blastula

Abe, others have already explained the problems with your presentation. The known facts don't reasonably require your position over a fictional account nor that the evidence is insufficient to give an explanation. Analysis is subjective, but the fatal and main problem to your view is lack of any independent evidence. This debate exists in the first place because there isn't such evidence.

Not every question in history is answerable.

ApostateAbe

Who explained the problems with my presentation? I don't think it was GDon. I think you mean someone else, but I don't know who.

I don't disagree with the importance of independent attestation. There are a bunch of criteria that we would prefer to have in order to make very probable conclusions. We would prefer to have contemporary attestation. We would prefer to have physical non-textual evidence. We would prefer to have unbiased attestation. It does not follow, though, that the lack of such things are a death blow to all explanations. When there is more doubt than we would like, then I don't think it is appropriate to throw up our hands and walk away. To be consistent with that principle, I think we would have to settle for almost no conclusions about ancient history at all, as the evidence really is very often scarce and untrustworthy for any given conclusion. It would be reasonable, though, to say, "This is the most probable conclusion, but it is not necessarily a slam-dunk conclusion that will remain after we learn more or after the debate progresses."

blastula

I think you are conflating all ancient history claims as certain rather than any unceratainties and also ignoring the superior evidence for other claims.

Sometimes you have to walk away. Your attitude is like theistic apologetics, like that we have to pick an explanation for origin of universe, instead saying we don't know.

Sorry about the wrong name.
That would more reasonable than how I have seen scholars portray HJ, as though it's on a par with evolution, or the old "no serious scholar doubts it."

ApostateAbe

I think the point about the origin of the universe is a good one. It is an example where we would say, "No single explanation seems more plausible than another, the evidence is severely lacking, so I am comfortable not making any conclusion." I am not so comfortable with such a position about the origin of Christianity, because one and only one explanation really does score well above and beyond the other competing explanations in terms of any well-accepted methodology of empirical decision-making. Maybe for you, though, it is different, and I don't want to discourage that too much, because the dividing line between "make a conclusion" and "don't make a conclusion" really is a subjective thing, though I think I would caution you that such a position can also be unreasonably motivated by one's biases. I think it is a tendency whenever people feel divided between reason and wishful thinking, and it explains such things as agnosticism about the existence of God, or uncertainty about Barack Obama's place of birth, or uncertainty about who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks--issues where there really should be one and only one conclusion.

Toto

With all due respect, you have not. You have cited some scholars who claim that one can derive information from the gospels about Jesus using the criterion of embarrassment, but you will find that these scholars work from the assumption that Jesus existed. You will further find other scholars who point out problems with the criterion of embarrassment - that we don't in fact know what was embarrassing to early Christians, or whether there were other motives that would override the alleged embarrassment (such as plot development.)

ApostateAbe

You claimed that I did not try to justify my assertion that actual historical facts about the existence of a main fictionalized character can be extracted from the gospels. I did that in the OP, and I used arguments based on the historical evidence, not reliance on any historical authorities. You may disagree with those attempted justifications, but they are attempted justifications all of the same, and you are responsible for making a sincere attempt to be aware of them before smearing my name with such falsehoods. I invite you to read and analyze the OP, not just scan it. You don't have to, but, if not, then I ask you to abstain from making derogatory claims about me that you are mistaken about for lack of review. Don't just keep shooting from the hip.

Sheshbazzar

When did the popularity or 'cult of John the Baptist' (ha'cath Yahochnan ha'ma'tabal') begin?
The evidence from Josephus would seem to indicate early in what we now term as the First century AD.
According to Josephus' accounts there were many disgruntled apocalyptic preachers and sectarian followers wandering around at that time.
However your favorite fairy-tale wasn't written at that time.

If I make up a really great story about living in Pearl Harbor in 1940 will that prove that I was ever there?

ApostateAbe

OK, great. Do you find it probable that the Christians were rivals with the adherents of John the Baptist at any time?

Toto

I've read your OP several times, and I'm looking for justification for extracting history from fiction. What I find:

Breech's book can be viewed on google books. His source for the baptism is the gospels.

The ideas that there was a cult around John, or that it was popular among the Jews, or competed with the Jesus cult, are all highly speculative.

Still looking for some reason to treat any of this as historical, beyond that it is "plausible." Most fictional accounts are plausible.

Most critics who read Mark do not find any evidence that Mark was embarrassed by the baptism scene.

There are those critical scholars again, with a plausible conclusion. But I still don't see any reason to assume that any of this was meant as historical fact.

And your idea that Jesus was a follower of John is somewhat belied by those pages you cited from Breech, which discuss Matt 11:16-19 - John came neither eating nor drinking, but Jesus was called a glutton and a drunkard. :huh:

Still no reason to treat the gospels as a source of historical fact.

The simplest explanation for the details in the gospels is literary invention.

Horatio Parker

Such as omitting the transfiguration.