FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-29-2004, 01:40 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Earth
Posts: 1,443
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemus
Who was the real Scarlett O'Hara? Why did she have a mother named <whatever>? Why did she marry someone named Rhett Butler? What was so important about the reign of Abraham Lincoln that her story was placed during that time?
But the difference is, no one has ever suggested that Scarlett O'Hara was a real person.
the_cave is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 01:47 PM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_cave
So you think it was arbitrary?
No, I think that we have insufficient evidence to demonstrate that it wasn't arbitrary.
The Evil One is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 01:55 PM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 2,561
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_cave
What I'm saying is, even if their writings are inauthentic, even if the history is garbled or false, even if there is no accurate written record--isn't the most likely explanation that there were real people who went by these names, and that they must have had something to do with the early Christian movement, or its predecessors?
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.
The Evil One is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 02:53 PM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_cave
But then who were these apostles, Simon/Peter/Cephas, James, Paul? Why does James have a mother named Mary? Would they, too, be fictional creations?
Yes, in fact. Why is this so improbable?

Quote:
What I'm saying is, even if their writings are inauthentic, even if the history is garbled or false, even if there is no accurate written record--isn't the most likely explanation that there were real people who went by these names, and that they must have had something to do with the early Christian movement, or its predecessors?
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.
Toto is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 02:56 PM   #25
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

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.
rlogan is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 08:22 PM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan
A starting point for the existence of "Christians" would be the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and the Emperor Trajan.
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
spin is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 08:35 PM   #27
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Manteca
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_cave
To all you sceptics out there:

If you deny that any Pauline epistles are authentic, do you then deny the existence of Paul?

If you deny the existence of Paul, do you likewise deny the existence of Peter, James, John, and all the apostles?

If you deny the existence of the apostles, do you think that Christianity was still a first-century movement?

If Christianity was not a first-century movement, then why were its origins deliberately set specifically during the reign of Pontius Pilate?
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
Matthew_Green is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 08:46 PM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 2,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by the_cave
But the difference is, no one has ever suggested that Scarlett O'Hara was a real person.
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?
Artemus is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 10:01 PM   #29
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.
rlogan is offline  
Old 04-29-2004, 10:51 PM   #30
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan
Jesus, every time I think I've got some traction the ground slips out from under me.
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
spin is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:57 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.