Atheos

First off, "largely undisputed" implies "somewhat disputed" in case anyone's keeping score. Although I'm of the opinion that earlier source documents existed, their existence in my opinion proves (or even evidences) nothing about authorship or eyewitness testimony. In fact everything about these source documents is the product of pure conjecture. That's right, everything about these source documents is the result of pure conjecture. Building on pure conjecture to put together the case you have for eyewitness testimony is a monumental exercise in the discipline of textual analysis, and for that I applaud your efforts. But in the end your case remains founded on weak (to the point of veritably non-existent) evidence.

How would one go about denying (for example) that the original Passion Narrative started off something along the lines of this:

Here is an entirely fictional account I, Arsticulous of Harathesia have written based loosely on folk tales of one "Jesus the Magic Jew" that I heard while visiting in the regions of Judea and Galilee a few years back. Any similarity to any persons real or fictitious is purely coincidental.

YHWH found a young woman named Mary to be particularly suited to his fancy. She was engaged to one Joseph but YHWH, not to be denied, disguised himself as Joseph and had ribald sex with her one night while Joseph was out late at a carpenters union meeting. This resulted in a pregnancy ...

Offensive to the sensitivities of believers in the Jesus myth, redacted versions were produced that told the story more in favor of the purveyors of this doomsday cult, after which all extant copies of the original document were located and burned.

Silly though it may be, this scenario is entirely consistent with the available evidence. The majority of bible scholars wouldn't want to agree, but for the most part their livelihood is based on apology, not criticism. Like it or not, even a scholar has got to eat.

sotto voce

Scholars have to take note of the real world. Internet posters can live in a dreamworld.

And often do.

Atheos

In other words you got nothing but invective? If my scenario is inconsistent with the real world I'll happily cede that I'm wrong. I'm just asking for actual evidence that weighs one way or another. Opinion of scholars isn't evidence. Evidence upon which the scholar bases said opinion is.

Ninja Edit: By "my scenario" I in no way represent that this scenario is one I actually espouse. I present it as nothing more than an alternative explanation which to my knowledge is every bit as plausible as the scenario endorsed by apologists.

Sheshbazzar

Coming from the faction in who's 'real world' there are 'demons', 'devils', 'dragons' and 'spirits' hiding behind every tree, and Angels, Seraphim, Cherubim, and Zombie Jebus and his Old Man, and gawd alone knows what else, all peering down from the sky and pulling all the strings.
So in the 'real world' Who was Jebus's father sotto? and how was he concieved?

sotto voce

Invective? Where?

I have scholarship. And believe me, ideas like 'ribald sex' disclose an absence of objectivity that any scholar concludes is due to implicit faith. Though maybe that's wrong.

I suppose a start could be made with justification of the notion of supernal deity who enjoys eternal bliss disguising himself as Joseph merely in order to give himself a cheap two-second thrill. That's the relevant context, anyway.

The other context is the current trendy skeptics' tale that Mary had a sexual experience in conceiving Jesus. There's not a milliliter of evidence for it, really.

You make it yourself.

steve_bnk

As a story the human JC had to fulfil the Jewish prophesy, human birth.

Today movies based on fictionalized accounts of real events using composite characters and perhaps a major character loosely based on an historical figure are not unusual.

I am watching The Borgias on Showtime. The general historical facts are known, the screenwriters craetively 'fill in the blanks'.

Atheos

See, that's one of the reasons it's often very difficult for believers and skeptics to engage in rational conversation. I think I understand where you're coming from. You're personally insulted by someone disrespecting Yahweh by posting a story that starts off with him boogering a female virgin under duplicitous circumstances.

That's because you believe Yahweh exists and that he deserves respect. I don't share that belief and have no inclination to treat such belief with reverence. From my perspective it's quite possible that some of these stories may have much in common with ancient Greek and Roman myths that have Zeus and Jupiter doing similar things to females at their whim.

Much though you may not like it, your personal feelings of offense is not evidence. It's no different than a Muslim whose blood begins to boil when someone draws a caricature of Mohammad. The anger felt by such an individual is not evidence that Mohammad's message was of divine origin any more than your outrage is evidence that your favorite myths are based in the real world.

steve_bnk

As a story the human JC had to fulfil the Jewish prophesy, human birth.

Today movies based on fictionalized accounts of real events using composite characters and perhaps a major character loosely based on an historical figure are not unusual.

I am watching The Borgias on Showtime. The general historical facts are known, the screenwriters creatively 'fill in the blanks'.


You can look at the myth of Custer. He was fictionalized and mythified intentionaly in his life as a heroic Indian fighter. The actual engagement that brought him to fame was actually a rather cowardly attack on an Indian villiage.


The gosplels as an embellished dramatization of a general movement and politicical events should not be all that msytifying.

sotto voce

Is that so? Well, well. It's a hypothesis. Better than nothing, perhaps.

Let's take Arsticulous of Harathesia visiting the regions of Judaea and Galilee, presumably before the Romans made Judaea a no-Jews-land. How would he have got these ideas about Jehovah from the inhabitants? Not even Herod would have dared put those about. And whence did he retire to record his findings? China, I reckon, to avoid getting stoned for blasphemy.

See, I'm only trying to protect you.

If you are going to assay historical fiction, Atheos, you need to learn the first rule. Don't screw up the accepted, known history, or nobody will read your book. If Margaret Mitchell had included a scene where Abe Lincoln made love to a young man's fiancée and made her pregnant, would she have won the Pulitzer? Somehow, I think not. Hollywood would have had problems with that one.

Even if the book publisher had given it the time of day.

Atheos

I have no idea what you're on about. In a world (and during a period) rife with mythical stories you seem to imply someone would have been destroyed for authoring a work of pure fiction. I'm not even suggesting this alleged author's work was widely read; quite the opposite: it might only have attracted the attention of the people who were outraged by it, who subsequently authored revisionist versions better suited to their tastes and destroyed all the originals.

Hell, for that matter offended religious folks could have assassinated the original author of the Passion Narrative because they felt he had committed blasphemy. If they planned it well enough it could have been done real quiet like and left negligible evidence.

You have nothing of substance with which to counter my hypothetical scenario. I do not claim it happened this way, but it is as valid a possibility as any other. The fact that you don't like this scenario has nothing to do with its plausibility.