Originally posted by lucifershammerProfessor LH, considering that the ancient myths all stem from oral culture, that is, the spoken word, is it your contention that they are accurate?
Another point to keep in mind is that ancient cultures placed a far greater emphasis on the accuracy of the spoken word than we do today because it was the primary mode of transmission of information.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhat makes forty years* a short period is that the people who would've known Jesus (if he were a historical person) would still be alive. So, if you had a bunch of preachers running around Palestine talking about some non-existent carpenter's son from Nazareth, they would've faced strong opposition from people who've actually been to and/or lived in Nazareth.
That is entirely your opinion, LH. What makes forty years a long or short period in this regard? How long should it take to invent a religion based on a god-man?
* And this assumes the upper limit of 70 AD on the dating of Mark. The median for estimates is around 55 AD.
Originally posted by lucifershammerCan you provide any evidence of this? I dont think history will bear you out. Historical record has been modified to suit the teller for as long as such a thing has existed. It is interesting that even now we have the internet there is very little emphasis on accuracy.
Another point to keep in mind is that ancient cultures placed a far greater emphasis on the accuracy of the spoken word than we do today because it was the primary mode of transmission of information.
And yes, with regards to the historicity of Jesus, forty years is a very short time for an entirely fictional character to be cooked up in some secret conspiracy and then have followers all around the Roman Empire.
How long does it take to create a fictional character? How long did it take to write the Da Vinci code? How many people actually believe some of what was in the book? Looks like the creater of this thread just might be one of the early followers. Almost all of todays sects were created within the lifetime of the person who started them and many have achieved world wide followings within very short periods.
The fact that the writters of the Gospels wrote in Greek makes it highly unlikely that any of them had met Jesus.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerNot bad, However, assuming he was 30-odd when he died and taking into account the presumed life expectancy of the Galilean peasant, most of his contemporaries would have been dead or senile after that 40-year period. The remainder would have been illiterate peasants only too receptive to tales of miracle and wonder. Plus, stories of the "local boy made good" are always popular.
What makes forty years* a short period is that the people who would've known Jesus (if he were a historical person) would still be alive. So, if you had a bunch of preachers running around Palestine talking about some non-existent carpenter's son from Nazareth, they would've faced strong opposition from people who've actually been to and/or lived in Nazareth.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI didn't say that. My point is that oral tradition in ancient cultures took longer to "degrade" than pure word-of-mouth does today because they were extremely careful about such things; we're not.
Professor LH, considering that the ancient myths all stem from oral culture, that is, the spoken word, is it your contention that they are accurate?
Regarding the accuracy of oral traditions, I believe it was historian Sherwin-White who first looked at the rate at which myths develop (based, IIRC, on the works of Herodotus). He concluded that the myth-making process takes several generations, even centuries, to develop.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageAre we still talking about Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph and Mary, as a historical person? Or are you now talking about the NT Jesus?
Not bad, However, assuming he was 30-odd when he died and taking into account the presumed life expectancy of the Galilean peasant, most of his contemporaries would have been dead or senile after that 40-year period. The remainder would have been illiterate peasants only too receptive to tales of miracle and wonder. Plus, stories of the "local boy made good" are always popular.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou may want to check this article out:
Can you provide any evidence of this? I dont think history will bear you out. Historical record has been modified to suit the teller for as long as such a thing has existed. It is interesting that even now we have the internet there is very little emphasis on accuracy.
[b]And yes, with regards to the historicity of Jesus, forty years is a very short ti ...[text shortened]... tters of the Gospels wrote in Greek makes it highly unlikely that any of them had met Jesus.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition
The fact that the writters of the Gospels wrote in Greek makes it highly unlikely that any of them had met Jesus.
Quite the contrary. Greek was a commonly spoken language (particularly for commerce) in Palestine at the time of Jesus. In fact, one of the criticisms levelled at Gibson's Passion was that the conversations would probably have been in Greek, rather than Aramaic/Latin.
Originally posted by lucifershammerRight. If Jesus existed, but the miracles did not take place, what happened to the accuracy of the oral tradition?
For the purpose of this discussion, yes, I do. It is specious reasoning to argue that, because the miracles attributed to Jesus in the NT could not have occurred, Jesus himself did not exist.
Originally posted by twhitehead
Didnt have time to read it all. Can you point me to the bit which says that oral records were more accurate in the past?
Unscholarly or unsympathetic accounts of oral tradition as a discipline often render this moment, quite inaccurately, as reducing the great epics to the children’s party games of “telephone” or “Chinese whispers;” in fact, these games provide amusement by showing how messages are distorted through uncontextualized transmission, while Parry’s theory showed how the tradition provided a rich, reinforcing context which optimized the noise-to-signal ratio and thus improved the quality of transmission.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSeems like lucifershammer is misquoting me again. I already said in this thread that I have no opinion on whether a person called Jesus actually existed. I likewise have no qualms with him being wise, and a great teacher. I just believe that the walking on water, and coming back to life bits were exagerated. I can exagerate a story in 10 minutes, and we all know about people's innate need for a hero - otherwise Hollywood would be out business.
entirely fictional character
As Jack Nicholas once said, "Go sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here".
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe question should be the other way around - given the accuracy of oral tradition, and the short time period between the events in the Gospels and the transcribing from oral tradition of those events, what did the Apostles actually witness (or, to take the phenomenological approach first, what did they think they were witnessing)?
Right. If Jesus existed, but the miracles did not take place, what happened to the accuracy of the oral tradition?
This is the question that Sherwin-White raised.