neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 am
gmx wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:34 am
The documentary pedigree of Christian origins is highly consistent, from the earliest fragments of papyri, to the earliest complete manuscripts, to the present day.
Not sure what is meant by "highly consistent" in this context. There are many diverse texts.
Simply that the NT as we know it from physical fragments from 100 CE onwards is highly consistent across the vast majority of texts handed down to the present day. The commentary around those texts is also highly consistent over 2000 years. As mentioned previously, you can point to inconsistencies, holes, etc. We must be impressed by the consistency of the documentary record of the NT, heavily preserved as it is, in many, many languages, from an early date, and then over 2000 years, must we not ?
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 am
gmx wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:34 amBut what of the fact that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable and inconsistent ? That is acknowledged in the modern era when testimony and event are incredibly proximate.
The question that comes to mind here is where we find "eyewitness testimony"? Not the Gospel of John, I take it. Luke's prologue sits most discordantly with what follows and introduces us to no eyewitness at all.
We find documents which purport to describe the life story of the founder of a new religious movement (opposed to the establishment of the time), and the troubles and tribulations of the communities that received that story and attempted to live by the founder's message. The orthodox explanation is that these stories reached a written form 50-100 years after the events they describe. I don't have the education to determine whether the documents that comprise the NT as we have it today would match what we would expect to find in such a circumstance.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 am
gmx wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:34 amWhat would we expect to find when an event and it's witness statements are 100 years divorced ?
This is my favourite question. In order to ask it, we have to assume that the gospels are indeed derived from historical events through some train of transmission, oral or textual. Why assume that? Because the author was wanting readers to believe the historical events he was writing about? But that is simply begging the question. How do we know it is based on historical events? Does not the writing of the narrative itself point us in the direction of other literary sources, especially the Jewish Scriptures?
Well that *is/was* the exact assumption of my question, omitted in your quotation. Having said that, should it not be the default assumption, as that is what the documents and their associated commentary, and the 2000 year pedigree of the documentary record purport to show. Is it not ? Should we not start by demonstrating that the historically accepted, default, and orthodox explanation is untenable ?
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 am
gmx wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 3:34 amSometimes I ask myself, as a lurker, if we assumed the Catholic orthodox "story" of Christian origins to be true (as in, a real, historical, revolutionary Jewish preacher named Jesus was crucified under Pilate, in 30 CE, with a small, uneducated but dedicated core of disciples convinced of his divinity), what would we expect to find in terms of documentary records 200 years later, or 2100 years later ? Would we expect to find something radically different to what we have ?
The problem with that scenario is that it confuses two opposing concepts. One, the Catholic orthodox story is opposed to the notion of Christianity beginning with a "revolutionary Jewish preacher" etc. The orthodox story allows for no doubt: it was not a matter of a few deluded disciples believing in the divinity of Jesus but rather many others along with them, via miracles etc, believing in him.
I find that less relevant. What an
institution ultimately decided to make (in theological terms) of that geographically widespread, textually consistent, documentary distribution, is to me, less interesting.
To me, what is interesting is the textual consistency, across multiple languages, over two millennia, and the lack of dissenting witnesses.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Oct 13, 2021 4:08 am
But how are we to imagine a "small, uneducated" band of disciples who dare to go against all that their prevailing religion teaches and believes ever gaining traction and then expansion? We have to imagine super-charismatic persons and miracles, I suggest, to make it work. Once we remove the miraculous from the earliest witnesses the story loses all credibility.
This argument makes no sense whatsoever, with all due respect.
How many delusional cults exist in the mainland USA today ? And how many are based on a charismatic leader ? And how many of their adherents believe that that leader is performing or is capable of performing super-natural feats ? Or, if not in this particular moment, how many "sects" would fit this characterisation in the last 100 years ?
To say, "well, no one could have walked on water, or conjured Moses and Elijah for that matter, and therefore, the whole episode is fabrication", is to be in intellectual denial of history. People believe what they believe, and the factual basis underlying it often runs last.