How many independent sources do we have of Jesus' life?

[Musicat]

@dolwgan

And what evidence do you have for this claim? If the synoptic gospels were written during the middle of the 1st Century - as even the most pessimistic scholars claim, Matthew could well have been written by an eye-witness. Mark, though possibly not a eye-witness, is sometimes thought of as having acted as Peter’s ‘secretary’ as it were, with Peter dictating his memories. Luke, as a non-Jew, would have been an independent reporter, and probably closer to Jesus’ time than either of the other two, since he accompanied Paul on many of his travels.

A lot of things could have happened. A lot of things were wished into existence, too. There is a lack of proof and a surplus of hope that most scholars recognize. From the SDMB staff report:

…We just don’t know who wrote most of the New Testament. Tradition has assigned the Gospels and most of the Epistles to certain authors, all of whom were important figures in Jesus’ life or the early days of the faith. It was important for the early church to believe the authors wrote the works attributed to them, since their eminence lent the writings authority. But since we don’t have the original signatures, none can be verified except through textual clues.
…
Regardless of whether the names given to the Gospels are those of the actual authors or merely reflect a claim to apostolic authority, “we know virtually nothing about the persons who wrote the Gospels.”

@dolwgan

To say that stuff wasn’t written at the time of Jesus’ death - a common accusation - doesn’t mean that stuff wasn’t written by eye-witnesses. Recently, the last British survivor of the 1st World War died. He didn’t start writing down his memories until about 10 years before his death. I suppose you’re going to suggest that, as there was 1) large amounts of documentation already in the public domain and 2) that this wasn’t written down until 75/80 years after the events it portrays a) it isn’t independent and b) it isn’t eyewitness.

The example you give is someone who very well may have seen what he wrote about, and what he wrote about matches, closely enough, numerous other verifiable accounts, I’m sure, since I haven’t read what you are referring to.

But we have no verifiable other accounts from independent sources for Jesus’ existence or works. We have some accounts from possibly related, possibly unrelated sources, but that’s all.

To illustrate with a similar analogy to yours, we have contemporary examples of those who wrote down what they say they saw 50 years later. These are called “recovered memories” or “UFO reports”. Human memory is extremely suspect under those circumstances, and such “eyewitness” accounts are notoriously unreliable, having been distorted by time and confabulation. Confabulation alone can construct things that never happened, and time does not improve memory.

Confabulation is not a new process. It could very well explain many writings 2000 years ago, when controls were far fewer and pious thinking was a far greater influence.

A confabulation is a fantasy that has unconsciously emerged as a factual account in memory. A confabulation may be based partly on fact or be a complete construction of the imagination.

[Sterling_Archer]

I’ve never understood the reasoning for Q. Do we have reason to believe Matthew and Luke were written independently? Isn’t the most likely scenario that Matthew used Mark as a source, but added his own experience/knowledge, and then Luke did the same working from Matthew and Mark? Of the 3, Luke has the most unique content, I believe, that’s why I put them in that order. As to why Luke wouldn’t include everything from Matthew, perhaps he felt all of Jesus’ teachings were critical to include, but for other content, he only included it if he had independent knowledge/experience of that event?

Seems more likely to me than that they were independently working from a document which is now lost.

[Musicat]

@Sterling_Archer

Seems more likely to me than that they were independently working from a document which is now lost.

Wouldn’t that define “Q”?

You can compare two documents for textural similarities, and conclude, if they are identical for many phrases, that they either had a common source or they took directly from each other.

Or, if the stories are similar, but don’t use identical words or phrasing, that they might have had a common source, but it’s less likely.

But all of these observations are made by text comparisons. We cannot conclude, from text alone, that any of these authors observed any of the events they wrote about first hand. Indeed, considering the time gap alone, it’s unlikely they did. For all we know (and this seems like the most likely scenario) they copied a little from each other and/or other sources and embellished where they felt it was necessary, based upon their own ideas, prejudices, fantasies and imagination.

This scenario isn’t disconfirmed by a further, more limiting premise that ALL stories were derived initially from a single source unless we can find evidence otherwise.

[UDS]

@Musicat

This scenario isn’t disconfirmed by a further, more limiting premise that ALL stories were derived initially from a single source unless we can find evidence otherwise.

Two thoughts:

First, why would we grant this premise? If other hypotheses about the sources on jesus are expected to be supported by evidence if we are to accept them, why would we accept this one “unless we can find evidence otherwise”?

Secondly, if we do grant the premise, what does it tell us about the historicity of the stories?

At first glance, it tells us nothing. To the extent that the stories are historical, they are indeed all derived from a single source - namely, the historical reality. So the single-source premise is not inconsistent with historicity.

In fact, if anything, it may lean slightly in favour of historicity. Consider: If there is a single source it is either (a) the historical reality, or (b) a basically fictional now-lost text on which all the others draw.

The problem with (b) is that, if such a text existed, the later authors drew on it by discarding much of it. Paul on the one hand, and the synoptics on the other, have practically no material in common. I don’t just mean that they have no texts in common; that they don’t quote each other. I mean that they don’t even deal with the same things. So, for example, if they are all drawing on the one text, then Paul is discarding huge, huge chunks of it and basing his writings only on selected extracts, while the synoptic authors are discarding different huge chunks, and basing what they write on entirely different selected extracts.

And this seems surprising. Usually, when people draw on a text to produce a new text, they add their own material to what they have taken from the earlier text. It’s on this basis, for example, that we take Matthew and Luke to be later than Mark. It defies common sense to suggest that Mark adapted Matthew by taking Matthew’s text and ditching much of it. Why would he do this? And why would a text produced in this way have any traction with a readership? I don’t think the Reader’s Digest condensed novel had been invented in the first century and, even if it had, there is no explanation for why it would eclipse the source text. And if that is how scholarship deals with the dating of Matthew, Mark and Luke, why would we assume “unless we can find evidence otherwise” that precisely the reverse process happened when the Paul and the synoptics used our hypothetical text as their source?

And even if we overlook that problem, we still have to explain why the selections from the original text that Paul and the synoptics used are mutually exclusive. Was this an amazing coincidence? Were the

In short, if we grant the single-source premise, the hypothesis that the single source was a now-lost, basically fictional text requires assumptions and presents problems which the alternative hypothesis, that the single source is the historical reality, does not present. Hence, the principle of parsimony would steer us towards the latter hypothesis as being the more likely. And, if we must choose one explanation “unless we can find evidence otherwise”, this looks like the one we would choose.

[Musicat]

@UDS

Secondly, if we do grant the premise, what does it tell us about the historicity of the stories?

At first glance, it tells us nothing. To the extent that the stories are historical, they are indeed all derived from a single source - namely, the historical reality…

There’s really no point in continuing to read your post if you assert, without proof, the historical reality of any biblical material. That’s assuming what is to be proven, and the argument becomes circular.

[UDS]

@Musicat

There’s really no point in continuing to read your post if you assert, without proof, the historical reality of any biblical material. That’s assuming what is to be proven, and the argument becomes circular.

There’s really no point in continuing with this discussion if you can persuade yourself that I assert, without proof, the historical reality of any biblical material.

What I said was, to the extent that the sources are historical, they derive from a single source. That’s not an assertion that the sources are historical to any extent at all.

Mind you, if you really don’t see this, you’re probably better off not reading the rest of my post.

[Musicat]

@UDS

What I said was, to the extent that the sources are historical, they derive from a single source. That’s not an assertion that the sources are historical to any extent at all.

So what is your proof of the single source, and what is that source? Is that a person or a document?

[Thudlow_Boink]

@Musicat

So what is your proof of the single source, and what is that source? Is that a person or a document?

If you would actually read UDS’s post, you wouldn’t have to ask this question.

[Musicat]

@Thudlow_Boink

If you would actually read UDS’s post, you wouldn’t have to ask this question.

That post is a great dance, but not an answer, and largely incomprehensible.

I have a feeling UDS is agreeing with me, but it’s hard to tell, and the proof isn’t there, just suppositions. Those we have a-plenty already.

[ITR_champion]

@Sterling_Archer

I’ve never understood the reasoning for Q. Do we have reason to believe Matthew and Luke were written independently? Isn’t the most likely scenario that Matthew used Mark as a source, but added his own experience/knowledge, and then Luke did the same working from Matthew and Mark? Of the 3, Luke has the most unique content, I believe, that’s why I put them in that order.

That’s not likely at all. We know that Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source for many reasons. For one, Mark is written with a relatively simplistic grammar and vocabulary. Both Matthew and Luke refined the grammar and vocabulary when they included passages from Mark, and corrected any outright mistakes in grammar and word choice. Also, when Mark included names and details that Matthew and Luke viewed as unnecessary, they removed those names and details. By these and many other signs, we can see a clear progression from Mark as the original to Matthew and Luke as later versions.

By contrast, when comparing the Q material (material shared by Matthew and Luke but not Mark) there is no clear progression from less to more refined versions, or from more detailed to more tightly edited. Hence it’s unlikely that Luke used Matthew as a source or vice versa.

Further, Q was a sayings gospel, and often Matthew and Luke took sayings from it but placed those sayings in very different contexts. For example, compare the context for “the sign of Jonas” in Matthew 16:4 and Luke 11:29. If one were copying from the other, it’s inexplicable that the same saying would get chopped out of its context and placed in a totally different discourse.

[UDS]

@Musicat

That post is a great dance, but not an answer, and largely incomprehensible.

Well, it’s incomprehensible to you. But, as you seem to think that anyone who considers the possibility that a biblical text could be historical is asserting without proof that it is historical, that’s maybe not so surprising.

@Musicat

I have a feeling UDS is agreeing with me, but it’s hard to tell, and the proof isn’t there, just suppositions. Those we have a-plenty already.

No, I’m not agreeing with you.

I’m really putting two points to you.

The first relates to the premise that

@Musicat

. . . that ALL stories were derived initially from a single source unless we can find evidence otherwise.

I’m not postulating that premise and I don’t see why, in post 87, you ask me for proof of it. As far as I can see, in this thread the single-source hypothesis was first raised by you, right back in the OP, where you say:

@Musicat

. . . we have only three independent sources of Jesus, and it’s possible (how likely?) that the later ones had at least passing knowledge, perhaps oral history, of the earlier ones.

Which might reduce the body of evidence of Jesus – his existence, works, and life – to only one source, and one that is only available to us indirectly.

And you return regularly to this theme. For example in post 9:

@Musicat

. . . What I am suggesting is that if we can narrow down our most reliable source(s) to only one (or two or three who might have been heavily, if not exclusively, influenced by only one), then the possibility exists that a single writer might have dreamed up the initial story from nothing more than his fertile imagination, or have written down a “fireside ghost story” that had been passed down orally, growing with the telling.

It’s not until post 83 that you explicitly suggest that we should accept this premise “unless we can find evidence otherwise”, but in fact you seem to me to have been working up to that all along. You keep returning to this hypothesis and urging it upon us without ever feeling the need to offer any evidence in support of it. And you keep trying to support it with other hypotheses that are not only unevidenced, but inconsistent with the evidence. (That Mark drew on Q. That Paul “found a copy of Q in a Galilee dumpster”.) And you fail entirely to deal with the argument that, on the evidence we have, Mark and Paul both seem to have been wholly unaware of Q.

And this is in marked distinction to your treatment of other hypotheses, for which you demand multiple, independent sources from people unconcerned with the matter and unlikely to write about it.

So my first question to you is, why does this single-source hypothesis get special treatment? Why should we accept it “unless we can find evidence otherwise”, and why should we work so hard to dismiss or discount the “evidence otherwise”, when any inconsistent hypothesis gets completely the opposite treatment?

And my second question is this; if for the moment we grant the single-source hypothesis, what implication does this have for historicity? Is it not equally possible that the single source is (a) a basically fictional document, (b) a basically factual document, or (c) an actual set of events which actually occurred, involving an actual person? In other words, if we grant the single-source hypothesis, does that have any implications for historicity? And, if so, what are they?

[ITR_champion]

@Musicat

It’s one thing to hypothesize that Q exists, it’s a greater reach to claim to know exactly what it contained. Now we’re in the realm of fantasy and less of scholarship.

There’s a bit of irony here, given that the amount of scholarship regarding Q is notoriously large. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of papers have been written analyzing the Q material, its distinguishing characteristics, its themes, and its purpose.

So when you say: "I’m aware that Q is thought to be a sayings document. But without a copy available, not even a reference specifically to the content of the (possibly nonexistent) document, I find it hard to say exactly what was in there. How do we know that Mark, et al, didn’t pick and choose from Q and leave out a whole bunch of stuff?

The major themes of Mark are generally missing from the Q material, most particularly Mark’s focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Also Jesus’s seeking out conflict with contemporary interpretation of the law. Likewise the most prominent themes running through the Q material are absent from Mark. There are also large stylistic differences between the two documents. So there’s no reason to support the idea that Mark copied from Q or had access to Q.

All you need to do is go to the three horizontal feet of bookshelf space in oyur personal library, and I’m sure you’ll find numerous scholarly sources documenting all of this in great detail.

Because religious sources are more driven by fantasy and wishful thinking than purely historical ones.

What’s your basis for this claim? And in the context of ancient history, what is a “purely historical source”? I’m sure that an intelligent, well-educated person like yourself knows that in the ancient world, no one wrote history purely for its own sake, and that even historians such as Herodotus and Plutarch wrote with goals of moral instructions, political purpose, etc…