Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 10-26-2011, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

Some of this material (particularly that from Matthew) would fail multiple attestation and other standard criteria.

The earliest form of the tradition seems to have Jesus with a large following in the Galilee but not much more than that.

Andrew Criddle

Interestingly enough, the resurrection passes the multiple attestation criterion!

:devil1:

archibald · 10-26-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Not good enough. You have four gospels full of claims that a main component of the Jesus story is his immense fame and large crowds. If all that is a lie, and all the supernatural elements are B.S, the claims for the Historical Jesus are vanishing before our very eyes.

On the contrary, there is ample scope for there to be a minor, locally popular to some extent, failed preacher/fakir type in there. One can't prove it, or say it with any certainty, obviously, but there is no dilemma, no inherent contradiction, by any means.

Sheshbazzar · 10-26-2011, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Some of this material (particularly that from Matthew) would fail multiple attestation and other standard criteria.

The earliest form of the tradition seems to have Jesus with a large following in the Galilee but not much more than that.

We gots what we gots, and it is what it tis, and christianity swears it is all de Gospel truff.

andrewcriddle · 10-26-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Jake

Some of this material (particularly that from Matthew) would fail multiple attestation and other standard criteria.

The earliest form of the tradition seems to have Jesus with a large following in the Galilee but not much more than that.

Andrew Criddle

Interestingly enough, the resurrection passes the multiple attestation criterion!

:devil1:

The resurrection is clearly part of very early Christian tradition.

Andrew Criddle

dog-on · 10-26-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Interestingly enough, the resurrection passes the multiple attestation criterion!

:devil1:

The resurrection is clearly part of very early Christian tradition.

Andrew Criddle

Clearly.

archibald · 10-26-2011, 12:50 PM

This has been a good laugh guys, but I gotta go hit he sack now. I'm doing a wedding tomorrow. Gotta practice my wine-from-water thing. Now, where is that Derren Brown book....?

Toto · 10-26-2011, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Still waiting for any evidence that historicity is a viable option.

Now I think you are just trying to wind me up, Toto? >

<

I already told you, I have summarised my arguments many times. ..

This is your last attempt from the closed thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

...

Before Toto closes the thread, it occurs to me to tell you why I think Jesus is a better candidate for an 'historical' figure than a mythical figure. Inverted commas to emphasize that my reasons only have to do with thinking that he was likely, IMO, to have been considered to have been real, not that he was real, since that is a different thing. But it seems to me a lot of the mythicist hypotheses aired here recently have to do with this question.

Is the fact that someone thought he was real evidence?

Quote:

The first reason is that he does not fit the mould in one important way. When mythical figures are thought of as having walked the earth, they are far more usually placed in the dim and distant past. It's not entirely unknown that they aren't, but it's pretty rare, especially for religious figures, rare enough for it to be considered unusual when someone is described as having been around recently.

I'm not sure what this is - an argument from probability? You don't think that a second century writer placing Jesus in 30 CE is not effectively the dim and distant past?

Quote:

The second reason, and again it's only meant as an illustration of what people seemed to believe rather than whether they were correct to believe it, is that Jesus represents something specific, something which can't be said of many other mythical figures, but which Jesus shares with a different type of figure, the eschatological prophet. That is, he is a catalyst for something incredible that was going to happen very soon, if in fact it hadn't already started, namely....the end of the world. It seems very odd for people to think that the end of the world was actually nigh without a messiah having been believed to have arrived, since for them, a messiah was clearly supposed to come to Israel in order to signal this. We might call it a fundamentally key requirement. They appear to be religious, end-of-the-world devotees looking for actual signals, not playwrights who might want to write complicated, fictional myths or allegories or parables to entertain their literary sensibilities. Similarly, a messiah who hadn't come to earth, but simply wafted about among different non-earthly realms, or a messiah whose existence was concocted purely because it 'ought' to have already happened, do not, IMO, provide as good an explanation, or indeed a persuasive premise to trigger the fervency of the beliefs held by followers.

They might add symbolic and significant things to the figure to fill in gaps in what was known of him, to 'prove' that he really had True Messiah^TM credentials, and wasn't a charlatan like some others, but it makes no sense for them to think there hadn't actually been one in the first place. This, in fact, is the normal pattern, often repeated through history, for eschatological expectations among end-of-the-world cults, where there is almost always a template leader around whom the expectations crystallize.

This looks like more evidence of some probability that someone believed Jesus had been real...

Quote:

Third, in combination with the first two, everybody, including the writers and all other cult members, appeared to take the existence of the guy pretty bloody seriously. There are no traces of early mythicists.

But is there any more evidence of an early historical Jesus?

Quote:

So, I am, among other things, left with the impression that people of around the time and location genuinely thought some ropey fakir had strutted his stuff in the vicinity. I believe that would normally be enough of an indicator for any objective person to seriously think he might, especially if one adheres to what would normally pass for indicators for other figures from ancient history, for whom we couldn't even say anywhere near that much. IMO, it would be inconsistent not to be willing, in all objectivity, to lean slightly towards an HJ position.

Except that the people who believed he was historical were not around that time or location...

I can see why you don't want to repeat this too often. The more you examine it, the more it falls apart.

Sheshbazzar · 10-26-2011, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Interestingly enough, the resurrection passes the multiple attestation criterion!

:devil1:

The resurrection is clearly part of very early Christian tradition.

Andrew Criddle

Clearly.

And a fundamental natural and logical component of the tale, based on familiarity with Daniel and other OT sayings.

archibald · 10-26-2011, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is the fact that someone thought he was real evidence?

Yes, to anyone with a genuinely open mind, it is, in the particular context and circumstances to some extent a positive indicator, particularly (which actually was what I had in mind) against those who think the various text writers were knowingly doing non-history, which seemed to have cropped up a lot recently), but yes, if we have a figure who is genuinely and generally believed to have existed in the vicinity relatively recently, especially if his existence is a prerequisite for a conviction that the world was due to end because of his arrival, then, although it's not certain that he did exist (obviously, the contrary is not unheard of, just comparatively uncommon) it's one indicator that he may have, for the other reasons given in that post, unless one's mind is so dogmatically blind that one cannot admit that some things are HJ indicators and some things are MJ indicators.

archibald · 10-26-2011, 01:08 PM

Jake,

Sorry, just popped on to add something...have trouble staying away from a good argument......:blush:

If Jesus had been someone like Sai Baba of Shirdi, the stories that have come down to us might have been very similar.

I only say this to illustrate the possibility that there is no dilemma in thinking that there might be a real man in there.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-26-2011, 12:50 PM	#76
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	This has been a good laugh guys, but I gotta go hit he sack now. I'm doing a wedding tomorrow. Gotta practice my wine-from-water thing. Now, where is that Derren Brown book....?

10-26-2011, 01:08 PM	#80
archibald Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 1,305	Jake, Sorry, just popped on to add something...have trouble staying away from a good argument......:blush: If Jesus had been someone like Sai Baba of Shirdi, the stories that have come down to us might have been very similar. I only say this to illustrate the possibility that there is no dilemma in thinking that there might be a real man in there.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.