aa5874

But, you cannot prove that anyone will be correct if they assert that the Gospel authors did believe they were writing about someone who ACTUALLY existed.

The Gospel authors may have very well known that they were not writing history.

And why MUST you ASSUME that ALL the Gospel authors were writing about ACTUAL persons and events?

You have MISSED a very important stage. You have ENTIRELY MISSED the very first stage of an INQUIRY.

First show in ALL the Gospels where each author STATED that their story of Jesus are actual historical accounts.

If you cannot ESTABLISH that the Gospel were ACTUAL historical accounts and that they were ACTUALLY written to be ACCEPTED as history then you are WASTING our time.

Where in gMark is it stated that the accounts and characters were real?

Where in gMatthew is it stated that the Jesus story was based on actual eyewitness accounts?

Your inquiry about the authors of the Gospels CANNOT proceed ONLY with YOUR assumption.

Your inquiry is FUTILE. You SIMPLY don't know how or when and under what circumstances the Jesus story was INITIALLY produced.

Perhaps all the authors KNEW they were writing FICTION and for that reason did NOT acknowledge authorship.

ALL WE KNOW is that Matthew 1.18. Luke 1.35 and John 1.1-3 have survived in PRISTINE condition in the earliest Codices and they state quite clearly that Jesus was the BABY of a Ghost and a Virgin, equal to God and was the Creator of heaven and earth.

That is what we KNOW.

And Origen AGREED since the 3rd century. IT was born of a VIRGIN and the Holy SPIRIT.....

aa5874

So, we don't know if there were early Christians if the the Pauline letters cannot be dated.

So why are people who know the FACTS about the PROBLEMS with the Pauline letters and ADMIT that PERHAPS there is very little solid evidence for the historical Jesus, still proclaim that there is an overwhelming case for the historical?

How can it be ACCEPTABLE for people to knowingly mis-represent the fact that even scholars ADMIT that HJ is a PUZZLE.

It is NO secret that Scholars have ADMITTED that it is NOT really known what HJ did or said.

HJ is a MERE CLAIM. THAT is ALL.

GakuseiDon

No, we don't. But we can say what they seemed to believe. Remember, this is a cumulative case, and we are looking for the best explanation to explain the various pieces of data.

That goes to genre. How often are we confused by genre? Not often. I'd say even 1% of the time is too high. When people bring up Ned Ludd, William Tell or Ebion, what they are saying is "Hey, look! My 1% option trumps your 99% option!" It might mean something if a person was claiming genre is proof of something. But in a cumulative case, a 99% option is strong support.

What we would need to do is to see how many ancient biographies -- in which the character is thought to have been historical even though this was not the author's intentions -- to get an estimate on how likely people were confused by genre back then. Even better when the author wrote within 50 years of the events being portrayed. Not proof in itself, but it works nicely in a cumulative case.

maryhelena

A while back Eric Reitan made a contribution to a discussion on mythicism on the blog of James McGrath. His comments re the legendary King Arthur were insightful. Particularly this one:

I subsequently posted Eric's comment on an earlier thread on FRDB, a post which Eric Reitan picked up and subsequently wrote more on the subject matter in a post on his blog. I also added a few comments on his blog post - so I though, seeing how the current debate on this thread is going - it might be of interest to some here to have a look at Eric’s blog post and the discussion that followed.

avi

How can we say anything at all about what people living 2000 years ago "seemed" to believe? Can we argue, accurately, about what people who died ten minutes ago, believed?

Can people change their opinions? Can folks start out thinking abc, and then, during some sort of event, change completely to xyz? Can external force, such as military conquest, compel a change in opinion, for or against some point of view?

Is it true (I doubt it) that biographers or newspaper reporters, or government official reports accurately depict an entire population's perspective on a particular issue?

It strikes me as both wildly inaccurate, and pretentious, to imagine possessing a genuine picture of an entire society's opinion about some noteworthy figure living in that society, in an era from ancient times, based upon fragments and forged parchments dated (at best) several hundred years after the death of this noteworthy figure.

Do you suppose that the slaves viewed George Washington, slave owner, with the same admiration as that shown by the biographers, and sycophants of his generation? How about the aboriginal folks who were slaughtered in the hundreds by Washington, to "clear the land" so that good European folk with their African slaves could commence farming? How do you suppose those "Indians" would have described Washington, just moments before he murdered them?

More to the point, if one were to ask a whole society, living today, less than three hundred years since Washington was the president of the USA, whether or not Washington was a "great" man, and a "brilliant" leader, and a "courageous" patriot, do you suppose, Don, that you might indeed achieve a 99% consensus on these nonsensical attributes. Washington of course, was nothing more than a thug, but I doubt you would find more than 1% of the current USA population to support the truth of the matter. In less than ten generations, Washington migrated from the category of opportunistic mass murderer, into territory tread by angels and mother Teresa.

Don, if you rely on the data produced for school children, you will find a very different portrait of Washington, from the version of his life that I have sketched. So, I am inquiring: Do we possess anything from 2000 years ago, that is more substantial than these children's school books?

avi

avi

Thanks, maryhelena, I did look.
Here's another quote, discussing the distinction between Mark and Luke:
So Eric "gets the sense" that the anecdotes about JC, found in the Gospels are genuine, historical events. Fine. I, contrarily, reading the same documents, arrive at the opposite conclusion, namely, that these are fictional episodes, written during a time of relative chaos, with the Jewish population fleeing their homeland, pursued by the Roman army.

So, who is correct, Eric, or me? How does one decide whether or not a written account is fictional, or factual? What criteria should we apply to make the distinction?

Candidly, maryhelena, I find your writing far more informative than Eric's. Maybe I am simply too narrow minded....

avi

maryhelena

Eric Reitan is not a historian, he is a philosopher. So perhaps we can cut him a bit of slack re NY documents...That said, maybe philosophy might have something to contribute in this endless debate over HJ or MJ.

Anyway, Eric was much more pleasant to talk to than you know who... (on the blog Eric originally posted to...) He did make this interesting comment re his Marge Swan analogy:

So, the value of a myth, the value of a storyline, is how people react to it, how they live or change their lives etc. Myths and stories can contain the power to motivate and to inspire. Thus, it's not the assumed historicity of JC that is really the important issue here. It's how people relate to the myth or story. Therefore - - Christianity is not dependent upon the assumed historical figure of JC - and to imagine that it does, or ever did, is, as Schweitzer suggests, to be a slave to history.

aa5874

If you go back over Eric's statement you will NOTICE that he gets TWO opposing SENSES.

Eric get one "CLEAR SENSE" of Non-history (Theology) and another "SENSE" of history.

In other words, ERIC does NOT make SENSE.

Once Eric has IDENTIFIED that gMark and gLuke gave a CLEAR SENSE of Non-history (Theology) then he should have APPLIED COMMONSENSE.

Eric MUST now look for a source where he GETS ONLY ONE SENSE of history.

A source which gives TWO CLEAR OPPOSING SENSES is simply UNRELIABLE or Non-sense.

DO the MATH.

The criteria called "COMMON SENSE" has been used successfully for THOUSANDS of years to DETECT fiction or facts.

So, let us use some common sense to EASILY resolve the matter.

1. Eric has a CLEAR SENSE that gMark and gLuke are both THEOLOGICAL storytellers based on their ACTUAL contents.

2. You ALSO have a CLEAR SENSE that gMark and gLuke are both THEOLOGICAL storytellers based on their ACTUAL contents.

Where did ERIC get the other SENSE that gMark and gLuke is ALSO history? Where in gLuke or gMark did ERIC get a SENSE that Jesus was just a mere man.

Where? Does anybody know?

In gLuke 1.35, Jesus was the BABY of a Ghost and in gMark 6.49 Jesus ACTED like a Ghost.

When the criteria of COMMON SENSE is applied to ERIC's position he makes very little or no sense. Of course, he may be right, but his position NOW is NON-SENSE based on the EXISTING EVIDENCE.


So, as of right now, The EXISTING DATA in gMark and gLuke can ONLY support non-history (theology) since Jesus was the Baby of a Ghost in one and ACTED like a Ghost in the other.

Your position is RIGHT based on the EXISTING EVIDENCE when the criteria of COMMON SENSE is applied and of course you may be actually wrong.

But, People can Only use the AVAILABLE EXISTING EVIDENCE and it is KNOWN for thousands of years that theories are MAINTAINED, MODIFIED or eventually DISCARDED when NEW DATA is found.

No DATA has been found nor is there EXISTING DATA that gives a CLEAR SENSE that gMark and gLuke are about a mere man.

As soon as DATA is available to show a CLEAR SENSE that Jesus in gMark and gLuke was a mere man then the criteria of COMMON SENSE demands that the MYTH Jesus theory be either MODIFIED or DISCARDED.

In the meantime there continues to be a CLEAR SENSE that Jesus, the Baby of a Ghost who ACTED like a Ghost, was MYTH in gMark and gLuke.

Doug Shaver

Dog-On will have to speak for himself.

For me, the evidence is the evidence for Jesus' non-existence. I understand that in your judgment, such evidence is either nonexistent or unconvincing. But for us who think it exists and is convincing, certain things follow, including any answer to the question of what was on the gospel authors' minds. The authors either believed or did not believe that Jesus existed. If they believed it, then they were mistaken. That is not impossible, but I personally regard it as unlikely. So, they did not think they were writing about a real person. QED.

Juststeve

Doug:

Thank you for a rational response. Given what you have said about the Gospel authors, what do you make of the billion or so people since the Gospels were written who thought Jesus was a real person? What do you make of the many that wrote gospels that didn't get into the canon. I know you think they are mistaken but do you think they also know there was no historical Jesus? Are the canonical gospel authors the only ones who wrote as though Jesus was an historical figure but knew he wasn't or does the mendacity go further than that? How far?

Why isn't the simplest explanation for what the gospel writers wrote that they thought what they were writing was true? That leave room to argue that they were mistaken, something I would argue with regard to things like water walking, demon casting out and resurrecting.

Steve