Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-07-2005, 08:18 AM

[I'm now starting Part 2 of "The Challenge for the Mythicists: the Earliest Martyrs" thread. The original thread got too long, and now there are also some unrelated matters being discussed there.]

Vork replied to me on June 7 here,
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=249

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Yes, I do think that the issue of the martyrs tends to favour
the HJ, and that this is in fact self-evident. Because the HJ
would have set a clear precedent for further martyrdoms.

VORK:
That may well have been one of the reasons Mark created
his fictional account of Jesus' life and death.

YURI NOW REPLIES:
If this is what Mark did...

Quote from Yuri:
It is part of the human nature to follow the leader. If there
was no leader, i.e. no clear precedent, then the motivation
of that first martyr (whoever and whenever he was) creates
quite a puzzle.

VORK:
Not a problem. It's human nature to have social identities
that we will kill and die for. And the first martyrs, those who
deliberately chose death rather than apostasy and life, seem
to be second century,

YURI NOW REPLIES:
Not if we accept Pliny's account as reliable.

VORK:
which makes their motivation the usual
one of social identity formation and internalization. Nothing
very mysterious about it.

YURI NOW REPLIES:
So who was it that set the precedent for martyrdom, according to you, and under what circumstances?

Quote from Yuri:
Well, perhaps not all of them were illiterate fishermen?

VORK:
None of them were. The fisherman story is strictly fiction,
based on the call of Elisha. Paul does not know it, or that the
original disciples were from Galilee. Mark's is the first
mention of Galilee in the tradition.

Vorkosigan

YURI NOW REPLIES:
There's lots of things that Paul doesn't mention. I don't accept that Mk was the earliest gospel.

Regards,

Yuri

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-07-2005, 08:31 AM

NOGO replied to me here,
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=250

Quote from Yuri:
Yes, I do think that the issue of the martyrs tends to favour the
HJ, and that this is in fact self-evident. Because the HJ would
have set a clear precedent for further martyrdoms

NOGO:
Great! we have something to talk about now.
As Vork points out the story of the first martyr need not be real.
I am sure that you will acknowledge that possibility.

YURI:
But there _was_ a first martyr! And it's your job to identify him, and to place him into a historical context.

NOGO:
Jesus performed miracles and so did his disciples, yet none of
later generations of Christians did the same. Jesus said that with
a grain of faith you can move a mountain etc. I do not see too
many following this example. Moses performed spectacular
miracles and so did Joshua but later generations did not. It is a
lot easier to create such stories in the past tense. How do you
know that Jesus' martyred death is historic?

YURI:
I don't assume anything in advance. This is a scientific discussion.

NOGO:
Even if you believe that Jesus was martyred surely you do not
believe that he willingly and knowingly accepted this. It is not
obvious that the story is formulated to encourage people to
follow suit.

YURI:
So what?

NOGO:
If Jesus was just arrested and cruxified and then others invented
the idea that he died for our sins and that he willingly did this to
save mankind etc then his martyrdom is a myth.

YURI:
I don't follow your logic.

NOGO:
The essential
element to your position is clearly an add-on. John the Baptist
was also killed.

YURI:
Do you accept JB as historical?

NOGO:
Somebody could have added the willing martyr
bit on top of his story.

Paul says that he did what he did often at the risk of his very
life yet he never suggests that he or any other Christians should
die as Jesus did. Paul is a man with a mission. His goal is not
martyrdom. Do any of the Epistles encourage Martyrdom?

Bottom line for me.
Jesus martyred death was created to encourage the followers not
to quit and works very much like excommunication. If you are
excommunicated you lose all your friends. By making the exit
out of the group difficult they effectively imprison them. If you
deny Jesus to save yourself your faith is false and you are no
longer a member of the brotherhood. You have effectively
excommunicated yourself. A tough choice if your whole life
revolves around the community.

So Jesus' death may be historical

YURI:
Well, this is quite an admission...

NOGO:
but not his martyrdom. The
two are separate. His martyrdom is clearly a fabrication which
leaves open the other question.

YURI:
Depends on how you define 'martyrdom'.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-07-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote from Yuri:
Well, perhaps not all of them were illiterate fishermen?

NOGO:
Ok, then why did they not make their identity known through their
writing?
YURI:
This is an argument from silence.

NOGO:
Why are the gospels anonymous and in Greek?

YURI:
Well, I'm saying that there were not all in Greek!

The gospels are anonymous because they were community products.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-07-2005, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Well, what I'm telling you, Peter, is that your hypothesis is somewhat
arbitrary, since there's no real evidence that Kephas and Paul both
died during the persecution of the Christians as mentioned by
Tacitus. We don't even know for sure if there _was_ any such
persecution of Christians. And neither do we know for sure if
Kephas died in Rome.

All the best,

Yuri.

PETER:
That's fine. If we really don't know, it can't create a problem for the
mythicist hypothesis.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

YURI:
For which mythicist hypothesis?

I prefer to stick with one mythicist hypothesis at a time...

You say that you accept Paul and Kephas as historical, so I'm asking you to explain how does this idea square with a non-historical Jesus.

Best,

Yuri.

Amaleq13 · 06-07-2005, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NOGO

Paul says that he did what he did often at the risk of his very life yet he never suggests that he or any other Christians should die as Jesus did....Do any of the Epistles encourage Martyrdom?

Perhaps not to literally die as he did but Paul certainly encouraged his audience to imitate the selflessness exemplified by the sacrifice of Christ and it isn't much of a stretch to assume he believed that one's faith must be retained even in the face of death.

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. (Romans 12:1, KJV)

For, I think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men. (1 Cor 4:9, KJV)

Paul's Christians are instructed to imitate, in life, the selflessness of Christ's sacrifice but they are also told that death is something conquered by one's faith rather than something to avoid. I don't see how anyone embracing Paul's theology and confronted by potentially terminal persecution could do anything except become a martyr.

Wherever this lethal combination first existed in history is where I would think the first Christian martyr was killed.

Peter Kirby · 06-07-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Well, what I'm telling you, Peter, is that your hypothesis is somewhat
arbitrary, since there's no real evidence that Kephas and Paul both
died during the persecution of the Christians as mentioned by
Tacitus. We don't even know for sure if there _was_ any such
persecution of Christians. And neither do we know for sure if
Kephas died in Rome.

All the best,

Yuri.

PETER:
That's fine. If we really don't know, it can't create a problem for the
mythicist hypothesis.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

YURI:
For which mythicist hypothesis?

I prefer to stick with one mythicist hypothesis at a time...

You say that you accept Paul and Kephas as historical, so I'm asking you to explain how does this idea square with a non-historical Jesus.

Best,

Yuri.

I already have--in one way. You have said that we don't know that this scenario about the deaths of Paul and Kephas is true, but then you suggest that we don't know what happened at all. You didn't say that we know that the scenario I presented was false.

Look, questioning is easy, explanation is easy, but argument is tough. Questioning is easy; even a fool can ask tough questions. Explanation is easy, especially when we don't know what happened. Here's another possible explanation: Paul died a natural death in the 70s, and Kephas was crucified on the charge of theft. Possibility presents no problems. But argumentation, that can be tough. It can be tough to take a proposition and show it to be true. But without doing so, no point can really be made.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-08-2005, 10:43 AM

YURI:
You say that you accept Paul and Kephas as historical, so I'm asking you to explain how does this idea square with a non-historical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I already have--in one way. You have said that we don't know that this scenario about the deaths of Paul and Kephas is true, but then you suggest that we don't know what happened at all.

Well, Peter, there's an existing consensus that both Paul and Kephas died as martyrs, and this is consistent with a HJ.

OTOH their dying as martyrs doesn't really seem to be consistent with a MJ. So this is the issue that I'd like to see clarified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

You didn't say that we know that the scenario I presented was false.

Look, questioning is easy, explanation is easy, but argument is tough. Questioning is easy; even a fool can ask tough questions.

Sure, and this is part of the reason for this thread.

I've been asking the mythicists to present their positive case for how a MJ can explain Christian origins, including the martyrs. So that we can then question it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Explanation is easy, especially when we don't know what happened.

While explanation may be easy, persuasive explanation is certainly not easy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Here's another possible explanation: Paul died a natural death in the 70s, and Kephas was crucified on the charge of theft. Possibility presents no problems. But argumentation, that can be tough. It can be tough to take a proposition and show it to be true. But without doing so, no point can really be made.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

If Paul and Kephas did not die for their faith, then one certainly wonders how and why they got credited for it...

We're not just looking for any explanations here... we're looking for persuasive explanations!

All the best,

Yuri.

Amaleq13 · 06-08-2005, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

OTOH their dying as martyrs doesn't really seem to be consistent with a MJ. So this is the issue that I'd like to see clarified.

If they died as martyrs, they did so because their faith in the risen Christ was stronger than their fear of death.

Given that both had a personal revelation of this risen Christ and a strong faith that everything they believed about this Christ was contained in Scripture, why you find this so difficult to understand is the issue I'd like to see clarified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

If Paul and Kephas did not die for their faith, then one certainly wonders how and why they got credited for it...

With regard to Doherty's position, it appears he considers their martyrdom to be later, legendary developments (from his discussion of 1 Clement):

Quote:

If even the subtlest agenda advancing Roman authority were in the mind of the writer, we would surely not encounter the situation we see in chapter 5. Later Roman claims were heavily based on Peter and Paul’s precedent in having come to Rome, both of them to be martyred there, the former to become its first bishop and establish a chain of authority that would culminate in the Papacy. But Clement, in discussing Peter and Paul’s activities, is maddeningly vague, if not completely silent, on such later traditions. He does not even state clearly that either of these apostles ended their lives in martyrdom, and certainly there is no mention of Rome as the place of such events. In fact, his statement that “after reaching the furthest limits of the West, and bearing his testimony before kings and rulers, he passed out of this world…�? might even imply that the legend of Paul as it then stood was that he had died in the distant west of the empire. There is no sense that Clement is familiar with the last days of Paul as portrayed in Acts.

As for Peter, the writer’s failure to play up any martyrdom in Rome, and his complete silence on any connection of the apostle to that city, let alone that he had been its first bishop, not only belies later Petrine tradition on such things, it makes it impossible to believe that this writer has any concept of Roman hegemony, since Peter’s role in support of this would be something he could not have passed up. In this connection, we should note Ignatius’ silence on any linkage of Peter and Paul to Rome in his epistle to the Romans (4:3), even when he refers to them by name while discussing his impending martyrdom. In fact, the contrast he draws between himself and those illustrious figures virtually rules out the later traditions about their martyrdom. “They were apostles, and I am a condemned criminal,�? is not something he would likely have said if both Peter and Paul met the same kind of fate (execution) in Rome which Ignatius is on his way to. “They were free men, and I am still a slave,�? (the latter not meant literally) makes no sense if both men were no freer than Ignatius in the concluding stages of their lives.

Viti · 06-08-2005, 02:48 PM

Perhaps Paul made up theChristianity and any early martyrs believed in his created religion? I don't think people dying for their beliefs is anything so mindblowing, happens quite frequently.

NOGO · 06-09-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

NOGO:
If Jesus was just arrested and cruxified and then others invented
the idea that he died for our sins and that he willingly did this to
save mankind etc then his martyrdom is a myth.

YURI:
I don't follow your logic.

NOGO
Ok let me put another way.
IF others died for Jesus what did Jesus die for?
Did Jesus go to his death for some cause and if so what was that cause?

Jesus is described as willingly going to his death..
Is this historical?

If this is fabricated then all that is required for an example to further martyrs is the fabrication. Not all deaths lead to martyrs.

In your argument what need to be historic is the nature of the death and not the death itself.

There is every reason to believe that even if death there was its nature was changed to that of a martyr.

Martydom for me comes not from example but from community and peer pressure to hold to the faith no matter what. When you value faith above all else and when this faith is the basis for the community life that you share with all your friends and family then martyrdom is envisageable.

Galileo denied what he knew to be the truth in order to save his life.
Truth does not demand martyrs but faith does.

No Christian would martyr himself for this faith today.
Why? Because the Christian community does not require it.
The example is still there but the need is gone.

06-07-2005, 08:18 AM	#1
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	The Challenge for the Mythicists: the Earliest Martyrs (Part 2) [I'm now starting Part 2 of "The Challenge for the Mythicists: the Earliest Martyrs" thread. The original thread got too long, and now there are also some unrelated matters being discussed there.] Vork replied to me on June 7 here, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=249 Quote: Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky Yes, I do think that the issue of the martyrs tends to favour the HJ, and that this is in fact self-evident. Because the HJ would have set a clear precedent for further martyrdoms. VORK: That may well have been one of the reasons Mark created his fictional account of Jesus' life and death. YURI NOW REPLIES: If this is what Mark did... Quote from Yuri: It is part of the human nature to follow the leader. If there was no leader, i.e. no clear precedent, then the motivation of that first martyr (whoever and whenever he was) creates quite a puzzle. VORK: Not a problem. It's human nature to have social identities that we will kill and die for. And the first martyrs, those who deliberately chose death rather than apostasy and life, seem to be second century, YURI NOW REPLIES: Not if we accept Pliny's account as reliable. VORK: which makes their motivation the usual one of social identity formation and internalization. Nothing very mysterious about it. YURI NOW REPLIES: So who was it that set the precedent for martyrdom, according to you, and under what circumstances? Quote from Yuri: Well, perhaps not all of them were illiterate fishermen? VORK: None of them were. The fisherman story is strictly fiction, based on the call of Elisha. Paul does not know it, or that the original disciples were from Galilee. Mark's is the first mention of Galilee in the tradition. Vorkosigan YURI NOW REPLIES: There's lots of things that Paul doesn't mention. I don't accept that Mk was the earliest gospel. Regards, Yuri

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-07-2005, 08:31 AM	#2
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	NOGO replied to me here, http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...&postcount=250 Quote from Yuri: Yes, I do think that the issue of the martyrs tends to favour the HJ, and that this is in fact self-evident. Because the HJ would have set a clear precedent for further martyrdoms NOGO: Great! we have something to talk about now. As Vork points out the story of the first martyr need not be real. I am sure that you will acknowledge that possibility. YURI: But there _was_ a first martyr! And it's your job to identify him, and to place him into a historical context. NOGO: Jesus performed miracles and so did his disciples, yet none of later generations of Christians did the same. Jesus said that with a grain of faith you can move a mountain etc. I do not see too many following this example. Moses performed spectacular miracles and so did Joshua but later generations did not. It is a lot easier to create such stories in the past tense. How do you know that Jesus' martyred death is historic? YURI: I don't assume anything in advance. This is a scientific discussion. NOGO: Even if you believe that Jesus was martyred surely you do not believe that he willingly and knowingly accepted this. It is not obvious that the story is formulated to encourage people to follow suit. YURI: So what? NOGO: If Jesus was just arrested and cruxified and then others invented the idea that he died for our sins and that he willingly did this to save mankind etc then his martyrdom is a myth. YURI: I don't follow your logic. NOGO: The essential element to your position is clearly an add-on. John the Baptist was also killed. YURI: Do you accept JB as historical? NOGO: Somebody could have added the willing martyr bit on top of his story. Paul says that he did what he did often at the risk of his very life yet he never suggests that he or any other Christians should die as Jesus did. Paul is a man with a mission. His goal is not martyrdom. Do any of the Epistles encourage Martyrdom? Bottom line for me. Jesus martyred death was created to encourage the followers not to quit and works very much like excommunication. If you are excommunicated you lose all your friends. By making the exit out of the group difficult they effectively imprison them. If you deny Jesus to save yourself your faith is false and you are no longer a member of the brotherhood. You have effectively excommunicated yourself. A tough choice if your whole life revolves around the community. So Jesus' death may be historical YURI: Well, this is quite an admission... NOGO: but not his martyrdom. The two are separate. His martyrdom is clearly a fabrication which leaves open the other question. YURI: Depends on how you define 'martyrdom'. Yours, Yuri.

06-07-2005, 08:39 AM	#3
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Quote from Yuri: Well, perhaps not all of them were illiterate fishermen? NOGO: Ok, then why did they not make their identity known through their writing? YURI: This is an argument from silence. NOGO: Why are the gospels anonymous and in Greek? YURI: Well, I'm saying that there were not all in Greek! The gospels are anonymous because they were community products. Yuri.

06-07-2005, 08:51 AM	#4
Yuri Kuchinsky Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,146	Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky Well, what I'm telling you, Peter, is that your hypothesis is somewhat arbitrary, since there's no real evidence that Kephas and Paul both died during the persecution of the Christians as mentioned by Tacitus. We don't even know for sure if there _was_ any such persecution of Christians. And neither do we know for sure if Kephas died in Rome. All the best, Yuri. PETER: That's fine. If we really don't know, it can't create a problem for the mythicist hypothesis. best wishes, Peter Kirby YURI: For which mythicist hypothesis? I prefer to stick with one mythicist hypothesis at a time... You say that you accept Paul and Kephas as historical, so I'm asking you to explain how does this idea square with a non-historical Jesus. Best, Yuri.

06-08-2005, 02:48 PM	#9
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Perhaps Paul made up theChristianity and any early martyrs believed in his created religion? I don't think people dying for their beliefs is anything so mindblowing, happens quite frequently.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.