Sheer volume

[TedM]

I'll get crucified here for this probably, but I increasingly see the sheer volume of gospel material written by at least 4 different people -- most likely before 100AD as very strong evidence not only that Jesus existed, but that he was quite a teacher and maybe even defied natural laws. Yes, there was a lot of overlapping material, but you still have a LOT of material that is unique to each of the 4, if you consider GMark to be written first, and from my judgement were written by non-historians with the intention of telling actual history, though with clear religious purposes too. The sheer volume multiplied by the number of people who wrote them should be given a fair amount of weight. I'm very skeptical, but this fact just keeps sticking in my mind.

I know there was time for evolution of tradition, etc.. but even so it is hard for me to believe it all came out of thin air or Messiac expectations alone..that quickly and with that much support. I see it as the greatest story ever told and increasingly think about whether it makes more sense to believe that most of it is true, rather than just a flimsy outline is true.

I should state that this idea perhaps has increased in importance because I've been reading a chapter or so from a gospel each night for a number of months now..while very aware of many of the arguments against much of what I read...still its a lot to make up and by at least 4 people who seem to believe it themselves..

Thoughts?

[Peter Kirby]

IDK but if we're considering a scenario of high accuracy for the gospels, David Friedrich Strauss remains relevant. Might be something to go through with the gospel readings.

https://archive.org/details/lifeofjesuscriti01stra

https://archive.org/details/lifeofjesuscriti02stra

https://librivox.org/the-life-of-jesus- ... h-strauss/

[Peter Kirby]

IMO this might be a better argument for a minimal "flimsy outline" being true than it is for someone who "was quite a teacher and maybe even defied natural laws."

(1) A bare minimum historicity hypothesis (some unspecified sayings, some unspecified deeds, a crucifixion) is intrinsically more probable because the latter, more-extensive presentation (lots/several particular teachings, lots/several particular deeds, a crucifixion [& empty tomb?]) contains it. (If H=historicity and X=extra, these hypotheses are H versus H & X.)

(2) A bare minimum historicity hypothesis (H) explains the origins of the legendary process of telling stories about Jesus much the same way as the latter does (H & X), by positing that some people were impressed with this guy and with what he was saying and doing. Both succeed in explaining 'sheer volume' and in much the same manner.

(3) A bare minimum historicity hypothesis (H) coheres more with our information about how most ancient writers operated: even so-called historians were frequently forced to invent speech and narrative for their characters that drew out the moral and the gist of what was known. This was part of Greek education. It would be actually more surprising to find that there was accurate recording of several actual events and actual speeches than it would be to find that most of them were made up. So "H" better accords with our knowledge of ancient writing more than "H & X" does.

(4) Some of the narratives in the Gospels can be picked apart for internal consistency/coherency or contradictions between them. Depending on how much we put into that "X," this tends to make the probability of "X" lower. Depending on how little we put into "X," that tends to make the hypothesis "X" much more 'ad hoc' and 'gerrymandering'.

(5) If "X" includes "defied natural laws," then this has a much lower probability as an explanation than an "X" such as "appeared to perform certain healings."

Other sundry points:

There is a valid question regarding whether there is any real credibility in the additional miracle stories added by Luke and Matthew.

There is the same valid question regarding the Gospel of John's particular miracles, despite efforts to locate a 'signs' source (some call that source 'Luke').

There is a valid question over what exactly the teaching of Jesus is supposed to be. The more we put in "X," the less coherent the message is. The less we put in "X," the less able we are to explain how particular tradents of the tradition ignored part of what they were working with. To wit:

(i) If we put the Johannine discourses in the "X"-tra historical material, we really have to wonder how Mark, Matthew, and Luke missed all that.

(ii) If we put the Matthew//Luke double tradition in the "X"-tra historical material, we really have to wonder how Mark missed all that.

(iii) If we put the Markan-flavor parables, paradoxical teachings, and predictions of death in the "X"-tra historical material, and if we believe in "Q," we wonder how "Q" missed that.

In general it seems to make sense to posit that Jesus spoke like the person in "John" (eh well maybe not so much), like the person in "Mark," or like the person in the double tradition--but pick one (or none--e.g., 'mere' apocalypticist or insurrectionist, rather than a teacher).

Thanks for raising the question. It makes for an interesting change of pace.

(Most 'mythicists' would start with disputing your contention that the author of Mark was a "non-historian with the intention of telling actual history," so that seems to be one of the better places in which to take the discussion if we want to disentangle that mess of a dispute.)

[maryhelena]

I'll get crucified here for this probably, but I increasingly see the sheer volume of gospel material written by at least 4 different people -- most likely before 100AD as very strong evidence not only that Jesus existed, but that he was quite a teacher and maybe even defied natural laws. Yes, there was a lot of overlapping material, but you still have a LOT of material that is unique to each of the 4, if you consider GMark to be written first, and from my judgement were written by non-historians with the intention of telling actual history, though with clear religious purposes too. The sheer volume multiplied by the number of people who wrote them should be given a fair amount of weight. I'm very skeptical, but this fact just keeps sticking in my mind.

I know there was time for evolution of tradition, etc.. but even so it is hard for me to believe it all came out of thin air or Messiac expectations alone..that quickly and with that much support. I see it as the greatest story ever told and increasingly think about whether it makes more sense to believe that most of it is true, rather than just a flimsy outline is true.

I don't believe it all came out of 'thin air'. I do think history played a part. Memories of historical events and historical people would have been relevant to NT storytelling as memories of such inform many an author's work today. It is the known or remembered elements that add vitality to an author's written work. It's the combination of facts and creativity that mold the storyline. Many are the stories/movies that have been made out of the historical event of the last world war. The NT writers had their historical memories. They also had their OT stories with their long tradition of writing 'salvation history'; writing history through the prism of OT prophetic interests. For anyone, or group, wanting to write an origin story for Christianity - the tools were right there in front of them. The gospel story is what one would expect not the exception. i.e. the gospel story is history-like - it is not history.

I should state that this idea perhaps has increased in importance because I've been reading a chapter or so from a gospel each night for a number of months now..while very aware of many of the arguments against much of what I read...still its a lot to make up and by at least 4 people who seem to believe it themselves..

Thoughts?

Brilliant story creatively written.

• Page XIII
  
  The essence of what I want to say is simple. Having joined the Dominicans because it seemed right to do so, and having been assigned to study the bible, there came a period of my life, 1972-1975, which eventually led me to the overwhelming evidence that, while God is present in creation and in daily human life, the Bible accounts of Jesus are stories rather than history. The accounts are indeed history-like, shaped partly like some of the histories or biographies of the ancient world, and they reflect both factual aspects of the first century and God’s presence in history and in people, but they are essentially symbolic, not factual. This idea is not new, but new evidence - from recent literary studies that trace the transformation of sources and methods of composition - tips the balance decisively in its favour. Symbolism is no small thing. It helps bring reality into being. Yet it is not an individual historical event.
  
  Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus:

=======================

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Brodie

• Following on these deliberations the committee advised that they judged Beyond the Quest to be ‘imprudent and dangerous’ (a phrase from the Order’s own legislation). Accepting this assessment, the Provincial continued the sanctions on Tom Brodie – that he withdraw fully from ministry and from all forms of teaching, writing, or making public statements.

[Tenorikuma]

The problem with Jesus' teachings gets worse if we include Paul and the other epistle writers. (Clement, 1 Peter, Barnabas, James, etc.) Why did no first-century writer appeal to the teachings of Jesus in their own teachings and doctrinal disputes? If the earliest Christians couldn't even agree on something as basic as Torah observance, how could we ever hope to know what (if anything) the historical Jesus taught? What kind of renowned sage launched a worldwide religious movement with teachings so forgettable, even his closest followers neglected to pass any of it on reliably?

[neilgodfrey]

I'll get crucified here for this probably, but I increasingly see the sheer volume of gospel material written by at least 4 different people -- most likely before 100AD as very strong evidence not only that Jesus existed, but that he was quite a teacher and maybe even defied natural laws. Yes, there was a lot of overlapping material, but you still have a LOT of material that is unique to each of the 4, if you consider GMark to be written first, and from my judgement were written by non-historians with the intention of telling actual history, though with clear religious purposes too. The sheer volume multiplied by the number of people who wrote them should be given a fair amount of weight. I'm very skeptical, but this fact just keeps sticking in my mind.

I know there was time for evolution of tradition, etc.. but even so it is hard for me to believe it all came out of thin air or Messiac expectations alone..that quickly and with that much support. I see it as the greatest story ever told and increasingly think about whether it makes more sense to believe that most of it is true, rather than just a flimsy outline is true.

I should state that this idea perhaps has increased in importance because I've been reading a chapter or so from a gospel each night for a number of months now..while very aware of many of the arguments against much of what I read...still its a lot to make up and by at least 4 people who seem to believe it themselves..

Thoughts?

I don't understand. Why does a flurry of gospel type activity itself lend support to the core narrative of those gospels being the product of genuine historical reflections?

[neilgodfrey]

Does this argument rest upon the criterion of verisimilutude being the surest indicator of historicity?

[MrMacSon]

... I increasingly see the sheer volume of gospel material written by at least 4 different people -- most likely before 100AD as very strong evidence not only that Jesus existed, but that he was quite a teacher and maybe even defied natural laws. Yes, there was a lot of overlapping material, but you still have a LOT of material that is unique to each of the 4, if you consider GMark to be written first, and from my judgement were written by non-historians with the intention of telling actual history, though with clear religious purposes too. The sheer volume multiplied by the number of people who wrote them should be given a fair amount of weight. I'm very skeptical, but this fact just keeps sticking in my mind.

Key issues are

• a. whether there were fore-runners, and what shape they took;
  b. whether there were concurrent texts and what shape they took (eg. Marcion's Luke-like 'gospel').

Luke's association with Acts, and the view that Acts has anti-Marcionite flavors, suggests Acts is mid-2nd C. But. Acts could be mid-late 1st C with Luke.

A major consideration is the relationship of the Gospel writers to the writers of the Pauline texts.

Another significant issue is where they were written: John appears to be from Western Anatolia; and the Paulines appear to be from Anatolia as well.

Matthew, with its Hebrew prophecy leaning, has been postulated to be from Antioch; Mark has Roman 'flavors; Luke may be from Alexandria or any of a few other locations.

If they were all mid-late 1st century, why from such relatively disparate places??

And hardly any indication of any direct relationships of the places of writing to Galilee or Judea, other than the often common narratives.

I know there was time for evolution of tradition, etc.. but even so it is hard for me to believe it all came out of thin air or Messiac expectations alone..that quickly and with that much support. I see it as the greatest story ever told and increasingly think about whether it makes more sense to believe that most of it is true, rather than just a flimsy outline is true.

That's virtually an argument from incredulity fallacy.

[TedM]

The problem with Jesus' teachings gets worse if we include Paul and the other epistle writers. (Clement, 1 Peter, Barnabas, James, etc.) Why did no first-century writer appeal to the teachings of Jesus in their own teachings and doctrinal disputes? If the earliest Christians couldn't even agree on something as basic as Torah observance, how could we ever hope to know what (if anything) the historical Jesus taught? What kind of renowned sage launched a worldwide religious movement with teachings so forgettable, even his closest followers neglected to pass any of it on reliably?

That's a good point for sure. While it is debatable whether Paul referenced one or more teachings of Jesus, the main point remains -- he didn't say anything like "Our Lord himself said .... when he walked among us.."..and almost exclusively referenced scripture or his own ideas when it came to instructing his followers on how to behave. However, I would say that if the question is "did Jesus teach" then in addition to looking at what he didn't teach and what was not quoted, one should should also look at what the body of teachings were and how they were supposedly received by those who listened. Remember the great majority or so was taught in the form of parables to present a basic message about the nature of the kingdom of God. Even the disciples didn't understand much of it, supposedly, so until these teachings were written down much would be lost for usage, and perhaps all that would be retained early on would be a short list of sayings -- perhaps sayings like what Papias said that Matthew wrote down. Then we might expect some of early writings to reference some of those saying perhaps.., but it is possible those sayings were much like sayings of others of the time--the book of James has many of the same kinds of teachings we find in the gospels from Jesus, yet not attributed to Jesus.

Another thing to consider is that if those who heard him were caught up with 'Who is this guy - is he the prophet or Messiah to usher in the coming Kingdom of God?' and 'some are saying he rose from the dead' then the content of his teachings might well be a secondary issue until the answer to those questions was dealt with -- something that could take decades of discussion/debate...etc..

[TedM]

I don't understand. Why does a flurry of gospel type activity itself lend support to the core narrative of those gospels being the product of genuine historical reflections?

Ok. What if in addition to the 4 gospels, we have another 200 that were discovered and are also considered to have been written before 100AD? And, what if all were similar in presentation to the 4 that we have? Would that lend additional support to the core narrative of those gospels being the product of genuine historical reflections? Would that matter to you or would you still be able to rationalize that it is of no consequence?

Quantity shows the level of interest. 2 of them outright (more or less) say they are writing about actual historical events, and the other 2 imply it. If there was a question as to whether these things happened, we would expect to see some indication. In the gospels we don't see doubts about Jesus' existence, or his having been a teacher of great ability, or his ability to heal, or his having attracted a great deal of attention in his time of 'ministry'. We do see doubts about his authority and whether he really had risen from the dead. We have many matter of fact, off the cuff, mentions of people and cultural issues of the time that presumably would have been known by the readers. I'm not saying they got them all right and that mistakes weren't made, but it does not appear to me that these were input for 'effect' to make them sound historical, but rather were input because the writer thought them to be true.

Various attempts have been made to compare Jesus with writings about Robin Hood, Superman, etc..but they never seemed close in comparison.