ApostateAbe

OK, thanks. I don't see how you go from that to "...practically presupposes Jesus' historicity."

If we have evidence of myth, and we reason that the best explanation for that myth is the historicity of Jesus, then we are not presupposing the historicity of Jesus. We are concluding the historicity of Jesus from the evidence. As you say, you don't agree with that logic--you think there may be better explanations. And maybe you are right! But, nobody is presupposing the conclusion. There is evidence, there are explanations, and we pick the best explanation (i.e. see my thread on Jesus the doomsday cult leader).

ApostateAbe

The people who write and copy gospels would presumably be church leaders, and other Christians who wanted to evangelize would hire a writer to copy the text, and he would go on to start a new church. The gospels would be read to an audience, and there would be only one copy of the gospel per church. Their funding would of course come from tithing.

Eusebius and Papias are not so relevant for determining the date of Mark. Since Luke apparently sourced Mark, Marcion sourced Luke, and we have writing that attests that attest Marcion lived in the mid 2nd century, that would put a maximum date on the gospel of Mark. But, we can narrow it down some more from there. There are two apocalyptic deadlines in the gospel of Mark (Mark 9:1 and Mark 13:30) that later Christians apparently found embarrassing (i.e. John 21:20-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8). This would put a maximum approximate date on the authorship--the time when the last of the conceivable listeners of Jesus would have died. Since the death of Jesus is dated to about 30 CE, and the average lifespan of an adult would be (maybe) 40 years or so, then maybe there would be a few outlying oldsters who would live to 70, so let's say 90 CE.

An important take-away is that we shouldn't date the authorship of a manuscript based on the date of the writing of the earliest extant copy, though that may serve as an astronomically maximum date. As far as I know, we don't have the original copies of any manuscript from ancient history--the are all copies of copies of copies of copies. Most extant copies date hundreds of years after they were probably authored. Papyrus gets destroyed after a few decades except in unusual circumstances (burial).

Sheshbazzar

It dosen't really matter what 'Paul' supports. According to multiple NT texts Paul was not present as a witness to any of the events recorded within The Gospels.
What Abe is not dealing with is the fact of -where- 'Paul' is deriving this statement -from-.

'Paul's own story clearly tells us that Jesus was dead, buried, and long gone before 'Paul' ever became involved with any other NT believers, disciples, or Pillars.

'Paul' -tells us- that his doctrine of a 'third day' resurrection is "according to The SCRIPTURES".
No NT Gospel texts existed at that early date, therefore the only ''SCRIPTURES" 'Paul' could have been referring to would have to be OT SCRIPTURES. And we have no record of what books 'Paul' may have considered as being Scripture, quite possibly some that are not included in the present Christian cannon, and which perhaps no longer even exist.

But we do know by his own testimony that he never met 'Jesus called christ' in the flesh as a MAN, before this alleged crucifixion took place.
'Paul' -tells us- that his conversations were with a "VISION" that took place some considerable time after Jesus had died, was buried, and had (allegedly) risen into heaven.
Thus his statement about the 'third day' resurrection is either derived totally from his interpretation of Scripture; "according to The SCRIPTURES", or is at best second hand hearsay derived from unidentified parties.
He was not witness to any actual Gospel event. He was simply repeating a STORY or an interpretation of OT prophecies.
After what 'Paul' clearly -tells us- there is no reason to invent imaginative ideas about where 'Paul' got his 'information' or of what value it is in establishing the existence of an earthly real-life flesh and blood Jesus.
It is of no value at all for that purpose.

Whether he believed that STORY, its sources, or in his 'vision' or in the accuracy of his own interpretation of 'Scriptures' is immaterial.
A lot of people believe a lot of old religious fairy tales, urban legends, and folk stories; That beliefe does not serve to make them into valid witnesses to events that they never saw.

All we have in 'Paul', is a self-aggrandizing, and very opportunistic, pompous gossip.




.

DCHindley

You are correct that if these documents were meant to be reconstructions of the events and teachings that led to the origins of their sect, to be used for group edification and instruction, we should expect the authors believed these things to have been the case. However, there is the fact that all narratives intended to explain a set of undisputed facts are interpreted to some extent by the authors, and are in effect their best efforts at such explanations.

But what if the authors of the canonical gospels or Acts weren't trying to create an account for Christian edification? What if they simply wanted to explain the circumstances of their origins to the authorities or to pagans in general? Now the set of facts to be explained is different than it is in the first situation. The set of facts to be explained are no longer those that Christians ask one another as a means of confirming their faith, but those that the authorities or the pagan community ask of them as accusations. This is why I prefer to think of these documents as "apologies" (a class of literature invented by Jews, FWIW) cast in the form of bioi (life sketches).

Then there is the element of uncertainty and relative likelihood inherent in any explanation of any given set of facts. Just because the authors of the gospels or Acts thought that the events they describe are what actually, or even more than likely to have happened, doesn't mean that is what really happened. The fact is, short of a faith position, we can never be 100% certain of their, or for that matter our, reconstructions.

Whether an actual earthly Jesus in any way resembling the Jesus of faith, or the Jesus of early Christian critics, underlays these sets of facts that the authors of the canonical gospels and Acts explain, is a matter of plausibility. We can never know what the probability is, there just aren't enough facts to begin to do that. We only guess at relative likelihood.

DCH

aa5874

We also have to take into account the possibility that the authors knew they were NOT writing factual history and for that reason DECLINED to acknowledge authorship, dating and the veracity of their sources.

Sheshbazzar

The relative likelihood that there ever was a Jesus anything at all like that cartoon character described in these Christian documents is virtually zilch, like about negative .9999999> to several hundreds of billions of places of percent.
Or about as much relative likelihood as the moon having been at one time actually composed entirely of green cheese.
If one is going to accept the one, they may as well accept the other.......and any other bogus, stupid tale men can invent.

DCHindley

Hmmmm. According to your interpretation?

DCH

Sheshbazzar

You think there was a man who really raised up dead people, cured blindness with mud and spit, walked on water, and arose from death, and flew up to heaven while men watched? Might as well believe in a moon made of cheese.

DCHindley

Where would you get the idea I think that? Only Blue Moons are made of cheese! And blue moon cheese dressing goes great with buffalo style hot wings. :thumbs:

DCH

Sheshbazzar

But back to the OP topic. If Jesus christ/of Nazareth was only a literary invention, the reference to his baptism by John could easily have been just a plot device to give the character a patina of legitimacy by placing 'him' in the presence of, and recieving the blessing of a popular well know preacher. All it makes for is a convenient known historical 'hook' and a 'setting' for the invented narrative to be played out in.

One could as easily compose a similar tale today to give legitimacy to a totally fictional Joe Blow being baptized by Billy Graham in the first year of John F. Kennedy's presidency.
Joe Blow had a super secret private meeting with Kennedy and under the inspiration of the holy ghost (which had descended upon him at Billy's baptism) prophesied to Kennedy everything that would happen to him for the rest of his life, and how Jesus was really an alien who would return and land on the White House's Side of The North on May 21, 2011
The FBI and CIA know all about it but are all secretly Jews that are in on an infernal plot to have all Americans condemnd to eternal hellfire.