Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aChristian · 04-15-2011, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Seems like Jesus had a flimsy explanation, right?

No.

andrewcriddle · 04-16-2011, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Glad to. If they believed they were writing factual history, we have to account for that belief. Just what led them to think that those things really happened? Here are two possibilities.

1. The traditional orthodox account: They were witnesses to what they wrote about or were acquainted with witnesses. Almost nobody in this forum believes that, but the very earliest Christian references to these documents say exactly that. I think the presupposition of historicity here is obvious.

2. They were not witnesses, but they had sources that, in their opinion, could be trusted. This seems to be the consensus of mainstream scholarship. What would those sources have been?

2.a. The usual response is "oral tradition." But how would those traditions have gotten started? I see no way to justify an assumption that the traditions existed absent a presupposition that the subject of those traditions was a real person.

2.b. They had written sources that no longer survive. I've seen references to recent scholarship defending this notion. The question still arises as to why the gospel authors trusted those documents. There must have been a shared belief in their communities that those documents were reliable accounts of the ministry and martyrdom of their religion's founder. Again, it seems improbable to me that we can explain how such a belief could have arisen without presupposing the existence of a real founder whose story was told in those documents.

Hi Doug

Your argument seems to imply that doubting a Historical Jesus requires a belief that none of the canonical gospels were intended as historical accounts of the origins of Christianity.

However, it seems generally accepted on this forum that at least Luke's Gospel was intended as an historical account.

Some on this forum would argue that Luke misunderstood Mark, but you seem (IMO correctly) to regard this sort of scenario as implausible.

Andrew Criddle

Doug Shaver · 04-16-2011, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

What if there is merit in both arguments?

I believe there is. I just also think that one argument has more merit than the other.

Doug Shaver · 04-16-2011, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK, thanks. I don't see how you go from that to "...practically presupposes Jesus' historicity."

I thought my reasoning was pretty transparent. You'll have to quote the part you don't understand before I can make it any clearer.

maryhelena · 04-16-2011, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

What if there is merit in both arguments?

I believe there is. I just also think that one argument has more merit than the other.

And I believe that a win/lose situation is not going to be conducive to moving forward. It just has to be a win/win situation .......one side 'winning', having more 'merit', is the wrong approach to the gospel JC issue....

Doug Shaver · 04-16-2011, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

You are correct that if these documents were meant to be reconstructions of the events and teachings that led to the origins of their sect, to be used for group edification and instruction, we should expect the authors believed these things to have been the case. However, there is the fact that all narratives intended to explain a set of undisputed facts are interpreted to some extent by the authors, and are in effect their best efforts at such explanations.

But what if the authors of the canonical gospels or Acts weren't trying to create an account for Christian edification? What if they simply wanted to explain the circumstances of their origins to the authorities or to pagans in general? Now the set of facts to be explained is different than it is in the first situation. The set of facts to be explained are no longer those that Christians ask one another as a means of confirming their faith, but those that the authorities or the pagan community ask of them as accusations. This is why I prefer to think of these documents as "apologies" (a class of literature invented by Jews, FWIW) cast in the form of bioi (life sketches).

Then there is the element of uncertainty and relative likelihood inherent in any explanation of any given set of facts. Just because the authors of the gospels or Acts thought that the events they describe are what actually, or even more than likely to have happened, doesn't mean that is what really happened. The fact is, short of a faith position, we can never be 100% certain of their, or for that matter our, reconstructions.

My argument has nothing to do with the likelihood that if they believed what they wrote, it was true. They could have been 100 percent in error, for all the difference it makes to my point, and quite regardless of whether their purpose in writing was edification, apologetics, or whatever. All I'm saying is that I don't see a cogent argument for assuming they believed it that doesn't presuppose Jesus' historicity.

Doug Shaver · 04-16-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Your argument seems to imply that doubting a Historical Jesus requires a belief that none of the canonical gospels were intended as historical accounts of the origins of Christianity.

Yes, as I presented the argument just now, it does seem to imply that. I was sacrificing precision for brevity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

However, it seems generally accepted on this forum that at least Luke's Gospel was intended as an historical account.

Some on this forum would argue that Luke misunderstood Mark, but you seem (IMO correctly) to regard this sort of scenario as implausible.

OK, I'll attempt a clarification.

If all the evidence other than the canonical gospels makes Jesus' nonexistence improbable (as I am convinced it does), then we get to the question of the gospel authors' intentions, and for a first pass we suppose similar intentions. If they believed they were writing factual history, then they were mistaken. I find it difficult to explain how they all could have made such a mistake, and so we fall back on intended fiction: They didn't think they writing history and didn't expect their readers to think they were.

I think the argument is cogent for at least the first gospel to be written, presumably Mark's. I concede the possibility that at least one of the subsequent authors might have been among the readers who thought Mark was intending to write history, and I am vaguely aware of evidence that Luke was that one. I have not studied that evidence closely enough to form a defensible opinion one way or the other. It strikes me as prima facie unlikely, but it wouldn't take much to change my mind.

I think the bottom line, though, is that the case against historicity is not weakened as long as we have no reason to think the first author believed he was writing about a historical founder. Mythicism has no problem with the gospels until someone presents a good argument that all of the authors, from the get-go, were convinced that they were telling the story of a real man whose disciples got their religion started by claiming that he'd been raised from the dead after being crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Doug Shaver · 04-16-2011, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

one side 'winning', having more 'merit', is the wrong approach . . . .

Maybe in politics. Not in history.

maryhelena · 04-16-2011, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

one side 'winning', having more 'merit', is the wrong approach . . . .

Maybe in politics. Not in history.

Sure, history has no gospel JC - but history is relevant to that gospel storyline - something that mythicists would do well in considering. Mythicists are not going to be waving any victory flags unless they are able to be part of a win/win situation.

If history was relevant back then at the origin of christian ideas - then history is relevant today re the fallout from the downfall of the assumed historicity of the gospel JC. This is not a case of a theological idea being discarded and that is that. More likely to be a domino effect - theology is very insidious and infiltrates all sorts of ideas.

aa5874 · 04-16-2011, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Mythical belief systems come together because they fill a psychological need among a group of human beings. They are manufactured from whatever "facts" (actual events, already existing myths, etc) that are laying around and handy. What I am looking for is the set of conditions that caused them to be fashioned into the Jesus myth. That is what JMers have yet to come up with. It just didn't pop up like a mushroom. HJers can come up with such a set of set of conditions....

What!!!!!!

MJers have NO obligation to INVENT any evidence or find the motive for the Jesus story.

MJers ONLY have to show there is written EVIDENCE that support the MYTH theory like Matthew 1.18-20, Luke 1.26-35, John 1, Mark 6.49, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1 and 1 Cor. 15.

It is EVIDENCE, actual WRITTEN DATA from antiquity, not MOTIVE, that suggests Jesus was a BELIEF and not history.

And further, if you think HJers have the true MOTIVE for HJ then what credible source of antiquity provided the evidence of the "motive"?

But, before that PLEASE EXPLAIN the motive for the PHANTOM? Why did the PHANTOM of Marcion have NO earthly parents?

It is clear that MJers have NO obligation TO FIND A MOTIVE for Marcion's MYTH PHANTOM Son of God who had NO earthly parents and ONLY seemed real.

Jesus of the NT is no different to the MYTH fables of antiquity.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.