Vorkosigan

But the question here depends on what you mean by the "hard core of historical fact." That does not necessarily mean there were no developments at all in the texts. It could mean that much of what the Gospels narrate is grounded in history or that there is a historical core guiding them.

Vinnie --

Unless you knew what the "hard core of historical facts" was from some outside vector, how would you know which events constituted the "hard core?" That's the logic problem here. S-Ws claim is basically circular.

"How do you know the gospels are reliable?"
Because they happened within 40 years of the events they relate"
"How do you know they happened within 40 years of the events they relate?"
"Because they are reliable!"

Vinnie

The gospels can be dated with a fair degree of certaintly though we do not have absolute assurance. See my "Dating Matthew and Mark thread". I think the standard dating of ca 70 ad for Mark and Matt and Luke being 80-90 has decent attestation that has produced a consensus on the issue.

Further, even if we are ultra-skeptical, general time limits are clearly put on the life of Jesus when the Gospels (and some of Paul!) are treated as hostile witnesses and studied through sober canons of historicity. This is the "outside vector" that you speak of. The general time frame of 7-4 B.C. to sometime around 30-34 A.D. seems well attested through various means.

Even if one goes so far as to dispute crucifixion under Pilate, can it be reasonably disputed that Jesus was alive when Paul was converted? Probably not. That would impose an upper limit itself. Can we show that Jesus' life overlapped with JBap's? I would say so. There are other elements as well (e.g. Jesus had a brother named James a la Paul, Josephus and Gmark and Paul says to have known him, meaning he was still alive at the time. Unless we say Joseph was 15 when he had Jesus and was 65 when he had James we see the basic 4bc to 30 ad time frame is generally supported by this as well.

Overall, a lot of minor details would make a persuasive case even if you dispute Matthew and Luke's alleged birth towards the end of Herod's reign (4bc) and even if you went so far as to dispite crucifixion under Pilate. The general time frame could be extended either way only slightly (more backwards than forwards) even if certain elements are disputed but not much at all from my perspective.

Meier's conclusions may be far too conservative for you but he offers a decent discussion on chronology in V1 Marginal, pp. 372-433.

I'm not sure how S-W would arrive at this but that is how I would.

Toto

Getting back to the minimun time necessary for legendary development, perhaps we should be looking a the legends that developed around our own founder figure, George Washington.

George Washington died in 1799, and legendary development started immediately. In 1800, Parson Weems published "The Life of Washington." Those in the know may refer to it as "The Lie of Washington" and laugh at the story about the cherry tree, but modern conservatives still cling to the idea that Washingon was seen praying at Valley Forge, in spite of the observations of his contemporarys that no one every saw him in prayer. (SeeGeorge Washington's silent lack of piety)

Today in our Nation's Capitol Building, a stained glass window depicts General Washington humbly kneeling and repeating the words of the 16th Psalm, "Preserve me, O God, for in Thee do I put my trust," in spite of the fact that

Vinnie

Is Parson Weems 'The Life of Washington' entirely legendary or does it have isolated cases of legendary development? Does it have a solid historical core?

It is not uncommon for people to put words in the mouth of someone when they couldn't know what was said. A possible example is Gethsemane and Jesus' prayer. The text says he was alone right? This is not to dispute the historicity of the scene, hoverer.

And lets look at Josephus:

As I said before, I don't know what S-W meant but if he meant a historical core he may well be accurate. If he meant any development was impossible within 40 years he was/is ENTIRELY mistaken.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

Maybe, but he is simply speaking outside of his area of expertise, unless he can cite some rule about human nature or cultural transmission unknown in anthropology or mythology.

Gooch's dad

Vinnie--

Thanks for your excellent reply on skepticism in the early church. I agree there probably was dissent in the early church on a number of issues. But I think you missed the crux of my point.

Are there any instances where skepticism about a resurrection won out? Where a cult was basically disbanded because the local skeptics proved the supernatural claims to be false?

The result is that, in spite of whatever slight skepticism might have been present, the legend of the bodily resurrection never really was in serious danger of being challenged. I think that is mainly because, as Origen records Celsus saying, resurrections were commonly believed to happen.

-Kelly

Vinnie

If he has studied the Roman empire and says it usally takes much longer than 40 to 60 years for the historical core of something to be completely lost in that Roman empire he should be met on his own turf. George Washington and his cherry tree has nothing to do with this. Unless of course S-W said something really ridiculous (e.g. any legendary development within 40 years is impossible). If he says something like that I'd be the first to tell you all that he has uttered nonsense and should be ignored. Real scholars don't say such things and recognize the creativity of the evangelists behind the synoptic gospels.

But I'm tired of talking talking about the "hypothetical views" of this man whom I know next to nothing about. Unless someone critiques something I said I'll have to bow out of this one.

Vinnie

*spelling errors

Vinnie

If you think the resurrection story was not challenged how do you explain Matthew 27:57-66

I take it you believe that was invented. If so, what for?

Also, if we go back to 1 Cor 1:23 we should know that the stumbling block and folly of "Christ crucified" was naturally accompanied with "Christ resurrected".

Persecution of the church shows itself that their views (crucifixion resurrection being the central one) were rejected. On what grounds do you claim that it never was in serious danger of being challenged? Josh Mcdowell might say something similar to that for other reasons!

On what grounds do you determine that skepticism against the resurrection was slight? I think your view might be claiming to know more than we actually know about the early church but I think the evidence leads the other way as well.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Celsus is writing around 150 years after these alleged events isn't he? Now he may very well be correct but we must be critical in applying the view of Celsus in 178 A.D. to Jews from 35-75 a.d.

Would those Jews have hand-waved and dismissed the resurrection of this alleged Messiah who claimed a unique authority as one amongst many?

We have somewhat decent evidence that his miracles were not rejected but attributed to Beelzebul.

Vinnie