For Kapyong: Defending a historical Jesus

[SpuriusMaximus]

Actually some ancient writers of "history" sometimes did make up sources for the sake of making their fabrications sound authentic. See K.M. Stott's "Why did they write this way?" and the controversial Fehling's "Herodotus and his sources". In another forum here the question of Thucydides' plague came up -- and there are even reasons to doubt Thucydides' supposedly eyewitness (and personal) testimony for that: Woodman's "Rhetoric in classical antiquity".

Oh, that they did. But I was talking about corroborating a source we have, or about which some other independent author wrote too.

 

[dejudge]

...In the case of the HJ we have Paul, gMark, M, L and possibly Q. Probably others I can't recall right now.

Your statement is total nonsense.

1. In letters under the name of Paul Jesus was a fiction character--the Lord from heaven, God Creator, God's own son, the firstborn of the dead.

2. In gMark Jesus was a fiction character--a water walking transfiguring son of God who was in the presence of Satan before he resurrected.

3. M. L, and Q are hypotheticals which have never been found. You could not have presented historical evidence from manuscripts which do not exist.

4. What you can't recall is useless as evidence.

In addition, gMark and the letters under the name of Paul were used to argue AGAINST a human only and a heavenly only Jesus.

This is a partial list of Christian writers who used the Gospels ans/or letters under the name of Paul to argue against a human only or heavenly only Jesus.


1. Irenaeus argued against a human only Jesus in "Against Heresies"

2. Tertullian argued against a human only Jesus in "Prescription Against the Heretics".

3. Origen argued against a human only Jesus in "Against Celsus".

4. Justin Martyr argued against a human only Jesus in "First Apology.

5. Aristides argued against a human only Jesus in "The Apology".

6. Hippolytus argued against a human only Jesus in "Refutation Against All Heresies".

7. Ignatius argued against a human only Jesus in "Letters to the Ephesians".

8. Eusebius argued against a human only Jesus in "Church History".

9. Chrysostom argued against a human only Jesus in "Against the Jews".

10. The Nicene Creed of the Church declares that Jesus was God of God.


There is no historical evidence anywhere in any century of an actual figure of history called Jesus of Nazareth.

The Jesus character was always fiction and the fabrication is corroborated by hundreds upon hundreds of Christian writings.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Also, just to make it clear about the Ebionites, although you know I've addressed it before, I find things to be somewhat muddy about them.

I'm not opposed to the possibility that they were the first and real Xians. It could have happened. Makes some sense too, if you think about it.

The only real problem is that we can't really support that assertion.

For a start, nobody seems to even heard of the Ebionites until Irenaeus. That's late 2'nd century CE. There is some reference in Justin Martyr to some Jewish Xians who follow the Law, but there's more than one group, and he doesn't say any of those are Ebionites. Plus, that's also circa 150 CE.

Now, as you say, they probably didn't appear over night in 150 CE, but we don't exactly know when before that. After all, there were already more than one group, and they can't be ALL direct followers of Jesus. It was over a century after Jesus, after all, and that seemed to be plenty of time for offshoots.

And it gets worse. The first guy who actually quotes the Ebionites is Epiphanius Of Salamis, and he's in the 4'th century.

And here's where it gets even worse: according to both of those, the Ebionites followed a heavily readacted Hebrew version of Matthew. But here's the thing: Matthew just expanded on Mark's fiction, turning a fictional account full of unpalatable inaccuracies for anyone who knew anything at all about the region, into something less wrong about that, but still fiction. Why would some followers of James and other supposed direct disciples of Jesus need Matthe's fiction to tell them what happened? Wouldn't they have not only a far better idea of what happened, but a very good idea that Matthew is just making BS up.

See my problem? It's like being asked to believe that Tom, Dick and Harry are WW2 veterans and survivors of German prisoner camps, and some more are their direct descendants, yet they take their knowledge of WW2 from Inglorious Basterds and Hogan's Heroes. Why would they need to?

 

[IanS]

We certainly do not have any such documents as “Q, M, L”. They do not even exist at all!

Q, M, and L are only surmised to have once existed as earlier sources for anonymous people who wrote gospels that are unarguably packed with untrue mythical fiction about an unknown un-evidenced “Jesus”.

Bart Ehrman, in his book “Did Jesus Exist”, even had the bare faced cheek to claim that the four canonical gospels plus the non-existent Q, M & L, counted as “seven independent written” sources of evidence of Jesus!

There is no evidence of Jesus! There's a huge amount of evidence to the contrary, to show how for the last 2000 years the Church, Christian writers and bible scholars have knowingly deceived the uncomprehending faithful to claim that they have evidence so overwhelming that is provides “certainty” of Jesus. They could hardly make a more delusional (or else dishonest) claim.

As far as the writing known as “Paul” is concerned – we actually do not know what anyone named “Paul” may have ever said or written about Jesus (if “Paul” could even read or write at all). Because we do not have a single word ever written by “Paul” circa. 50-60AD. All that we have is what was written by later Christians themselves as “copies” dated from around 200 AD (i.e. P46).

 

[dejudge]

Even if it is assumed the existing letters under the name of Paul are copies that does not mean they were copied from manuscripts from the 1st century.

The earliest manuscripts of letters under the name of Paul [Papyri 46] are dated between c 175-225 CE which could mean they could be copies of writing up to at least the 3rd century.

In effect, Papyri 46 is not evidence that letters under the name of Paul were composed before c 70 CE.

But what is most significant is that there is no historical evidence of Paul outside apologetics and the first time the character called Paul is introduced is found in a most blatant fiction story called Acts of the Apostles where it is claimed a Ghost from heaven gave the disciples the power to preach the Gospel after Jesus ascended in a cloud.

Paul was a fiction character invented in the 2nd century or later in an attempt to historicise the monstrous fables of the resurrection of Jesus in the Gospels.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, of course, a late copy isn't evidence that the original is from 1 century earlier. HOWEVER, it also isn't evidence to the contrary.

The fact is, the vast majority of manuscripts we have are later copies. The earliest copy of Plato's Laches is 2nd century CE or so. (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 228.) The earliest copy of his Phaedo is from somewhere between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. (Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 229.) The next copies of other documents containing his Socratic dialogues start at around 900 CE.

At any rate, we have some over 600 years gap between Plato and any copy of anything he ever wrote. For some of his works in fact the document is more like around a whole millennium and a half.

Did some gangs of late classical and early medieval forgers just make up Plato? Maybe. Maybe not. I guess we'll never know for sure. But just the late date for a copy doesn't necessarily mean that half his dialogues were composed around 900 CE.

Even from the bible, the same applies. The earliest copy of Mark we have is mid-3rd century, for example.

 

[Brainache]

The only problem is that out of those:

- gMark is writing fiction, and conspicuously covering his ass for why nobody ever heard of any of that. And IF he has any sources, well, they don't seem to know jack about the area, language or customs

I don't agree that he was writing "fiction". I think it is more like he was writing a religious text intended to convey religious teachings. As such, things like geography were not important for the author's purpose. It is a collection of religious pericopes intended to convey a particular theology.

- M is by Matthew, who has no idea what actually happened there, because he copies gMark's fiction wholesale

But M is the parts that he didn't copy from gMark and that don't appear in Luke. I agree that it wasn't written by anyone Jewish.

- same problem for L

But L is the parts that don't appear in either Mark or Matthew. Also not written by anyone Jewish.

- Q is AT BEST an unknown. We have NO idea when in was written, by whom, etc.

What we do know is that it appears to have been a collection of sayings, something like the gospel of Thomas. Whether or not it was ever written down is debatable.

And that's in addition to other major problems they have. They're not even close to the kind of sources you'd take seriously in the historical method.

It is what it is. These are the documents we have. Better brains than mine have concluded that the evidence points to a HJ, they might be wrong of course, but HJ remains the consensus.

So really, what we are left with is Paul -- IF the letters we have actually are his -- and several dozens of guys who wrote fan-fic gospels about his character. Four of which were selected just because when Irenaeus helped make a church cartel out of several churches, that's the four they could all live with, not because they could be supported as more historical than the other 3 dozen or so gospels we know about.

That's not corroboration...

No. What we are left with is Paul and a bunch of other stuff that wasn't in Paul's letters about a teacher called "Jesus". Whether or not you believe what is in that other stuff, gospels apocrypha and all, it exists.

Also, just to make it clear about the Ebionites, although you know I've addressed it before, I find things to be somewhat muddy about them.

I'm not opposed to the possibility that they were the first and real Xians. It could have happened. Makes some sense too, if you think about it.

The only real problem is that we can't really support that assertion.

For a start, nobody seems to even heard of the Ebionites until Irenaeus. That's late 2'nd century CE. There is some reference in Justin Martyr to some Jewish Xians who follow the Law, but there's more than one group, and he doesn't say any of those are Ebionites. Plus, that's also circa 150 CE.

Now, as you say, they probably didn't appear over night in 150 CE, but we don't exactly know when before that. After all, there were already more than one group, and they can't be ALL direct followers of Jesus. It was over a century after Jesus, after all, and that seemed to be plenty of time for offshoots.

It is in the nature of religious movements that they diverge. Every generation seems to produce new interpretations of the teachings, so I don't see any significance in the variety of 2nd century Xtian sects within Judaism. It is also possible that what Irenaeus and others decided were separate groups, weren't really separate at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

The actual number of groups described as Ebionites is difficult to ascertain, as the contradictory patristic accounts in their attempt to distinguish various sects, sometimes confuse them with each other.[13] Other groups mentioned are the Carpocratians, the Cerinthians, the Elcesaites, the 4th century Nazarenes, and the Sampsaeans, most of whom were Jewish Christian sects who held gnostic or other views rejected by the Ebionites. Epiphanius, however, mentions that a group of Ebionites came to embrace some of these views despite keeping their name.[28]

So there's that.

And it gets worse. The first guy who actually quotes the Ebionites is Epiphanius Of Salamis, and he's in the 4'th century.

And here's where it gets even worse: according to both of those, the Ebionites followed a heavily readacted Hebrew version of Matthew. But here's the thing: Matthew just expanded on Mark's fiction, turning a fictional account full of unpalatable inaccuracies for anyone who knew anything at all about the region, into something less wrong about that, but still fiction. Why would some followers of James and other supposed direct disciples of Jesus need Matthe's fiction to tell them what happened? Wouldn't they have not only a far better idea of what happened, but a very good idea that Matthew is just making BS up.

But it wasn't a version of Matthew at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites

The surviving fragments derive from a gospel harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, composed in Greek with various expansions and abridgments reflecting the theology of the writer. Distinctive features include the absence of the virgin birth and of the genealogy of Jesus; an Adoptionist Christology,[n 4] in which Jesus is chosen to be God's Son at the time of his Baptism; the abolition of the Jewish sacrifices by Jesus; and an advocacy of vegetarianism.[n 5]
...
The Ebionite gospel has been recognized as distinct from the others,[n 10] and it has been identified more closely with the lost Gospel of the Twelve.[n 11] It shows no dependence on the Gospel of John and is similar in nature to the harmonized gospel sayings based on the Synoptic Gospels used by Justin Martyr, although a relationship between them, if any, is uncertain.[3] There is a similarity between the gospel and a source document contained within the Clementine Recognitions (1.27–71), conventionally referred to by scholars as the Ascents of James, with respect to the command to abolish the Jewish sacrifices.[n 12]...

See my problem? It's like being asked to believe that Tom, Dick and Harry are WW2 veterans and survivors of German prisoner camps, and some more are their direct descendants, yet they take their knowledge of WW2 from Inglorious Basterds and Hogan's Heroes. Why would they need to?

Except that you appear to be operating from false assumptions, so your "problem" isn't really a problem at all.

 

[Brainache]

And I try not to be belligerent. I disagree with your opinion. So let's agree to disagree.

OK.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No. What we are left with is Paul and a bunch of other stuff that wasn't in Paul's letters about a teacher called "Jesus". Whether or not you believe what is in that other stuff, gospels apocrypha and all, it exists.

Well, I'm open minded, but most of the stuff we have is late and derivative, not independent corroboration. Just because for example someone copied Mark and added some gnostic twists, doesn't make it really original. The main difference would be Thomas, but that doesn't really corroborate with anything else, so we're kinda still at square one.

It is in the nature of religious movements that they diverge. Every generation seems to produce new interpretations of the teachings, so I don't see any significance in the variety of 2nd century Xtian sects within Judaism. It is also possible that what Irenaeus and others decided were separate groups, weren't really separate at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites

It COULD be, but for example Justin Martyr doesn't talk about specific groups, nor ever uses the word "Ebionites", but basically is going on about the existence of both
- Jewish Xians who follow the Law, but are ok with gentile Xians not following it, and
- Jewish Xians who follow the the Law, and think everyone else damn well should
We don't really know where in there do the Ebion fit. Judging by Paul's letters (IF we can trust him, and I think you're not exactly holding him for a trustworthy source either) if James actually led a sect, it sounds like it would be more like the latter kind.

So at the very least, we did have at least one split by 150 CE or so. As you say, it's the nature of the beast.

But it wasn't a version of Matthew at all:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites

Well, we have only the few fragments that Epiphanius quoted, so it's a bit hard to know better than the guy who actually had a copy. He seemed to think it was based on Matthew, and we know that he knew Luke and Mark too (unsurprising for a theologian). Plus, remember, he didn't quote the paragraphs he agreed with, he quoted those which he considered the most egregious deviations from Matthew. So you can't really extrapolate from THOSE whether it fit Matthew or not.

But fine, I can live with it being a harmonization of the Synoptics too. Such harmonies were very common around that time, so, yeah, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if one more sect did their own harmony gospel. I mean, what else would be new, eh?

The problem is that on a hierarchy of credible and independent sources, the guys who did harmonizations are the bottom of the barrel. In fact, they're like those who hit the bottom and started digging. I mean, for others we can at least pretend that they had an extra source like M or L, or that their correcting Mark wasn't just to make it more palatable. But harmony writers? Those had no information of their own, and not much in the way of critical skills either. They just tried to mash up as much of 3 or all 4 gospels as they could, and believe everything is true.

As sources go, that's as clear cut a NOT primary source as you can get.

Which brings me to the same question: why would some guys who supposedly were led by James personally, and generally were descendants of people who knew Jesus first hand, need to get their information from a harmonization of fanfic works? Wouldn't they already have more reliable information? Wouldn't they in fact have more than enough information to figure out that the synoptics are just making stuff up?

Except that you appear to be operating from false assumptions, so your "problem" isn't really a problem at all.

Well, I hope you'll enlighten me in what way, because from where I stand, introducing the premise that it's a harmonization only made it less likely.

I mean, imagine that I were to tell you the following story. (Hey, if the Son Of Man can talk in parables, I'm a Son Of Man too.)

Let's say there's this group claiming to be survivors from Auschwitz and their direct descendants, who are some sort of fan club of this amazing kid they knew in the camp, called Max Eisenhardt. The Nazis killed his parents, tortured him, experimented on him, forced him to be a sonderkommando, etc, but they couldn't break him. And he helped people escape. And eventually he escaped too. And after the war, he tracked down his former tormentors to South America and killed them.

Sounds like a plausible source, right?

Now what if I told you that their source for all this is a mash-up of X-Men comics about Magneto? (Yeah, THAT Max Eisenhardt.) Would that group still sound like they're not making stuff up?

What are the ODDS that, if a Max Eisenhardt actually existed, some comics would guess everything about him so uncannily spot-on, that actual former bunk mates of Max Eisenhardt would think it's the best source they have about him?

 

[Brainache]

Well, I'm open minded, but most of the stuff we have is late and derivative, not independent corroboration. Just because for example someone copied Mark and added some gnostic twists, doesn't make it really original. The main difference would be Thomas, but that doesn't really corroborate with anything else, so we're kinda still at square one.

Thomas is a separate source for the sayings of "Jesus", so there's that.

It COULD be, but for example Justin Martyr doesn't talk about specific groups, nor ever uses the word "Ebionites", but basically is going on about the existence of both
- Jewish Xians who follow the Law, but are ok with gentile Xians not following it, and
- Jewish Xians who follow the the Law, and think everyone else damn well should
We don't really know where in there do the Ebion fit. Judging by Paul's letters (IF we can trust him, and I think you're not exactly holding him for a trustworthy source either) if James actually led a sect, it sounds like it would be more like the latter kind.

I agree. I also argue that they are similar to this lot:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

Everyone who wishes to join the community must pledge himself to respect God and man; to live according to the communal rule: to seek God [ ]; to do what is good and upright in His sight, in accordance with what He has commanded through Moses and through His servants the prophets; to love all that He has chosen and hate all that He has rejected; to keep far from evil and to cling to all good works; to act truthfully and righteously and justly on earth and to walk no more in the stubbornness of a guilty heart and of lustful eyes, doing all manner of evil; to bring into a bond of mutual love all who have declared their willingness to carry out the statutes of God; to join the formal community of God; to walk blamelessly before Him in conformity with all that has been revealed as relevant to the several periods during which they are to bear witness (to Him) ; to love all the children of light, each according to the measure of his guilt, which God will ultimately requite.

All who declare their willingness to serve God's truth must bring all of their mind, all of their strength, and all of their wealth into the community of God, so that their minds may be purified by the truth of His precepts, their strength controlled by His perfect ways, and their wealth disposed in accordance with His just design. They must not deviate by a single step from carrying out the orders of God at the times appointed for them; they must neither advance the statutory times nor postpone the prescribed seasons. They must not turn aside from the ordinances of God's truth either to the right or to the left...

They also referred to themselves as "Ebionites".

So at the very least, we did have at least one split by 150 CE or so. As you say, it's the nature of the beast.



Well, we have only the few fragments that Epiphanius quoted, so it's a bit hard to know better than the guy who actually had a copy. He seemed to think it was based on Matthew, and we know that he knew Luke and Mark too (unsurprising for a theologian). Plus, remember, he didn't quote the paragraphs he agreed with, he quoted those which he considered the most egregious deviations from Matthew. So you can't really extrapolate from THOSE whether it fit Matthew or not.

But fine, I can live with it being a harmonization of the Synoptics too. Such harmonies were very common around that time, so, yeah, I wouldn't be one bit surprised if one more sect did their own harmony gospel. I mean, what else would be new, eh?

The problem is that on a hierarchy of credible and independent sources, the guys who did harmonizations are the bottom of the barrel. In fact, they're like those who hit the bottom and started digging. I mean, for others we can at least pretend that they had an extra source like M or L, or that their correcting Mark wasn't just to make it more palatable. But harmony writers? Those had no information of their own, and not much in the way of critical skills either. They just tried to mash up as much of 3 or all 4 gospels as they could, and believe everything is true.

As sources go, that's as clear cut a NOT primary source as you can get.

Which brings me to the same question: why would some guys who supposedly were led by James personally, and generally were descendants of people who knew Jesus first hand, need to get their information from a harmonization of fanfic works? Wouldn't they already have more reliable information? Wouldn't they in fact have more than enough information to figure out that the synoptics are just making stuff up?

I would suggest that it is possible that it wasn't a harmonization at all.

But I have no evidence for that ATM. So, working from your premise, I can believe that they wanted to have their own gospel in order to teach the religion as they understood it. They took the teachings they agreed with from the existing gospels and mixed in their existing traditions so that the book would reflect their own beliefs.

Well, I hope you'll enlighten me in what way, because from where I stand, introducing the premise that it's a harmonization only made it less likely...

I don't see how it makes it less likely if they changed existing stories to fit their traditions, rather than the other way round.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I think it is more like he was writing a religious text intended to convey religious teachings.

IOW, fiction.

 

[David Mo]

I don't think anyone would confuse peer-review in biblical studies as having the same rigid and clear-cut right-wrong standing as we find in, say, sciences -- although even in the sciences that image of peer-review is very often more myth than reality.

I agree. Some people consider peer review as a new scientist religion. Peer review is a hint to consider an article as formally correct and no more. Notwithstanding, it is easy to find some barbarities commited in the name of the peer review, such as important articles rejected or evident fakes admitted.

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.(Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet).​

Cf. also: PETERS, D. P. y Ceci, S. J.: “Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again”, . The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1982, vol 5, p. 187-195.

Cichetti, D.: “ The reliability of peer review for manuscript and grant submissions: A cross-disciplinary investigation”. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1991, vol 14, p. 119-135.

I doubt that all this could change the mind of the believers of the peer review religion. They will continue to recite the surah of the Marmot: "Peer review is true, not peer review is false".

This is even funnier in our times when every parish leaflet has its own peer review system.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I agree. I also argue that they are similar to this lot:
http://www.essene.com/History&Essenes/md.htm

We don't know to what degree they were as reactionary and militant as the Essenes. I think we'd have at least heard of it if they were. When it came to overtly exclusivist sects, Hadrianus and later were kinda like the John Wayne toilet paper: rough, tough, and took no crap from the natives

I mean, sure, the Essenes took the Law seriously, but they weren't the only ones. They were just those who went full-tilt reactionary a-hole about it.

I would suggest that it is possible that it wasn't a harmonization at all.

It's possible, but that's what your Wiki page and your quote from it said. So that's what I was answering to and going along with. Remember, I was more like into taking Epiphanius at his word, at least for the scope of this discussion.

But I'm ok with it being not a harmonization too. You tell me what it was, and we'll take it from there.

I can believe that they wanted to have their own gospel in order to teach the religion as they understood it. They took the teachings they agreed with from the existing gospels and mixed in their existing traditions so that the book would reflect their own beliefs.

I don't see how it makes it less likely if they changed existing stories to fit their traditions, rather than the other way round.

Well, the problem is not why they added their own traditions. THAT part is fine.

The problem is: why did they need the fiction stories derived from Mark's fanfic as a base AT ALL? Mark doesn't seem very believable a source, and doubly so for some people who knew Jesus and knew what he actually did. Including knowing that he didn't walk on water, miraculously conjure food, attack the temple in spite of its having a full cohort of armed guards and win like a kung-fu master, etc.

Or if they had the disciples around, they'd know those didn't act like complete morons, and without a working memory to boot, to set the stage for Jesus to deliver his wisdom... twice. Those guys act like they haven't seen Jesus do the same thing before, and are amazed all over again, etc. Real people don't act like that.

And Matthew and Luke, same problem, they just fix Mark's story, but they don't seem to know what actually happened, or they wouldn't need Mark.

Plus at least half of it would be there just to form those literary sandwiches, and the rest probably out of order to fit that proto-monomyth. Real people's biographies don't tend to fall neatly into that pattern.

Etc.

So we have the three synoptics writing wild fiction about Jesus.

WHY would some people who actually knew Jesus, or at least had people around who personally knew him, including his biological brother, need to start from some wildly wrong fanfic about Jesus instead of from those? I mean, sure, they fixed some parts of that fanfic, but why use it at all?

But seriously, just look incidents where Mark uses the narrator clairvoyance (i.e., there are no witnesses to tell him about it.) Look at the overwhelming majority of the scenes, all over the place, where he feels a need to cover his ass for making stuff up by making up a literal conspiracy theory. See, you didn't hear ANY of that, because Jesus asked the Jews to keep it a secret, and all the tens of thousands of people involved kept it a secret. And presumably they were so determined to keep the Messiah they just witnessed a secret that they didn't convert either. They'd rather go to hell, or see their friends and children go to hell, than break the conspiracy to keep it secret. Except Mark somehow knows the secret anyway.

He's making stuff up and he knows it. And then Matt and Luke keep that made up stuff too, because they don't know any better either.

So now here's the question: what are the ODDS that such a made up story would fit the real one so well -- minus a few bits like the virgin birth, and such -- would fit the real story so well, that actual people who knew Jesus would take it for a primary source?

I mean, look at the Magneto parable... err... analogy I've used, and just treat every place or person name as a variable, because an author could have made anything else up there. Don't even mind all the details or the miraculous details like him singlehandedly leaving the city of Vinnytsia in ruins, but even the basic story outline, "There was kid named Max Eisenhardt who was originally from place X1. He was sent to camp X2. He met a girl of nationality X3 named X4. From there he escaped and went to place X5." Etc. There are a few dozen variables more just for a basic outline of his story.

The number of combinations for all those variables is mind-boggling. What are the ODDS that the comic book authors would accidentally nail even half of them just right, to the point that actual people who knew Max Eisenhardt would mistake it for a primary source?

Same for Jesus. What are the ODDS that a Mark who can't even get geography, local customs, idioms, etc, right, would make up a story which is so uncannily matching the real ones that actual people who knew Jesus would take it as a primary source? (Directly, or via Matthew, or harmonized, or whatever.)

Unless you believe that Mark actually got it from the holy ghost or something, I guess.

 

[Craig B]

My bold.

We've been here before, haven't we?

You have been shown how Historians evaluate this question, but you find their methods inadequate. You keep asking for: "credible evidence at all of Jesus as a living person ever known to anyone". I'm not sure what such evidence would look like:
- An ancient document by someone saying "I knew Jesus"? That would be no more evidential than the gospels.
- A portrait painted from life? Again, no way to verify such a thing.
- A statue?
- A gravestone?
None of those things could ever be totally "credible".

Please explain what you would consider: "credible evidence at all of Jesus as a living person ever known to anyone".

What do you expect from ancient Historians?

These are excellent questions. Perhaps IanS could help us by giving examples of this kind of evidence, and how it helps him to believe in the existence of persons reported in historical accounts.

 

[Craig B]

IOW, fiction.

No, "fiction" and "a religious text intended to convey religious teachings" really are different things, even if the religious text contains factual statements that are not true. The French intelligence experts, for example, who advised their government in 1940 that the Germans intended to conduct their main offensive on their own right flank were making false statements, but they were not composing "fiction".

 

[dejudge]

Thomas is a separate source for the sayings of "Jesus", so there's that.

The sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas is an uncorrobated source of unknown origin. The sayings of Jesus in gThomas is no more indepedent that the sayings of Adam in the book of Genesis.

1. No NT author used the sayings of Jesus as found in gThomas.

2. The earliest writers to mention gThomas are from the 3rd century or later.

3. The existing manuscripts of gThomas are dated no earlier than the mid 2nd century.

4. Supposed 2nd century apologetic writers like Ignatius, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Athenagors and Justin Martyr show no influence by the so-called sayings of Jesus in gThomas.

5. 2nd century non-apologetic writer Celsus appear to know nothing of the sayings of Jesus as found in gThomas when writing against the Jesus story in "True Discourse".

5. gThomas appear to confirm that the sayings of Jesus were invented.

6. gThomas is admitted to be a forgery or false attribution in "Church History" 3.25.

gThomas is virtually useless as an historical source for Jesus.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

No, "fiction" and "a religious text intended to convey religious teachings" really are different things, even if the religious text contains factual statements that are not true. The French intelligence experts, for example, who advised their government in 1940 that the Germans intended to conduct their main offensive on their own right flank were making false statements, but they were not composing "fiction".

BS.

Fiction:

noun
1.
the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2.
works of this class, as novels or short stories:
detective fiction.
3.
something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story:
We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4.
the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5.
an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6.
Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.​

The idea that something ceases to be fiction just because it's for a purpose you wish to exempt is simply wrong. The purpose isn't a part of the definition.

Basically it's as silly as saying that that meowing fuzzball is not a cat, if I bought it as a present for someone for Christmas. See, it's different if it's a present for Xmas

 

[Craig B]

I'm baffled. You paste a definition of fiction which states:

Fiction:

noun
1.
the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form.
2.
works of this class, as novels or short stories:
detective fiction.
3.
something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story:
We've all heard the fiction of her being in delicate health.
4.
the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining.
5.
an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation.
6.
Law. an allegation that a fact exists that is known not to exist, made by authority of law to bring a case within the operation of a rule of law.​

Then you tell me that the concept of purpose is not included in that definition. I have bolded the words denoting or implying purpose in the definition you have been kind enough to provide us with.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

SOME of the definitions involve a purpose, sorta, but not ALL of them. You don't get to pretend that only the definitions you like exist.

Plus, I'm baffled by some of your choices of highlighting.

Number 3 doesn't restrict inventing or feigning something to any particular purpose to fit the definition of fiction. I'm not sure exactly what confusion makes you think that "invented" somehow doesn't apply if what one is inventing is a religious allegory to convey a message.

Number 1 also doesn't say that the imaginative narration has to be written for any particular purpose to count as fiction. Writing some imaginative narration is just as much fiction regardless of whether it's about a religious character (e.g., Loki's binding, a central myth of Norse religion) or about Superman or about Wenamun (the earliest known historical novel.) And it's regardless of whether you're trying to give a message with it (after all, most novels have SOME message too) or not.

Pretending that fiction isn't fiction if it's for religious message purposes is just not supported by the definition.

 

[Craig B]

... The purpose isn't a part of the definition.

The word is in fact included in your definition!

Basically it's as silly as saying that that meowing fuzzball is not a cat, if I bought it as a present for someone for Christmas. See, it's different if it's a present for Xmas

That's mere rubbish.

BS.

And that's not very nice.