yalla

Well either way the idea of Joe as a literary device is strengthened not weakened. Author "John" shows that Joe is a plastic character, able to be freely moulded into any shape desired/wanted. At the very least it shows, according to your suggestion, that Joe as a disciple is a fiction of "John", [unless you wanr to retreat into 'he had a different tradition to draw upon" speculation].

So is Sydney Harbour Bridge.
But Cliff Hardy, the fictional detective, never drove across it despite the novels so describing. Come on Ben you know the mere presence of historical elements in a story does not equate historicity of the story.

And Pilate may be historical [obviously] but is the portrayal of him historical?

Different consideration.

Perhaps a comparison to known information re prefects in general and Pilate in particular may help us in that regard.
Its not conclusive of course but is not the alleged behavior pf Pilate in the gospel[s] atypical of that which we would expect from other sources eg Josephus and Philo in particular?

I believe that most scholars [appeal to authority] reckon the portrayal of Pilate does not gel with probable reality.
The real historical peson has been portrayed to satisfy author Mark's plot needs.

Yep me too. I'll chase it up, could you do so also?

I don't see that in "Mark", and surely he's our starting point?

Well if you presume historicity maybe [ther are other alternatives aren't there? but if not no.

Possibly, it would be an interesting exercise to compile such a list and then try to prune it...or not. maybe that is what Vork has already done .
Want to have a go at this on a seperate thread perhaps?

Me too, question is, how often?

cheers
yalla

Edit...I've mucked up the formatting of this horribly, sorry Ben, can you make sense of it?

edited by Toto for formatting

Doug Shaver

Yes.

I could have meant that it was fradulent, but yes, I did mean I think it is fiction.[/quote]

Nope. That would be a non sequitur, and a nasty one at that. I try really hard to avoid non sequiturs.

That may be your idea of logic. It is not mine.

I do.

I have a few. The first is that they were written by human beings.

Ben C Smith

And author Matthew shows that Pilate is a plastic character, able to be freely molded into any shape desired, what with the dream and the handwashing and so forth. That does not make him unhistorical.

I do not know if he had a different tradition to draw upon.

Perhaps you are confusing me with Gamera, who has indeed made an argument on this thread similar to the one you are attributing to me. I have not made that argument. My argumentation here has been completely in a neutralizing vein; I have not argued that Joseph is indeed historical. In fact I said that I was undecided.

My point is that many of the arguments used to actively discredit the story are not good arguments.

On this analogy, Joseph would be historical, but portrayed (the disciple bit in John; the waiting for the kingdom bit in Mark?) to satisfy certain plot needs.

I have found Jewish Law, the Burial of Jesus, and the Third Day. Is that it? There is a reply by Glenn Miller and then a reply to that by Richard Carrier.

I was referring to Mark 15.44:

Pilate wondered if he had already died and summoned the centurion to ask him whether he had died at that time.

If Jesus never existed, or if he did not die by crucifixion, then of course this entire discussion about a person known only in connection with the crucifixion is moot. I am presuming the historicity of the crucifixion both because I do think it happened and because it is necessary for this discussion.

If Jesus was indeed crucified, and especially if it was at Passover time, then I think it a priori likely that some pious Jew would try to bury his body.

It is tempting, but I will have to pass right now. Too busy with other things.

Looks like the omnipresent Toto already took care of it. Thanks, Toto.

Ben.

dongiovanni1976x

Herodotus, the father of history, wrote about gold digging ants in India and dog-headed men (Histories 3.102-105 & 4.191) yet was obviously making an attempt to write history; Suetonius mentions flames shooting up to the sky when Augustus was born, as well as much gossip and hearsay- and was writing historical biographies…there are plenty of examples of writing that is presented as historical that has legend, hearsay, gossip and the like inserted into it- especially with ancient Greco-Roman style histories and biographies. But many are weighed by independent sources by comparing and contrasting them with other authors. The Gospels do not share this same kind of "independence" when whole stories are inserted into their respective texts, many times verbatim etc...
I am not saying that the gospels are pure fiction, but I “weigh” the evidence for the claims they make individually- I do not accept or reject them as if they must be accepted or rejected in one lump sum. Since Joseph is never mentioned by Paul and GMatthew, GLuke, GJohn seem to borrow from GMark, and in fact alter who Joseph was, I question the historicity of this character and his role in the events described.

This is true of everyone but some facts are less extraordinary than others and thus require less extraordinary evidence to support them. Josephus lacks the extraordinary claims that Luke does and in fact he attributes the writing to himself and interacts in first person with the very famous historical personages he describes (i.e. Titus). In contrast, the anonymous author of Luke is written in a passive third person style and never even states who s/he is…This and the fact that it recounts an event that completely contradicts everything we understand about physics is reason enough to doubt the author and his/her credibility to sift through obvious hearsay and legend and actual historical fact.

Gamera

[QUOTE=dongiovanni1976x]That's my point. If you weigh the evidence for Socrates you'll find it is about the same quality as that for Jesus. Only three writers mention his near or closely after his death, one was a fiction writer, and the other two had axes to grind with Athens. I don't doubt Socrates' historicity, and for the same reason I don't doubt Jesus. Joseph of Arimathea is a more ambiguous figure, not appearing in any other text close in time. But the principle is the same.

No historian should accept any of the miraculous claims of the gospels. That's not the issue here. The issue here is this personage, Joseph, who does something that isn't extraordinary at all -- offers his tomb to the dead Jesus. As I'm sure you're aware, that might be something a pious Jew would do even if he didn't beleive a word of what Jesus taught.

yalla

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?act...ewAsset&id=125

The link is to an essay by Richard Carrier on the issue of Jewish law and the alleged burial of JC.
cheers
yalla

darstec

Some Superman comic books mention Hitler. So by your logic either Superman was real, or Hitler was not. OH wait, maybe there is another position, a work of fictiion might include real people, real places and real events in the narative and could still be totally fictive. What do you think?

Tigers!

Since there are great arguments (many on these fora) as to what parts of Josephus may or may not be interpolations, using Josephus as proof of someone's existence may be fraught with danger.

Johnny Skeptic

I agree, but why limit possible interpolations to Josephus. How about Paul?

Doug Shaver

A claim of interpolation needs to include a motive. The motive for interpolating references to Jesus is obvious. Why would anyone have interpolated all those references to Pilate that have nothing to do with Jesus?