MCalavera

Fictional Jesus assumes more assumptions than historical.

You'd have to explain parsimoniously how the disciples of Jesus treated him as historical and no one doubted his existence at the time while his resurrection and his title as Messiah was.

It's more complicated to believe that Jesus was fictional the whole time.

Nathan Poe

You mean the disciples who were written into the same fiction that Jesus was?
That's like saying that Tom Sawyer must be real because of the way Huck Finn treated him.

There you go again, looking for the simple answers instead of the accurate ones.

Nathan Poe

Never mind the fact that nearly every aspect of the story was lifted from the Old Testament -- so not only is it mythical, it's unoriginal.

Jewish writers, in telling a story about a new Jewish hero, wrapped him in the legends of their old Jewish heroes, telling it in a typically Jewish style.

MCalavera

You doubt the existence of Peter and the other Apostles?

:huh: :huh: :huh: :huh: :huh:

Parsimoniousness is the path to more accuracy.

Adding unneeded assumptions only tends to lead us away.

Nathan Poe

Their existence? Not all of them; just Judas Iscariot.

As or the rest, I doubt the actions attributed to them.

Believing everything you read without critical thought isn't parsimoniousness; it's gullibility.

I'd say the inherent Jewishness of the Gospels and a knowledge of the Jewish midrashic style is hardly unnecessary -- I'd say it's very much necessary.

In matters of history, literature, and mythology, the simplest answers are best left to the simplest people -- you need to dig deep if you want to strike gold.

MCalavera

I don't think you understand what parsimony means.

It doesn't mean coming up with the simplest answer possible. That's what you're probably arguing against.

Parsimony is coming up with the simplest answer that fits the evidence. There may be other answers that also fit the evidence but that require more asumptions. Those tend to be ruled out until further evidence shows that the current parsimonious answer no longer fits the whole collective evidence or a simpler answer fitting the evidence arrives demolishing the current one.

Parsimony is used in various fields of science by the way such as evolutionary science. So it's not simple people who come up with the most parsimonious but the experts. That's why the expert consensus is that Jesus was a historical person.

And since you don't doubt the existence of the Apostles in general. Then doubting what they believed about Jesus requires even more assumptions that need to be backed up with evidence.

Nathan Poe

It's what you've been arguing for.

And we have more evidence; you're just choosing to ignore it in favor of your simpler conclusions.

That's your business, but don't be surprised when people disagree with it.

A historical person whose deeds were greatly mythologized by the people who first told his story orally through the synagogue, and later in writing. That's what I'm arguing for -- not sure if that's what you're arguing against.

All I know about their actions is contained in the same text which mythologized Jesus' actions. It's not an unnecessary assumption to believe that what the Gospel writers did to the star of their story, they also did to its supporting cast.

In fact, it's not much of assumption at all, since there's enough evidence to suggest that at least one of the apostles, the infamous Judas Iscariot, wasn't even a real apostle, but a work of fiction added in later in the Gospel tradition.

Not unnecessary at all to assume that if they did it once, they'd do it again.

Keith&Co.

And look at the cast!
Cardboard cutouts that just keep denying Jesus' divinity when he say he'll do something, and acting all surprised when he goes out and does it.
Twilight characters develop more realistically.

Nathan Poe

Indeed! And if you want to see something that'll really fry your noodle, look at the Last Supper. In Luke, as soon as Jesus says that one of them shall betray him (Lk 22:21), the very next thing they do is start arguing among themselves over who shall be greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Um... hello? Not so much as a "Master, which one of us is it going to be?"

Of course, in John, Jesus does identify Judas as the betrayer -- and makes a point of doing it right in front of the others (Jn 13:26), who let him walk away without so much as a hiccup.

Again... hello? Their master just pointed out the man who's going to have him killed, and... what? "There goes Judas; hey, someone pass the wine."

The evidence supports two possibilities:

1. The apostles were complete and utter retards who will ride to Pentecost on the short bus, or
2. The idea of Judas as the betrayer of Jesus was a tradition which was added late into the compilation of the Gospels, and neither Luke or John had the desire or ability to rewrite the entire story to fit it in neatly.

To show that it was added later, one need only look earlier -- From his letters, Paul knew nothing of the whole Judas fiasco. He knew that Christ was betrayed (1 Cor. 11:23), but not by one of his disciples, and certainly not by anyone who hanged himself in shame immediately after, because of 1 Cor. 15:3-5:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

Kind of hard to appear to twelve when one of them is dead, ain't it?

The evidence suggests that Paul predates the Judas as betrayer storyline.

GakuseiDon

Probably off-thread, but what is the evidence that Judas Iscariot was not a real person?

We have the remnants of Papias and Polycarp that might be useful. They were both very early Christians, probably born in the 60s or 70s CE, and apparently met people who knew people who met Christ.

Eusebius appeared to be familiar with Papias, suggesting his work was still extant in Eusebius' time. Eusebius wrote:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

Papias, who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he moreover asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions... We must now point out how Papias, who lived at the same time, relates that he had received a wonderful narrative from the daughters of [the apostle] Philip. For he relates that a dead man was raised to life in his day... The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature... He moreover hands down, in his own writing, other narratives given by the previously mentioned Aristion of the Lord's sayings, and the traditions of the presbyter John. For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves...

According to Eusebius, Papias wrote:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/papias.html

If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings,--what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Papias also recounted a strange tale about Judas' death. If Papias did speak to people who knew the original apostles, then this would count as attributing towards the probability of the existence of Judas.

With regards to Polycarp knowing the original apostles, Irenaeus wrote:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...eus-book3.html

Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom

And also:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...fragments.html

For, while I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia with Polycarp, distinguishing thyself in the royal court, and endeavouring to gain his approbation... how he would speak of his familiar intercourse with John, and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord; and how he would call their words to remembrance. Whatsoever things he had heard from them respecting the Lord, both with regard to His miracles and His teaching, Polycarp having thus received [information] from the eye-witnesses of the Word of life, would recount them all in harmony with the Scriptures.