the_cave

But the difference is, no one has ever suggested that Scarlett O'Hara was a real person.

The Evil One

No, I think that we have insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it wasn't arbitrary.

The Evil One

Not really. That's one explanation, and in the case of some of the apostles (notably James) yes, it's the most likely one. But in the case of the others.... well, there's just not enough evidence to make the "historical people" explanation" more likely than the "Gospel plot devices" explanation.

For example, the Apostle Thomas. Real person? Based on a real person? Maybe. Enough evidence to demonstrate that he really existed? No. Enough evidence to demonstrate that he never really existed? No. We can speculate and theorise, but nothing more. The sum total of our concrete knowledge about the historical Apostle Thomas is one big shrug. And the same goes for plenty other Gospel characters.

Toto

Yes, in fact. Why is this so improbable?

No, that is not the most likely explanation. It fails to account for a host of details - why there is no early mention of Jesus' family in the earliest Christian writings, while later writings add so much more detail - why there is no mention of a Christian movement that early in secular writings - why the other gospel writers felt so free to reshape the details of Mark's narrative.

The cleanest explanation is that all of first century Christian history was constructed in the second century; or was written as fictional allegory that later Christians mistook for real history.

rlogan

hi the_cave.

A starting point for the existence of "Christians" would be the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan.

This is roughly 112 CE. Pliny tells the emperor he has these Christians to contend with, but nothing about Jesus. Trajan responds that Pliny should not seek them out, but that if they are interrogated that so long as they show deference to the "state sanctioned" gods that they should be unmolested.

I would say that the disciples are fiction, whereas apostles are another thing entirely. There was obviously a Christian movement, and there would be leaders.

The question is how far back can we push "Christianity". There are some real problems with Suetonius' reference to "Chrestus" in Rome and of course we have discussed Tacitus' corrupt text before. Josephus is a smouldering pile of rubble now. So the best we can do is say that it had developed enough by Pliny the Younger to deserve note with Trajan.

spin

As I've said I personally am agnostic about Pliny. He died in the province, so who collected his letters from there and "published" them?


spin

Matthew_Green

To your first question, not necessarily. I don't know which Pauline epistles are authentic and which are not. Just because some may be inauthentic doesn't mean that Paul never existed just as some of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels may not actually go back to Jesus but may have been put into Jesus' mouth doesn't mean Jesus never existed. As for #2.) No, I have no reason to deny the existence of other apostles, #3.) I think that Christianity was a first-century movement, #4.) I consider it a tantalizing possibility that Christianity was not a 1st century movement although I have no historical reason for believing so.

Matthew

Artemus

How is that different? Details are invented for fictional characters., so the naming of these types of details is no more an argument for the historicity of Jesus than it is for the history of Scarlett O'Hara. Can you prove that Gone With the Wind was not based on a historical person?

rlogan

Jesus, every time I think I've got some traction the ground slips out from under me.

Of course you don't expect me to answer this. I'm going to have to refer you to Vinnie.

I did not realize there was much controversy on this. Many discussions have been made here that I have been too ignorant to grasp. This might have been one of them.

spin

We are on safer ground with Pliny the Younger, in that Tertullian specifically knows the text. How much safer I couldn't say, but it means that there was less time for a would be text improver to get to work.


spin