TedM

Yet don't you consider the authors to be intentionally lying when they insist they got information from eyewitnesses?

I think in the end the "silences of Paul" make the strongest case for the mythicist position, moreso than the appeals to Mark as fiction or influence of Greek myths.. Yet, I think we have to be very careful when determining what 'silences' are to be unexpected.


It is a big gap.



That Jesus was a man on this earth with a powerful ministry of teaching and miracles.


I think the amount of ink given to the dissentions we do hear about such as whether Gentiles should be circumcized or not--that's what Galations is all about--, and later the gnostic issue, is evidence that every little point of disagreement was argued and debated at length. This is the nature of the faith as represented from the earliest days. Christianity was seen as worthy of persecution and dissention from without, and dissention from within. I think the idea of the gospels as being stories of a fictional Jesus vs a real one would have made these other arguments pale in comparison.


He focused at length on the part of his life he thought made the most difference--crucifixion and death and resurrection. But, let's not get into that one again

Peter Kirby

Not true. Most of the time in this forum, and all of it in recent memory, I have not tried to convince people either to accept or to reject Christianity.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner

Likewise. Ultimately whether or not someone is Christian is of little relevance to me.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Johnny Skeptic

Well, there are 39 articles by you and about you here at the Secular Web where you dispute Christiantiy, so for some reason at this forum you have abandoned your agenda of disputing Christianity. Why is that?

I should have said that the vast majority of people at the IIDB and the Theology Web argue for or against Christianity. That is the purpose of debate forums, is it not?

Peter Kirby

I'm aware of only two of my publications on the Secular Web, "Naturalistic Inquiry" and "The Historicity of the Empty Tomb Evaluated." What are the other thirty-seven?

The longer I've been an atheist, the less evangelistic I've been about it.

I'm genuinely interested in the subject matter of Biblical Criticism & History, and not just as a means to an (atheistic) apologetic end.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

I don't think that is an accurate interpretation of what Luke's author actually claims. I think the author is really only claiming to have obtained information, probably not directly (ie secondhand at best) from those who first witnessed the risen Christ. I do not think you can assert, based on the statement given that the author is claiming to have interviewed some of the people who are depicted in the story.

Annoyingly so, IMO. Almost as annoying as the way Paul chooses to express his beliefs.

I don't see either as central to Mark's theology.

Yes but I see no reason for dissension with regard to whether the details of the life of Jesus were literally true or even if there was any such life at all. The "mythicists" would have considered any such assertion irrelevant given faith in a risen Christ. Since the "mythicists" would have no reason to force the issue, I don't see why "historicists" would consider them heretical. IOW, there is no reason to think "mythicist" Christians felt the location or even time of the crucifixion to be important. Both would assert that Christ suffered and died. Both would assert that Christ was raised from the dead. If somebody wanted to claim it happened "here" and "then", why should the "mythicists" care? If somebody preached the same core belief in a risen Christ, why should a "historicist" care if they didn't also tell the Gospel story?

I think you are still misunderstanding how the alleged mythicists would consider the stories. The Jesus in those stories was real or true in the sense of a Higher Truth.

As far as considering these stories to be "history" in a modern sense, I think the Christian responses where they are compared to Greek stories about gods is important. They don't say, ours describe how things really happened while yours are just stories. They say our are really no different from yours. I don't think that should be understood to mean anything like our concept of "historical" or "non-historical".

I would only observe that, of those three, the only one that is really part of his life is the crucifixion and it is inaccurate to say he "focused at length" on the actual event. He focused at length on the theological significance of the event.

TedM

I think to not care is contrary to basic human nature which transcends time and philosophy. I think maybe some wouldn't care, but the avg person would care a lot. We clearly see this differently. Paul doesn't help my case here, but I'm not sure his work is as relevant to the issue as some think, given the contexts of his writings..

I haven't looked at those a lot. If accurate, it's a good point.

I agree, but I think he believed the event took place on earth, so it is hard to say what significance he gave to that vs in some other sphere since he never addresses the issue.

ted

Johnny Skeptic

Jesus' ministry might not have been considered to be powerful at all during his lifetime and for at least the next few decades. The Gospel message might have initially been flatly rejected by 99.99% of everyone who heard it, at the very time that is should have had its best chance to grow rapidly if there actually 500 eyewitnesses. Many scholars maintain that there is no evidence of rapid growth during the first few decades following the death of Jesus.

Many skeptic scholars maintain that Paul did not believe in the bodily resurrection fo Jesus. If you discount 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 that is not at all difficult to do. Some skeptic scholars believe that the passage in an interpolation. I certainly do. You see the growth of Christianity in the 1st century much different than a good number of scholars do. Jesus did not provably fulfill one single Old Testament prophecy.

Amaleq13

On the contrary, to not care about the accuracy of details one considers ultimately irrelevant is entirely consistent with human nature.

I don't think there is any evidence that Christians felt it important to assert the literal truth/historical accuracy of the Gospel stories, beyond the core beliefs (ie crucified & raised) until the 2nd century.

andrewcriddle

Even if embarrassment is not a good criteria of authenticity, you still seem to regard it as a good criteria of early tradition.

Vorkosigan IIUC is very doubtful of all claims of tradition preceding the surviving written texts.

Maybe it would be helpful to distinguish the question of how much in Mark can be plausibly argued to be pre-Markan, from the question of how much can be plausibly argued to go back to the historical Jesus.

Andrew Criddle