FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-20-2007, 02:20 AM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default What would damage the historical Jesus theory the most?

Turn about on Ben's thread.

For Jesus historicists.

Imagine, one at a time, that each of the following statements could be shown to be true. How would that affect your belief in historicism?

1. Paul's letters were forged in the second century.

2. Q never existed; Luke read Matthew.

3. Mark wrote the second canonical gospel in the second century.

4. All the gospels were written in the second century.

5. Josephus never mentioned Jesus; Eusebius added both references.

6. Tacitus's lost volume of history contains no mention of Jesus.

7. Mara bar Serapion had someone else in mind when he wrote of the wise king.

8. The author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as having died as a sacrifice in heaven.

9. Papias knew nothing about a historical Jesus; he only reported the philosophical musings of some early followers of The Way. Eusebius distorted his meaning.

10. Marcion's gospel was an original work; the orthodox church inserted matter to create canonical Luke.

11. The author of our third canonical gospel and Acts was a woman who never knew Paul.

12. Acts is a complete fiction, with many scenes based on a romance of the time that has been lost.

13. Paul was not a Pharisee, never studied under Gamaliel.

14. Paul was never in Rome, and died a peaceful death in 90 CE.

15. Paul was never in Damascus.


Anyone else - feel free to add to this.
Toto is offline  
Old 05-20-2007, 02:33 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

The Abomination of Desolation refers to Hadrian.
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 05-20-2007, 02:38 AM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
Default

Incontrovertible evidence of Mithraism being widespread 50 BCE in Roman Triumvirate.

Actually I don't see it as one piece of evidence - like a missing link - but the slow accretion of a mass of fossil evidence that leads to a stronger theory.

(Those dreadful hammers).
Clivedurdle is offline  
Old 05-20-2007, 03:31 AM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Mornington Peninsula
Posts: 1,306
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Turn about on Ben's thread.
Nice one!

And, oh, I almost missed it! Nice one Ben.:devil3:
youngalexander is offline  
Old 05-20-2007, 01:24 PM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Turn about on Ben's thread.
Thanks, Toto.

Quote:
Imagine, one at a time, that each of the following statements could be shown to be true. How would that affect your belief in historicism?
Let me use my own little system:

0. This proposition, if proven true, would not damage the historical Jesus theory at all; in fact, it may even be predicted by the theory.

1. This proposition, if proven true, would damage the historical Jesus theory lightly; it is not enough on its own to overthrow the theory, but would serve to support stronger arguments for a mythical Jesus. It is something that any historicist should have to explain.

2. This proposition, if proven true, would damage the historical Jesus theory heavily; it is somewhat difficult to imagine Jesus as an historical figure if this is true, but the difficulty is not insuperable.

3. This proposition, if proven true, would damage the historical Jesus theory fatally; it is utterly incompatible with historicism.

Quote:
1. Paul's letters were forged in the second century.
2.

Quote:
2. Q never existed; Luke read Matthew.
0.

Quote:
3. Mark wrote the second canonical gospel in the second century.
1 or 2, depending on how important the details are around the core that can be derived from Paul.

Quote:
4. All the gospels were written in the second century.
1 or 2.

Quote:
5. Josephus never mentioned Jesus; Eusebius added both references.
0.

Quote:
6. Tacitus's lost volume of history contains no mention of Jesus.
0.

Quote:
7. Mara bar Serapion had someone else in mind when he wrote of the wise king.
0.

Quote:
8. The author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as having died as a sacrifice in heaven.
0 or 3, depending on whether the sacrifice was being contemplated as metaphor. If metaphorical, this is nothing. If not metaphorical, this is fatal, I think.

Quote:
9. Papias knew nothing about a historical Jesus; he only reported the philosophical musings of some early followers of The Way. Eusebius distorted his meaning.
0.

Quote:
10. Marcion's gospel was an original work; the orthodox church inserted matter to create canonical Luke.
0 if Mark or Matthew (or both) preceded Marcion and Luke, 1 or 2 if Marcion came first (this being much the same scenario as all gospels originating in century II).

Quote:
11. The author of our third canonical gospel and Acts was a woman who never knew Paul.
1.

Quote:
12. Acts is a complete fiction, with many scenes based on a romance of the time that has been lost.
1.

Quote:
13. Paul was not a Pharisee, never studied under Gamaliel.
0, though we might lose the epistle to the Philippians (see 3.5).

Quote:
14. Paul was never in Rome, and died a peaceful death in 90 CE.
0.

Quote:
15. Paul was never in Damascus.
0.

Quote:
Anyone else - feel free to add to this.
I will:

Paul thought of Jesus only as a mythical savior god who had never been to earth or who had lived in some distant time. This would be fatal, a 3.

Mark wrote his gospel entirely as an allegory. This would be a 2; but an historical core might still be derived from Paul and others.

In brief, losing works to the second century would be cumulatively damaging; losing only one is no big deal, while losing several begins to hurt. Historicism does not depend on Josephus, Tacitus, or the other outsiders, though it is glad to use them when possible. (Some evidence is simply not a two-way street; having it helps, but lacking it neither helps nor hurts.)

If any author from centuries I or II can be proven (A) to be a Christian and (B) to know only a heavenly Christ, with no inkling of an historical figure, historicism loses a lot.

The exercise I posed began to indicate to me that a lot depends on Paul, and this exercise has reinforced that impression for me; even if we were to lose all the gospels and all Jewish or pagan references, there is still our interpretation of Paul. Some of my answers above may reflect my own reading of Paul as referring to a recent figure (for reasons I have barely touched upon so far on this forum or on my website); if we absolutely have to have at least one other outside reference to date the Jesus we meet in Paul to century I, some of my answers might change.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 05-21-2007, 10:57 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 562
Default

I would agree with Ben at all points except 10), which I would make a 0, including his own additions.
Zeichman is offline  
Old 05-21-2007, 12:22 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: St Louis, MO
Posts: 686
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
Turn about on Ben's thread.

For Jesus historicists.

Imagine, one at a time, that each of the following statements could be shown to be true. How would that affect your belief in historicism?

1. Paul's letters were forged in the second century.

2. Q never existed; Luke read Matthew.

3. Mark wrote the second canonical gospel in the second century.

4. All the gospels were written in the second century.

5. Josephus never mentioned Jesus; Eusebius added both references.

6. Tacitus's lost volume of history contains no mention of Jesus.

7. Mara bar Serapion had someone else in mind when he wrote of the wise king.

8. The author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as having died as a sacrifice in heaven.

9. Papias knew nothing about a historical Jesus; he only reported the philosophical musings of some early followers of The Way. Eusebius distorted his meaning.

10. Marcion's gospel was an original work; the orthodox church inserted matter to create canonical Luke.

11. The author of our third canonical gospel and Acts was a woman who never knew Paul.

12. Acts is a complete fiction, with many scenes based on a romance of the time that has been lost.

13. Paul was not a Pharisee, never studied under Gamaliel.

14. Paul was never in Rome, and died a peaceful death in 90 CE.

15. Paul was never in Damascus.


Anyone else - feel free to add to this.
I would say that if Josephus' mention of James the brother of Jesus (Ant 20.9.1) was proven to be a forgery and #1 (which would include Gal 1:19) and #3 (which would include Mark 6:3) were proven true then that would fatally destroy the HJ position beyond repair IMHO.

Other than that the other examples don't seem to impact the position all that much.
dongiovanni1976x is offline  
Old 05-21-2007, 10:42 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Thinking of a historical Jesus theory here similar to Paula Fredriksen's...

...and answering from the angle, not of how it would undermine positive evidence for historicity, but rather act as positive evidence against historicity...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
1. Paul's letters were forged in the second century.
0
Quote:
2. Q never existed; Luke read Matthew.
0
Quote:
3. Mark wrote the second canonical gospel in the second century.
0
Quote:
4. All the gospels were written in the second century.
0
Quote:
5. Josephus never mentioned Jesus; Eusebius added both references.
1 (significantly problematic). I've argued this connection several times; Josephus is the only non-Christian writer we possess and could have a modest expectation of writing about Jesus.
Quote:
6. Tacitus's lost volume of history contains no mention of Jesus.
0
Quote:
7. Mara bar Serapion had someone else in mind when he wrote of the wise king.
0
Quote:
8. The author of Hebrews thought of Jesus as having died as a sacrifice in heaven.
2 (this is the Doherty hypothesis that there was a very early christology that excluded the earthly elements about Jesus)
Quote:
9. Papias knew nothing about a historical Jesus; he only reported the philosophical musings of some early followers of The Way. Eusebius distorted his meaning.
0
Quote:
10. Marcion's gospel was an original work; the orthodox church inserted matter to create canonical Luke.
0
Quote:
11. The author of our third canonical gospel and Acts was a woman who never knew Paul.
0
Quote:
12. Acts is a complete fiction, with many scenes based on a romance of the time that has been lost.
0
Quote:
13. Paul was not a Pharisee, never studied under Gamaliel.
-1 (just kidding--but it seems a complete nonsequitur)

Quote:
14. Paul was never in Rome, and died a peaceful death in 90 CE.
-2 (you mean, Paul could have written his letters after GMark?)

Quote:
15. Paul was never in Damascus.
0

I'm inclined to think that some good arguments could be mounted against HJ, but these strike me as almost entirely being no go towards a conclusion "therefore, there was no historical Jesus."

The only ones I saw as having any value are the silence of Josephus and the Doherty hypothesis.

One could make a slightly obscure Bayesian argument from the others, perhaps, but then obscure Bayesian arguments can be easily constructed for Jesus too. ("If no text was ever written about Jesus ever..." raises the probability of no-HJ; it is false, and so that instead raises the probability of HJ?)
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 05-21-2007, 10:45 PM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clivedurdle View Post
The Abomination of Desolation refers to Hadrian.
I thought it referred to Caligula. :huh:
spamandham is offline  
Old 05-21-2007, 10:52 PM   #10
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
If any author from centuries I or II can be proven (A) to be a Christian and (B) to know only a heavenly Christ, with no inkling of an historical figure, historicism loses a lot.
Ben, why would 2nd century authors reasonably be expected to know anything more about a historical Jesus than you or I?
spamandham is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:59 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.