The Jesus Myth

[AmbiguousGuy]

First off, why do you think that this sort of borrowing, which was common in the ancient world, supports your "arguments" (and I use the term loosely)?

It's one leg of my millipedic theory regarding the non-historicity of Jesus. I've explained already -- very clearly -- why it supports my theory, but I suppose I'll suck it up and do so one more time.

The only place I've seen precise tracking of language -- integrated within the text -- of a story, is with rewrites of fiction. I write fiction. I have boxes of old manuscripts which are filled with rewrites containing that kind of language-tracking. But I've seen it nowhere else -- not even in plagiarism really. A plagiarist will steal one particular stretch of text, but his entire text will not be infused with such thieveries from start to finish.

That happens with fiction rewrites, in my experiences. It could happen in non-fiction, of course, but that would be much more rare.

Is my position clear to you now?

Now, you say above that this kind of borrowing "was common". But if that is true, why will no one point me to the evidence of it, which I've been requesting repeatedly?

Why not just provide the evidence?

Second, You didn't imply borrowing in the beginning. You implied plagiarism. In case you hadn't noticed, words do have meaning, and when you say things you don't mean, it only adds to your confusion.

I'm afraid you're confused about language. Words mean what any two dialoguers agree that the words mean, not what some particular dictionary claims they mean.

You stepped into one of my dialogues insisting that I use the word as you prefer, rather than how my dialogue partner and I were using it.

A belief in holy word meaning will confuse the human mind. Trust me.

What, specifically, do you find plagiaristic about the synoptics?

The parts which you agreed were copied from one to the other.

 

[outhouse]

Is my position clear to you now?

I followed this whole thread in the background and have a hard time putting together your recreation of history.

This is full of gray areas BUT most scholars flow down the middle of these trails and give explanations why. Some are far right and some are full tilt left. Despite where they sit in this, one can learn volumes if one keeps a open mind.

I started out butting heads with Falling blood, Oberon and Angellous. Now I find them to be most valuable resource at this website for what intrest me. You dont have to agree with what part of the gray area they each follow but creating your own HWY down the trail they have years of study behind ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, does not change historicity

 

[sojourner]

The only place I've seen precise tracking of language -- integrated within the text -- of a story, is with rewrites of fiction. I write fiction. I have boxes of old manuscripts which are filled with rewrites containing that kind of language-tracking. But I've seen it nowhere else -- not even in plagiarism really. A plagiarist will steal one particular stretch of text, but his entire text will not be infused with such thieveries from start to finish.

I'm sorry that you have so little experience with ancient literature. But your particular lack of experience doesn't mean that it's not the way way it is.

Now, you say above that this kind of borrowing "was common". But if that is true, why will no one point me to the evidence of it, which I've been requesting repeatedly?

Why not just provide the evidence?

Look at the OT. The flood story is a "rewrite" of the Gilgamesh epic, for example. You might want to pick up a copy of Old Testament Parallels by Dr. Victor Matthews. He has researched this very phenomenon extensively.

you have to remember that the Bible stories came out of oral transmission -- people told stories. Eventually, those stories got written down. The reason why (for example) there are two different creation myths is because both traditions were preserved by the writers. The gospels are no different. The three writers simply borrowed from earlier stories. Mark and Q are separate. Matthew and Luke borrow extensively from both. Thomas and Q seem to have an early common thread.

There's nothing historically, ethically, or morally wrong with this kind of borrowing from earlier story. Many scholars are of the opinion that all of the synoptics were originally oral in nature, and not written. That being the case, there would be a strong possibility of borrowing among the oral storytellers. To raise this issue as a specter does not help your argument. The stories are not "fiction" -- they're not meant to be fiction, they weren't told as fiction. Luke, in fact, reads exactly like ancient history -- and he claims it to be history. And we have to treat it as such, knowing that, to these ancient historians, the story is far more important than the bald details.

 

[outhouse]

Look at the OT. The flood story is a "rewrite" of the Gilgamesh epic, for example.

I go with all 3 sumerian flood myths, the oldest really puts it together

The stories are not "fiction" -- they're not meant to be fiction, they weren't told as fiction

only problem i found is you cannot prove one way or another the exact content of fiction.

I dont make a claim of zero fiction or %100 and I find the exact same thing true for nonfiction

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Look at the OT. The flood story is a "rewrite" of the Gilgamesh epic, for example.

It's just absolutely amazing. I am talking about X, but I can't get a single person to talk about X with me. They all insist that Y is perfectly fine and why do I object to it. Yikes. What is this about?

What on earth does the Flood "rewrite" of Gilgamesh have to do with tracked language in 3 different texts?

You might want to pick up a copy of Old Testament Parallels by Dr. Victor Matthews. He has researched this very phenomenon extensively.

I have no interest in Dr. Matthews' discussion of Y. Nor do I understand why you've pointed me to a book which has nothing to do with my issue.

I find this ducking of my issue just downright bizarre. I'm sorry. I can't express it any other way.

you have to remember that the Bible stories came out of oral transmission -- people told stories. Eventually, those stories got written down. The reason why (for example) there are two different creation myths is because both traditions were preserved by the writers. The gospels are no different. The three writers simply borrowed from earlier stories. Mark and Q are separate. Matthew and Luke borrow extensively from both. Thomas and Q seem to have an early common thread.

OK, but I sure wish you'd talk about my actual issue.

I'm not interested in retellings of old stories -- not unless the language is tracked throughout the different versions.

I ask you and everyone else for the half-dozenth time: DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF 3 DIFFERENT TEXTS, TELLING THE SAME STORY, IN WHICH THE SAME LANGUAGE IS TRACKED THROUGHOUT THE STORIES.

Simple question, sojourner. Why won't you answer it?

There's nothing historically, ethically, or morally wrong with this kind of borrowing from earlier story. Many scholars are of the opinion that all of the synoptics were originally oral in nature, and not written. That being the case, there would be a strong possibility of borrowing among the oral storytellers. To raise this issue as a specter does not help your argument. The stories are not "fiction" -- they're not meant to be fiction, they weren't told as fiction. Luke, in fact, reads exactly like ancient history -- and he claims it to be history. And we have to treat it as such, knowing that, to these ancient historians, the story is far more important than the bald details.

You really have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? You're entirely lost.

Well, I have no idea why you are so lost. I've said it as clearly and as often as I can possibly say it.

You're welcome to ask questions, though, if you have any interest in figuring out what I'm actually talking about.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I followed this whole thread in the background and have a hard time putting together your recreation of history.

I don't doubt that, outhouse.

This is full of gray areas BUT most scholars flow down the middle of these trails and give explanations why. Some are far right and some are full tilt left. Despite where they sit in this, one can learn volumes if one keeps a open mind.

OK. I hope you can keep an open mind then. Good luck with it.

I started but butting heads with Falling blood, Oberon and Angellous. Now I find them to be most valuable resource at this website for what intrest me. You dont have to agree with what part of the gray area they each follow but creating your own HWY down the trail they have years of study behind ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, does not change historicity

Huh? I have no idea what you are saying. Are you possibly holding that history is "true" if enough people believe and argue that it is true?

Really, I can't understand what you might be trying to tell me.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

By the way, outhouse, can you answer my oft-asked question?

Can you show me three books by three different authors -- in which the very same language strings appear repeatedly in all three books?

Heck, I'm ready to lower my expectations.

Can you show me any two such books?

(Other than the synoptic gospels, I mean.)

 

[sojourner]

What on earth does the Flood "rewrite" of Gilgamesh have to do with tracked language in 3 different texts?

Because it's a perfect example of what you're really talking about: A rewrite of an older, oral story. The Bible's full of them. You asked for examples...now you're unhappy when you get them.

Nor do I understand why you've pointed me to a book which has nothing to do with my issue.

It has everything to do with your issue: That of borrowing from other sources in the writing of ancient literature.

I'm not interested in retellings of old stories -- not unless the language is tracked throughout the different versions.

Perhaps not always the language -- but there are many examples in the OT, besides the flood epic, that tracks language across 3 -- sometimes 4 accounts of the same incident. That's one reason why the Bible is so "full of contradictions" -- the same story is told several times with some elements changed. The editors did that, because they wanted all the tradition to be included -- even if contradicts. It's the same with the gospels.

I ask you and everyone else for the half-dozenth time: DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF 3 DIFFERENT TEXTS, TELLING THE SAME STORY, IN WHICH THE SAME LANGUAGE IS TRACKED THROUGHOUT THE STORIES.

Simple question, sojourner. Why won't you answer it?

Can't remember precisely where they're located, but yes, there is precedent for that in some of the OT texts. In one story, God directs the Hebrews to destroy a city, so they do. One account talks about total destruction. Another account talks about partial destruction. A third account has some specific demographic saved.

You really have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? You're entirely lost.

Well, I have no idea why you are so lost. I've said it as clearly and as often as I can possibly say it.

Perhaps it's because the language you're using is not specific to what you're asking?

 

[outhouse]

Can you show me three books by three different authors -- in which the very same language strings appear repeatedly in all three books?

mark, matthew, luke

 

[outhouse]

Perhaps not always the language -- but there are many examples in the OT, besides the flood epic, that tracks language across 3 -- sometimes 4 accounts of the same incident. That's one reason why the Bible is so "full of contradictions" -- the same story is told several times with some elements changed. The editors did that, because they wanted all the tradition to be included -- even if contradicts. It's the same with the gospels.

exactly

the first five books are a fragmented melting pot of two books telling almost the same storys.

in the end there are 5 authors if you count the redactor

two different creation and flood storys

 

[angellous_evangellous]

it is mind boggling to me you have all this knowledge about the potential of people's literacy but no idea how to turn this information into useable data.
ball park it.
say there were 120k jews that saw jesus.

I would say that would be demographically impossible.

 

[fallingblood]

OK, but I sure wish you'd talk about my actual issue.

I'm not interested in retellings of old stories -- not unless the language is tracked throughout the different versions.

I ask you and everyone else for the half-dozenth time: DO YOU HAVE EVIDENCE OF 3 DIFFERENT TEXTS, TELLING THE SAME STORY, IN WHICH THE SAME LANGUAGE IS TRACKED THROUGHOUT THE STORIES.

Simple question, sojourner. Why won't you answer it?

Here is what you are looking for. I and II Kings, compared to I and II Chronicles. Both used the same sources, which "the same language is tracked throughout the stories." We do not have this original source, but it is alluded to in the sources that we have. I/II Kings and I/II Chronicles tell the same story, they use the same sources (or at least some of the same sources), and they use many of the same phrases etc. It is a perfect match to what you are looking for. Why? Because the language, in using your words, is tracked throughout the stories.

Also, you shouldn't be looking for three texts, but actually two texts. Because Mark is simply used as a source. Matthew and Luke copied, or used Mark as a source.

Also, the rewrites that you have been talking about, usually are done by the same author. Otherwise, it is plagiarism. With the synoptics, we aren't talking about the same author. We are talking about three authors. So your comparison to rewrites simply is a false comparison. Unless you are talking specifically of one person taking another person's story, and copying it. As in plagiarism. And that would be massive plagiarism, as in copying nearly a whole other text, and placing that in your text. Again, most rewrites are done by the same author. If they aren't, then they are usually falls under plagiarism.

Now, can you move onto your other supposed arguments. I have already offered a rebuttal to the 5 other arguments you posed. Maybe you can finally address those.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

mark, matthew, luke

Those are the synoptic gospels, outhouse. You might want to research what that modifier means.

Those three gospels track language (in the manner of plagiariam) from text to text.

 

[Embarkon]

A the mysteries of the Q source, and the viability of the synoptic gospels.trying to proof the historical Christ man- laughable attempts at undermining Christendom as usual- very much so
Perhaps we should be looking at whethr or not what we are seeing infront our eyes is true or just an illusion put there

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Because it's a perfect example of what you're really talking about: A rewrite of an older, oral story. The Bible's full of them. You asked for examples...now you're unhappy when you get them.

Now I don't think you're serious. Sorry. I think you know exactly what I'm talking about but don't wish to address it.

I ask for examples of text-wide plagiarism and you point me to Apocolypse Now and claim that it's a retelling of Heart of Darkness... and that you're answering my request.

How very odd.

Perhaps not always the language -- but there are many examples in the OT, besides the flood epic, that tracks language across 3 -- sometimes 4 accounts of the same incident. That's one reason why the Bible is so "full of contradictions" -- the same story is told several times with some elements changed. The editors did that, because they wanted all the tradition to be included -- even if contradicts. It's the same with the gospels

So you acknowledge that the Bible is the only place you can find these plagiarisms?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Here is what you are looking for. I and II Kings, compared to I and II Chronicles. Both used the same sources, which "the same language is tracked throughout the stories." We do not have this original source, but it is alluded to in the sources that we have. I/II Kings and I/II Chronicles tell the same story, they use the same sources (or at least some of the same sources), and they use many of the same phrases etc. It is a perfect match to what you are looking for. Why? Because the language, in using your words, is tracked throughout the stories.

Thank you, Blood. I feel like someone has finally addressed my issue head on. And I'll take your word for the tracked language, pending verification later.

So we are agreed that -- at least so far -- the only place we can find this tracked language from book to book is in the Bible. And only in two places in the Bible.

As I say, the only other place I've found this phenomenon is in the back of fictionalist's closets.

Also, you shouldn't be looking for three texts, but actually two texts. Because Mark is simply used as a source. Matthew and Luke copied, or used Mark as a source.

Sure. But I'd also need the first text.

Also, the rewrites that you have been talking about, usually are done by the same author. Otherwise, it is plagiarism. With the synoptics, we aren't talking about the same author. We are talking about three authors. So your comparison to rewrites simply is a false comparison. Unless you are talking specifically of one person taking another person's story, and copying it. As in plagiarism.

That is precisely what I'm talking about. And if you'll allow me a bit of complaint, it's what I discussed in my very first proposal of this idea. Remember how you kept instructing me not to 'retroject my modern ideas of plagiarism' and such, as if I'd just that moment fallen off the turnip truck? (I forgive you, by the way. We'd just that moment met.)

And that would be massive plagiarism, as in copying nearly a whole other text, and placing that in your text.

Yep. Ancient times weren't like today. Nothing to stop a plagiarist from doing that.

Remember my idea of a "gospel-writing cottage industry"?

Now, can you move onto your other supposed arguments. I have already offered a rebuttal to the 5 other arguments you posed. Maybe you can finally address those.

I don't know, man. It really is like pulling teeth with you guys. Look how much energy you've sucked away from me just to get you to answer my first point.

But if you want to repost my Item #2 with your rebuttal, I'll address it. I'm not much good at navigating the forum yet, or I'd try to reconstruct it.

 

[jelly]

it is mind boggling to me you have all this knowledge about the potential of people's literacy but no idea how to turn this information into useable data.
ball park it.
say there were 120k jews that saw jesus.

I would say that would be demographically impossible.

you could be wrong, I am figuring that 60k jews lived in jerusalem and 60k jews visited jerusalem during the time jesus supposedly existed...
I really don't know much about the story, so I am saying jerusalem.
heck the story goes he feed 5k why not shake 125k hands?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

exactly

the first five books are a fragmented melting pot of two books telling almost the same storys.

in the end there are 5 authors if you count the redactor

two different creation and flood storys

Note that all of those stories are almost certainly fiction. They hold even less historical truth than the Jesus Story, in my opinion.

 

[fallingblood]

you could be wrong, I am figuring that 60k jews lived in jerusalem and 60k jews visited jerusalem during the time jesus supposedly existed...
I really don't know much about the story, so I am saying jerusalem.
heck the story goes he feed 5k why not shake 125k hands?

Five thousand was not an exact number. It more referred to that there was a multitude. Exact numbers are debatable.

As for 60k Jews in Jerusalem, that would not mean they would all meet Jesus. I live in a town of about 100k. I have only met a small minority of the people who live here. And that is even with me doing entertainment shows. One will not meet everyone in their city.

As for 60k entering Jerusalem, they also would not have all met Jesus. I think the rally in Sturgis, SD is a great example there. Over the years, I have done various performances during the motorcycle rally in Sturgis. There we are talking about 800,000 people who visited last here. On average, it has been above half a million visitors in the last few years.

Now, even during performance, and having a steady crowd in my audience, I did not even meet a minority of the people who came to the rally. It simply is too many people. The same would have been true for Jesus. It's just too many people, and many of those people would have had little interest in Jesus.

As for your numbers, I would say they are quite off. Tacitus put the population at around 600,000, and Josephus put it at around 1.1 million. Now, those numbers are debatable, and most likely are not accurate. However, they do suggest a population much greater than 60k. As for people entering into Jerusalem for the festival, that can be increased as well. So there would have been a lot more people in Jerusalem for the event. Meaning, Jesus would just be one more religious preacher who got lost in the crowd.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Many scholars are of the opinion that all of the synoptics were originally oral in nature, and not written. That being the case, there would be a strong possibility of borrowing among the oral storytellers.

So you think that within 20-40 years of Jesus's purported death, formalized oral stories had come into existence? Stories which were chanted perhaps, and therefore didn't change much in word-form?

And that the synoptic gospelers may have been writing down those stories verbatim?

I see no reason to believe such a thing. So far as I know, oral stories take much longer to settle into form.

Any why would the locals be creating oral stories of a preacher who wasn't even noteworthy enough to gain the attention of the local historians?