Amaleq13

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

But is it? I'd like to point to my Two Threads thread. 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 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

Recently, on the board, Peter Brown claimed that Julian the Apostate held that Jesus was mythical. You can judge for
yourself. 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 (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Jiri

Solo

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

This thread entitled FJ: Eusebian fiction postulate & Julian "Against the Galilaeans" 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

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 a collation of such, so thanks
very much for bring these works to my attention.


Pete

aa5874

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.