Freethought & Rationalism Archive

archibald · 10-13-2011, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

In other news King Arthur probably didn't pull Excalibur out of a stone either.

If King Arthur's death was apparently attested to a couple of years after, by people/followers we had reason to think may have been there at the time (though writing slightly later) and again within a matter of decades, that would put a different slant on King Arthur too.

For me, that is one of the differences.

I know it depends on this and that, but when I delve into this and that, it (the short distance to source) seems more likely to be the case than not. Hence it's part of my reasons for a shift from agnosticism to slight HJ leaning.

gurugeorge · 10-13-2011, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Quote:

We have Ghost stories so why must you ASSUME they were about a man?

Because fanciful birth stories about famous historical people is nothing new.

Neither are fanciful stories about famous and believed-then to be real, but (as we would now say) non-historical divine beings with earthly aspects.

How do you distinguish, in this case, the possibility that the Christ story might be of the former type, from the possibility that it might be of the latter type?

Not from the mere presence of human-sounding aspects in the story alone, one hopes

mountainman · 10-13-2011, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan Poe

Therefore, there's a difference between apostles and "the twelve."

The title of the NHC 6.1 "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" also begs the question ... how many apostles were there in total, thirteen?. In the text the author states that "Eleven apostles prostrated themselves".

Doug Shaver · 10-13-2011, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

If Papias claims he met people who knew the apostles who knew Jesus, what can we draw from that, assuming that the text can be verified (which it can't be for certain, of course)?

We don't even have his text. We have texts in which the authors claim to be quoting from Papias's text. What I will stipulate for the sake of discussion is that the quotations are accurate. What we can draw from that, on the assumption that he sincerely believed every word he wrote, is that Papias on some unspecified occasion met some people who told him that they had known some of Jesus' apostles, and that he believed those people.

Doug Shaver · 10-13-2011, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Not until you explain, without begging any questions, how you know that Jesus had any disciples.

Because we have evidence that he did have disciples. The Epistles and the Gospels.

Please produce a quotation from the epistles in which someone is explicitly identified as a disciple of Jesus.

To cite the gospels as evidence of someone's discipleship is to assume your conclusion, which is what I mean by begging the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Do you have counter evidence that demolishes the parsimonious view of the evidence I mentioned?

You say your view is parsimonious. I believe you are in error.

Doug Shaver · 10-13-2011, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCalavera

Apostle => discipleship.

That is what Christian orthodoxy has always maintained. I do not see any evidence in the texts themselves that Paul held such a view.

andrewcriddle · 10-13-2011, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

..............................

As Nathan Poe pointed out here a little while ago, Judas selling Jesus, looks conspicuously like a midrashic re-telling of Judah's selling of Joseph to the Ishmaelites in Gen 37:26.

Best,
Jiri

The parallels eg "pieces of silver" seem closer in Matthew's account than in the probably more original version in Mark.

This suggests that the 'midrashic' elements may be secondary.

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 10-13-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

..............................

As Nathan Poe pointed out here a little while ago, Judas selling Jesus, looks conspicuously like a midrashic re-telling of Judah's selling of Joseph to the Ishmaelites in Gen 37:26.

Best,
Jiri

The parallels eg "pieces of silver" seem closer in Matthew's account than in the probably more original version in Mark.

This suggests that the 'midrashic' elements may be secondary.

Andrew Criddle

Hmmm, not sure about that, Andrew. The "thirty pieces of silver" in Matthew is from Zechariah 11, with the motif of the breaking of the covenant /union...I think Matthew was improving on Mark, by finding a new parallel. But the analogy of the twelve brothers and Judah breaking up the house, IMHO has Mark's signature on it.

Best,
Jiri

Nathan Poe · 10-13-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

The parallels eg "pieces of silver" seem closer in Matthew's account than in the probably more original version in Mark.

This suggests that the 'midrashic' elements may be secondary.

Andrew Criddle

Hmmm, not sure about that, Andrew. The "thirty pieces of silver" in Matthew is from Zechariah 11, with the motif of the breaking of the covenant /union...I think Matthew was improving on Mark, by finding a new parallel. But the analogy of the twelve brothers and Judah breaking up the house, IMHO has Mark's signature on it.

Best,
Jiri

I agree that Matthew improved on Mark with the 30 pieces of silver (Mark makes no reference to any amount). It came from Zechariah, along with the act of throwing the money back into the temple afterward.

Mark started the ball rolling by using Judah's betrayal from Genesis (Judah = Judas, btw), and then Matthew added details to it from other Old Testament sources.

MCalavera · 10-13-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

I'm still unimpressed with this insistence that interpreting the available evidence in favor of a historical Jesus is somehow more "parsimonious" than interpreting it in favor of the mythicist view.

All we have are stories. We have no actual evidence that the individual in question existed. No birth record, no letters to or from, no historical documentation written by a disinterested third party, etc.

There is abundant evidence and reason to believe that these stories developed via oral tradition for several decades before anyone began writing any of it down. In the process the story absorbed elements of Greek and Jewish traditions.

At this point any assumption made that the story is entirely mythical is completely offset by any assumption made that elements of the story are not mythical. Both are entirely plausible and fit with the available evidence.

And once we strip the story of its mythical elements to arrive at a plausible historical core we're left with an itinerant preacher who managed to influence a few people with his words, said some controversial things and may have ended up in the slammer after vandalizing the temple.

Big whoop. This story probably describes the lives of hundreds of eccentric preacher types of the period.

Either way the extraordinary man presented in the stories never existed. In other news King Arthur probably didn't pull Excalibur out of a stone either.

Ok, since I'm leaving this forum soon (personal reasons), this should be my last post:

Atheos, I can tell you're fairly neutral and really want to be convinced, but I don't have the qualifications needed to convince anyone here. Wait for Bart Ehrman's upcoming book and see if his arguments are valid.

You're still looking at the Gospels as if they're like Greek myths or Arthurian myths or whatever. It's not. Different aim and motive. Myths are usually for good story telling or to explain certain things in nature. The Gospels were written to promote Jesus as the Messiah.

Yes, there's evidence it all started orally, but no evidence that the aim was different at first.

The Gospels and the Epistles must be treated as evidence. It'd be ridiculous not to do so. But it doesn't mean we must take every word in them as Gospel truth (pun intended). However, it does mean we should refer to them as part of the evidence. That's how historians operate.

Doug Shaver, you're too biased. Nothing will convince you, so no point in arguing with you and others here.

Have to go now. Nice being here.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.