I think you overreach.
Parenthetically, being capable and manifesting that capability are not at all the same thing.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Flavius Josephus About Jesus?
- Thread starter Ben Masada
- Start date
No it isn't. Textual attestation means the number of texts. Attestation of a text refers to any other text which shows an awareness of the first one.
For example, Thucydides, when he bashes Herodotus for his style of witing, never actually names either Herodotus OR his work, nor does he even directly quote him. But he makes it clear enough what he is talking about. In Plato's Apology, Socrates talks about being made fun of "by some comic playwright." He doesn't name the text or playwright, but it is quite clear that the play is Aristophanes The Clouds. Jesus often makes allusions to scripture without actually quoting them. And so on.
This is again a lack of understanding of textual analysis on your part. Ancient authors rarely cited what they were quoting, often quoted from memory, and often paraphrased. This is true of all of the classical, hellenistic, and later christian world.
,
Many writers, perhaps even most, quoted from memory. This is in part due to the oral nature of the culture, but also because, unlike today, there was no academic dishonesty of any sort associated with getting a word or two wrong, or altering the phrase, or even making it into something totally different.
So does Papias in the first century.
I would hope they weren't known by an old english name. However, the word from which gospel comes from is in the gospel of Mark.
Wrong. The names were around prior to Justin. Papias names them in the first century.
No, you were totally and utterly wrong. I have given multiple examples of writers active in the first century who either certainly or probably quoted the gospels. And as I said, even if, for example, Clement is quoting from oral tradition, that makes your case even worse, because Clement becomes not only another attestation for Jesus' existence, he also shows us how stable the oral tradition is, because it barely changed in the 60 years since Jesus died.
Most of the epistles predate the gospels, so that is hardly suprising.
Wrong. Matthew and Luke, two independent authors, writing from different times, places, styles, and to two different audiences, knew mark, meaning it became important and distributed almost as soon as it was written. We actually have a fragment of John from c. 125 CE, about 30 years after being written. Given how many copies are lost for one to survive, and given the fact that this fragment was unearthed FAR away from the hub of christianity, John too was rapidly disseminated. The synoptics are referenced by several writers active in the first century. And again, we have the wealth of texts attesting to widespread distribution from the beginning.
In other words, we have every reason to believe, and none to doubt, that the gospels were rapidly transmitted to the emerging christian communities.
"Hell hath no fury ..."
Parenthetically, congratulations on being able to date these gospels with such noteworthy precision.
How so? On the one hand, I follow what I believe to be the majority in that 1 Clement is paraphrasing lines from the gospel. If, however, he is relying on oral tradition apart from texts, than the fact that 60 years between his work and Jesus' death have not altered the tradition in any major way. This is evidence that the same sort of reliability can easily be applied to a text only 35 years or so removed.
True enough. I believe that a "beloved disciple" of Jesus does lie directly behind John's gospel. As such, the author probably had a great deal of access to reliable and even eyewitness accounts of Jesus. However, either the disciple or the author were very free in manipulating the tradition for theological purposes. All the gospel authors do this to some degree, but John far more than any.
I'm simply using the most widely accepted dates. There are still arguments that Matthew, and even Luke, were first. However, there is a wide consensus that Mark was composed c. 70, and Matthew and Luke in the 80s.
Whether drawing upon oral tradition or upon gospels drawing upon oral tradition, there is no assurance that what we see is not simply the conflation of sayings typical to a particular milieu and conveniently (and falsely) attributed to character that increasingly became the personification of a religious movement. To suggest that these sayings serve as compelling evidence for a historical Jesus is simply wishful thinking.
A wide consensus that Luke was written in the 80s? Really?
I am suggesting they show that the gospels were used widely from the beginning. I don't believe that Clement relied on oral tradition. If he did, however, than we can use Clement for the historical criterion of multiple attestation. If Clement said "Jesus said Xabc" and Mark said "Jesus said Xbca," then we have two independent sources attesting to a saying of Jesus. Additionally, if Clement's oral tradition retains sayings 60 years after Jesus which are also found in Mark 30 years later, this is evidence for greater control exerted over the oral transmission of the Jesus tradition. If those who follow Bultmann (either wholly or in part) were correct, each independent source relying on an store of sayings and narratives transmitted orally would differ widely. Yet we do not find that in Clement. We find sayings very close to those in the synoptics.
Basically, if several independent sources based on oral tradition from different times, including the late 90s, all place very similar sayings on Jesus lips, any model of orality within the early christian sect must account for this data, and the way to do this is to realize that sayings were not freely attributed to Jesus or constantly altered, but rather the oral tradition was fairly controlled.
However, I don't believe 1 Clement says anything about an oral model, because I don't believe Clement uses an oral source. Again, I follow most in believing he was familiar with some of the gospels.
Incorrect, for reasons outlined above. To what extent the sayings and deeds of Jesus were manipulated, altered, and added to is a matter of the oral model of the christian communities. If Clement's oral store of sayings independently matches other recordings of the tradition, than not only is it more likely that Jesus actually said something similar, but that the oral transmission was controlled.
The idea that there existed in christian communities a tendency for "the conflation of sayings typical to a particular milieu and conveniently (and falsely) attributed to [Jesus]" is a relic of Bultmann and Form-Criticism that is increasingly under attack as new and better methods of research into the oral model of the Jesus sect reveal a completely different picture.
Sorry, that was my error. I meant to limit the consensus to Mark. Matthew is almost always dated to the 80s (but there are still some who think his gospel was first) and Luke to 80s or 90s, even late 90s. I consider it to be earlier, mainly on the basis of Luke's (minor) role in Acts, which means he was present for the early stages of the sect.
Nonsense.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Blasphemy! Blasphemy!
Not much of a reply. Do you disagree with the criterion of multiple attestation?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I was hoping you wouldn't notice my Bultmann bashing
It's like shooting a bb gun at a battleship.
It's like shooting a bb gun at a battleship.
Yeah. The little plastic ones that come with the game. "You sunk my Bultmann!"
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Breakin' my heart, man.
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Very similar to what I've been saying....
No, it isn't. Jayhawker Soule disagrees with my conditional statement that if (as I don't believe) 1 Clement relied on oral tradition, it is evidence for the historical Jesus. He also seems to think that if Clement drew on the gospels it also isn't, but I never made that claim (rather, it shows widespread use of the gospels as soon as they were composed).
I also know that we disagree on the control of oral transmission.
However, Jayhawker is NOT saying anything akin to what you say, because he doesn't buy into any of the mythicist bunk. Our disagreement concerns the reliability of the texts, not whether there was a historical Jesus, as the obviously there was.
[Jump in to correct me if I got anything wrong, Jay]
Dirty Penguin
Master Of Ceremony
Where is that I "buy into it"......I have often said that I can concede the existence of Yeshua. I think there is a "possibility" he existed. For me there hasn't been anything presented that convinces me though.....
Therein lies the difference. Jayhawker Soule has commented more than once on the foolishness of the mythicist argument. It isn't a matter of "can concede" but rather to assert that there is any other plausible explanation for the data than a historical Jesus is bunk.
I think there is a "possibility" he existed. For me there hasn't been anything presented that convinces me though.....
And here you are seperated from Jayhawker Soule, not to mention virtually every expert.
Tell me something: what exactly have you read about first century judaism, the nature and genre of ancient texts, ancient history in general, the historical Jesus, and all other related topics? As I mentioned earlier, it is easy to find things "debatable" if you aren't familiar with the data. Jesus' existence is very debatable, until one actually studies the topic.
And I suspect that you aren't "convinced" because you want to believe Jesus didn't exist. Otherwise, why doubt the line in Josephus concerning Jesus' brother, when there is virtually no Josephan expert who does, and all the commentaries on this line say things like "we can know with great certainty that this is genuine."
As for evidence presented, this is a forum. The typical book on the historical Jesus is over 400 pages. Many are in several volumes. You aren't going to get depth on a forum. That being said, there are many simple facts which make Jesus' historicity obvious, even if one accepts a view like Bultmann where sayings and teachings were freely attributed to Jesus and we can know next to nothing about the historical man.
1. First and foremost, one has to understand how sects work, particularly in the ancient world, but even today. They are founded by charismatic leaders, who gather enough followers around them to begin a movement. Cults (like Mithrasa) which are devoted to myth almost never believe their god actually founded the cult, and they certainly don't put him in a time and place within a few decades. All of the myths of the ancient world concern events taking place so long ago that verification is impossible.
2. The gospels only look like myths to people who haven't read enough primary texts of myths and ancient histories. They clearly contain ahistorical data, but so do all histories.
3. Paul, the gospels, and Josephus all agree that Jesus had a brother named James, and Paul knew him.
4. Christianity spread outward from Jerusalem, where Jesus was executed. Had Jesus never existed, plenty of people would know. Even the biggest cities weren't that big, and Jesus supposedly attracted a great deal of followers during his life, certainly enough that had he never existed, stories about crowds and followers would immediately be seen as false.
5. Paul was Jesus' contemporary. He may have known of Jesus while Jesus was still living, and even met him, but he certainly wasn't a follower. However, he converted while all the 12 and Peter and other eyewitnesses still lived (as well as Jesus' brother). And although Paul concentrates on disputes and problems in the early churches, and on the risen Christ, it is clear from his letters that he believed Jesus lived and died during Paul's lifetime (he knew Jesus' brother, he talks about the last supper, Jesus' teaching on divorce, and Jesus' death).
6. Despite the fact that the christians were well known enough to be blamed for Nero's fire a few decades after Jesus' death, and despite our records of those hostile to christians, nobody challenged his existence.
7. We have several independent sources concerning Jesus, more than virtually anyone from ancient history: Paul, Q, Mark, John, Thomas, and possibly M and L. At least three of these sources date while eyewitnesses were still living.
The list goes on.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
:ymca:
No, my disagreement concerns the reliability of the attribution.
Prior to the age of easy verification, the butchered "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" was commonly (and incorrectly) attributed to Shakespeare.