Vorkosigan

Even into the latter half of the second century, and the third, there was no tradition of this. So why would we expect it in the first?

Vinnie

No. I am an HJ proponent and I do not do that on the "tomb of Jesus".

1) There was in this time an increase in the Jewish veneration of the tombs of martyrs and prophets (a la Brown).

I state the opposite of what you do. But I also state the following:

2) A parallel to a similar figure to Jesus who was not venerated in ways mythicists would expect was pointed out by Rick.

3) Jesus death was embarrassing and shocking early on.

4) There may be a but if anachronism here though we note the general tendency.

5) This is an argument from silence. Possible a decent one if we accept the whole Christian record.

6) Christians tomb worshipping (or whatever we want to call it) did not begin until the forth century. This is embarrassing for the mythicist who claims Jesus' tomb would have been worshipped early. Long after the putative HJ was long dug into the bedrock of history, no one invented a tomb, or worshipped one. Obviously it wasn't on a high priority list for anyone. The Gospels even supply vague directions to one.

7) Furthermore, some of us believe Christians simply did not know what happened to the body. No tomb to venerate.

8) Secondly, given the urgent eschatology early on, sight seeing for many Christians may or may not have been on the agenda.

There are lots of factors to consider. Its no so simple as Doherty attempts to make it in his book.

Vinnie

spin

They haven't done their first job, which is to provide substantive evidence for a HJ. One doesn't put a substantive position, eg that there was a person called Jesus, without ever providing the evidence. No-one can show me that unicorns don't exist, just that no-one has ever found one. Substantive evidence is necessary.

You'll note that none of them here, including Vinnie, has ever done that first job.


spin

Vinnie

Did we just agree on something pertinent to BC&H?

Merry Christmas, my man!!!!

Vinnie

Vinnie

Wait till Sunday night. I'm dropping a howitzer on yall! Its part of my new HJ project.

Vinnie

spin

First principles are a necessity, Vinnie.


spin

rlogan

Vork - you feeling OK? Or is it that you want to score some points with Vinnie so he'll introduce you to his sister?

I want to go back to the big picture again. You can't take any single element out of the whole and argue it to death while ignoring the herd of elephants milling around at the same time.

Man-God is a Jewish blasphemy of obscene proportions. That has to be taken alongside of any discussion of veneration. So please address the two simultaneously and reconcile them. Jewish people accepting man-God and yet no tradition of visitation to Jesus sites. Vinnie, I have seen material on other venerations in past Jewish history, yes. It weakens the "no veneration" theory considerably.

I've seen HJ proponents argue both sides of this fence: Jesus was a nobody from a backwater that drew no significant following and for that reason there is no expectation of finding any primary evidence of his existence, no contemporaneous non-christian historical references etc. Oh, but on the other hand he was speaking to the multitudes, threatened Jewish or Roman authority, motivated a slaughter of the innocents, attended to by plenipotentiaries at birth, performing miracles of renown - on and on.

The HJ position has to be established not via the creationist tactic of parsing every argument into an infinitesimal debate with blinders on - but a comprehensive explanation of the whole. There is absolutely no primary evidence.

Vinnie, I don't want to misrepresent any of your positions and gladly modify or retract anything I say that gives that impression. You seem to be saying there was veneration in other cases, but good reasons why we would not expect it here. I don't know Rick's point.

But you guys like to shift the burden of proof. I have to prove why we should see veneration 1st century. No, we are observing there was none. That there was nothing to venerate is a satisfactory answer. If the mythicist answer continues to explain satisfactorily in every situation whereas the HJ position falters - then the HJ position is not satisfactory as a whole.

I can argue the urgent eschatology business exactly the opposite way. I'd want to go to calvary and lay prostrate before it if I expected the third coming. (Why do people keep saying second?) Neither one of us can come up with a scriptural reference directly addressing this so it is sheer speculation Vinnie and should be dropped as an argument.

The problem is there is not one definitive strand of explanation that is consistent front-to-back, and that fits within the context of everything else. Don't be throwing in there "they didn't know where it was" with "it didn't matter" and "it was too shocking".

That's the creationist tactic of shotgunning while simultaneously compartmentalizing critically important related issues. He's either God on earth to them or he isn't. You can't argue that on one place and slip it under the rug in another.

GakuseiDon

Does Doherty address why there was no veneration under a MJ scenario? We have examples of Lourdes, where visions are commemmorated - is there any evidence that Paul revisited the spot where his conversion took place? Did he visit any places where Jesus was said to visit others? If not, is this a problem for a MJ? AFAIK, Doherty never addresses these problems.

So many points that Doherty raises as a problem for a HJ seem to appear equally as problems for a MJ. Any solutions for these MJ problems can equally apply to a HJ as well. For example, doherty states that Paul doesn't seem aware of any of Jesus's miracles. But cannot a mythical figure perform miracles? So why doesn't Paul mention any, even if he believed in a MJ?

Vinnie

RLogan, from my Historical Jesus Skepticism FAQ:

14] Argument: Tomb Veneration: Why Didn't Paul or Others Mention it.

Rebuttal: We may note several general arguments. Artifacts of Jesus come much later and there is no early tomb-veneration and so on. As Doherty writes, "Why is it only in the fourth century that pieces of the "true cross" begin to surface? Why is it left to Constantine to set up the first shrine on the supposed mount of Jesus' death, and to begin the mania for pilgrimage to the holy sites that has persisted to this day?. . .The total absence of such things is perhaps the single strongest argument for regarding the entire Gospel account of Jesus' life and death as nothing but literary fabrication." (Jesus Puzzle, p. 75)

This is highly problematic because if true tomb veneration and so on did not occur until later on. How embarrassing is it for the mythicist who use these arguments if tomb veneration and Jesus relics didn't start popping up until the third or fourth century? This is well after an historical Jesus was firmly established. That occurred at the latest, by the end of the first century. As Rick Summer wrote in response to this, "The . . . point Doherty neglects to mention is that, even if we allow Doherty's conclusion--that there was no Jesus--using the same logic we should still expect to see fake venerated objects appearing well before the fourth century. But we don't. It doesn't do anything to help his case."

Rick also pointed out a parallel to Jesus: the Teacher of Righteousness. "The closest parallel to Jesus in this regard that I can think of is the Teacher of Righteousness. Nobody saw artifacts linked to him as worthy of veneration either. But, if Doherty is correct, they certainly should have . . . the complete absence of veneration for artifacts linked to the Teacher of Righteousness among his followers renders the argument moot--utilizing it leads to false conclusions. People could and did neglect to venerate historical figures."

Now it may be argued that we don't know if the ToR had artifacts venerated but the same can be said about Jesus. Either way we are arguing from silence. Further, it is my contention that the "curcifixion" must have been an embarrassment in the earliest stages of Christian thought. I honestly think an expectation of veneration here might neglect the brutal nature of crucifixion of the first century and the surprise of Jesus followers that he was crucified! To use the silence in the Pauline corpus would be anachronistic.

Finally we may note that I am uncertain as to whether or not Christians actually knew what happened to Jesus' body. Right now I lean towards the notion that they did not. This means there probably never was such a tomb to venerate. We must note Raymond Brown's comment that "There was in this period an increasing Jewish veneration of the tombs of the martyrs and prophets." (Death Messiah, p. 1280).

If we accept the larger argument from silence this would lead us to the conclusion that a) many early Christians didn't know where the tomb was, or b) there wasn't such a tomb. It would not lead to conclusion c) there was no historical Jesus. I opt for b right now but save that for another time. If this is "the single strongest argument" against the historicity of Jesus then our work here is done. This is simply another bad argument from silence on the part of Jesus skeptics.

/end of exceprt.


This is the most important point. Doherty's best argument (in his mind) is demonstrated to be completely worthless.

Vinnie

spin

The righteous teacher was a priest. The leaders of the community of the scrolls were from the sons of Zadok, ie the hereditary high priestly family.

Priests don't have artifacts of their own. They merely use temple artifacts.


spin