ercatli

Again, I'm sorry. I guess I'll just have to spend more time in purgatory! : )

dog-on

Sure, I'm OK with that.

I am also OK with the fact that you are mistaken in your understanding of what it is that historians actually do and how it is that they actually do it.

youngalexander

Well, I certainly have enjoyed this profound discussion. In particular having been appraised of at least two new insights.
and
I am off to bed now. Yet rest assured, as I listen to the BBC's Economic Authorities and their prognostications re our future - I shall also ponder;

Jesus, a deaf mute atheist. By golly, I think that we have made some progress here.

Solo

Hello, ercatli.

One may not safely conclude from Lk 1:1-4 that Luke "talked to eyewitnesses", or that that the "utterance" (logos) that he references in the passage refers to the sayings of a historical Jesus. Rather, Luke states in a mysterious way that he throroughly followed and attained perfect understanding of the (gospel) reports of Jesus (1:3), which could be read as admission that he follows in the genre of gospel allegory. In case, you are interested in a different approach to reading Luke, Jan Wojcik (in Road to Emmaus) analyzes rather well the tricky issue of of "eyewitnessing" Jesus.

Jiri

show_no_mercy

There's archaeological evidence for the existence of Jesus? That's news to me.

The "written" evidence is also pretty weak. The entire NT is riddled with supernaturalism and superstition so it's impossible to parse the garbage from the gold.

The gospels are unreliable evidence for the existence of Jesus. They were all written anonymously, probably in response to Christians in the early 2nd century being curious about what Jesus did and said... ie pious fiction. They were written in Greek, and the writer's Greek education completely saturates the narratives. If you take out all of the Homer, Plato, and LXX midrash you're basically left with nothing.

The authentic Pauline epistles are unreliable evidence for the existence of Jesus; the only thing that Paul needs in his authentic letters is a mythical savior Christ who appears to his followers via personal revelation / visions. This personal revelation is all that's needed to be an apostle. The authentic letters also only contain early Christian creeds, no details about the life of Jesus.

The Petrine epistles are unreliable evidence for the existence of Jesus. A supposed disciple of Jesus is strangely silent about the life of a teacher he knew for roughly 2 - 3 years.

The Johannine epistles are unreliable evidence for the existence of Jesus. Again, a supposed disciple of Jesus is strangely silent about the life of a teacher he knew for 2 - 3 years. Not only that, but they were probably written by at least two different "Johns". Revelation? The rantings of a lunatic tripping on acid in Patmos.

James' epistle? The supposed brother (by tradition) of Jesus is frighteningly sparse in details about the life of Jesus.

Josephus' "Antiquities" is also an unreliable source for anything about Jesus. The scholarly consensus is that it's been interpolated. The extent of the interpolation is what is in debate.

All other non-Christian sources for "Jesus" really just retell Christian beliefs. These are also unreliable sources for a historical Jesus. Weak written evidence with no archaeological corroboration is a pretty flaccid case for the historical Jesus. All you're left with is "some guy named Jesus with some followers got crucified", but there were probably hundreds of Jesus' in the first century who were executed.

the_cave

Getting back to the OP...

But if that's the case, then Acts is not necessarily evidence that the apostles didn't know of any sayings of Jesus--it could just be evidence that Luke chose to put nearly all of his sayings material into the gospel section.

But I'm intrigued by the notion that the early apostles were not familiar with the gospel sayings, implying that the specific sayings of Jesus were simply not important to them at the time (or at least, not to Paul, Barnabas, or the Jerusalem group of James and "Symeon" Peter. Suggesting that the importance of the sayings tradition came from a different group.)

But if the paucity of Jesus' sayings in Acts is to be evidence that the early apostles did not know the gospel sayings, then one must assume that Acts is, in some way, an accurate representation of history. Which is quite an interesting claim. What criteria should we use to determine which elemens of Acts are historical, and which are not?

Analyst

And I've seen a suggestion that a term for execution in those days involved a reference to trees or wood ("Got wood?" ) so the crucifixion may be in doubt too.

ercatli

Thanks Jiri. I'm not sure what you mean by "safely", but it seems to me, and to scholars I have read, that the plain meaning of Luke's words are that he had read the writings of others which were based on eyewitness reports, and now he, who had observed and studied things for a long time, was doing the same. Sounds reasonable and clear. I've heard some say that Luke was with Paul while Paul was in prison in Israel, which gave him ample opportunity to meet eyewitnesses or those passing on oral tradition.

But I wouldn't want to insist on any of it, it just seems like its probably right. But the idea of gospel allegory seems much less "safe" to me, none of the first century writings seems to have any hint of that genre.

Thanks for your comments.

ercatli

There are many examples, confirming Luke's generally accurate use of titles, and the support for the much maligned John's gospel when the Gabbatha and a pool looking like one described in John were found.

I won't repeat my quotes, but that is not what the majority of experts say. I'll believe them.

Again, that is not what the experts say. It is almost universally accepted in the books I have read that the Synoptic gospels were first century writings, the main argument seems to be whether they were written before the destruction of the temple in AD 70 or after. And almost all also agree that they were based on oral traditions of a fairly fixed kind, which go back to the years immediately after Jesus lived, and whose forms can still be discerned - so "pious fiction" is something that can only be said by someone who is quite unconcerned with the facts.

This thread started with a discussion of why Paul doesn't quote Jesus very often. But what is also unquestioned is that Paul talks often about a literal Jesus who was physically executed and bodily raised to life. of course you don't believe some or all of those things occurred, but to suggest Paul was only interested in a mystical Jesus suggests you haven't read Paul very much.

True, but the consensus is that there is quite enough there that is genuine to constitute a source.

Tacitus cannot be dismissed so easily. If you want to enlightened, and not a little amused or angered (depending on your viewpoint), can I recommend you check out this thread - http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=246288 - where a knowledgable atheist defends the consensus historical understanding against all comers. He was eventually banned, and I once was put under investigation (and exonerated) as a sock puppet for asking why, but that's another story, here.

Mate, this is one of the most amazing and evidence-free conclusions I've ever seen. You ignore all the experts, pick up a few extreme viewpoints and the draw this conclusion. That is your privilege, but I would prefer to base my beliefs on the best evidence, not fantasy.

As I said before, there's no point in our discussing further if you are so willing to make things up and go with speculation rather than evidence. But it has been interesting meeting you, and I wish you all the best.

ercatli

Dear all,

This has been an interesting and mostly enjoyable discussion, but I am now off for a weeklong holiday. I'll read any further comments when I get back.

Thanks and best wishes.