KrisK10

OK spamandham, I'm operating under the presupposition that Jesus existed. Thanks for your thoughts.

Kris

KrisK10

Vinny,

You're probably the only other one here that has gotten the book and read what S-W says. One of us has got it wrong. There is no doubt in my mind from S-W's treatise that he denys the possibility that the gospels are mostly legendary (on the scale of what is proposed by the Jesus Seminar today). Are you sure you got it right?

Kris

Steven Carr

I see.

Stories where somebody speaks to Satan in the desert would be an exception to the ancient history Sherwin-White normally looked at.

And your point is?

Steven Carr

Stories that John was plunged into boiling oil and was unharmed?

Stories about Muhammad?

Stories about Joseph Smith being visited by an angel and being given Golden Plates to translate?

Stories about Paul visiting Heaven?

Stories about the Angel of Mons?

What real doosies about Jesus accumulated within 30 years of his death?

Matthew alleges that a legend accumulated that the guard were bribed to say that the body had been stolen, and that this story has 'prevailed' among the Jews.

As the Gospel of Matthew appeared at the exact same time that the stories of the many saints resurrecting appeared, how can we say that one story is not a legend, because it appeared too quickly, while the author of the Gospel himself claims that legends grew up just as fast as his own stories about saints resurrecting.

The argument is that the Gospel of Matthew appeared too quickly for it to contain legends.

The Gospel of Matthew claims that a legend grew up quickly about Jesus and that it became 'firmly fixed in general belief' among the Jews.

So this legend really *must* have appeared quickly, because there was too short a time for legends to appear quickly.

Perhaps you might like to re-think your 'argument'

Steven Carr

How do you intend to find the 'oral' tradition about Jesus?

We only have what was written down.

And the mythical tendencies about Jesus did NOT prevail inside 2 generations.

Most people did not believe Jesus walked on water. Few people even wrote about it.

More people believe the September 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers had US backing than believed within 7 years of Jesus allegedly being born to a virgin that he was born of a virgin.

Could you actually state a point to this thread?

Apparently S-W thought that within 2 generations of something , only a small minority would believe legends about.

That is what we see with Christianity.

So what actually is your point?

KrisK10

Those all look like a tale or two to me, not really of the same scale. I think the oil dunking legend was well after John had died (not soon enough). The golden plates and visit by an angel were an actual claim of Smith's, not a legend that arose despite it never happening to him. What series of legends accumulated around Muhammad in the first 30-100 years of his fame?

Kris

Steven Carr

I see.

So now the stories have not to be actual claims of the person themselves, to be parallels.

How quickly did the legend appear that the guards had been bribed to say the body had been stolen, and how long did that take to become fixed as a general belief among Jews?

Did that legend appear as quickly as the legend that many people rose from their graves and appeared to people in Jerusalem?

Steven Carr

And the virgin birth legend was well after Mary became pregnant.

It is not in Mark or Paul....

Amaleq13

Nope. Just offering suggestions to improve spamandham's list.

As one who slightly leans toward an historical figure almost entirely mythologized, I don't consider the challenge to be helpful or informed. We humans apparently can't help but enhance the stories we repeat and that is only more true when it comes to those we admire or revere. I consider the application of "rapid" to the question of Jesus to be an exaggeration but I agree that the difference you point out between Jesus and the others S-W had in mind is both true and significant.

IMO, it is not the speed that is remarkable but the comprehensive nature of the process in this case.

gstafleu

If there was an HJ, and he died at the time usually assumed, then that time scale is correct. Of course if there wasn't an HJ...

With or without an HJ, let's assume the accumulation of stories (either as a from-scratch narrative, or as stories accumulated around an HJ) started at about 30 CE. I take it the question then is: is the 30-70 years sufficient time for such a collection to develop?

I don't see how the existence of an HJ is relevant to that question, in the sense that if such a collection could develop from scratch, then certainly it could develop around a historical core. And I don't think there is much doubt that such a collection could be built from scratch in the time specified (Odyssey, Aeneid...). The only thing a historically non-detectable historical Jesus does here, is explain away the scarcity of the expected evidence. But, as I point out in another thread, that is methodologically invalid. You can only use that argument to explain the scarcity of evidence, once you have somehow established that there in fact was an HJ.

So, to conclude, I don't think the 30-70 year span impacts on the existence of an HJ in any way: it works in both cases. Except that if S-W is right--and that doesn't seem to be generally accepted--then the lacking historical evidence is a problem, which you then explain away in a methodologically invalid manner.

Finally, it seems a bit strange that the apologists try to lasso S-W into their corral. If he is right, then his argument, given the lacking evidence, goes against an HJ. If he is not right, then the 30-70 years is neutral as to an HJ. It would then be better for the apologists to ignore S-W, one would think.

Gerard Stafleu