Juststeve

Bacht:

I think the standard account is that the Gospels were written for the Christian Community, much or most of which was illiterate. Individual Gospels were used in different churches, read during services since most of those in attendance could not have read them for themselves.

Note that this presupposes the existence of a Christian Community before the existence of Gospels. If we accept the date of 65 or 70 for Mark, 40 years or so after the crucifixion, then we need to ask where did the Christian community come from?

Of course the recognized experts could be wrong as they must be if the “Historical Jesus Skeptics” are right.

Steve

gurugeorge

All we need is a sniff of something to make 1) a live option (a passing mention in a letter, something like that). There isn't anything. Not just that, but so far as I can see, the attempt hasn't even been made to find anyone who might fit the bill (e.g. maybe the HJ was Jesus ben Ananias, or another Josephian "Jesus"?).

That doesn't mean that 1) isn't true, but it does mean it's not very strongly supported as a hypothesis, and meanwhile 2) is also plausible, and fits rather neatly with the evidence we have; especially the fact that, on fairly standard datings, the "divine" stuff is earlier - Paul - and the "ordinary guy" stuff later - the Synoptics. (Note the special pleading re. insight about "how Paul must have thought" that's required to make the HJ case hold in light of that sequence.)

Toto

Steve - you claim to be an atheist in your profile, but you keep repeating the standard arguments that Christian apologists make on this issue. Why is that?

No one asked for a birth certificate or photo id. But even a reference from some source other than holy scripture would be impressive. If the reference to Jesus in Josephus's Antiquities did not appear to be an obvious Christian fabrication, that would count for something.

Toto

There is no necessity that it came from anyone who actually knew a Jesus of Nazareth.

As most of them will admit. There is very little hard evidence here.

Kapyong

Gday,

Indeed - where did the Roman Christian community come from e.g. ?

Paul writes to the Romans :
15:23 "But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions, and since I have been longing for many years to see you,"

So, in Paul's time, the Roman Christian community has already existed for "many years".

How?


Kapyong

Juststeve

Toto:

I don't think the Gospels were written by people who knew Jesus. Did you think I had said that? I think whoever the Gospel writers were they were early Christians writing down stories that had been circulating in the Christian Community. The author of Luke says so himself. Not eyewitnesses.

What "Historical Jesus Skeptics" have to account for is the stories in circulation at the time the Gospels were written with absolutely no guy named Jesus top form the basis of the stories. They must particularly account for the stories that portray a real life flesh and blood Jesus with a mother and a father, brothers, sisters, neighbors and traveling companions.

Steve

PS. Being an atheist doesn’t require me to adhere to any particular party line. I’m allowed to evaluate arguments made by fellow atheists and find them wanting, as I do in this case.

S.

spamandham

The problem gJohn faced was he needed JtB, because JtB had already been accepted as the herald announcing Jesus.

So yes, he couldn't completely write John out of the story. But he didn't need the baptism itself for any purpose, so he was free to dispense with it.

The existence of the baptism in Mark is not there simply because Mark felt compelled to be historically accurate, but because Mark *wanted* it there. It was in no way embarrassing to Mark, else he simply would have ignored it the way gJohn does.

GakuseiDon

Since I've agreed on that before, let me repeat: I agree with you. What statement have I made that is incorrect, or where I have mistaken "bioi" for "modern style biography"?

I think it does, simply because they apparently were accepted as history rather than fiction. AFAIK the genre was generally used by those writing about actual people, or who were thought to be actual. It doesn't mean it couldn't have been used for people who were known at that time to not exist, but I would like to see examples of that.

He did. Here is part of that (my emphasis):

... everything in my story is a more or less comical parody of one or another of the poets, historians and philosophers of old, who have written much that smacks of miracles and fables. I would cite them by name, were it not that you yourself will recognise them from your reading. One of them is Ctesias, son of Ctesiochus, of Cnidos, who wrote a great deal about India and its characteristics that he had never seen himself nor heard from anyone else with a reputation for truthfulness. Iambulus also wrote much that was strange about the countries in the great sea: he made up a falsehood that is patent to everybody, but wrote a story that is not uninteresting for all that. 1 Many others, with the same intent, have written about imaginary travels and journeys of theirs, telling of huge beasts, cruel men and strange ways of living. Their guide and instructor in this sort of charlatanry is Homer's Odysseus, who tells Alcinous and his court about winds in bondage, one-eyed men, cannibals and savages; also about animals with many heads, and transformations of his comrades wrought with drugs. This stuff, and much more like it, is what our friend humbugged the illiterate Phaeacians with! Well, on reading all these authors, I did not find much fault with them for their lying, as I saw that this was already a common practice even among men who profess philosophy. 2 I did wonder, though, that they thought that they could write untruths and not get caught at it. ...

Be it understood, then, that I am writing about things which I have neither seen nor had to do with nor learned from others--which, in fact, do not exist at all and, in the nature of things, cannot exist. 1 Therefore my readers should on no account believe in them.

I suppose the key phrase above is "I did wonder, though, that they thought that they could write untruths and not get caught at it". It indicates some kind of skepticism was at play. The issue isn't that it is impossible for fantastic works to be thought of as history; it is, was it likely? And the best way to do that is by looking at examples at that time where this actually happened.

You wrote, "the general category was rampant at the time and it was clearly commonplace for people to confuse fantasy and reality". Do we have any examples like the Gospels, "bioi" that were written about someone not thought to have existed?

Juststeve

Kapyong:

Tacitus tells us Nero persecuted Christians in Rome, in the year 64 if memory serves. In telling of that event he calls Christianity a vile superstition and a contagion. Hardly the words of a Christian apologist says I. How they came to be there I don’t know but if you credit Paul there were Christians before Paul was a Christian.

Steve

spamandham

...because mythical figures were never depicted as having familes? :huh: