Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 12-16-2003, 10:35 PM

Quote:

I am thinking communities, dude. Not individual peeps.

I knew that. Why were you using the word 'christians' then? You meant groups like Galileans, Essenes etc?

In any case, provide evidence that there were christian comunities that believed in a HJ before the end of the first century. Mark was written c. 80 - 90. That, I believe is as good as it gets for you. Ignatius and other people that can be said to refer to a HJ come into the 2nd Century.

Quote:

willing to work under only later texts (third stratum up?) to give the mythicists a chance to argue

Just provide the evidence please. Whether they are 0.001 stratum material doesn't matter. First century. Christian. HJ.

Lets see the evidence. Cite texts. I am willing to accept just titles, authors, dates of authorship and what contents they have that support a HJ.

Quote:

Whoever suggested that mythicists need to explain why Paul does not venerate the tomb of Jesus or talk about a piece of the cross?

I never argued that you or anyone "suggested that mythicists need to explain why Paul does not venerate the tomb of Jesus or talk about a piece of the cross"

Read carefully.

Doherty speaks:
On Relic Consciousness

Quote:

I notice that very little attention is being paid to Fredriksen's remarks per se and my replies to her, but that things are going off on tangents that seem to be avoiding the central issue as to whether mainstream scholars like her have very much in the way of knowledge or resources to counter the mythicist case. ("Appeals to authority", of course, are not the same thing.)

The only exception is one thread that has latched onto one of the arguments raised in my article, namely the question of veneration of holy sites. Contributors like Layman and Vinnie have actually fallen into the same trap as Fredriksen did. They raise the question of the apparent lack of holy site interest in the second century as indicating that even when an HJ was current, holy sites didn't surface in Christian consciousness or interest. What they're doing is exactly what Fredriksen did. Calling attention to something in a different time (second century, in this case) and claiming that this presence or absence is the determining factor in analysing the time in question (first century), or even justifying the dismissal of any debate about it in regard to the earlier time.

Let's look at this from a couple of angles. First, as I suggested in my reply to Fredriksen, analyzing conditions in later centuries has no direct effect or significance on the earlier, and certainly doesn't excuse one from examining the earlier time and making judgments about it based on the earlier situation. If Jesus existed, had taught in Galilee, been crucified on Calvary, had risen (or was reputed to have risen) from a tomb outside Jerusalem, the sites associated with that life would have been known and easily accessible in the decades following. Memory and tradition about those events would have been vivid among Christians. THE PRESENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY OF THOSE SITES WOULD HAVE CREATED THE INTEREST, regardless of arguments about whether Jews at this time had a tradition of venerating holy sites. In any case, Christians were hardly mainstream, hidebound Jews. They may even have been more gentile than Jew. So that's really a red herring.

Also, during the 1st century period, Christianity had at least one of its centers of gravity in Palestine, within a movement that was spread across much of the eastern empire. Peter and James, alleged followers of Jesus himself, operated out of Jerusalem. This promiximity to the holy sites should have guaranteed some kind of focus on them, some mention, some working of them into the thinking and christology of the missionary movement. If Jesus, after a mission in Galilee, came to Jerusalem, it is inconceivable that some of his followers there would not have noted and taken an interest in what happened to him in the capital, and yet Q, a document evolving and in existence probably until at least the end of the century, shows no sign of any knowledge of those events. Another red herring is the almost exclusive focus by some on the board of the question of "veneration" or pilgrimage to such sites. But the silence encompasses much more than that. There is not even *mention* of these places, no indication that they figure in early Christian thinking. I spoke of a "disembodied salvation myth" in Paul and other early writers, with not even signs of traditions *about* Calvary and details of the crucifixion or the empty tomb. Can we envision a host of "dusty disciples" going about the empire, preaching, writing epistles, talking about the great salvific acts of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and yet never give us any tie to the time and place and circumstances of those events? The question of veneration or actual visitation to these places doesn't even begin to cover aspects like these.

Some comments that an HJ would have been established by the late 1st century are simply erroneous where the mythicist view is concerned. The first sign in Christian correspondence of even basic data such as a crucifixion by Pilate arrive only at the beginning of the 2nd century (in Ignatius), and in this case it's clearly something that is not widespread and is in dispute. We have major apologists all through the second century who don't even mention a human Jesus, let alone Calvary. If the Gospels (even if Mark is to be dated a decade or two before the end of the first century) were not initially regarded as representing actual history, and in any case, to judge by the evidence, enjoyed very little dissemination before the mid-second century, one cannot speak of an HJ "being established" until the time of Marcion and Justin, and then apparently only in certain areas. So statements like those by debaters on the board are simply not based on reality.

And what were those areas? Well, Rome for one. By this time, Palestine had gone through the upheaval of the Second Jewish Revolt, the razing of Jerusalem and construction of a Roman city on the site; Jews were barred from even going to Palestine. Palestine was no longer a center of gravity for Christianity. Under such conditions, it is very understandable that an interest in unearthing and making pilgrimages to holy sites would have little scope for developing. This would be especially true if in fact those sites simply didn't exist, that there was no preceding tradition of knowing and visiting such sites. It would all have to start from scratch, based on a reading of the Gospels, or whatever Gospels were available and what state they were in a century before we have the earliest fragments of them (other than P52). Who was going to organize and conduct such an undertaking as literally unearthing Calvary and a tomb site from places far outside of Palestine?

On the other hand, there may actually have been some site veneration during that late 2nd/early 3rd century period. Origen testifies to this in regard to Bethlehem: "...in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel in regard to his birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where he was born, and the manger in the cave where he was wrapped in swaddling clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worswhipped and reverenced by the Christians." (Against Celsus, Book I, ch. 51, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4 p.418). This indicates site worship at least a century before Constantine and not too long after an HJ WAS established across the Christian world. Of course, it is based entirely upon Matthew and Luke, and no one would consider that the actual place of Jesus' reputed birth had genuinely been discovered. Since it related merely to the place of Bethlehem itself, and not to something as specific as a crucifixion site or a tomb, it was easier for this to evolve prior to Constantine.

What happened in the time of Constantine? Well, by that time, the emperor was Christian and Christianity was becoming the state religion. Now is precisely the time and circumstances in which such an undertaking could be conducted. Considering that most of the 'uncovering' was done through little more than revelation, we can be sure it had no real archeological foundation. The holy sites were now CREATED, and citizens were free to travel to them from across the empire.

As I say, those latter conditions have nothing to do with the question of sites in the first century. Paul went to Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion, which would have to have been less than a decade after Jesus' death. Should Justin, or Constantine, have anything to say about why there is no sign that Paul ever visited Calvary, that Peter and James took him to that dramatic, sacred site, or why no other Christian writer of the first century (outside whatever Gospel(s) may have been written during that time) has anything to say about *any* place on earth associated with a life of Jesus, or with any physical relics associated with him?

rlogan · 12-16-2003, 11:20 PM

Jacob, thank you.

You did a fine job, especially stressing the diversity of the "Christ" movements.

They've tried to commandeer the very argument of the mythicists. "No veneration means it was myth? OK then - prove there will be veneration if it was myth!!"

There's no-one who can argue Doherty - like Doherty!!!

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Layman · 12-16-2003, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
Secondly, relic consciousness or the absence of it, is not used as an explanation for Jesus being a myth but is one question mythicism can answer while HJ proponents cannot manage to fit into their theory.

Sure they can. Early Christians were more focused on evangelism than relicism. Many also thought that the return of Christ may come soon so they had little time or interest in relics.
As the Church became more institutionalized, less evangelistic, and more influenced by the broader Greek culture, they became more interested in relicism.

Quote:

In the absence of a better explanation as to why there was no relic-consciousness in the 1st century, the argument remains untouched that there was no relic consciousness because there were no relics, no calvary, no cross, no historicalbirth place.

Since the JM cannot explain the absnce of relicism in the second century and early third century, it fails as an explanation for its absence in the first century. The above explanation is more likely.

Quote:

If you want to offer another explanation, offer it, if you cant refute this explanation, shut the hell up.

It seems you are intentionally as offensive as possible in the hopes that no one will take you seriously enough to show how discredited your ideas are. Some more maturity would be appropriate.

Quote:

This is incorrect. List 10 christians that believed in a HJ in the late first century.

Peter, James, Jude, Paul, Luke, Stephen, Barnabas, Apollos, Josephus (oops, not a Christian), and Matthias. But Vinnie is right. The literature we have represents entire communities who accepted the HJ.

Quote:

I will again, ignore the fact that you have imported 'internal clashes' into my statement (it assumes Christianity was a monolithic, unified movement). Next time you attempt to construct a strawman, I will insist you get it out of the way before we proceed.

This is just bizarre. By referring to internal clashes I was taking the idea of disjointed Christianity as assumed. It does not assume a monolithic united movement. Far from it.

Sheesh.

Quote:

You seem to have latched onto the second part of my statement only. Does that mean you agree a HJ took time before it became 'accepted' or became 'common'?

Of course not. As I have shown, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews attests to pre-70 CE belief in the historical Jesus.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price3.htm

Quote:

This war against Marcionism literally gave birth to Christianity.

For a more accurate assesment of the Marcionite controversy read up here:

http://www.didjesusexist.com/marcion.html

Marcion is no evidence for a JM, because he accepted that there was someone named Jesus who lived on earth, taught, did miracles, and fit into the general narrative of Luke's gospels, minus the more Jewish elements.

What Marcion shows is that by 130 CE the HJ was the predominant viewpoint. Marcion was kicked out of his church by HJ types, not by JM types. Marcion was the first major challenger to orthodox view, but still accepted the HJ. Moreover, the trail of opposition he left is exactly the kind of evidence we would expect from such a clash of ideas. Surely the idea that Jesus never even existed on earth is more controversial than Marcion's perspective. Yet is exactly this kind of evidence that we lack for the JM. The best conclusion is that there was no JM.

Quote:

The 5 or 6 major apologists up to the year 180 and after that: Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, though clearly anchored in the Gospel tradition, fail to mention a HJ in their defenses of Xstianity to the pagan - except for Justin Martyr. Theophilus, in his treatsie To Autolycus (c. 180) was converted after reading Jewish scriptures. He ridicules pagans for believing dead men could resurrect (they believed Aesclepius and Hercules resurrected). Athenagoras (c. 180) who was articulate and a philosophical thinker wrote a lot on Xstianity but mentioned a HJ. The Epistle of Diogentus (anonymous) - a defense of Xstianity (c.130) doesnt mention a HJ. Tatian, Justin's pupil, a Christian wrote to the Greeks c.160 in defense of Xstianity but never mentioned Christ or Jesus in his writings.

Please explain how they can be anchored in the Gospel tradition but not believe in a historical Jesus? That sounds pretty absurd.

What I asked for was clear and so far unanswered. It's like you are stuck with one play book that has a place for the Apostolic Fathers. What I was asking for was evidence of a controversy between HJ types and JM types comparable to the Marcionite controversy. If, as you say, these authors believed in the gospel traditions but did not talk about the historical Jesus, this would be evidence that no such controversy existed. The dispute with Marcion left a historical footprint a mile wide and deep. Surely those who doubted even the existence of Jesus would have drawn even more fire. Where is the evidence?

Besides, the examples you provide fail. Let's look at those "5 or 6" you mention.

Tertullian

Tertullian explicitly affirms that Jesus has already come to earth in human form.

Quote:

Two comings of Christ have been revealed to us; a first, which has been fulfilled in the lowliness of a human lot; a second one, which impends over the world, now near its close. In it, all the majesty of Deity will be unveiled.

The Apology, 3.35.

How is this consistent with your statement that Tertullian does not mention a historical Jesus?

Quote:

In subsequent passages, the prophet evidently asserts that the virgin of whom it behooved Christ to be born must derive her lineage of the seed of David. He says, 'And there will be born a rod from the root of Jesse'--which rod is Mary.

3.164.

Quote:

He was from the native soil of Bethlehem, and from the house of David. For, among the Romans, Mary is described in the census of whom Christ is born.

3.164.

Irenaeus

Quote:

When Mary urged Him on to the wonderful miracle of the wine and was desirous to partake of the cup of emblematic significance before the proper time, the Lord restratined her untimely haste, saying, 'Woman, what have I to do with you? My hour has not yet come? He was waiting for that hour that was foreknown by the Father.

1.443.

Quote:

Nor did the Son truly redeem us by His own blood, if He did not really become man.

1.528.

Quote:

Christ Jesus, the Son of God, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, humbled Himself to be born of the virgin. He Himself united man to God through Himself.

1.417.

Clement of Alexandria

Quote:

The Lord Christ, the fruit of the virgin, did not pronounce the breasts of women blessed."

2.220.

Quote:

The Son of God--He how made the universe--assumed flesh and was conceived in the virgin's womb.

2.509.

Quote:

The loving Lord became man for us.

2.543.

Origen

Quote:

For if Mary--as those say who extol her with sound mind--had no other son but Jesus, then He virtually said to Her, 'Look! This is Jesus, whom you did bear.'

9.300.

Quote:

After He had been the minister of the Father, in the creation of all things, He in the last times divested Himself and became man, and was incarnate although still God. While He was made a man, He remained the God that He was. He assumed a body like our own, differing in only one respect: that the body was born of a virgin of the Holy Spirit. This Jesus Christ was truly born, truly suffered, ... and truly died.

4.240.

Quote:

In other dead bodies, the blood congeals, and pure water does not flow forth. However, the miraculous feature in the case of the dead body of Jesus, was that blood and water flowed forth from the side, around the dead body.

4.446.

Quote:

Plus many other.

Given your poor track record to date, I'm certainly not willing to take you word for that.

Quote:

Now,the question is, how could all these apologists, invariably all christians and invariably engaged in defending christian beliefs to pagans, defend Christianity without mentioning Jesus - a founder figure? How could they do that without explaining the history and origins of their movement?

They do. Over and over and over again. As I have shown beyond reasonable doubt.

I ask again. Where is the evidence of Christian authors mounting an assault on the JM like the one they launched on the HJ? Surely the threat of those who denied Jesus ever existed as seen as just as great as those who quibbled with the Virgin Birth or argued about what the Jesus here on earth was made out of? These guys denied Jesus even existed in any form on earth. Where are the attacks on them? If Tertullian and Origen and Clement of Alexandria could spare a moment to argue with gnostics, why could they find no time to argue with JM types?

If any such types existed. I have yet to see any evidence of them.

Toto · 12-17-2003, 12:30 AM

[mod on]
Please avoid personal insults

Thank you

Toto
mod BCH

Layman · 12-17-2003, 12:54 AM

Quote:

The only exception is one thread that has latched onto one of the arguments raised in my article, namely the question of veneration of holy sites. Contributors like Layman and Vinnie have actually fallen into the same trap as Fredriksen did. They raise the question of the apparent lack of holy site interest in the second century as indicating that even when an HJ was current, holy sites didn't surface in Christian consciousness or interest. What they're doing is exactly what Fredriksen did. Calling attention to something in a different time (second century, in this case) and claiming that this presence or absence is the determining factor in analysing the time in question (first century), or even justifying the dismissal of any debate about it in regard to the earlier time.

I actually discussed quite clearly why the different context of the first century--focus on evangelism and belief in imminent return of Jesus--would have diminished. Doherty himself provides even more evidence, noting that it was Constantine's conversion, Christianity becoming the state religion, and gaining immeasurable state funding, that caused the surge in veneration we see in the fourth century. I will add another. Because Christianity stood in contrast to Jewish focus on the Temple (see especially Hebrews), they had little interest in developing their own imitations of it. Afterall, the Jews were the ones that believed that God had to live in a Temple. Indeed, this seemed to be a very important theme for Christians.

Quote:

Act 7:46-51: David found favor in God's sight, and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. "But it was Solomon who built a house for Him." However, the Most High does not dwell in houses made by human hands; as the prophet says: 'HEAVEN IS MY THRONE, AND EARTH IS THE FOOTSTOOL OF MY FEET; WHAT KIND OF HOUSE WILL YOU BUILD FOR ME?' says the Lord, 'OR WHAT PLACE IS THERE FOR MY REPOSE? 'WAS IT NOT MY HAND WHICH MADE ALL THESE THINGS?' You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did.

Also remember the Epistle to the Hebrews. It's main theme is the superiority of the heavenly Temple over the earthly Temple. And to Paul, Christians were the Temple of God in which the Spirit of the resurrected Christ dwelt. And all the Gospels have Jesus outraged at the pilgrimage system to the Temple which fleeced the faithful of their money.

Why would Christians exchange their newfound freedom and liberty from earthly relics and pilgrimage duties for a new set of earthly relics and pilgrimage duties?

And additional obstacle to any sort of worship of Jesus in Jerusalem would have been Jewish opposition. That Christians suffered persecution from the Jews prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE is well-attested by primary and secondary evidence. To imagine that Jewish authorities or even Jewish commoners would stand idly by as Christians worshiped Jesus Christ at holy sites in Jerusalem is unreasonable. Remember what happened to Stephen for daring to insult the Temple and elevate Jesus over it? Such an environment would undoubtedly chill any inclination to gather relics and venerate Holy Sites.

Quote:

Let's look at this from a couple of angles. First, as I suggested in my reply to Fredriksen, analyzing conditions in later centuries has no direct effect or significance on the earlier, and certainly doesn't excuse one from examining the earlier time and making judgments about it based on the earlier situation. If Jesus existed, had taught in Galilee, been crucified on Calvary, had risen (or was reputed to have risen) from a tomb outside Jerusalem, the sites associated with that life would have been known and easily accessible in the decades following. Memory and tradition about those events would have been vivid among Christians. THE PRESENCE AND ACCESSIBILITY OF THOSE SITES WOULD HAVE CREATED THE INTEREST, regardless of arguments about whether Jews at this time had a tradition of venerating holy sites. In any case, Christians were hardly mainstream, hidebound Jews. They may even have been more gentile than Jew. So that's really a red herring.

But Doherty is doing exactly what he complains about. He thinks that because Christians in the fourth century venerated sites and relics, that Christians in the first century would definitely have done so. Yet he ignores several factors that suggest just the opposite. Including, perhaps most importantly, the difficulties Christians would face trying to worship Jesus at holy sites in Jerusalem. Moreover, by the Fourth Century Christianity had become much less Jewish and much more Greek. Simply assuming that Fourth Century attitudes about relics and holy sites would be the same for First Century Christians is unpersuasive. By the Fourth Century, they had acquired control over the immeasurable wealth of the Roman Empire. They were completely and totally freed form persecution by Romans and Jews alike. There simply is no basis for transplanting their interests in such things to the first century early Christians.

Quote:

Also, during the 1st century period, Christianity had at least one of its centers of gravity in Palestine, within a movement that was spread across much of the eastern empire. Peter and James, alleged followers of Jesus himself, operated out of Jerusalem. This promiximity to the holy sites should have guaranteed some kind of focus on them, some mention, some working of them into the thinking and christology of the missionary movement.

If his point of reference is the behavior of Christians 300 years later, how can Doherty confidently assert that such interest would be "guaranteed"? Especially in light of his admonishment that we cannot equate people from one time to another time? My above comments apply to this assumption as well. Especially the practical difficulties associated with Christians doing this in Jerusalem.

Quote:

If Jesus, after a mission in Galilee, came to Jerusalem, it is inconceivable that some of his followers there would not have noted and taken an interest in what happened to him in the capital, and yet Q, a document evolving and in existence probably until at least the end of the century, shows no sign of any knowledge of those events.

The notion that Q included the totality of the Jesus tradition known to whatever community produced it is unreasonable and unsupported. As a result, there is no basis to claim that its community or creator was ignorant of, or not interested in, things not mentioned therein.

Quote:

Another red herring is the almost exclusive focus by some on the board of the question of "veneration" or pilgrimage to such sites. But the silence encompasses much more than that. There is not even *mention* of these places, no indication that they figure in early Christian thinking. I spoke of a "disembodied salvation myth" in Paul and other early writers, with not even signs of traditions *about* Calvary and details of the crucifixion or the empty tomb. Can we envision a host of "dusty disciples" going about the empire, preaching, writing epistles, talking about the great salvific acts of Jesus, his death and resurrection, and yet never give us any tie to the time and place and circumstances of those events? The question of veneration or actual visitation to these places doesn't even begin to cover aspects like these.

Sure. Christians who definitely believed in the HJ did just that:

Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians (105 - 115 CE)

This letter mentions the cross twice, Jesus' death four times, and includes this explicit reference: "If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrine the faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified!". Ch. 16. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians (105 - 115 CE)

This letter refers to Jesus' passion twice, as well as his resurrection and crucifixion. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Ignatius' Letter to the Trallians (105 - 115 CE)

This letter refers to Jesus' death and his passion. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Ignatius' Letter to the Romans (105 - 115 CE)

This letter compares Ignatius' own upcoming martyrdom to that of Jesus. "Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God." Yet there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Ignatius' Letter to the Philadelphians (105 - 115 CE)

This letters discusses Jesus' "cross, and death, and resurrection" and his "passion." Yet there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaeans (105 - 115 CE)

This letter discusses Jesus' "passion" on several occasions. He is very explicit about Jesus' human death: "in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual." Yet there is no reference to Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Polycarp's Letter to the Phillipians (110 - 140 CE)

This letter discusses the cross and Jesus' "suffering unto death." Yet there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

Martyrdom on Polycarp (150 - 160 CE)

This letter mentions Jesus' death by crucifixion without mentioning Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

The Octavius of Minucius Felix (160 - 250 CE)

This treatise discusses very specifically Jesus' death on a cross. Indeed, the author devotes a chapter to defending Jesus' innocence of the crime for which he was crucified. Nevertheless, there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

A Letter of Mara, Son of Serapion (73 - 200 CE)

This letter mentions Jesus' death, but makes no reference to Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary.

The Epistle of Barnabas (80 - 120 CE)

Although Barnabas is obsessed with the cross referring to it and discussing it over and over again there is no mention of Jerusalem, Golgotha, or Calvary

Quote:

Some comments that an HJ would have been established by the late 1st century are simply erroneous where the mythicist view is concerned. The first sign in Christian correspondence of even basic data such as a crucifixion by Pilate arrive only at the beginning of the 2nd century (in Ignatius), and in this case it's clearly something that is not widespread and is in dispute.

Now Doherty is just steering us back into his argument from silence. Since most of us rightly place the Gospels in the first century as some form of biographies or historiography (however accurate), he's not going to be very convincing here. The question is relic veneration and pilgrimages to Holy Sites. There was a surge of such activity in the fourth century. Either the fact that it took so long to occur supports the JM or it does not.

Quote:

We have major apologists all through the second century who don't even mention a human Jesus, let alone Calvary.

I was unconvinced by Jacob's recent presentation of this argument.

Quote:

If the Gospels (even if Mark is to be dated a decade or two before the end of the first century) were not initially regarded as representing actual history, and in any case, to judge by the evidence, enjoyed very little dissemination before the mid-second century, one cannot speak of an HJ "being established" until the time of Marcion and Justin, and then apparently only in certain areas. So statements like those by debaters on the board are simply not based on reality.

The idea that the Gospels were written as, and believed to be, complete Midrash is unpersuasive.

Quote:

[M]idrash never included the invention of stories which were clearly seen as non-literal in intent, and merely designed to evoke awe and wonder. If was no part of Jewish midrash, or any other Jewish writing-genre in the first century, to invent all kinds of new episodes about recent history in order to advance the claim that the Scriptures had been fulfilled. It is one of the salient characteristics of Jewish literature throughout the New Testament period that, even though novelistic elements could creep into books like Jubilees, the basic emphasis remains on that which happened with history.

N.T. Wright, Who Was Jesus?, page 73.

In any event, I was under the impression that the site veneration and pilgrimage arguments stood on their own merits. It appears they do not. They only make sense if we accept the Jesus Myth in the first place and reason backwards. I'm not willing to do this. As such, I see no value in this tangent.

Quote:

And what were those areas? Well, Rome for one. By this time, Palestine had gone through the upheaval of the Second Jewish Revolt, the razing of Jerusalem and construction of a Roman city on the site; Jews were barred from even going to Palestine. Palestine was no longer a center of gravity for Christianity. Under such conditions, it is very understandable that an interest in unearthing and making pilgrimages to holy sites would have little scope for developing.

Why is it understandable? The objection that Jews were barred from going to Palesteine is hardly relevant since by this time Christianity was transitioning to a mainly Gentile movement. Indeed, this would probably have given Christians greater freedoms to travel to Jerusalem and Galilee in search of holy places and relics as they would not fear Jewish opposition. Gentile Christians would have had more access, not less.

Quote:

This would be especially true if in fact those sites simply didn't exist, that there was no preceding tradition of knowing and visiting such sites. It would all have to start from scratch, based on a reading of the Gospels, or whatever Gospels were available and what state they were in a century before we have the earliest fragments of them (other than P52). Who was going to organize and conduct such an undertaking as literally unearthing Calvary and a tomb site from places far outside of Palestine?

This is unpersuasive. Relic hunters hardly organized their searches with careful examination of the Gospels and archeology. When I visited Genoa, Italy a few years back my Protestant background failed to prepare me for my visits to the Churches and Museums filled with "holy relics" seized during the Crusades. I saw all sorts of cups, jewels, crosses, beams, bones and stuff supposedly traced back to New Tesament times. None of them were based on any reality or careful consideration. A few gospels and apocrypha stories and the presence in Palestine were sufficient to produce thousands of baseless relics.

Quote:

On the other hand, there may actually have been some site veneration during that late 2nd/early 3rd century period. Origen testifies to this in regard to Bethlehem: "...in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel in regard to his birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave where he was born, and the manger in the cave where he was wrapped in swaddling clothes. And this sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is worswhipped and reverenced by the Christians." (Against Celsus, Book I, ch. 51, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4 p.418). This indicates site worship at least a century before Constantine and not too long after an HJ WAS established across the Christian world. Of course, it is based entirely upon Matthew and Luke, and no one would consider that the actual place of Jesus' reputed birth had genuinely been discovered. Since it related merely to the place of Bethlehem itself, and not to something as specific as a crucifixion site or a tomb, it was easier for this to evolve prior to Constantine.

This one example is hardly compelling. Nor does it provide any explanation as to why Ignatius or Polycarp or Papias or Marcion, for examples, could not have shown this same interest. Or why none of the other second century writers, such as Tertullian, Irenaeus, 2 Clement, Justin Martyr, or even third century writers? If more of them do, I'd honestly be interested in references.

Quote:

What happened in the time of Constantine? Well, by that time, the emperor was Christian and Christianity was becoming the state religion. Now is precisely the time and circumstances in which such an undertaking could be conducted. Considering that most of the 'uncovering' was done through little more than revelation, we can be sure it had no real archeological foundation. The holy sites were now CREATED, and citizens were free to travel to them from across the empire.

Exactly. This explains why relic hunting and pilgrimages exploded during this time. And it needs no reference to the Jesus Myth to do so. Prior to this time, Christians were an often oppressed minority with few resources. This is most true, of course, in the first century. And this makes it the least likely time to have relic hunting and pilgrimages occurring.

Quote:

As I say, those latter conditions have nothing to do with the question of sites in the first century. Paul went to Jerusalem 3 years after his conversion, which would have to have been less than a decade after Jesus' death. Should Justin, or Constantine, have anything to say about why there is no sign that Paul ever visited Calvary, that Peter and James took him to that dramatic, sacred site, or why no other Christian writer of the first century (outside whatever Gospel(s) may have been written during that time) has anything to say about *any* place on earth associated with a life of Jesus, or with any physical relics associated with him?

Even if I agreed that we should expect Paul to obsess about Holy Sites in his letters--which seems to be sheer speculation as well as a fourth century anachronism--the fact that he did not creates the same problem for the JM as it does the HJ. Even if all that happened on earth were Jesus' revelatory appearances to the disciples and to Paul, would not those sites have been just as subject to veneration? Of course. God announces his salvation work to a few select people yet no one in the first century seems to care where or how that happened? All Paul gives us is a list. Where did it happen? What were they doing at the time? The God of the universe gives you a revelation but you give us none of the details? Apparently so per the JM. Afterall, Paul does not even tell us much about his own momentous encounter with the revelation of God. All he tells us is that it was somewhere around Damascus. Nothing more.

So this "silence" is just as much a problem for the JM types as the HJ types--if it be any problem at all.

Toto · 12-17-2003, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
. . . That Christians suffered persecution from the Jews prior to the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE is well-attested by primary and secondary evidence. . .

What evidence?

I assume you are referring to Paul's statement that he persecuted Christians and the fictional work known as Acts. This hardly constitutes evidence of a "well-attested" fact.

GakuseiDon · 12-17-2003, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
4: Others
Maybe I will need to Check, but Irenaeus, Celsus and others, IIRC, including some others could add to this list.

Celsus also believed in a HJ, even though he was a pagan philosopher critical of Christianity. Writing around 170 CE, he believed that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier.

Ted Hoffman · 12-17-2003, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Sure they can. Early Christians were more focused on evangelism than relicism.

Prove it. You are simply restating Fredricksen's argument using different words: the idea that they were focused on Evangelism does not in itself preclude relicism. Unless you want to argue that the two are mutually exclusive.

Put another way, evangelism as an activity does not explain the absence of relicism.

Quote:

Many also thought that the return of Christ may come soon so they had little time or interest in relics.

Prove it. There is no connection between hope of imminent return and relicism. You are like someone explaining that people never built wooden houses in the past because they carried sticks.

Quote:

As the Church became more institutionalized, less evangelistic, and more influenced by the broader Greek culture, they became more interested in relicism.

Who became 'more interested'? Are you saying the church encouraged people to visit calvary, craft crosses with a semi-nude photo etc, but forgot where the tomb of Jesus' burial was?
Why did they find it necessary to leave the empty tomb out of this relicism?

Quote:

Since the JM cannot explain the absence of relicism in the second century and early third century,...

It can and it has.

Quote:

Peter, James, Jude, Paul, Luke, Stephen, Barnabas, Apollos, Josephus (oops, not a Christian), and Matthias. But Vinnie is right. The literature we have represents entire communities who accepted the HJ.

Make up your mind: is Vinnie right or you can list 10 Christians?

Quote:

This is just bizarre. By referring to internal clashes I was taking the idea of disjointed Christianity as assumed. It does not assume a monolithic united movement. Far from it.

If they were already disjointed, how does the word 'internal' come in?

Quote:

Of course not. As I have shown, the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews attests to pre-70 CE belief in the historical Jesus.

One author? is that it?

Quote:

Marcion is no evidence for a JM,

Strawman.

Quote:

...because he accepted that there was someone named Jesus who lived on earth, taught, did miracles, and fit into the general narrative of Luke's gospels, minus the more Jewish elements.

That was a proto-Luke - evidently this early form of Luke was consistent with Docetism. It was reworked to the Luke as we know it today.
Luke as it is today, has its roots in Judaism - something Marcion rejected.
Do you understand what Docetism means?
Why was Docetism labelled as heresy by the Ecumenical councils if it was consistent with the idea that Jesus lived and walked on Earth as a flesh and blood man?

Quote:

Marcion was kicked out of his church by HJ types, not by JM types.

And who was arguing otherwise? Dont lose track of the argument.

Quote:

What Marcion shows is that by 130 CE the HJ was the predominant viewpoint.

Right - thats why Docetism was condemned as heresy.

Quote:

Please explain how they can be anchored in the Gospel tradition but not believe in a historical Jesus?

Done.

Quote:

How is this consistent with your statement that Tertullian does not mention a historical Jesus?

He doesn't mention places, Calvary, Pilate, Jerusalem, empty tomb. He doesn't even use the name Jesus.
Historical people have names, mothers and come from somewhere.

The following are two online Translations of Apology. The word Jesus and Mary don't appear in them. This is not consistent with your quotes above.

Maybe you can tell us which translation you are using?

Tertulian The Apology (TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL, LATE SCHOLAR OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, CANTAB) Tertulian The Apology

More later.

mike_decock · 12-17-2003, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jacob Aliet
If you want to offer another explanation, offer it, if you cant refute this explanation, shut the hell up.

[Mod Mode]
Please refrain from this kind of rhetoric.

Thanks,

-Mike...

rlogan · 12-17-2003, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Sure they can. Early Christians were more focused on evangelism than relicism.

This is known as "proof by rhyme". See how both end in "ism"? Such technique is stock in trade of the televangelist.

And what is the "evangelist" message? Calvary and the tomb! So yes, the disciples focus all attention on Calvary and the tomb. That's why there would be no emphasis on where Calvary and the tomb would be. Because they were too busy talking about calvary and the tomb.

Of course, after the sermon about calvary and the tomb, the congregation would leave for a pilgrimage to one of the fifty-plus sites for veneration of deceased "righteous ones".

While at those sites one would say to the other - "Geez, think we should do this for the Son of God instead of just for these other fifty?" "Naw, let's fake 'em out and not do it for at least a hundred years. That will prove he was real."

Quote:

Many also thought that the return of Christ may come soon so they had little time or interest in relics.
As the Church became more institutionalized, less evangelistic, and more influenced by the broader Greek culture, they became more interested in relicism.

Exactly the kind of behavior we see worldwide through history. When someone is about to die, why they distance themselves as far from any religious site or or object as they can get. It's all those anti-religious backsliders doing pennance, paying homage, and praying to the mother mary.

Quote:

Since the JM cannot explain the absnce of relicism in the second century and early third century, it fails as an explanation for its absence in the first century.

I suppose this is the proof I have been asking for? That's all you got?

Mythicist: There is no veneration and such in the first centry because it didn't happen. Who knows how long a fabrication will take to develop such things.

Apologist: "I see, so you can't explain why no such tradition?

Mythicist: "I just told you. It didn't happen"

Apologist: "I see, so you can't explain why no such tradition..."

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

12-16-2003, 11:20 PM	#42
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Jacob, thank you. You did a fine job, especially stressing the diversity of the "Christ" movements. They've tried to commandeer the very argument of the mythicists. "No veneration means it was myth? OK then - prove there will be veneration if it was myth!!" There's no-one who can argue Doherty - like Doherty!!! :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

12-17-2003, 12:30 AM	#44
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	[mod on] Please avoid personal insults Thank you Toto mod BCH

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.