Christianity basically is not about good vs evil but about living forever and p

[Alien]

Not externally corroborated? What in all its details? Of course not. In some of its details? Yes, it is, e.g. the (original) Josephus texts and Tacitus.

Josephus and Tacitus are well after the fact, talking about the claims made by people on behalf of Jesus or about the fact there is a cult rising which follows someone called Jesus.

People tend to write about things after they happen. May I suggest you read the Josephus and Tacitus texts again.

Not being externally corroborated does not make something "a single work". That is irrelevant to whether it is a single work or not.

It kind of does.

No, it doesn't. If you really think it does, tell why it "kind of does".

Here's a reductio ad absurdum for you. Consider all the literary works (all written texts) ever written by the human race. Everything. There is no written work outside that group. Thus this collection of literary works has not been externally corroborated. According to your reasoning that makes it a singe work.

If we found a folio with the entire works of Shakespeare on it, that would be a single work. If that's the oldest copy of those that we have, then it's a single work, even if we have reason to suspect that parts of it were written by someone else (Bacon, say).

No, it is not. The fact that we describe the works of Shakespeare (ignoring Bacon for a moment) as works, plural, demonstrates it is not a single work. However, even if were the case that we describes all the works (plural) of Shakespeare as a single work, that is irrelevant to the NT as the NT is a collection of documents written by at least 8 people.

It's not until we get independent accounts - contemporary reports of the first showing of different plays, for instance, that we have corroboration that they are independent works.

Likewise with the New Testament, there are structural clues that give reason to think that the singular work we have is a composite, but no physical evidence and no external corroboration.

O.

This is silly. "Clues"?

You have just repeated what you wrote earlier. There is no evidence, internal or external, that the NT is a single work. Ever since any parts of it have been referenced by anyone, including before it was put together as one collection, it has always been known to be works by different people.

[Outrider]

People tend to write about things after they happen. May I suggest you read the Josephus and Tacitus texts again.

Recently after the event, not years or decades.

No, it is not. The best we can say is that it may be a single work, but that if Bacon wrote bits, then it is not a single work.

To say that it may be a single work is fair enough - the fact that it's bound into a single volume adds a degree of weight to the argument, and the analysis detracts from it.

This is silly. You have just repeated what you wrote earlier.

At least I'm consistent

There is no evidence, internal or external, that the NT is a single work.

Except that it's typically bound into a single volume and has a title as a single piece...

Ever since any parts of it have been referenced by anyone, including before it was put together as one collection, it has always been known to be works by different people.

And that's evidence that you can use to deduce that it was probably an accumulation of earlier pieces, I'd agree entirely. That doesn't change the fact that you have primary evidence of a single work - a physical item with a name as that item.

O.

[Alien]

People tend to write about things after they happen. May I suggest you read the Josephus and Tacitus texts again.

Recently after the event, not years or decades.

Really. Let's look at the two Roman emperors referred to in the gospels. What are our oldest written sources for them? The oldest sources I could find were:

Augustus Caesar - Appian (mid 2nd century), Suetonius (121 AD), Nicolaus of Damascus (contemporary, but we only have fragments), Cicero (contemporary, but our oldest manuscript is 10th century AD, Augustus himself (inscription on a wall in Rome).

Tiberius Caesar - Cassius Dio (at least 174 after Tiberius's death), Suetonius (born 34 years after T's death and manuscripts from 9th century and later), Tacitus at least 68 years after T's death with single manuscript from about 850 AD and Velleius Paterculus, an officer in T's army, but no extant manuscripts).

Compare the above with the NT manuscripts. The oldest Tacitus manuscript on Christ is also very late, I grant, but there are hundreds of earlier NT manuscripts, ranging from fragments to whole collections of the NT.

No, it is not. The best we can say is that it may be a single work, but that if Bacon wrote bits, then it is not a single work.

To say that it may be a single work is fair enough - the fact that it's bound into a single volume adds a degree of weight to the argument, and the analysis detracts from it.

No, it does not. The NT documents were not put together into a single collection until somewhere in the mid to late 2nd century (that's a bit of a guess). So when Mark wrote his gospel first, we had a single work. Then, probably Matthew wrote his, but they were separate physically. Then Luke, then John. Earlier than all this we had Paul and others sending letters, all to separate people in separate locations. It was not a single work.

This is silly. You have just repeated what you wrote earlier.

At least I'm consistent

Yes, I'll give you that.

There is no evidence, internal or external, that the NT is a single work.

Except that it's typically bound into a single volume and has a title as a single piece...

So what?

Ever since any parts of it have been referenced by anyone, including before it was put together as one collection, it has always been known to be works by different people.

And that's evidence that you can use to deduce that it was probably an accumulation of earlier pieces, I'd agree entirely. That doesn't change the fact that you have primary evidence of a single work - a physical item with a name as that item.

Probably an accumulation of earlier pieces? As in 99.99999999999999999% probable.

It is not a single work. It is a collection of individual works. That does not make it a "single work", at least not in sense used in English.

Edited: Remember that in #156 you originally spoke of "one account" being available for evidence. The point is that we have several, independent accounts.

[jeremyp]

The Gospel writers are all in one source - the New Testament

The New Testament is not a source. The New Testament is a collection of documents from a variety of sources.

It is however, correct that the sources of the NT documents are, for the most part, unknown and it is not known how the sources relate to each other, except in certain obvious cases.

[jeremyp]

When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out.

No, I mean when he uses the blatantly dishonest tactic of pretending he has already posted the evidence when challenged on it.

Now, enough of your tu quoque.

You realise I was only doing it to provoke a response out of you and Hope and to expose your hypocrisy. It worked.

However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources; they (apart from Mark) copy other gospels; they include episodes from scripture reworked to pretend it is about Jesus; they have highly stylised literary structure; they include obviously mythical elements.

If you found similar documents relating to any other religion, you would have no problem whatsoever in deciding that they are fiction.

[Alien]

When I have been in a discussion with Hope and disagree with him, I'll point stuff out.

No, I mean when he uses the blatantly dishonest tactic of pretending he has already posted the evidence when challenged on it.

That you will have to discuss with Hope. As it is, I don't read all of Hope's posts any more than I read all of anyone else's. Am I meant to be some sort of watchdog, vetting everyone's posts and responding everyone that I disagree with? I do appreciate that you yourself do point out other non-Christians' errors sometimes.

Now, enough of your tu quoque.

You realise I was only doing it to provoke a response out of you and Hope and to expose your hypocrisy. It worked.

Cobblers. I've explained my position above.

However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources;

Non sequitur.

they (apart from Mark) copy other gospels;

Another non-sequitur. It does not thereby make them fiction unless the bit they copied was fiction.

they include episodes from scripture reworked to pretend it is about Jesus;

An example being?

they have highly stylised literary structure;

Non sequitur. Highly stylised literary structures are not restricted to fiction.

they include obviously mythical elements.

An example being?

If you found similar documents relating to any other religion, you would have no problem whatsoever in deciding that they are fiction.

What, for the reasons you gave above? Really?

[jeremyp]

Which can be said of any two accounts written from roughly the same time in history.

So you think it could be said of the letters of Cicero and Caesar's Gallic Wars?

Now, if you think they were not independent, please tell us why.

All the gospels except Mark are dependent on Mark, for a start.

Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic

What about the actual evidence? Josephus was never a Christian and so would never have written about Jesus rising from the dead. Josephus was actually quite a good historian and usually gave some explanation to his audience of what he was saying. For instance, writing for a gentile audience as he was, he would have explained the term "Christ" and what it meant for Jews. The passage in which Jesus is mentioned actually flows better if the Jesus paragraph is excised. Early Christians such as Origen didn't seem to know about the Jesus passages in Josephus.

Even if you only remove the minimum bits that Josephus definitely would not have said, all you have left is “there were Christians and their leader got executed”.

[jeremyp]

Cobblers. I've explained my position above.

So next time that Hope writes that he and others have provided evidence here and elsewhere, you'll be the first up to challenge him on that, will you?

However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources;

Non sequitur.

Nope. It's one point amongst many that allows us to discount them as having any historical validity.

It does not thereby make them fiction unless the bit they copied was fiction.

Which it is, unless you consider magicking up enough food to feed 5,000 people as factual or casting out demons or raising people from the dead.

[Alien]

Which can be said of any two accounts written from roughly the same time in history.

So you think it could be said of the letters of Cicero and Caesar's Gallic Wars?

No, I was wrong. I overstated my case. I should have said, "Which can be said of many such accounts..."

Now, if you think they were not independent, please tell us why.

All the gospels except Mark are dependent on Mark, for a start.

Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic

To re-use a phrase, "Is that deliberately ambiguous?" Yes, nearly all the events in Mark are in Matthew and much in Luke, but there are parts of Matthew (Special M) and Luke (Special L) which are in neither of the other two gospels. As for John being dependent on Mark, the jury is very much out on that. I'd be interested to see which parts you yourself think of John are dependent on Mark.

What about the actual evidence? Josephus was never a Christian and so would never have written about Jesus rising from the dead.

 Josephus was actually quite a good historian and usually gave some explanation to his audience of what he was saying. For instance, writing for a gentile audience as he was, he would have explained the term "Christ" and what it meant for Jews. The passage in which Jesus is mentioned actually flows better if the Jesus paragraph is excised. Early Christians such as Origen didn't seem to know about the Jesus passages in Josephus.

Even if you only remove the minimum bits that Josephus definitely would not have said, all you have left is “there were Christians and their leader got executed”.

I've not claimed that Josephus wrote that Jesus rose from the dead. I've said (was it on this thread or another one, I forget) that there are Christian interpolations in the (main) Josephus. As I wrote in #166:

"Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found (Jesus outside the New Testament, Van Voorst, Eerdmans 2000). Now it might be that they are wrong to think that, but if you think they are, please defend your position."

[Alien]

Cobblers. I've explained my position above.

So next time that Hope writes that he and others have provided evidence here and elsewhere, you'll be the first up to challenge him on that, will you?

If he is saying it to me, yes.

However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources;

Non sequitur.

Nope. It's one point amongst many that allows us to discount them as having any historical validity.

That is not what you claimed. Thank you for correcting your error though.

It does not thereby make them fiction unless the bit they copied was fiction.

Which it is, unless you consider magicking up enough food to feed 5,000 people as factual or casting out demons or raising people from the dead.

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

[Gordon]

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?

[Alien]

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?

I'll do a page on a web site somewhere so I can refer you to it every time you ask this question.

[Gordon]

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?

I'll do a page on a web site somewhere so I can refer you to it every time you ask this question.

It is a reasonable question all the same, since there is the possibility that people could exaggerate or lie in support of a cause (or in opposition): therefore, it is as much a risk in relation to Jesus supporters in antiquity as it would be to political 'spin doctors' today (especially when the claim is a fantastic one).

     

[Dicky Underpants]

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?

I'll do a page on a web site somewhere so I can refer you to it every time you ask this question.

Anybody mentioned David Friedrich Strauss yet?
" D.F. Strauss rhetorically asks: “Is it conceivable that the disciples, after they had themselves witnessed how Jesus was able to feed a great multitude with a small quantity of provision, should nevertheless on a second occasion of the same kind, have totally forgotten the first, and have asked, ‘Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to feed so great a multitude?’” (Mark 8:4 and Matthew 15:33).3 Rather than telling us what really happened, these miracle stories were largely created later by an evolving church to make a statement about the spiritual importance of Jesus, Strauss argued. The point of the feeding of the multitudes with bread and fish was not to report what Jesus actually did on a particular day in his life, but to make the claim that Jesus was the bread of life who feeds his disciples with spiritual food in their own day."
(John W.Loftus)

That's a bit similar to Gordon's assertion that Jesus' later followers were "bigging him up", except that Strauss believed that Jesus was indeed the bread of life, dispensing spiritual food, and therefore the passages are metaphor.

[Alien]

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

How have you eliminated the possibility that feeding story isn't just fiction put about by Jesus supporters to promote his profile?

I'll do a page on a web site somewhere so I can refer you to it every time you ask this question.

Anybody mentioned David Friedrich Strauss yet?
" D.F. Strauss rhetorically asks: “Is it conceivable that the disciples, after they had themselves witnessed how Jesus was able to feed a great multitude with a small quantity of provision, should nevertheless on a second occasion of the same kind, have totally forgotten the first, and have asked, ‘Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to feed so great a multitude?’” (Mark 8:4 and Matthew 15:33).3 Rather than telling us what really happened, these miracle stories were largely created later by an evolving church to make a statement about the spiritual importance of Jesus, Strauss argued. The point of the feeding of the multitudes with bread and fish was not to report what Jesus actually did on a particular day in his life, but to make the claim that Jesus was the bread of life who feeds his disciples with spiritual food in their own day."
(John W.Loftus)

That's a bit similar to Gordon's assertion that Jesus' later followers were "bigging him up", except that Strauss believed that Jesus was indeed the bread of life, dispensing spiritual food, and therefore the passages are metaphor.

What makes you think his understanding (Strauss's, not Loftus's) is correct?

[jakswan]

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

Come one now we know you love your dictionary definitions.

the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Not trying to make up your own language. 

[Dicky Underpants]

What makes you think his understanding (Strauss's, not Loftus's) is correct?

I don't say that Strauss's understanding is correct, but for a believer (which I think Strauss was, in some sense), it would certainly seem more plausible. The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.
There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?

"[11] The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him.
[12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."

These words seem to indicate, as Strauss suggests, that the miracle story is a later interpolation. How that accords with the dating of the earliest manuscripts, I don't know.

The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "

Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)

[Hope]

The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.

Do you remember exactly what you did a year ago, or two years ago, DU?  Do you always learn lessons at the first time of asking?

There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?

I get the impression from the other examples of his challenging the Pharisees, that he was pointing out to them that they didn't need signs - they knew the Scriptures too well to need to them.

The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "

How many tribes of Israel were there, DU?  What is the Jewish number representing divine completion.

Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)

Judaism affords meanings to various numbers (and it isn't the only culture that does so).  Its called numerology.  See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism

[Alien]

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

Come one now we know you love your dictionary definitions.

the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Not trying to make up your own language.

What does "apparently" mean?

[Alien]

What makes you think his understanding (Strauss's, not Loftus's) is correct?

I don't say that Strauss's understanding is correct, but for a believer (which I think Strauss was, in some sense), it would certainly seem more plausible. The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.
There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?

"[11] The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him.
[12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."

These words seem to indicate, as Strauss suggests, that the miracle story is a later interpolation. How that accords with the dating of the earliest manuscripts, I don't know.

The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "

Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)

What ho.

It isn't "almost identical". It is by the same Jesus with (presumably) the same disciples and involves feeding a large number of people, but it is for a different number of people in a different place from a different number of loaves and fishes in a gentile area rather than a Jewish area. Blockheads? Maybe, but they were Jews and not at all used to gentiles being blessed by God. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the idea of Jesus blessing the gentiles was a bit no-no and it took some hammering home by Jesus to get them used to the idea.

As for Strauss's "metaphorical idea", that is fine, but why does it have to be at the exclusion of it being based on an actual event. Why "either/or" rather than "both/and"?

As for the other "curious texts" you quote, as you say the Pharisees are referred to in chapter 8 were there after he had left where he fed 4000+ and had sailed to Dalmanutha (location uncertain) so presumably they had not seen the feeding of the 4000+. They would likely have heard about it, so perhaps were saying, "Come on then, wise guy, do it again so we can see."

If was not important that Jesus was now blessing gentiles, why do you think he gave us three such examples on the trot?

[Dicky Underpants]

The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.

Do you remember exactly what you did a year ago, or two years ago, DU?  Do you always learn lessons at the first time of asking?

Must be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. I fancy that if a charismatic preacher had inspired me to leave my productive employment to wander around with him (leaving family behind in the process) and had just managed to transform a few scraps of food into enough to feed thousands, then I think I would have remembered  it.

There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?

I get the impression from the other examples of his challenging the Pharisees, that he was pointing out to them that they didn't need signs - they knew the Scriptures too well to need to them.

The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "

How many tribes of Israel were there, DU?  What is the Jewish number representing divine completion.

Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)

Judaism affords meanings to various numbers (and it isn't the only culture that does so).  Its called numerology.  See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_of_numbers_in_Judaism

Yes, I know about numerology - decades ago I even half believed there might be something in it (I'm number  7, apparently) . However, it does little to enhance the reliability of the gospels as historical accounts if one is required to subscribe to a belief in such nonsense. The phrase "Gospel truth" would in my case be interpreted as "That which should be taken with a very large pinch of salt". An American Unitarian minister not so long ago wrote a study of Mark in which he claimed it was replete with astrological significance. No doubt it is replete with references to numerology and astrology. Which only goes to reinforce the idea that here we are not dealing with historical accounts in any sense.

[Dicky Underpants]

What makes you think his understanding (Strauss's, not Loftus's) is correct?

I don't say that Strauss's understanding is correct, but for a believer (which I think Strauss was, in some sense), it would certainly seem more plausible. The idea of an almost identical story being repeated in the same gospel (Mark 6 & 8 ) ought to give even the biblical literalists pause for thought, as also should the implied utter stupidity of the disciples. He'd chosen the buggers, after all, and they appear to be showing themselves to be the biggest blockheads imaginable, if they'd witnessed such a miracle previously, and not got the message. The metaphorical idea which Strauss thinks is being hammered home - Jesus as the Bread of Life - seems a rather more important point.
There are one or two other curious texts in the Mark account. In chapter 8, after Jesus has supposedly performed this second culinary miracle, he reprimands the Pharisees for 'asking for a sign'. What was this miracle itself if not a sign?

"[11] The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, to test him.
[12] And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."

These words seem to indicate, as Strauss suggests, that the miracle story is a later interpolation. How that accords with the dating of the earliest manuscripts, I don't know.

The other curious matter is the concentration on certain numbers in the story, as if they had some mystical significance:
"[19] When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
[20] "And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
[21] And he said to them, "Do you not yet understand?" "

Jeremy has already commented on Mark's fascination with the number three, in the way he groups his narrative. I get the sense that he's alluding to some ancient number code throughout, though what on earth such a code might be supposed to mean, I haven't a clue. (And it doesn't matter a hoot anyway)

What ho.

It isn't "almost identical". It is by the same Jesus with (presumably) the same disciples and involves feeding a large number of people, but it is for a different number of people in a different place from a different number of loaves and fishes in a gentile area rather than a Jewish area. Blockheads? Maybe, but they were Jews and not at all used to gentiles being blessed by God. In fact, as I am sure you are aware, the idea of Jesus blessing the gentiles was a bit no-no and it took some hammering home by Jesus to get them used to the idea.

As for Strauss's "metaphorical idea", that is fine, but why does it have to be at the exclusion of it being based on an actual event. Why "either/or" rather than "both/and"?

As for the other "curious texts" you quote, as you say the Pharisees are referred to in chapter 8 were there after he had left where he fed 4000+ and had sailed to Dalmanutha (location uncertain) so presumably they had not seen the feeding of the 4000+. They would likely have heard about it, so perhaps were saying, "Come on then, wise guy, do it again so we can see."

If was not important that Jesus was now blessing gentiles, why do you think he gave us three such examples on the trot?

Well, I thought you must be aware that I don't think the historical Jesus was terribly concerned about spreading his message to the Gentiles, anyway. There are certain texts which clearly indicate his reluctance to do so, and those gentiles who did believe in him were already interested in Judaism. All of which re-affirms for me the idea that these stories were literary constructs inserted to promote the idea that he had come to 'be a light unto the Gentiles' (and spiritual food for them). And Spud has kindly provided us with a reference to Ezekiel which reinforces the idea that these fables were deliberate constructs inspired by references from the OT.

I think you are being evasive about the reference to Jesus saying that 'this generation' should be given no sign
(or in another gospel 'no sign except the sign of Jonah'). These miracles are clearly 'signs', and his only reference is to 'this generation', which would include Old Uncle Tom Cobbley and all, not just the Pharisees. In short, mythology or metaphor at most.

[jeremyp]

"Oh dear. Is that deliberately ambiguous or just ignorant of current scholarship? The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that at least some of Josephus' accounts do mention Jesus, e.g. that "the brother of Jesus called Christ" are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found (Jesus outside the New Testament, Van Voorst, Eerdmans 2000). Now it might be that they are wrong to think that, but if you think they are, please defend your position."

I simply don't think that is true. It probably is a majority, but I doubt if it is overwhelming.  Of course it is 15 years since 2000, so it might have been true then.

And what if Josoephus did write about James the brother of Jesus? How do we know it's your Jesus?

[jeremyp]

However, the gospels are fiction. We know this because they do not reveal their sources;

Non sequitur.

Nope. It's one point amongst many that allows us to discount them as having any historical validity.

That is not what you claimed. Thank you for correcting your error though.
[/quote]

So you pick the first point from a list of points and then misrepresent it as being a stand alone argument that the gospels are mythical.

I thought Christians were supposed to value honesty.

No, no magic involved. Just God incarnate.

You don't get to define magic to exclude certain things just because you don't like the connotations. If Jesus really did feed 5,000 with a few loaves and fishes, it is magic whether God did it or Gandalf. However, the episode is mythical and apparently a reworking of the manna in the desert episode in Exodus, according to Spud.

[Hope]

Must be the lamest excuse I've ever heard. I fancy that if a charismatic preacher had inspired me to leave my productive employment to wander around with him (leaving family behind in the process) and had just managed to transform a few scraps of food into enough to feed thousands, then I think I would have remembered  it.

So, its a 'fancy'.  Nothing solid, nothing related to several months' of living alongside a highly charismatic person who potentially does amazing things every day. 

Yes, I know about numerology - decades ago I even half believed there might be something in it (I'm number  7, apparently) .

  That's more than I've ever done. 

However, it does little to enhance the reliability of the gospels as historical accounts if one is required to subscribe to a belief in such nonsense.

But one isn't 'required to subscribe to a belief in such nonsense'.  The Gospels were written to an audience that was made up of Jews and Gentiles.  Both would have understood the concepts of numerology, so using those to explain certain truths to them would be fairly natural.  That is why translations or paraphrases that have been written within the last 20+ years use other literary devices to express the same ideas.

The phrase "Gospel truth" would in my case be interpreted as "That which should be taken with a very large pinch of salt".

That would certainly match my approach to comments that you and others like you post here.  They conveniently ignore cultural ideas that don't match your understanding or experience.

An American Unitarian minister not so long ago wrote a study of Mark in which he claimed it was replete with astrological significance. No doubt it is replete with references to numerology and astrology. Which only goes to reinforce the idea that here we are not dealing with historical accounts in any sense.

I notice you use an example of someone very much on the extremes of Christianity - Unitarians are not a mainstream group.