Corpus-Paul

["Eric Zuesse" <cettel AT shoreham.net>]

Re: "Earl Doherty's book about Jesus being a myth" from Mike Burkheimer on
August 12:

Doherty, as well as Acharya S, and also the team of Timothy Freke and Peter
Gandy, have all based their arguments for Jesus's non-existence upon pitting
against their cases that he didn't exist, the mainstream view that he did
exist and founded Christianity.

They don't even consider the possibility that he did exist *but* had nothing
to do with Pauline Christianity (other than having his name used by Paul and
his followers after Jesus's death in order to promote an entirely new
religion that the historical Jesus would have despised).

If the choice is to be between those two options, then quite conceivably the
presented options will preclude even the very possibility of getting to the
truth about Christian origins. I therefore contend that the options are too
limited, both in the theories of people such as Doherty, and in the theories
of mainstream scholars.

None of the "Jesus didn't exist" people probes much into what likely could
have motivated the writers and assemblers of the New Testament to have
created the precise religion that they did. These nay-sayers can and do show
earlier, pagan, precedents for much of Christianity, such as the Virgin
Birth, the Resurrection, the Trinity, Christmas, Buddha, etc., but that does
not get to the deeper and more powerful issue of explaining Christianity,
which is far more than a mere assemblage of such prior archetypes and
mythologies. Especially the naysayers fail to deal with and cannot explain
such central facts about Christianity as that Mark's account centers around
the supposed evilness of the proponents of the Jewish Law or covenant and
the contrary virtuousness of people who rely on faith, and that the entire
Jewish people are condemned throughout the New Testament for Jesus's
crucifixion while there isn't so much as a hint there of condemnation of all
Romans for that execution, and not even the Emperor himself is blamed for
it, even though it was his system of order and command that was being
challenged by Jesus's claim to be the God-anointed King of the Jews and heir
to King David and to his slingshot that killed Goliath (and that might yet
overthrow the Roman Goliath). Furthermore, Jesus is presented out of all
context of other Jewish claimants to the Jewish throne, all of whom, it
appears, Rome likewise executed.

None of those naysaying books deals in any serious way with the politics of
the situation. According to Josephus, the war that was raging throughout
Jesus's lifetime between the Romans and the Jews was the greatest war in all
of history. It might not have been that, but still, the destruction of
Jerusalem in 70 CE shows that it was at least a contender. And yet the New
Testament ignores that reality and presents Jesus as a "Prince of Peace" who
would bring peace *before* overthrowing Goliath, and not *afterwards* as
King David had done according to the precedent Jewish myth.

Consequently, I do not think that those naysayers are serious. I think that
that strain of scholarship is motivated by disgruntlement and
disillusionment with Christianity, and not by a serious interest in
understanding Christian origins.

Eric Zuesse
cettel AT shoreham.net