gMark misled gLuke and gMatthew composers?

[dbz]

The gospels might be "about" a historical person, even if only in the sense that Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is about a historical person, while the tales of Herakles are not about a historical person, full stop.

The gospels might be "about" a historical person with equal probability that the gospels might be "about" a mythical person. Per Bayesian analysis using the equation in the "Odds Form". The canonical gospels are equally valid evidence for both hypotheses—historicity and mythicism—thus they both are irrelevant to the equation's solution, i.e. they cancel each other out.

[O]ne might challenge and overturn Carrier’s overall case for having reasons to doubt the historical existence of Jesus. In short, the way to do that is to demonstrate that Carrier’s probabilistic analyses of the various strands of evidence are seriously flawed. Some critics have strongly objected to Carrier’s point that the Jesus of the canonical gospels scores relatively high on the Rank-Raglan hero scale claiming that Carrier has thereby unfairly prejudiced the argument in favour of Jesus being a mythical character. But to overthrow Carrier’s point the critics need to face the fact that Carrier acknowledges that genuinely historical persons do also score relatively highly on that same scale and to demonstrate that Carrier’s point has in fact unfairly skewed the final result. The point of the Bayesian approach is to make the most reasonable assessment of all the data, returning and revising previous estimates in the light of new information, and so on. It matters not so much where one begins, Lataster points out, if along the way all of the relevant data is factored in; that being the case the end result should work out the same.

---

--Godfrey, Neil (27 October 2019). "Review part 10: Questioning the Historicity of Jesus / Lataster (Conclusion)". Vridar.

[rgprice]

I think we need to be a little careful here. A typical definition of the "historical Jesus" (here, the core propositions implied by Carrier's "Minimal" HJ)

Historical Jesus: An actual man who was at some point named Jesus acquired followers in life who continued as an identifiable movement after his death. Some of this man’s followers claimed that he had been executed by Jewish or Roman authorities.

is based on the gospels and Acts. IF these quasi-sources are literally as mythical as our sources for Herakles, then there is no historical Jesus as typically discussed. (Whether Paul really said the Jews killed Jesus is uncertain, nothing from him survives implicating Romans in Jesus's death or asserting that Jesus acquired followers in life.)

I have no problem with someone who concludes that Jesus and Herakles are equally likely to be mythical, but I do think that the canonical gospels can be distinguished from the tales of Herakles. The gospels might be "about" a historical person, even if only in the sense that Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter is about a historical person, while the tales of Herakles are not about a historical person, full stop.

Agreed. And what I argue is that it can be definitively proven that the Jesus of the Gospel is an entirely invented fictional character, with zero basis in historical reality, other than the degree to which the Jesus of the Gospels is based upon the figure of Paul, who himself may or may not have been real.

What I argue is that the Gospels are entirely literary inventions, created only in teh minds of the writers, and this can be shown by how those writers use their sources. The literary ties of all of the Gospels narratives are extensive and it can be shown essentially how each scene in each Gospel relates back to some other literary source which is not based upon any actual account of Jesus the person.

So for example how the Cleansing of the Temple in Mark is based on Hosea 9 and other scriptures, and then how the comparable scene in every other Gospel is based on Mark. On how a scene is based on Josephus or Philo, but not on accounts of the Jesus of the Gospels, i.e. how details about the reign of Pilate come from Josephus, not from independent community traditions, etc., etc.

[StephenGoranson]

"....zero basis in historical reality...."
How an individual might claim this fundamentalist, totalizing reductionism may interest some, but may be less interesting for probatively assessing history.

[Ulan]

I disagree with that. To say that you cannot prove that a story is an allegorical fiction is not true. This can certainly be proven. I think we can definitively prove that Alice in Wonderland is allegorical fiction. It's not an opinion.

You can disagree all you want, but we're not talking about Alice in Wonderland here, where you can certainly prove that. Not sure though how you think it helps your case if you prove that Alice in Wonderland is allegorical fiction.

[rgprice]

You can disagree all you want, but we're not talking about Alice in Wonderland here, where you can certainly prove that. Not sure though how you think it helps your case if you prove that Alice in Wonderland is allegorical fiction.

So you agree that it is not inherently impossible to prove that any story is allegorical fiction correct? What makes it possible to prove this about one story but not another?

How an individual might claim this fundamentalist, totalizing reductionism may interest some, but may be less interesting for probatively assessing history.

I don't think so. Again, we can use extreme examples as starting points.

One example: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... nt-214535/

But lets consider someone that we agree could be determined to be entirely made up. Let's say that there was an account from the first century of a Jewish man named James, who had long hair and was impossibly strong, but he was captured by enemy forced through trickery from a woman and they cut his hair and when they did he lost his strength. But while in prison his hair grew and be was able to break out and destroy the house of his captors.

And, when looking into this account of 1st century James it turns out that the story is word for word identical to the story of Samson from the Jewish scriptures, with the exception of a few name changes here and there to make the story fix the context of the 1st century. And, on top of this, news of this story spread like wildfire and we also have 10 other accounts of the life and deeds of James, but all of them repeat all of the same information from the first including many identical word for word parallels to the story of Samson.

Do you think it would be possible to conclude that James was a made up figure? That the account of James was fictitious? Do you think it would be reasonable to conclude that the account of James was not based on the real person, but was really just a retelling of the story of Samson that was mistakenly believed to be true? Keep in mind I'm saying that the text of every account is word for word identical to Judges 13-16 with the exception of name changes. The other accounts are all just sub-quotes from the original.

The account of his death reads:

Then James called to the Lord and said, “Lord God, remember me and strengthen me only this once, O God, so that with this one act of revenge I may pay back the Romans for my two eyes.” 29 And James grasped the two middle pillars on which the house rested, and he leaned his weight against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other. 30 Then James said, “Let me die with the Romans.” He strained with all his might, and the house fell on the lords and all the people who were in it. So those he killed at his death were more than those he had killed during his life. Then his kindred and all his family came down and took him and brought him up and buried him between John and Esther in the tomb of his father Enoch. He had judged Jerusalem twenty years.

Do you think it could be concluded that none of this really happened in the first century in this situation?

[rgprice]

Likewise I'll point out that classicists widely agree that the biography of Homer is pure literary invention. The name Homer has been traced back to a class of poets, it was never the name of a specific individual. Homer the person is a fictional invention. This is not controversial. A study of Sibyls the by H.W. Parke concludes that the Sibyls were pure literary inventions. The Sibyl was not based on a real person. There was no real prophetess upon whom the identity was based, the Sibyl was an invented literary character, whose identify was later adapted by other writers who ended up multiplying her and putting her into many different contexts. There was no real person behind any of the accounts. The prophecies of the Sibyls were all invented, most likely by male writers, to suit political ends. Classicists have had no problem identifying hundreds of figures as literary inventions. This isn't controversial.

To claim that it "cannot be proven" that a figure is a literary invention is complete and total nonsense. There are literally millions of figures that are universally agreed to be pure literary inventions, from Peter Parker to Noah.

[dbz]

"....zero basis in historical reality...."
...may be less interesting for probatively assessing history.

Descartes argued that we can achieve moral certainty on certain matters, such as the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. He evaluated the evidence for and against these beliefs and concluded that the evidence in favor of these beliefs is stronger than the evidence against them.

Locke argues that moral certainty is the highest degree of certainty that we can achieve on most matters. He claims that absolute certainty is only possible in a small number of cases, such as mathematical propositions. On most matters, we must rely on evidence and experience to form our beliefs.

IMO Price—in the context of "moral certainty"—is making a valid assertion of fact. It is a fact that Russel's teapot could not be in orbit if there is no reliable and preferably primary source for evidence of the teapot.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Is Star Wars an allegory? I don't think so. I mean I have never seen anyone claim that Star Wars, the first movie, symbolizes some current political situation. The Empire doesn't represent the Soviet Union or America. Who are the rebels? They align to no current political or national group of the 1970s. That Star Wars draws on WWII is certainly true, but it isn't an allegory about WWII. Is Darth Vader Hitler? I've never seen it claimed, nor do I see how the two would relate.

Your definition said nothing about whether anybody had or hadn't interpreted a story as having a hidden meaning, it spoke only of whether such an interpretation can be made. There was nothing about restricting candidate hidden meanings to historical events or politics, it said only "typically" moral or political - not exclusively political.

BTW, moral as adjective from the same general source as your definition of allegory (The Oxford group) comes out as concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.

It is uncontroversial that Star Wars, the first movie, was heavily influenced by Joseph Campbell's concept of the archetypal "hero's journey" especially as explained in his book The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Whether the "monomyth" is a correct view, it is (to all appearances) the view of the principal creator of the movie, George Lucas.

It seems self-evident, then, that any story featuring examples of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human characters can be interpreted as concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. Star Wars, iirc, fits the bill.

Bottom line: I am not claiming that all stories are or should be allegories. I am claiming that your proposed definition is of little use in distinguishing allegorical from non-allegorical stories.

[Ulan]

You can disagree all you want, but we're not talking about Alice in Wonderland here, where you can certainly prove that. Not sure though how you think it helps your case if you prove that Alice in Wonderland is allegorical fiction.

So you agree that it is not inherently impossible to prove that any story is allegorical fiction correct? What makes it possible to prove this about one story but not another?

In one case, we know the author and know that his protagonists and locations are invented. In the case of the gospels, you don't know the author, work with real locations and don't know whether any of the protagonists are invented or not. This leaves you with pure interpretation of evidence, which unfortunately is insufficient to make this call.

The problem with mythicist positions is that it's immeasurably more difficult to prove a negative than to prove a positive. In the latter case, a few slivers of a lot of different kinds of evidence suffice to make the point, but in the former, you need a very specific piece of evidence that is, in most cases, impossible to get hold of. That may not be fair, but there's no way around this issue.

[StephenGoranson]

"There are literally millions of figures that are universally agreed to be pure literary inventions,..."
Extreme?