> one exception is the account of Jesus in Josephus). I don't think there's
> much worry about changes to the texts about Socrates during their
> transmission either. Where the sources do differ is in how close their
> are to their subject. For Jesus, the closest clearly identifiable
> source is Paul, who reports second-hand information. For Socrates,
> the closest sources are Plato and Xenophon, both of whom knew him
> first-hand, and both of whom we can place independently. There's
> also a caricature (probably not a particularly fair one) of Socrates
> in one of Aristophanes' plays (_The Clouds_), written during Socrates'
> lifetime.
It is interesting that on both counts we have no writings from
either of the parties in question, and in fact we have to deal with
people's perspectives. In the case of the Gospels this is considered a
good and holy thing, as the fullness of God's revelation is the fullness
of Christ. Therefore the Gospels, particularly where they differ, offer
us a much more complete revelation than if Jesus had left behind any
writings. (See Islam, Mormonism, et cetera) (Side note: Interestingly
enough Taoism hasn't fallen into the same trap even with a Cannon written
by its "founder," but that's another discussion.)
For Socrates, though, our main source is Plato's depction of him
in his dialogues (plays). What we get, instead of 4 accounts from
different perspectives, are several accounts from one perspective as that
perspective changes. Basically that as Plato grew up and started forming
his own ideas using the Socratic method. So, basically, we look at the
socrates in the early dialogues and say "that's him" or a gussied up
version of the same.
I guess my question is, though, of why are we worried so much about
the "historical Jesus," as he is here with us now?
Stephen