dongiovanni1976x

You are equivocating subjective truth with objective truth. This is all I am critiquing. I mean no disrespect or offense by it I just do not understand why you have trouble recognizing this distinction. For example, say there was a person named Joe who saw a priest walk across the pond in front of the local church in 1920 and wrote about it in a letter to his girlfriend telling her how amazing it was. Now we know that walking on water defies our current understanding of the laws of physics so for the historian we would look for a more likely explanation of this phenomena.
We can posit that the priest was stepping on stones in the water and it made him “appear” to be skirting across the pond and Joe was deceived, or he could have been walking BEHIND the pond and from the angle Joe was observing him he thought it looked like the priest was literally ON the pond.
So when Joe writes a letter to his girlfriend, the veracity of his statement is true as long as he is reporting what he subjectively BELIEVED happened- regardless of what OBJECTIVELY took place.
Paul’s writing is similar to this effect. Except that you seem to be using the author of Luke/Acts to call Paul a fraud when he never wrote Luke/Acts.

Again, All that is necessary is that Paul believed he had a vision in order for him to report it and believe that he was telling the truth. The objective truth of this event need not matter at this time. And if Paul said that James had a brother and this is not an unlikely thing, and his statement is corroborated by at least two other independent sources (Mark and Josephus) then, as far as an ancient historian is concerned, we have good reason to conclude that Jesus was a real individual- regardless of what he actually DID on this planet which both you and I are from…

Sparrow

But you didn't address the question of how we could tell if Paul was lying or perpetrating a fraud/hoax.

Zero without redoing the research, but it does show that Jesus was hardly unique in the Messiah attribute. These others got mentions in documents contemporaneous to their lifetimes, Jesus did not. This does not mean Jesus didn’t exist on its own, but simply that he had not attracted as much notice as these others. History being what it is, if some new evidence was found next Thursday, I might have to revise that statement.

I don’t think I suggested that Mark copied Paul. I believe it was possible for Mark to have had at least some of Paul’s texts. His motivation for writing could have been to ‘correct’ Paul and give Christ some historical background. It’s not really of great interest to me so I haven’t done much research in this area.

I’m simply pointing out that Josephus was not there. He is reporting what he has heard or read, not what he knows, at least in some cases.

You’re right that we don’t have many choices amongst sources. Many of those that we do have were only preserved by those with a vested interest in a particular theology. Many documents were lost and we only know of them by references to them in other surviving documents. Historians have the challenge of reconstructing a likely series of events without always knowing the provenance and motivation behind the texts and other evidence they have. An honest historian will admit to having doubts about the events he postulates.

It seems to me there is some doubt about Paul’s ‘brother of the Lord’ phrase which exists in only one place in all of his writings. It seems possible that the other writers could have had access to Paul’s writing and may not be as independent in this case as we would like. I don’t know. I don’t get how three brief mentions, even if completely indepent weighs so heavily on establishing Jesus’ existence.

Given what you know about James, tell me about his life. Birthdate, deathdate, the whole shebang so to speak.

It seems to me that you are seeing what you want to see. Think about how many historians have parroted the cherry tree story in George Washington’s life despite it being very likely false. Am I being overly skeptical? Maybe.

Sparrow

Of course, Joe could be making the whole thing up and Joe never saw a priest at all. How do you rule that possibility out?

dongiovanni1976x

what reason do we have to assume such a thing? What are Paul’s motives? What is he trying to accomplish? What reason(s) would he have for perpetrating a fraud/hoax? (money?)
Arguably Paul seems very concerned that the end time is near and is very concerned to spread his gospel to as many people as he can.
All of his writings seem to be directed at playing the Shepard to ensure that people stay on the right path in preparation for Christ’s return. I do not see any reason to assume he is perpetrating a hoax or is intentionally deceiving people. This is why I said we can postulate such things but we need a good reason to do so. What good reason do you have to assume that Paul is a liar?

The others you mention…if Josephus mentioned “The Egyptian” and Theudas, you are considering him a contemporary but not for Jesus? I would ask that you support your statement that “These others got mentions in documents contemporaneous to their lifetimes, Jesus did not.”
You are correct. You never did. I was explaining to you my reason which stemmed from an earlier post. I just wanted to establish and make it clear that it is very likely that Paul and Mark are independent sources and it helped to mention Earl Doherty in doing so for the sake of my argument from an earlier thread.
If this scrutiny was applied to Tacitus, Seutonius and Cassius Dio what possibly could we ever conclude about this time period- very little I would think. Josephus never stated he was there when mentioning the other two messiah figures in question yet you seem to hold that they attracted more attention and are real people- Why? It is not a very far fetched assumption that Jesus was a man and all we are doing as historians is constructed the most probable of all possible pasts. So far Jesus being a man with a brother named James, independently attested by three separate sources is as good as it gets in antiquity as far as the historian is concerned.
Paul was far more concerned with the way his developing little communities were going than to give historical updates on James and others in Jerusalem. So it is not very odd that he mentions James only three times I can think of off the top of my head. But for you to doubt that James was the brother of Jesus you would need a good reason. What is it? It would be ad hoc to suggest that it is interpolated simply because it conflicts with the MJ position. Paul doesn’t give us any reason to suggest he is making it up, it is an appropriate way to show reverence to address Jesus as Lord for a believer and James is mentioned in at least two other places- and James was not of a major concern for Paul. The possibility that this was a later interpolation is always available but it would be the burden of the one who suggests such a thing to make a case for it and for me I don’t see any strong reason to do so.
tell me about Theudas or the Egyptian’s life, deathdate, the whole shebang…Are you suggest that that since there are few scanty records about some poor, likely illiterate Jew from 1st century Palestine that we should assume he doesn’t exits too…what reason would Paul have for making this up? What reason would Mark, independent of Paul, have for making this guy up? What reason would Josephus have?
Sure you can suggest interpolation again, but this is always the convenient ad hoc tactic employed when things don’t fit one or another’s person theory. We need good reasons to make such assertions.

Bart Ehrman mentions this exact myth and makes a good distinction between a moral truth and an actual truth. It is parroted because we like to believe that our founding father was an honest man and there seems no better way to do so than this quaint little story.
Francis Bacon said that doubt was the beginning of wisdom, as a skeptic myself I do not see any harm in doubt- I think more of it is needed in our world. But I do not see why we need to doubt that Jesus was an actual person based upon the few reasons that have been offered by the MJ position. It makes far more sense to me that Jesus was real and that the myths came to be attributed TO him. You and I do not really disagree about anything significant here except that I think that if we assume Jesus was not a real man based upon these arguments from near silence then we are forced to do so with so many other figures from antiquity when there really is no good reason to do so since alternative explanations account for what little we do know.

dongiovanni1976x

Historians do not empirical prove the past by ruling all other possibilities out. They CONSTRUCT the past upon what MOST LIKELY happened.
So in short, we cannot rule this possibiility out but given the nature of the letter and the fact that Joe was known to be a superstitious kinda guy from sme of his other letters it is more plausible to construct the events in one of the two scenarios I suggested than to conclude that the event never took place.
We do this with Paul when we read his other letters...he is far more concerned about righteous living and seems wholly convinced that he had some kind of religious experience- doesn't matter if it objectively happened as he believes but it makes far more sense to assume he is not lying than to assume he is concocting a big lie to swindle people out of money or something...

Sparrow

Given your statements about Paul's haste to spread the gospel as he knew it (revealed directly by the risen Jesus, right?) prior to an impending end of the cosmos, it would seem Paul's source was somewhat unreliable. Possibly Paul's story was untrue even though he believed it fervently. Or did I miss the end of the world?

As to the messiah wannabees of the early first century, I was not referring to the ones you mention, so I am not relying on Mark or Jesephus. I don't have the time right now to go back and find that research, so let me leave it there.

This is where I can agree wholeheartedly. You and I do not actually disagree about anything significant. You seem certain there was a man and I, despite my leanings the other way, am fairly certain we do not know for sure. This seems a good place to end it as I have neither the time nor the energy to reconstruct what I need to support what must seem like nothing but bald assertions to you.

And by the way, you didn't provide me with but one of Joe's letters - no fair hiding evidence.

Fortuna

Here is where I think they begin to completely miss the point


It is in these last 3 or 4 comments that the point is getting lost, and perhaps I am missing it also, but let me see if I can understand what Sparrow and aa are trying to express.

Comparing Mark's NT gospel to some other historical text like Josephus or epictitus or plato is not a useful nor is it a fair comparison.

Here is I believe the reason why and what they are trying to express.
Mark's NT gospel is filled with (there are at least a couple on every page it seems) extra-ordinary events, claims of miracles, talks with god, etc ,etc. None of these other more historical texts contain elements like that in such great quantity.

Would it not be more fair to compare Mark's NT gospel to say, the story of Cupid and Psyche ? In that story, you have a lot of the same mythological elements going on. gods talking to one another. Psycher being given to Hades, beinf banished to Hades, and the story of Cupid's adventure in going into Hades to get her. While encountering Cerbus, the 3 headed dog who guards the entrance to Hades, etc. to me, this type of story is more similiar to the genre of the gospel of Mark.thre are other similiarities. Cupid and Pstche also contains lessons and morals learned in reading the story, just as Mark's gospel does. Both are tragedies. (I'm assuming that Mark's original ended at 16:8. At the end of Mark's story, the body is gone from the tomb, and the man in white (who had appeared earlier in the story) tells the women to tell no-one of it. The story ends. (a somewhat hopeful ending, but still a tragedy).

I think it is fair to ask the question of , because of all these mythical elements, (as in Cupid and Psyche), did Mark ( the author) write the story with the intent of it as being mythical fiction or history ? To me, it does not read like history, it reads as a work of literary art, a short novella, again, very much like the story of Cupid and Psyche. Perhaps Mark never intended for it to be taken as historical, but rather, to be read as a tragedy.

I think that this is what aa and Sparrow are trying to express. Because of the large amount of mythical elements and literary devices in the story
it may not have been intended as a history, and perhaps should not be considered as such.

On the other hand, perhaps Mark's Jesus is loosely ymodeled on some historical figure(s), or a composite of Judean sages.

But, what the other side is suggesting is that, if we strip out all the mythical elements and literary devices, that there might be some historical clues on what remains. In my opinion, that might be so, but we can never be sure if there is any history left at all. (once you remove the literary devices and deconstruct all the chiasms, there is very little left).

If we did the same to Cupid and Psyche, would we also find a historical core of a love tragedy ?

A and Sparrow, is this close to what you were trying to express ?

If so I agree. Perhaps we should not consider the NT gospels as necessarily historical at all.

Thus we are left with only the letters of Paul (fwiw) and Josephus, Tacitus, etc. And these (except Paul) might only be repeating secondhand information they got from Christian sources.

jjramsey

That would be as foolish as comparing the account of Apollonius of Tyana's life by Philostratus to the story of Cupid and Psyche. Philostratus' work is at least as fanciful as the Gospels, yet Apollonius is probably historical.

dongiovanni1976x

If you do get the time I would be interested in hearing what sources we used to know about the lives of these other Messiahs you mentioned. If you do I will show you Joe's other letter- besides a wise birdy once told me, "no fair hiding evidence"

Fortuna

But, you miss the point, and what I was trying to do was to see if this was what a and sparrow were trying to say, but this is a good example.

I would say that this applies to PhiloStratus's Apollonius as well. We should not give much historical weight to such fanciful stories. In other words, if all we knew about Appollonius was Philostratus's story, how much, if any, historical weight should be given to such a story ? (I would guess, not much, and if there was no other evidence, would i be justified to call Appolonius a purely mythical chracter. (read carefully, "if we knew of nothing save Philostratus's story")

Or alternatively, do we strip out all the flights of fancy and look at what is left.

Methinks you have missed the point.