Skepticwiki historical jesus

[ceo_esq]

This quote of Justin Martyr's actually works against you. He is trying to show parallels between paganism and Christianity, and the comparisons are either banal (i.e. Asclepius and Jesus both did healing miracles) or stretched, such as the bit about "strong as a giant to run his race."

I agree. "Diabolical mimicry" was also discussed here, by the way.

 

[Roboramma]

Nothing in the text of the Wizard of Oz suggests that L Frank Baum thinks he was writing fiction, either.

jjramsey will claim that Baum has acknowledged it in a preface (where he calls it a "modernized fairy tale"), but nothing in the text alone supports it.

So if L Frank Baum had left off the preface to the Wizard of Oz, would that make it non-fiction?

Maybe Mark is just missing the preface?

Quick question: Does anything in the newly discovered "Gospel of Judas" suggest the author thought he was writing fiction? If not, doesn't that mean "Judas as the mis-understood hero" is just as legitimate as "Judas the betrayer"?

No one is suggesting that the bible be read in a vaccum. If the roman empire had fallen already when Jesus was supposed to have lived, or there were other glaring historical inaccuracies that couldn't be accounted for I think there'd be a strong case against a historical Jesus.
If there were claims in the bible about Jesus that we would expect to see varified in other sources, but which weren't, we would rightly regard those claims as suspect.

No one is looking at a single Gospel and making assumptions. They're looking at all of them, at the historical context that we do know, and at human nature (that people really do form cults around real people and then deify them, for instance) and making their case on that.

I don't really know how strong the case is, and don't feel that I can argue for or against it per se.
What I do think, though, is that it's silly to say that becuase the argument is based on what's in the bible it must necessarily be baseless.

 

[pgwenthold]

No one is looking at a single Gospel and making assumptions.

Then why bring up the "there's no indication the author of Mark thought he was telling a fictional story?"

Why not just admit that whether the author acted like they were not telling a fictional story is irrelevent to the factuality of the factuality?

I don't really know how strong the case is, and don't feel that I can argue for or against it per se.
What I do think, though, is that it's silly to say that becuase the argument is based on what's in the bible it must necessarily be baseless.

Maybe so, but why dispute it with an equally flawed counter?

 

[pgwenthold]

No one is suggesting that the bible be read in a vaccum. If the roman empire had fallen already when Jesus was supposed to have lived,

Quick question: had the Roman emprire fallen when the Gospel of Mark was written?

 

[AWPrime]

Originally Posted by AWPrime View Original:
And I have seen plenty of fundies/wackos that would kill or want to die for something that was clearly a lie.

Specific examples please? I think this is worth sorting out.

As for "would kill...for something that was clearly a lie"...that's a different animal.

-Elliot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_suicide good enough?

 

[ceo_esq]

Quick question: had the Roman emprire fallen when the Gospel of Mark was written?

Well, no. Are you thinking of the first Jewish-Roman war perhaps?

 

[Seb1]

Am I using the bible to prove the bible? Sure, but that's because it's reasonable to do so.

Similiarly if the simplest explanation of what is written in the bible based upon the only evidence we have available is that Jesus existed, then that's the best explanation.
It's not impossible that Jesus is a made up figure, but if after looking at the way the bible was written, the timeline of the writings, etc. we can say, this all makes sense if there was a historical jesus, while if there wasn't, it all becomes much more complicated and difficult (though certainly not impossible) to explain, then the conclusion that Jesus did exist is the best one available based on the evidence we have.
New evidence could change that of course.

We have to look at when the gospels were written and what knowledge there were about them. Why is there no mention of the gospels at all until 150 AD? And if Jesus were so widely known in Palestine, healing crowds of people, feeding thousands, and performing countless fabolous miracles, why haven't any contemporary historian noted his existence? If I wrote about something that happened 100 years ago without mentioning any sources, would I be believeable?

 

[LW]

Why is there no mention of the gospels at all until 150 AD?

Wrong question.

Better question would be: "Who was the first church father to mention Gospels in his writings?"

The answer seems to be Ignatius who quoted parts of Matthew in his letters. According to Christian tradition he was killed during Trajan's reign. Trajan died in 117 AD.

Another early 2nd century church father was Papias who mentions "Gospel according to Mark" explicitly.

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's not clear that St Ignatius was "quoting Matthew". He was familiar with some sayings attributed to Jesus which appear in Matthew.

He does not attribute them to Jesus, or to Matthew --- or give any indication that they are quotations.

[swiki]Canon of the New Testament[/swiki]

We are not entirely convinced by claims that the early Christian writers Ss Ignatius and Polycarp knew the Gospels and Epistles. It is true that they echo some phrases found in the New Testament: but no-one denies that they were familiar with Christian ideas. The question of whether they had read the Gospels as such is more obscure. There is nothing in them like a sustained quotation from the New Testament, just similarities in language. There are no quotation marks around the "quotations" in the original text, although they have helpfully been added in some English translations. They give no indication that they are quoting: no attributions to the gospellers, to Paul, or to Jesus. There is no attempt to use any such supposed quotation as a proof text. There are references to sayings attributed in the gospels to Jesus, such as Ignatius's advice to Polycarp to be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove, but there is never any reference to the action of the gospels. To summarize: they certainly knew Christianity; they may not have known the New Testament as such.

 

[jjramsey]

Why not just admit that whether the author acted like they were not telling a fictional story is irrelevent to the factuality of the factuality?

Quite simply, it's not irrelevant. Some things do not make sense in a fictional account, such as the author of a work rationalizing the character's failure, as in Mark 6:1-6. There is also the matter of how the Gospels were received. If the Gospels were supposed to be fiction, then the whole Christian community, from the people who used Mark as a source to much later people like Origen, lost the memo that it was supposed to be fiction.

 

[pgwenthold]

Quite simply, it's not irrelevant. Some things do not make sense in a fictional account, such as the author of a work rationalizing the character's failure, as in Mark 6:1-6.

And your contention here has been disputed, in this this thread, nonetheless.

There is also the matter of how the Gospels were received. If the Gospels were supposed to be fiction, then the whole Christian community, from the people who used Mark as a source to much later people like Origen, lost the memo that it was supposed to be fiction.

Just as someone lost the memo that Dianetics was supposed to be fiction.

Oh wait. We DIDN'T lose the memo that Dianetics was supposed to be fiction. LRH blatently said he was going to invent a religion. And you know what? Some people STILL believe it!

Very clearly demonstrating that when it comes to religion, people will believe an awful lot.

Lastly, why are you assuming that a fictional account would be advertisted as such? (Why would there be a "memo"?) As far as is needed, all that happens is that Mark had some sayings and says, hey, I'm going to put these into story. He writes the story and starts distributing it, saying, "See what I've written!"

You think there was a the fiction and non-fiction sections of the Roman Times Bestseller lists?

 

[jjramsey]

Just as someone lost the memo that Dianetics was supposed to be fiction.

This is a false analogy. Dianetics is BS, but it is not fiction in the sense that Wizard of Oz is fiction. L. Ron Hubbard meant for it to be taken as fact. I see you pulling a fallacy of ambiguity, sliding between one definition of "fiction" as "falsehood" and another definition of "fiction" as a genre of literature where both author and audience are supposed to be aware that the contents are not of actual events.

Lastly, why are you assuming that a fictional account would be advertisted as such? (Why would there be a "memo"?)

I am being somewhat facetious about the "memo" bit. My point is that if the author wants his work to be taken in some way, he is going to take steps to make sure that he is taken that way. He may use certain genre conventions. He may tell people what his intentions are. Basically, to assert that the Gospel of Mark was meant to be fictional, you have to assume that its author blundered so radically that he communicated the exact opposite of his intentions. Actually, in the case of the Gospel of Mark, you also have to ignore some internal evidence as Mark 6:1-6--which has been badly argued against by geetarmoore, but not addressed cogently.

You think there was a the fiction and non-fiction sections of the Roman Times Bestseller lists?

No. I figure that they had their own conventions for indicating what was and wasn't fiction.

 

[pgwenthold]

L. Ron Hubbard meant for it to be taken as fact..

Well, he may have wanted it to be taken as fact, or expected it to be taken as fact, but that doesn't mean it has any factual basis at all, or even that he thought it had factual basis. It's still fiction. Hubbard more or less proclaimed that he was going to write fiction. Yet, far too many people treat it as fact.

So in this case, we have a text where 1) there is no indication in the text that the author intended it to be fiction, and 2) it was still accepted as true by a very large number of people, even despite the fact that it is clearly a fictional account, based on extracurricular writings of the author.

Again, if L Ron Hubbard had not made it so evident that Dianetics was purely an invention, what would there be against it?

OK, so it's not necessarily the case that the author of Mark intended to fool the suckers, but then again, neither is the case for Joseph Smith. Should we be able to use the same case for the book of Mormon?

 

[jjramsey]

So in this case, we have a text where 1) there is no indication in the text that the author intended it to be fiction, and 2) it was still accepted as true by a very large number of people

And if in the year 2400, someone was trying to figure out the genre of Dianetics, and he/she noted that it was accepted as fact by a large number of people in the 20th century as fact, that would be valid evidence that Dianetics is in a nonfiction genre--which it is. Bear in mind that Kevin Trudeau's book Natural
Cures "They" Don't Want You to Know About is also in a non-fiction genre, even though it is BS. In that respect, it isn't much different from Dianetics.

Again, you are not keeping the two definitions of "fiction" straight that I mentioned before. There are two separate issues here:

• Does the author intend for the work to be taken as fact? This question can, for the most part, be answered by looking at how the audience receives the work. This is because there are various protocols and cultural cues that both the author and audience are aware of, and the author uses these dues to communicate his intentions to the audience.
  
• Does the work contain fact? Obviously, this question cannot be answered by observing that the audience takes it as something that is supposed to be factual.

 

[pgwenthold]

Again, you are not keeping the two definitions of "fiction" straight that I mentioned before.

Granted. I am using the concept of "fiction" as "not fact."

Of course, that is the only one that is worth talking about, because as you note, calling it "non-fiction" does not attest to the truth of what it says. And that is what we are trying to sort out.

Which is why I don't understand your objections. You seem to be agreeing with me. Whether the author considers it fiction does not provide insight into whether it actually is contains true material or not. You acknowledge this is a separate question.

So address that question, and give up on the "It would be on the 'non-fiction' best seller list," which is about all it boils down to.

There are plenty of examples of "non-fiction" books that are complete BS (using your first description of fiction). Dianetics, The Book of Mormon, Trudeau, etc. So why should we think that calling it non-fiction is relevant to the question whether the Bible is true?

 

[jjramsey]

Granted. I am using the concept of "fiction" as "not fact."

I note an ambiguity here. "Not fact" can mean a falsehood meant to be taken as fact, or as a story that is meant to be understood by both author and audience as non-factual.

Which is why I don't understand your objections.

What I'm objecting to is a fallacy of ambiguity on your part.

First, you compared the Gospel of Mark to L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, implying that we have no way of determining whether Mark is a work that is fiction in the same sense as the Wizard of Oz, that is, a story that meant to be understood by both author and audience as non-factual. I pointed out that this was implausible, since that the Christian community seems to have taken the Gospel of Mark as factual, and thus did not regard it as fiction in the same sense as the Wizard of Oz, that is, a story that meant to be understood by both author and audience as non-factual.

Next, you responded by noting that Dianetics was taken as fact, but that did not mean that it was fiction in the sense of a falsehood meant to be taken as fact. Notice that you completely switched in midstream the definition of "fiction." This becomes obvious when one notes that since Dianetics was taken as something that was supposed to be factual, it was highly unlikely that it was fiction in the same sense as the Wizard of Oz, a story that was meant to be understood by both author and audience as non-factual.

So why should we think that calling it non-fiction is relevant to the question whether the Bible is true?

We aren't talking about whether the Bible is true. The reason why fiction vs. non-fiction is an issue is that if the Bible, or in the case, really the New Testament, is non-fiction, then questions like, "What do the Gospels say that their writers would rather not say or are trying to hide, rationalize?", "What do the writers mention incidentally or offhandedly?" become relevant, and it's the answers to those questions that lead to info about the historical Jesus.

 

[pgwenthold]

I note an ambiguity here. "Not fact" can mean a falsehood meant to be taken as fact, or as a story that is meant to be understood by both author and audience as non-factual.

How the author and audience understand the story is irrelevant to whether it is true or not. Granted, not too many stories that the author don't consider to be true are true, but that doesn't mean it can't be.

What I'm objecting to is a fallacy of ambiguity on your part.

First, you compared the Gospel of Mark to L. Frank Baum's Wizard of Oz, implying that we have no way of determining whether Mark is a work that is fiction in the same sense as the Wizard of Oz, that is, a story that meant to be understood by both author and audience as non-factual.

Show me IN THE TEXT of the Wizard of Oz where it is meant to be understood as non-factual?

Not in the preface, but in the text.

I'm not comparing the Bible with the Wizard of Oz, I'm just applying the arguments that have been applied to the bible to the Wizard of Oz. If the argument applies just as readily to the Wizard of Oz (or Dianetics, or The Book of Mormon, or any other work that is not true), then I don't see it as telling us much about the bible.

We aren't talking about whether the Bible is true. The reason why fiction vs. non-fiction is an issue is that if the Bible, or in the case, really the New Testament, is non-fiction, then questions like, "What do the Gospels say that their writers would rather not say or are trying to hide, rationalize?", "What do the writers mention incidentally or offhandedly?" become relevant, and it's the answers to those questions that lead to info about the historical Jesus.

Which means then that you get to invent motivations for the writers, such as your claim that Mark 6:1-6 doesn't belong (when it has been explained why it has).

Moreover, this also assumes that someone creating a "non-fiction" account would never mention things incidentally or offhandedly. Can you say that can't happen? Is there not a single example of it in the Wizard of Oz canon?

 

[jjramsey]

I'm not comparing the Bible with the Wizard of Oz, I'm just applying the arguments that have been applied to the bible to the Wizard of Oz.

The fundamental problem is this. There is external evidence to indicate that the Wizard of Oz was meant to be understood as non-historical, while the external evidence indicates that the narrative parts of the Bible were meant to be understood as historical. This means that applying the arguments such as the criterion of embarassment, etc., to the Wizard of Oz is a category error, since these arguments are only meant for something purporting to be history in the first place.

The problem is that when someone points to the external evidence indicating that the narrative pieces of the Bible are not fiction in the sense that the Wizard of Oz is fiction, you argue that this external evidence doesn't show that the Bible is not fiction in the sense that Dianetics is fiction, which is a fallacy of ambiguity.

Moreover, this also assumes that someone creating a "non-fiction" account would never mention things incidentally or offhandedly.

Nonsense. What I'm saying is that in a story that is meant to be taken as history (or in a letter, for that matter, BTW) the details delivered incidentally may be more likely to be factual that the items which the author is consciously relating (and thus consciously biasing).

 

[scribble]

The fundamental problem is this.

In the introduction to "The Princess Bride" by William Goldstein, he spends a long time discussing the fact that this is a story which his father read to him when he was a child, and wasn't, in fact, written by himself.

Which is a lie.

I believe Mark Twain also used this technique for some of his stories.

The fundamental problem is this: It doesn't matter how the authors intended the books to be read.

They could have intended it to be fact just like Whitley Streiber's "Communion." Not fact, but clearly believed to be fact, intended to be fact, and distributed and touted by the believers as though it were fact.

Above all, it seems funny to be discussing whether the authors of the Bible intended their writings to be received as truth or fiction when it should be clear to us that they, themselves, would not have been in a position to know whether they were fact or fiction, not having been present for any of the events they describe.

 

[jjramsey]

The fundamental problem is this: It doesn't matter how the authors intended the books to be read.

They could have intended it to be fact just like Whitley Streiber's "Communion." Not fact, but clearly believed to be fact, intended to be fact, and distributed and touted by the believers as though it were fact.

I see what you are trying to get at, but this is an old issue: Mark could be, like, Streiber, lying or mistaken about the whole thing. The question, then, however, is whether and to what extent he is lying or mistaken, based on the content of the work and various bits of external evidence, and this is very much a case-by-case issue. Actually, it is not even true that the author's intentions don't matter, since that gives an idea of what axe the author has to grind, and that ties into how much he is lying or mistaken.

Above all, it seems funny to be discussing whether the authors of the Bible intended their writings to be received as truth or fiction when it should be clear to us that they, themselves, would not have been in a position to know whether they were fact or fiction, not having been present for any of the events they describe.

Josephus wasn't around for the census in 6 C.E. where Judas the Galilean started a rebellion, and Quirinius had to come in and conduct the census. Or is it only biblical writers who are held to the standard that they must be contemporary with the events they describe? Seriously, the biblical writers aren't writing very good history, but that has more to do with credulousness than lack of closeness in time.