aa5874

But, do people really expect any news report from different sources and at different times to be identical?



Just recently I watched supposedly "live reports" on the Fort Hood shootings, televised via satellite from just outside the Fort itself and there were conflicting reports about the number of people who died and the condition or whereabouts of the shooter/shooters.

Unless there are real time video or audio recordings of an event, then it can only be reasonably assumed that an event did occur, if the sources are regarded as credible, but the details of the event will always be less certain.

But the authors of the Gospels are unknown and much of their works are known fiction. Their credibility history is unknown or next to zero.

Doug Shaver

That does seem to be the primary method of those who tout the reliability of oral transmission.

show_no_mercy

"Certainty" is only for people who are addicted to it. Like believers.

andrewcriddle

What official records ? and what exactly did they say ?

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

In the Lives and Legends of Buffalo Bill, author Don Russell writes (pg. 229):
Don Russell believes the story that Cody killed and scalped Yellow Hand. He bases it mainly on his correspondence with Charles King who was there and later became a novelist, writing some 50 novels. Besides Buffalo Bill himself, Bill's good friend, Charles King seems to be the main source for the story.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

andrewcriddle

Thanks


Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

There appears to be general agreement in the narratives that Yellow Hair/Hand was accompanied by other Native Americans, three to six, when he started to approach two cavalry messengers on the morning of July 17, 1876. There is also general agreement that Buffalo Bill started off with other soldiers/scouts (four to fifteen) to intercept them. The question is how did this encounter end up being a fight just between just Yellow Hair and Buffalo Bill?

Here are six different versions of the encounter phase of the Buffalo Bill-Yellow Hair story.

Buffalo Bill's version(1879 autobiography -

Quote:

We instantly dashed over the bluffs, and advanced on a gallop towards the Indians. A running fight lasted several minutes, during which we drove the enemy some little distance and killed three of their number. The rest of them rode off towards the main body, which had come into plain sight, and halted, upon seeing the skirmish that was going on. We were about half a mile from General Merritt, and the Indians whom we were chasing suddenly turned upon us, and another lively skirmish took place. One of the Indians, who was handsomely decorated with all the ornaments usually worn by a war chief when engaged in a fight, sang out to me, in his own tongue: "I know you, Pa-he-haska; if you want to fight, come ahead and fight me." The chief was riding his horse back and forth in front of his men, as if to banter me, and I concluded to accept the challenge. I galloped towards him for fifty yards and he advanced towards me about the same distance, both of us riding at full speed, and then, when we were only about thirty yards apart, I raised my rifle and fired; his horse fell to the ground, having been killed by my bullet. Almost at the same instant my own horse went down, he having stepped into a gopher hole. The fall did not hurt me much, and I instantly sprang to my feet. The Indian had also recovered himself, and we were now both on foot, and not more than twenty paces apart. We fired at each other simultaneously. My usual luck did not desert me on this occasion, for his bullet missed me, while mine struck him in the breast. He reeled and fell, but before he had fairly touched the ground I was upon him, knife in hand, and had driven the keen-edged weapon to its hilt in his heart. Jerking his war-bonnet off, I scientifically scalped him in about five seconds.

Charles King's version (1880, from Campaigning with Crook pg. 37,38) -

Quote:

General Merritt springs up to my side, Corporal Wilkinson to his. Cool as a cucumber, the Indian leader reins in his pony in sweeping circle to the left, ducks on his neck as Wilkinson’s bullet whistles by his head; then under his pony, and his return shot “zips” close by the general’s cheek. Then comes the cry, “Look to the front; look, look!” and, swarming down the ridge as far as we can see, come dozens of Indian warriors at top speed to the rescue. “Send up the first company!” is Merritt’s order as he springs into saddle, and, followed by his adjutant, rides off to the left and front. I jump for my horse, and the vagabond, excited by the shots and rush around us, plunges at his lariat and breaks to the left. As I catch him, I see Buffalo Bill closing on a superbly accoutred warrior. It is the work of a minute; the Indian has fired and missed. Cody’s bullet tears through the rider’s leg, into his pony’s heart, and they tumble in confused heap on the prairie. The Cheyenne struggles to his feet for another shot, but Cody’s second bullet crashes through his brain, and the young chief, Yellow Hand, drops lifeless in his tracks.

Chris Madsen's version (1937) - New York Herald Report (from July 23rd, 1876 dispatch, possibly sent by Charles King).
Sergent John Power's version (July 22rd, 1876 dispatch public in Ellis County Star) - Buffalo Bill (July 18th letter to wife, Louisa)
While the latter versions of the story become full of details that cannot be reconciled, the very first reports, although less detailed cannot be reconciled either. Bill, in his first letter, says he scalped the man in single-handed combat in front of his cheering troops. This is very different then the ambush referenced in the Kansas Ellis County Star by John Powers.

The problem of how we get from the initial situation - a group of Native Americans on horseback riding west and a group of soldiers riding South to intercept - to the main narrative, a single hand to hand combat between Buffalo Bill and a native American, without any other soldiers or Native Americans being captured, killed or injured. None of the narratives can account for it, no matter how much fantastic detail the later narratives add, and the fact that the details themselves gather details.

It seems likely that Buffalo Bill, along with Charles King and possibly one or two others made up the whole story.

To relate this to the Jesus situation, we have to ask how we get from the initial situation - a small bunch of Galilean Jews (12?) going to Jerusalem to celebrate passover - to the main situation, of one of them, and only one, being crucified without any injury to any of the other disciples of Jesus. No matter how detailed the narrative becomes, the fantastic gap between the situations remains too great to bridge.

One can say that it is more believable that the twelve disciples of Jesus actually murdered Jesus and made up the story of the crucifixion, this would at least have the virtue of relating more closely the story of Jesus and his disciples to Joseph and his eleven brothers. Both are stories of an individual being betrayed by a group. One may suppose that the entire crucifixion story is originally just a detail made up to rehabilitate the disciples in an earlier story of treacherous disciples who killed their teacher. The betrayal of the disciples is just a leftover of the original story.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

PhilosopherJay

The veracity of the Buffalo Bill narratives falter because there is no transition between the Calvary vs. Native Americans story and the Buffalo Bill vs. Yellow Hair story. It is a different (individual heroism) tale superimposed on the underlying (group heroism) tale.

Does not the same thing happen in the Gospel Narratives? The disciples have given up their lives to follow Jesus. How is it that we find Jesus alone on the cross? Why are none of the disciples dying alongside Jesus? Supposedly, the disciples have witnessed ten or twenty miracles by this time, including Jesus healing dead people. Why aren't the disciples willing to take on a few Roman soldiers to free Jesus. Even the most cowardly disciples would make some attempt to help their teacher.

John tells us that there were four soldiers:
That shouldn't be a lot for eleven disciples to handle.

John has only one disciple at the crucifixion leading away Jesus' mother to his/her house. This is either John or Mary, depending on who you think the beloved disciple was.

Luke tells us that all the disciples were there:
Mark and Matthew have only women there:

27.55 Worse, none of the gospels has any of the eleven chosen disciples or even the women burying Jesus. You would think that whether they were there as Luke insists, or not there, as the other gospels suggests, one of the women would have fetched some disciples to help with the burial.

It is the sudden disappearance of the disciples from the tale that allows us to say that the crucifixion tale is not about the Jesus who had disciples. It is rather a tale that is grafted onto the Jesus and his disciples tales. The crucifixion tale comes from a totally different source tale than the disciples stories.

On the other hand, I have previously suggested that the two thieves crucified with Jesus may have been originally been the sons of Jesus in an earlier version of the story. This would explain why the disciples stayed away: a general order to arrest and execute all the followers of Jesus would explain why the disciples stayed away. In an earlier version, the execution of Jesus' sons alongside him would have made this clear. Once the sons were changed into unknown thieves, the narrators forgot to connect the disciples with the crucifixion, thus making them appear as not caring about Jesus' death.

Thus either: 1) the crucifixion story was grafted on Jesus and the disciple material or 2) The change of narrative to eliminate Jesus' thief-sons causes the narratives to appear disconnected.

Thoughts?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

maryhelena

Interesting post, Philosopher Jay...

I'll go along with 1) - that "the crucifixion story was grafted on Jesus and the disciples material".

The crucifixion story is often seen as being so embarrassing that it would not have been recorded if it was not historical fact. Yet this so called embarrassing element in the gospel storyline could be telling quite a different story than the historicity normally claimed for it. A storyline regarding the ancient dying and rising god mythology. A crucifixion is simply the then means of execution. Even if there was a historical, human, Jesus of Nazareth - once the dying and rising god mythology is brought into his storyline - there would be no necessity to assume that part of his real life story contained a real historical crucifixion - or resurrection.

Being transfixed, as it were, to seeking a real, human, crucified founder for Christianity, could well be a case of being sidetracked by a red-herring -
sidetracked onto a country road going nowhere....

show_no_mercy

I also think that option 1 happened. Looking at the crucifixion in Mark, the vast majority of it seems to be derived from Psalm 22. The Psalms were songs to be sung, usually to a stringed instrument (the reason behind the Greek word psalmos). The crucifixion, being the sole thing preached by Paul's churches probably came first, maybe as some sort of play that was played to music.

The narrative was propably worked around the initial crucifixion play/song.

It's also interesting to note that in Acts (13:6) there's a sorcerer/false prophet named Bar Jesus. Maybe Jesus really did have some children at one point in Christian history.