Steven Carr

http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth21.html

France has been praised on this forum for 'thoroughly trashing' Wells.

France writes :-
The brief notice in Tacitus Annals xv.44 mentions only his title, Christus, and his execution in Judea by order of Pontius Pilatus. Nor is there any reason to believe that Tacitus bases this on independent information-it is what Christians would be saying in Rome in the early second century. Suetonius and Pliny, together with Tacitus, testify to the significant presence of Christians in Rome and other parts of the empire from the mid-sixties onwards, but add nothing to our knowledge of their founder. No other clear pagan references to Jesus can be dated before AD 150/1/, by which time the source of any information is more likely to be Christian propaganda than an independent record.

France writes that all reconstructions of Josephus are speculative.

He writes about rabbinical sources 'Their polemical nature and their lack of interest in factual data does not create confidence in their potential as historical evidence for Jesus.'

This is hardly a trashing.

France is forced to resort to speculation that the Gospels were written in the 60s. He gives no arguments at all for this, perhaps fearing that any arguments he gives would be 'thoroughly trashed' by Wells.

He gives no good reasons why a difference of 20 years between his datings and Wells datings makes such a huge difference.

He writes about Luke's mention of the census 'The historical problems are well known, and the case against Luke's accuracy here is a strong one.'


Yet, Christians are prepared to go on record on this forum saying that France has 'thoroughly trashed' Wells!

Bede

Steven,

France wrote a book called the Historical Evidence for Jesus which does directly take on Wells. In it, France rejects the so called secular references as historically useful (and I largely agree) but correctly points out that the Gospels alone are historical proof enough for the points I suggested were known about HJ.

The Jesus myth case rests on a number of fallacies:

a) Non theists have got it into there heads that elite Roman historians and/or Josephus are somehow reliable and disinterested sources whereas anything Christian is not. Simply comparing when Josephus mentions an event in both JA and JW shows he even contradicts himself from time to time!

b) We should expect more on Jesus from these non Christian sources. Iasion goes on about this and in my Alex guise I dealt with it a while back. The lower grade headbanger will without fail bring in the miracles of Jesus here but that, of course, is a straw man.

c) Pauls letters are silent about HJ. Actually, they need serious reinterpretation to support the mythic case. They tell us little about Jesus but make no sense without him. This is Dohertys speciality.

d) Some sort of organised literalist orthodoxy was in a position to alter the record and silence dissent long before the fourth century. The absense of evidence is taken as evidence - ie its a conspiracy.

e) That extant manuscripts are the only acceptable way to date a text. Yuri likes this and CX seems to be catching the bug too. I would like to see concrete evidence for changes and interpolations of the kind given by Bart Ehrman. He does show some corruptions though nothing that effects the standard HJ model.

f) Vorks theorum: if Vork can make up a story to explain a text, that story is just as likely as the plain reading of the text. He applies this to disbelieve everything he does not like.

g) Crossans conundrum: just because we cannot figure out HJs philosophy or motivations does not mean we cannot work out the basic story of his life or claim he did not have one.

If you suffer from these fallacies (and around here they are catching) then France does not beat Wells. If you accept good quality historical methodology as used in academic departments around the world then France obliterates Wells although he does not manage to prove as much as he thinks he can.

Yours

Bede

Steven Carr

Which is virtually nothing, if I remember rightly, even if we take your word for it that France 'trashes' Wells. As far as I can see, France does a lot of agreeing with Wells, and then goes in for special pleading on the Gospels.

Are you saying that Josephus is not as reliable an historian as Mark?

At least Josephus names sources. Gospel writers never do.

As an historian, don't you know that evidence of critically examining sources is one of the marks of a good historian?

We can work out what they did with sources. Matthew and Luke change Mark to suit their agenda.



So a Jesus described as doing miracles is a straw man when it comes to asking ourselves what Jesus did. I fail to see why Gospel accounts of Jesus's activities are 'strawmen', if attacked by sceptics.



Paul's letters make much sense with Doherty's interpretation. At least as much as orthodox Christian views which radically disagree about what Paul meant.

And, of course, both Wells and Doherty hardly refer only to Paul's letters, although few people who 'obliterate' their work bother to inform their readers of this fact.

[quote[d) Some sort of organised literalist orthodoxy was in a position to alter the record and silence dissent long before the fourth century. The absense of evidence is taken as evidence - ie its a conspiracy.[/quote]

What abscence of evidence? We can see that manuscripts vary.



There is plenty of concrete evidence for changes. See D.C.Parker's 'The Living Text of the Gospels'. Certainly dating a book by the remaining manuscripts is wrong.



And France covers Vork where exactly?



And this is covered by France on Wells, where exactly?



So France obliterates Wells, because Vork, Yuri and Crossman commit fallacies. Should I point out to you the straw man nature of your post, or can you see it for yourself?

CX

Nothing could be further from the truth. In point of fact I don't think extant MSS are terribly useful for dazting the autographs owing to both their paucity and lateness. Rather I think we need to look at the issues and attitudes presented as well as things like christological development in order to reasonably date NT texts.

Vorkosigan

f) Vorks theorum: if Vork can make up a story to explain a text, that story is just as likely as the plain reading of the text. He applies this to disbelieve everything he does not like.

Specific examples please. Or quit this lying and misrepresenting.

Oh forget it. May as well ask you to stop breathing.

Bede

Your take on the baptism is the best example that comes to mind.

Bede

CX, I am sorry I misunderstood you. I did say "seems" rather than "is" as I was not entirely clear where you stood. I am pleased that what I thought was a sneeze was just you clearing your throat.

B

Bede

Steven,

The Wells that France is addressing claims Jesus did not exist and all my remarks must be read as challenging that viewpoint.

I am not claiming the evangelists were good historians, merely that there work has much historical value. Josephus is not an awful historian but badly biased and happy to twist facts and sources.

To claim that particular miraculous spectaculars are not picked up by other historians and so nothing in the Gospels can be trusted is fallacious and the use of said miracles in arguments about HJ is a strawman.

We must disagree on Doherty on Pauls letters.

There is no evidence I know of that manuscripts have been amended or suppressed to fit a literalist agenda.

All the fallacies I mention are espoused by some mythicists although not necessarily Wells. However, they seemed relevant in a discussion about the Jesus Myth. Sorry if you do not think so.

Also, note I have read Frances book which refers to Wells and base my views on that. It was to this that other Christians have been refering (perhaps rather hyperbolically) when claiming Wells has been answered, not the Leader U article.

Yours

Bede

Layman

Don't you think its -- at best -- disenguous to claim that France fails in his task when you did not even read the source I offered? I never refered to a small article at leadersu. I specifically mentioned his book, The Evidence for Jesus. Therein, he specifically takes on Wells' Jesus-did-not-exist theory point by point. And yes, I think he trashes him.

lpetrich

Bede, be reasonable. Mythmaking about revered heroes and founder figures is so common that it requires special pleading to conclude that that had never happened to Jesus Christ.

Which is essentially claiming that Jesus Christ had been a nobody -- which is contrary to what the Gospels say about him having become a big celebrity.

And where does Earl Doherty go wrong here?

There does not need to be a conspiracy. Existing documents like Paul's epistles were simply reinterpreted, and literalism developed some decades after JC had allegedly lived and died, meaning that there was nobody to contradict literalism from first-hand knowledge ("I never heard of any religious prophet named Joshua from Nazareth").

Any alternative methods?