spamandham

Do they? Don't we need to assume something about the intent of the first gospel author (do we even know who that is?) before we could arrive at that conclusion?

...as a minimum, wouldn't we need to show that the intent of the canonical Gospel authors was to record the story as they knew it (perhaps embellished), rather than say, to construct an origins story for their religion for the purpose of settling doctrinal debates once and for all, or say, to construct a story that the simple minded masses could easily consume, but with a deep hidden meaning for the elite?

The gospels are consistent with the premise that there was a historical core to Jesus, and with the premise that there was not. If the Jesus seminar taught us anything, I think it taught us that we know nothing about "the real" Jesus, including whether or not he existed.

There are no trump cars, there are no a priori preferred positions, the mentioning of a person in an ancient text is not prima facie evidence of the historicity of that person, and magic attributed to someone in an ancient text is not prima facie evidence of their nonexistence.

All these attempts to claim "my position is naturally preferred so prove me wrong" come across to me as a desire to "win" rather than a desire to really understand. It's anti-intellectualism revealing preconceived biases.

We are after the simplest (in an Occam's razor sense) explanation of the evidence. It is possible that there is not enough evidence to determine the simplest explanation. If so, we should just be honest and admit that.

maryhelena

The gospel storyline regarding Jesus of Nazareth is placed within a historical setting. To assume that this storyline is itself historical is something else entirely...

Actually, the gospel storyline could well be a roadblock that is preventing any real forward movement in this debate over the beginnings of Christianity. The mythicist position can see the roadblock - the historical position cannot.

I don't think that a mythicist position needs to deny a historical individual who had some major impact upon early Christianity - for a mythicist, the figure of Jesus of Nazareth that is portrayed in the gospel storyline is just not credible.

Amaleq13

He made an assertion that is false.

I'm saying he is using fallacious logic in making the above assertion.

Only because he asserted that it wasn't. :huh:

Solo

Agreed.

Not sure where the roadblock would be. I am a historicist to the extent that I accept the historical existence of an individual refered to as Jesus as the best explanation of the religious movement(s) which seemed to mushroom in his name in the generations immediately after the time he is said to have lived and died. I don't see a roadblock if I start there.

Then you and I are thinking along the same lines, just using the term "mythicist" differently. On this board it means routinely someone who believes Jesus did not exist at all.

I think most of Mark is composition. I leave my mind open to the proposition that some events have historical roots. Among them I would assign the greatest probability to Jesus being executed by the authorities for perceived sedition / blasphemy. That bit of history explains best (to me) Paul's theology and his view of the crucifixion vis-a-vis law and his dissent from the "judaizers".

Jiri

maryhelena

The roadblock, to my mind, is the assumed historicity of Jesus of Nazareth....

Perhaps a little misunderstanding here.....I don't believe the gospel storyline regarding Jesus of Nazareth is historical. Hence, that puts me squarely in the mythicist camp. However, that position, the mythicist position, does not necessitate that one denies the existence of a historical 'founder' - a historical individual - or group of individuals - who played some major role in early Christian beginnings - how could it be otherwise? Movements and their respective ideas did not just drop out of the sky..

My point is - regarding the roadblock - that by focusing on the gospel storyline of Jesus of Nazareth that one is unable to view - to look for - the wider picture.


I don't take any of the gospel storyline regarding Jesus of Nazareth as historical fact. All the storyline is doing is providing a context in which to place the origin story of early Christianity - - not the actual historical beginnings but those beginnings re-told as an origin story. An origin story embellished with mythology, theology and prophetic interpretations.

Solo

15:1 ...and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.

Jiri

avi

Gosh, Andrew, why not?
Why would one expect a Jewish historian, Philo, living in one of the four most important cities of ancient Christianity, Alexandria, to have been unaware of Jesus' existence?

To me that is like writing that a 21st century historian, writing about current events, neglected to include, even just one sentence, concerning Margaret Thatcher, or Zhou En Lai, or Indira Gandhi. Jesus' purported miracles must have been, if genuine, widely acknowledged, and well received by the populace.

How could a historian fail to have noticed these accomplishments, even if they took place two or three decades prior to the writings of that particular historian? If anything, one might anticipate a bit of embellishment over time, instead of complete absence of acknowledgement of Jesus' supposed existence. Can you offer some other illustrations of important, newsworthy figures or activities, from that era, which Philo neglected to recount?

dog-on

Solo

see above my response to dog-on...Mk 15:1 leaves no doubt in my mind on that score, i.e. the author's intent. (And please spare me the clever observation Forrest Gump on a spliced clip with JFK and Dick Nixon is not evidence that the film story asserted these were historical meetings).


I take it you mean Mark, i.e. 'the second gospel' by tradition.

Yeah, except you see it's not if it is not this then it must be that.

There are all sorts of possibilities. I am not saying Mark was recording Peter's reminiscences. Nor do I think Mark's gospel was originally intended for general audience. It was a cultic document : its purpose was - it looks to me - to indict the rival strand of the movement with access to the historical Jesus of lack of faith and cowardice and a complete misunderstanding of Jesus' messianic purpose.

Against all expectations, and this is the greatest irony of all about Mark's gospel: the Petrine camp responded by adopting Mark substantively as their own "history", together with the passion of Christ on the cross which Mark (and Paul before him) accused them of opposing. Matthew expanded the gospel to retrofit Jesus into Jewish religious traditions, and to reduce the scathing denuciation by Mark of Jesus' earthly disciples, to a point from which post-mortem reconciliation was made possible. To this end Matthew's Jesus is made to appear in his fleshy likeness : to break up the monopoly on Christ that Mark appears to have proclaimed confidently for the Pauline succession.

So, I have concluded that we only know of Jesus as a historical person because Paul and Mark did not like the people around him and fought with them through a phantastic creations of their own.

You can take it, you can leave it, you can obssess about it -but there it is.

Can you rephrase that for me ? I do not follow what you are saying.


You know something s&h, I am perfectly ok with some people arriving to that position and thinking they are on the apex of wisdom. And you know why I am ok with it ?
It does not threaten my well-being.


Again, s&h, I am ok with you believing I wrote something to which the above is a refutation. Really !


There is a mighty frigging log in your eye, brother, which I am sure you are unaware of.

By all means, s&h, don't let me stop you !

Jiri

Roger Pearse

Um, wouldn't it be useful if YOU did this?