Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vivisector · 02-06-2005, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

Also, the early Christians passed along the stories about Jesus thru Oral Tradition at first, so it is silly to even think some long lost contemporary Gospel is out there or to require it as evidence.

One thing that's interesting is that, if one assumes Q to have existed as an independent document, then one of the earliest pieces of evidence for this oral tradition consists primarily of nothing more than sayings. Depending on how one views the Gospel of Thomas, you have another example of where what was passed around was basically Jesus's sayings, not his deeds or other biographical information. I think it's also interesting that both these documents are considered to have originated in the Greek language, and many (if not most) of the sayings are shown to have similarities to other individuals and/or to contemporary trains of thought. If this is the case, then I'm not sure there's very much at all in the Gospels that's helpful to the case for a HJ.

Cheers,

V.

Killer Mike · 02-06-2005, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisector

One thing that's interesting is that, if one assumes Q to have existed as an independent document, then one of the earliest pieces of evidence for this oral tradition consists primarily of nothing more than sayings. Depending on how one views the Gospel of Thomas, you have another example of where what was passed around was basically Jesus's sayings, not his deeds or other biographical information. I think it's also interesting that both these documents are considered to have originated in the Greek language, and many (if not most) of the sayings are shown to have similarities to other individuals and/or to contemporary trains of thought. If this is the case, then I'm not sure there's very much at all in the Gospels that's helpful to the case for a HJ.

Cheers,

V.

Most scholars think there were many "Christianities" even at the earliest stages of Christian development. There was a sort of "regional diversity" where the Christianity in one region had different beliefs then the Christianity of other regions. Some of these groups believed that what was important is what Jesus said, while others believed the historical events (alledged death and resurrection) is what was important. What the Gospel writers did was to accumulate these various written and oral traditions and combine them into one comprehensive narrative (beginning with Mark). I also think the similarities of Q to what others said and claimed is of little importance. I mean history is full of messiahs, people claiming to be gods, death and resurrections, miracles, etc.. We would expect to find simularities.
I mean if all these other individuals had similar trains of thought, why should Jesus have been any different?

Im sure the Q document is not verbatum exactly what Jesus said word for word, as we know oral tradition results in modification and elaboration. Its not like they had a tape recorder and then played it to compose Q.

Amaleq13 · 02-06-2005, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

But Paul was not concerned about giving historical details. At that time the early Christians believed the world was coming to an end soon and the kingdom of God was at hand. Paul was more concerned with spiritual matters then in giving biographical information.

That seems like a reasonable speculation but it doesn't appear to explain why Paul never refers to Jesus preaching that the end was soon or that the Kingdom was at hand. It also doesn't explain why, when describing the miracles he and the other apostles performed, he doesn't mention that Jesus performed miracles.

Quote:

The "Jesus Myth" proponents are reading way too much between the lines.

That is what the historical proponents have been doing if they are wrong. If the JM proponents are wrong, they are guilty of reading too little into Paul's letters.

Quote:

Also, the early Christians passed along the stories about Jesus thru Oral Tradition at first...

That assumes, without evidence, the conclusion you are trying to defend. If Jesus was a historical figure whose career began as a wisdom-teaching, miracle-working prophet, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that his closest followers initially created an oral tradition of his teachings and stories about him. Since there is no demonstrably reliable way to identify, from the extant texts, what portions, if any, are based on such an oral tradition and what portions are more likely fiction, the assertion cannot be assumed within the context of an HJ/MJ debate.

Quote:

Most scholars think there were many "Christianities" even at the earliest stages of Christian development.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that a single individual could inspire so many diverse interpretations at such an early stage? Doesn't it make more sense that this sort of diversity in interpretation would be expected as more time passed from the original inspiration? Doesn't it make more sense to find such early diversity resulting from an esoteric idea rather than actions and teachings of an individual?

Quote:

Some of these groups believed that what was important is what Jesus said, while others believed the historical events (alledged death and resurrection) is what was important.

This is the "great divide" in the earliest Christian writings that Crossan describes in The Birth of Christianity but he never attempts to explain it. How does a group of Christians ignore that their source of wisdom was crucified and later seen risen from the dead? How does another group of Christians decide to ignore the ministry that inspired his initial following and focus only on his horrible death and resurrection appearances?

Quote:

What the Gospel writers did was to accumulate these various written and oral traditions and combine them into one comprehensive narrative (beginning with Mark).

Yet the author of Mark appears to have created the majority of his story from the Hebrew Bible rather than any "written and oral traditions". At the very least, Crossan acknowledges that this is true of the passion narrative. In other words, there does not appear to be any "written and oral tradition" associated with the central beliefs expressed in Paul's gospel because the first narrative depiction appears to have been entirely constructed from Scripture.

Quote:

I also think the similarities of Q to what others said and claimed is of little importance. I mean history is full of messiahs, people claiming to be gods, death and resurrections, miracles, etc.. We would expect to find simularities.

On the contrary, given the alleged tremendous impact his ministry had his followers, I would think we would expect his teachings to be significantly unique.

Quote:

I mean if all these other individuals had similar trains of thought, why should Jesus have been any different?

Exactly my point. The similarity exists yet the response was allegedly quite different. This is something you, as an HJ proponent, need to explain.

Quote:

Im sure the Q document is not verbatum exactly what Jesus said word for word, as we know oral tradition results in modification and elaboration. Its not like they had a tape recorder and then played it to compose Q.

This only serves to further undermine any appeal to an alleged oral tradition serving as a foundation for the extant texts. How does this help your case? There was a historical Jesus but we can't tell what he really said or did but that doesn't stop us from assuming the extant texts are modified and elaborated versions of what we don't know happened? :huh:

I don't understand how you can accept this state of the evidence yet still assert that a historical figure is a certainty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crucifiction

I don't believe that Paul was writing about the same Jesus that the Gospel writers wrote about; as another poster has said. It seems clear to me that he was clearly influenced by Greek thought, even if he was a Pharisee. The Jesus Paul speaks of is clearly a Hellenized deity; as opposed to the very human, very Jewish Jesus of the Gospel accounts.

IMO, this possibility is very difficult to dismiss. That the name "Jesus" is so literally apt for Paul's theology yet, at the same time, so common among the populace is just one example.

Killer Mike · 02-06-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

That seems like a reasonable speculation but it doesn't appear to explain why Paul never refers to Jesus preaching that the end was soon or that the Kingdom was at hand. It also doesn't explain why, when describing the miracles he and the other apostles performed, he doesn't mention that Jesus performed miracles.

That is what the historical proponents have been doing if they are wrong. If the JM proponents are wrong, they are guilty of reading too little into Paul's letters.

That assumes, without evidence, the conclusion you are trying to defend. If Jesus was a historical figure whose career began as a wisdom-teaching, miracle-working prophet, then it is entirely reasonable to assume that his closest followers initially created an oral tradition of his teachings and stories about him. Since there is no demonstrably reliable way to identify, from the extant texts, what portions, if any, are based on such an oral tradition and what portions are more likely fiction, the assertion cannot be assumed within the context of an HJ/MJ debate.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that a single individual could inspire so many diverse interpretations at such an early stage? Doesn't it make more sense that this sort of diversity in interpretation would be expected as more time passed from the original inspiration? Doesn't it make more sense to find such early diversity resulting from an esoteric idea rather than actions and teachings of an individual?

This is the "great divide" in the earliest Christian writings that Crossan describes in The Birth of Christianity but he never attempts to explain it. How does a group of Christians ignore that their source of wisdom was crucified and later seen risen from the dead? How does another group of Christians decide to ignore the ministry that inspired his initial following and focus only on his horrible death and resurrection appearances?

Yet the author of Mark appears to have created the majority of his story from the Hebrew Bible rather than any "written and oral traditions". At the very least, Crossan acknowledges that this is true of the passion narrative. In other words, there does not appear to be any "written and oral tradition" associated with the central beliefs expressed in Paul's gospel because the first narrative depiction appears to have been entirely constructed from Scripture.

On the contrary, given the alleged tremendous impact his ministry had his followers, I would think we would expect his teachings to be significantly unique.

Exactly my point. The similarity exists yet the response was allegedly quite different. This is something you, as an HJ proponent, need to explain.

This only serves to further undermine any appeal to an alleged oral tradition serving as a foundation for the extant texts. How does this help your case? There was a historical Jesus but we can't tell what he really said or did but that doesn't stop us from assuming the extant texts are modified and elaborated versions of what we don't know happened? :huh:

I don't understand how you can accept this state of the evidence yet still assert that a historical figure is a certainty.

IMO, this possibility is very difficult to dismiss. That the name "Jesus" is so literally apt for Paul's theology yet, at the same time, so common among the populace is just one example.

I disagree. Paul was more concerned about spiritual matters then in telling people Jesus performed miracles. Besides there were dozens of people claiming to be "miracle workers" and "messiah's". Perhaps Paul knew his message of Jesus would fall on deaf ears, so he wanted to what he could and limit it to warning people the end was near. I could write a story and just because I dont put something into it, does not mean I am unaware of it.

If Jesus had a large following then I would expect there to be a "great divide" following his death. Human nature is to fight, disagree, and battle for control. There was probably this kind of division already developing during the time of his ministry. I also see no problem in trying to "explain" why Jesus's ministry did so well while others failed. Even though there were many simularities there was one important difference: Jesus taught that we are all made in the image of God. In a region that is 2/3 slave, that would have been a very powerful message. I also dont think there is an "appeal" to oral tradition. Oral tradition had been going on for centuries and most people could not read or write. We also know from psychological studies on "oral tradition", stories are modified and elaborated upon over time.

Clarice O'C · 02-06-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

I also see no problem in trying to "explain" why Jesus's ministry did so well while others failed. Even though there were many simularities there was one important difference: Jesus taught that we are all made in the image of God. In a region that is 2/3 slave, that would have been a very powerful message. I also dont think there is an "appeal" to oral tradition. Oral tradition had been going on for centuries and most people could not read or write. We also know from psychological studies on "oral tradition", stories are modified and elaborated upon over time.

Jesus must have known of the Genesis creation story, that people were made in the image of God. Other Jews would have known of it. It seems like the Genesis 600 BCE story, or whatever exact date, would have reached even slaves by the time of Jesus. There were also early "image of God" stories in other religions before Jesus that they might have heard. Do you think that Jesus' teaching on it was that unique?

Vorkosigan · 02-06-2005, 07:29 PM

Quote:

I also see no problem in trying to "explain" why Jesus's ministry did so well while others failed.

Jesus' ministry is an invention of Mark, based on the OT. The sayings are derived from Cynic and Jewish oral sources. The path of Jesus through Israel follows that of the Elijah and Elisha cycle. The miracles are all derived from Elijah. The start in Galilee is taken from Isa 9:1 and reflects the role of northern Israel in Jewish literature such as Tobit and Enoch. The events are there to teach; most of the names are theologically significant and many of them do not appear to have existed prior to Mark.

In short, the stories are fictions.

Vorkosigan

Clutch · 02-06-2005, 07:49 PM

I've previously urged the point that debates like this one are recipes for cross-talk without some foundational discussion about the reference of names.

Suppose there was a St Nicholas (seems fairly reasonable), and suppose our use of the term "Santa Claus" socio-causally traces back to his existence (also rather likely). Now: was there really a Santa Claus? Do we say that the popular connotations and imagery of the Coca-Cola Santa effectively define a new name, or do we say that they just introduce (additional) false beliefs incorporating the old one?

One of the reasons I incline to think that at least some HJ/MJ disagreement is empty is that I suspect some of the disagreers would also disagree about this kind of question. That is, to an extent this isn't a dispute about facts in evidence, but a dispute over how high the bar ought to be set for a name's retaining its historical referent as it acquires false connotations.

Amaleq13 · 02-06-2005, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

I disagree.

I'm not surprised but I would be interested in your specific responses to my questions.

Quote:

Paul was more concerned about spiritual matters then in telling people Jesus performed miracles.

Even though it would have been clearly helpful to his efforts to make a point of a specific continuation between Jesus and his gospel? Sorry, seems like empty speculation to me.

How about a reference to teachings Jesus preached prior to being executed on "spiritual matters"? Why is Paul silent about those?

Quote:

Perhaps Paul knew his message of Jesus would fall on deaf ears, so he wanted to what he could and limit it to warning people the end was near.

And how does this explain his failure to refer to Jesus' living teachings about the approaching end?

Quote:

If Jesus had a large following then I would expect there to be a "great divide" following his death. Human nature is to fight, disagree, and battle for control. There was probably this kind of division already developing during the time of his ministry.

So one group decided to ignore the resurrection while another decided to ignore the ministry because of a power struggle? That doesn't seem very credible.

Quote:

I also see no problem in trying to "explain" why Jesus's ministry did so well while others failed. Even though there were many simularities there was one important difference: Jesus taught that we are all made in the image of God.

And that was an "important difference" from the Judaism, which has that message in the first part of its Scripture, how?

Quote:

I also dont think there is an "appeal" to oral tradition.

There is and you made it despite having no reliable methodology of identifying what it is.

Amaleq13 · 02-06-2005, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch

One of the reasons I incline to think that at least some HJ/MJ disagreement is empty is that I suspect some of the disagreers would also disagree about this kind of question. That is, to an extent this isn't a dispute about facts in evidence, but a dispute over how high the bar ought to be set for a name's retaining its historical referent as it acquires false connotations.

I tend assume that HJ proponents are arguing for a guy who at least approximates the fellow describes in the Gospels. Otherwise, they would appear to be simply claiming that some guy about whom we know little to nothing actually existed.

That isn't sufficiently specific?

greyline · 02-06-2005, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch

I've previously urged the point that debates like this one are recipes for cross-talk without some foundational discussion about the reference of names.

...

One of the reasons I incline to think that at least some HJ/MJ disagreement is empty is that I suspect some of the disagreers would also disagree about this kind of question. That is, to an extent this isn't a dispute about facts in evidence, but a dispute over how high the bar ought to be set for a name's retaining its historical referent as it acquires false connotations.

This sounds like my definition of (my) agnosticism: since there's no way to prove if God exists or not, the question becomes irrelevant.

If HJ just means "some guy named Jesus who lived about that time" then the question of his existence becomes irrelevant because even those who deny a gospel-like HJ will never know for sure.

For practical purposes, HJ to me means a guy called Jesus who preached in Galilee that he was the OT Messiah, was crucified for whatever reason and single-handedly inspired the Christian movement. I would hope that at least some biographical details were also true, such as his birthplace, bios of his apostles, and the contents of some of his sermons.

If those things really happened, I would say HJ existed. The problem is that they all rely on the gospel stories, which are more easily explained as storytelling after-the-fact.

View Poll Results: Was there a single, historical person at the root of the tales of Jesus Christ?
No. IMO Jesus is completely mythical.	99	29.46%
IMO Yes. Though many tales were added over time, there was a single great preacher/teacher who was the source of many of the stories about Jesus.	105	31.25%
Insufficient data. I withhold any opinion.	132	39.29%
Voters: 336. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-06-2005, 07:49 PM	#287
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	I've previously urged the point that debates like this one are recipes for cross-talk without some foundational discussion about the reference of names. Suppose there was a St Nicholas (seems fairly reasonable), and suppose our use of the term "Santa Claus" socio-causally traces back to his existence (also rather likely). Now: was there really a Santa Claus? Do we say that the popular connotations and imagery of the Coca-Cola Santa effectively define a new name, or do we say that they just introduce (additional) false beliefs incorporating the old one? One of the reasons I incline to think that at least some HJ/MJ disagreement is empty is that I suspect some of the disagreers would also disagree about this kind of question. That is, to an extent this isn't a dispute about facts in evidence, but a dispute over how high the bar ought to be set for a name's retaining its historical referent as it acquires false connotations.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.