And even if that darkening was not worldwide, it would have been very noticeable to others in Palestine, such as (say) Josephus's father.

So why didn't Joaephus recall (let's say) his father one day telling him

"Son, something very interesting once happened during the reign of Pontius Pilate, something truly marvelous, something that I have to see in order to believe. One day, the sky darkened, there were big earthquakes, and the dead walked. What the occasion was for these prodigies, only God knows."

Lance

Bede: The only strawman running around is the one in your head...

Seriously, either the gospel record is some level of historical document or its some level of myth. There can be a little cross-over, but not a lot.

So by pointing out hyperboled things in the gospels that SHOULD have been widely recorded elsewhere and were not, it indicates to a reasonable rational person that the gospels are more fiction than fact.

We know the hyperbole at the resurrection. Some of these things should have at least made it to Jewish folklore had they indeed happened. Particularly as the gospels themselves talk about hundreds of witnesses...who for some reason appear to have been deaf, dumb, blind, and mute. Naturalists of the region if not the world should have been talking about the earthquake, the sky darkening, and so on.

None of this is recorded---why?

We are not necessarily arguing a historical Jesus. I think thats a reasonable possibility. I'm arguing that the accounts of the gospels are not prime historical material, they're myths. And that while the man Jesus may indeed have existed, the myths surrounding him are just that---myths.

And given the scant historical record surrounding Jesus, we can't really know much about him---provided he even exists.

Bede

Lance,

I know subtlety of thought is a problem for you but I'm afraid there are mythical elements in nearly every ancient source we have. Historians have always had to sort the myth from the history and always will. In this sense the Gospels are just like anything else. Sorry, that's the way it is and to imply that the mythical elements of the Gospels make the whole thing fiction is a strawman.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

[This message has been edited by Bede (edited May 09, 2001).]

Lance

Bede: I think that's just what I said! While I admit and agree that there MAY have been a historical Jesus, I don't think I could prove it either way.

And yes I know many ancient writings contain less "just the facts, ma'am" than contemporary. But the point is still valid in where do you draw the line?

A "historical existance" of Jesus I don't really have a problem with. Heck, look at the myths surrounding St. Cassie of Columbine and that just happened a year ago with the best modern technology available to get an accurate record. Yet urban legend has grown far faster than fact.

Now, when examining the gospels...what do we discard? Obvious mythological elements? Things like dead men walking? People rising from the dead? We KNOW both of those things were part of earlier myths, so why not?

In essence, what you're saying is that the gospels are NOT factual. They're mythological in some sense. Which completely destroys the Christian faith.

As an atheist I have to take some exception here. Yes the gospel stories are largely ficticious, BUT it is presumptuous to say that this "destroys" the Christian faith. It all depends on which Christians your referring to in that matter. Not all Christians believe every little story and supposed event laid out in the NT actually happened or MUST have happened in order for them to retain their faith. They still believe and are still Christians because of "faith" and history isn't about to destroy that.

(Not all Christians are "fundies".)

Also, as to mythmaking, consider Charles Darwin, and how his biography gets forced into the hero-myth mold. That mold is described by Joseph Campbell and others as initiation, separation, and return. Initiation can come in a variety of ways, separation generally involves some challenges that the hero must overcome, and the hero returns with a lot of Good Things, yet is first accepted reluctantly, then triumphantly.

The hero myth in Darwin's case is that of him discovering evolution by studying the finches of the Galapagos Islands on his big voyage aboard the _Beagle_. This clearly fits the separation and challenge parts of the hero myth.

However, Darwin and his colleagues have left an abundant paper trail, and we learn from it that:

* The idea of evolution was around before he began thinking about it.

* He had no clue as to the Galapagos finches during that voyage, and he needed the help of others to sort them out.

* He only got a good understanding of the Galapagos finches some years afterward, when he had been developing his ideas on evolution and how it works.

James Still

I noticed in his reply that Brian (Nomad) spends an awful lot of time questioning Earl Doherty's credentials. I take it that Brian is himself credentialed? Otherwise what is the point of bringing it up in a discussion between equals?

Hi James

This is a valid question, and one of the reasons I do, and will continue to bring up Earl's credentials is because his arguments, as presented, almost always rest upon his own authority. Thus, when he gives us an interpretation of the Greek text, it is invariably his own interpretation. When he tells us that scholars say this or that, or are motivated by certain things, he typically fails to offer examples or to cite sources.

In my own case, I do not claim, or pretend to have special knowledge or expertise about such things, and will always try to present my supports and arguments, and quote directly from my sources. Further, when I do this, I will reference specific books, articles and offer page numbers, allowing the reader to check my citations and insure that I am being as honest and objective as is possible in my presentation. If I err, I expect to be called on it.

The problem that I have when arguments are presented, and claims are made that unnamed scholars believe "X" or "Y", how can we actually prove that this is what they believe or not? And when a name is dropped, but the relevant quotations are not presented, what (beyond the word of the presenter) do we have to go on? This is not to question the honesty of the presenter, but if the reader cannot verify what is said on his or her own, how can we know with any degree of confidence that the presenter has actually understood the argument being offered, whether in defence of a position, or to attack a contrary opinion?

Finally, I think it is a serious problem in presenting an argument, if all (or a great majority) of the evidence being offered comes from the presenter himself. To give an analogy, imagine a court case in which the judge is also the prosecutor, and the only evidence allowed to be offered would come from this same person. Worse, what if this person then becomes his own witness as well? Can anyone believe that the case will be as objective as possible? Would we be confident that counter arguments are being fairly offered? How would cross examination even be possible? And if this same person was to tell us that everyone else with an opinion on the case that happens to disagree with him is hopelessly tainted by bias and "pressures" from unnamed sources, then what are we to make of his case?

I believe that a fair debate cannot proceed under such conditions, and this is why I will demand both of Earl, and myself, a full disclosure of supports, evidence and arguments. And when authorities are cited (as they should be), a fair presentation of what they actually said, together with references that can be checked independently by the reader must be offered. This is, in my view, how a fair debate MUST be conducted.

It is my hope that Earl will agree.

Brian (Nomad)

I have to agree with Nomad. I've seen some rather sweeping (and in my opinion exaggerated) claims made by Doherty without scholars names and works to back him up. I want to check what Doherty is saying for myself, but I can't because he provides few if any sources.

I've seen some last names in a few sections, but have found no book and page references that support his statements (such as in the 1st Thes. issue I mentioned above).

I would suggest that Doherty go through his work and cite scholarly books and articles that back up the many claims that he makes. Hopefully, Doherty will clearify some of his generalizations with scholarly backing as the debate continues.

Ish

I agree with Ish, but think it should be
taken one step further. Even if you come up
with a list of names who believe a certain
thing, that still doesn't allow me to ascertain
the validity of the beliefs. For every name
you can come up with on the Athiest side, you
can come up with on the Theist side. And
you don't win an argument like this based
on numbers... :-)

What I'd like to see is the evidence (in
whatever form) used to reach those opinions.