Fine detail in the gospels: made up or not?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I was responding to your reply to him ("When do you think this happened? Why do you think all Christians were peasants? Why do you think that peasants are both illiterate and stupid?  How do you evaluate the likelihood of this?") in which you seemed to see all sorts of things that I didn't. Where does the "stupid" for example come from?

Because of the implication that there was no way of them using a scribe. Your post just seems like a complete non sequitur to the question of the likelihood of this being a dream of some unnamed scribe of some unnamed Roman Empoeroy at some unspecified time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Because of the implication that there was no way of them using a scribe. Your post just seems like a complete non sequitur to the question of the likelihood of this being a dream of some unnamed scribe of some unnamed Roman Empoeroy at some unspecified time.

It would be an irrelevance rather than a non sequitur (they’re different) and that’s because I wasn’t responding to jj ‘s post at all, but rather to your response to it. I was merely saying that a long oral tradition prior to stories being written down would be likely to embed all sorts of errors without requiring some of the various characteristics you think he implied (stupidity for example) but that I didn’t see.

He also incidentally framed his proposition as a question (“Isn’t it more likely that…”) rather than as a calculation of some kind.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

It would be an irrelevance rather than a non sequitur (they’re different) and that’s because I wasn’t responding to jj ‘s post at all, but rather to your response to it. I was merely saying that a long oral tradition prior to stories being written down would be likely to embed all sorts of errors without requiring some of the various characteristics you think he implied (stupidity for example) but that I didn’t see.

He also incidentally framed his proposition as a question (“Isn’t it more likely that…”) rather than as a calculation of some kind.     

Seems like both an irrelevance and a non sequitur me. Nothing I asked had anything to do with your reply. I've explained the stupid remark and you have just ignored that.


And 'isn't it more likely' is an implied calculation as well as a question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Seems like both an irrelevance and a non sequitur me. Nothing I asked had anything to do with your reply. I've explained the stupid remark and you have just ignored that.

No you didn't - nothing jj said implied stupidity, and your "Because of the implication that there was no way of them using a scribe" doesn't support the claim of implied stupidity either - if the tradition was almost entirely oral (or for that matter if the original events weren't thought by those who saw them to be particularly interesting) then nothing jj said suggested that he thought those involved were stupid for not seeking out scribes.

And 'isn't it more likely' is an implied calculation as well as a question.

But still framed as a question rather than as an assertion that would necessitate showing his workings.

You seem to be in full blown "pick an argument for the sake of it" mode here so I'll leave it there I think. Funnily enough I'm doing some tax work just now for an Italian client that entails putting various phrases from a pdf through Google Translate. Because it produces odd results, I'm doing the very thing I talked about earlier - blocking in by guessing at what it means to say ("records" rather than "screeds", "applicant" rather than "servant" etc).     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

No you didn't - nothing jj said implied stupidity, and your "Because of the implication that there was no way of them using a scribe" doesn't support the claim of implied stupidity either - if the tradition was almost entirely oral (or for that matter if the original events weren't thought by those who saw them to be particularly interesting) then nothing jj said suggested that he thought those involved were stupid for not seeking out scribes.

But still framed as a question rather than as an assertion that would necessitate showing his workings.

You seem to be in full blown "pick an argument for the sake of it" mode here so I'll leave it there I think. Funnily enough I'm doing some tax work just now for an Italian client that entails putting various phrases from a pdf through Google Translate. Because it produces odd results, I'm doing the very thing I talked about earlier - blocking in by guessing at what it means to say ("records" rather than "screeds", "applicant" rather than "servant" etc).   

I think someone making an irrelevant non sequitur about and then complaining about that being pointed out stating that the person they are replying to is picking an argument for the sake of it is in the sound of breaking glass.

[Spud]

Ok let’s say you are right here. All you have left of the story is that Jesus’ parents were Joseph and Mary (the virgin birth is also a common point), he was born in Bethlehem and ended up in Nazareth at some point.

Apart from the virgin birth that is all quite believable but also ordinary. Unfortunately, we can’t be sure that they had independent sources especially as both were clearly aware of alleged prophecies saying the the messiah would be born in Bethlehem

Glad we are on the same wavelength regarding the similarities and differences between the accounts. I was reading from one of the online commentaries the other day, and it showed that Matthew and Luke were not aware the other existed (but I don't remember more than that it was something to do with the Nativity accounts). If I can find it I'll let you know.

[Spud]

What make, model and colour of car was Paul driving?

Likewise for Ben's car?

Paul had a VW Polo. It didn't have very good acceleration.

[ippy]

Can't remember the quote was exactly but it was about philosophy in general the and it was just a statement by this person indicating, philosophy's discussing words.

I'm more or less comfortable with the O E D definitions of our English words, I don't see myself as as budding Bertrand Russell, nor anyone else that posts here, if they really were budding philosophers they'd probably take one look at this forum and that would be it.

 Regards, ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Can't remember the quote was exactly but it was about philosophy in general the and it was just a statement by this person indicating, philosophy's discussing words.

I'm more or less comfortable with the O E D definitions of our English words, I don't see myself as as budding Bertrand Russell, nor anyone else that posts here, if they really were budding philosophers they'd probably take one look at this forum and that would be it.

 Regards, ippy

Eh?

[jeremyp]

I think the implications of what you are saying would need application on more than the foundation of Christianity otherwise  it looks a bit biased.
Apart from three or fourpence for a dance are there any actual comparable examples?

The point of the NT is or wicked genius of the NT depending on your point of view is a believing community as implicitly and explicitly mentioned in the epistles and a referential community in Jerusalem and between them the integrity of the account is maintained.

Practically every oral history has the same problem. The In Our Time programme on the Empire of Mali discusses the problem in detail with respect to the Epic of Sundiata.

[jjohnjil]

When do you think this happened? Why do you think all Christians were peasants? Why do you think that peasants are both illiterate and stupid?  How do you evaluate the likelihood of this?

Firstly, NS, I didn't say all Christians were peasants, I said that those who Jesus  had as followers when he was wondering around doing his magic, the Disciples, were ordinary workers of 2000 years ago. 

If you went to that area only 200 years ago you would have found the common workers as uneducated as all other peasants around the world were.  It's only 150 years ago in this country did the workers' kids start getting educated!

So anyone around who witnessed this so-called resurrection, would hardly have been in a position to write an account of it. In fact, at least 20 years went by before anyone did!

As for the unnamed emporor, look up Constantine's vision. 

[Nearly Sane]

Firstly, NS, I didn't say all Christians were peasants, I said that those who Jesus  had as followers when he was wondering around doing his magic, the Disciples, were ordinary workers of 2000 years ago. 

If you went to that area only 200 years ago you would have found the common workers as uneducated as all other peasants around the world were.  It's only 150 years ago in this country did the workers' kids start getting educated!

So anyone around who witnessed this so-called resurrection, would hardly have been in a position to write an account of it. In fact, at least 20 years went by before anyone did!

As for the unnamed emporor, look up Constantine's vision.

So if all Christians weren't illiterate then there is no problem with epistles being written. Further given there is documentation of Christians existing before Constantine, and indeed the vision of Constantine is based on the success of Christianity, why would there be any problem of the epistles existing before that.

[jeremyp]

Glad we are on the same wavelength regarding the similarities and differences between the accounts. I was reading from one of the online commentaries the other day, and it showed that Matthew and Luke were not aware the other existed (but I don't remember more than that it was something to do with the Nativity accounts). If I can find it I'll let you know.

They may well not have known each other but they both had a copy of Mark’s gospel and another document and if they didn’t know each other, the Nativities are easily explained as independent embellishments of another source.

On the other hand, some people, like Mark Goodacre, argue that Luke knew Matthew’s gospel but threw out his nativity and replaced it.

[jjohnjil]

So if all Christians weren't illiterate then there is no problem with epistles being written. Further given there is documentation of Christians existing before Constantine, and indeed the vision of Constantine is based on the success of Christianity, why would there be any problem of the epistles existing before that.

Yes, NS, all the Disciples had BA degrees and Christianity had been a world-wide religion for centuries before JS was born.

Silly me, I bow to your expertise.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes, NS, all the Disciples had BA degrees and Christianity had been a world-wide religion for centuries before JS was born.

Silly me, I bow to your expertise.

Did you get a good deal on all that straw?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I think someone making an irrelevant non sequitur about and then complaining about that being pointed out stating that the person they are replying to is picking an argument for the sake of it is in the sound of breaking glass.

Well that's novel. You seem to have invented the (somewhat tautological) complaint of "irrelevant non sequitur" in respect of a post other than the one to which I was actually replying. How far back should this apply do you think - five posts prior? 20 Maybe? Perhaps you could attempt the complaint about a different discussion entirely - ie, "Your reply on the decline of house sparrows was an irrelevant non sequitur to my learned thoughts elsewhere on the Trinity" or some such. The possibilities are endless!

Hats off to you though - even our resident house troll hadn't thought of that one. Mind you, give it time I suppose...

     

[jeremyp]

Yes, NS, all the Disciples had BA degrees and Christianity had been a world-wide religion for centuries before JS was born.

Silly me, I bow to your expertise.

I have the equivalent of a BA but I was able to write long before I achieved that qualification.

The idea that Christianity was a hoax created by Constantine with the help of Eusebius is very much a minority position and holds about as much water as any other conspiracy theory. There is enough evidence that the NT documents were written towards the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century to discard the Constantine Conpiracy Theory.

[Spud]

They may well not have known each other but they both had a copy of Mark’s gospel and another document and if they didn’t know each other, the Nativities are easily explained as independent embellishments of another source.

On the other hand, some people, like Mark Goodacre, argue that Luke knew Matthew’s gospel but threw out his nativity and replaced it.

Rather than they both had copies of Mark's gospel, what about comparing the words and deeds of Jesus with someone like David Attenborough giving talks on the natural world and three or four of his audience writing down what he said in their own words, taking notes. Either the disciples did something like that or they learned them by heart and later dictated them to people more able to compose and structure a book.

There are so many differences between the versions of stories that it's difficult to say that one has copied the other. For example Matthew and Mark both describe how Jesus calmed the storm. Mark adds key details that Matthew doesn't appear to have read, such as the cushion Jesus was sleeping on and the fact that he was in the stern, also the other boats being with him. But there are bits that are included by both, such as the disciples saying, "who is this man whom the wind and waves obey?" Those bits seem to have been recorded before, either learned and passed on orally or written down. It's as if Mark has Peter there giving his version of the event, with Matthew writing from his own experience of it; both structuring it around a tradition that's been learned.

Re the nativities: don't you agree that Matthew focuses more on Joseph's experience and Luke focuses on Mary's and Elizabeth's, indicating different sources?

[Rhiannon]

The nativities are apocryphal. Matthew writes for a Jewish audience, Luke for a gentle. Both have a perspective of Jesus that they illustrate through their respective stories.

Arguably they are both rather fluffy.

[jeremyp]

Rather than they both had copies of Mark's gospel

Why? It's pretty much undisputed amongst honest scholars that Matthew and Luke both used Mark's gospel as the basis of their own writings. They more or less copied it verbatim.

what about comparing the words and deeds of Jesus with someone like David Attenborough giving talks on the natural world and three or four of his audience writing down what he said in their own words

Because the evidence doesn't support that scenario. Matthew and Luke copied large parts of Mark. Their text is too similar to his for them to have just used the same oral source, especially when we consider that an oral source probably would have spoken in Aramaic and each of the gospel writers woulds apply their own translation.

There are so many differences between the versions of stories. For example Matthew and Mark both describe how Jesus calmed the storm. Mark adds key details that Matthew doesn't appear to have read, such as the cushion Jesus was sleeping on and the fact that he was in the stern

That's better explained as Matthew and Luke excising what they considered to be irrelevant detail.

Re the nativities: don't you agree that Matthew focuses more on Joseph's experience and Luke focuses on Mary's, indicating different sources?

I don't see how you can call this "focussing" since, apart from the bare bones of the names of the parents, virgin birth, birth in Bethlehem and eventual arrival back in Nazareth, the two stories are completely different. It's as though each author was given those four points and then made up a complete fiction around them.

[Spud]

Jeremy,
Whether or not either of Mark and Matthew copied the other, how do we distinguish between fictitious embellishments and eyewitness testimony when we find additional information given by one that the other doesn't include?

[Dicky Underpants]

Of course however I have encountered Jesus myself and the account in the NT is consistent with my experience.

Since the way Jesus is described in the NT has so many different and contradictory facets, this claim is more than extraordinary. You keep using the singular with regard to the images of Jesus in the NT - the only way that this can be sustained is by using the ludicrous 'harmonisation' techniques of the fundamentalists, or by means of a personally biased form of cherry-picking.
I suspect the latter, in that you were personally disposed to encounter the Jesus that suited you. I may be totally wrong, but I'm no novice in these matters of 'personal encounters'. And many sincere, but ultimately disillusioned Christians have written poignant accounts of their personal encounters with 'Jesus', but have finally realised that they were duped by the immense creative powers of their own minds.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since the way Jesus is described in the NT has so many different and contradictory facets, this claim is more than extraordinary. You keep using the singular with regard to the images of Jesus in the NT - the only way that this can be sustained is by using the ludicrous 'harmonisation' techniques of the fundamentalists, or by means of a personally biased form of cherry-picking.
I suspect the latter, in that you were personally disposed to encounter the Jesus that suited you. I may be totally wrong, but I'm no novice in these matters of 'personal encounters'. And many sincere, but ultimately disillusioned Christians have written poignant accounts of their personal encounters with 'Jesus', but have finally realised that they were duped by the immense creative powers of their own minds.

You can suspect what you will of course. I think you suffer from the belief that a belief is always obtained by a mere intellectual assent of a text from which one either carries on in it or steps back from it. That does not describe my encounter with Christ.

[floo]

You can suspect what you will of course. I think you suffer from the belief that a belief is always obtained by a mere intellectual assent of a text from which one either carries on in it or steps back from it. That does not describe my encounter with Christ.

How do you know your 'encounter' with the long dead Jesus was anything more than your imagination conjuring it up?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know your 'encounter' with the long dead Jesus was anything more than your imagination conjuring it up?

I had several years living with my imagination and knew it more intimately than anyone else.