Toto

Wikipedia on Images of Jesus

These pictures in the catacombs do not support a historical figure.

Regarding your challenge, I'm not sure how 4 popular biographies could be written within any amount of time of the life of someone who never existed. Perhaps you meant when they were reputed to exist?

I am sure, for instance, that there were more than 4 popular biographies of Hercules. But how could one show that they arose within 100 years of his non-birth?

TedM

That's pretty funny, but each of the four have material that places Jesus' lifetime in a particular timeframe. I think his challenge implies that the 4 biographies or alleged works of fiction all also have to date their alleged person to within around 100 years of their original writing as do the gospels. I don't know those other gospels much but should the Gospel of Peter be added to make it 5? Others?

ted

Amaleq13

I agree that is a plausible scenario but it isn't the whole story. You have to explain why the followers of this threat were allowed to live and allowed to continue a movement in his name in Jerusalem. Then explain why Paul basically ignores it all to focus on his "true identity" as the pre-existent Son.

And what about the scenario I suggested?

Amaleq13

If I understand your reasoning correctly, it is this:

If Gospel story is unique (including the number of versions and the time lag between the setting of the story and the writing of it), it must be historically reliable.

What is the justification for this assumption? Do you have a logical argument or theory of history to support it? What, specifically, makes a fictional narrative about an individual depicted as living within a century of the authorship impossible? How does the subsequent authorship of three different versions of the story make it impossible that the first was fiction?

That is a completely different statement from the one you declared false. You see that, right? There was no qualification about the nature of the source only that it was the "earliest" and that is clearly Paul and he clearly does not name Jesus' mother.

This might be more credible if Paul hadn't felt compelled to mention a mother in one of his letters. Is there a particular reason for him not to name her if he knew her name?

The fact remains that the statement you declared false is actually correct.

Sparrow

I never knew all these Toms were real! I thought they were just imaginary, like Tom Swift, who I read about extensively in my boyhood.

In true Erich Von Daniken fashion, you start with the conclusion, see the evidence you think supports your predetermined result, and ignore anything that would invalidate your house of cards. Been to the evo/creation forum yet?

Try starting with nothing. Everything must be vetted first before becoming evidence. Popularity doesn't count.

You prattle on about 4 bios, but you don't have 4. None of the stories is complete in a biographical sense IMO. Two of them are most likely reworkings of a third. the provenance of each is suspect. For such a miracle worker, the attestation outside your holy canon is practially nonexistent. The Jesus Myth scenario deserves consideration because it fits the facts as we know them and requires no supernatural mumbo jumbo to be plausible. The same would be true of a good human man who preached, yet died as any other human might. I can't tell which of those is correct yet given the paucity of information we have and the distance of time, but either is more likely than walking on water. Have a stroll if you like and show us how it's done.

Xixax

In answer to the challenge:

Harry Potter
Superman
Spider-Man
Batman

I see no reason these do not qualify. Hell, they have intense and detailed backgrounds, family relationships... the whole deal.

rob117

Uh... because they were not considered the threat. Jesus was the only one who actually vandalised the temple. The Essene movement was similar in attitude to the early Christians, yet they were not hunted down either.

Jesus may have been considered a riot-threat (i.e., they were afraid he would incite a Passover riot).

See "The Straight Dope" on the politics of the time.

Amaleq13

Former followers carrying on in the threat's name would not be considered a threat? That doesn't sound very credible. You seem to assume that the Temple disruption scene from the Gospels is historical but I consider it unbelieveable as history. We discussed it in this previous thread:

moneychangers in the temple

It just doesn't seem likely that he could have gotten away with it nor that his followers would be allowed to continue in his name in the same town.

gurugeorge

Laughably non-responsive to Vorkosigan's request. You really do first have to show that the "gospels" are actually biographies.

Anybody can write any old nonsense and call it a "biography". If it's truly to be a biography, there has to be some independent evidence of the purported character's existence. Internal coherence in the "biography" itself (and coherence with other stuff we might know about times and places mentioned) might make the character's existence plausible, but you need something strong that's external to really make it conclusive.

With "Jesus", not only are the "biographies" internally incoherent, and often contradictory of other stuff we know about those times and places; when it comes to external corroboration there is simply nothing external that isn't, at the very least, either highly dubious or highly ambiguous. Nothing.

Which, to say the least, should raise an quizzical eyebrow considering how "big" the character in the "bios" appears - how big a splash he appears to make in the ancient world in those "bios".

The mentions in Josephus are at the very best dubious, the few paltry mentions in Roman authors are either too late to be contemporary or too ambiguous to be conclusive (e.g. "Chrestus" was actually a fairly common Roman name).

This sort of vague, ambiguous external "evidence" might be enough if you already believe "Jesus" existed for faith reasons, but it's simply not good enough if one starts from a position of neutrality, waiting to be convinced as one would be with any other purported historical character.

In this context (internal incoherence of the "bios", lack of external corroboration), the MJ position (that "Jesus" or "Christ" was the mythical god-man of a cult like any other of the day, which was hijacked by a sub-sect that took an over-literal interpretation of the god-man's physical, historical existence) provides a better explanation of why purported "biographies" of "Jesus" exist than the internal story in those "biographies" themselves (i.e. that "Jesus" really existed, had a ministry, sent out apostles, etc.).

Vorkosigan

Fish, what's popular biography? HINT: A good example is the Life of Aesop. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in antiquities who thinks it is history. It begins with Aesop, dumb, showing kindness to a priestess of Isis, who then gives him the power of speech. He runs around exposing social hypocrisy and so forth, wins his freedom from slavery, and then is condemned and executed in Delphi on a trumped-up charge. Zeus strikes the city for the sin with a plague.....

Think that was intended as history?

We're still not any closer to you demonstrating that any of the twenty-odd narratives and collections of Jesus life and sayings are biographies.

Actually, it can easily be met, in several different ways. But first, for me or others to meet the standard you've set, you need to show that the gospels are biographies.

And BTW, your demand is not relevant. Even if there are no other cases of biographies of fictional characters being written within a century of their alleged death, that says nothing about the mythicist case one way or the other.

I suggest you rethink the reference to "popular biography." It's a non-historical genre written for instruction and entertainment. But I am delighted that you have accepted it as a possible genre for Mark.

I can easily demonstrate Mark is fiction.....well, not easily, as the Commentary did take some time to write. But you can view it online here. My interpretation is not yet online, but Greek popular biography, a fictional narrative tradition in which the life and death of a hero is narrated, is certainly one of the genres I will draw on in explaining the conventions by which the writer of Mark created his tale of Jesus' life and death based on the letters of Paul.

Please do, since you are patently unable to demonstrate your claim that the gospels are biographies. I believe several of us have asked you that. That has to be demonstrated prior to making any demands based on that conclusion.

Vorkosigan