Jesus never existed?

[bosk1]

No, that's not what I meant.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.  What I was saying is that in terms of recording a conversation accurately, there is a higher likelihood of accuracy where only a few lines of dialog are recorded versus every detail of a much longer conversation (unless, of course, it is recorded verbatim as it is being said).

[rumborak]

I understood your point. You're saying, all else things being equal, the probability of a long text to survive unchanged is smaller than a small piece of text. Of course that is true.
My point is that other effects come into play too, for example that a small piece of text is more likely to be transferred orally than a 10-minute dialog. So, with that in mind I don't think the shortness of a section is a guarantee for its accuracy.

rumborak

[jammindude]

There are some reasonable conclusions drawn....but all conclusions drawn have evidence within the text itself.    The Bible does say that Jesus spoke to his apostles AT LENGTH after his resurrection.   It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus "filled in the gaps" of what happened to him.

This is one of the things that seemed perfectly logical to me in drawing my conclusions.    When looking at the other side...the arguments were stretched *far far* thinner.    The evidence just didn't hold up.   

[rumborak]

I think we got the notion, jammin.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

There are some reasonable conclusions drawn....but all conclusions drawn have evidence within the text itself.    The Bible does say that Jesus spoke to his apostles AT LENGTH after his resurrection.   It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus "filled in the gaps" of what happened to him.

This is one of the things that seemed perfectly logical to me in drawing my conclusions.    When looking at the other side...the arguments were stretched *far far* thinner.    The evidence just didn't hold up.   

I don't think it is reasonable at all to conclude ANYTHING, because there are no details whatsoever concerning what they may or may not have discussed.  You aren't drawing a conclusion, you are making an assumption.

The most reasonable thing to do is to CONCLUDE that we can't know what they discussed.  Could it have been this?  Sure.  But maybe not.  The probability is the same either way.

The first rule of textual analysis is that if it isn't in the text, it isn't in the text.  "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to anything not directly stated in the text.  And it is dangerous to build your doctrine on a list of "I don't know"s.

But hey, it's a free country.  Believe whatever you want.

[jammindude]

There are some reasonable conclusions drawn....but all conclusions drawn have evidence within the text itself.    The Bible does say that Jesus spoke to his apostles AT LENGTH after his resurrection.   It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus "filled in the gaps" of what happened to him.

This is one of the things that seemed perfectly logical to me in drawing my conclusions.    When looking at the other side...the arguments were stretched *far far* thinner.    The evidence just didn't hold up.   

I don't think it is reasonable at all to conclude ANYTHING, because there are no details whatsoever concerning what they may or may not have discussed.  You aren't drawing a conclusion, you are making an assumption.

The most reasonable thing to do is to CONCLUDE that we can't know what they discussed.  Could it have been this?  Sure.  But maybe not.  The probability is the same either way.

The first rule of textual analysis is that if it isn't in the text, it isn't in the text.  "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to anything not directly stated in the text.  And it is dangerous to build your doctrine on a list of "I don't know"s.

But hey, it's a free country.  Believe whatever you want.

I just know I'm going to open up a can of worms here...but...

I could take your entire statement, and aim it at the evolution theory.   People want to pretend like it's "iron clad" and "rock solid"....it's not.  There are *A LOT* of assumptions made, yet people treat it as iron clad and absolute proof.     There is more than quite a bit of assumptions made in "connecting the dots", as it were.   It's funny how when the shoe is on the other foot, the same actions suddenly present no problem. 

[hefdaddy42]

If you think it's wrong to do that with evolution, why do you do it with the Bible?

BTW, I disagree strongly that the theory of evolution uses "assumptions."  It actually uses "conclusions."  But let's save that for another thread and stay on task.

[jammindude]

I didn't say that I necessarily think the act of assumption is *always* wrong.   It depends on the body of evidence to support it. 

My point was the similarity.   The fact that those who believe the Bible are criticized for drawing conclusions...by people who do the exact same thing themselves with *their* "assumptions". 

[bosk1]

But let's save that for another thread and stay on task.

This.

[hefdaddy42]

I didn't say that I necessarily think the act of assumption is *always* wrong.   It depends on the body of evidence to support it. 

My point was the similarity.   The fact that those who believe the Bible are criticized for drawing conclusions...by people who do the exact same thing themselves with *their* "assumptions".

"They" aren't making assumptions.  You are.

[jammindude]

I didn't say that I necessarily think the act of assumption is *always* wrong.   It depends on the body of evidence to support it. 

My point was the similarity.   The fact that those who believe the Bible are criticized for drawing conclusions...by people who do the exact same thing themselves with *their* "assumptions".

"They" aren't making assumptions.  You are.

[hefdaddy42]

That's just ridiculous.

[Scheavo]

It's just that historians don't believe that it happened verbatim, because it would be ridiculous to think that the details of a conversation could be passed down exactly over decades or centuries.  I don't see why anyone would consider any of the conversations in the Bible to have happened exactly as they appear.

What you are saying makes perfect sense in the abstract.  But as applied to specific conversations, such as the specific conversation with Pilate, the type of error you describe is mitigated by the fact that there is not a large quantity of dialog recorded, but only a few key lines.  It is much easier to preserve the integrity of a few sentences of dialog than a full 10-minute conversation.

Did you never play telephone as a kid? A single word can get morphed pretty easily, especially by humans.

There are some reasonable conclusions drawn....but all conclusions drawn have evidence within the text itself.    The Bible does say that Jesus spoke to his apostles AT LENGTH after his resurrection.   It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus "filled in the gaps" of what happened to him.

Take this response as also a response to most of your argument over the past several pages, not just at this:

For starters, you keep forgetting that the Bible is the thing in question, meaning, you can't use evidence from the Bible to support your claim that the Bible is innerant, etc. It's circular logic, and it shouldn't even be thought of as logically acceptable.

But more importantly, there's a huge problem with your entire argument, and it's that you're arguing for a polysemous, contextual or perspective definition of Truth, but still arguing for an absolute Truth in the Bible. The two cannot possibly go together. I have no argument against your argument that what can appear to be a contradiction, is in fact not upon later reflection, or upon gaining the right perspective. I am, in fact, a believer in such a world, and such a definition of "Truth." However, the consequence of this epistemological standpoint is that Truth, as defined as say the Bible being innerantly True, being the Word of God, etc, is no longer a viable or tenable position to hold. In your attempt to make the Bible no contradict itself, you basically completely destroy the foundation whereby it's important for the Bible not to contradict itself. Its preposterous to look at the Bible as the world of God in such a world, at least if you want to only look at the Bible, and not the countless of other works which deal with the nature of reality, "God," and the like. Think Christianity has some antinomies? Well try bridging the gaps between Christianity and Hinduism, or Chrisianity and any other religion in the World, and try to imagine ways in which those "contradictions" are no such thing.

Also, I remember you defending yourself earlier by saying you're not just acting on blind faith, etc. Well as to that argument, I would say that I think everyone operates, basically, upon blind faith. Every single person in this conversation has to make leaps of faith, in some manner, to function. Scientists have to assume that the world is logical, and consistent. Both of those things require a "leap of faith," because there's not much you can do to actually experimentally prove those propositions.

[rumborak]

For starters, you keep forgetting that the Bible is the thing in question, meaning, you can't use evidence from the Bible to support your claim that the Bible is innerant, etc. It's circular logic, and it shouldn't even be thought of as logically acceptable.

I think this is a very important point really. Of course the Bible's authors will have tried to make it internally consistent, and pointing out those consistencies has not much value to it. I would argue the fact that they were so unsuccessful on so many levels (different versions of stories between gospels etc.) points to their struggle.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

I'm not so sure they went to any great lengths to make them internally consistent.

[rumborak]

Well, they did to the extent possible I would say. The separate gospel writers tried to connect their own work to the documents they had at hand at the time of writing, most notably the OT, and early versions of other gospels. Whereas they are much less consistent across the gospels, because in general they were written at different times by different people.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

I'm not so sure they went to any great lengths to make them internally consistent.

I agree, since they often weren't writing the same kinds of literature or were trying to communicate different points. Modern readers almost never consider such facts when they treat different books of the Bible like contradictory newspaper accounts. 

[hefdaddy42]

Luke took his eyewitness accounts sometime when Paul was under house arrest.  I'd be interested in knowing which folks he spoke with.  No way of knowing for sure on that either.

BTW, where did you get this?

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Luke took his eyewitness accounts sometime when Paul was under house arrest.  I'd be interested in knowing which folks he spoke with.  No way of knowing for sure on that either.

BTW, where did you get this?

New Testament class at the university I attend.  I'm anticipating the eye rolls.  I have a couple of texts that state that it is believed that this is what happened, or that it is likely.  So I know, not absolutely concrete.  The dates are near each other.

[hefdaddy42]

Luke took his eyewitness accounts sometime when Paul was under house arrest.  I'd be interested in knowing which folks he spoke with.  No way of knowing for sure on that either.

BTW, where did you get this?

New Testament class at the university I attend.  I'm anticipating the eye rolls.  I have a couple of texts that state that it is believed that this is what happened, or that it is likely.  So I know, not absolutely concrete.  The dates are near each other.

I just don't get it.  It's pretty obvious that Luke was written well after Paul shuffled off this mortal coil.  I mean, he could have had access to eyewitness account that dated from that time, but the text doesn't appear to be from that time.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Luke took his eyewitness accounts sometime when Paul was under house arrest.  I'd be interested in knowing which folks he spoke with.  No way of knowing for sure on that either.

BTW, where did you get this?

New Testament class at the university I attend.  I'm anticipating the eye rolls.  I have a couple of texts that state that it is believed that this is what happened, or that it is likely.  So I know, not absolutely concrete.  The dates are near each other.

I just don't get it.  It's pretty obvious that Luke was written well after Paul shuffled off this mortal coil.  I mean, he could have had access to eyewitness account that dated from that time, but the text doesn't appear to be from that time.

I agree that it was penned after Paul's death.  And you're right, I was speculating that he conducted his interviews or got his sources before Paul died.  I meant to say that, and I typed it as being concrete.  Apologies. 

[bosk1]

Whether it was penned afterward or not, it was most likely penned before Acts, and Acts seems to record that Luke was with Paul on some of his journeys (for example, switching to the use of "we" at times in describing Paul's travels, indicating that Luke was with him during those times).  So I don't think the theory is farfetched that Luke may have gotten some of his information in the gospel of Luke from Paul.

[rumborak]

That would have been second-hand then, no? Paul was never an eyewitness himself.

rumborak

[bosk1]

That would have been second-hand then, no? Paul was never an eyewitness himself.

rumborak

Maybe.  Paul likely did witness a number of the more public events recorded that happened in Jerusalem.  But, yes, a lot of Paul's knowledge about Jesus' life would likely have been second-hand.

[Ħ]

Also, Luke is quoted in Paul's epistles. 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. It's supposed to be the exact same Greek words that Luke used, too, according to my source.

Luke was clearly considered 'canon'/'Scripture' by the time of 1 Tim's writing. I don't know how long it would take for a book to be written, be sent out, and finally recognized as Scripture, but I'm sure it wasn't instantaneous. If 1 Tim was written by Paul around 62-67 AD, then you can be sure Luke was written at least a few years before.

If you think 1 Tim was not written by Paul, then I guess it depends on how liberal your date is...if you still have a somewhat early date, it's still possible Luke was written during Paul's lifetime.

[hefdaddy42]

Also, Luke is quoted in Paul's epistles. 1 Timothy 5:18 quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. It's supposed to be the exact same Greek words that Luke used, too, according to my source.

Luke was clearly considered 'canon'/'Scripture' by the time of 1 Tim's writing. I don't know how long it would take for a book to be written, be sent out, and finally recognized as Scripture, but I'm sure it wasn't instantaneous. If 1 Tim was written by Paul around 62-67 AD, then you can be sure Luke was written at least a few years before.

If you think 1 Tim was not written by Paul, then I guess it depends on how liberal your date is...if you still have a somewhat early date, it's still possible Luke was written during Paul's lifetime.

Given what we already know about Luke's adaptation of Mark, and all of the evidence that 1 Timothy is non-Pauline, I would say that 1:Timothy 5:18 is more evidence for both propositions.

[bosk1]

Except that we don't know that Luke was an adaptation of Mark or that 1 Timothy is non-Pauline.  But nice theory.

[hefdaddy42]

Except that we don't know that Luke was an adaptation of Mark or that 1 Timothy is non-Pauline.  But nice theory.

You can say that you don't know.  But the evidence for both is fairly strong.

[wolfandwolfandwolf]

Except that we don't know that Luke was an adaptation of Mark or that 1 Timothy is non-Pauline.  But nice theory.

You can say that you don't know.  But the evidence for both is fairly strong.

Can you explain why you feel the evidence on the other side of the argument isn't as strong?

[bosk1]

Except that we don't know that Luke was an adaptation of Mark or that 1 Timothy is non-Pauline.  But nice theory.

You can say that you don't know.  But the evidence for both is fairly strong.

You are certainly entitled to believe that, but I believe the evidence for either is actually incredibly weak and speculative.

[hefdaddy42]

Except that we don't know that Luke was an adaptation of Mark or that 1 Timothy is non-Pauline.  But nice theory.

You can say that you don't know.  But the evidence for both is fairly strong.

You are certainly entitled to believe that, but I believe the evidence for either is actually incredibly weak and speculative.

Funny, that's what I think about the alternative.

[Ħ]

Mark and Luke both contain similar verses/stories, so assuming someone copied someone, how do we know it was Luke that copied Mark? Why couldn't it be the other way around?

I'm not saying that it has to be the other way around, I really just don't know.    Is it because Mark is shorter?
 
EDIT: Or if there's that 'Q' document or whatever, they might not have copied off each other at all. That's a possibility, isn't it?

[rumborak]

H, I recommend the Wikipedia article on Markan Priority, specifically the section "Modern arguments for Markan priority". Especially strong I find the argument that a later document wouldn't edit a previous one to make him look less divine.

rumborak

[bosk1]

^Yup, highly recommended.  If you are not as familiar with the analysis, the short summary form that wikipedia presents makes it easier to see some of the flaws in the arguments, IMO. 

[Ħ]

I think that post was half-intended to help me and half-intended to bait rumborak.