At What Point Does 'Based on a Historical Character' Become Unhistorical?

[neilgodfrey]

(Did you even read them? Be honest.)

That's it. I practice zero tolerance of accusations of dishonesty, including gutless weasel words to the same effect. I don't do it and I don't tolerate it being done to me. This discussion ends here.

Oh my, touchy touchy. Well, you didn't address any of the actual points in any of those quotations so I did have to wonder if you were doing a GDon and merely trying to lead readers to conclude you had read them.

I take you response to mean that you did not read them.

[neilgodfrey]

Translation:

I am unimpressed by arguments that require the identification of evidence for their support.

OK, American English to Australian. Correct in either form.

15:21 (received): They compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them that he might bear his cross.

15:21 with a twist: They compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them that he might bear his cross. They would know what their father told them about that day.

15:21 with more twist: They compelled one passing by, coming from the country, Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them that he might bear his cross. They would know what their father told them about that day. Here's what they confirmed.

Not much difference in bearing on the historicity of Jesus or the extent to which Mark's Jesus is "based upon" a real person. Who can make up the one, can make up the others, as far as that goes. Mark has told me how he might know what happened to Jesus. That's all he can tell me anyway that has any probative value to me, since I can't verify any of it anyway, in any version.

Now you see, that's the sort of response that suggests to me you have never even read, -- you certainly have not engaged with -- the methods of historians that I quoted, because they address the very point that you seem intent on ignoring and that applies directly to the example you have given here. Forgive me if I am left Uncertain about any of your claims which, in Australian English, we technically call "bullshit".

[Paul the Uncertain]

You can't at that point say, "Well, just because yo proved that this isn't a giant footprint doesn't mean anything. It's still possible for the giant to exist!"

If you find what you think is a fresh moose footprint, and based on that moose footprint you conclude that there is a moose roaming the area, but someone else comes along and they show definitively that what you thought was a footprint is not actually a footprint, it was actually made by log, then at that point, it has been proven that the moose didn't exist.

Really? The defeat of the first interpretation of the evidence might return me to my state of belief without the observation. Moose: I believed that moose exist, but didn't believe with any special confidence that there had been any recent visits nearby. Giants: I believed that giants didn't exist.

I would also likely observe that it's still possible for a moose to have visited nearby recently. There are moose who are not far away. There is some non-zero background frequency of moose visitation for any specific example of suitable habitat hereabouts. In contrast, I currently estimate the background frequency of giant visits as zero.

[Peter Kirby]

(Did you even read them? Be honest.)

That's it. I practice zero tolerance of accusations of dishonesty, including gutless weasel words to the same effect. I don't do it and I don't tolerate it being done to me. This discussion ends here.

Oh my, touchy touchy. Well, you didn't address any of the actual points in any of those quotations so I did have to wonder if you were doing a GDon and merely trying to lead readers to conclude you had read them.

I take you response to mean that you did not read them.

Now you see, that's the sort of response that suggests to me you have never even read, -- you certainly have not engaged with -- the methods of historians that I quoted, because they address the very point that you seem intent on ignoring and that applies directly to the example you have given here. Forgive me if I am left Uncertain about any of your claims which, in Australian English, we technically call "bullshit".

You may be winning points rhetorically, but you've also lost the interest of Paul in engaging further. Please do continue to discuss the topic at hand but also please respect Paul's decision not to engage. One way to do that is to leave his name out of further discussion (assuming that he doesn't reply to you again).

I have no issue with the two posts quoted, in that there may have been uncertainty, until now, of Paul really not wishing to engage further.

[neilgodfrey]

I have no issue with the two posts quoted, in that there may have been uncertainty, until now, of Paul really not wishing to engage further.

Well this is a turnaround. Paul had been egging me repeatedly to discuss his view with him and I had been trying to point out to him that I was not interested because we had no common starting point. And I finally give in and engage with him - but finally I tell him I have no stomach to continue with the discussion and he says "works for me" so I take him to mean he has decided to end it, mercifully for me and him -- only for me to discover he has picked it up again in another thread!

I trust that after this little fiasco Paul will himself cut off the debate between us and not resume it here or elsewhere on this forum.

[Paul the Uncertain]

@Peter

I hadn't expected to see our PM discussion aired on the open forum. Since it has been, then let me be clear in public. There is a disitnction between addressing a person and addressing a subject.

Until and unless you curtail my posting privilieges, then I shall post my viewpoint on any subject I choose in any thread where it is on-topic.

I accept that anybody else may post their disagreement with my position. They, however, will accept that I don't owe a personally addressed response when the poster has a history of ad hominem discourse, whether against me, against others, or both. This paragraph shall serve as my reply in such cases.

Thank you again for your attention to this problem.

[Peter Kirby]

Until and unless you curtail my posting privilieges, then I shall post my viewpoint on any subject I choose in any thread where it is on-topic.

I can assure you that your posting privileges are intact.

What could be very much in question is whether anyone else on the forum is anywhere close to violating the anti-harassment rule, which is the only rule that is relevant with regards to your complaint. Your decision to post and discuss "on any subject I choose in any thread where it is on-topic" will affect how I view replies, with respect to this rule.

I accept that anybody else may post their disagreement with my position. They, however, will accept that I don't owe a personally addressed response when the poster has a history of ad hominem discourse, whether against me, against others, or both. This paragraph shall serve as my reply in such cases.

That would be fine.

[GakuseiDon]

The general theory of most Jesus scholars, including Bart Ehrman and other non-Christians, is that the "reason the Gospels were written" was to record the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The thesis I put forward in the book is that the "reason" the first Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, was written was reaction to the First Jewish-Roman War. I contend that the Gospel of Mark is a fictional allegory, and the writer knew that Jesus was not a real person.

I think Dr Ehrman is closer to your idea, in that he thinks the Gospel of Mark was written in reaction to the First Jewish-Roman War. The idea that scholars generally believe that people went around recording the doings and sayings of Jesus (the "newspaper reporters' Jesus", as I like to call it) and wrote the Gospels from that is a strawman, at least in how it is commonly phrased. No-one cared about Jesus's doings and sayings until well after his death.

Dr Ehrman writes: https://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-anonymous/

I think when Mark was writing his Gospel, he was imagining that he was continuing the story that he inherited from the Hebrew Bible. As you know, the final prophet of the Hebrew Bible, Malachi, ends by promising that Elijah would be coming before the “day of the Lord.” And how does Mark begin? By describing the coming of John the Baptist in the guise of Elijah. Mark is a continuation of the narrative of the Hebrew Bible.

But as you probably know, the Hebrew Bible – in the sequence of books given in the original Hebrew — does not end with Malachi, the final prophet, the way the English Old Testament does. It ends with 2 Chronicles, a narrative book that describes, at the very end, the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians and then the promise to rebuild the city by the Persian king Cyrus. There has been sin, and destruction, and the promise of restoration – told in a historical narrative. And Mark picks up the story at that point, with the coming then of the Savior, Jesus.

The historical books of the Hebrew Bible (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles) are anonymous. They are telling the history of the people of God, not based on the authority of the author but as a holy narrative of how God worked among his people. The names of the authors are unimportant and irrelevant in this kind of sacred history. Mark continues the sacred history, and like his predecessors, tells his story anonymously.

From what I understand about your theory, Ehrman's thoughts above might be useful.

[GakuseiDon]

I don't get why unhistorical or fiction isn't one of the possible starting points.

Because Paul met Jesus' brother James, and Josephus and the Gospel of Mark also refer to Jesus having a brother called James.

Yes, I know you personally might not believe that, but if those are the commonly accepted positions (which they are), then unhistorical or fiction are not possible starting points.

[neilgodfrey]

I don't get why unhistorical or fiction isn't one of the possible starting points.

Because Paul met Jesus' brother James, and Josephus and the Gospel of Mark also refer to Jesus having a brother called James.

Yes, I know you personally might not believe that, but if those are the commonly accepted positions (which they are), then unhistorical or fiction are not possible starting points.

All information from uncorroborated sources; not the sort of information that meets the stated standards of nonbiblical historians: viewtopic.php?p=134869#p134869