Yuku free message boards

Of course the understanding of Jesus developed

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. But the development of our understanding is just that. It may or may not have anything to do with an historical Jesus and what he said and did.
The evidence suggests that the development moves progressively away from any historical figure and becomes more and more the embodiment of an ideal.

Of course, the ideal was the thing. The gospels were not written as historical documents, but as spiritual truths

No contest here. In fact, that is the point. The gospel of Luke and, and, even more, the gospel of John treat of concepts not of historical data.


That the source of those truths for Christians must be an historical figure goes without saying.

Actually, it does not go without saying. Jesus could be a fabrication,
But, assuming that he is a real person. The person of Jesus undergoes a transition. The Jesus of Mark is not at all the Jesus of John. And the Jesus of Paul is something different again.
The story is not a question of a clearer understanding of an historical figure.
( How would the author of John have a better view if the life of Jesus than the author of Mark? )
It is a clear development of an idea that goes beyond the person ( Jesus) who may have been at its source.

Now how could one possibly reach that conclusion. The apostles' understanding of Jesus' mission evolved over time just as our understanding of any discipline evolves. The facts don't change, our understanding of their meaning does.

Their "understanding evolvled." Yes, again I agree. Understanding includes interpretation. That may or may not be related to historical fact. As you note,

"The facts don't change, our understanding of their meaning does." Yes, exactly. The facts don't change. But, then too, what are the facts? Mark says nothing of the Beatitudes, he does not mention The Lord's Prayer, he certainly does not record miracles like changing water to wine or raising a man three days dead. Such events are certainly remarkable and memorable. If they happened. More important, the Jesus of Mark seems little concerned with the concept of "love", the foremost notion of Paul and of John.

As a side note: the author of the John gospel would most certainly not be the disciple mentioned as one of Jesus' followers. Using the name of a noted person to validate the authority of a text was most common in ancient writings and continued well into the middle ages.

As to the spread of information: texts, letters, etc, were copied regularly and in many versions. Information would spread relatively well and in relatively quick time. (In fact, it is because of the numerous copies that we have the scriptures.)

As to the other disciples - we know nothing. Legend says Thomas went to India. Legend puts Peter eventually in Rome. Paul is the only one, if we can believe his letters, that accounts for his whereabouts.

As to my method. I am certainly not backing into the evidence. The evidence is presented first: that the gospels show a distinct evolution and development. The conclusion follows from the evidence: The Jesus of John is not the Jesus of Mark and thus, consequently, that latter is a specific creation not necessarily based on historicity.

Actually, copying was most common. (Paper was often used more than once. They would scrape the old ink off and write again.) A letter sent to one person, might be copied and sent to any number of other people. As to the bible - Short of pulling out texts to which you may not have access, I'll use an online reference.
here's the site:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3268

Scroll down to NT.

Here is the citation:

In the introduction, Comfort and Barrett state: "All of the manuscripts [contained in the book-EL] are dated from the early second century to the beginning of the fourth (A.D. 100-300)" (p. 17). In fact, "[s]everal of the most significant papyri date from the middle of the second century" and thus "provide the earliest direct witness to the New Testament autographs" (p. 18). They even suggest that "it is possible that some of the manuscripts thought to be of the early second century are actually manuscripts of the late first" (p. 23). Thus, we can have great confidence in the transmission of the New Testament, not only because of the great number of extant copies, but because of how closely these manuscripts date to the time when the autographs were written.

Yes, it's a fundamentalist site - but the information in this case is valid.