archibald

Hi mm,

I read that archived thread.

IMO, Apollonius is slightly ahead of Jesus in the historicity stakes, because there are works attributed to him. It's not conclusive that the person saying they were his is correct, since all is lost, and the reports about them come via that later person, so I would not estimate the 'gap' to be as high as you suggest.

Cheers.

archibald

I agree. It's hard sell, and speculation.

If there were eyewitnesses, they are lost. As it is, we are left with reports, some decades later, that the stories originated from eyewitnesses. Although this is plausible, it can't be read, historiographically, as eyewitness reports, by any means.

archibald

That is a very interesting table, mm. It's spin's, I think?

I'm not sure if it leads to conclusions, or is meant to, but it's a neat and colourful summary.

archibald

Yes. There are always arguments and counters.

Don't you agree, in principle, that there are things on both side of the scales?

That is the broad reason why I started another thread in tandem with this one. Perhaps you would be willing to be the first to record your list?




http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=307327

MCalavera

Yes, in almost any debate, there are arguments both sides. The question is how strong is the argument of one side compared to the other.

Anyway, I just posted in that thread.

Vorkosigan

You're welcome to present any evidence that "other material" may be found in there (that is not identifiably Markan creativity). You won't be able to. Also, you should think about how such "other material" could be identified. What methodology permits you to say that?

No, he doesn't. He merely wishes to give the impression that he does. But if you look at his treatment of Mark's material, he is well aware that Mark is making up things by creating off the OT and follows this pattern. One reason
we know the Gospel authors were making new, not merely recording fulfilled prophecy, is that they frequently deepened and extended each other's work, as well as made errors that point to the origin of their stories. For example, in the Gethsemane scene, the writer of Luke realized that the writer of Mark parallels 3 Kings (LXX). However, the writer of Mark declined to supply the angel that ministers to Elijah in that passage, so Luke added it, along with additional language from the Septuagint. Such changes point to both the origin of the passage, and its creation at the hands of the Gospel authors. It also says volumes about how they themselves regarded the stories they were telling.

The issue isn't what 2000 years ago was, but scholars today. What methodologies do scholars possess for sifting the material to find history that are reliable, useful, and widely accepted? None. So if you are asserting "there's history down there" then show me your methodology. Otherwise you are just making faith statements that have the good fortune to enjoy wide social acceptance.

Luke is the stage in evolution that brings us to the HJ. The writer of Mark clearly has no HJ in mind when he invented his story, but by Luke's day someone had realized the usefulness of a full-blown historical figure for establishing the legitimacy of their wing of the Church. Luke is writing faux history, the opening is a lie presented to legitimize the copied and expanded and altered story within. You know perfectly well that Luke had two major sources, Mark and Q, and his story is a reworking of them.

You're aware that the treatment of Mark as non-literal is at least as old as Origen, right?

It's not the "winnowing" that's the issue, but the assumption of a historical core. The historical core is the undefeatable idea at the heart of HJ studies; it is one of the irrefutable conceptions that Popper talked about in his famous chapter in Conjectures and Refutations -- if an idea can't be refuted, it's false. And there is no evidence that can ever refute the "historical core" assumption. Adherents will continue to hold to it irrespective of the evidence offered. If new evidence or methods are developed, then the historical core will expand, if new refutations are invented, then it will contract. But no evidence can ever refute it.

Really, you can't start with the idea that there is history down there. The start must be a null start with no assumptions -- then you have to discover through analysis what you're looking at.

No problem. Identify the "eyewitness" material used in Luke. Good luck!

Thanks. Two things were formative for me -- first understanding this point about the lack of HJ references in the epistles, and then reading the discussion on methods in Crossan's The Birth of Christianity.

We can only go with the evidence -- there's no mention of an HJ, and there are "glaring contradictions" in the sense that the story presented in the Pauline and other epistles contradicts the gospel tales, and even the assumption of historicity of some Jesus. 1 Cor 7 has always struck me as particularly interesting in that light. There Paul gives instructions about marriage. Now -- toss out the gospels and just imagine Jesus is a human. Being human, he automatically has a marital state. But Paul never refers to that state in his discussion -- Jesus' particular marriage is not a model, and his lack of marriage is not something to be concerned about. It is as if Jesus never had a marital state that had any influence on Paul's thinking. There are several places where Paul appears to contradict the gospel tales, notably in Romans where he calls upon believers to support the authorities as if Jesus had never been executed by them....

See above for my remarks on the irrefutable, infinitely elastic historical core.

Vorkosigan

Iskander

I will believe the myth lovers only when the deniers provide proof that Blue Monkeys Fly Out of Their Butt

archibald

Of course, it's obvious, given the limitations of what we can and can't know for sure, that it is possible that mark simply combined literary sources with literary inventions of his own, but there is no evidence for that either. Quite the contrary, Luke corroborates the assertion (note I said assertion) that material was handed down.

Look, V, neither I nor you nor anyone can prove what the material is. It might be better, in this thread at least, which was started for a particular reason, for us not to get into a t’is/t’isn’t irresolvable wrangle. :]

There is little doubt that Mark used literary sources of whatever kind were available (including, arguably, Paul, which I think hints that Mark did not read Paul the way, Doherty, for example, tries to).

In short, I see no reason to assume what you asserted, which was, in any case 'literary sources'. I thought you meant all literary/nonhistorical sources.

Btw, historians are well used to treating ancient religious texts with caution. There is nothing unique in this. It is one thing to say that a text is unreliable. It is another to say it is all fiction. They have methodologies for this. The methodologies don‘t permit them, myself, you or anyone to say anything for certain. :]


What’s your methodology for telling whether the entire texts do not contain ‘historical’ material? The question can be turned around, you see. There is no final resolution.

Surely you are just mind reading here?

No, it is not obvious that he is well aware. For all we know, he may believe it. Equally, he may know that some of it is tenuous or egged up, and he may indulge in this himself. This is not unusual, in this sort of ancient religious text. However, I do think it entirely plausible that the actual fervent followers who put pen to papyrus believed at least some, if not a lot of it.

And again, you refer to Mark as 'creating off the OT' as if it were necessarily the case. There is no basis for certainty of that sort, I’m afraid, unless you mean 'in part, creating off the OT', in which case very few intelligent people would disagree.

I also think you are applying the word 'history' in a very modern sense. It seems to me that people like the gospel writers were not alone in playing fasst and loose with it, reporting unlikely events as history, or adding to each others accounts. None of this suggests that there are no 'stories they have heard' in there. And more to the point, no indication that they subscribed to the modern idea that it was all fiction or allegory.

In relation to the context of the time, which I was discussing, it is the issue.

I already took the point about the limitations of methodologies available to modern scholars.

First, I'm not asserting that, I‘m saying it‘s one valid option.

Second, it's a bit unfair to say that an analysis based on certain methodologies suggests the possibility that there is historical material in there is anything but a faith statement, or 'social acceptance' either.

Actually, he most clearly does give that impression. Plus, please stop saying 'he invented his story'. I think, of the two of us, you appear to be doing the assuming, actually. :]

Faux history it may be, depending on what we mean by faux. If we mean deliberately lying or pretending he doesn't think it's fiction, then no, there's no way, I think, to tell if it's faux in that sense. Personally, I doubt it. You on the other hand think it. Brill. Let’s agree to disagree.

I never said it was all literal. There is a range. Did Origen think it was all literary, with no historical basis? I do not know the answer to this by the way. It's an honest question. I admit I'd be surprised if he did. But if he didn't, your citation of him doesn't change anything.

No one is assuming an historical core.

And neither side can refute the other.

I don’t.

This is what I do. I just arrive at a different position to you.

I don’t need to. Look, you asserted that later writers ‘knew’. All I said was that the written evidence suggests otherwise. You say the later writers are lying. Fine.

I haven’t read that particular book. Can’t say I’m a huge fan of Crossan’s general conclusions, but he’s entitled to his approach and his conclusions and he’s not the worst by a long shot, as far as I can see.

Not with you. Are you suggesting Jesus was married?

Regarding the material in 1 Cor 7. Orthodox Hjers seem to take this as evidence of the epistle writer being aware of some of Jesus’ teachings. Mjers, I think I have seen, may suggest it’s a later addition. Me, I don’t know.

Ok, but here I was simply saying that if Sai Baba had lived at the time, his story wouldn’t have needed to be fruited up.

Vorkosigan, it's a pleasure doing business with you, and please feel free to respond, but I am not sure if we aren't getting a little bit away from my OP.

I'm sorta trying to avoid turning this into a general MJ versus HJ thread, too much. :]

Cheers

A.

archibald

Getting back to comparisons with apollonius of Tyana.

Is he another candidate, like Sai baba?

Certainly, there are many similarities.

I believe I also read that Christian writers alleged he didn't exist? Is this true? If so, it's rather interesting in itself, as an example of one bunch saying the other bunch's man didn't exist. :]

I have an inkling i've read that their motive in doing so may have been to try to eliminate a competitor. in which case, it strikes me that if he was seen as a competitor, the similarities may hve been quite strong?

Just throwing his out for discussion. Not sure of my 'facts'. :]

archibald

Interesting.

Don and Ipetrich (and indeed everyone reading),

Have you read 'Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet' by Dale allison?

Here (below) is his short 'detached Note' on some 'common features of millenarianism'. In its approach, it seems to share some intentions with Lord Raglan's comparative 'Hero Criteria' assessments above, though Allison does not do scoring for individuals or individual cults, instead making a list of 19 suggested common characteristics.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Vb2...page&q&f=false

Happily, the whole 'chapter' (pages 78-94) is in the google preview. Well worth a read. Not conclusive, of course.

It compares 'Millenarian Prophets' in item 13, on page 89.

Note he cites (on page 90) Cohn's* researches for 'Medieval millenarism' as concluding, 'a millenarian revolt never formed except around a prophet...'

Interesting stuff, eh? And I DO like a book with plenty of relevant footnotes.

* For those who worry about scholarly bias (as do I), Norman Cohn was (died in 2007) a professional British academic historian and university professor of History (Sussex University).