Doug Shaver

Not necessarily. It could mean they recognized the fictional quality but thought they could write better fiction.

Neither, because I do not equate fiction with fraud.

dog-on

Assuredly so...

jgoodguy

It does not have to be either fiction or fraud. They are advocates writing to support a position, not a history, using whatever material they have plus their imaginations.

avi

You may wish to hold off on predicting what Ehrman will write, until after he has published his findings.

Unlike many other authors about biblical matters, Ehrman is a convert, turning away from orthodoxy to agnosticism. Why should we assume that he has maxed out his ability to recognize hoax, and distinguish "evidence" from wishful thinking?

If he engages in research, his book will be worthy of study, regardless of his "final" decision, regarding the merits, or absence thereof, of a mythical definition of JC.

I for one, doubt that he will anger, or annoy me, with platitudes positing an essential credibility to the historical version of JC. His opinion will not sway my own conviction that the evidence argues against an historical JC.

On the other hand, he may have found some interesting "new" evidence, which proves compelling, so I will read his book without prejudice, to the conclusion.

As I read several of his other books, I found myself grimacing in disagreement, sometimes, but, when I closed the book, at the end of the day, I had to acknowledge that it was more plus, than minus... I expect the same sort of result with his new effort to examine the history of conviction for a mythical character of JC.

avi

avi

May I inquire, how is it that you know when the Synoptic gospels were first written?

Further, how do you ascertain, which "Christian" traditions predated issuance of those first copies?

To the best of my knowledge, admittedly impoverished, the synoptic gospels were not written, originally, until the middle of the second century, common era, after the conclusion of the third Roman - Jewish war, and the ensuing dispersal of the Jews, out of Jerusalem.
I observe no claim for evidence of a genuine "Christian" movement until the middle of the second century C.E.

avi

Juststeve

Doug Shaver:

Proposes that 1). Mark was writing fiction, and 2) Matthew and Luke, and I suppose John, recognized Mark as fiction but thought they could write better fiction and that their Gospels represent that better fiction, not what they thought really happened. . He says this is possible. In fairness I guess it is possible, in a way that four sided triangles are not possible, but is he really serious about this? Is it really his contention that for more than a thousand years everyone mistook works of fiction to be attempts to set down real events in the life of a real person? Seems so but does anyone think that a credible explanation for the origin of Christianity? It was all just a big misunderstanding.

I want to ask the group, does Doug’s thesis that Christianity arose as a result of some guys (Or gals, who knows) writing books of fiction that were mistaken for serious attempts to record real people and events represent a serious strain of myther thought, or can we set that hypotheses aside.

Steve

Juststeve

Avi:

As to when the synoptics were written, most scholars, the kinds you find with chairs in major universities, date the synoptics to the latter part of the first century C.E. between 70 and 85 or so, and John a little later, around 100. If that were true would it change any of your opinions?

Steve

Toto

Mistake is one possibility. It makes more sense if you think of the gospels as allegory - not just an entertaining story, but a story with a higher truth.

Sometime around 180 CE, the proto-orthodox church decided to require its members to swear that they believed in the literal truth of these stories. At this point, no one knew if the stories had a historical kernel, and they probably didn't care. The point of requiring this belief was to guarantee that everyone was on the same page with a few important theological points: that Jesus came in the flesh and actually suffered; and that he was on earth and actually transmitted authority to his disciples, who passed on that authority to the elders of the church. These beliefs would rule out the gnostic ideas that each individual could learn his own truth by communing with spirits or examining his own spirit; and also rule out the idea that the real world was to be shunned, along with marriage and procreation.

This allowed the proto-orthodox to build a more robust church that survived.

If you look at modern new religions, they often have a story that is part of their core beliefs, that is clearly incorrect. But they still cling to the belief, because the belief is part of the belonging to the group. The Mormons have constructed a fantasy about American history and about their own history. There are a number of intelligent Mormons who have looked at these stories and know the problems, but the beliefs still persist because they are part of the identity of the group, and belonging to the group has many social and economic advantages. (Sociologists of religion refer to this as the "rational choice" theory of religion.)

If you look at how early Christians treated the gospels and the Hebrew scriptures, they often valued the allegorical meanings of the scriptures above the literal meanings. It was only after the enlightenment that post-Christians who no longer believed in spirits and gods developed an obsessive need to know if there was some "reality" behind the stories.

If you try to put yourself in the mindset of early Christians, the questions we ask of the texts don't make a lot of sense. They didn't ask if Jesus really existed. They only wanted to know if joining the church and participating in its mysteries would improve their lives, and for many it clearly did.

GakuseiDon

Out of interest, what text tells us that around 180 CE the proto-orthodox church decided to require its members to swear that they believed in the literal truth of those stories?

In fact, does anyone know the earliest occurrence of the church requiring people to do that? I know that Origen writing early 3rd C CE wrote in "Contra Celsus":

"And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body--which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen--the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted."

Eusebius also comments along similar lines about the Old Testament.

(ETA) Actually I'll make this its own thread.

avi

Thanks, Steve, for inquiring.

In my opinion, Bart Ehrman's chore here, is to persuade folks that we, or he, or anyone knows with confidence whether or not this "truism" that the synoptics were written in the first century right after the first Roman-Jewish war, has some credibility.

I am simply unimpressed with "scholars", whether affiliated with academic institutions, or working as clerks (Einstein). I am impressed with EVIDENCE. Thus far, I have found none.

Maybe I have not searched adequately. Maybe my ignorance of Greek, Latin, and all other relevant languages, including middle Persian, Coptic and n flavors of semitic tongues, has prevented me from seeing the light.

Ehrman surely knows those languages, and/or has employees who read them. So, he is in a good position to substantiate this oft repeated claim: first century origin to the synoptic gospels.

Until I can put my hand in the wound, I will remain unconvinced. I need to see the papyrus document. In the case of the synoptics, I am not impressed by tiny fragments like P52, supposedly written circa 125 CE, based upon handwriting analysis.

For such tiny scraps, we at least require non destructive carbon 14 dating.

But, even then, it will be a hard sell.....

avi