What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[watchamadoodle]

Similarity of sequence? There is no such similarity. On the contrary, the differences in where gMatt and gLuke place the common Q material in their common Marcan framework is one indication that they are working independently with the same material.

O.k. thanks. I haven't read the link about the Q document yet.
You are right about the sequence. When I looked at the listing earlier, I could have sworn the sequence was identical. I must have been looking at something else.

However, the content is almost identical except for 3 or 4 extra items in Luke. Don't you think that is suspicious? If Matthew and Luke were independently sourcing Q, then I wouldn't expect the set of sayings to be almost identical. I would expect Matthew to have several Q sayings that don't appear in Luke.

I'm referring to the tables in the following link that compare Matthew and Luke:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-contents.html

[TimOneill]

However, the content is almost identical except for 3 or 4 extra items in Luke. Don't you think that is suspicious? If Matthew and Luke were independently sourcing Q, then I wouldn't expect the set of sayings to be almost identical. I would expect Matthew to have several Q sayings that don't appear in Luke.

Given that the only way we can identify the Q material is when something appears in both gMatt and gLuke but clearly isn't in gMark, how could we know if something that appears only in gMatt isn't also from the Q source/s and was simply left out by gLuke? Or something that appears only in gLuke isn't also from the Q source/s and was simply left out by gMatt? A lot of the L and M material may actually be from Q but was only used by one other gospel, so we don't recognise it as Q material.

[watchamadoodle]

However, the content is almost identical except for 3 or 4 extra items in Luke. Don't you think that is suspicious? If Matthew and Luke were independently sourcing Q, then I wouldn't expect the set of sayings to be almost identical. I would expect Matthew to have several Q sayings that don't appear in Luke.

Given that the only way we can identify the Q material is when something appears in both gMatt and gLuke but clearly isn't in gMark, how could we know if something that appears only in gMatt isn't also from the Q source/s and was simply left out by gLuke? Or something that appears only in gLuke isn't also from the Q source/s and was simply left out by gMatt? A lot of the L and M material may actually be from Q but was only used by one other gospel, so we don't recognise it as Q material.

Good point.

[Mudhammam]

In consideration of the many embellishments, and the obvious intention of the New Testament authors to disregard actual fact for mythological history, it would that seem that what's regarded in the texts as probable or relatively certain by standard criteria is automatically lower than what one can expect to encounter in a secular or humanistic document, where only the common mistakes of recollection, agendas, and biases must be taken into account.

[TimOneill]

In consideration of the many embellishments, and the obvious intention of the New Testament authors to disregard actual fact for mythological history, it would that seem that what's regarded in the texts as probable or relatively certain by standard criteria is automatically lower than what one can expect to encounter in a secular or humanistic document, where only the common mistakes of recollection, agendas, and biases must be taken into account.

We could say this about most ancient sources. The idea that there are any ancient sources which would fit the description of "secular or humanistic documents" is pretty problematic. Suetonius? Only if you consider a source that says Augustus was conceived when Atia was visited by Apollo in the form of a serpent. Tacitus? Even he has statues groaning as portents of defeats and Vespasian healing the blind and the lame.

As I keep saying, if we try holding these texts to standards that simply don't apply to ancient texts, we are setting the parameters in a way that simply makes no sense. Yes, it would be nice if we had some "secular or humanistic documents". But in ancient history, we usually never do. So we have to make do with the sources we do have and just treat them with the right kind of care, caution and scepticism.

[Mudhammam]

We could say this about most ancient sources. The idea that there are any ancient sources which would fit the description of "secular or humanistic documents" is pretty problematic. Suetonius? Only if you consider a source that says Augustus was conceived when Atia was visited by Apollo in the form of a serpent. Tacitus? Even he has statues groaning as portents of defeats and Vespasian healing the blind and the lame.

As I keep saying, if we try holding these texts to standards that simply don't apply to ancient texts, we are setting the parameters in a way that simply makes no sense. Yes, it would be nice if we had some "secular or humanistic documents". But in ancient history, we usually never do. So we have to make do with the sources we do have and just treat them with the right kind of care, caution and scepticism.

Perhaps. Take someone like Herodotus. His reconstruction of the Persian War on Greece is littered with obvious falsehoods, which we can check with other sources or archaeology, contains nothing short of miraculous and mythical tales, some of which Herodotus disavows for lack of evidence and some of which he believes. His patriotism clearly influences his story-telling. Yet, despite all of this, disregarding his speeches as paraphrases of what people remembered, accurately or not, it's still clear that Herodotus is aiming to write a historical account, even if his idea of what constitutes history is quite different than what we might consider good criteria today. He goes through pains to stress his research and evidence-gathering.

Thucydides is an even better example, the "father of scientific history," who, once again, despite many shortcomings and corruptions, still reads as though his agenda is to give an accurate account of the facts as best as possible.

Or take a character like Socrates, whose life we know very little about, based primarily on the writings of Plato, Aristophanes, and Xenophon, all of whose purposes differ wildly and don't always show intention of capturing the character of Socrates as they really believed he was---a contemporary of theirs, loved by some, hated by others---and though we can acknowledge many uncertainties due to the writers' biases, a consistent character of Socrates clearly emerges, a man much too like other men, despite his uniqueness, to be mistaken as a purely fictional character.

I'm not saying the man who Jesus came to represent could not have existed, and in fact, probably did; but the attempts to humanize Jesus seem secondary to the message, which is that Jesus was very much not human, and given the lengths they go to make this point I find it difficult to say their credibility is on par with someone like the Greeks I've mentioned---even when the work, such as that of Herodotus or Plato, is far from being strictly driven by a reverence for accuracy.

Could there have been a theological motive to humanize the man who lived and---perhaps over much greater lengths of time than represented by the Gospels---came to represent the Christ, and so they created the man Jesus to do so, placing characters in the narrative that would have been relevant to what Christians were dealing with then? Isn't that at least a possibility to consider, as a framework by which we can do away with psychoanalyzing hallucinations and visions that apparently came to 500 people at one time, whom they believed was a bodily resurrected man that they had watched die only years earlier, and to two people as diametrically opposed as Peter and Paul, who then came to believe in pretty much the same bizarre faith?

[DeistPaladin]

As I keep saying, if we try holding these texts to standards that simply don't apply to ancient texts, we are setting the parameters in a way that simply makes no sense. Yes, it would be nice if we had some "secular or humanistic documents". But in ancient history, we usually never do. So we have to make do with the sources we do have and just treat them with the right kind of care, caution and scepticism.

There is a difference between a historical account with supernatural embellishments and a story about the supernatural. The distinction is this: when you remove the supernatural, do you still have roughly the same story?

We can read a historical account and simply omit the fanciful embellishments. When you omit the supernatural from a story specifically about something supernatural, the story makes no sense.

Most of the anecdotes about Jesus in the Gospels either revolve around supernatural claims (such as when he walked on water) or only make sense if he was a supernatural being (such as when he single-handedly cleared out the temple of merchants) or were punctuated by a miracle (usually some argument with the pharisees). Remove the supernatural stuff from the Jesus story and you wind up telling a very different story about a very different character.

Kind of like telling the story of Superman but without the super powers, costume or Krypton.
Or retelling the tales of Dr. Who but without the time traveling, regeneration or TARDIS.
Or rewriting Harry Potter but in a world without all that magic.

With Jesus, the divinity and the miracles ARE the story. Discard the supernatural and you've gutted the Gospel tales.

[Minimalist]

Another very strange argument. Origen complains that Josephus didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the execution of Jesus. And the TF ... doesn't.

Oh, stop it. I refuse to believe you are that dense.

[TimOneill]

Perhaps. Take someone like Herodotus. His reconstruction of the Persian War on Greece is littered with obvious falsehoods, which we can check with other sources or archaeology, contains nothing short of miraculous and mythical tales, some of which Herodotus disavows for lack of evidence and some of which he believes. His patriotism clearly influences his story-telling. Yet, despite all of this, disregarding his speeches as paraphrases of what people remembered, accurately or not, it's still clear that Herodotus is aiming to write a historical account, even if his idea of what constitutes history is quite different than what we might consider good criteria today. He goes through pains to stress his research and evidence-gathering.

Thucydides is an even better example, the "father of scientific history," who, once again, despite many shortcomings and corruptions, still reads as though his agenda is to give an accurate account of the facts as best as possible.

I'm not saying that the gospels are exactly like works like those of Herodotus and Thucydides. We have a clear difference in genre to begin with. What I'm noting is that the idea that Herodotus and Thucydides are straight history with some (to us) "supernatural elements" in them while the gospels are something totally different is a very modern idea. The ancient world view was utterly permeated by unquestioning belief in what we term "the supernatural" that it is hard for us to grasp. The whole distinction between the "natural" and the "supernatural" is a very modern idea that the ancients would find alien to the point of being incomprehensible.

So Herodotus and Thucydides are not straight history with a bit of "supernatural" while the gospels are something else and much more "supernatural". All these works are by people for whom what we call "supernatural" phenomenon were part of their everyday world view.

I'm not saying the man who Jesus came to represent could not have existed, and in fact, probably did; but the attempts to humanize Jesus seem secondary to the message, which is that Jesus was very much not human, and given the lengths they go to make this point I find it difficult to say their credibility is on par with someone like the Greeks I've mentioned---even when the work, such as that of Herodotus or Plato, is far from being strictly driven by a reverence for accuracy.

Is the message that he was "very much not human"? There is zero in the synoptics that make any claim that he was anything other than a man given special status by God and having some miraculous powers as a result. Other than that, its mainly the story of a preacher who did some faith healing. It's only later, in gJohn, that it becomes the story of a semi-divine being. As I say above, I'm not saying that the gospels are exactly like Herodotus and Thucydides' works. But this atrificial distinction between "this is history and can be taken seriously" and "this has magic in it and so can't be accepted as having any history in it at all" is classifying things in ways that Herodotus and Thucydides would find weird.

Could there have been a theological motive to humanize the man who lived and---perhaps over much greater lengths of time than represented by the Gospels---came to represent the Christ, and so they created the man Jesus to do so, placing characters in the narrative that would have been relevant to what Christians were dealing with then?

Lots of things are possible I suppose. I just can't see anything in the evidence that makes this scenario a more parsimonious one than the much simpler idea that they said they were talking about a recently deceased preacher because ... they were.

Isn't that at least a possibility to consider, as a framework by which we can do away with psychoanalyzing hallucinations and visions that apparently came to 500 people at one time, whom they believed was a bodily resurrected man that they had watched die only years earlier, and to two people as diametrically opposed as Peter and Paul, who then came to believe in pretty much the same bizarre faith?

I can't see the problem with those beliefs arising out of reactions to the sudden death of a preacher who these people thought was the Messiah. There is nothing in the evidence compelling me to think that they made this guy up.

---

There is a difference between a historical account with supernatural embellishments and a story about the supernatural. The distinction is this: when you remove the supernatural, do you still have roughly the same story?

In the Jesus case, you do. Take away the miracles from the synoptics' accounts and you're left with the story of an apocalyptic preacher who did some exorcisms. I know Christian preaching puts the emphasis on the miracles and the resurrection etc., but if you read the synoptics most of it doesn't strain credulity at all. It's mainly "Jesus went to this town, told this story, disputed with some other people and said the following things about the coming apocalypse". It's not like it's mainly him riding winged unicorns and fighting dragons.

We can read a historical account and simply omit the fanciful embellishments. When you omit the supernatural from a story specifically about something supernatural, the story makes no sense.

See above. Take out the miracles etc and you get the story of an apocalyptic preacher who got crucified. Hardly difficult to believe that this is the core and that the miracles and resurrection was added later by his followers.

Most of the anecdotes about Jesus in the Gospels either revolve around supernatural claims (such as when he walked on water) or only make sense if he was a supernatural being (such as when he single-handedly cleared out the temple of merchants) or were punctuated by a miracle (usually some argument with the pharisees). Remove the supernatural stuff from the Jesus story and you wind up telling a very different story about a very different character.

Ummm, no. Spectacular miracles like walking on water etc are the exceptions, actually. Most of the miracles are little more than exorcisms and the kind of run of the mill faith healings that you can see at any Pentecostal church any Sunday of the year. Take out the other miracles, of which there are very few, and you're left with ... a first century Jewish preacher and faith healer.

---

Another very strange argument. Origen complains that Josephus didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the execution of Jesus. And the TF ... doesn't.

Oh, stop it. I refuse to believe you are that dense.

Then I'm afraid you're going to have to enlighten me. Origen says Josephus didn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the execution of Jesus. You point to the textus receptus of the TF and, somehow, triumphantly conclude that this mention of Jesus couldn't have been there in any form when Origen wrote that because .... and there you lose me. Because the textus receptus doesn't blame the destruction of Jerusalem on the execution of Jesus. So your point would be ... what, exactly?

Try again.

[watchamadoodle]

There is a difference between a historical account with supernatural embellishments and a story about the supernatural. The distinction is this: when you remove the supernatural, do you still have roughly the same story?

We can read a historical account and simply omit the fanciful embellishments. When you omit the supernatural from a story specifically about something supernatural, the story makes no sense.

Most of the anecdotes about Jesus in the Gospels either revolve around supernatural claims (such as when he walked on water) or only make sense if he was a supernatural being (such as when he single-handedly cleared out the temple of merchants) or were punctuated by a miracle (usually some argument with the pharisees). Remove the supernatural stuff from the Jesus story and you wind up telling a very different story about a very different character.

Kind of like telling the story of Superman but without the super powers, costume or Krypton.
Or retelling the tales of Dr. Who but without the time traveling, regeneration or TARDIS.
Or rewriting Harry Potter but in a world without all that magic.

With Jesus, the divinity and the miracles ARE the story. Discard the supernatural and you've gutted the Gospel tales.

IMO, when people say they are a "mootists", what they are really saying is "we are only interested in information that discredits Christianity; we are not interested in the history of Christianity". Otherwise, how can we say any information about the history of Christianity is "moot"?

Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to discredit Christianity.