Price's table of Jesus' story origins

[Jubal]

Here is the table from R.G. Price's book which lists the references and allusions to the Jewish scriptures found in the Gospel of Mark.

No tables here, so I'll post each item like this :
Scene
Reference
Subject

The proclamation of John the Baptist
Malachi 3:1; Isaiah 40; 2 Kings 1
Judgment of God on Israel; comfort to Israel for fulfillment of punishment through destruction; identification of Elijah

The baptism of Jesus
Isaiah 11; Isaiah 42
Identification of God’s servant

Jesus calls the first disciples
Jeremiah 16
Punishment of Israel

The man with an unclean spirit
Isaiah 65
God’s people don’t recognize him

Jesus heals a paralytic
2 Kings 5
Elijah/Elisha healing miracles

The purpose of the parables
Isaiah 6
Punishment of Israel

Jesus stills a storm
Psalm 107
Identification of the Lord

Jesus heals the Gerasene demoniac
Isaiah 64
Punishment of Israel

A girl restored to life and a woman healed
1 Kings 17; 2 Kings 4
Elijah/Elisha healing miracles

Death of John the Baptist
2 Kings 2
Transfer of Spirit from Elijah to Elisha

Feeding the five thousand
2 Kings 4
Elijah/Elisha feeding miracles

Jesus walks on water
Isaiah 43
Identification of the Savior of Israel

Feeding the four thousand
2 Kings 4
Elijah/Elisha feeding miracles

Jesus foretells his death and resurrection
Isaiah 53
Suffering Servant

The Transfiguration
Daniel 12
Description of eternal life and shining like a star for the righteous

Temptations to sin
Isaiah 66
Description of punishment for opponents of God

Jesus’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem
Zachariah 14; Zachariah 9; Psalm 118
Identification of the ruler of Israel

Jesus curses the fig tree and clears the temple
Hosea 9
Admonition of the Jews, punishment of Israel

The parable of the wicked tenants
Isaiah 5
Admonition of the Jews, punishment of Israel

The destruction of the temple foretold
Isaiah 13, 14, 19
Admonition of the Jews, punishment of Israel

The desolating sacrilege
Daniel 9, 11, 12
Admonition of the Jews, destruction foretold

The coming of the Son of Man
Isaiah 13; Daniel 7
Destruction, punishment of the world; coming of an eternal ruler

The anointing at Bethany
2 Kings 9; 1 Samuel 10
Anointing of the ruler of Israel

Judas agrees to betray Jesus
Amos 2
Admonition of the Jews, punishment of Israel

The Passover with the disciples
1 Samuel 10
Preparations for kingship

Jesus predicts his betrayal
Psalm 41
Invocation for revenge against transgressors

Peter’s denial foretold
Zechariah 13
Wrath against betrayers

The betrayal and arrest of Jesus
Amos 2
Admonition of the Jews, punishment of Israel

Jesus before the council
Isaiah 53; Psalm 110; Psalm 35
Suffering Servant; prayer for deliverance from enemies; prayer for retribution on oppressors

Jesus before Pilate
Isaiah 53
Suffering Servant

The soldiers mock Jesus
Isaiah 50
Suffering Servant

The Crucifixion of Jesus
Amos 2; Psalm 22; Amos 8
Judgment on Israel; prayer for deliverance from suffering; admonition of the Jews, punishment of Israel

The burial of Jesus
Isaiah 53
Suffering Servant

(This is reasonable fair use, it's a tiny fraction of the book ~1%)

[Tart]

[Replying to post 1 by Jubal]

Yes, in response to the original post... So many of the things referenced, not all but a lot, are what are believed to be prophecies of the Messiah... Christians agree that the Old Testament points to Jesus, because of its fulfillment of the Messiah... The Christian claim is that these things were prophesied, and that God dictates destiny (not just the destiny of Jesus, but of you an I, and all of humanity at that)....

This is actually my biggest criticism of Dr. Carrier, and Dr. Price... In fact, I have spoke with and had a chance to question Dr. Carrier myself, and once I asked him about how he could justify his claims that Jesus was myth, and prove the Christian claim to be wrong, he never answered me again...

That is, these Biblical scholars (Price and Carrier), make the case that Christianity is mythology and Jesus is a myth by how the story reads... Like Carrier gives many examples of the Bible having a deeper meaning then just the stories told.. For example, he points of the Abraham has a deeper meaning of "father of the multitude", or how Barabbas means "son of the father", and other examples, as to show these stories are myths by revealing deeper hidden messages...

however, that is exactly what the Christian claim is. That these stories indeed have deeper meanings. In fact studying the original Greek/Hebrew transcript and their literal meanings is very revealing. That there are indeed prophetic inclinations throughout the Bible. Like the Passover, for example, is indeed a deeper message that points to Christ the "Lamb of God" and in fact the date of when Christs historical death took place, where your sin will be forgive, or "Passover" you, or where the festival with unleavened bread was revealed to be a parable about the leaven of the Pharisees talk about by Jesus.. Where God called the Israelite's to come out of Egypt in the Old testament, similar to God calling people to come out of the world... There is indeed deeper meaning in the scripture...

So i find myself agreeing with Dr. Carrier and Dr. Price... However what i dont agree on is that these stories are therefor myths.... In fact, I think if Dr Carrier and Price are correct, that these stories have in-depth meaning, and if they are in anyway historical, then that would be powerful evidence that this is truly built on a prophetic destiny, and an all knowing God who has meaning and purpose in what He wills to be...

And its funny how, Dr. Carrier, and Dr. Price are the overwhelming minority when it comes to scholars who confirm things like Jesus is a real historical person.. And how Carrier and Price built their cases on the Bible being myths, on basically saying they are prophetic and meaningful, and not on any objective historical objections...


Indeed these scholars reasoning is actual evidence that Christianity reveals a deeper truth, and a prophetic destiny, evidence of God himself.

[Jagella]

Claiming that Jesus the Nazarite is "God" doesn't come from the Tanakh.

That is correct. Many of the Jews were looking for the Messiah. The word "messiah" means "anointed man," very often a man made a king (e.g. King Saul). So Jesus could not have been both the Bible god and the Messiah because messiahs are mere men rather than gods.

The Christianities are the only cults I know arrogant enough to claim that their leader actually IS God.

We atheists are often accused of arrogance, but what could be more arrogant than to claim that one is "infilled" with a perfect being?

You are very well informed, Stuart!

[Jagella]

Indeed these scholars reasoning is actual evidence that Christianity reveals a deeper truth, and a prophetic destiny, evidence of God himself.

I (as well as others) haven't failed to notice that both the mythicists and evangelical Christians see meanings in Old-Testament stories that are "reflected" in the New Testament. The difference between the two camps is the "direction of the reflection." Evangelical Christians see Old Testament passages as "pointing" to the gospel yet to happen. Mythicists see the New Testament "pointing" to the Old Testament by the writers of the New Testament to make Jesus appear to be the "prophesied" Messiah.

So if you agree with the mythicists, then no Gods or crystal balls are needed to explain these stories that parallel the Old and New Testaments. All you need are some clever human writers who realized that the Jesus they created would seem more like a God if they could convince people he was predicted long before he came on the scene.

[Jubal]

Some of the doctrines in the gospel tale probably originated in Egyptian mythology rather than in the Hebrew scriptures. The Tale of Khaemwese, an Egyptian story, for example, describes a rich man who dies and is sentenced to eternal punishment. He was sentenced to this punishment because while he was still alive he lacked charity. A poor man, by contrast, dies and enjoys a blessed state. This story is very similar to the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man in Luke 16:19-31. It is very possible that Christians heard The Tale of Khaemwese from traders from Egypt and incorporated it into the gospel tale putting it into the mouth of a mythical Christ.

Thanks, that's new to me, I'll check it out.

So yes, we have here one example of an element of the gospel tale that does not appear in the Hebrew scriptures. Although I have a lot of respect for Robert Price, I cannot agree with his position that everything in the gospel tale is derived from the Hebrew bible. In addition to Jewish mythology, the gospel story was influenced by pagan mythology as well.

Thanks Jagella, I knew someone would spot my silly error there
Obviously I should have said :
"is there anything that doesn't come from previous writings, like the Tanakh",
because I had already invoked the writings of Paul, and Homer.

Indeed I agree that Egyptian stories such as mentioned could have been an influence. So too could have been contemporary novels, such as the famous Chariton and Chareas which climaxed with an empty tomb scene.

Imagine that
Paul never mentions an empty tomb (he only uses the word 'tomb' once, in an unrelated context Rom. 3:13, often rendered as 'graves'.)
But -
an empty tomb scene is the climax for some contemporary fiction.
Hmmm....

So, in summary, I think it was like this :
* the G. of Mark was crafted from the whole cloth of the Tanakh,
but it also :
* derived names from Paul,
and :
* included themes and ideas from wider literature including Homer, and probably more besides.

But none of the Jesus of Nazareth story can be reliably traced back to any historical persons or events.

It all started with documents.
Anonymous documents, passed down through the decades, whose origins were unknown, and are still unknown.

Jubal

[Jubal]

The author of Mark certainly believed that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophesies, especially those from Isaiah.

Well,
that is certainly the faithful belief of faithful believers.

But it is becoming increasingly clear (through the work of many, including R.G. Price and Dr Robert M. Price) that what really happened is this :

The author of Mark had read the Tanakh, knew it well, and had a copy of front of him when he wrote his Gospel. (Although it was the Greek version, the LXX, the septuagint. Mark may possibly have not known Hebrew or Aramaic.)

Mark crafted his Jesus story directly from the stories and characters in the Tanakh, and left obvious clues from the very beginning - such as the obvious allusions to Elijah / Elisha.

The story starts with an obvious phrase about clothes of camel hair and belt of leather - it is crystal clear that John the Baptist represents Elijah, and that allusion is repeated, even in the crucifixion scene when the crowd says "he calls for Elijah" who does not come this time. It's obvious the JohnB / Jesus pair mimics the Elijah / Elisha pair (up to a point.)

The initial scenes make it clear that John the Baptist passes the mantle to Jesus, it's an obvious theme (he prepares the way, baptises Jesus, then gets dramatically killed off.) But you can't see that ? Seriously ? I came here for the 'debate' part, I'll leave others to address the 'apologetics' part Thanks guys, I see Jagella has addressed this.

Jubal

[Tart]

Indeed these scholars reasoning is actual evidence that Christianity reveals a deeper truth, and a prophetic destiny, evidence of God himself.

I (as well as others) haven't failed to notice that both the mythicists and evangelical Christians see meanings in Old-Testament stories that are "reflected" in the New Testament. The difference between the two camps is the "direction of the reflection." Evangelical Christians see Old Testament passages as "pointing" to the gospel yet to happen. Mythicists see the New Testament "pointing" to the Old Testament by the writers of the New Testament to make Jesus appear to be the "prophesied" Messiah.

So if you agree with the mythicists, then no Gods or crystal balls are needed to explain these stories that parallel the Old and New Testaments. All you need are some clever human writers who realized that the Jesus they created would seem more like a God if they could convince people he was predicted long before he came on the scene.

Ok, I think we should agree then, that if Christianity is historical, like Jesus life, and death, then the view of the mythicist, is evidence that Christianity is prophetic, and reveals a divine destiny... Ya?

[Jubal]

G'day mate

Claiming that Jesus the Nazarite is "God" doesn't come from the Tanakh.

The Christianities are the only cults I know arrogant enough to claim that their leader actually IS God.

I agree.
Note that my evil twin brother edited my sentence, which should have read :
"is there anything in the Jesus of Nazareth story that doesn't come from the Tanakh (or other writings like Paul and Homer etc.) ?"

The belief that Jesus Christ was God seems to have come from Paul (and his group), apparently based on personal experiences of the divine.

Even today, people have life-changing religious experiences - it sure looks like Paul had one. Could he have lied ? Sure, but does a lie make you dedicate your life to writing and travelling about it ? It seems far more likely that Paul really did have a life-changing spiritual experience - apparently he went to the third heaven and met Jesus. Not an easy thing to understand.

Here's a question -
If say, bjs, or tart, or I, or anyone else here claimed to have travelled to the third heaven and met Jesus - would that make our claims more, or less credible ?

Not claiming to. Just pointing out the element of the mysterious in the origins of Christianity.

Jubal

[Jagella]

Ok, I think we should agree then, that if Christianity is historical, like Jesus life, and death, then the view of the mythicist, is evidence that Christianity is prophetic, and reveals a divine destiny... Ya?

Well, anybody who has read the New Testament primarily Matthew should understand that the early Christians wrote that Jesus was predicted by the Jewish prophets. Many evangelical Christians see these prophecies as proof that something magical is going on within the pages of the Bible. They reason that it is humanly impossible for all those prophets to have known beforehand about Jesus and the life he would live. Of course, they don't seem to consider that the writers of the New Testament either made up the gospel stories of Jesus "fulfilling" prophecy, or they distorted those prophecies to make them appear to predict Jesus--or both.

Anyway, some mythicists like Bob Price and Richard Carrier argue the former--there was indeed a "Jesus" of sorts written about in the Hebrew Bible, and the early Christians made up their Jesus using the scriptural figure as a model. So Jesus is based on Jewish mythology as well as pagan mythology.

[bjs]

The author of Mark certainly believed that Jesus was fulfilling OT prophesies, especially those from Isaiah.

Well,
that is certainly the faithful belief of faithful believers.

But it is becoming increasingly clear (through the work of many, including R.G. Price and Dr Robert M. Price) that what really happened is this :

The author of Mark had read the Tanakh, knew it well, and had a copy of front of him when he wrote his Gospel. (Although it was the Greek version, the LXX, the septuagint. Mark may possibly have not known Hebrew or Aramaic.)

Mark crafted his Jesus story directly from the stories and characters in the Tanakh, and left obvious clues from the very beginning - such as the obvious allusions to Elijah / Elisha.

The story starts with an obvious phrase about clothes of camel hair and belt of leather - it is crystal clear that John the Baptist represents Elijah, and that allusion is repeated, even in the crucifixion scene when the crowd says "he calls for Elijah" who does not come this time. It's obvious the JohnB / Jesus pair mimics the Elijah / Elisha pair (up to a point.)

The initial scenes make it clear that John the Baptist passes the mantle to Jesus, it's an obvious theme (he prepares the way, baptises Jesus, then gets dramatically killed off.) But you can't see that ? Seriously ? I came here for the 'debate' part, I'll leave others to address the 'apologetics' part Thanks guys, I see Jagella has addressed this.

Jubal

First I will note that this is not something which “is becoming increasingly clear.� The “mythic� position is pretty old. Its heyday came in the late 1800’s, when people regularly made the arguments that Price has been trying to revive.

Since that time the view has been steadily declining, until now only a handful a fringe scholars and internet posters take it seriously. The more light that has been shown on this theory, the less plausible it has appeared. So it would be more accurate to say that it is becoming increasingly clear that the mythic theory is not valid.


As to the specific issue mentioned: While John the Baptist clearly took on the role of Elijah, the idea that his relationship to Jesus was somehow similar to Elijah’s relationship to Elisha has yet to be established.

The claim in the opening post was the Elijah passing his mantle to Elisha is mirrored in the story of John the Baptist’s death.

Reading the two stories, there are no apparent similarities between the two. John preparing the way for Jesus is a fundamentally different concept than passing a mantle to Jesus. Dying is far too common an event to build parallels between two stories on, especially since these two death stories are so wildly different in every respect.

If you going to make this case, which contradicts a more natural reading of the text, you are going to have to spell it out clearly with far more direct evidence than what has been provided so far.

Seriously.

[Tart]

Ok, I think we should agree then, that if Christianity is historical, like Jesus life, and death, then the view of the mythicist, is evidence that Christianity is prophetic, and reveals a divine destiny... Ya?

Well, anybody who has read the New Testament primarily Matthew should understand that the early Christians wrote that Jesus was predicted by the Jewish prophets. Many evangelical Christians see these prophecies as proof that something magical is going on within the pages of the Bible. They reason that it is humanly impossible for all those prophets to have known beforehand about Jesus and the life he would live. Of course, they don't seem to consider that the writers of the New Testament either made up the gospel stories of Jesus "fulfilling" prophecy, or they distorted those prophecies to make them appear to predict Jesus--or both.

Anyway, some mythicists like Bob Price and Richard Carrier argue the former--there was indeed a "Jesus" of sorts written about in the Hebrew Bible, and the early Christians made up their Jesus using the scriptural figure as a model. So Jesus is based on Jewish mythology as well as pagan mythology.

Ok, so we have many many prophecies fulfilled... Some explicitly said so, and others not explicitly said... In fact, the Bible is said to be made of about 1/3 prophecy... That's is like about 250,000 words of prophecy...

So you think Jesus was fabricated to the Messiahs fulfillment... So for example, His crucifixion, many details were prophecies... Do you not believe the Crucifixion is historical? Or it was historical and its fulfillment of prophecy were coincident? Jesus trial was prophesied, do you believe His trail was fictional? Or coincident? The date of the Messiah was prophesied, which the Disciples didnt even include in the Gospels, but it can be confirmed with information within them... Do you think Jesus existing at a certain time is fabricated, or that Jesus actually existed at said times by coincident? The Gospels say Jesus was crucified sometime around Passover, which would be a fulfillment of the "Lamb of God" (but not explicitly said so by the Disciples), it would also be a fulfillment of the blood sacrifice in that law, do you think this time was fabricated, or historical and coincident?

Also, how do you make sense out of the prophecies at whole... For example, we have prophecies that predict:

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations"~Jesus

Or that Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Babylonians, prophesied by Jeremiah... And then again prophecies by Jesus, of the Temples destruction in 70AD,

And besides that, Jerusalem was prophecies to never be "uprooted or demolished"...

Do you think those are coincident? Beating the overwhelmingly slim chances, in fulfillment?

There is also prophecies of war in the Middle east... Going on right now... But thats coincident?


Would you be able to explain this, with a coherent and comprehensive answer that makes sense out of the thousands of words of prophecies? Without God?

Because, all we see is doubt given by nonbelievers, with a new objection with any given prophecy... Im simply trying to make sense of it, in its entirety, from a non-belief view.