Is Jesus a Mythical Character?

[dogsgod]

He neither "merely" refers to him, nor speaks of him in a matter of fact way. He refers to him in a entirely hostile manner, and not in any "matter of fact" or "merely" way.


Did you read the part of my post you quoted or not? I SPECIFICALLY stated there was a difference. Philo's texts belongs to an entirely different genre.



Why? If anything, Philo's depiction of Pilate is even LESS likely, a priori, to be accurate. Philo is CLEARLY biased against Pilate. Everything he says about him is negative. Although there is almost certainly truth in some part of it, parts of it are obviously simply Philo's hatred of Pilate (e.g. "So, as he was a spiteful and angry person, ...for he had [no]...desire to do anything which would please his subjects"). And Philo's treatise is theological and his motivations are clearly not simply to record history. The accounts of Pilate in the gospels are, if anything, less likely (a priori) to be motivated by theology or christology or anything else to distort this account (I suspect, however, that an aspect of their depiction of Pilate is to place more blame on the Jews, but this doesn't explain their almost entirely positive depiction of the one ultimately responsible for Jesus' death) . After all, Pilate was the one who sentenced Jesus to die.

How much of either account is historical is a matter of debate for another day (I will say now that neither is completely accurate in my opinion). The point here, however, is that you point to a work that is not designed primarily to record history (even by ancient standards) and is clearly motivated by dislike, bias, hatred, etc. Again, only your bias and lack of knowledge concerning this subject motivates your judgement.

What we have is a Jew (Philo) that was ****** off and obviously totally offended by Pilates' antics towards the Jews. Philo was a contemporary, he was there, and was directly offended. He cared enough to write about it, and what we can discern by the facts stated aside from opinions Philo had of Pilate, we can otherwise take his word for it that Pilate did what he did and ****** a lot of people off in the prosses. Now, when a gospel writer comes along 40 yrs. later and writes a story about a preaching miracle worker and portrays Pilate as caring and diplomatic towards the Jewish leaders and their rebelious troublemaker brought before him, well, you decide.

 

[dogsgod]

And that's not even the real point. The real point is that Pilate did something that inspired a contemporary to write about him. That ups the ante that Pilate existed. If only Jesus did something good or bad that inspired a contemporary to write about him, then we would have something and could be reasonably certain that he existed at all.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

And that's not even the real point. The real point is that Pilate did something that inspired a contemporary to write about him. That ups the ante that Pilate existed. If only Jesus did something good or bad that inspired a contemporary to write about him, then we would have something and could be reasonably certain that he existed at all.

Interesting.....

I saw the name Papias thrown out there. I'm not exactly sure why he was mentioned. His work, what little we have, is, once again, hearsay at best. Is it not bad enough the scriptures give us two completely different stories as to the death of Judas but enters Paias with a third. Contrary to what Irenaeus says, Papias does not prsent himself as if he heard directly from those who were follers of Jesus. He presents himself as reme,berin to the best ofhis ability the information given to him by those who said they heard it from the desciples. I guess this would be third or fourth hand knowledge....

 

[dogsgod]

First of all, there were Greek speakers all over Judaea, and in Jerusalem. Second, Paul, who had visited Jerusalem for the purpose of receiving the tradition, writes to various communities in the diaspora and speaks of "handing on" the tradition. Even as late as the early 2nd century, Papias discusses having spoken to the disciples of the apostles, or the apostles themselves, concerning what Jesus said. In other words, all of the early Christian communities communicated! And they took some care to make sure the tradition was handled accurately. Can you point to any scholarship on their place of origin?

And in anycase it is a moot point. You said of Christianity "Besides, it's not the first time a religion grew about an invisible entity as described in a book of mythologies"

All the myths of Greece, Rome, India, Egypt, etc. were set in a time long, long ago. This is important, because people actually travelled in the ancient world. If you set up a story that takes place in a specific area in a specific time less than 20 years after the event (for Paul) or around 20-30 years (Q) or around 40 years (Mark), people will have been to that area, and known the community. You are once again showing a complete lack of understanding of ancient history. The idea that these texts, which were distributed widely as soon as they were written, would be blindly accepted by people when no one could claim to know Jesus or anyone who knew him, or that no one would bother to check to see if anything was true (particularly the Jewish opponents) is ridiculous.

The whole point of "myth" is that it is unverifiable. It happened ages ago. To nail it down to a recent time and nearby place would make it impossible to be believed, unless there were at least a core of truth (i.e. Jesus actually lived and worked, and his earliest followers claimed he rose from the dead).

The middle of the second century is when we first discover a Christian association with written Gospels and an acceptance of them as historical accounts.

Ignatius of Antioch, early second century, is the first known of Christian writings (non-gospel) to have expressed a belief that Jesus lived and died under Pilate.

The first non-Christian reference to an historical Jesus of recent history, historian Tacitus around 115CE.

That's a long time after Jesus supposedly lived and for another, that doesn't suggest a lot of people being familiar with these texts. At this rate it's taking a long tome for these gospels to really catch on.

 

[Oberon]

Interesting.....

I should start by saying that the primary importance of Papias is an indication on how the Jesus traditions were transmitted. In other words, Papias describes receiving it from SPECIFIC people who were in a position to know. The scholars who look upon the sayings, teachings, etc. in the gospel overly skeptically do so because they presume that sayings were freely attributed to Jesus, passed along by just about anyone, and in general transmitted unreliably. Papias gives evidence this isn't true. Even at a later date (the events he is describing are somewhere in the first century, and his work is in the second) he takes care to point out that the Jesus tradition was formally and carefully handed on by those well-acquainted with it, not just anybody. He is used as one aspect in a far larger argument for general reliability in the oral transmission behind the gospels (some of which are earlier than he).

He presents himself as reme,berin to the best ofhis ability the information given to him by those who said they heard it from the desciples. I guess this would be third or fourth hand knowledge....

Actually, only twice removed (third hand) at worst: "If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples : which things Aristion and the elder John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying."

In other words, Papias is describing receiving the Jesus tradition by eyewitness through their followers. He is receiving the tradition only twice removed (first being from the disciples themselves, second from their followers). Also, it is possible that the elders he describes were disciples of Jesus during his mission, but were not among the twelve. Additionally, it very possible that at one point he went to the disciples themselves, as he certainly knew of some during their lives. At best, at some point he received the tradition once removed (2nd hand) At worst, he is only twice removed from the tradition

His work, what little we have, is, once again, hearsay at best.

That is true for virtually ALL of ancient history. Ancient people were generally skeptical of written texts, and preferred talking to eye-witnesses of their followers. Given the care taking in transmission, it is often almost as reliable as a written text (particularly ancient texts, which all relied on oral accounts). Even if Papias received the tradition third hand, and in an oral society, particularly when the tradition is carefully transmitted, that is a good thing.

Yes,and almost a hundred years after the fact. All of what he have of Papias comes by way of Eusebius, and he thought Papaia had a small brain capacity.

That was Eusebius' bias, who did not know him. Papias was well-educated. Also, he quoted directly from Papias' texts, now lost. That is a standard way that all ancient historians obtain the words from people whose works are lost to us.

 

[dogsgod]

Interesting.....

I saw the name Papias thrown out there. I'm not exactly sure why he was mentioned. His work, what little we have, is, once again, hearsay at best. Is it not bad enough the scriptures give us two completely different stories as to the death of Judas but enters Paias with a third. Contrary to what Irenaeus says, Papias does not prsent himself as if he heard directly from those who were follers of Jesus. He presents himself as reme,berin to the best ofhis ability the information given to him by those who said they heard it from the desciples. I guess this would be third or fourth hand knowledge....

Yes,and almost a hundred years after the fact. All of what he have of Papias comes by way of Eusebius, and he thought Papaia had a small brain capacity.

 

[Oberon]

What we have is a Jew (Philo) that was ****** off and obviously totally offended by Pilates' antics towards the Jews. Philo was a contemporary, he was there, and was directly offended. He cared enough to write about it, and what we can discern by the facts stated aside from opinions Philo had of Pilate, we can otherwise take his word for it that Pilate did what he did and ****** a lot of people off in the prosses.

Again, I am not saying we should reject Philo as completely theologically motivated and biased and therefore ahistorical. I also believe that Philo's or Josephus' writing on Pilate more accurately describes his personality, though I believe they both exaggerate. However, I believe that Pilate probably did crucify Jesus only under protest (perhaps he did not want to be bother, perhaps he wanted to upset the Jewish leaders and was reluctant to do what they wished, etc). His motivation in the gospels for doing so, however, was grafted on to the historical core by christological motivations of the passion narratives.

Now, when a gospel writer comes along 40 yrs. later and writes a story about a preaching miracle worker and portrays Pilate as caring and diplomatic towards the Jewish leaders and their rebelious troublemaker brought before him, well, you decide.

Once again, you would really benefit from reading scholarhip here. First, the earliest evidence of a crucifixion narrative/creedal formula is in Paul.

More importantly, the passion narrative in Mark PRE-DATES Mark! (in much the same way that Q predates matthew and luke). There has been a great deal of scholarship on how early it is (probably as early as Q), the nature of the pre-Markan version, etc. I would provide references, but you seem opposed to reading anything by people who have actually studied the subject, so I will hold off unless you ask for them. That the passion narrative predates Mark is widely accepted, even by skeptical scholars (for example Crossan, who believes he can reconstruct the "cross gospel" as a very early core of gospel of Peter which he believes is the basis for all the passion narratives. To date, no scholar has agree with his proposal, not even the Jesus seminar).

 

[Oberon]

The middle of the second century is when we first discover a Christian association with written Gospels and an acceptance of them as historical accounts.

Totally wrong. I will quote myself again here:

For early attestation that the gospels were widely read, we have:

I Clement (c. 95-6): Clement cites both the Old Testament and New (Matthew and Luke) using phrases like he graphe legei. He also cites other traditions concerning Jesus, indicating the existence of traditions that are lost to us, but which existed in the first century (more evidence of oral traditions).

Ignatius of Antioch (died in the early second century, active in the first): Not only does Ignatius show an awareness of Paul, he also cites Jesus traditions, some of which are from Matthew and John. He also may have known Luke (see Smyrn iii 1-2).

The Didache (either late first century or early 2nd): The didache quotes from Matthew, as well as other traditions.

Papias (active in 1st and 2nd century): speaks of three out of the four gospels, not to mention oral traditions concerning Jesus.

Epistle of Barnabas (probably early 2nd century, possibly earlier): the author was acquainted with the gospel of Matthew.

Polycarp of Smyrna (active 1st and early 2nd century): Has about 100 quotations from the NT.

Shepard of Hermas (either late 1st or early 2nd century): shows an awareness of John and at least one of the synoptics


In other words, there is plenty of evidence from other texts, in addition to the widespread copying of NT manuscripts (and we actually possess 2nd century pieces of the gospel texts including P52, P75, -P4, P64, P67-, and possibly P46 and P66), that the gospels were used widely from the beginning.

Ignatius of Antioch, early second century, is the first known of Christian writings (non-gospel) to have expressed a belief that Jesus lived and died under Pilate.

No, Paul is the first non-gospel who speaks of this. Also there is Josephus (that part of his text has been accepted by most scholars as genuine).

Finally, as I said before, the survival of the texts, and the early dates for some of our copies attest to widespread belief in them. For example, p52 was copied from John a mere 20-40 years after the original document was found (it is dated around 112-140), and it was probably written in hellenistic egypt (although the original was likely composed in Antioch or a similar place), attesting that the gospels were being used as historical accounts for Jesus over a wide area and very early.

Metzger notes in his "Texts of the New Testament" that the textual critic is embarrassed by the amount of textual evidence for the NT.
"We can appreciate how bountiful the attestation is for the New testament if we compare the surviving textual materials of other ancient authors who wrote during the early centuries of Christianity. [he lists a number of examples, but for brevity's sake I will include only one] The surviving texts of the famous Latin historian Cornelius Tacitus (flor. c. 100 A.D.) reached the age of printing by three tenous threads. Of the fourteen books of his Histories, only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great histoircal works depends entirely on two MSS [manuscripts], one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. His minor works have all descended from a codex of the tenth century, but this disappeared after numerous fifteenth-century copies had been made.

In contrast with these figures, the textual critic of the New Testament is embarrassed by the wealth of material. Furthermore, the work of many ancient authors has been preserved only in manuscripts that date from the Middle Ages (sometimes late Middle Ages), far removed from the time at which they lived and wrote. On the contrary, the time between the composition of the books of the New testament and the earliest extant copies is relatively brief." [emphases added]

From The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, pages 50-51.

In other words, in comparison to other classical texts, which were also copied and widely known, but for which we have NO early copies, the earliest being from the late dark ages/early Middle Ages, 9th century or so, and often later (and some are only available to us from translations by the Muslims, which were then retranslated into latin or greek) the texts of the NT are copious.
For them we have an enormous amount of texts. The only way this is possible is that they were widely accepted and copied (far more than any other document of the classical age).

The first non-Christian reference to an historical Jesus of recent history, historian Tacitus around 115CE.

Again, you are rejecting Josephus, although you have read NO scholarship on this matter, and are entirely dependent on websites. There is a wide consensus among scholar's that Josephus' longer account, although it contains additions, is at its core genuine Josephus (among other scholars, Vermes in particular has shown that certain phrases are typical Josephus).

That's a long time after Jesus supposedly lived and for another, that doesn't suggest a lot of people being familiar with these texts. At this rate it's taking a long tome for these gospels to really catch on.

Completely false, as I have shown above. Can you point to ANY scholarship suggesting late acceptance of the texts?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I should start by saying that the primary importance of Papias is an indication on how the Jesus traditions were transmitted.

It's primary to you but actually what we see is how stories passed along have been, are and continue to change over time. This doesn't make the story any less or any more correct. In the case of Papias he was in a worst posistion than Josephus. From what we can tell Papias was not a contemporary, he was even, from what we can tell, born after Josephus and admits to "remembering" to the best of his ability the information that was supposedly given to him by those who said they receive it from the deciples who suppoedly receive it from Jesus. This is what is known as hearsay.

In other words, Papias describes receiving it from SPECIFIC people who were in a position to know.

So he says. Because we have fragmented data we can't be sure what he really knew. There certainly wasn't a consensus of people that totally agreed with him. We can tell that by the writings of Esuebius. And if Papias receive the Judas story from them then it shows but another "version" as to what supposedly happened to him. Both bible versions differ as well as the version Papias was given.

The scholars who look upon the sayings, teachings, etc. in the gospel overly skeptically do so because they presume that sayings were freely attributed to Jesus, passed along by just about anyone, and in general transmitted unreliably. Papias gives evidence this isn't true.

Again, I have no problem with how scholars come to the conclusion the a supposed historical figure could have possibly said the things that were attributed to him. At best it's guess work because there's no conclusive proof, assuming Jesus was a real person, said the things he did. As far as Papias, he gives no such "evidence", he is giving all that he says he remembered receiving. He says out right that he was relying by "their account" that what they were telling him was the truth.

Even at a later date (the events he is describing are somewhere in the first century, and his work is in the second) he takes care to point out that the Jesus tradition was formally and carefully handed on by those well-acquainted with it, not just anybody. He is used as one aspect in a far larger argument for general reliability in the oral transmission behind the gospels (some of which are earlier than he).

Again, after reviewing his fragments there's not much there in the way of reliablility. He's repeating "to the best of his memory" the things he was told from those who supposedly received it from others who said they were followers of Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

It's primary to you but actually what we see is how stories passed along have been, are and continue to change over time.

How exactly do we see that? The fragments we possess of Papias' work give us no detail on the commandments he recorded from Jesus, only that he did so from SPECIFIC people who were in a position to know. There is no evidence from his quotes that the commandments he refers to "change over time." Of course, it is unlikely in the extreme that all but a fraction of the Jesus tradition was transmitted verbatim. However, studies of oral tradition in general reveal that oral societies can transmit particular types of oral genres with amazing accuracy.

This doesn't make the story any less or any more correct. In the case of Papias he was in a worst posistion than Josephus.

Not necessarily true at all. In the case of Josephus, we have no knowledge of where he got his information. It could have been from reliable sources, or merely rumor floating around. However, Papias tells us quite clearly that he made sure he got his information from those who knew and received the Jesus tradition from Jesus' disciples themselves.

From what we can tell Papias was not a contemporary, he was even, from what we can tell, born after Josephus and admits to "remembering"...This is what is known as hearsay.

In a primarily oral society, that was how information was transmitted. All of our sources of ancient history depend at least in part on memory and hearsay. However, certain types of material in oral cultures are transmitted with great accuracy. For example, J. Vasina, in his book Oral Tradition as History, records that "in Hawaii a hymn of 618 lines was recorded which was identical with a version collected on the neighboring island of Oahu..." (p. 42). 618 lines memorized verbatim. This type of contral is entirely possible within oral societies with certain types of material. Althought the Jesus tradition was not controlled to this degree, it WAS controlled to some degree. Papias is one piece of evidence for this, because he tells us that, rather than just getting stories from anybody, he relied only on "authoritative" voices.

So he says. Because we have fragmented data we can't be sure what he really knew.

The issue isn't what he knew, but how he describes receiving his information. And there is no reason to distrust the fact that he perferred "living" voices over the gospels (which he knew). Such a bias against writing was common at that time.

There certainly wasn't a consensus of people that totally agreed with him.

What are you talking about? To speak of a consensus here is rather ridiculous. What evidence do we have that this alleged "consensus" (whatever that is) disagreed with Papias' statement on how he received his information?

We can tell that by the writings of Esuebius.

No we can't. You have misread Eusebius. He does say that Papias is sphodra gar toi smikros on ton noun, but the reason he insults his intelligence has nothing to do with Papias' method of obtaining information of Jesus' teachings, or a doubt that he did, but rather for Papias belief's concerning the time of Jesus' return and whatnot. Also, by Eusebius' time, the four gospels had acheived eminent status, and the fact that Papias records traditions which were not recorded in those gospels was something Eusebius objected to. However, Eusebius never states that he doubts Papias did receive the Jesus tradition from those he said he did; in fact, he uses Papias' statements about his receiving the tradition from those he did as proof that there were two John's.

And if Papias receive the Judas story from them then it shows but another "version" as to what supposedly happened to him. Both bible versions differ as well as the version Papias was given.

Absolutely. What happened to Judas, beyond his betrayal, seems not to have been known. So various traditions were suggested, all supporting the fact that he was "punished" (so to speak) for his betrayal. But this says nothing concerning the reliabilty of the transmission of Jesus' teachings, or even of his ministry in general. Only that where information wasn't available (such as for Jesus' birth) innovation formed an aspect of the Jesus tradition.

Again, I have no problem with how scholars come to the conclusion the a supposed historical figure could have possibly said the things that were attributed to him. At best it's guess work because there's no conclusive proof, assuming Jesus was a real person, said the things he did.

Again, all of it is guess work. You doubt that Papias' statements are true. Why not doubt everything said by every historian of the ancient world? How can we know? There is no "conclusive" proof of Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Josephus, Philo, etc. Supposedly we possess their writings. But how can we know they actually wrote them? We weren't there.

If you wish to exercise the same level of skeptism of the Jesus tradition on all of ancient history, that's fine. But at least be consistent. There is plently of evidence that Jesus not only existed, but that we can know a fair amount about him. How much is widely debated, but your using your level of skepticism virtually all of ancient history would be in doubt. Which is fine, as long as you are consistent. It doesn't seem like you are.

As far as Papias, he gives no such "evidence", he is giving all that he says he remembered receiving. He says out right that he was relying by "their account" that what they were telling him was the truth.

Again, your level of skepticism is inappropriate. In ancient times, people relied primarily on oral accounts. All historians, from Herodotus to Livy to Plutarch, made use of oral accounts. They had to. There simply wasn't enough written material. It has been demonstrated not only by studying oral tradition in ancient history, but also by studying it in modern illiterate cultures (see the example I gave above, and there are others) that oral traditions can be transmitted accurately. What Papias is saying is that there were particular people who were considered "authorities" when it came to the Jesus tradition. First the eye-witnesses, and then their disciples. He also says that he made sure to receive the Jesus tradition from the disciples of the eye-witnesses, rather than just anybody. Again, this is one line of evidence that demonstrates that within early christainity a certain amount of control was exercised on the Jesus tradition. And Papias is far later than the gospels.

Again, after reviewing his fragments there's not much there in the way of reliablility. He's repeating "to the best of his memory" the things he was told from those who supposedly received it from others who said they were followers of Jesus.

I have already given evidence that memory for oral traditions in oral societies is much better than our own, where we can always go to the newspaper, the book, the internet, or wherever. Teachers in the ancient world, from the ancient greeks to the later rabbis, made their followers MEMORIZE their teachings. Papias did the same with Jesus' teachings, from those who also would have been required to memorize teachings.

Once more, I can only say that your level of skepticism for all of christian documents (we can't trust Papias, we can't trust Josephus, we can't trust Paul, the gospels are completely untrustworthy, etc) is excessive, to say the least.

How much of ancient history have you studied?
What ancient biographies or histories have you read?
What ancient historical figures do believe we have sufficient evidence for to discuss their lives (other than those confirmed by archaeology), and why? Do you believe Socrates existed? How about Pythagoras?
What scholarship on oral tradition have you read?
What scholarship on the historical Jesus have you read?

 

[dogsgod]

Only that where information wasn't available (such as for Jesus' birth) innovation formed an aspect of the Jesus tradition.

This begs the question, "why wasn't information available?" Information of Jesus' birth could easily have been obtained, there would have been no need for innovation to form an aspect of the Jesus tradition in this regard. Mary, his mother, was at the crucifixion and met with the apostles soon after, along with the rest of Jesus' brothers and sisters, according to Acts. The people of Nazareth knew he was the carpenter's son. Believers argue that the James Paul refers to was a brother of Jesus so there would be no need to speculate as to when he was born and what took place and where etc. He was young when he died, family and townspeople were around for people to ask about his birth. What has to be explained is why these different birth stories. Considering that his birth details would have been no doubt very important to people, it seems odd that we have fictional accounts if the rest of the story is to be considered an account of actual events. The next obvious question is, what criteria are believers using to determine fact from fiction?

 

[Oberon]

This begs the question, "why wasn't information available?" Information of Jesus' birth could easily have been obtained, there would have been no need for innovation to form an aspect of the Jesus tradition in this regard.

Just because it could have been obtained, doesn't mean it was. It is entirely possible (and given the evidence probable) that the first generation of Christians did not care very much about Jesus' birth. Part of this may be that the bulk of Jesus' family/hometown rejected him. The passion narratives may contain some historical information, but they are clearly largely innovations. This means nothing when it comes to the reliability of other genres of oral traditions within the Jesus tradition, or other narratives.

Mary, his mother, was at the crucifixion and met with the apostles soon after, along with the rest of Jesus' brothers and sisters, according to Acts. The people of Nazareth knew he was the carpenter's son. Believers argue that the James Paul refers to was a brother of Jesus so there would be no need to speculate as to when he was born and what took place and where etc.

Again, just because people were around, doesn't mean that they were asked. We have evidence that Jesus' teachings were passed along by his followers, and that the tradition was controlled to a degree. We also have evidence that certain narratives were passed along with a fair degree of control (for example, the passion narrative goes back to the first layer of Christianity, and I already demonstrated that it is likely the narrative of the centurian was early, passed along orally, and controlled to a fair degree).

He was young when he died, family and townspeople were around for people to ask about his birth. What has to be explained is why these different birth stories.

Except that the townspeople rejected him, as did the bulk of his family. The differences in the birth stories may be explained by "innovation" in material that wasn't controlled.

Considering that his birth details would have been no doubt very important to people

Why? You are projecting later Christian concerns back onto the earliest layers (not the first time you have made anachronistic errors). The earliest Christian's were concerned with preaching the risen Jesus as Christ, and there was no reason to be concerned about his birth. In fact, we have evidence that the curiosity about Jesus' life prior to his mission grew over time (hence the far later childhood stories about Jesus). You are assuming (without basis) that his birth would have been important to the earliest christians, just because it was to later christianity.

it seems odd that we have fictional accounts if the rest of the story is to be considered an account of actual events.

Again, you are indicating you haven't studied ancient historical sources at all. Every ancient history contained unhistorical aspects (myth, rumor, fables, etc). All historians of this time period search through the histories of ancient authors to determine what is and isn't likely to be historical.

The next obvious question is, what criteria are believers using to determine fact from fiction?

That depends on whether by believers you mean Christians or historians.

As far as historians are concerned, there are many methods which are combined to determine reliability. One is studying oral traditions in general (either from modern oral cultures or ancient). Certain types of material are more likely to be accurately transmitted (for example, in the ancient world, from Greek philosophers to the early rabbis, these teachers made their followers/students/disciples MEMORIZE their teachings. This is ONE reason (there are others) that Jesus' teachings are more likely to have been accurately transmitted than particular events in his ministry.

Another is multiple attestation in the various traditions.

A third is descriptions of transmision of the Jesus traditions (e.g. in Paul, Luke/Acts, John, Papias, etc).

A fourth is material that coheres with an overall concept of Jesus (this criterion may only be applied after an initial sketch of Jesus has been established).

A fifth is the criterion of embarassment (parts of the tradition which make Jesus look bad, such as treatment by his family, is more likely to be historical).

And so on.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How exactly do we see that? The fragments we possess of Papias' work give us no detail on the commandments he recorded from Jesus, only that he did so from SPECIFIC people who were in a position to know. There is no evidence from his quotes that the commandments he refers to "change over time." Of course, it is unlikely in the extreme that all but a fraction of the Jesus tradition was transmitted verbatim. However, studies of oral tradition in general reveal that oral societies can transmit particular types of oral genres with amazing accuracy.

Then maybe you misunderstood me. Considering the four gospels along with some information in Acts as well as some of the information from Papias differ and they were written over a period of time, we can see that. It's without a doubt that each gospel was written at different points in time to different communities. Gazing upon Matthew, Luke and John it is easy to see how they progressed. I'm not, necessarily, saying it's a bad thing but one can see the difference. I accept that it, for the most part, could have been orally transmitted and that is most likely the reason for the different version of events. As far as "amazing degree of accuracy" then we agree to disagree here. I personally see the story of Herod setting out to kill the children 2yrs an younger and wanting the child Jesus brought to him either as orally reported to the writer of Matthew incorrect or was a fabrication...possibly by the writer. The story of the death of Judas, two different ones from the scriptures and a third from Papias,....are inconsistent in the transmission....and if what you say it true...that the people who supposedly gave the information to Papias was in the "position to know" and he reported things accurately then it may be possible that the two completely different accounts from the bible concerning the death of Judas were wrong. If only one is correct then how do we know? If neither is correct then how do we know?

Not necessarily true at all. In the case of Josephus, we have no knowledge of where he got his information. It could have been from reliable sources, or merely rumor floating around. However, Papias tells us quite clearly that he made sure he got his information from those who knew and received the Jesus tradition from Jesus' disciples themselves.

Interesting. It's somewhat....the things I have been saying. I've made room for Josephus, at least the one quote that doesn't seem to have been tampered with....but maintain that the information he does provide is hearsay. Your statement above seems to suggest that but there's been this huge discussion as the need for accepting what he says by you and others. I'm not totally saying we shouldn't but we should understand that it is hearsay. This goes for Papias as well.

In a primarily oral society, that was how information was transmitted. All of our sources of ancient history depend at least in part on memory and hearsay. However, certain types of material in oral cultures are transmitted with great accuracy. For example, J. Vasina, in his book Oral Tradition as History, records that "in Hawaii a hymn of 618 lines was recorded which was identical with a version collected on the neighboring island of Oahu..." (p. 42). 618 lines memorized verbatim. This type of contral is entirely possible within oral societies with certain types of material. Althought the Jesus tradition was not controlled to this degree, it WAS controlled to some degree. Papias is one piece of evidence for this, because he tells us that, rather than just getting stories from anybody, he relied only on "authoritative" voices.

I agree to an extent. this is evident when reading or hearing the recitation of the Quran. Followers of Islam are encouraged to remember the whole Quran. There are a lot that can still recite it today without reading from the book but in the case of the scriptures of the NT there were so many differing opinions or stories, orally and written. Maybe this is why by the third century there was a need to get the story straight, as church leaders saw it.

The issue isn't what he knew, but how he describes receiving his information. And there is no reason to distrust the fact that he perferred "living" voices over the gospels (which he knew). Such a bias against writing was common at that time.

No problem...Now was it a problem with the written word or was it that most were illiterate? As far as bias, I can agree but there was certainly a need or a push to preserve information in written form and copy it over and over and over.....

What are you talking about? To speak of a consensus here is rather ridiculous. What evidence do we have that this alleged "consensus" (whatever that is) disagreed with Papias' statement on how he received his information?

I was going off of how Esubeius felt. Not saying he was right or wrong but merely showing that he thought Papias took things too literal thus he did not agree.

No we can't. You have misread Eusebius. He does say that Papias is sphodra gar toi smikros on ton noun, but the reason he insults his intelligence has nothing to do with Papias' method of obtaining information of Jesus' teachings, or a doubt that he did, but rather for Papias belief's concerning the time of Jesus' return and whatnot. Also, by Eusebius' time, the four gospels had acheived eminent status, and the fact that Papias records traditions which were not recorded in those gospels was something Eusebius objected to. However, Eusebius never states that he doubts Papias did receive the Jesus tradition from those he said he did; in fact, he uses Papias' statements about his receiving the tradition from those he did as proof that there were two John's.

Then maybe I should have rephrased what I said. I agree, for the most part, with your statement above. Eusebius seemed to take issue with how literal Papais was interpreting things he believed he heard.

Again, all of it is guess work.

I agree.

You doubt that Papias' statements are true. Why not doubt everything said by every historian of the ancient world? How can we know? There is no "conclusive" proof of Plato, Aristotle, Virgil, Josephus, Philo, etc. Supposedly we possess their writings. But how can we know they actually wrote them? We weren't there.

I've always maintained Josephus' statements concerning Jesus to be suspect. As far as everyone else......all others aren't the focus of this debate.

If you wish to exercise the same level of skeptism of the Jesus tradition on all of ancient history, that's fine. But at least be consistent. There is plently of evidence that Jesus not only existed, but that we can know a fair amount about him. How much is widely debated, but your using your level of skepticism virtually all of ancient history would be in doubt. Which is fine, as long as you are consistent. It doesn't seem like you are.

Where have I given any indication that I haven't been consistent with other supposed historical figures? I think you have me confused with someone else. I've primarily been discussing Jesus, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Josephus, Papias, Herod......So I have been consistent and don't believe I have mentioned or even had a need to mention Plato and the rest....reason being is because at this point they have no bearing on this debate.

Once more, I can only say that your level of skepticism for all of christian documents (we can't trust Papias, we can't trust Josephus, we can't trust Paul, the gospels are completely untrustworthy, etc) is excessive, to say the least.

Well I don't think I've said this but a fair amount of skepticism is needed. There are those who blindly believe the supposed historicity of events in the bible...especially the christians who believe the stories in the four gospels. But as I said...there are events in the four gospels that can not be corroborated with the external history surrounding them (Herod's hit on the children 2yrs and younger). We have seen that interpolation has crept into the scriptures. Portions of Mark have been regarded as being added later. Certain verses from John have been taken out and ruled as (interpolations). We Atheist didn't do that. Christians from different denomination came to this consensus. Had it not been discovered..people would simply still be believing it was factual/historical information and would still be citing it as a proof. You've made the claim that Jesus is historical. I (personally) don't truly believe it but I think it's possible that a simple man by the name Yeshua lived and was an activist but there's been an extraordinary story and claims built up around him to the point of deifying him. I'm skeptical but concede to the possibility.

 

[dogsgod]

So, oral tradition is a matter of convenience. It doesn't come into account in the case of the birth stories because two gospel omissions and two very different gospel accounts don't support the reliability of oral tradition, let alone the existence in this case. People that would have cared didn't care enough to ask his surviving members and associates about his birth if only to know how old he was when he died, but those that did write about him knew that people would want to know so they made his birth stories up. This sounds contradictory, and more like excuses than anything based on sound scholarship. The writings that we have should lead us to conclusions what ever they may be, rather than for us to make excuses in order for these stories to fit our preconceived notions about what is history.

 

[Oberon]

Considering the four gospels along with some information in Acts as well as some of the information from Papias differ and they were written over a period of time, we can see that.

What I was objecting to is that we know virtually nothing of what Papias says concerning the Jesus tradition, only how he obtained it. So we can't know how similar or different is from the gospels.

As far as the differences between the gospels, many of them are unimporant, particularly when it comes to judging the accuracy of transmission of the Jesus tradition. For example, differences in sayings or parables of Jesus, as well as minor variation in events, are part of oral tradition. Verbatim transmission is fairly rare, but overall accuracy with the oral genres of the gospels is common. This is particularly true as Jesus probably repeated his parables and teachings over and over (a common teaching method from the ancient Greeks to the later rabbis), and so these sayings varied in minor details even when Jesus was speaking them.

Other differences, such as chronology or geography, are almost always also unrelated to the accuracy of the oral tradition, because the overall narrative (along with many of the places, times, etc) has been grafted on by the gospel authors. In other words, they arranged independent traditions into an ordered account, and the variety in the ordering says nothing about the reliability of the independent sayings/teachings/narratives/etc within the overall narrative.

It's without a doubt that each gospel was written at different points in time to different communities. Gazing upon Matthew, Luke and John it is easy to see how they progressed.

I wouldn't use the word "progressed" (except perhaps with John). Each gospel author utilized the tradition in a particular way, some included materials others didn't, all arranged the material differently, and all added personal touches, but this isn't necessarily "progression" in the tradition. Rather, it is what happens when various ancient authors attempted to weave together independent accounts into on work.

As far as "amazing degree of accuracy" then we agree to disagree here.

I don't think I used that phrase to describe the gospels (or if I did, allow me to clarify). I believe I said that oral tradition in general can be transmitted with "an amazing degree of accuracy." As I said before, the teachings and sayings of Jesus are the most reliably transmitted, because Jesus himself began these oral traditions when he taught, and his followers would have heard them over and over, and may have even been required to memorize them (some scholars have argued that it is possible that, like later students of rabbis, some of Jesus' disciples would have taken notes on his teachings). Events were less likely to be transmitted accurately, because although they may have been added to a growing oral tradition while Jesus was still alive, events happen only once, and even eyewitnesses miss things or misunderstand things or in general make errors.

I personally see the story of Herod setting out to kill the children 2yrs an younger and wanting the child Jesus brought to him either as orally reported to the writer of Matthew incorrect or was a fabrication...possibly by the writer.

I think it likely that Matthew and Luke were written independent of each other (and this is the scholarly consensus as well) and therefore the birth narratives were based on earlier oral tradition. However, unlike a good deal of the rest of the story, there are a number of reasons to suspect innovation and fabrication here:

1) We know that some of the information is unhistorical from other sources (e.g. the census)
2) The later Christians (2nd and 3rd generation) had a good reason to come up with a story that placed Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, not Nazareth, because it was hicksville and the messiah wasn't supposed to come from there.
3) The earliest christians, as I said before, showed little interest in the birth of Jesus, but the curiosity as to the missing parts of the story seems to have grown over time.
4) Unlike with the passion narratives, which even in Mark are evidence of a very early tradition (referenced in Paul) the birth narratives differ widely and are missing in Mark and John.

The story of the death of Judas, two different ones from the scriptures and a third from Papias,....are inconsistent in the transmission....

Not so... see below

and if what you say it true...that the people who supposedly gave the information to Papias was in the "position to know"

They were in a position to know Jesus and his teachings. That is what I am arguing was reliably transmitted (along with some events that happened during his mission)

and he reported things accurately then it may be possible that the two completely different accounts from the bible concerning the death of Judas were wrong. If only one is correct then how do we know? If neither is correct then how do we know?

We don't. What seems likely, given the various versions, is that no one knew what happened to Judas after the betrayel. As I said above, like the birth narratives this isn't something that the papias or the gospel authors would necessarily be in a position to know, and it appears they didn't. Like all ancient historians, however, they filled in gaps, and so did the Jesus tradition in general. What is important is that the gaps are those parts that occured apart from Jesus' followers, and the bulk of his teaching, his trial and his crucifixion, probably (certainly with his teaching) or possibly happened in the presence of some of his followers. Gaps (like the exchange between Pilate and Jesus) were probably added very early to the tradition, because the passion narrative is one of the oldest layers of the gospels.

Interesting. It's somewhat....the things I have been saying. I've made room for Josephus, at least the one quote that doesn't seem to have been tampered with....but maintain that the information he does provide is hearsay. Your statement above seems to suggest that but there's been this huge discussion as the need for accepting what he says by you and others. I'm not totally saying we shouldn't but we should understand that it is hearsay. This goes for Papias as well.

What we can know with a fair degree of certainty is that Josephus was aware of a man named Jesus who created a stirr shortly before his time. Also, his followers (like James) were still present during Josephus' time. But I have never used Josephus as a primary source for understanding Jesus.

but in the case of the scriptures of the NT there were so many differing opinions or stories, orally and written.

Not necessarily. See my remarks on oral variation earlier in this post.

Maybe this is why by the third century there was a need to get the story straight, as church leaders saw it.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the formation of canon or doctrine (or something else).

No problem...Now was it a problem with the written word or was it that most were illiterate?

This is a bit difficult to know with certainty, as the reasons given very, and they appear sometimes to have been made up just to explain an underlying bias. I think that it is simply the mark of a primarily oral culture, that could not yet appreciate the fact that a written account can always be checked. Also, written accounts always made use of oral accounts.

Think of it a bit like those who prefer face to face conversations rather than emails. You can get so much more from talking to someone then from what they wrote down. I think it was this type of thinking that made the ancient historians (and everyone else in that time) prefer accounts from people (personal accounts, eyewitness accounts, or accounts from those who received it from the eyewitnesses).

As far as bias, I can agree but there was certainly a need or a push to preserve information in written form and copy it over and over and over.....

The push was not just about "preserving information" (although this was certainly a part of, it particularly as eye-witnesses died off) but to disseminate information to various communities or people (this is true not just of christian literature but all of ancient literature).

I was going off of how Esubeius felt. Not saying he was right or wrong but merely showing that he thought Papias took things too literal thus he did not agree.

True enough. But what is important is that he didn't disagree that Papias had access to those he said he did.

Then maybe I should have rephrased what I said. I agree, for the most part, with your statement above. Eusebius seemed to take issue with how literal Papais was interpreting things he believed he heard.

Agreed.

I've always maintained Josephus' statements concerning Jesus to be suspect. As far as everyone else......all others aren't the focus of this debate.

I'm not talking about his statements, I'm saying how can you prove he ever existed (or any of the others I mentioned)? We have documents by people who "claim" to be so-and-so, but how do we know? In other words, you can't "prove" anything in history (hence the ridiculous people who deny the holocaust).

 

[Oberon]

Where have I given any indication that I haven't been consistent with other supposed historical figures? I think you have me confused with someone else. I've primarily been discussing Jesus, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Josephus, Papias, Herod......So I have been consistent and don't believe I have mentioned or even had a need to mention Plato and the rest....reason being is because at this point they have no bearing on this debate.

I am not saying that you have made the same mistakes or errors that logician and dogsgod have, nor am I putting you in that category. I respect you and your position, I just don't think that you have read a great deal of things which would help you to understand the issues

Basically, you are exercising a skepticism of the gospels which is excessive. If the same level were applied all of ancient history, we would have to write it all off (or most of it). I think that an aspect of this is because you may be unfamiliar with ancient literature and ancient history. All of it has to be sorted through to determine historicity, but just because a lot of myths and fables are reported by historians doesn't mean we should reject everything they say. I asked if you believe in Socrates, because like Jesus we have nothing written by him, and the accounts by those who "supposedly" knew him are all completely different (although of course Socrates is historical).

Well I don't think I've said this but a fair amount of skepticism is needed.

Absolutely. That is why it is important to use every tool at are disposal (anthropology, sociology, literary theory, textual analysis, criteria of historicity, models of orality, etc) in order to determine what is most likely historical in the gospels (as in all ancient documents).

There are those who blindly believe the supposed historicity of events in the bible...especially the christians who believe the stories in the four gospels. But as I said...there are events in the four gospels that can not be corroborated with the external history surrounding them (Herod's hit on the children 2yrs and younger). We have seen that interpolation has crept into the scriptures. Portions of Mark have been regarded as being added later. Certain verses from John have been taken out and ruled as (interpolations). We Atheist didn't do that. Christians from different denomination came to this consensus. Had it not been discovered..people would simply still be believing it was factual/historical information and would still be citing it as a proof.

Again, what you are describing is typical of ancient history. Ancient texts of all sorts were altered by error (and for other reasons) as they were copied and transmitted. Historical accounts disagreed (this is true even of modern historical scholarship). There were errors in historical accounts (again true of a lot of works which are passed of as histories today, such as logicians "The Jesus Mysteries). Fables and Myths and whatnot were treated ast history. But this doesn't mean we can reject ever document written prior (and even after) to the so-called "enlightenment" as spurious or ahistorical. They all have to be parsed for accuracy.

You've made the claim that Jesus is historical. I (personally) don't truly believe it but I think it's possible that a simple man by the name Yeshua lived and was an activist but there's been an extraordinary story and claims built up around him to the point of deifying him. I'm skeptical but concede to the possibility.

I would really suggest that if you are at all interested in the topic and the reason for the vast consensus of historicity you acquaint yourself with a fair amount of scholarship on ancient history in general and Jesus research in particular.

 

[Oberon]

So, oral tradition is a matter of convenience. It doesn't come into account in the case of the birth stories because two gospel omissions and two very different gospel accounts don't support the reliability of oral tradition, let alone the existence in this case.

Once again, you show a total lack of knowledge of the subject. The reliability of oral transmission (cross-culturally) varies by genre. Throughout the ancient world, teachers made their disciples/students memorize their teachings. The genre of oral tradition most likely to be reliably transmitted (not only for this reason, but also because Jesus as a teacher certainly repeated his teachings, and because he specifically addressed his followers with them). Events which happened during Jesus' ministry are next. They are not as likely to be transmitted accurately, and innovation forms a greater part of oral historical narrative, but the core of many oral historical narratives (again this is confirmed not only study of ancient orality but by modern anthropology), and often even more, is reliably transmitted.

People that would have cared didn't care enough to ask his surviving members and associates about his birth

Wrong. By the time even Mark was written (c. 69) most of those who would have known about Jesus' birth were no longer alive (some of the eyewitnesses no doubt were, but as I said they neither knew about Jesus' birth nor cared, being concerned with preaching him as the risen Christ and passing on his teachings). So who was surviving that could have been asked? See my post above for the likely origins of this particular oral narrative.

if only to know how old he was when he died

Who cares? This comment, like so many you have made before, shows a total lack of knowledge on this subject and all of ancient history.

but those that did write about him knew that people would want to know so they made his birth stories up. .

Wrong again. It isn't that the gospel authors "made up" his birth stories (the fact that Matthew and Luke are likely independent of eachother and yet both contain birth narratives makes it likely that such narratives were being passed around) to satisfy the curiosity of other people. Christians in general began to get more curious about parts missing from the Jesus tradition, which was based on his short ministry. So they began to add to it. This says nothing about the reliability of other genre or aspects of the tradition.

This sounds contradictory, and more like excuses than anything based on sound scholarship

The writings that we have should lead us to conclusions what ever they may be, rather than for us to make excuses in order for these stories to fit our preconceived notions about what is history.

They aren't "preconceived notions" you just haven't read any scholarship in this area or any primary sources of ancient history, so you wouldn't know. And plenty of conclusions can be, and have been, made.

 

[Quagmire]

This begs the question, "why wasn't information available?"

Part of the reason (a big reason) information wouldn't have been all that readily available is that the gospels were written after the Ist Jewish war (66-73 CE).

The conflict decimated Judea; over a million people killed, something like 100,000 sold in slavery, no one knows how many people escaped into exile.

Whole villages were destroyed, entire clans were wiped out; the Romans took particular care to exterminate anyone with any claims of descent from David, which would include any kin to Jesus (if the you go by the gospels account).

Also consider; this would have been 30 to 40 years after the crucifixion; any eye witnesses would have had to have been (by the standard of the time) elderly or at least in advanced middle age, therefore less likely to have survived the war and all that went with it.

 

[dogsgod]

Part of the reason (a big reason) information wouldn't have been all that readily available is that the gospels were written after the Ist Jewish war (66-73 CE).

The conflict decimated Judea; over a million people killed, something like 100,000 sold in slavery, no one knows how many people escaped into exile.

Whole villages were destroyed, entire clans were wiped out; the Romans took particular care to exterminate anyone with any claims of descent from David, which would include any kin to Jesus (if the you go by the gospels account).

Also consider; this would have been 30 to 40 years after the crucifixion; any eye witnesses would have had to have been (by the standard of the time) elderly or at least in advanced middle age, therefore less likely to have survived the war and all that went with it.

The question arose from Oberon's line of reasoning that made no sense.

 

[dogsgod]

Basically, you are exercising a skepticism of the gospels which is excessive.

I have to laugh. When we start reading about the heavens parting and a booming voice heard coming from above, a man that calms the seas, raises the dead, how possible is it to be too sceptical? There is nothing that allows us to assume we are reading anything that relates to an actual person in history, nothing in this story points to actual events, and no amount of faith in oral tradition changes that.

Other myths get the same treatment, it takes more than an unsubstantiated myth to be accepted as an historical account of actual events and persons.