Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Touchstone: Yes, I think you would be wrong to assume that. I am not a regular contributor, but I'm a non-Christian, specifically an atheist. I can't speak for others on this board. But I do think that a Jewish preacher named Yeshua, called Jesus by the non-Jews in Roman Palestine, probably existed in the late 1st century BCE or early 1st century CE. What the actual biography and character of this person is, is pretty much lost to history, and we are left only with hagiography.

Its difficult to quantify the number of skeptics on this board who believe in the existence of Jesus. I certainly understand your perspective, and I think it’s much more defensible from a historical standpoint than those who would claim Jesus did not exist.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">My conclusion is based mostly on, as Andrew Benson said in his book "The Origins of the Bible and Christianity" (to paraphrase) that Paul said he knew James, the 'brother of the Lord', and this same James is attested to in a quote in Josephus. That Josephus quote is probably NOT a later insertion by Christian forgers. It seems pretty unlikely that Paul would make up the person of James, and that Josephus would make up the SAME character.

Yes, I agree. You make a very good point. Mythers are left to explain how both Josephus and Paul wound up claiming Jesus had a brother named James. Mythers will claim the Josephus passage is not original, but they have no evidence to support their claim. Again, I’m in complete agreement with you to this point.

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Although I also recall, I don't remember all the details, that the story of James being stoned during the temple destruction (Josephus' account) conflicts with other Christian history, which has James living another 20 years or so. Any comments?

I’m not aware of any conflict. The other account of the death of James is recorded by Hegesippus who was a Hebrew Christian historian that wrote around 170 C.E. Hegesippus isn’t specific on an exact date, but he says it was before the time of Vespasian (70 C.E.). This is the same general timeframe as that of Josephus, who places it in the early 60’s C.E. Here is a link to the Hegesippus account:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-165.htm

Peace,

Polycarp

I understand the assumption that something is assumed authentic unless shown otherwise. I think there is a good reason to cast doubt on Jospehus' passage on Jesus. Most scholars agree. However, most scholars don't go as far as Doherty in suggesting that all references to Jesus are later additions. However, Doherty's case depends on this, so clearly he hopes he can make a reasonable case for believing that they are all additions and certainly we will all have our opinions as to the strength of his case. I am still uncertain and would like to see more debate on the subject, which I why I hope Earl Doherty joins Nomad's thread.

I have read this critique as well as Doherty's response. I find the critique reasonable as well as Doherty's reply. So I'm still left wondering as to the strength of Doherty's case.

I agree with you. I am just wondering how many documents we can assume that each critic had at their disposal. I would be interested in learning more about the details of each critic and see if we know which documents they are referring to. Do they refer to many that we don't have? If there were 20 times the documents then than now I would think that many would be referred to in other extant documents.

I am not trying to make a strong argument one way or the other. Just thinking and learning...

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Something you might find interesting is reading the work of Justin Martyr. He was a leader of the church in Rome at the middle of the second century. He was a Greek philosopher who converted to Christianity in about 120-130 C.E. One of his writings is called "Dialogue with Trypho". This is something he wrote in response to a Jew named Trypho who was an opponent of Christianity. This work is obviously only one side of the argument, but its clear to see what Justin's opponents are saying from reading what Justin says. Here's a link: [URL=http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm</font>[/quote]

Thanks. Fascinating stuff. I'll read it more carefully later.

Yes, but what is frustrating is that these critics seem to be fairly late compared to Paul. Can you tell from Paul that his critics accept the historical nature of Jesus?



[This message has been edited by PhysicsGuy (edited April 20, 2001).]

Lance

Ah, an old familiar topic. Personally I think Jesus the man probably did exist. Can we prove it one way or another? No. There's been too much time interval, too much lost, too much dishonesty (early church fathers preached it was okay to lie to advance the faith...this should be a red alert flag!), and quite frankly too damn much confusion. Although historical revisionists like Bede continue to deny it, theres little question that pagan literature that contradicted the churches edicts was destroyed in the various witch hunts, inquisitions, and what not.

Jesus as depicted in the gospels though is a total myth as far as I'm concerned. There are countless similarities to other elder religions that early Christians blatently ripped off and pasted their new cult over.

Consider that we can pretty well acertain that 12/25 is not the birthday of Christ. We can also not narrow down the day of his supposed sacrifice either. Doesn't one think it odd that the two most important days for this religion are not known? Even more so when the inerrant bible defenders continually assure us of the "strong oral tradition" of the Hebrew people. Okay fine...they have strong oral tradition and can't remember two dates? Hello reason!

And perhaps the best judge of character of this religion, is not by what it did when it was limited by secular power, but what it did when it was not. I really don't think a re-telling of that bloody history is really necessary as we all know it, albeit some run from it.

DougI

Sorry Polycarp for the late reply. I have been told by Christians that Jesus is still alive, apparently a well-aged person. But nothing has been presented about a current living location or how he has managed to exist for so long. But he certainly exists as a fictional character like Superman who can perform amazing feats that aren't possible in reality. Superman came from planet Krypton, Jesus came from the city of Nazareth. Why should I debate the existence of a fictional character?

The evidence for Nazareth not existing is the failure of record. The Talmud, although mentioning numerous cities, fails to give mention to the city of Nazareth. Josephus mentions a small village a mile away from present day Nazareth but manages to miss the entire city of Nazareth. No archeological evidence for Nazareth having existed in the first century (so my dates may be wrong, Nazareth probably didn't exist until 100 years after Jesus' alleged death). So there appears no reason to assume that Jesus existed since he originated from a town that didn't exist.

It is more probable that Hamlet existed since Denmark existed back then, perhaps that would be a fairer discussion since it is apparent this Jesus character couldn't exist.

Since miracles have never happened, and since we routinely reject claims of miracles regardless of the source (religious, parapsychology, etc.), I am not sure upon what grounds you feel slighted here.

Even when more than one witness is present, there are certain claims that historians simply do not accept as true, even with multiple witnesses. In cases where the scientific or forensic evidence indicates that these witnesses cannot possibly be correct, then historians reject such testimony (and rightly so).

There are events in history (witches, ghosts, etc.) which have multiple attestation from numerous sources - the Salem witch trials come to mind here.

There are more modern ones, such as UFOs, Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster, etc. In all of these situations, the quality of evidence is far higher than for the gospels. We have much more recent records (in many cases, first-hand evidence). We have first-hand forensic evidence (albeit not always strongly in favor of the claim). And, in many cases, the individuals in question are still alive and accessible to being questioned about their events. In spite the manifestly superior quality of evidence for these miraculous claims (when compared to the bible), skeptics and historians still reject such claims.

It is an oft-repeated saying, but it is still true: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

There has never been a situation where historians have ignored the hard data from science and investigation, and instead relied upon ancient testimony. In that respect, skeptics and historians have been entirely consistent in how they approach fantastical claims, scrutinizing them regardless of their source. Christian claims are measured against the same evidentiary yardstick that all other fantastic claims are measured against. Thus, the weary old complaint that skeptics are deliberately "picking on" christians is baseless.

The challenge to the christian, then, is to explain why the rules of methodological naturalism should be suspended, but only for only their situation. What makes their situation special, and why do they think they qualify for special treatment.

Perhaps if you had a miracle to show us, deLayman?

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 20, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 21, 2001).]

Indeed. But don't bother asking deLayman for sources to substantiate this assertion.

In a situation like this, he'll give you a list of his favorite authors instead of demonstrating that a majority of historians agree with his claim.

He seems to think that his list of favorite authors is the same thing as "a majority of historians".



[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 21, 2001).]

Michael has an excellent point here. There are times when historians do question the existence of a person, because their appearance on the historical stage is questionable, or reeks of human invention.

For example, the historical details of the Persian emperor Cyrus II have been intermingled with what is called the "Cyrus legend", from Britannica:

Note that the existence of Cyrus is not questioned; merely the (fantastical) biographical events.

This happened again in Norse mythology. The Norse poem The Lay of Atli provides an example from another culture. In that saga, we read about the great Germanic warrior Atli, as well as the deeds of other players such as Gunnar and Jormunrek. Woven throughout the whole tale, we see mythological heroes such as Sigmund and Sigurd, who perform impossible feats and win renown for themselves. We also observe the behind-the-scene machinations of the gods, working their will through the actions of the players, rewarding some, while punishing others. Surprisingly enough, The Lay of Atli has some basis in historical fact and actual historical figures. But is that enough to accept it as an ancient testimony to factual history?

Not at all. Just because a story starts with factual history, that is no guarantee that the story will conclude with all those facts fully intact. For example, the real Atli was actually not a Germanic warrior at all; the name is a corruption of Attila, the selfsame Hun who overran Europe. Gunnar, Gudrun's brother, is a corruption of Gundicar, king of the Burgundians. Another character in this Norse poem, Jormunrek, is actually Ermanaric, king of the Goths. Any interaction between Ermanaric and Attila is, of course, flatly impossible; we know Ermanaric died 59 years before Attila ever became king of the Huns. Other historical impossibilities also surface in The Lay of Atli. Sigurd's father is referred to as the king of the Franks; yet Sigurd himself is referred to as the king of the Huns. Gunnar's historical predecessor (Gundicar) was king of the Burgundians; yet Gunnar himself is impossibly referred to in this tale as king of the Goths. In spite of all these errors and transpositions of detail, the story stubbornly continues, oblivious to the twisted history it contains.




[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 21, 2001).]

Think that was a leap? Stick around.

deLayman is a virtual mountain goat when it comes to making leaps of logic.

No, it is not; at least not if you're talking about Sanhedrin 43a.

It is a text that repeats what the nature of the religious-legal accusation was. That is not the same thing as a testimony that the accusation was true, or that the accused person actually did the "sorcery".

This is something that theists often confuse.

PhysicsGuy, you should be aware that the particular individual who owns this website, Robert Turkel, posts under a pseudonym ("J.P. Holding"), because he claims to be at risk for working as a prison librarian.

And in past debates with other contributors to The Secular Web, he has refused to link to the original arguments of his opponents.
Instead, he includes selected excerpts of their arguments, which may or may not reflect the actual point they wish to make.

That is a particularly dishonest act, which prevents the audience from weighing the evidence presented by both sides in an open forum.

Doherty also notices, and makes the same point:

If you decide to read his review, you might keep in mind the nature of the individual who did the review.

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 20, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Omnedon1 (edited April 20, 2001).]