gnosis92

early christian writings date it possibly sometime before 70CE, about the same time, if not earlier, than Mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signs_gospel

"The Signs Gospel is a hypothetical source text for the Gospel of John, according to textual criticism (see also Q document).

Rudolf Bultmann hypothesized the Signs gospel for the first time in 1941. He suggested that the author of John depended in part on an oral miracles tradition or manuscript account of Christ's miracles that was independent of, and not used by, the synoptic gospels. This hypothetical "Signs Gospel" is alleged to have been circulating before 70. Its traces can be seen in the remnants of a numbering system associated with some of the miracles that appear in the Gospel of John: all of the miracles that are mentioned only by John occur in the presence of 12:37; the "signs" or semeia (the expression is uniquely John's) are unusually dramatic; and they are accomplished in order to call forth faith. These miracles are different both from the rest of the "signs" in John, and from the miracles in the synoptic gospels, which occur as a result of faith. Bultmann's conclusion that John was reinterpreting an early Hellenistic tradition of Jesus as a wonder-worker, a "magician" within the Hellenistic world-view, was so controversial that heresy proceedings were instituted against him and his writings.

It is now widely agreed that the Gospel of John draws upon a tradition of Miracles of Jesus which are substantially independent of the three synoptic gospels. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus refuses to give any sign that he is the messiah, which is known as the Messianic Secret, for example Mark 8:11-12. In the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke, only the Sign of Jonah will be given (Matthew 12:38-39,16:1-4, Luke 11:29-30). The Gospel of John on the other hand has Jesus providing many signs, such as 2:11 and 2:18-19 and 12:37."

spamandham

How can a hypothetical collection of oral tradition regarding fantastic miracles the like of which are found no-where else, less than 40 years after the supposed magic man supposedly lived, possibly provide any evidence for a historical human being?

The existence of such a fantastic work this close to the actual lifetime proposed is counter evidence. It isn't clear there is enough time for this degree of mythmaking to happen, so now you have the job of explaining how an ordinary man could be transformed into this fantastic magic god man thing in such a short time.

"I wish it were true, therefor it is" makes a stronger case for HJ than this does.

Chris Weimer

Many saints have had fantastic stories of miracles written about them not that many years after their existence, and I can't recall his name offhand, but he's been mentioned here before, one whose stories circulated in his own lifetime.

Why is it counter evidence without qualification?

It's happened before. Why couldn't it happen here? Antinous, Caesar, Vespasian - these men were gods and miracle workers in their own right. Look at the Christian saints - this stuff happens. Even today, before a saint is canonized, they have to have 3 miracles. They don't wait 200 years first.

"I wish it were true, therefor it is" makes a stronger case for HJ than this does.[/QUOTE]

spamandham

I can accept that it is possible for fantastic myths to arise rapidly, presuming this is a common trait for the society under question, but that isn't the same as positive evidence for the person in question. It's merely the refutation of negative evidence.

Is there evidence that the soceity in question had a propensity for such rapid mythicizing? My answer is "yes" from what I know. It seems to have been common to attach wild embelishments to historical figures at the time to paint them as bigger than life.

Is there evidence that the soceity in question had a propensity for absolute rapid mythmaking, as would be required if this hypothetical collection of miracles holds true? My answer is "no" based on what I know. Although it was common to add some miraculous window dressing, it was not common to produce works of pure myth regarding historical figures, where all the history was lost as a result. The miraculous was meant to enhance rather than to mask - sort of like steak sauce.

You might argue it was the result of one-upmanship over the course of several years, but you would need to provide evidence that actually happened.

I would argue these men remained mostly historical, with some embelishment. We are talking about an account that is proposed to be a collection of nothing but embelishment - just steak sauce, with no steak.

The question is whether a hypothecized oral tradition that consists of nothing but amazing stories counts as positive evidence, not whether myths can be quickly attached to people who are otherwise ordinary. Of course they can.

We don't know with any reasonable certainty the oral tradition even existed, and if it did, an oral tradition composed entirely of myth can not reasonably be reconstructed into a historical person, IMHO. Keep in mind we're talking about the signs gospel here - a hypothetical collection of oral miracle stories.

I'd be interested in examples where historical figures have been successfully reconstructed from stories of pure myth (such as the signs gospel), and later confirmed to have been valid by new nonspeculative discoveries. Do you know of anything like this?

Ben C Smith

You may not have meant him, but it was the very companions of Francis of Assissi who spread the miracle stories about him.

Ben.

Cege

What early Christian writings date John earlier than Mark and before 70CE?

?? What does it mean: "in the presence of 12:37" ??

Solo

This is probably not it either but Carrier mentions the biography of Saint Genevieve written 10 years after her death, which recounts her prodigious powers to mess with laws of nature.

Jiri

Huon

John 12:37. And whereas he had done so many miracles before them, they believed not in him: