Freethought & Rationalism Archive

outhouse · 05-02-2012, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

In other words, despite all these early sources, the anonymous author of Luke was forced to use an anonymous work like Mark for almost all of his story line, and could not find one single bit of historical context to date any event in the life of Jesus.

What exactly is this supposed to mean? The period has a blazing clear historical context: Jesus was crucified during Passover in the period when Pontius Pilate was prefect of Judea. There's no controversy, nobody even talks about dating it to anything other than the 10 years under Pilate.

Well this brings up good evidence to light

they are not going to create a 100% mythical deity about a actual historical event like Pilate putting a man on a cross that was of some importance who was remembered.

did that happen?? sure it did Pilate murdered many people.

But there were obiously oral tradion's floating around, and you wont state something happened at a exact date WHILE so many people are alive to state NO that didnt happen then, I WAS THERE I remember that passover when there was a disturbance in the temple and all 400,000 people there were talking about it.

This event had many of the jews in the levant, and is one of the reasons the legend was so popular

outhouse · 05-02-2012, 09:36 AM

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, I've heard that schtick about oral transmission supposedly being more reliable back in the good old days and I just don't buy it. It didn't add up when I was studying textual criticism in college 30 years ago and it still doesn't.

then you need to gain more knowledge on the subject, or read some Vasina on oral tradition

with higher then 90% illiteracy rate within the poor jews in the area, oral tradition was rampant.

the problem we have here with this legend, is the cross culture oral tradition's. This movement went from judaism to roman. And in doing so much was lost.

the same exact way the mesopotamian myths like Noah were changed going from one culture to another. Noah doesnt have historicity but there was a attested flood in 2900 BC that the legends grew from.

outhouse · 05-02-2012, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Sorry, I've heard that schtick about oral transmission supposedly being more reliable back in the good old days and I just don't buy it. It didn't add up when I was studying textual criticism in college 30 years ago and it still doesn't.

First of all it's a categorically unfalsifiable claim. The only way to verify that oral transmission in ancient times was reliable is to have some evidence of what was being said in an earlier time and what was being said in a later time. The existence of that evidence alone would by definition render it impossible to know if the story stayed consistent solely through oral transmission or if it was buttressed by the other evidence. Lack of such evidence leaves us with no record of the earlier version of the story and no way to verify if it changed. Catch-22.

The discovery of the Qumran texts gave us insight into the reliability (or sometimes lack thereof) of scribal transmission but that's not the same thing in any sense of the word.

Meanwhile, we know that in modern times orally transmitted information is nowhere near as likely to remain intact as printed information. The evidence is staggering. What possible reason could be given to assume that what appears to be a basic function of human interaction now somehow wasn't a factor 2000 years ago?

This claim of reliable oral transmission in ancient times appears to me to be nothing more than a shortcut taken by apologists to avoid having to come to terms with the fact that supporting evidence for many of their claims is non-existent.

the Qumran text were one of many sects so your arguement fails right there.

Christianity in teh beginning took off un many directions before it turned into a roman religion

Oral tradition has been used by man for thousands and thousands of years by the illiterate.

if you study the jewish oral tradtion you WILL find deep roots in their culture.

Atheos · 05-02-2012, 09:42 AM

Do you have a counter argument for my catch-22? I'm all ears.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-02-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

And, who better to lead the first Church than his own brother or close relative?

And just why did the Romans not immediately kill the brother, when he became the leader of this movement and started saying that his brother had escaped death and was still the overall leader and the Messiah?

Because they had no reason to care.

outhouse · 05-02-2012, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Do you have a counter argument for my catch-22? I'm all ears.

yes

we know the oral tradition was not accurate, we know it changed dramatically.

oral tradion in one culture with established religions and material handed down through the centuries "can" remain incredibaly accurate.

Cross culture oral tradition is more of a influence at this point as there is no reason at all to maintain accuracy

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-02-2012, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

The person revered as Jesus Christ in the Christian religion was crucified while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect of Judea. There is no evidence to support any other time; therefore, Jesus died sometime between 26 and 36 CE. It is not "some of them." Every single piece of evidence we have points to precisely this time period, and it's consistent with the timing of the epistles we have from Paul. You can't just wave your hands and say we don't know as if every wild conjecture was perfectly equal.

The person revered as Jesus Christ in the Christian religion was baptized by John, who died at the beginning of the public ministry of said Jesus. Josephus relates the death of John to the brief war between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV of Petra which was close to the end of the life of Tiberius (17/03/37), putting the war about a year before T's death. We have the execution of JtB not long before the war in early 36 CE for Josephus relates the result of the war to retribution over the execution of John (AJ 18.116 = 18.5.2) and the connection between the events would not make sense with an elongated timeline. Postulating a death of John long before the war invalidates any meaningful relationship between the two events. Josephus places the recall of Pilate before the death of Tiberius, which happened before Pilate reached Rome. (AJ 18.89 = 18.4.2)

We can throw out the chronology of three passovers in the ministry of Jesus according to gJn as completely unrealistic when compared to the historical data from Josephus. If JtB died in 35 CE Jesus according to gJn would still have been alive when Pilate was removed. As it is we have difficulty trying to make the chronology work when Pilate was gone in 36 CE. What we are doing is trying to fit the gospel story to the historical events and we are pushed into a short ministry in the last year of Pilate's prefecture. (Most pundits just ignore Josephus and work from the fanciful birth narratives to get a death circa 30 CE. That would be five years before JtB died.)

It appears as though the data have been marshaled for the story rather than the story being based on historical events.

Josephus does not actually give a date for the execution of JBap. He relates that event to Antipas' scuffle with Aretas, but does not say how long before the war the execution happened, and it was conventional for people to look for events in the past to explain subsequent events without necessarily being very particular about immediate currency.

I think it also goes without saying that the actual passion narratives in the gospels are wholly fabricated fictions, but that doesn't mean they weren't based on knowledge of an actual crucifixion, it was just a crucifixion that they didn't necessarily know anything about other than "he was crucified." I would not actually expect the followers of a putative HJ to know any details about anything that happened after the arrest, because (according even to the Gospels) they all fled.

It's historically plausible at least, that Mark (or ur-Mark, or whoever) was starting with basically no information but "he was taken away and crucified," which he then enhanced with pictures he made from clouds in the LXX.

Plainly fictional passions are not necessarily proof against a historical crucifixion, just evidence against Mark having any detailed knowledge about it.

funinspace · 05-02-2012, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

The person revered as Jesus Christ in the Christian religion was crucified while Pontius Pilate was the Roman prefect of Judea. There is no evidence to support any other time; therefore, Jesus died sometime between 26 and 36 CE. It is not "some of them." Every single piece of evidence we have points to precisely this time period, and it's consistent with the timing of the epistles we have from Paul. You can't just wave your hands and say we don't know as if every wild conjecture was perfectly equal.

The person revered as Jesus Christ in the Christian religion was baptized by John, who died at the beginning of the public ministry of said Jesus. Josephus relates the death of John to the brief war between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV of Petra which was close to the end of the life of Tiberius (17/03/37), putting the war about a year before T's death. We have the execution of JtB not long before the war in early 36 CE for Josephus relates the result of the war to retribution over the execution of John (AJ 18.116 = 18.5.2) and the connection between the events would not make sense with an elongated timeline. Postulating a death of John long before the war invalidates any meaningful relationship between the two events. Josephus places the recall of Pilate before the death of Tiberius, which happened before Pilate reached Rome. (AJ 18.89 = 18.4.2)

We can throw out the chronology of three passovers in the ministry of Jesus according to gJn as completely unrealistic when compared to the historical data from Josephus. If JtB died in 35 CE Jesus according to gJn would still have been alive when Pilate was removed. As it is we have difficulty trying to make the chronology work when Pilate was gone in 36 CE. What we are doing is trying to fit the gospel story to the historical events and we are pushed into a short ministry in the last year of Pilate's prefecture. (Most pundits just ignore Josephus and work from the fanciful birth narratives to get a death circa 30 CE. That would be five years before JtB died.)

It appears as though the data have been marshaled for the story rather than the story being based on historical events.

I am curious if you have ever review the limited material from the Mandaean dualistic faith, and their consideration of John the Baptist as one of their major prophets? And does the information affords any interesting perspectives? I've only read snippets about them, and have yet to read about it in depth. It is my understanding that their holy texts didn't get written down until many centuries later, so it probably has the fun issue of oral tradition as well. Such a link as the below is one reference, though I doubt you would need it:
http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me...tist/index.htm

outhouse · 05-02-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The person revered as Jesus Christ in the Christian religion was baptized by John, who died at the beginning of the public ministry of said Jesus. Josephus relates the death of John to the brief war between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV of Petra which was close to the end of the life of Tiberius (17/03/37), putting the war about a year before T's death. We have the execution of JtB not long before the war in early 36 CE for Josephus relates the result of the war to retribution over the execution of John (AJ 18.116 = 18.5.2) and the connection between the events would not make sense with an elongated timeline. Postulating a death of John long before the war invalidates any meaningful relationship between the two events. Josephus places the recall of Pilate before the death of Tiberius, which happened before Pilate reached Rome. (AJ 18.89 = 18.4.2)

We can throw out the chronology of three passovers in the ministry of Jesus according to gJn as completely unrealistic when compared to the historical data from Josephus. If JtB died in 35 CE Jesus according to gJn would still have been alive when Pilate was removed. As it is we have difficulty trying to make the chronology work when Pilate was gone in 36 CE. What we are doing is trying to fit the gospel story to the historical events and we are pushed into a short ministry in the last year of Pilate's prefecture. (Most pundits just ignore Josephus and work from the fanciful birth narratives to get a death circa 30 CE. That would be five years before JtB died.)

It appears as though the data have been marshaled for the story rather than the story being based on historical events.

Josephus does not actually give a date for the execution of JBap. He relates that event to Antipas' scuffle with Aretas, but does not say how long before the war the execution happened, and it was conventional for people to look for events in the past to explain subsequent events without necessarily being very particular about immediate currency.

I think it also goes without saying that the actual passion narratives in the gospels are wholly fabricated fictions, but that doesn't mean they weren't based on knowledge of an actual crucifixion, it was just a crucifixion that they didn't necessarily know anything about other than "he was crucified." I would not actually expect the followers of a putative HJ to know any details about anything that happened after the arrest, because (according even to the Gospels) they all fled.

It's historically plausible at least, that Mark (or ur-Mark, or whoever) was starting with basically no information but "he was taken away and crucified," which he then enhanced with pictures he made from clouds in the LXX.

Plainly fictional passions are not necessarily proof against a historical crucifixion, just evidence against Mark having any detailed knowledge about it.

I agree with your take on it, with the exception that Gmarks author/s probably relied more on some oral tradition more so then outright fiction, while spinning it for his /their own needs and wants.

Atheos · 05-02-2012, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Do you have a counter argument for my catch-22? I'm all ears.

yes

we know the oral tradition was not accurate, we know it changed dramatically.

oral tradion in one culture with established religions and material handed down through the centuries "can" remain incredibaly accurate.

Cross culture oral tradition is more of a influence at this point as there is no reason at all to maintain accuracy

How does one know that oral tradition remained accurate if the only method of transmission was oral? If there is any other means by which its accuracy can be measured how can one know that that means wasn't a factor in maintaining the accuracy?

If the "Jesus" cult was in its infancy why would the "established religions and material handed down through the centuries" be applicable? These are problems with attempting to apply this alleged oral transmission accuracy to something as tenuous as the gestational period of the christian movement.

There is abundant evidence of early conflicting traditions, including "gospels" that were later rejected by those who were influential enough to codify their favorite version of the stories and brand all else as heretical. How does this evidence fit in with the proposition that oral transmission was so amazingly accurate? Why do the four canonical resurrection narratives contain such blatant contradictions with regard to the single most revered part of this story if (once again) oral transmission was so remarkably accurate?

Evidence does not favor these claims of incredibly accurate oral transmission.

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

05-02-2012, 09:42 AM	#34
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	Do you have a counter argument for my catch-22? I'm all ears.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.