

Sorry, but you don't get to wave your magic wand and make that go away, Bucky Boy.

It prefaces all that follows in regards to the Great Fires of Rome which includes Christ and the Christians, and it clearly shows that Tacitus was sourcing previously written Roman historical records.

Try harder.

Musht be shome mishtake.

[Free]

All the Romans knew was that Pontius Pilate executed someone called Christ during the reign of Tiberias, and from that we got the Christians. They never knew anyone named Jesus, since the name "Jesus" was not likely well and widespread translated from the Hebrew to the Greek. But Christ was an interpretation of Messiah, and a word the Romans already understood.

There may be a partial problem with this.
Eventually he came to be understood as a "christ". (By the time the Romans were talking about him, that time may have elapsed.)
Pilate didn't execute a christ. He executed someone who eventually came to be understood as the christ.
That took a while, and the fact jesus didn't get the christ's job done didn't help.

I have no problem with this. Valid observation.

[Free]

Tell me again about Tacitus, Jesus and Roman records.

Sorry, but you don't get to wave your magic wand and make that go away, Bucky Boy.

It prefaces all that follows in regards to the Great Fires of Rome which includes Christ and the Christians, and it clearly shows that Tacitus was sourcing previously written Roman historical records.

Try harder.

Musht be shome mishtake.

Sorry you don't get the difference between Roman historical records (from Roman historians) and "official records" from the ancient Roman senate. Considering you went back quite a few pages to retrieve that quote, perhaps you should have followed the context to learn that my point was based upon and expressly stated "previous Roman historians," as shown below:

Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Tacitus- Annals: 

15.38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, 

So ... you know ... there's that.

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid320237

[jimhabegger]

Everybody’s talking about their own made-up stories or someone else’s, so I’ll talk some more about mine.

Some time during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate there was a person giving public talks and private lessons, promoting a metaphorical kingdom in which he was the king, and he approved of his followers thinking that he was a promised king of Israel. He had a group of followers who called themselves “the twelve.” There might have been more than one person like that. Or not. In my made-up story, only one of them was the one whose sayings and stories were used in writing the Bible gospels. There were stories circulating about him healing people and doing miracles, either things that he actually did or parables he made up about himself. Either way, there wouldn’t have been any reason for any of that to be taken seriously and recorded in any official documents or histories. Even if any officials actually believed them, they wouldn’t have dared to admit it, or even to mention those stories as being worthy of attention.

His name that he was born with and grew up with may or may not have been “Yeshua.” That could have just been a title, along with “anointed.” Either way, the only thing that would get him into trouble, and be recorded in official documents, would be “anointed,” because of that being equated with “king of the Jews.” That’s why that would be the only thing about him that would be mentioned in official records, if those mentions actually were about him, and not just reports of what Christians were saying.

[Free]

You need to show us the Roman records. You failed. It is you that is speculating.
Show us the records he has access to that are not based on the beliefs of believers.

Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Tacitus- Annals: 

15.38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, 

So ... you know ... there's that.

Everybody’s talking about their own made-up stories or someone else’s, so I’ll talk some more about mine.

Some time during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate there was a person giving public talks and private lessons, promoting a metaphorical kingdom in which he was the king, and he approved of his followers thinking that he was a promised king of Israel. He had a group of followers who called themselves “the twelve.” There might have been more than one person like that. Or not. In my made-up story, only one of them was the one whose sayings and stories were used in writing the Bible gospels. There were stories circulating about him healing people and doing miracles, either things that he actually did or parables he made up about himself. Either way, there wouldn’t have been any reason for any of that to be taken seriously and recorded in any official documents or histories. Even if any officials actually believed them, they wouldn’t have dared to admit it, or even to mention those stories as being worthy of attention.

His name that he was born with and grew up with may or may not have been “Yeshua.” That could have just been a title, along with “anointed.” Either way, the only thing that would get him into trouble, and be recorded in official documents, would be “anointed,” because of that being equated with “king of the Jews.” That’s why that would be the only thing about him that would be mentioned in official records, if those mentions actually were about him, and not just reports of what Christians were saying.

Christ = Messiah = King of Israel.

I strongly suspect that when the Romans such as Tacitus mentioned "Christ" it was done with a tongue-in-cheek attitude because what Tacitus was really saying was that the Romans crucified the hated King of the Jews down in that hell-hole of Judea. It would be a note of pride to call him "Christ" by the Romans, making sure everyone in the Roman Empire understood that the Romans killed the so-called "King of Israel," demonstrating their dominance over the hated Jews.

It would be a rather nice "feather in the cap" for the proud Romans.

[jimhabegger]

You need to show us the Roman records. You failed. It is you that is speculating.
Show us the records he has access to that are not based on the beliefs of believers.

Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Tacitus- Annals: 

15.38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, 

So ... you know ... there's that.

Because he was sourcing the works of previous historians doesn't mean that everything he said was taken from those works. Even if it was, do you have some reason for thinking that previous historians were not simply reporting what Christians were saying about their Christ being crucified?

[jimhabegger]

I'm making up a new story about how the gospels were written. This is not what I think really happened, it's just for fun.

During the prefecture of Pontius Pilate, sometimes there were people claiming to be a promised king of Israel. I don't know how many, maybe five or ten or even more. Their followers spread stories about them healing people and doing miracles. They had such a reputation for fooling people that no one would believe it even if someone actually did heal people and do miracles, unless they thought they actually saw it themselves. Later, some time in the 40's, someone made up some stories about a person like that who was teaching during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate. They took their ideas for his teachings from a variety of schools that were popular at the time, and decided to give him a brother with a name that's translated as "James," just taking that at random from names that were common at that time. They told their stories to other people, and a lot of people liked them and started telling them to others. As those stories spread, communities of practice grew up around them, with many people thinking that the stories were actually true. Different communities liked different stories and understood them in different ways. A few people decided to put some of those stories together into one story about one person who was teaching during the prefecture of Pontius Pilate, different authors choosing different stories and using them in different ways to make their story say what they wanted it to say. Three of those stories were the original versions of the synoptic gospels in today's Bibles.

[Minimalist]

Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Tacitus- Annals: 

15.38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, 

So ... you know ... there's that.

If only he had mentioned WHICH authors.  Who were they?  When did they write?  What did they say?  Did they mention fucking xtians or not?

But he didn't.

So...you know.... there's no "there" there.


Really, it isn't much different from Fuckface saying "Some people say........."

[Free]

You need to show us the Roman records. You failed. It is you that is speculating.
Show us the records he has access to that are not based on the beliefs of believers.

Those records have already been presented numerous times in this thread. But just to humor you and to enlightened the curious, the section that Tacitus wrote concerning the great fires of Rome and how the Christians were blamed for the fire begins with Tacitus sourcing the works of previous Roman historians:

Tacitus- Annals: 

15.38: A disaster followed, whether accidental or treacherously contrived by the emperor, is uncertain, as authors have given both accounts, 

So ... you know ... there's that.

Because he was sourcing the works of previous historians doesn't mean that everything he said was taken from those works. Even if it was, do you have some reason for thinking that previous historians were not simply reporting what Christians were saying about their Christ being crucified?

Considering that Tacitus was writing around CE 110 and one of his favorite historians was Rufus who (according to some modern historians) was writing in around the middle of the 1st century, you might want to consider that Rufus may have indeed been a contemporary of Pontius Pilate and Tiberias. 

Tacitus was writing "Roman" history, not Christian history. He is writing about a Roman governor and a Caesar in relation to Christ. That's Roman history, not Christian history. That's the key thing that mythicists seem to refuse to acknowledge. Tacitus was writing Roman history. The death of Christ at the hand of Pilate during the reign of Tiberias is Roman history.

There is zero evidence he ever spoke to a Christian, or that any of his info came from anything other than Romans sources including the work of other historians, biographies, interviews, pamphlets, speeches, minutes of the Senate and inscriptions. He literally names his sources, and all are Roman.

[Bucky Ball]

For what it's worth ... just my humble opinion, which may reflect *way* too much my history in a benign "believer" environment.
(My family were/are very very liberal Catholics ... and they never "oppressed" me).
So I'm just going to paste in a fragment of a paper I wrote in grad school, but not actually FOR any one class.
I did it as a TTA project.

"Some scholars think the next earliest reference in existing written form to a risen Jesus, is a rather strange "hymn" or poem which we see placed in the beginning of the 2nd chapter of Philippians. Just as in the Old Testament, a "hymn" may be the oldest fragment, placed into another text. In Philippians 2: 6-11, there is a poem called the "Carmen Christi". The name comes from a letter of Pliny the Younger, in which he tells the Emperor Trajan, about (111-112 CE) what he found in the Provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, in Asia Minor. The Christian sect was being accused of various crimes, and he could find nothing especially seriously wrong about them. He didn't really know what to do. He says in Latin, "carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem"..or "they chant verses alternately among themselves, in honor of the Christ, as if to a god". That's all he could find. Nothing especially bad. But that's why the hymn is called the "Carmen" Christi.. it's (probably) a chanted hymn. This "hymn" has been studied to death, by scholars. By the 1990's the "hymn" status was even being questioned, but whatever it is, ( a Greek "encomion" ? ), it doesn't really fit with Saul's/Paul's known writing style. So they got it from somewhere. We know Philippians was a combo job, because, among other things, the author says "finally" more than once, (3:1, 4:8), and more importantly, the tone of the text does not match the surrounding text. Some think from 4:10 on, is yet a third author. Some think the hymn may have come from inside the community at Phillipi, and Saul approved of it, so he included it. In any case, the hymn says Jesus was "super-exalted", after being humbled. What does that mean, exactly ? The academic examination of this poem is extensive, but an interesting part, is in the Greek, the form of preposition and verb compounding, called a "hyperposen". It's a linguistic element used which intensifies the verb. "Super-exalted", or "extra-exalted" are just made-up English words which attempt to translate the meaning, as there is not an English equivalent. Anyway, the "high" position is used to intensify the difference from the "humbled" of the low position. Anyway, Saul KNEW the context, and that the Romans would hear of this, and/or, it would be "heard" in a cognitive sense, as a shocking insult. A pathetic criminal, whom the Romans had executed, now was "raised" to a very high position. ("Exaltation' was the current form of Hebrew final affirmation. In this case it was the equivalent to a (political) "obscenity". It would be the same as an American "wacko-preacher" telling HIS audience, in a US military setting, that Osama bin Laden had been raised to the highest place in Islamic heaven. There is a VERY strong anti-Imperial "ring" to the last part of the poem. So the first citing of the resurrection theme, can be seen in a striking political context. If you wanted to get the Romans mad at the Christians, or justify Roman anger toward Christians, you would use such a poem.

2. The most extensive passage in the NT about the resurrection, is in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15. If the gospels are not the first mention of the event, why is it the accounts in Saul's letters not looked at more carefully, or first ? Scholars know why. They were, capriciously put in the canon in the order they are in, for no particular legitimate ordering reason. No one has ever claimed "ordering" was important, or that it enhanced legitimacy claims, or inspiration claims. Opening the NT, one just comes to Mark first. Paul is less well known, also as he is used in liturgy less, in the sense that the gospel stories are used more often, than any one Pauline passage is used. Lastly, the artistic legacy, depicts the gospel story frequently. So visually we *think* of a "risen lord* the way we do. Ask yourself, "When I think of the resurrected lord, what do I think of ?". Probably a Caucasian, adult male around 30 years old, with long hair, and pleasant features". THAT is NOT what the gospels said they saw. The gospels all say they did not recognize him, and they were afraid of what they saw. Our thought has been determined by our culture, not the facts. Next what are the best known stories you remember ? Probably Mary Magdalene being told not to touch, and the doubting Thomas story. If Thomas DID recognize Jesus, why would he HAVE to put his fingers into the wounds ? The problem is not faith, it's "recognition". They do NOT "know" who or what they see. If it WAS the actual body of Jesus, they would recognize him. The accounts in Paul are brief, and our brains fill in the gaps, with our cultural assumptions. We know the *real* 1 Corinthians is missing, as the letter referenced in 1 Cor 5:9 is unknown. 1 Corinthians is a combo job. The section in 1 Cor 14:33-36 was likely added by a scribe who liked Timothy and Titus.

When Saul first talks about the resurrection, other than himself as a "revealed" thing, he says that he "appeared to Cephas". The word "appeared", is an ok translation but not exactly correct, in context. The Greek word is "ophthe". It has a *passive* element. In English it is an intransitive verb. "Appeared" is a word which means "to become visible", or "was made visible", or "became apparent". The Greek verb is the past tense of the passive verb "horao", "to see", ("was seen"). The passive translation is "The Anointed has been seen by Cephas". HOWEVER, normally a Greek translation of "by whom" would be translated in Greek using the "hypo" (preposition), to indicate "agency". THAT is not here, in the Greek. It really should be translated as "The Anointed has been seen FOR the advantage of Cephas or to BENEFIT Cephas, or for Cephas' *advantage*". It does NOT mean "Cephas saw the Anointed". It means the "Anointed was made manifest for Cephas' advantage". That begins to look very different, than Cephas seeing something. It's more like Saul's vision. There are many examples of these kinds of misuse, and mistranslations, due to assumed cultural overlay, which when translated correctly, make the entire picture look very different, especially in terms of the many "sightings" of various beings, and mysterious things, in both the Old and New Testaments. The most famous of these "shifts" is the sighting of Moses of Yahweh in the burning bush, where the angel shifts into the bush and is also "seen for" Yahweh, when Abraham moves from Ur, (which Philo of Alexandria talks about around 20-50 CE, in "On Abraham"). There is NO physical "seeing". The correct translations all mean "seeing in the mind". It's a MENTAL change. Guess what ? SAUL's "blinding", and the "new seeing" is an EXACT correlation of these prior Biblical "manifestations", and any Jew or Christian, or Greek of the day would conflate these various "manifestations", "blinding's", "and then seeing's" as METAPHOR, for a mental attitude change. The same verbs, and words are used. Sauls blinding and then seeing" was equated, as Abraham's "vision", where his "mind saw again with it's recovered sight". Just like Saul. Saul "saw" with a different "sight". It was NOT a physical thing. It was a metaphor for a mental change. THAT is how he "*saw* the Anointed One". It like we say, "oh, ok, I get it, now". He did not intend to say he physically "saw" the Anointed One. It means "I have come to understand the Anointed One". In 1 Corintians 9:1-2, in defending his apostleship, he appeals to his new "seeing". "Have I not seen the Lord". That means that a requirement for apostleship, one has to have "seen the light Lord". But here he changes the passive past tense, to active verb. He means the "seeing" has an ONGOING present continuing "influence". It's all missed in translation, usually.

So just to emphasize here : Saul's "re-seeing", or "recovery from blindness", (ie THE "conversion event") WAS for him, personally the SAME thing, as the resurrection for him. For him "resurrection" was "re-seeing" the same set of events he already knew about, just "seeing" them in a different light. THAT is what he thought of the same thing as "Have I not *seen* the risen lord" It's metaphor, for a different understanding of events he already knew about. It's NOT a physical resurrection. It means "Have I not come to understand that Jesus was exalted as the anointed one" ?

There are countless other contradictions, and interesting tidbits, in Saul's letters, and how the wordplay is used, and later referenced by the gospels.
For example at the end of Romans, he says to greet the Apostle Junia. Junia was a WOMAN !!! Even (St.) John Chrysostom talked about how shocking that was, but says she was worthy of it. (On The Epistle to the Romans). John Chrysostom is full of interesting clues to the early church, including the fact they were still Jews, as late as 400 CE, (see the Christmas Sermon).

So what exactly did they mean they saw ? In 1 Corinthians 15:35, Saul says "How are the dead raised ?" He calls those who deny it "stupid man" (15:36). In Greek culture, the idea of immortality is as convoluted as Hebrew culture. The Greeks were Dualists. Body/soul was not a unity. But in Philippians 1:20, apparently Saul rejects this dualism, "the Anointed will be exalted, by my life, whether I live or die", or in SV translates it as "Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death". To Saul, to deny the resurrection is the same as saying "You don't think, what you (actually) now really think". When Saul *saw* things in a different light, of course he saw them in a different light. To say otherwise, would make one a "stupid man".

Next we look at what actually was seen to have arisen. There are two aspects to this. The Pauline understanding, and the questions raised in the gospels.

As we have seen, in Hebrew culture there was no immortality, except metaphorical immortality for martyrs. Later they came to believe (some) that at the endtimes, the dead would be raised, BUT NOT BEFORE that. In Greek culture, to which Corinthians was addressed, there also was no immortality, early on, but it changed. In the Homeric period, and in Sophocles, there is no physical immortality. In the Apollo speech in Aeschulus' "Eumenides" he says "...once he is dead, there is no return to life". However, by Plato's time, he has Phaedo saying "shall we assume two kinds of existence, one visible, and one invisible". (Dialogues of Socrates and Cebes). Dualism had developed. In Plato's dualism, there is an "essence", or soul which breaks free of a body, and joins a "divine' realm at death. Thus for the Corinthians, in Plato's dualism, the SOUL is immortal, but there is NO physical resurrection. So this solves nothing. The Corinthian Christians (1 Cor 12) believed that they HAD ALREADY been raised. In Colossians 2:12-13, Saul says "When you were buried with him in baptism, through faith in the power of God". BUT HE DENIES THIS view in 1 Tim 2:18-19, and says it's heresy. "Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by claiming that resurrection has already taken place. " There is a huge lengthy corpus of theological discussion here, for many years, about what exactly Saul's understanding of dualism actually was. Rudolf Bultmann had the position that Saul's thought was that there was no dualism, and that humans did have *have* a soul, ("soma"), but actually *was* a "unity", (body+soul). This would be fine, but it fit's in neither Greek or Hebrew culture. So what did he mean ? He said "the Anointed will be exalted by my life, whether I live or die". Thus Bultmann's position is refuted, as if it's BOTH it is not the "unity", if the body is dead, and ONLY the soul remains. Then Saul says "Don't you know that your bodies are parts of the BODY of the Anointed". (1 Cor 6:15) So here we see that WHOLE thing has metaphorical meaning, and is not a literal discussion, in any way, in Saul's mind. In 1 Cor 15:40 he says "There are also heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies". There are mountains of other discussions in this subject with respect to Pauline understanding of nature, and whether they are Hebrew or Greek. Inevitably, they lead to the fact that Saul thought that was raised, was not a physical body but a "new body", that is based on a divine "breath". THAT is NOT a physical body. Saul of Tarsus did not believe in a physical resurrection of the dead. Whatever he did think, it was not a physical body. It's all over his letters.

The reconstructed Q document contains NO mention of any resurrection. Neither does the original Gospel of Mark. In Q there is no passion, and no salvation. In Mark there is no salvation, but there is a passion. In Q, Jesus is lined up with the prophets, and in the pattern of Deuteronomy, and he is rejected by the people. By the time Mark is written, the passion has been added. The pattern in Q is the same as in The Wisdom of Salomon, where it talks about the "Righteous One", who is taken up, and will sit in judgement. There are many Hebrew assumption/ascension myths. Jesus is unique, as he died first.

So why does the author of Mark leave his gospel with no resurrection ? Well, actually it's not an omission. Maybe it's there after all, in it's own way. It's actually purposeful, the way we see it, with no resurrection story. How can that be ? The theme of the gospel of Mark is the hidden nature of the Jesus event, and that "real understanding" is revealed later. In Mark 4:10, it says "And when he was alone, those present along with the Twelve questioned him about the parables. The answered them, "The mystery of the kingdom of God, has been granted to you. But to those OUTSIDE everything comes in parables, so that 'they may look and SEE, but not perceive, and hear and listen, but not understand..' ", (quoting Isaiah 6:9, "They may look with eyes wide open, but never quite see, and may listen with ears attuned but never quite understand". Only the insiders "see with insight". In this gospel, a physical resurrection would have been superfluous. No matter what they *see*, they don't necessarily "see with understanding", or "see with insight". They could have "seen" ANYTHING, but still would not have *understood*. So adding a resurrection would have been totally unnecessary, and actually refute the thesis of this gospel, if the observers understood the event they observed. Seeing for Mark is *insightful understanding*, not seeing a physical event. So Mark is not really missing anything. It was corrupted later when the "non-understanding" editors later added a non-intended ending. I ask you, "why is it, there is not one famous painting of a silent empty tomb ?" Think about that. In mMark, "the coming to see or understand" is very similar to Paul.

Gospel of Matthew :
There is an odd contradiction which is interesting in Matthew. In the Hearing at the house of Caiaphas, (the High priest), two men come forward and say "This man said 'I can destroy the temple of God, and rebuild it within three days' ". In fact Jesus NEVER says that in public in Matthew, only in private to the Apostles. Pilate refuses to post a guard, and the Jews do it themselves. This obviously was a part of the attempt to shift the blame for the death to the Jews, and exonerate the Romans. This theme of Roman exoneration, and that Christianity was no threat to Rome clearly was one of largest disasters of all time. Mathew likes earthquakes. During the time of the Roman occupation, there were historians in the Near East who recorded every earthquake, and major natural event. They did not record either the death earthquake, nor the resurrection one. The resurrection said, "there was a *strong* earthquake. Hmm. Could this be metaphor for a cosmic event ? The "anointing" mission of the women in Mark is changed to "inspection", and all kind of things are added. In Matthew it's become a major production. The soldiers just happen to faint, so they can't witness the event. The women don't run away afraid, as in Mark. Now there's a dazzling angel, wearing white clothes.

Matthew adds a few more things which are not in Q, or any of the other gospels, and are quite startling. Back in Matthew 27:53 he says that after the resurrection the "bodies of many saints who had 'fallen asleep' were raised. And coming forth from their tombs AFTER his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many". He also says that when Jeebus died, the veil of the curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom, the earth quaked, and rocks were split. (Clearly this was metaphor, but for the literalists we shall look further at this). There were at the time Roman historian s who recorded every major natural event, and their year and date. Neither this earthquake, nor the one on the Sunday to follow were recorded, and no one else ever mentions a "major quake", or any of it's ramifications, or any damage. None of the Jewish historians record a rending of the temple curtain, or any reason why it would have been seen to have been torn "miraculously". It simply didn't happen, no "unnaturally" split rocks were ever seen, or proposed, and if a zombie army had suddenly appeared in Jerusalem, the Romans would have talked about it, and taken some sort of action, and someone would have mentioned it. No one says anything."

[Free]

For what it's worth ... just my humble opinion, which may reflect *way* too much my history in a benign "believer" environment.
(My family were/are very very liberal Catholics ... and they never "oppressed" me).
So I'm just going to paste in a fragment of a paper I wrote in grad school, but not actually FOR any one class.
I did it as a TTA project.

"Some scholars think the next earliest reference in existing written form to a risen Jesus, is a rather strange "hymn" or poem which we see placed in the beginning of the 2nd chapter of Philippians. Just as in the Old Testament, a "hymn" may be the oldest fragment, placed into another text. In Philippians 2: 6-11, there is a poem called the "Carmen Christi". The name comes from a letter of Pliny the Younger, in which he tells the Emperor Trajan, about (111-112 CE) what he found in the Provinces of Pontus and Bithynia, in Asia Minor. The Christian sect was being accused of various crimes, and he could find nothing especially seriously wrong about them. He didn't really know what to do. He says in Latin, "carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem"..or "they chant verses alternately among themselves, in honor of the Christ, as if to a god". That's all he could find. Nothing especially bad. But that's why the hymn is called the "Carmen" Christi.. it's (probably) a chanted hymn. This "hymn" has been studied to death, by scholars. By the 1990's the "hymn" status was even being questioned, but whatever it is, ( a Greek "encomion" ? ), it doesn't really fit with Saul's/Paul's known writing style. So they got it from somewhere. We know Philippians was a combo job, because, among other things, the author says "finally" more than once, (3:1, 4:8), and more importantly, the tone of the text does not match the surrounding text. Some think from 4:10 on, is yet a third author. Some think the hymn may have come from inside the community at Phillipi, and Saul approved of it, so he included it. In any case, the hymn says Jesus was "super-exalted", after being humbled. What does that mean, exactly ? The academic examination of this poem is extensive, but an interesting part, is in the Greek, the form of preposition and verb compounding, called a "hyperposen". It's a linguistic element used which intensifies the verb. "Super-exalted", or "extra-exalted" are just made-up English words which attempt to translate the meaning, as there is not an English equivalent. Anyway, the "high" position is used to intensify the difference from the "humbled" of the low position. Anyway, Saul KNEW the context, and that the Romans would hear of this, and/or, it would be "heard" in a cognitive sense, as a shocking insult. A pathetic criminal, whom the Romans had executed, now was "raised" to a very high position. ("Exaltation' was the current form of Hebrew final affirmation. In this case it was the equivalent to a (political) "obscenity". It would be the same as an American "wacko-preacher" telling HIS audience, in a US military setting, that Osama bin Laden had been raised to the highest place in Islamic heaven. There is a VERY strong anti-Imperial "ring" to the last part of the poem. So the first citing of the resurrection theme, can be seen in a striking political context. If you wanted to get the Romans mad at the Christians, or justify Roman anger toward Christians, you would use such a poem.

2. The most extensive passage in the NT about the resurrection, is in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15. If the gospels are not the first mention of the event, why is it the accounts in Saul's letters not looked at more carefully, or first ? Scholars know why. They were, capriciously put in the canon in the order they are in, for no particular legitimate ordering reason. No one has ever claimed "ordering" was important, or that it enhanced legitimacy claims, or inspiration claims. Opening the NT, one just comes to Mark first. Paul is less well known, also as he is used in liturgy less, in the sense that the gospel stories are used more often, than any one Pauline passage is used. Lastly, the artistic legacy, depicts the gospel story frequently. So visually we *think* of a "risen lord* the way we do. Ask yourself, "When I think of the resurrected lord, what do I think of ?". Probably a Caucasian, adult male around 30 years old, with long hair, and pleasant features". THAT is NOT what the gospels said they saw. The gospels all say they did not recognize him, and they were afraid of what they saw. Our thought has been determined by our culture, not the facts. Next what are the best known stories you remember ? Probably Mary Magdalene being told not to touch, and the doubting Thomas story. If Thomas DID recognize Jesus, why would he HAVE to put his fingers into the wounds ? The problem is not faith, it's "recognition". They do NOT "know" who or what they see. If it WAS the actual body of Jesus, they would recognize him. The accounts in Paul are brief, and our brains fill in the gaps, with our cultural assumptions. We know the *real* 1 Corinthians is missing, as the letter referenced in 1 Cor 5:9 is unknown. 1 Corinthians is a combo job. The section in 1 Cor 14:33-36 was likely added by a scribe who liked Timothy and Titus.

When Saul first talks about the resurrection, other than himself as a "revealed" thing, he says that he "appeared to Cephas". The word "appeared", is an ok translation but not exactly correct, in context. The Greek word is "ophthe". It has a *passive* element. In English it is an intransitive verb. "Appeared" is a word which means "to become visible", or "was made visible", or "became apparent". The Greek verb is the past tense of the passive verb "horao", "to see", ("was seen"). The passive translation is "The Anointed has been seen by Cephas". HOWEVER, normally a Greek translation of "by whom" would be translated in Greek using the "hypo" (preposition), to indicate "agency". THAT is not here, in the Greek. It really should be translated as "The Anointed has been seen FOR the advantage of Cephas or to BENEFIT Cephas, or for Cephas' *advantage*". It does NOT mean "Cephas saw the Anointed". It means the "Anointed was made manifest for Cephas' advantage". That begins to look very different, than Cephas seeing something. It's more like Saul's vision. There are many examples of these kinds of misuse, and mistranslations, due to assumed cultural overlay, which when translated correctly, make the entire picture look very different, especially in terms of the many "sightings" of various beings, and mysterious things, in both the Old and New Testaments. The most famous of these "shifts" is the sighting of Moses of Yahweh in the burning bush, where the angel shifts into the bush and is also "seen for" Yahweh, when Abraham moves from Ur, (which Philo of Alexandria talks about around 20-50 CE, in "On Abraham"). There is NO physical "seeing". The correct translations all mean "seeing in the mind". It's a MENTAL change. Guess what ? SAUL's "blinding", and the "new seeing" is an EXACT correlation of these prior Biblical "manifestations", and any Jew or Christian, or Greek of the day would conflate these various "manifestations", "blinding's", "and then seeing's" as METAPHOR, for a mental attitude change. The same verbs, and words are used. Sauls blinding and then seeing" was equated, as Abraham's "vision", where his "mind saw again with it's recovered sight". Just like Saul. Saul "saw" with a different "sight". It was NOT a physical thing. It was a metaphor for a mental change. THAT is how he "*saw* the Anointed One". It like we say, "oh, ok, I get it, now". He did not intend to say he physically "saw" the Anointed One. It means "I have come to understand the Anointed One". In 1 Corintians 9:1-2, in defending his apostleship, he appeals to his new "seeing". "Have I not seen the Lord". That means that a requirement for apostleship, one has to have "seen the light Lord". But here he changes the passive past tense, to active verb. He means the "seeing" has an ONGOING present continuing "influence". It's all missed in translation, usually.

So just to emphasize here : Saul's "re-seeing", or "recovery from blindness", (ie THE "conversion event") WAS for him, personally the SAME thing, as the resurrection for him. For him "resurrection" was "re-seeing" the same set of events he already knew about, just "seeing" them in a different light. THAT is what he thought of the same thing as "Have I not *seen* the risen lord" It's metaphor, for a different understanding of events he already knew about. It's NOT a physical resurrection. It means "Have I not come to understand that Jesus was exalted as the anointed one" ?

There are countless other contradictions, and interesting tidbits, in Saul's letters, and how the wordplay is used, and later referenced by the gospels.
For example at the end of Romans, he says to greet the Apostle Junia. Junia was a WOMAN !!! Even (St.) John Chrysostom talked about how shocking that was, but says she was worthy of it. (On The Epistle to the Romans). John Chrysostom is full of interesting clues to the early church, including the fact they were still Jews, as late as 400 CE, (see the Christmas Sermon).

So what exactly did they mean they saw ? In 1 Corinthians 15:35, Saul says "How are the dead raised ?" He calls those who deny it "stupid man" (15:36). In Greek culture, the idea of immortality is as convoluted as Hebrew culture. The Greeks were Dualists. Body/soul was not a unity. But in Philippians 1:20, apparently Saul rejects this dualism, "the Anointed will be exalted, by my life, whether I live or die", or in SV translates it as "Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death". To Saul, to deny the resurrection is the same as saying "You don't think, what you (actually) now really think". When Saul *saw* things in a different light, of course he saw them in a different light. To say otherwise, would make one a "stupid man".

Next we look at what actually was seen to have arisen. There are two aspects to this. The Pauline understanding, and the questions raised in the gospels.

As we have seen, in Hebrew culture there was no immortality, except metaphorical immortality for martyrs. Later they came to believe (some) that at the endtimes, the dead would be raised, BUT NOT BEFORE that. In Greek culture, to which Corinthians was addressed, there also was no immortality, early on, but it changed. In the Homeric period, and in Sophocles, there is no physical immortality. In the Apollo speech in Aeschulus' "Eumenides" he says "...once he is dead, there is no return to life". However, by Plato's time, he has Phaedo saying "shall we assume two kinds of existence, one visible, and one invisible". (Dialogues of Socrates and Cebes). Dualism had developed. In Plato's dualism, there is an "essence", or soul which breaks free of a body, and joins a "divine' realm at death. Thus for the Corinthians, in Plato's dualism, the SOUL is immortal, but there is NO physical resurrection. So this solves nothing. The Corinthian Christians (1 Cor 12) believed that they HAD ALREADY been raised. In Colossians 2:12-13, Saul says "When you were buried with him in baptism, through faith in the power of God". BUT HE DENIES THIS view in 1 Tim 2:18-19, and says it's heresy. "Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have swerved from the truth by claiming that resurrection has already taken place. " There is a huge lengthy corpus of theological discussion here, for many years, about what exactly Saul's understanding of dualism actually was. Rudolf Bultmann had the position that Saul's thought was that there was no dualism, and that humans did have *have* a soul, ("soma"), but actually *was* a "unity", (body+soul). This would be fine, but it fit's in neither Greek or Hebrew culture. So what did he mean ? He said "the Anointed will be exalted by my life, whether I live or die". Thus Bultmann's position is refuted, as if it's BOTH it is not the "unity", if the body is dead, and ONLY the soul remains. Then Saul says "Don't you know that your bodies are parts of the BODY of the Anointed". (1 Cor 6:15) So here we see that WHOLE thing has metaphorical meaning, and is not a literal discussion, in any way, in Saul's mind. In 1 Cor 15:40 he says "There are also heavenly bodies, and earthly bodies". There are mountains of other discussions in this subject with respect to Pauline understanding of nature, and whether they are Hebrew or Greek. Inevitably, they lead to the fact that Saul thought that was raised, was not a physical body but a "new body", that is based on a divine "breath". THAT is NOT a physical body. Saul of Tarsus did not believe in a physical resurrection of the dead. Whatever he did think, it was not a physical body. It's all over his letters.

The reconstructed Q document contains NO mention of any resurrection. Neither does the original Gospel of Mark. In Q there is no passion, and no salvation. In Mark there is no salvation, but there is a passion. In Q, Jesus is lined up with the prophets, and in the pattern of Deuteronomy, and he is rejected by the people. By the time Mark is written, the passion has been added. The pattern in Q is the same as in The Wisdom of Salomon, where it talks about the "Righteous One", who is taken up, and will sit in judgement. There are many Hebrew assumption/ascension myths. Jesus is unique, as he died first.

So why does the author of Mark leave his gospel with no resurrection ? Well, actually it's not an omission. Maybe it's there after all, in it's own way. It's actually purposeful, the way we see it, with no resurrection story. How can that be ? The theme of the gospel of Mark is the hidden nature of the Jesus event, and that "real understanding" is revealed later. In Mark 4:10, it says "And when he was alone, those present along with the Twelve questioned him about the parables. The answered them, "The mystery of the kingdom of God, has been granted to you. But to those OUTSIDE everything comes in parables, so that 'they may look and SEE, but not perceive, and hear and listen, but not understand..' ", (quoting Isaiah 6:9, "They may look with eyes wide open, but never quite see, and may listen with ears attuned but never quite understand". Only the insiders "see with insight". In this gospel, a physical resurrection would have been superfluous. No matter what they *see*, they don't necessarily "see with understanding", or "see with insight". They could have "seen" ANYTHING, but still would not have *understood*. So adding a resurrection would have been totally unnecessary, and actually refute the thesis of this gospel, if the observers understood the event they observed. Seeing for Mark is *insightful understanding*, not seeing a physical event. So Mark is not really missing anything. It was corrupted later when the "non-understanding" editors later added a non-intended ending. I ask you, "why is it, there is not one famous painting of a silent empty tomb ?" Think about that. In mMark, "the coming to see or understand" is very similar to Paul.

Gospel of Matthew :
There is an odd contradiction which is interesting in Matthew. In the Hearing at the house of Caiaphas, (the High priest), two men come forward and say "This man said 'I can destroy the temple of God, and rebuild it within three days' ". In fact Jesus NEVER says that in public in Matthew, only in private to the Apostles. Pilate refuses to post a guard, and the Jews do it themselves. This obviously was a part of the attempt to shift the blame for the death to the Jews, and exonerate the Romans. This theme of Roman exoneration, and that Christianity was no threat to Rome clearly was one of largest disasters of all time. Mathew likes earthquakes. During the time of the Roman occupation, there were historians in the Near East who recorded every earthquake, and major natural event. They did not record either the death earthquake, nor the resurrection one. The resurrection said, "there was a *strong* earthquake. Hmm. Could this be metaphor for a cosmic event ? The "anointing" mission of the women in Mark is changed to "inspection", and all kind of things are added. In Matthew it's become a major production. The soldiers just happen to faint, so they can't witness the event. The women don't run away afraid, as in Mark. Now there's a dazzling angel, wearing white clothes.

Matthew adds a few more things which are not in Q, or any of the other gospels, and are quite startling. Back in Matthew 27:53 he says that after the resurrection the "bodies of many saints who had 'fallen asleep' were raised. And coming forth from their tombs AFTER his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many". He also says that when Jeebus died, the veil of the curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom, the earth quaked, and rocks were split. (Clearly this was metaphor, but for the literalists we shall look further at this). There were at the time Roman historian s who recorded every major natural event, and their year and date. Neither this earthquake, nor the one on the Sunday to follow were recorded, and no one else ever mentions a "major quake", or any of it's ramifications, or any damage. None of the Jewish historians record a rending of the temple curtain, or any reason why it would have been seen to have been torn "miraculously". It simply didn't happen, no "unnaturally" split rocks were ever seen, or proposed, and if a zombie army had suddenly appeared in Jerusalem, the Romans would have talked about it, and taken some sort of action, and someone would have mentioned it. No one says anything."

"When in Greece, read as the Greeks read."

Brilliant.

[Inkubus]

Oops wrong Rufus.

[TinyDave]

"When in Greece, read as the Greeks read."

Brilliant.

Which Greeks?

Homer?