Josephus and other contemporaries on Jesus

[The Grand Nudger]

I appreciate that you see it that way, but theres no requirement that it be that way...not even in the christian faith.  One of the greatest pieces of scholarship done on this story as allegory was published by the anglican review.  

Moving forward..to the miraculous details.  There are two in the narrative.  First off, the usual fodder.  Healings.  This was a tent revival after all. 

That;s pretty much par for the course, but the actual feeding of the multitudes is different on two important counts.  We;ve already discussed the theological metaphors..and in this the feeding is far more pregnant than some standard healer routine.  It even gets treated as such in the story. "Jesus was somewhere healing folks...and then something -miraculous- happened!". The second..and important difference, is in the nature of the miracle and its relationship to the narrative itself.  

Now, it;s conceivable that a large group of people might believe that they have been healed or seen a healing (it happens everyday..somewhere in the south).  The reasons for this are profligate.  That many people being fed from nothing..however, is not such an easy lift.  It;s not the kind of thing people mis-remember.  Its not something that can be an issue of misdiagnosis.  More amusingly..its not even the kind of thing the crowds would have thought was a miracle....if you;re paying close attention to the story.  From their point of view..some dudes were handing out food.  It;s only the privileged knowledge of the apostles which makes this miraculous.  

This is important to a legendary reading as opposed to a mythical reading.A legendary miracle of this kind would be one with..perhaps..embellishment, individual flair, some composite characters...but in the end, it would be based on some actual thing that people believed they had seen.  Later stories based on the stories of that person.  A mythological miracle would be one tailor made to fit theology....not necessarily based  on anything that happened or any persons actions.

[Amarok]

Or it could be totally made up by non witnesses based itself on stories that someone made up and that's why the details don't match.

[The Grand Nudger]

The details don;t match (when they don;t - and they largely do) based upon the subtle differences between the theology and christology of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John.  Additionally, because each of the authors was writing from a different time and place, and different circumstances..to a different audience.  Mark was likely a gentile christian in rome.  Mathew a jewish christian in syria.  Luke..maybe rome, but maybe ceasarea.  John, ephesus.

Brings us round to some narrative points of interest.  There are differences in each unique to the authors..but none are in the first person.  There are no I"s or "we"s...hell, john is a mind reader on the level of professor xavier.  Elements of hellenic syncretism are presnt in all four (what you interpret as doubt...jair, is just a function of how the people who wrote these things learned to write - the chorus)..and, I breifly mentioned this earlier..but it;s an important narrative, -because- it;s in all four.

IIRC, it shares that pride of place with just one other story.  The crucifixion.  One wonders what more one would need for christianity beyond those two stories.  If I ever teach my kids about magic book...those are the two I;d reach for.

[Minimalist]

No fuckface and I'm not surprised that it went over your head....you guys keep your heads low when your horseshit is under attack.

I will not allow you to shift the burden of proof.  You insist there is first century evidence.  I have never seen any.  Now get off your fucking ass and produce it or STFU.  I'm tired of your apologist bullshit.  You worship a fairy tale.  Ignorant bastard.  Put up or shut up.

[Amarok]

No fuckface and I'm not surprised that it went over your head....you guys keep your heads low when your horseshit is under attack.

I will not allow you to shift the burden of proof.  You insist there is first century evidence.  I have never seen any.  Now get off your fucking ass and produce it or STFU.  I'm tired of your apologist bullshit.  You worship a fairy tale.  Ignorant bastard.  Put up or shut up.

But Min argument from silence blah blah blah blah

[JairCrawford]

The details don;t match (when they don;t - and they largely do) based upon the subtle differences between the theology and christology of Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John.  Additionally, because each of the authors was writing from a different time and place, and different circumstances..to a different audience.  Mark was likely a gentile christian in rome.  Mathew a jewish christian in syria.  Luke..maybe rome, but maybe ceasarea.  John, ephesus.

Brings us round to some narrative points of interest.  There are differences in each unique to the authors..but none are in the first person.  There are no I"s or "we"s...hell, john is a mind reader on the level of professor xavier.  Elements of hellenic syncretism are presnt in all four (what you interpret as doubt...jair, is just a function of how the people who wrote these things learned to write - the chorus)..and, I breifly mentioned this earlier..but it;s an important narrative, -because- it;s in all four.

IIRC, it shares that pride of place with just one other story.  The crucifixion.  One wonders what more one would need for christianity beyond those two stories.  If I ever teach my kids about magic book...those are the two I;d reach for.

Indeed those are the two that are shared. You could argue the ressurection as well. Although Mark (original ending) simply states it and does not describe it in any detail.

Yes, there are some Hellenistic elements to the gospels. That in and of itself is not enough for me to toss it away as fantasy though. There is still the Jewish tradition of verbal memorization and handing down. When it came time to write the gospels I would think both the Jewish oral tradition and the Hellenistic writing traditions came into play.

So then it comes down to, how much weight do we put on the oral traditions and writing traditions of these people? We may come to different conclusions to that question.

[Minimalist]

No fuckface and I'm not surprised that it went over your head....you guys keep your heads low when your horseshit is under attack.

I will not allow you to shift the burden of proof.  You insist there is first century evidence.  I have never seen any.  Now get off your fucking ass and produce it or STFU.  I'm tired of your apologist bullshit.  You worship a fairy tale.  Ignorant bastard.  Put up or shut up.

But Min argument from silence blah blah blah blah

Since RR has nothing of value to say he should try a little silence.  It would be a welcome change from his usual line of shit.

[RoadRunner79]

No fuckface and I'm not surprised that it went over your head....you guys keep your heads low when your horseshit is under attack.

I will not allow you to shift the burden of proof.  You insist there is first century evidence.  I have never seen any.  Now get off your fucking ass and produce it or STFU.  I'm tired of your apologist bullshit.  You worship a fairy tale.  Ignorant bastard.  Put up or shut up.

I don’t think that you understand the burden of proof much more than you do the argument from silence. When you make a claim, and I ask you to support that claim, that is not shifting the burden of proof. what you are doing here however, could be considered shifting the burden of proof.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, a few final comments before summary.  The immutable details of this story have nothing to do with the character of jesus or the mundane details of that moment....in short, nothing to do with a dry recounting of events.  The only immutable portion is the theologically pregnant miracle itself.  The authors felt free to write it how they wanted, and even to add bits if the need arose.  It isn;t told from a 1st person perspective, and only one narrative includes any relevant personal detail (johns..of all four, hows them apples synoptics!).  The miracle in question is not your normal miracle..its a downright impossible miracle only made miraculous by a privileged narrator.  Only two of the eponymous authors could have such privileged info, because the other two weren;t present.  John and Mathew.  However, we know that matthew was based on mark..who wouldn;t have been present...and that john was a bit of a loon...constantly "remembering" things in his own way and forgetting what everyone else "remembered".  

Of the four....either "John" himself is the originator of this story...and it somehow made it;s way into mark despite marks earlier date..to be later copied into mathew and then luke (even though John appears top have copied from luke)..or all four are recounting a story they;d heard told.  Or perhaps "Peter" told "Mark"...but this immediately makes us wonder why, of the four, the account peter gave to mark is the most divergent from johns?  

-and that brings us to the question.  Is this a legend or a myth.  I'll use two senses of legend here, strong and weak.  A strong legend would be an embellishment of some thing x that actually happened between some people..though not necesarrily the authors.  A weak legend..one which may -or may not- have been based on something that happened..and was then embellished....that the authors took to be true.

Again for reference, a myth would be a case in which the character and events in this story were manufactured explicitly to elaborate and explain doctrine.  

To establish that it was a legend in the strong sense we would need corroboration of some kind and a reason to believe that the authors were either present or knew someone present.  For the former..we have nothing..and we know the latter to be false.  

In the weak sense, some corroboration would help but not be required (as it would not need to have been based specifically on any one thing or person)..and we would need confidence that the authors had at least intended to write an accounting of presumed events rather than a just so story.  Tghe former is still false....and while it;s plausible that the parable of the loaves and fishes is a weak legend....that does lead one to wonder how the authors managed to accidentally include so many mythic elements.  If they had done so intentionally, they would be mythologizing a legend, and the end product of the character in the narrative, despite some hypothetical historic jesus, would be a mythic christ.

---

So, now a question.  When we can discount the entirety of acts as legend (and only given that moniker instead of myth because people either do or did believe that stuff happened..not because it did)...and that at least one of the two stories in all four is...on review, certainly a myth either by nature or by accident.....how does that bode for the other stopry in all four..or any other story not in all four a person would like to present or consider? Not, mind, how does it bode against the batshit "it;s twoo it;s twoo it;s twoo" assertion....but in the question of whether or not the character in the NT is legendary or mythical.

[JairCrawford]

So, a few final comments before summary.  The immutable details of this story have nothing to do with the character of jesus or the mundane details of that moment....in short, nothing to do with a dry recounting of events.  The only immutable portion is the theologically pregnant miracle itself.  The authors felt free to write it how they wanted, and even to add bits if the need arose.  It isn;t told from a 1st person perspective, and only one narrative includes any relevant personal detail (johns..of all four, hows them apples synoptics!).  The miracle in question is not your normal miracle..its a downright impossible miracle only made miraculous by a privileged narrator.  Only two of the eponymous authors could have such privileged info, because the other two weren;t present.  John and Mathew.  However, we know that matthew was based on mark..who wouldn;t have been present...and that john was a bit of a loon...constantly "remembering" things in his own way and forgetting what everyone else "remembered".  

Of the four....either "John" himself is the originator of this story...and it somehow made it;s way into mark despite marks earlier date..to be later copied into mathew and then luke (even though John appears top have copied from luke)..or all four are recounting a story they;d heard told.  Or perhaps "Peter" told "Mark"...but this immediately makes us wonder why, of the four, the account peter gave to mark is the most divergent from johns?  

-and that brings us to the question.  Is this a legend or a myth.  I'll use two senses of legend here, strong and weak.  A strong legend would be an embellishment of some thing x that actually happened between some people..though not necesarrily the authors.  A weak legend..one which may -or may not- have been based on something that happened..and was then embellished....that the authors took to be true.

Again for reference, a myth would be a case in which the character and events in this story were manufactured explicitly to elaborate and explain doctrine.  

To establish that it was a legend in the strong sense we would need corroboration of some kind and a reason to believe that the authors were either present or knew someone present.  For the former..we have nothing..and we know the latter to be false.  

In the weak sense, some corroboration would help but not be required (as it would not need to have been based specifically on any one thing or person)..and we would need confidence that the authors had at least intended to write an accounting of presumed events rather than a just so story.  Tghe former is still false....and while it;s plausible that the parable of the loaves and fishes is a weak legend....that does lead one to wonder how the authors managed to accidentally include so many mythic elements.  If they had done so intentionally, they would be mythologizing a legend, and the end product of the character in the narrative, despite some hypothetical historic jesus, would be a mythic christ.

---

So, now a question.  When we can discount the entirety of acts as legend (and only given that moniker instead of myth because people either do or did believe that stuff happened..not because it did)...and that at least one of the two stories in all four is...on review, certainly a myth either by nature or by accident.....how does that bode for the other stopry in all four..or any other story not in all four a person would like to present or consider? Not, mind, how does it bode against the batshit "it;s twoo it;s twoo it;s twoo" assertion....but in the question of whether or not the character in the NT is legendary or mythical.

If we can definitively prove that the gospels were nothing more than extrapolations of a Greek myth based on Jewish scriptures, then it has huge ramifications indeed. The issue is we don't have enough information to definitively prove this.

But I don't think that's what you're saying either. You are saying that, based on your analysis of the texts, you have come to a conclusion that it is most likely a myth, correct?

Someone else can look at the same text and come to a different conclusion regarding the likelyhood of a historical Jesus (and I mean outside of religious biases and all that. Just looking at the text itself.)