Toto

And what exactly is it about the synoptic problem that you assume I don't understand which would illuminate this problem? Feel free to reference the particular solution to the synoptic problem you prefer. Identify the number of epicycles hypothetical documents you require to fully explain the synoptic problem. Explain exactly how texts written long after the time of the alleged Yeshua of Nazareth can be used to show anything about his existence. (Hint: the fact that some oral traditions can survive for 5 generations does not show that any particular oral tradition is a survival from 5 generations previous - would you not agree?)

Solitary Man

That depends. Does the contradiction of what Caesar's last words were, if they were even uttered at all, strengthen the position that Caesar never existed? I do not think so. The sheer fact that there are inconsistencies, contradictions, and ambiguities do not weigh for or against mythicism. It's where and how that is of concern. There are inconsistencies, contradictions, and ambiguities in the reasons why America went to war with Iraq and the situation in Iraq. Does that mean that there was never a war in Iraq? Of course not. That would be fatuous.

He didn't survive the cross. He died on the cross.

Funny - what was so legendary about dying on a cross? Does that mean that all the criminals who were crucified were mythical? There was no Spartacus!

Solitary Man

Your snide remark about epicycles strikes me as one wholly unfamiliar with not only the synoptic problem but with ancient literature in general. If we never had the Gospel of Mark, I wonder how many "skeptics" like you would have thought of Mark as merely an epicycle. I wonder how many people who appear to never have touched a book on the synoptic problem, much less a tome like Neirynck, would think that Luke using Matthew would suffice. I wonder if you feel the same about JEPD as well. What would we think of Homer if all we had was Vergil? Or even only Jerome! Do you know how many times Jerome quotes Vergil verbatim for something that has nothing to do with the Aeneid per se?

And yes, I'm well aware that historical reliability in oral traditions does not necessarily have to survive the full 5 or 6 generations. The question used to be, which you doubted, can oral tradition survive for that long. It has been shown that yes indeed, it can survive for that long. There was much ado about Mark being written some 40 years after the purported events, as if that means that Mark knew nothing. On the contrary, 40 years is a single generation - there may have, and probably were, people living at that time who knew the original situation, or at least met with them.

For the record, I follow a modified 2 source theory.

Toto

I don't recall doubting that oral tradition could survive that long. But I don't think that has ever been an issue. The issue has always been the reliability of something written at a minimum 40 years after the fact, and possibly close to a century, following a war that devastated the area and uprooted most witnesses.

aa5874

The NT and the Church Fathers claimed he survived the crucifixion and was seen alive by the disciples and over five hundred people.

1 Corinthians 15.5-6"....He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; After that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once..."

Is a claim of crucifixion, a claim of historicity?

Toto

The claim is that he "appeared" to 500+ people. But he did this after dying on the cross, and the appearance might have been of a spirit.

spin

This obfuscation, changing topic from apparent historical narrative onto classical speeches, is typical of our Latin classicist. He is happy to assume his conclusions about the TF, but you'll never see any evidence to support the crap. He'll just hope to confuse with his irrelevances about classical speeches, apparently confusing himself about the content of classical speeches as indicative of classical historical narrative. The TF or his arbitrary reduction of the TF is not a speech. It is apparently part of the historical narrative fabric of the text.

More assumption of conclusion. Was there a Jesus for legend to be based on? I'm happy to say that it's possible, but there is no necessity (especially given Paul's teaching of a revealed Jesus). After all there was no Ebion behind the "legend". -- Oh, I forget, you accept the non-reality of Ebion, but you can't see the relevance to the possible non-reality of Jesus. (You live in a fantasy world just like the Weimar Republic.)


spin

aa5874

So, ambiguities, contradictions, inconsistencies and fiction favor historicity? And if I consider that any of the Caesars were figures of history, then must I claim that Jesus of the NT existed?

Once a person is considered to be a figure of history, then we may expect that all events reported about that person may not be true, however, if a person's historicity has not been confirmed, then the credibilty of events surrounding that person can be used to make a determination of their existence.

Solitary Man

I think you might have a comprehension problem. I'm saying that your criteria is not good. If you want to show that Jesus didn't exist, you'll need better criteria.

Why the double standard?

aa5874

Now, the claim Jesus died after crucifixion must be an error if he was a mere mortal and was seen alive eating bread and fish with his disciples, after his supposed burial, according to gJohn, and by 500 people in the epistles.

You must bear in mind, according to the Gospels, Jesus' body was never seen, dead or alive, in the tomb when visited by the women and the disciples, he just was not there. The death of Jesus was assumed, there are no accounts of Jesus whereabouts after being placed in the tomb and early on the 1st day of the week.