Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

[outhouse]

How do you tell if a story is ancient historical fiction or genuine history?


So how do you tell the difference?

Each story is examined in minute detail.


Most theological fictitious stories are places in past events, always past historical knowledge. Some are even on refracted memories hundreds of years old speaking about a thousand years in the past.

Each single story is examined for evidence of the theological need demanded by the culture. Its like Moses and Abraham. Both 100% mythology with no historical core. We see in both cases they were literary creations to meet specific theological needs of a people during a certain time period.

In Jesus case, the biggest hurdle a mythicist has is the evidence points to a specific time period, and the story is not old but in recent time. So mythicist attack the dating. Not because the dating is faulty, but because it doesn't match their possible hypothesis. And I will agree the evidence is not strong either way, and dating is not a strong certainty in many cases. And should still be further studied.

As it stands these writers are all placing the main character of the show in the biggest rock concert of their day in front of half a million people, as the star of the show. And for political and theological reasons that match a living character in full 100% naturally.

[outhouse]

I agree with you notion that Paul is the anchor. However, the "martyred man" hypothesis is less clear-cut of an argument than it looks.

.

It would be less clear cut, if the average dating of text, did not place the character within a lifetime of the events in question.

And it placed him as causing trouble and being crucified in a public place to set an example of what not to do, in front of half a million people.

It also places him as an enemy to the Hellenistic rulers and Pilate, as a political figure, which fits the dating to a T. And not one of his enemies ever claim he was not the crucified man.

Somebody was crucified around this exact time period, with certainty. And mythology and theology factually generated around this martyred character. Historical or not.

[MrMacSon]

I agree with your notion that Paul is the anchor.

And of course the anchor is known to drift -- the chances of any of our texts of Paul having been preserved in their original wording are, well, a tad low.

But we do have other texts, too, that help us understand Paul's writings. We can find many of the ideas in Paul expressed in many Jewish, Roman and Greek writings that came before Paul or were from the same period in which he appears to have been writing. Curiously these works contain ideas far more akin to Paul's than much of what we read in the Book of Acts or the Gospels.

Care to provide a list of these pre-Pauline Jewish, Roman and Greek writings that express Paul's ideas?

[Ulan]

As it stands these writers are all placing the main character of the show in the biggest rock concert of their day in front of half a million people, as the star of the show.

This specific point is completely overblown. When these stories were written down, the stage of that rock concert was a heap of rubble, half of the city's inhabitants killed, and given the story played 40 years earlier, all potential witnesses were probably already dead from old age anyway.

This is just one point where the historical obstacles are blown out of proportion. If, at Paul's times, the story (oh, yes, I forgot, there wasn't a story yet) elements of his teachings were pretty much just drawn from OT passages like Isaiah, gMark becomes a pesher on this Isaiah text, adapted to the time of the fall of Jerusalem, with Jesus as a stand in for the way a Christian believer goes according to Paul's letters, with an explanation why God did not help and why salvation occurred anyway. There is not much left of gMark if you strip out Isaiah, a few psalms and a few other OT stories.

Sure, the story can be built on a real martyr, and it's definitely the easiest way to explain why the story is set in Pilates' times. I just don't see the necessity. But just entertain the idea for a moment that this half million who felt smug during the crucifixion are now dead when gMark is written, certainly as a consequence for their deeds. Which means their role is not witness, but having been punished. Over Passover, no less.

[MrMacSon]

... at Paul's times, the story ... elements of his teachings were pretty much just drawn from OT passages like Isaiah, gMark becomes a pesher on this Isaiah text, adapted to the time of the fall of Jerusalem, with Jesus as a stand in for the way a Christian believer goes according to Paul's letters, with an explanation why God did not help and why salvation occurred anyway. There's nothing left of gMark if you strip out Isaiah, a few psalms and a few other OT stories.

Sure, the story can be built on a real martyr. I just don't see the necessity.

The Pauline documents could easily be a story on a story - ie. Paul is a narrative, too.

To paraphrase Ulan's first paragraph -

• Under this scenario, when these 2nd tranche of stories were written down, the stages of that 2nd set of rock concerts (in coastal Asia Minor) were a heap of rubble; more than half of the inhabitants who were alleged to have heard the Pauline narratives were dead and, given the first story played another ~40 years earlier, all potential witnesses to the 1st tranche of Jesus stories (set in Judea) were well dead.

[outhouse]

When these stories were written down, the stage of that rock concert was a heap of rubble, half of the city's inhabitants killed, and given the story played 40 years earlier, all potential witnesses were probably already dead from old age anyway

.

Nope. These stories as stated deal with the reign of Pilate and Caiaphas, not after.

Paul wrote while the temple was still standing.

Marks compilation was finished just after the temple went down.


While Paul was alive most of the people were still alive.


These legends did not come out of a vacuum, It was in traditions going back to the beginning.

[neilgodfrey]

Care to provide a list of these pre-Pauline Jewish, Roman and Greek writings that express Paul's ideas?

I was thinking of works exploring Paul's ideas as found in Greek-Roman and other Jewish literature:

Troels Engberg-Pedersen (Paul and the Stoics)
Malherbe (Paul and the Philosophers)
Huttenen (Paul and Epictetus on Law)
James Waddell (Messiah: A Comparative Study of the Enochic Son of Man and the Pauline Kyrios)
Jarvis Williams (Maccabean Martyr Traditions in Paul's Theology)

And most recently I have been reading the following and finding many explanations of Paul's ideas found in Docherty, "Jewish Pseudepigrapha" and Litwa "Iesus Deus" which identifies Greek and Roman sources for some of Paul's thought.

[neilgodfrey]

How do you tell if a story is ancient historical fiction or genuine history?


So how do you tell the difference?

Each story is examined in minute detail.


Most theological fictitious stories are places in past events, always past historical knowledge.

It looks like you've been studying McGrath's avoidance tactics for responding to questions like this.

[Ulan]

When these stories were written down, the stage of that rock concert was a heap of rubble, half of the city's inhabitants killed, and given the story played 40 years earlier, all potential witnesses were probably already dead from old age anyway.

Nope. These stories as stated deal with the reign of Pilate and Caiaphas, not after.

A statement I didn't make. Now you are mixing things up. I was not talking about the setting of the story, but when and in which situation it was written, and that was a situation when pretty much all potential witnesses were dead. Which completely evaporates your grand "witness" statement.

Paul wrote while the temple was still standing.

And he didn't write any stories about Jesus, except making a few vague statements about him, like saying he was crucified (no mention of when or by whom), resurrected as a spirit, had some supper celebration (information received by revelation), which means this part is irrelevant for a story of the life of Jesus. You wouldn't know anything else about what Jesus did from Paul. Paul wrote mostly about himself.

Marks compilation was finished just after the temple went down.

And your "stage" and the actors were gone. As I said.

While Paul was alive most of the people were still alive.

Yes, but this doesn't help your case.

These legends did not come out of a vacuum, It was in traditions going back to the beginning.

This statement is, as you tend to say, a leap of faith, in particular regarding their significance when it comes to nailing down the history of the protagonist. It is not an unreasonable assumption, but you are extrapolating this from texts which are unclear in some core aspects regarding their exact nature. Which means it's much less of an obvious conclusion as you want it to be.

As I said, I don't claim you are wrong. I just say you overstate your case.

[outhouse]

How do you tell if a story is ancient historical fiction or genuine history?


So how do you tell the difference?

Each story is examined in minute detail.


Most theological fictitious stories are places in past events, always past historical knowledge.

It looks like you've been studying McGrath's avoidance tactics for responding to questions like this.

That's my own doing. Sorry its not the answer your looking for. Nothing to do with avoidance.