Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y - even if they did get their information from

[gnosis92]

Dear Jiri,

I've given up on debating the historicty of Jesus, primarily b/c it is way too time consuming and no one seems to agree on what constitutes evidence, (do they doubt the historicity of Philo or Josepheus, or John the Baptist, or Cephas, or James the Just or Pontius Pilate or Salome are they also all myths?) but I do have this question for you: even if Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y received their sources from an early first century Christian community, one that produced the New Testament documents and told Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y that there was a historical Jesus, I see no reason to think Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y got their information from the same group of Christians who wrote the New Testament, or that they got it from reading the New Testament (as production copies had to be done by hand) they may very well have gotten their information indepedent of the NT (i.e eyewitness or people who knew the eyewitnesses), and the mere fact that there were early Christians from whom Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y could get their information would be best explained by positing a historical Jesus.

I agree with your arguments on the "internal" evidence btw.






So, if I understand you correctly, since you have shown several instances where a historical event (Judah's exile, the fall of the temple) was not chronicled until centuries later, I should take the reporting of the temple incident with Jesus, also reported late, as unhistorical. Right ? Or are you saying that the fall of First Temple is a fiction tradition comparable to that of the Infancy Gospels ? :rolleyes:

I simply asked you to show me why this event should not be considered historical. (Sample answer: the synoptics show it happening just before Jesus' arrest while John places it at the start of the ministry.) Why should I throw it out the assault on the temple as originating in someone's imagination ? Because John has Jesus crack a whip ?



The "historical fabric" is there for all to see. The temple incident evidently brought about, or heavily contributed, to Jesus' condemnation within the narrative fabric of the synoptics. John evidently had some sources which also told him of the second charge, sorcery or desecration of graves (which the synoptic tradition had a vested interest in concealing), which he thought theologically more important. Why would this not be history ? Is it because the narrators for all their cunning and craftiness are not that sophisticated bunch compared to us ? Or because you are unable to make any historical sense of it ?




But I showed you - the New Testament; it's just that you don't want to believe that the outline, i.e. the story of a failed small-time social reformer, who was executed, and who posthumously rose to Godhead after serving as a martyred apostolic idol in a reformist church of James, is historical material.



Could you translate that into a more conventional English for me ?



1) The word is spelled germane.

2) I don't care whether you get really sick but I note that saying something like fits well with the obsessional tone that you have taken here and relates to evidence contrary to your favourite pet theory.
Naturally, I can't produce historical evidence that is not there. But I can probe the texts for consistency of the idea the author of the text wishes to convey and then gauge whether he is pulling stuff from thin air and creating a fictional story, or whether he is overwriting some other narration with his own theology. Now if I find a variant cognitive content within the writing, such that the pericope yields a different, internally consistent narration, I am entitled to reject the latter material as derived. Right ? And then, logically, you would have to explain the mythical import of the earlier story ?

So why don't you ? Instead of doing a snake dance...:huh:



Interesting. Can I quote you on that ?



In other words, you do not know where to begin. But it was I believe around this issue that the most erudite, and accomplished mythicist of our time, G.A.Wells, has waved the white flag. Beside the issue of embarrassment (in parading the view of J. by his own family as insane, his losing unloading on well-meaning, protective Peter at C-P, going for figs out of season), the psychological marker of high dominance and originality (in calling the forbidding YHWH "Father") which points to a founding figure of the movement, the re-Judaization problem is perhaps the most daunting and intractable, in postulating mythical origin. Wells' old buddy Schmithals finally prevailed on the old fox.



Oh, no my friend...FAIR PLAY is gospel to me ! ;)



Have I not repeated that several times ?

Let me summarize my position on historicity: I do not trust any of the external sources that testify for Jesus existence. The documents are either tampered with (as in Josephus), or reflect the view of contemporary Christian community (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y.). Judging on internal evidence, I believe historicity better explains a number of things in the New Testament. I believe even Paul's silence on HJ is better explained by historical Jesus. He was embarrassing: outrage to the Jews - folly to the Greeks. Paul was much more comfortable with him in necro.



Please, read what I wrote, make sure you understand what I am saying and then argue. Any other order in your exertions will not be very effective.

Jiri

[Malachi151]

Well, seeing as how they all wrote between 109-120, in places far from Judea, this alone would make the claim that they got their info from first hand witnesses to a real live Jesus.

Add in the fact that Pliny is writing a letter ABOUT THE INTERROGATIONS OF CHRISTIANS, and he of course doesn't say said that they had personally seen Jesus, so its more than obvious that Pliny's letter is only discussing what Christian faithful had told the interrogators.

In fact the letter doesn't even mention Jesus, it only says that they cursed the name of Christ. Its no evidence at all.

[aa5874]

Dear Jiri,

I've given up on debating the historicty of Jesus, primarily b/c it is way too time consuming and no one seems to agree on what constitutes evidence, .......

'Evidence' means anything that provides material or information on which a conclusion or proof can be based. (See webster)

Trying to show the historicity of Jesus will always be time consuming if you have no evidence to support your view. HJers spend far too much time refuting the mythical position when all they have to do, simply, is to produce evidence. It is extremely easy, no headache whatsoever, just produce the evidence to support your view.

It amazes me that persons ,so late in the debate, are now claiming that they have no idea what the word 'evidence' means. This, in effect, wastes even more time, and, I wouldn't be surprised if they ask what the meaning of 'is' is.

[Solo]

Dear Jiri,

I've given up on debating the historicty of Jesus, primarily b/c it is way too time consuming and no one seems to agree on what constitutes evidence, (do they doubt the historicity of Philo or Josepheus, or John the Baptist, or Cephas, or James the Just or Pontius Pilate or Salome are they also all myths?) but I do have this question for you: even if Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y received their sources from an early first century Christian community, one that produced the New Testament documents and told Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y that there was a historical Jesus, I see no reason to think Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y got their information from the same group of Christians who wrote the New Testament, or that they got it from reading the New Testament (as production copies had to be done by hand) they may very well have gotten their information indepedent of the NT (i.e eyewitness or people who knew the eyewitnesses), and the mere fact that there were early Christians from whom Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y could get their information would be best explained by positing a historical Jesus.

I agree with your arguments on the "internal" evidence btw.

Hello there, gnosis, I kind of wondered where you disappeared, I enjoyed the exchanges on Thomas with you.

My view of the three mentions of HJ would have been different if any of them had cited some original source. They did not and what they say does not expand factually what is presumed to have been common knowledge of Christians history and beliefs among the Roman elite of their time. There were Christians, followers of Christ, (Chrestos, whatever his name) who (someone says - who knows) was executed in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate.

The situation appears analogous to that of the two later synoptic gospels. Are Matthew and Luke independent, direct witnesses ? No, they are derived from Mark and some additional source material now lost. Similarly, the most probable origin of the information for HJ for the two Roman chroniclers and a governor would be the Christian community itself, presumably via official reports (of which Pliny's is one) and other interpretive agents. We have no evidence to counter that view.

cheers,
Jiri

[gnosis92]

'Evidence' means anything that provides material or information on which a conclusion or proof can be based. (See webster)

Trying to show the historicity of Jesus will always be time consuming if you have no evidence to support your view. HJers spend far too much time refuting the mythical position when all they have to do, simply, is to produce evidence. It is extremely easy, no headache whatsoever, just produce the evidence to support your view.

It amazes me that persons ,so late in the debate, are now claiming that they have no idea what the word 'evidence' means. This, in effect, wastes even more time, and, I wouldn't be surprised if they ask what the meaning of 'is' is.

The evidence for a historical Jesus is comparable to evidence for Philo, Josepheus, Paul, Pliny the Y, Salome, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, the Essenes, namely writings from antiquity. The New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels and Roman witness are ample evidence.

[gnosis92]

Hello there, gnosis, I kind of wondered where you disappeared, I enjoyed the exchanges on Thomas with you.

My view of the three mentions of HJ would have been different if any of them had cited some original source. They did not and what they say does not expand factually what is presumed to have been common knowledge of Christians history and beliefs among the Roman elite of their time. There were Christians, followers of Christ, (Chrestos, whatever his name) who (someone says - who knows) was executed in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate.

The situation appears analogous to that of the two later synoptic gospels. Are Matthew and Luke independent, direct witnesses ? No, they are derived from Mark and some additional source material now lost. Similarly, the most probable origin of the information for HJ for the two Roman chroniclers and a governor would be the Christian community itself, presumably via official reports (of which Pliny's is one) and other interpretive agents. We have no evidence to counter that view.

cheers,
Jiri

Planet of the Apes LOL. Is there any evidence any of the Roman Elites of the time were skeptical of what the Christians believed? In fact, Celsus accepted the historicity of Jesus.

[gnosis92]

Well, seeing as how they all wrote between 109-120, in places far from Judea, this alone would make the claim that they got their info from first hand witnesses to a real live Jesus.

Add in the fact that Pliny is writing a letter ABOUT THE INTERROGATIONS OF CHRISTIANS, and he of course doesn't say said that they had personally seen Jesus, so its more than obvious that Pliny's letter is only discussing what Christian faithful had told the interrogators.

In fact the letter doesn't even mention Jesus, it only says that they cursed the name of Christ. Its no evidence at all.

Do you have any evidence that anyone was skeptical of the claims of a HJ some 70 years prior? IN fact Celsus accepted a HJ, and he was extremely hostile to Christianity. IS there any evidence that the three suggested Jesus did not exist as a way to deconvert the early Christians? No. Would they have reason to do so? Absolutely. They wanted them to recant and swear by the genius of the Emperor. If Jesus did not exist, woudl that be a reason for some Christians to recant and avoid torture? Absolutely. Did they? No.

I am well aware this won't persuade anyone here. But I think that responsible academic historians like Ehrman, Crossan, Mack, Pagels accept the historicity of Jesus fulfilling accepted canons of histority, and that claims to the contrary do not belong in any serious course on early Christian history taught at respected academic Universities. Shakespeare departments do not teach anti-Stratfordian conspiracy theories, and I think that Christ-mythicism is much the same as 9-11 conspiracy theories.

[Malachi151]

Do you have any evidence that anyone was skeptical of the claims of a HJ some 70 years prior? IN fact Celsus accepted a HJ, and he was extremely hostile to Christianity. IS there any evidence that the three suggested Jesus did not exist as a way to deconvert the early Christians? No. Would they have reason to do so? Absolutely. They wanted them to recant and swear by the genius of the Emperor. If Jesus did not exist, woudl that be a reason for some Christians to recant and avoid torture? Absolutely. Did they? No.

I am well aware this won't persuade anyone here. But I think that responsible academic historians like Ehrman, Crossan, Mack, Pagels accept the historicity of Jesus fulfilling accepted canons of histority, and that claims to the contrary do not belong in any serious course on early Christian history taught at respected academic Universities. Shakespeare departments do not teach anti-Stratfordian conspiracy theories, and I think that Christ-mythicism is much the same as 9-11 conspiracy theories.

There isn't any evidence of anyone saying anything about Jesus 70 years prior.

Really, the first reliable comment on Jesus from non-Christians is Tacitus, which occurs some 70 years after his supposed life, after Judea had been destroyed, and many many miles away from the origional location.

I see no reason why Tacitus wouldn't simply take the story at face value, as they tended to do with many people, even for example Romulus, Adonis, etc.

Actually, the main arguments against Jesus come from the Christians themselves, many of whom claimed that there was no Jesus, or that Jesus was just some guy who was walking along and then Christ descended on him, etc.

This makes sense really.

The outsides had no information to go on. Someone 70-100+ years later, who wasn't there and has no knowledge of the detials of the theology isn't going to have any reason to refute such claims.

However, the lines of Christians who had a tradition that was different would be the only ones who would have something to say about it.

If you tell me that your grandpa was in WWII and got shot in the leg, I'm just gonig to say "ok". I have no idea.

The only people who would really have a reason to doubt this would be the people who knew your grandpa.

Now, if Jesus never existed, who would know?

Only the people who actually lived in Judea during the reign of Pilate.

The story of Jesus, however, the gospels that is, only really made claims after all those people were dead and gone.

[spin]

The evidence for a historical Jesus is comparable to evidence for Philo,
Someone wrote the Philo texts.

Josepheus,
Someone wrote Josephus's texts.

Paul,
Someone wrote Paul's letters.

Pliny the Y,
Someone wrote Pliny the Younger's letters.

Someone wrote the gospels. Get the distinction?

Salome,
Josephus mentions her several times and she is supported by gospel reference.

John the Baptist,
Josephus mentions him in a fashion which does not concord with the gospels, so the reference is hardly an insertion. So, both Josephus and gospel reference...

Pontius Pilate,
Josephus mentions him several times. He is also mentioned on an inscription from the era. This one is hard to dispute.

the Essenes,
The group is mentioned by both Philo and Josephus in mannerthat shows no reliance one on the other so there are two attestations...

namely writings from antiquity.
This is not sufficient that writings from antiquity mention someone. Did Trimalchio exist because he was mentioned in the Satyricon? You need to interact with texts to show that they are witnesses to history in some way. Josephus's narrative, at least for his own time, intersects with innumerable primary sources regarding personages and events. The Satyricon for example doesn't.

The New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels and Roman witness are ample evidence.
It is no wonder that the christian literature mentions Jesus, but no-one has done the work to show that these works relate to history any more than the book of Judith does.

To use texts, you must be able to make solid proposals for when texts were written, for if a text was not written during the period how can the writer know what he claims to know? Where was the text written? Again, if the writer cannot be placed at the scene how can he know? What was the literary context, for that context may help understand the text better than without it. Understanding the context may give what the writer is doing with the narrative, say what tradition it belongs to, what genre.

As to the "Roman witness", classical literature was maintained for centuries by christian scribes. Texts were commented on. It's not strange that some of them have marginal comments being incorporated into the main text. When orthodox corruption of scripture took place, why do we doubt that such corruption of classical sources also happened? What reason would such corruption have and how would it manifest itself? Obviously, there is little reason for classical texts to be corrupted for they don't deal with christian related issues, or only minimally, when they touch on issues which might be understood as related to christian topics, such as when the text of Josephus turns a reference regarding a James into an opportunity to touch on Jesus, who a scribe took to be the brother of this James. With the tradition that Nero, who gave the Jews a hard time, would have given the christians a hard time as well, being god's replacements for the Jews who had killed god's messenger, there is obvious reason for marginal comment about Nero's treatment of christians (whether he actually treated them some way or not) creeping into the text of classical authors.

(And before some silly person starts talking about mythicists to me, realise that I am not a mythicist, nor do I support a HJ. I am agnostic in these matters. That's in bold text so as to stress the notion, "agnostic", because there are those who cannot but see only two approaches to the issue.)


spin

[gnosis92]

Paul and possibly Q and Thomas and the signs Gospel spoke of Jesus within 20-50 years. That's evidence.

The earliest relevant documents clearly depicts Jesus as having recently lived and crucified. That's evidence.

The earliest relevant documents records the putative sayins of Jesus. That's evidence.

The fact that there existed a religious movement of Jews who claimed Jesus was their messiah, and attested by secular pagan literature, that's evidence.

IS there any evidence that the secular evidence suggested Jesus did not exist as a way to deconvert the early Christians? No. That's evidence.

Would they have reason to do so? Absolutely. They wanted them to recant and swear by the genius of the Emperor. If Jesus did not exist, woudl that be a reason for some Christians to recant and avoid torture? Absolutely. Did they? No. That's evidence.

The claim Jesus existed is not extraordinary, and it was made by early Christians reflected in their own literature and in the writings of hostile pagans. That's evidence.

The fact that no Jewish group thought of a messiah who would be crucified and humilated prior to Christianity, but thought of a messiah as a kingly hero like David, and here we have such a group of Jews, that's evidence.

The fact that there are many similarities between the Essenes and early Christians speak of shared Jewish cultural mileu. That's evidence.

Is there any evidence John the Baptist existed? We know that an entire community of Essenes lived in Qumran, and read and wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Can you name a single one? Do you have any writings of any Pharisee in Second Temple Era, besides Paul?

What would persuade Romans and Jews to worship a man they believed to be crucified under Pilate, over the Emperor of Rome under pain of death? That's evidence.

You are correct that if Jesus had never existed, who would know. But it is also correct that much positive evidence was lost when the Romans-Jewish war of 67-70, and the Jersuleum community headed by James and Cephas was destroyed. The evidence we have that does survive this catastrophe makes Jesus existence most probable.

Celsus was a second century debunker of Christianity, and had access to sources now lost to us. Did he find a non-existent Jesus? No. In fact, his sources identify Jesus mother as a Roman Soldier named Panthera. His sources failed to find a non-existent Jesus. He had every reason to try to debunk Christianity, so if he had any doubts, any sources, which woudl suggest Jesus did not exist, he would have used it. He did not. He instead found evidence, not contained in the New Testament, that Jesus learned witchcraft from the Egyptians.

That's evidence.


There isn't any evidence of anyone saying anything about Jesus 70 years prior.

Really, the first reliable comment on Jesus from non-Christians is Tacitus, which occurs some 70 years after his supposed life, after Judea had been destroyed, and many many miles away from the origional location.

I see no reason why Tacitus wouldn't simply take the story at face value, as they tended to do with many people, even for example Romulus, Adonis, etc.

Actually, the main arguments against Jesus come from the Christians themselves, many of whom claimed that there was no Jesus, or that Jesus was just some guy who was walking along and then Christ descended on him, etc.

This makes sense really.

The outsides had no information to go on. Someone 70-100+ years later, who wasn't there and has no knowledge of the detials of the theology isn't going to have any reason to refute such claims.

However, the lines of Christians who had a tradition that was different would be the only ones who would have something to say about it.

If you tell me that your grandpa was in WWII and got shot in the leg, I'm just gonig to say "ok". I have no idea.

The only people who would really have a reason to doubt this would be the people who knew your grandpa.

Now, if Jesus never existed, who would know?

Only the people who actually lived in Judea during the reign of Pilate.

The story of Jesus, however, the gospels that is, only really made claims after all those people were dead and gone.

[spin]

We know that an entire community of Essenes lived in Qumran, and read and wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Give me one tangible piece of evidence to show that there were Essenes at Qumran. The best that people have given in the past is an abuse of Pliny the Elder, who says that "below [the Essenes] was the town of En Gedi", followed by special pleading.

So, one tangible piece of evidence for the Essenes or forget about them as, in the Qumran context, scholarly fiction.


spin

[aa5874]

The evidence for a historical Jesus is comparable to evidence for Philo, Josepheus, Paul, Pliny the Y, Salome, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, the Essenes, namely writings from antiquity. The New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels and Roman witness are ample evidence.

Well, anytime you want to show the historicity of anyone, just prove the historicity of someone else.

The New Testament has credibility problems and who are these Roman witnesses?

[gnosis92]

Give me one tangible piece of evidence to show that there were Essenes at Qumran. The best that people have given in the past is an abuse of Pliny the Elder, who says that "below [the Essenes] was the town of En Gedi", followed by special pleading.

So, one tangible piece of evidence for the Essenes or forget about them as, in the Qumran context, scholarly fiction.


spin

Qumran

"More recently the theory of Qumran being a religious settlement has garnered much critique and is not considered very likely anymore.... The Dead Sea Scrolls remain unexplained."

I was under the scholarship that the Essenes at Qumran produced the Dead Sea Scrolls.

interesting. I guess the Hitler channel needs to update some of their documentaries.

Then who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, how did they end up at Qumran, and who were the Essenes and how did they figure into all this? Who were the early Christians, what relationship did they have with the Dead Sea Scrolls if any, and with non-canonical Jewish books like the Wisdom of Solomon and Book of Enoch, and with the Pharisees, including Hillel and Gamaliel? How does it all fit together?

[spin]

Then who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, how did they end up at Qumran, and who were the Essenes and how did they figure into all this? Who were the early Christians, what relationship did they have with the Dead Sea Scrolls if any, and with non-canonical Jewish books like the Wisdom of Solomon and Book of Enoch, and with the Pharisees, including Hillel and Gamaliel? How does it all fit together?
First, do you need an author in order that you remove the Essene baggage from your considerations? Second, the scrolls talk about the leaders being the sons of Zadok and sons of Aaron, ie priestly families.

The Essenes were a poor communal group, which took in other people's children, because they generally didn't procreate. We cant say too much about them for we only have secondary sources from Josephus and Pliny, then later sources.

The site of Qumran reveals an establishment which has been likened to a manor house which produced various commercial items, to a production center which was a satellite of the Herodian estate at Jericho, but the current developments put Qumran as not in a religious context, but of a commercial production of pottery and glass items, perhaps of balsam and perfumes as well.

All Jewish literature is related in one fashion or another. The problem is what the family relationship is. The book of Enoch was written over a couple of centuries starting at the end of the 3rd c. BCE and is a compilation, so it's very hard to make any single position from it. Later rabbinical sources put the Pharisees at odds with a few rulings espoused by the writers of the DSS found in the text MMT, and with the leaders being priestly, we should be able to see that the position of (at leat some of) the scrolls should be Sadducee, and the Sadducee because they were the losers of the theological struggles certainly got bad press.

Wisdom of Solomon is not an easy book to place, but it may be another Alexandrian text -- Alexandria being the home of a Jewish wisdom tradition which may have included Ben Sira, which may have been written when Jews fled the Seleucid persecution for refuge in Egypt --, whereas the Psalms of Solomon may have been a Pharisaic work written (at least in part) just after the death of Pompey, a work which mocks the fall of the "corrupt" temple cultus.

I don't really know how the early christians fit into this complex network of connections. The earliest of the gospels gives indications that it was written in a Latin culture, using Roman coins, buildings and military terms. If GMk was written in Rome, then what relationship can its contents have with events purporting to have happened in Judea and Galilee?

Hillel comes from a less conservative strain of Pharisaism. The rabbinical sources don't seem to present the time of Hillel as containing many struggles other than that between the Hillelites and the Shammaites. The christians seem to be a late layer in the rabbinical literature.


spin

[aa5874]

The claim Jesus existed is not extraordinary, and it was made by early Christians reflected in their own literature and in the writings of hostile pagans. That's evidence.

Can you name the writings of hostile pagans that claim Jesus actually existed?

[spin]

Can you name the writings of hostile pagans that claim Jesus actually existed?
How many hostile pagans left literary traces?

I think Celsus accepted the existence of Jesus, along with Porphyry and Julian. None of them were near contemporaries.


spin

[Roger Pearse]

Can you name the writings of hostile pagans that claim Jesus actually existed?

All pagans are hostile. All references to Jesus in antiquity qualify.

Do you know of any references by any one that question whether he existed?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[yalla]

All pagans are hostile. All references to Jesus in antiquity qualify.

Do you know of any references by any one that question whether he existed?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Could you explain why you call all pagans hostile Roger?
That strikes me as strange, as if pagans and Christians must inherently be antagonistic.
cheers
yalla

[spin]

Just as a small aside, christianity was an urban religion -- in the Roman context at least. It took longer to filter out into the rural district(s), the pagus. So those people who were hostile to christianity tended to be the people from the rural areas, ie the "pagans".


spin

[fromdownunder]

I am going to go with gnosis92 on this one. I think that the two Josephus references (accepting that there is a partial interpolation in one of them) and the Gospels themselves, plus Paul's writings are sufficient evidence per se of the existence of a historical Jesus.

If we deny a historical Jesus (and I am not talking about the synoptic or John superman-Jesus) we are necessarily denying virtually all history out of hand, because we do not have conclusive evidence that anybody, or anything ever existed.

To me, this seems to be moving towards some sort of version of "last Tuesdayism". Somebody (and not Paul - unless people start denying that he wrote at least the letters attributed to him) started what we now call Christianity, based on something or somebody! Why was not that somebody a rabbi called Yeshua?

I am of the opinion that the people why deny a historical Jesus need to provide falsification of the texts that confirm his existence, not the reverse. And don't get me wrong - I am not looking for falsification of the magic tricks. That is a different argument.

Norm

[Solo]

Planet of the Apes LOL. Is there any evidence any of the Roman Elites of the time were skeptical of what the Christians believed? In fact, Celsus accepted the historicity of Jesus.

I am not arguing one way or the other; I am setting the reports aside as more-than-likely hearsay evidence.

Jiri

[spin]

I think that the two Josephus references (accepting that there is a partial interpolation in one of them) and the Gospels themselves, plus Paul's writings are sufficient evidence per se of the existence of a historical Jesus.
If you accept that the text containing the Testimonium Flavianum has been fiddled with, your "partial interpolation", how do you arbitrarily decide which bit Josephus wrote and which bit he didn't?

Once you chop out the reference to "he was the christ", that makes the other reference to Jesus, "called christ" (a phrase straight out of GMt), the only time the term is used in Josephus, despite the fact that the term occurs over 40 times in the LXX. Obviously Josephus avoided the term, so why would he use it here (especially, if he knew the full story, for a person who was executed and therefore obviously to the devout Jew Josephus plainly not the messiah)?

Sadly embarrassed fumbling with Josephus and cutting out the ugly bits is not a coherent approach to the problem.

As for the gospels, date them, before you try to use them as having any relevance to the period of 25 - 33 CE. We take notice of Josephus mainly for his narrative of his own time. Tacitus writes about either things he has seen or things in most cases he can do direct research for. This is true for most of the important Greek historians, Thucydides, Polybius, Posidonius. They wrote during their owen times and you know when they lived. Who exactly wrote the gospels? when? where? to whom? from what cultural context? Without attempting to validate your texts how can you use them?


spin

[Malachi151]

Paul and possibly Q and Thomas and the signs Gospel spoke of Jesus within 20-50 years. That's evidence.

These things aren't evidence for anything, in fact they are evidence against a historical Jesus.

"Paul" never disusses a real live Jesus. We don't even know what Q is, but further study shows that more and more of the NT is sources from the OT. New links between the two are found every year. Practically all of the NT story can be recreaed from the OT texts, with a few exceptions, such as John the Baptist, and Pilate, etc., these few historical bits. Every act of Jesus, however, and pretty much everything he said, comes from the Septugient (OT).

All of the narrative gospels come from after the destruction of Judea, and they are all based on Septugient stories.

There isn't any evidence that there WAS EVER any narrative of Jesus prior to the writting of the first gospel.

In fact, it seems unlikely that there was any story of Jesus before this, because if there was this story would have been the basis for the gospels, which are obviously not based on any oral tradition, because they are based on the OT.

In fact, there is one important thing to note about the Tacitus quote. Tacitus wrote in 109 CE about something that supposedly happened in 64 CE, however we cannot infer that the description of Jesus that Tacitus gives in 109 would have been known in 64. Indeed, its highly doubtful that the Christians in 64 CE would have said anything about Pilate. Tacitus is here giving a 109 explanation for what Christianity is based on, when talking about Christians from 64.

[Solo]

Do you have any evidence that anyone was skeptical of the claims of a HJ some 70 years prior? IN fact Celsus accepted a HJ, and he was extremely hostile to Christianity. IS there any evidence that the three suggested Jesus did not exist as a way to deconvert the early Christians? No. Would they have reason to do so? Absolutely. They wanted them to recant and swear by the genius of the Emperor. If Jesus did not exist, woudl that be a reason for some Christians to recant and avoid torture? Absolutely. Did they? No.


This would be quite a powerful argument if we knew the writers had independent evidence when evaluating the issue. But we cannot assume that they had. If the Christians themselves traditioned that Jesus was an executed criminal they had no reason to suspect he was invented.

The sobering fact of the matter is that the gospel narratives are the original source material and until something historically independent (within a probabilistic scenario) of them bubbles up we are stuck with them.


I am well aware this won't persuade anyone here. But I think that responsible academic historians like Ehrman, Crossan, Mack, Pagels accept the historicity of Jesus fulfilling accepted canons of histority, and that claims to the contrary do not belong in any serious course on early Christian history taught at respected academic Universities. Shakespeare departments do not teach anti-Stratfordian conspiracy theories, and I think that Christ-mythicism is much the same as 9-11 conspiracy theories.

Look, gnosis, this is not a good way of arguing a good case. One should not use credential-mongering and generalized dismissals ever, but especially not, if there are much better arguments. You saw what happened in the other thread when I asked for explanation of a Rechabite dignitary and high-priest hopeful James accepting to worship a pagan idol in his church ? This is a very difficult proposition. But we know that a figure of Jesus was venerated in James' congregation, whatever the personal relationship between them and even if none existed. So while the cultural transfer of the creed from Judaism to paganism is well documented historically, the obverse, with which the mythicist school stands or falls, has absolutely zero historical evidence. So why should I resort to enumerating Phd's or drag in 9-11 conspiracy theories ?

Jiri

[Roger Pearse]

In fact, there is one important thing to note about the Tacitus quote. Tacitus wrote in 109 CE about something that supposedly happened in 64 CE, however we cannot infer that the description of Jesus that Tacitus gives in 109 would have been known in 64.

Tacitus wrote at this time about the reign of Tiberius. Do we apply the same logic to the entire contents of Annals?

Speaking as someone who was alive in 1965, I am a little surprised to be told that anything I write today in 2006 about that year is not evidence!

I'm sorry, Malachi151, but you've been slowly but surely led down the path of obscurantism. There is no reason for any of this. Our primary sources for all first century history and the policies and habits of the people who lived then are Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Josephus. Being human they have their own ideas and make mistakes etc; but we need some definitive evidence to reject what they say about their own times, and these sort of arguments highlight that there isn't any.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Malachi151]

Tacitus wrote at this time about the reign of Tiberius. Do we apply the same logic to the entire contents of Annals?

Speaking as someone who was alive in 1965, I am a little surprised to be told that anything I write today in 2006 about that year is not evidence!

I'm sorry, Malachi151, but you've been slowly but surely led down the path of obscurantism. There is no reason for any of this. Our primary sources for all first century history and the policies and habits of the people who lived then are Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Josephus. Being human they have their own ideas and make mistakes etc; but we need some definitive evidence to reject what they say about their own times, and these sort of arguments highlight that there isn't any.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

No, I think you misunderstand.

We have no evidence that the Christians in 64 said that "Christus was killed by Pilate".

More than likely what happened, if this quote is even accurate at all, is that in 64 CE some Christians were rounded up and killed.

Tactius, then, in 109 CE recorded this event, and then added as many details as he could to explain who Christians were, but his information about "who Christians were", was coming from 109, not 64.

I'm not sure how you could even attempt to argue otherwise?

[spin]

Our primary sources for all first century history and the policies and habits of the people who lived then are Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio, and Josephus.
Umm, sorry, Cassius Dio, no. :( He is certainly a secondary source for the period, born around 165 CE.


spin

[Roger Pearse]

We have no evidence that the Christians in 64 said that "Christus was killed by Pilate".


Sorry, but I refer you to what I just wrote above.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Amaleq13]

Is there any evidence any of the Roman Elites of the time were skeptical of what the Christians believed? In fact, Celsus accepted the historicity of Jesus.

They disparaged them as ignorant, superstitious bumpkins for their beliefs but the quote from Julian that mountainman is so fond of is the closest I know of to what you are suggesting.

[Malachi151]

Sorry, but I refer you to what I just wrote above.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

I don't see your point. Tacitus is speaking about his own times. His own times is 109 CE, not 64 CE. He's doing what any good journalist would do.

If I write a story about the Vietnam War, I may talk about Ho Chi Minh like this.

In 1945 the Vietnamese people decided to back Ho Chi Minh as their leader. Millions of Vietnamese people loved and supported Ho Chi Minh, fighting and dying for his cause.

Ho Chi Minh was originally named Wong Woe (made this up, but I know he changed his name), and traveled to France as a youth, where he came into contact with the Communist Party. He later met with Vladamir Lenin shortly after the Russian Revolution.

etc., etc.

Now, I as a journalist am adding in detail about who Ho Chi Minh is, and what we know about him today. That doesn't mean that the followers of Ho Chi Minh knew these things. Does what I just wrote imply that the followers of Ho Chi Minh knew that he had changed his name? Does it imply that they knew he had visited France?

In this case, because he was a real person, its likely that some of his followers did know these things, but by no means is that definitive. I'm sure that many people who "fought and died for Ho Chi Minh", never knew that he had changed his name or that he had ever lived in France or met with Lenin.

A better example, perhaps would be Star Wars. Star Wars was released in 1974.

Today, I may write the following.

In 1974 the block buster movie Star Wars was released, whose main character is Luke Skywalker. Luke's father is Darth Vader, whom Luke was being hidden from on the planet Tatooine.

Now, I am writing from today, when we know the whole story, about a movie that was released in 1974, but in 1974 people didn't know that Vader was Luke's father.

I'm saying that the same applies to the Tactius statement.

In 109 CE the story was that Jesus (Christus) was killed by Pilate, but that does not mean that that was the story in 64. In fact we have nothing prior to the gospel of Mark in 67-75 that says Jesus was killed by Pilate.

[aa5874]

If we deny a historical Jesus (and I am not talking about the synoptic or John superman-Jesus) we are necessarily denying virtually all history out of hand, because we do not have conclusive evidence that anybody, or anything ever existed.

Your statement is worthless. You cannot show that Jesus existed, therefore Jesus must have existed, because no-one else would have existed. Total nonsense.

You need to do some research to find evidence to support your views. It is of no significance to declare Jesus existed because of your inability to find relevant information.


I am of the opinion that the people why deny a historical Jesus need to provide falsification of the texts that confirm his existence, not the reverse. And don't get me wrong - I am not looking for falsification of the magic tricks. That is a different argument.Norm

Again, If you claim someone is living or lived, you must have corroborated documentation to confirm your claim.
If your methodology for historicity is used, then every name written is that of a person that actually existed.

[fromdownunder]

If you accept that the text containing the Testimonium Flavianum has been fiddled with, your "partial interpolation", how do you arbitrarily decide which bit Josephus wrote and which bit he didn't?

Once you chop out the reference to "he was the christ", that makes the other reference to Jesus, "called christ" (a phrase straight out of GMt), the only time the term is used in Josephus, despite the fact that the term occurs over 40 times in the LXX. Obviously Josephus avoided the term, so why would he use it here (especially, if he knew the full story, for a person who was executed and therefore obviously to the devout Jew Josephus plainly not the messiah)?

Sadly embarrassed fumbling with Josephus and cutting out the ugly bits is not a coherent approach to the problem.[/

Josephus full quote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man[/B, for he was a doer of wonderful works[/B[B]], a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Taking out the possible interpolations (your "bad bits"), as bolded above, we are left with:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [A]nd when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

(Stolen unashamedly from Jeffrey Jay Lowder's response to Chapter 5 of "The Jury Is In" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html)

This leaves us with a picture of a not overly interesting historical character who influenced those in his immediate vicinity, but initially did not cause much of a stir anywhere else.

Now if one takes Josephus other reference to "the so called Christ" (a not very flattering description, in fact I would say rather a skeptical view of somebody Josephus believed existed, but was not interested enough in to do any more work), and this was effectively an aside as Josephus main interest is James in this passage, what is left is a picture of a pretty ordinary man who was not worth worrying about, He may or may not have been killed by the Romans as a rebel.

As for the gospels, date them, before you try to use them as having any relevance to the period of 25 - 33 CE. We take notice of Josephus mainly for his narrative of his own time. Tacitus writes about either things he has seen or things in most cases he can do direct research for. This is true for most of the important Greek historians, Thucydides, Polybius, Posidonius. They wrote during their owen times and you know when they lived. Who exactly wrote the gospels? when? where? to whom? from what cultural context? Without attempting to validate your texts how can you use them?

The canonical Gospels, as far as I am aware were written between 70ish - 100 CE. The others, I understand were written later than this. As far as Q goes, I have no idea, or any idea if it was written at all. But you need to provide evidence that the author of Mark made up the existence of his central character out of whole cloth. There is no birth sequence, no post passion sitings just a brief history of a man's life between about 30-33 years of age (perhaps) with miracles thrown in for flavour, which provide the fiction content.

The historical context is that a people were being totally trashed by invaders and needed something, anything, to hold onto hope. Those that "lost faith" in the God of their fathers picked up on the ideas of a few fanatical followers of a minor Galillean rabbi, and it slowly grew from there because of the diaspora which followed.

Regarding Paul, you must also assume that his (attributable) letters were also made up. Did Paul, writing in (probably) 50-60 CE use Jesus followers as a fictional frame for his letters? Was it Jesus followers he was actually writing to, who had already swayed from the original message, whatever that was? Who provided the original message of Jesus? The Jesus myth had to come from somewhere! Why not an actual historical person?

Regarding other references, they are all at least third hand or worse, and the non-canonical gospels were all far to late to be evidence of anything at all. So I must needs :) to stick with Josephus, the author of Mark, Paul and possibly Q. I discount the authors of Matthew and Luke as direct evidence, but are more as supporting documents, in that they took Mark's gospel and based their rewrites on the specific audince they were trying to reach. When reading the author of John however, I often wonder what the hell he was smoking when he wrote it.

Sorry, I have rambled on a bit much. Bad day at the office.

Norm

[Roger Pearse]

Your statement is worthless. You cannot show that Jesus existed, therefore Jesus must have existed, because no-one else would have existed. Total nonsense.


I don't think that this the point being made. I think what the poster is saying is that the evidence which leads reasonable people to accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed is of the same kind (and rather more extensive, in many cases) than that which is considered final in a great many other cases throughout history. This of course is true.


You need to do some research to find evidence to support your views.


As does everyone. It's really much too easy for people (not you) who find something inconvenient to make demands of others for 'proof' and to just keep jacking up the levels of evidence required. The real level of evidence required is the same as for everyone else at the time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[fromdownunder]

I don't think that this the point being made. I think what the poster is saying is that the evidence which leads reasonable people to accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed is of the same kind (and rather more extensive, in many cases) than that which is considered final in a great many other cases throughout history. This of course is true.

As does everyone. It's really much too easy for people (not you) who find something inconvenient to make demands of others for 'proof' and to just keep jacking up the levels of evidence required. The real level of evidence required is the same as for everyone else at the time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger, you have pretty much covered what my response would have been. Taken to a "logical" (if that is the word I am groping for) conclusion, it becomes equally arguable that no Christian document existed before Constantine, and he arranged for all of them (even the contradictory ones) to be forged to confirm his position.

I am simply asking that MJers Provide the source of the Jesus myths.

The source of people's beliefs to whom Paul was writing. The source behind Paul's acceptance of a historical Jesus (and remember, I doubt that Paul even accepted a bodily resurrection) The source behind the character written about by Mark. The source behind the beliefs of those that Josephus called Chriistians.

Do this, provide evidence that it was not someone whom we could describe as Jesus, and I will become a MJer.

Norm

[spin]

Josephus full quote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man[/B, for he was a doer of wonderful works[/B[B]], a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Taking out the possible interpolations (your "bad bits"), as bolded above, we are left with:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [A]nd when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

(Stolen unashamedly from Jeffrey Jay Lowder's response to Chapter 5 of "The Jury Is In" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html)
I don't care where you stole it from. It's still called cherry picking. You, or in this case Lowder, choose what you want to keep and delete the rest. How do you determine what you want to keep from what to throw away in the passage?? Answer: you have no way.

What makes you think that the rest of the christ stuff was not from the same hand?? See the problem? Oh well.

Now if one takes Josephus other reference to "the so called Christ" (a not very flattering description, in fact I would say rather a skeptical view of somebody Josephus believed existed, but was not interested enough in to do any more work),
Sorry sport, but this is utter drivel.

The "so-called" christ is a maliciously deceptive translation and abuse by your source of the original phrase. The text simply says literally, "Jesus the called christ", or Jesus who is called the christ, which is straight out of Matthew (1:16). There is nothing negative about ihsoun o legomenon christon or Simon called Peter (simwna ton legomenon petron).

So, sadly, your development on this bad linguistic analysis has little value.


The canonical Gospels, as far as I am aware were written between 70ish - 100 CE.
Again, sadly, you wouldn't know and you have no way of verifying the value or the opinions of your sources. These dates are no thing more than wish-fullfilment.

The historical context is that a people were being totally trashed by invaders and needed something, anything, to hold onto hope. Those that "lost faith" in the God of their fathers picked up on the ideas of a few fanatical followers of a minor Galillean rabbi, and it slowly grew from there because of the diaspora which followed.
Naive literalism and retrojection of current reworkings of christian theology will not get you any closer to the problems at hand.

Regarding Paul, you must also assume that his (attributable) letters were also made up.
Why?

Did Paul, writing in (probably) 50-60 CE use Jesus followers as a fictional frame for his letters?
It would be good if you read the archives. How do you date Paul from his letters?? The usual fudge is to try to claim that when Paul was lowered from the wall of Damascus with a reference to Aretas, it referred to the period of a clash between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV (circa 39 CE), but I have shown that this is highly improbably and with no positive evidence to support it, making it an unlikely conjecture. You can't date Paul.

Was it Jesus followers he was actually writing to, who had already swayed from the original message, whatever that was? Who provided the original message of Jesus? The Jesus myth had to come from somewhere! Why not an actual historical person?
Just a little dose of David Hume: people receive sense data and from these tiny bits of sense information, they build up a picture; that picture may represent something that exists or something that doesn't -- you can think of the difference between a horse and a unicorn. Now Jesus may be myth, a composite recollection of various figures, an evolution of theological ideas, or a real person, any of which combined with the new found Greek sense of reality or historiography, could lead to the accounts we have today.

Regarding other references, they are all at least third hand or worse,
Just like the gospels, right? GMt used GMk which used other sources, etc.

and the non-canonical gospels were all far to late to be evidence of anything at all.
How do you know when the common four gospels were written?

So I must needs :) to stick with Josephus,
We have seen that Josephus has been bowdlerized and you want to keep some of the bowdlerization. Not convincing.

the author of Mark, Paul and possibly Q.
When were any of them written and how would you know? The usual fudge with Mark is to say that it must have been written around the time of the fall of the temple, but that ignores the Jewish literary heritage which frequently recycled long past events.

I discount the authors of Matthew and Luke as direct evidence, but are more as supporting documents, in that they took Mark's gospel and based their rewrites on the specific audince they were trying to reach. When reading the author of John however, I often wonder what the hell he was smoking when he wrote it.
What makes you think Mark was anything much better than a Matthew or a Luke? So, you don't have any earlier documents, but we have a tradition of rehashing what was already in circulation.


spin

[mountainman]

How many hostile pagans left literary traces?

I think Celsus accepted the existence of Jesus, along with Porphyry and Julian. None of them were near contemporaries.

Eusebius informs us that both Celsus and Porphyry
accepted the existence of Jesus, sometime after 312 CE.

It is, IMO, eminently arguable, that Julian did not
accept the existence of Jesus, simply because he opens
his entire treatise "Against the Galilaeans" with words that
specify it to be a fabrication, a fiction and a monstrous tale.
While he may discuss the details of the fiction, his opening
words leave little doubt that he considered it fictitious.



Pete Brown

[fromdownunder]

Again, sadly, you wouldn't know and you have no way of verifying the value or the opinions of your sources. These dates are no thing more than wish-fullfilment.

spin

spin, to stop this getting too generalised and bogged down in multiple points on a single thread, please point me to compelling evidence that the synoptics, but particularly Mark, (I don't give a shit about John) were not written between 70 -90 CE. I am quite happy to be swayed by good evidence along these lines.

Or if you have anything similar to the above re: the dating (or non dating, if you like) of Paul's letters I would be very interested. I admit to not folowing the HJ v MJ Jesus myth as much as I would have liked to, and would appreciate a starting point. I will follow it from there.

But what I need is a point to begin some research to accept that there was no historical Jesus, simply because (as silly as this may sound) there is little evidence on this thread per se for the non existence of a historical Jesus.

Since you are familiar with the subject, you should be able to cite sources, and you will have a brand new MJer, if the evidence is compelling, because I could then accept that Josephus was writing from earlier sources which were (likely) based on a fiction. But I need evidence, not simply statemenst such as those you made in your response to my last post.

Thanks.

Norm

[spin]

spin, to stop this getting too generalised and bogged down in multiple points on a single thread, please point me to compelling evidence that the synoptics, but particularly Mark, (I don't give a shit about John) were not written between 70 -90 CE. I am quite happy to be swayed by good evidence along these lines.
fromdownunder, to stop this getting too generalised and bogged down in multiple points on a single thread, please point me to compelling evidence that the synoptics, but particularly Mark, (I don't give a shit about John) were written between 70 -90 CE.

Or if you have anything similar to the above re: the dating (or non dating, if you like) of Paul's letters I would be very interested.
Try dating Paul from Paul's letters. You'll find you can't.

I admit to not folowing the HJ v MJ Jesus myth as much as I would have liked to, and would appreciate a starting point. I will follow it from there.
I don't take part in the HJ v MJ tango. Agnosticism is the only way to go.

But what I need is a point to begin some research to accept that there was no historical Jesus,
Let me make this separation: Jesus may be not historical yet still have existed. The set of "not historical" is divided into two: "not enough evidence to say the subject existed" and "the subject didn't exist".

simply because (as silly as this may sound) there is little evidence on this thread per se for the non existence of a historical Jesus.
History is about what you can show regarding the past. If you can't show it, it isn't history. Show me the substantive evidence for a Jesus, then he is historical. If you can't show me, then he doesn't make the grade as historical. Politicians tell you stuff all the time, but do you assume it is all correct?

Since you are familiar with the subject, you should be able to cite sources, and you will have a brand new MJer, if the evidence is compelling, because I could then accept that Josephus was writing from earlier sources which were (likely) based on a fiction. But I need evidence, not simply statemenst such as those you made in your response to my last post.
You've got the process ass-up, if you are interested in history. You need evidence to say someone is historical. By evidence I mean substantive evidence -- not this half-baked stuff about having an account of something so show me it is fictional: I certainly cannot show you that the holy grail is fictional.


spin

[fromdownunder]

OK, I am through playing games with someone who tries to argue against generally accepted evidence and then will not provide sources. All I asked for was a reference for when YOU think that Mark and/or Paul and the other two synoptics were written. I thought that it was a polite request and you simply replied with static. Continuing to talk with somebody who says little more than "you are wrong" is pretty pointless.

Bye.

Is there reading this thread who can point me to a decent starting point to evidence for a MJ?

Norm

[spin]

The attitude below is just typical of the resilience to the basic problem I have attempted to outline (if I can outline a problem).
OK, I am through playing games with someone who tries to argue against generally accepted evidence and then will not provide sources.
History is about not playing games, specifically the silly game of the type where, instead of making a case for a position, one requires that the opposite be demonstrated. This is the junky attitude: show me a better drug and I'll drop this one for it.

All these dudes, who propose the "guilty until proven otherwise" approach to history, should realise that the law requires one to prove the guilt, not the contrary.

"[G]enerally accepted evidence" is not evidence until it is put on the table and laid out.

You ask them to lay it out and they have a fit.

All I asked for was a reference for when YOU think that Mark and/or Paul and the other two synoptics were written.
Having looked at the evidence, I don't know, but then nobody else does either.

One of the few tangible indications for a terminus post quem (ie the earliest point where the event must have been after) is the reference to John the Baptist, which is dated by Josephus to around 37 CE (yet the traditional date for Jesus's death, based on the Herod tale, is several years before that date). One must assume that the writer was confused and the reference is untrustworthy.

I thought that it was a polite request and you simply replied with static.
You need to turn the radio on first to able able to say this sort of thing. Sounds like you've got tinnitus.

Continuing to talk with somebody who says little more than "you are wrong" is pretty pointless.
Sad straw man stuff.

Knock off the bs and admit that you're content with plausible pasts rather than the difficult job of saying what you can about what actually happened.

Bye.
:wave:

Is there reading this thread who can point me to a decent starting point to evidence for a MJ?
While we're at it, can someone point me to a descent starting point for evidence of a mythical unicorn? Can someone show me that Atlantis didn't exist? Can someone show me that Julius Caesar didn't become a god after his death? Can someone show me that Jesus didn't have an affair with one of the disciples (the one whom the lord loved)?

Does anyone see what's awry with these sorts of questions?


spin

[Amaleq13]

OK, I am through playing games with someone who tries to argue against generally accepted evidence and then will not provide sources.

If you are referring to the basis of the generally accepted dating of the Gospels, "evidence" is less appropriate than "conjecture" (albeit arguably entirely reasonable conjecture). There is actually very little in the way of evidence allowing one to reliably date the texts.

[gstafleu]

I don't think that this the point being made. I think what the poster is saying is that the evidence which leads reasonable people to accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed is of the same kind (and rather more extensive, in many cases) than that which is considered final in a great many other cases throughout history. This of course is true.
But is it? I'd like to point to my Two Threads thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=183822). It may be true if the only evidence/arguments you consider is the 0-thread. But the MJ argument is much more than that. The D and P threads provide positive evidence (as opposed to negative there-is-no-evidence evidence) that Jesus was fictional.

Consider Uri Geller. Remember him? He was the guy who could bend spoons using supernatural powers. To refute him, people used to point out that there was no known natural process by which that could be done, so he was a fake (negative evidence). But then a stage magician came along (Amazing Randi? I forget), who duplicated the trick and showed people how it was done. In other words, he adduced positive evidence that no supernatural powers were necessary to bend the spoon.

That is what the P and D threads do. They show "how the trick was done." And that is much stronger then just the absence of evidence. But combined with the absence (or scarcity) of evidence, the this-is-how-it-was-done exposition becomes very strong.

Gerard

[gstafleu]

Some further thoughts.
I don't think that this the point being made. I think what the poster is saying is that the evidence which leads reasonable people to accept that Jesus of Nazareth existed is of the same kind (and rather more extensive, in many cases) than that which is considered final in a great many other cases throughout history. This of course is true.
I think this overlooks something. As an example, let us create general Bulliboius. We know of him via a few short mentions in some sources. In other words, he fits in with the crowd for whom there is as much (or little) evidence as for Jesus. On this basis he would no doubt make it to the "historical list," and nobody would have too many problems with that.

Why wouldn't people have problems? Because there is no reason to assume that the (few) sources would have made him up. I suppose if there was only one source the author could have inserted Bulliboius because that was the name of his newly born nephew, but even then that would probably not be the assumption.

With religious heroes however the situation is quite different. There are lots of people who have a large stake in making things up about such heroes. We know (Misquoting Jesus, Bart Ehrman) that even in the copying of bible manuscripts changes and interpolations were done for religious reasons. And we know from daily experience (for example here on IIDB) how "interesting" the interpretations of religious people can be. As a result, the assumption that someone (either the author or the source(s)) made up a passage isn't all that strange.

I would therefore suggest that in the case of religious heroes the criteria are stricter than for "normal" historical figures. And that means that saying that the evidence for an HJ is similar to "that which is considered final in a great many other cases throughout history" is not enough. Because of the known greater tendency of people to falsify things religious, it can be reasonable to reject the evidence for the historicity of a religious person where we would accept it for a secular one.

Gerard Stafleu

[Solo]

Is there reading this thread who can point me to a decent starting point to evidence for a MJ?



Recently, on the board, Peter Brown claimed that Julian the Apostate held that Jesus was mythical. You can judge for
yourself (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm). In a more conventional reading of history, the idea that Jesus originated wholly as a literary invention was first elaborated by a 19th century German philosopher Bruno Bauer, who extended the view of David Friedrich Strauss that the gospel of John's Christ was a pure myth to the synoptics as well. A good summary of both is in Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for Historical Jesus.

Jiri

[Solo]

did not[/b]
accept the existence of Jesus, simply because he opens
his entire treatise "Against the Galilaeans" with words that
specify it to be a fabrication, a fiction and a monstrous tale.
While he may discuss the details of the fiction, his opening
words leave little doubt that he considered it fictitious.

Pete Brown

Julian denounces the author of John's gospel as the originator of the "evil doctrine" that Jesus was God, and says that the other gospels and Paul did not go that far. Besides, Cyril reports that Julian believed Jesus desecrated tombs. What have you got ? I am interested.

Jiri

[fromdownunder]

Solo, thanks for the links.

Norm

[mountainman]

Julian denounces the author of John's gospel as the originator of the "evil doctrine" that Jesus was God, and says that the other gospels and Paul did not go that far. Besides, Cyril reports that Julian believed Jesus desecrated tombs. What have you got ? I am interested.

This thread entitled FJ: Eusebian fiction postulate & Julian "Against the Galilaeans" (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=162307) covers
much of the material. We are only informed of the work of Julian via Cyril,
who wrote a refutation of Julian on account of large numbers of citizens
of the (then) Roman empire moving away from the new (Cyril's) religion.

We are dealing with a reconstruction of Julian through his refutation.
Clearly, some of the heavier invectives by Julian are not covered, yet
the entire arraignment appears to have an introduction and summation.

That introduction and summation (as if in a court of Roman law) IMO
is sufficient to enable an opinion that Julian thought the whole thing
one big fiction, and although in the later sections, he discusses some
of the details of the monstrous tale, the thing is a fabrication. Jesus
is part of the frabrication. the fiction, the monstrous tale.

I am still optimistic that, by some strange and unusual miracle of nature
somewhere in the world, a version of Julian's actual three books, which
he entitled "Against the Galilaeans", will yet turn up, perhaps in the Arabic
language. What did Julian actually say, that Cyril could not bring himself
to repeat for the act of refutation?

What were these invectives of Julian, that Cyril says that he omitted?
What were these strong and very real invectives against Christ and
"such matter as might contaminate the minds of Christians"?

Maybe one day, an archeological haul, will shed light on these issues.

Best wishes,



Pete

[mountainman]

In a more conventional reading of history, the idea that Jesus originated wholly as a literary invention was first elaborated by a 19th century German philosopher Bruno Bauer, who extended the view of David Friedrich Strauss that the gospel of John's Christ was a pure myth to the synoptics as well. A good summary of both is in Albert Schweitzer's The Quest for Historical Jesus.

Jiri

Thanks for this information and references. I was unaware that the
"literary invention" idea had been around and published for so long.
I am attempting to add to this page (http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_006.htm) a collation of such, so thanks
very much for bring these works to my attention.


Pete

[aa5874]

Josephus full quote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man[/B, for he was a doer of wonderful works[/B[B]], a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Taking out the possible interpolations (your "bad bits"), as bolded above, we are left with:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [A]nd when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

(Stolen unashamedly from Jeffrey Jay Lowder's response to Chapter 5 of "The Jury Is In" (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html)

This leaves us with a picture of a not overly interesting historical character who influenced those in his immediate vicinity, but initially did not cause much of a stir anywhere else.

You cannot tamper with evidence. You appear not to realise that the entire passage is a forgery, not the parts that you arbitrarily remove. You have just done the unthinkable, you have edited the passage so that you can come to a predetermined conclusion

Now, whether or not the passage is a forgery, it refers to a mythical person.

....'if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works...'

It has already been established that no man can do any miracles or wonderful works, there is no evidence that those wonderful works have been done, and if Jesus was indeed a real man, what lawful problems would Josephus or any other person have calling him a man.

It would appear to me that Josephus or the interpolator is describing a mystical, mythical person.

....'for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand wonderful things concerning him.

There is no evidence that any real persons have ever risen from the dead after 3 days, and there are no prophecies of Jesus anywhere in the OT.

It would appear to me that Josephus or the interpolator is describing a mystical, mythical person.

And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

All Gods that are believed to be real have their tribes, Jesus, if believed to be a God, would also have a few. It is common knowlegde that even the Devil have tribes of believers, and they are not extinct at this day.

[b]The only passage about Jesus, outside the Bible, is a forgery.

Now if one takes Josephus other reference to "the so called Christ" (a not very flattering description, in fact I would say rather a skeptical view of somebody Josephus believed existed, but was not interested enough in to do any more work), and this was effectively an aside as Josephus main interest is James in this passage, what is left is a picture of a pretty ordinary man who was not worth worrying about, He may or may not have been killed by the Romans as a rebel.

Based on your statement, then it was useless to crucify Jesus. Nobody was worried about him. He never did any wonderful works, he might have been epileptic, illiterate, mentally unstable or the village clown. He definetly did not qualify to be the Christ according to your own analysis, so it is highly likely that this figure was fabricated and was indeed a myth.

It is not necessary for Gods to be real to have followers, all that is needed is belief. The Devils have followers because of belief, Jesus, too.

[rlogan]

OK, I am through playing games with someone who tries to argue against generally accepted evidence and then will not provide sources.


I really recommend this piece:

http://www.hermann-detering.de/antiqua_mater.htm

Pretty comprehensive.


Then take a look at material purporting to date the gospels on Peter Kirby's site as a start on some of the historicist material.

early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com)

What you are going to find is that the most key element is the alleged gospel reference to the destruction of the temple. Since we, as sceptical thinkers, do not believe in prophecies, then the "prophecy" must have been written after the destruction of the temple. After AD 70.

But from there we get into circular reasoning, wishful thinking, and bringing in the whole catalogue of christian forgeries in order to date them no later than this time.

Historical and cultural inertia backed by nearly two millenia of state authority has made the christian paradigm pretty hard to unseat.

Consider instead that these biblical pieces were propaganda tracts imbued with "ancient" apostolic credentials for the purpose of liturgy and combat with other strands of the developling Christ cult.

Gnostic vs proto-catholic for example.

Of COURSE they allege to be genuine as per their internally inconsistent claims.

It is rather silly to be looking at these as if we looked at the forgery of a bank note and said geez, but it purports to be genuine and has signs of being so. Well, duh.

But when Pauls letters enter history in the hands of Marcion in the second century, and actial references to the gospels we know of are also not made until the second century - then there is a real problem here with the view they are from the first century.

[fromdownunder]

You cannot tamper with evidence. You appear not to realise that the entire passage is a forgery, not the parts that you arbitrarily remove. You have just done the unthinkable, you have edited the passage so that you can come to a predetermined conclusion

I did not arbitrarily remove them. Take it up with Lowder, and ask him for his sources, not me.

Now, whether or not the passage is a forgery, it refers to a mythical person.

And your evidence for this is....

It has already been established that no man can do any miracles or wonderful works, there is no evidence that those wonderful works have been done, and if Jesus was indeed a real man, what lawful problems would Josephus or any other person have calling him a man.

Yes, but Lowder argues, as do I, that this was part of a later interpolation which took a reference to a minor Gallilean rabbi (or maybe not even that) and translated it into a fake reference for a super-being.

It would appear to me that Josephus or the interpolator is describing a mystical, mythical person.

Why? Josephus was obviously not all that interested in Jesus, but any interpolator, who slanted a pretty harmless "historical" quote into something which supported a religious polemic obviously would.


There is no evidence that any real persons have ever risen from the dead after 3 days, and there are no prophecies of Jesus anywhere in the OT.

No, there is not, and that is why this particular part of the Josephus text is considered an interpolation by a later author who had a vested interest in making a very ordinary human seem like a God. Again, see Lowder.

It would appear to me that Josephus or the interpolator is describing a mystical, mythical person.

It is equally plausible that Josephus could not give a fuck about Jesus, as his references were pretty much irrelevant to his overall history, but that an iterpolator would have a huge vested interest in at least attempting to make Jesus into something "special"

All Gods that are believed to be real have their tribes, Jesus, if believed to be a God, would also have a few. It is common knowlegde that even the Devil have tribes of believers, and they are not extinct at this day.

But that does not say that there is not some sort of historical reasoning behind the myth. Thor existed, because thunder existed. And Paul was writing to "Christians" as early as the late 40's CE. Where did they come from?

[b]The only passage about Jesus, outside the Bible, is a forgery.

Two refences, both from Josephus. They may be, or they may not be interpolations. But this is speculation, not evidnce.

Based on your statement, then it was useless to crucify Jesus. Nobody was worried about him. He never did any wonderful works, he might have been epileptic, illiterate, mentally unstable or the village clown. He definetly did not qualify to be the Christ according to your own analysis, so it is highly likely that this figure was fabricated and was indeed a myth.

What if was just an ordinary guy with delusions of grandeur, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time (or perhaps the right place at the wrong time) Even Ron L. Hubbard, Joseph Smith and Madame Blavatsky have followers. Does that make them divine, or mythical? Or do you not accept that these were real people either?

It is not necessary for Gods to be real to have followers, all that is needed is belief. The Devils have followers because of belief, Jesus, too.

I agree, although I have never met a Devil follower, I will take your word for it that they exist - but see my comment immediately above.

Norm

[fromdownunder]

But when Pauls letters enter history in the hands of Marcion in the second century, and actial references to the gospels we know of are also not made until the second century - then there is a real problem here with the view they are from the first century.

Yes, I accept this as a point, but I cannot simply sit here and say "this just aint so". We need to investigate what is available, so thanks for the links. That is what I asked for.

But, when we reach the point of asking "Did Paul write Paul, and When?", is the plot getting lost just a little? Intellectually it might be a bit of fun and stimulating, but for those who have faith no amount of evidence will alter what they think, and for those who do not, who actually cares, outside of debate and specialists of that particular historical era and location.

(Yes, I know this is off topic)

Norm

[aa5874]

I did not arbitrarily remove them. Take it up with Lowder, and ask him for his sources, not me.

Have ever it dawned on you that you shouldn't take it up with me? Deal with my sources, not me!

Can you ask Lowder if he has any extra-biblical evidence of the historicty of Jesus, other than the interpolated passage from Josephus?

[Roger Pearse]

You appear not to realise that the entire passage is a forgery, not the parts that you arbitrarily remove.


According to Alice Whealey's recent book on the history of scholarship on Josephus (Josephus on Jesus), this view was held a century ago, but no longer. Today apparently the idea that there is a genuine core is generally held.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[aa5874]

According to Alice Whealey's recent book on the history of scholarship on Josephus, this view was held a century ago, but no longer. Today apparently the idea that there is a genuine core is generally held.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

You are centuries from reality.

[fromdownunder]

Have ever it dawned on you that you shouldn't take it up with me? Deal with my sources, not me!



OK, fair enough. Provide me a link to your sources, and I will read them, and if possible will talk to them directly. Thanks.

Norm

[aa5874]

OK, fair enough. Provide me a link to your sources, and I will read them, and if possible will talk to them directly. Thanks.

Norm

My source is mainly the Christian Bible (KJV).

In Luke 11:14, 'And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered'.

Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be doing the works of God, but we now know that the devil does not cause people to be dumb. Jesus never did that miracle and no-one could have seen him do it. There was no eyewitnesses to any deaf, dumb or blind devils.

The miracles were fabricated, the crowd was fabricated, Jesus himself was fabricated.

[rlogan]

Yes, I accept this as a point, but I cannot simply sit here and say "this just aint so". We need to investigate what is available, so thanks for the links. That is what I asked for.

But, when we reach the point of asking "Did Paul write Paul, and When?", is the plot getting lost just a little? Intellectually it might be a bit of fun and stimulating, but for those who have faith no amount of evidence will alter what they think, and for those who do not, who actually cares, outside of debate and specialists of that particular historical era and location.

(Yes, I know this is off topic)

Norm


No problem.

I think it is very interesting indeed, and complicated. You begin to form an opinion that rests on a reconciliation of a tremendous number of conflicting pieces that must be brought into an "argument from best explanation" for the whole.

Our interpretations of how Tacitus, Seutonius, Josephus, the Ignatia, Paulina and etc. all fit togetherare all affected by a revelation from one more piece.


Earl Doherty has of course a popular Jesus Puzzle piece that will get you "in" to all the IIDB parties, and earn you scorn from the ugly ducklings who never take any of the hot babes home:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/home.htm

I'm sorry you did not get along with spin there - and understandably there is not a lot of patience for repeating the same thing over and over as the years go by.

I think his position is actually the safest on scholarly grounds insofar as being agnostic on Jesus, not being able to date the Pauline corpus and so forth. It's just not as exciting as walking out on the ice.


The Doherty "thesis" clashes with any view assigning the Pauline corpus to a later date like Detering and some of the other uber-cool Dutch Radicals.

But you might like it anyways as a model that begins with spirit-plane mumbo-jumbo and ends up with a historical Jesus in the 2nd century.

Perhaps these two mythical type scenarios can be reconciled if we view the early stuff as an oral tradition that ultimately is codified in fabricated letters by Marcion as the proto-catholics are busy laying the groundwork for a phony line-of-succession power play.

[fromdownunder]

My source is mainly the Christian Bible (KJV).

In Luke 11:14, 'And he was casting out a devil, and it was dumb. And it came to pass, when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake; and the people wondered'.

Jesus was crucified because he claimed to be doing the works of God, but we now know that the devil does not cause people to be dumb. Jesus never did that miracle and no-one could have seen him do it. There was no eyewitnesses to any deaf, dumb or blind devils.

The miracles were fabricated, the crowd was fabricated, Jesus himself was fabricated.

I am not sure how this follows. You seem to be arguing that because a specific event (a miracle) was fiction, then everything surrounding that event must be a miracle. That is like arguing that WW2 never happened because Yossarian is a fictional character.

The person (Jesus) may have existed, but those who followed and wrote about him exaggerated, admittedly hugely, the events of his life.

Nobody here is defending miracles, especially me. If the Bible is your exclusive source, then, as I will be doing in the next few days, I suggest that you expand your level of knowledge about first century Middle East, and explore the possibility that the character known in the Bible as Jesus may have existed, but not as the synoptics portrayed him - in any way, shape or form.

Norm

[fromdownunder]

Thanks rlogan, I am familiar with Doherty's theory, but not convinced by his points.

I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence that the letters actually attributed to Paul were not written by him, without a convoluted conspiracy type theory which could ultimately lead to "last Thursdayism"

But I will chase up the links provided here, especially the Early Christian Writing link you provided.

Norm

[spin]

That is like arguing that WW2 never happened because Yossarian is a fictional character.
What on earth makes you think Yossarian is a fictional character?? It should be obvious from Heller's narrative that the writer had received real information. WWII happened. The Americans had bombers working overtime in Europe during the war. Lots of verifiable background there. Using your normal analysis, I can't see how you could doubt that Yossarian was a real person. Either Heller or one of his sources had met the fellow. (And he looks as much like a young Alan Arkin as Jesus looked like Jim Caviezel.)


spin

[fromdownunder]

What on earth makes you think Yossarian is a fictional character?? It should be obvious from Heller's narrative that the writer had received real information. WWII happened. The Americans had bombers working overtime in Europe during the war. Lots of verifiable background there. Using your normal analysis, I can't see how you could doubt that Yossarian was a real person. Either Heller or one of his sources had met the fellow. (And he looks as much like a young Alan Arkin as Jesus looked like Jim Caviezel.)


spin

Fine, I will agree with what you claim about Heller's Yossarian (despite his disclaimer in the book about the island on which they were stationed - simply an eggagerated account of something that actually exists). World War 2 happened, so Yossarian existed, but the events in the book cannot be historically confirmed.

So, by your own logic, since we can independantly confirm that the Romans invaded and controlled what is now Israel at the time of the synoptics claim, Jesus existed but the events in the book cannot be historically verified.

Thanks for agreeing with what I have been saying through this entire discussion.

Norm

[gstafleu]

I was unaware that the
"literary invention" idea had been around and published for so long.
Have a look at this page on radikalkritik.de (http://www.egodeath.com/drewshistorymythiconlyjesus.htm) (it is in English).

Gerard

[hatsoff]

Trying to show the historicity of Jesus will always be time consuming if you have no evidence to support your view. HJers spend far too much time refuting the mythical position when all they have to do, simply, is to produce evidence. It is extremely easy, no headache whatsoever, just produce the evidence to support your view.

We have done so. The Christian movement of the 50s AD is best explained by the existence of a historical Jesus on which it was apparently based. A "real live Jesus" is the simplest and therefore most likely source of all the hubbub. The best hard evidence takes the form of Paul's Epistles and early Gospel traditions. The MJers debate the implications of said evidence in an elaborate effort to prove their point. We HJers do have some difficulty refuting those arguments, not because they are sound or firm, but rather because they are ridiculously complicated, and incorporate endless spackles of faulty logic. As you have pointed out, covering all that can be time-consuming and headache-inducing.

[spin]

Fine, I will agree with what you claim about Heller's Yossarian (despite his disclaimer in the book about the island on which they were stationed - simply an eggagerated account of something that actually exists). World War 2 happened, so Yossarian existed, but the events in the book cannot be historically confirmed.
Read what I said again:

I can't see how you could doubt that Yossarian was a real person.

The magic word is "you". That should help you understand my comment.

So, by your own logic,...
Not mine, yours. It was your logic you were reading.

...since we can independantly confirm that the Romans invaded and controlled what is now Israel at the time of the synoptics claim, Jesus existed but the events in the book cannot be historically verified.
Yes, this is the erroneous conclusion you had already indicated.

We are not dealing with a binary taxonomy of existed/not existed, when we do historical research. We often cannot say either. Think of Edward de Bono's three possibilities, yes, no, and po. You need to learn to say "po".

Thanks for agreeing with what I have been saying through this entire discussion.
It was merely you agreeing with yourself.


spin

[aa5874]

If the Bible is your exclusive source, then, as I will be doing in the next few days, I suggest that you expand your level of knowledge about first century Middle East, and explore the possibility that the character known in the Bible as Jesus may have existed, but not as the synoptics portrayed him - in any way, shape or form.

Norm

It is strange that you think so little of the 'word of God'. I was of the opinion that 'the word of God' would expand my knowledge.

John 1:1-3, 'In the begininng was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made'.

After studying the 'Word of God,' I have come to the conclusion that Jesus never existed. You probably will never find any evidence, outside of the Bible, anywhere in the World, that Jesus ever was real.

There is no information, anywhere in the World, that I know of, from any person believed to be real, that has ever seen Jesus alive. There is no known description of the physical characteristics of Jesus from anyone believed to be real.

The genealogy of so-called Jesus cannot be resolved.
The place where Jesus lived as a child cannot be resolved.
The time when Jesus was born cannot be resolved.
The miraculous acts of Jesus never occured.
The temptation of Jesus is fictitious.
The transfiguration of Jesus is fictitious.
The words of Jesus are fictitious.
The resurrection of Jesus is fictitious
The ascension of Jesus is fictitious.
Jesus was fictitious.

After you study Middle East history, tell me if you can find Jesus.

[gurugeorge]

A "real live Jesus" is the simplest and therefore most likely source of all the hubbub.

But all the "hubbub" (lovely word!) comes later (of literary and cultic activity), we've no evidence of any hubbub at the time. Granted a real person could have created a hubbub, and certainly a real, live godman performing miracles and all would have created one, but there's no hubbub to be found at the time this person was supposed to have lived.

So the only alternative is to claim a mysterious godly "force" radiating out from the man but creating its hubbub at a slightly later time than his own supposed time on the planet.

Cutting "Jesus" down to mere-remarkable-man-size is a possibility outside that box, but again that absence-of-contemporary-hubbub comes back to bite us at our ankles, and we are faced with the task of explaining how obscurity results in later hubbub.

[Roger Pearse]

After you study Middle East history, tell me if you can find Jesus.

I was curious, in my humble way, as to what your qualification is to advise others to study "Middle East history".

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[rlogan]

Thanks rlogan, I am familiar with Doherty's theory, but not convinced by his points.

So noted. There's enough Doherty threads in the attic here not to embark upon yet another one. If I hear Kata Sarka again I think I'm a-gonna puke.

I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence that the letters actually attributed to Paul were not written by him, without a convoluted conspiracy type theory which could ultimately lead to "last Thursdayism"

Forgive my ignorance on not knowing what last Thursdayism is.

But I think Detering has an extremely solid line of thinking on this. Most scholars reject whole sets of "Pauline" writing as fraudulent. The game seems to be using, say, statistical analysis in matching words and concepts to get down to a core of "legitimate" Pauline writings.

Regardless of what that group is we have the logical fallacy of drawing a false conclusion. Saying that you have arrived at a set of bona-fide writings from the same hand is not the same thing as demonstrating the veracity of the content. The same person wrote them, that's all.

If we step back for a moment and consider that this is generally true across the entire Bible - tracts penned not by the alleged author, but by someone else and meddled with by yet others, and for purposes contrary to the weakly contrived ostensible scenario -

Then we have to ask ourselves why we are not approaching this core Pauline corpus with the same tendency in mind. Instead, we have this posed as some kind of singular exception to the rule. Why is that plausible when the content itself is goofy religious mumbo-jumbo to begin with?


What I find so odd is the attitude of shock and revulsion by people who readily accept whole classes of Biblical works as pious frauds when you suggest the same may be true of what little they cling to that remains.

Seems to me that in this context it is especially important that the text offer verifiable historical anchors - and they just don't. When they make geographical or linguistic mistiakes it ought very well add a lot of credibility to the suggestion they were written outside the frame they claim.

[Solo]

This thread entitled FJ: Eusebian fiction postulate & Julian "Against the Galilaeans" (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=162307) covers
much of the material. We are only informed of the work of Julian via Cyril,
who wrote a refutation of Julian on account of large numbers of citizens
of the (then) Roman empire moving away from the new (Cyril's) religion.

We are dealing with a reconstruction of Julian through his refutation.
Clearly, some of the heavier invectives by Julian are not covered, yet
the entire arraignment appears to have an introduction and summation.


Thanks for the link, Pete. No doubt, Julian did not have a friendly disposition to the Galileans and what survives of his writing was controlled by them. But if he committed himself to attacking Jesus as someone who tampered with tombs and tries to discredit his followers by saying they practice necromancy (as presumably he taught them) .....and Cyril defends the creed against that...., I can't see offhand where Julian would be trying to discredit them also by arguing that they invented Jesus. See what I mean ?

At any rate, I would be really grateful if you could get me the text referred to in note 140. of the web with the translated Galileans. i.e. According to Cyril, Julian quoted Matthew 8.21,22 : Let the dead bury their dead to prove that Christ had no respect for graves. It's fine if it is in Latin.

Thanks again, Pete

Jiri

[Solo]

After you study Middle East history, tell me if you can find Jesus.

Oh drama !

Norm, I think what Figjam Pigsarse here means to ask is how many Fosters' does it take to get you grinnin' like a shot fox. ;)

Jiri

[fromdownunder]

Forgive my ignorance on not knowing what last Thursdayism is.

At it's most basic it means that nothing happened before last Thursday. An argument used tongue in cheek against YECs who argue in favour of Omphalos theory.

But I think Detering has an extremely solid line of thinking on this. Most scholars reject whole sets of "Pauline" writing as fraudulent. The game seems to be using, say, statistical analysis in matching words and concepts to get down to a core of "legitimate" Pauline writings.

Regardless of what that group is we have the logical fallacy of drawing a false conclusion. Saying that you have arrived at a set of bona-fide writings from the same hand is not the same thing as demonstrating the veracity of the content. The same person wrote them, that's all.

If we step back for a moment and consider that this is generally true across the entire Bible - tracts penned not by the alleged author, but by someone else and meddled with by yet others, and for purposes contrary to the weakly contrived ostensible scenario -

Then we have to ask ourselves why we are not approaching this core Pauline corpus with the same tendency in mind. Instead, we have this posed as some kind of singular exception to the rule. Why is that plausible when the content itself is goofy religious mumbo-jumbo to begin with?


What I find so odd is the attitude of shock and revulsion by people who readily accept whole classes of Biblical works as pious frauds when you suggest the same may be true of what little they cling to that remains.

Seems to me that in this context it is especially important that the text offer verifiable historical anchors - and they just don't. When they make geographical or linguistic mistiakes it ought very well add a lot of credibility to the suggestion they were written outside the frame they claim.

I am starting to look through the links that you and others have provided here, and will probably leave this thread at this point. In general terms (and not requiring a reply, unless I say something you specifically object to) those of us who are not experts must follow scholarship as far as it leads, read both sides of the discussion, and obviously our previous views will have an effect on who we eventually side with, because that is the nature of the beast. I will continue to do this, but in the end, when two conflicting views cannot be reconciled, threads such as this one, will continue to provoke debate.

That is a good thing.

Norm

[Roger Pearse]

Thanks for the link, Pete. No doubt, Julian did not have a friendly disposition to the Galileans and what survives of his writing was controlled by them. But if he committed himself to attacking Jesus as someone who tampered with tombs and tries to discredit his followers by saying they practice necromancy (as presumably he taught them) .....and Cyril defends the creed against that...., I can't see offhand where Julian would be trying to discredit them also by arguing that they invented Jesus. See what I mean ?


You are quite right, and you have put your finger on an anachronism.

In antiquity Jesus was a disreputable-sounding figure -- a dead peasant from the end of the earth who wasn't even in good standing among the Jews and died the most humiliating death, that of a slave, for heaven's sake! --, and pagans had no interest in denying his existence: on the contrary, they seem to have enjoyed sneering at this, and on how he violated various elements of the period values.

But in modern times the case is reversed: Jesus is generally revered. Thus it makes sense for a polemicist unworried by accuracy to deny his existence as a tactic, and we find that the idea arises for the first time among just such people ca. 1700.

While the ancient world was very like our own in some ways, it had different attitudes in others, and these perpetually bite the unwary or unlearned atheist.


At any rate, I would be really grateful if you could get me the text referred to in note 140. of the web with the translated Galileans. i.e. According to Cyril, Julian quoted Matthew 8.21,22 : Let the dead bury their dead to prove that Christ had no respect for graves. It's fine if it is in Latin.


Cyril of Alexandria wrote in Greek. No modern critical edition of the ten surviving books of this monster work exists. The Sources Chrétiennes did issue a text and French translation of books 1-2, but the job got no further. A team based in Switzerland are currently preparing an edition with German and French translations. I did contact them to see if an English translation might be made, but they said that they needed money to do that. I then approached the National Lottery here, but got nowhere.

The available text is that printed in the Patrologia Graeca by the Abbé J.-P. Migne, with a Latin parallel translation. I'm a bit dubious that I can look through this to locate one small bit, but will try.

It seems to be in PG 76, and the footnote appears against col. 335D according to the Loeb. Unhappily that column is in Aubert's edition, not the PG. But Migne, bless him, prints those numbers in the text anyway! It's in book 10 of Contra Julianum, PG 76 col. 1015-6, and the footnote 46 on that page reads "Matth. VIII, 21, 22" so I suggest that this is our passage. The text is in chunks headed alternately CYRILLUS and JULIANUS. Here is the relevant section from the Latin side:


JULIANUS

Verum istud quidem mali a Joanne cepit initium. Quaecunque autem vos deinceps adinvenistis, additis ad priscum illum mortuum novis mortuis, quis pro dignitate satis exsecretur? Sepulcris ac monumentis implestis omnia, licet apud vos nusquam dictum sit circa sepulcra versandum esse eaque colenda? Eo vero progressi estis nequitiae, ut putetis ne Jesu quidem illius Nazareni ea de re verba audienda. Audite ergo quae de monumentis ille dicit: "Vae vobis, Scribae et Pharisaei hypocritae, quia similes estis sepulchris dealbitis; foris sepulchrum apparet formosum, intus autem plenum est ossibus mortuorum, et omnia immunditia." 45 Si ergo sepulchra Jesus immunditia plena esse dixit, quomodo vos super iis Deum invocatis?


As you will see this is just the text given in translation:


However this evil doctrine did originate with John; but who could detest as they deserve all those doctrines that you have invented as a sequel, while you keep adding many corpses newly dead to the corpse of long ago? 137 You have filled the whole world with tombs and sepulchres, and yet in your scriptures it is nowhere said that you must grovel among tombs 138 and pay them honour. But you have gone so far in iniquity that you think you need not listen even to the words of Jesus of Nazareth on this |417 matter. Listen then to what he says about sepulchres : "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres; outward the tomb appears beautiful, but within it is full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." 139 If, then, Jesus said that sepulchres are full of uncleanness, how can you invoke God at them? . . .140


Cyril responds with a quotation from the Iliad, and pagan history, to show that reverence for the tombs of dead heroes is also a characteristic of paganism, and that Jesus comments were intended as an attack on the Pharisees, not as a comment on the veneration of the martyrs.

In Cyril's reply we find this in col. 1019/1020 A (or 337A using Aubert):


Atenim, inquit, fugienda sunt sepulchra, quae Christus etiam ipse immunditiei plena esse dixit. Sciebat etiam ipse mortuum sic abominandum esse, ut ne discipulo quidem permiserit patrem sepelire. Atqui nos illum sensum eorum, quae a Salvatore dicta sunt, penitus ignorasse nullo negotio videmus.

Nevertheless, he says, tombs must be avoided, which Christ also himself said were full of uncleanness. Also he knew himself that death must be abominated thus, as he did not permit a certain disciple to bury his father. And we ourselves in no business seem to have been thoroughly ignorant of (?) that sense of those things, which were said by the Saviour.


This must be the real reference to the passage. But I think that the translator has written too hastily. Julian, after all, is attacking the Christians for paying too much reverence to graves, not too little.

I hope that helps. If people agree, I will update the webpage with the extra info.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[Vorkosigan]

But in modern times the case is reversed: Jesus is generally revered. Thus it makes sense for a polemicist unworried by accuracy to deny his existence as a tactic,

Relax, Roger. Some of us who study this are quite worried about accuracy, and we enjoy the freedom of not having a priori conclusions about the existence of certain figures from the past. You apologists, on the other hand, are stuck with positions that are methodologically insupportable.

and we find that the idea arises for the first time among just such people ca. 1700.

Yes, about the same time as modern rational empirical and scholarly methods arose. No coincidence there.

Vorkosigan

[Amaleq13]

The discussion about Mark's reference to Herod has been split into its own thread:

"King" Herod and the reliability of Mark (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=184566)

[Solo]

In antiquity Jesus was a disreputable-sounding figure -- a dead peasant from the end of the earth who wasn't even in good standing among the Jews and died the most humiliating death, that of a slave, for heaven's sake! --, and pagans had no interest in denying his existence: on the contrary, they seem to have enjo