Thou art Peter and upon this rock

[outhouse]

Yes, this takes us back to the whole nature of ancient historical writing. The aim was to teach, to edify, and history was not about preserving memories of "what really happened" for its own sake. What was "real" was what was believable. Stories would be made up if they were plausible and conveyed what was according to "human nature". Realism was more important than reality.



I'm rambling again--- this is a huge huge topic.

You may be rambling but your at least adding value here. And I do like reading your work.

I agree whole hearted. But mythology and theology in Judaism sometimes is not always a 100% literary creation, they often have historical cores.


had the Jesus character been pushed back further then 15 ish years in Pauls writing, I would be more convinced of a literary origin.

-- the name Peter represented the rocky soil of the parable

I have also heard that it could represent some rocky cliffs Jews used to take refuge in.

[neilgodfrey]

[But mythology and theology in Judaism sometimes is not always a 100% literary creation, they often have historical cores.

"Historical core" is a fuzzy term. Fiction very often, including ancient fiction, includes historical persons, real geographic places, all to create a sense of realism. The stories themselves are entirely fiction. Many say that King Josiah's discovery of the Law in the Temple has a historical core. But they have no clearly valid reason or justification for saying this. Yet there are several reasons for believing the account to be entirely fiction: stories of discoveries of this type are common in the ancient literature and serve the purpose of lending credence to the new text.

The claim that there is a historical core when there is no external support for the claim is, in the end, simply baseless. The fact that it is widely assumed does not make any difference.

[outhouse]

Many say that King Josiah's discovery of the Law in the Temple has a historical core


.

And I agree that there are excellent reasons to dismiss this.

The claim that there is a historical core when there is no external support for the claim is, in the end, simply baseless.

But there is often external support, enough to know they are all not 100% literary creations.

Take the flood accounts, there was a river flood in 2900 BC that spawned all the mythology in the area, including Noahs mythology.


Again if death wasn't within 15 years ish of Pauls writing, I would be more open to add more credibility to a 100% literary creation.

[neilgodfrey]

But there is often external support, enough to know they are all not 100% literary creations.

External and independent support needs to be established in each case. Historicity (or non-historicity) should never be assumed.

[outhouse]

But there is often external support, enough to know they are all not 100% literary creations.

External and independent support needs to be established in each case. Historicity (or non-historicity) should never be assumed.

Agreed.

To bad they cannot determine a vague percentage agreed upon, for and against.

[neilgodfrey]

To bad they cannot determine a vague percentage agreed upon, for and against.

I don't understand what you are referring to.

[DCHindley]

To bad they cannot determine a vague percentage agreed upon, for and against.

I don't understand what you are referring to.

Why start now?

DCH

[andrewcriddle]

[But mythology and theology in Judaism sometimes is not always a 100% literary creation, they often have historical cores.

"Historical core" is a fuzzy term. Fiction very often, including ancient fiction, includes historical persons, real geographic places, all to create a sense of realism. The stories themselves are entirely fiction. Many say that King Josiah's discovery of the Law in the Temple has a historical core. But they have no clearly valid reason or justification for saying this. Yet there are several reasons for believing the account to be entirely fiction: stories of discoveries of this type are common in the ancient literature and serve the purpose of lending credence to the new text.

The claim that there is a historical core when there is no external support for the claim is, in the end, simply baseless. The fact that it is widely assumed does not make any difference.

Hi Neil

I think it may depend on what you mean by historical core.

For me, claiming that the story has a historical core would mean claiming that there was a King Josiah who sought to reform the religion of Judea on the basis of a previously unknown text similar to our Deuteronomy, which was claimed to have been discovered during the renovation of the temple. IIUC you would require more of the details to be true in order to accept a historical core.

Andrew Criddle

[neilgodfrey]

I think it may depend on what you mean by historical core.

For me, claiming that the story has a historical core would mean claiming that there was a King Josiah who sought to reform the religion of Judea on the basis of a previously unknown text similar to our Deuteronomy, which was claimed to have been discovered during the renovation of the temple. IIUC you would require more of the details to be true in order to accept a historical core.

Andrew Criddle

Indeed, we would want some independent evidence to support the main story itself. Just the name of the king alone does nothing more than add verisimilitude to the story's setting.

This is especially so given the prevalence of stories about the sudden and timely discoveries of law tablets, holy scrolls, etc in the literary record. These stories happily tend to serve ideological/political interests so our suspicions incline us to be a little on the sceptical side until such evidence turns up.

[outhouse]

I think it may depend on what you mean by historical core.

Andrew Criddle

It would help.

For me, claiming that the story has a historical core would mean claiming that there was a King Josiah who sought to reform the religion of Judea on the basis of a previously unknown text similar to our Deuteronomy, which was claimed to have been discovered during the renovation of the temple. IIUC you would require more of the details to be true in order to accept a historical core.

In his context of "Josiah's discovery of the Law in the Temple" Is probably not historical.


But I do believe that under Josiah we did have monotheistic reforms to loyalty to Yahweh alone, as he is said to be a loyal Yahwist and there is little reason to doubt this.

What political ramifications were involved behind the scene however is all very debatable.