proudfootz wrote:...The key to the development of a body of literature, and the development of a mythos, would seem to be in how the elements are transmitted and transformed. The gospel tales present an opportunity to examine how different authors and different communities chose to shape a salvation figure meme in a particularly cosmopolitan setting.

proudfootz wrote:One useful tool for the study of literature of any kind is the recognition of parallels among different texts which might suggest relationships between them.

Dale Allison has argued that many passages in the Gospel of Matthew are parallel to the career of Moses; John Dominic Crossan has found Gospel parallels in Joshua, the poet Virgil and the funeral monument of Augustus; Rikki Watts has found detailed parallels between the Gospel of Mark and the second half of the Book of Isaiah.

These scholars are well embedded within the conventional wisdom of scholarly views. Their parallels are more likely to be taken seriously, at least considered valid topics for serious discussion.

And on it goes. Probably everyone agrees that there are real parallels between the Passion scene of Christ and the Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, Amos, Zechariah and others.

<full article linked below>

http://vridar.org/2014/03/20/parallels- ... ifference/

The key to the development of a body of literature, and the development of a mythos, would seem to be in how the elements are transmitted and transformed. The gospel tales present an opportunity to examine how different authors and different communities chose to shape a salvation figure meme in a particularly cosmopolitan setting.

Regardless of whether there ever was a specific man whose real biography was smothered by this savior myth most of the evidence left to is is of the development of the myth with roots deep in time and wide in geography.

As for the 'dastardly monks' pretty much anyone who's not a fundamentalist agrees even 'secular' sources have been tampered with.

Owdhat wrote:...... Amazingly this is also the case for Jesus.
He existed whether he existed or not, who cares we won't be far off the mark. To claim he didn't leaves an untidy pile of evidence that needs an explanation

dejuror wrote:

Owdhat wrote:...... Amazingly this is also the case for Jesus.
He existed whether he existed or not, who cares we won't be far off the mark. To claim he didn't leaves an untidy pile of evidence that needs an explanation

Your statement is not logical at all--"He existed whether he existed or not".

Blood wrote:

proudfootz wrote:One useful tool for the study of literature of any kind is the recognition of parallels among different texts which might suggest relationships between them.

Dale Allison has argued that many passages in the Gospel of Matthew are parallel to the career of Moses; John Dominic Crossan has found Gospel parallels in Joshua, the poet Virgil and the funeral monument of Augustus; Rikki Watts has found detailed parallels between the Gospel of Mark and the second half of the Book of Isaiah.

These scholars are well embedded within the conventional wisdom of scholarly views. Their parallels are more likely to be taken seriously, at least considered valid topics for serious discussion.

And on it goes. Probably everyone agrees that there are real parallels between the Passion scene of Christ and the Psalms, Isaiah, Daniel, Amos, Zechariah and others.

<full article linked below>

http://vridar.org/2014/03/20/parallels- ... ifference/

The key to the development of a body of literature, and the development of a mythos, would seem to be in how the elements are transmitted and transformed. The gospel tales present an opportunity to examine how different authors and different communities chose to shape a salvation figure meme in a particularly cosmopolitan setting.

Regardless of whether there ever was a specific man whose real biography was smothered by this savior myth most of the evidence left to is of the development of the myth with roots deep in time and wide in geography.

"It must be historical because no one would make it up" sounds like a weak defense when practically every pericope can be shown to have been taken from Biblical and other literature. Given that, a more appropriate question to ask is, "How could any of this have been based on a real person?"

dejuror wrote:

Owdhat wrote:...... Amazingly this is also the case for Jesus.
He existed whether he existed or not, who cares we won't be far off the mark. To claim he didn't leaves an untidy pile of evidence that needs an explanation

Your statement is not logical at all--"He existed whether he existed or not".

Owdhat wrote:
I must assume you misunderstand the nature of ancient history, we can never know what actually happened or who actually existed. A model is created that is the best representation. If it predicts some one or some event happened then even if they or it didn't happen something very like them did. throwing out data for the wrong reasons makes it less accurate.
In other words I can assume Jesus was real figure for all intents and purposes knowing that I won't be a million miles off the mark.

dejuror wrote:

Owdhat wrote:
I must assume you misunderstand the nature of ancient history, we can never know what actually happened or who actually existed. A model is created that is the best representation. If it predicts some one or some event happened then even if they or it didn't happen something very like them did. throwing out data for the wrong reasons makes it less accurate.
In other words I can assume Jesus was real figure for all intents and purposes knowing that I won't be a million miles off the mark.

Your statement still lacks logic. Once you admit that you can never know what actually happened then you should have realized that your model has no real historical value.

In other words, your assumptions are worthless-- by a million miles.

1 The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah,[a] the Son of God,[b]

Footnotes:

Mark 1:1 Or Jesus Christ. Messiah (Hebrew) and Christ (Greek) both mean Anointed One.
Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.

The problems related to establishing the reliability of historical criteria apply equally to any historical analysis of the persons and events that have shaped our lives and the beliefs we hold dear. This in-depth discussion of New Testament scholarship and the challenges of history as a whole proposes Bayes’s Theorem, which deals with probabilities under conditions of uncertainty, as a solution to the problem of establishing reliable historical criteria. The author demonstrates that valid historical methods—not only in the study of Christian origins but in any historical study—can be described by, and reduced to, the logic of Bayes’s Theorem. Conversely, he argues that any method that cannot be reduced to this theorem is invalid and should be abandoned. Writing with thoroughness and clarity, the author explains Bayes’s Theorem in terms that are easily understandable to professional historians and laypeople alike, employing nothing more than well-known primary school math. He then explores precisely how the theorem can be applied to history and addresses numerous challenges to and criticisms of its use in testing or justifying the conclusions that historians make about the important persons and events of the past.

http://www.amazon.com/Proving-History-B ... 1616145595

Clive Durdle wrote:There is an assumed extrapolation back to a piece of grit in a pearl - a historical kernel - the alleged Jesus of Nazareth.

But extrapolation can go elsewhere, especially as this character's name is actually god's anointing saviour! And the texts we have are in a clear Homeric tradition!

Zwaarddijk wrote: So you don't believe we can have probabilistic models of things?

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

Bayes' Theorem And The "Jesus Family Tomb",

dejuror wrote:

Your statement still lacks logic. Once you admit that you can never know what actually happened then you should have realized that your model has no real historical value.

In other words, your assumptions are worthless-- by a million miles.

Zwaarddijk wrote:
So you don't believe we can have probabilistic models of things? In physics, you can't know exactly which slit a particle will pass through, so QM is worthless-- by a million miles?

As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God..

RealityRules wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote: So you don't believe we can have probabilistic models of things?

Yes, we do have a probabilistic model. That is what Richard Carrier is trying to clarify by applying Bayes Theorem to the question of a "historical Jesus" -

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus

Interestingly, others have also applied Bayes Theorem to Jesus, including a physicist -

Bayes' Theorem And The "Jesus Family Tomb",

as discussed a little by Carrier here - http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1539
.
add: Here is a criticism of Carrier

Zwaarddijk wrote:
As far as I can tell, Carrier is perhaps the best mythicist as far as scholarly meticulousness goes. Certainly his bayesian model is well worth looking at - but Dejuror's statement essentially says that any such model is worthless by a million miles

dejuror wrote:

Zwaarddijk wrote:
As far as I can tell, Carrier is perhaps the best mythicist as far as scholarly meticulousness goes. Certainly his bayesian model is well worth looking at - but Dejuror's statement essentially says that any such model is worthless by a million miles

Your statement is false. I never said such a thing. You do not appear credible by a million miles.

angelo wrote:Dejuror Still got the point across about the Bayesian Theorem able to disprove the Jesus myth.