Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gnosis92 · 10-24-2006, 04:43 PM

Dear Jiri,

I've given up on debating the historicty of Jesus, primarily b/c it is way too time consuming and no one seems to agree on what constitutes evidence, (do they doubt the historicity of Philo or Josepheus, or John the Baptist, or Cephas, or James the Just or Pontius Pilate or Salome are they also all myths?) but I do have this question for you: even if Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y received their sources from an early first century Christian community, one that produced the New Testament documents and told Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y that there was a historical Jesus, I see no reason to think Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y got their information from the same group of Christians who wrote the New Testament, or that they got it from reading the New Testament (as production copies had to be done by hand) they may very well have gotten their information indepedent of the NT (i.e eyewitness or people who knew the eyewitnesses), and the mere fact that there were early Christians from whom Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y could get their information would be best explained by positing a historical Jesus.

I agree with your arguments on the "internal" evidence btw.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

So, if I understand you correctly, since you have shown several instances where a historical event (Judah's exile, the fall of the temple) was not chronicled until centuries later, I should take the reporting of the temple incident with Jesus, also reported late, as unhistorical. Right ? Or are you saying that the fall of First Temple is a fiction tradition comparable to that of the Infancy Gospels ?

I simply asked you to show me why this event should not be considered historical. (Sample answer: the synoptics show it happening just before Jesus' arrest while John places it at the start of the ministry.) Why should I throw it out the assault on the temple as originating in someone's imagination ? Because John has Jesus crack a whip ?

The "historical fabric" is there for all to see. The temple incident evidently brought about, or heavily contributed, to Jesus' condemnation within the narrative fabric of the synoptics. John evidently had some sources which also told him of the second charge, sorcery or desecration of graves (which the synoptic tradition had a vested interest in concealing), which he thought theologically more important. Why would this not be history ? Is it because the narrators for all their cunning and craftiness are not that sophisticated bunch compared to us ? Or because you are unable to make any historical sense of it ?

But I showed you - the New Testament; it's just that you don't want to believe that the outline, i.e. the story of a failed small-time social reformer, who was executed, and who posthumously rose to Godhead after serving as a martyred apostolic idol in a reformist church of James, is historical material.

Could you translate that into a more conventional English for me ?

1) The word is spelled germane.

2) I don't care whether you get really sick but I note that saying something like fits well with the obsessional tone that you have taken here and relates to evidence contrary to your favourite pet theory.
Naturally, I can't produce historical evidence that is not there. But I can probe the texts for consistency of the idea the author of the text wishes to convey and then gauge whether he is pulling stuff from thin air and creating a fictional story, or whether he is overwriting some other narration with his own theology. Now if I find a variant cognitive content within the writing, such that the pericope yields a different, internally consistent narration, I am entitled to reject the latter material as derived. Right ? And then, logically, you would have to explain the mythical import of the earlier story ?

So why don't you ? Instead of doing a snake dance...:huh:

Interesting. Can I quote you on that ?

In other words, you do not know where to begin. But it was I believe around this issue that the most erudite, and accomplished mythicist of our time, G.A.Wells, has waved the white flag. Beside the issue of embarrassment (in parading the view of J. by his own family as insane, his losing unloading on well-meaning, protective Peter at C-P, going for figs out of season), the psychological marker of high dominance and originality (in calling the forbidding YHWH "Father") which points to a founding figure of the movement, the re-Judaization problem is perhaps the most daunting and intractable, in postulating mythical origin. Wells' old buddy Schmithals finally prevailed on the old fox.

Oh, no my friend...FAIR PLAY is gospel to me !

Have I not repeated that several times ?

Let me summarize my position on historicity: I do not trust any of the external sources that testify for Jesus existence. The documents are either tampered with (as in Josephus), or reflect the view of contemporary Christian community (Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y.). Judging on internal evidence, I believe historicity better explains a number of things in the New Testament. I believe even Paul's silence on HJ is better explained by historical Jesus. He was embarrassing: outrage to the Jews - folly to the Greeks. Paul was much more comfortable with him in necro.

Please, read what I wrote, make sure you understand what I am saying and then argue. Any other order in your exertions will not be very effective.

Jiri

Malachi151 · 10-24-2006, 06:40 PM

Well, seeing as how they all wrote between 109-120, in places far from Judea, this alone would make the claim that they got their info from first hand witnesses to a real live Jesus.

Add in the fact that Pliny is writing a letter ABOUT THE INTERROGATIONS OF CHRISTIANS, and he of course doesn't say said that they had personally seen Jesus, so its more than obvious that Pliny's letter is only discussing what Christian faithful had told the interrogators.

In fact the letter doesn't even mention Jesus, it only says that they cursed the name of Christ. Its no evidence at all.

aa5874 · 10-24-2006, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Dear Jiri,

I've given up on debating the historicty of Jesus, primarily b/c it is way too time consuming and no one seems to agree on what constitutes evidence, .......

'Evidence' means anything that provides material or information on which a conclusion or proof can be based. (See webster)

Trying to show the historicity of Jesus will always be time consuming if you have no evidence to support your view. HJers spend far too much time refuting the mythical position when all they have to do, simply, is to produce evidence. It is extremely easy, no headache whatsoever, just produce the evidence to support your view.

It amazes me that persons ,so late in the debate, are now claiming that they have no idea what the word 'evidence' means. This, in effect, wastes even more time, and, I wouldn't be surprised if they ask what the meaning of 'is' is.

Solo · 10-24-2006, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Dear Jiri,

I've given up on debating the historicty of Jesus, primarily b/c it is way too time consuming and no one seems to agree on what constitutes evidence, (do they doubt the historicity of Philo or Josepheus, or John the Baptist, or Cephas, or James the Just or Pontius Pilate or Salome are they also all myths?) but I do have this question for you: even if Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y received their sources from an early first century Christian community, one that produced the New Testament documents and told Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y that there was a historical Jesus, I see no reason to think Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y got their information from the same group of Christians who wrote the New Testament, or that they got it from reading the New Testament (as production copies had to be done by hand) they may very well have gotten their information indepedent of the NT (i.e eyewitness or people who knew the eyewitnesses), and the mere fact that there were early Christians from whom Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Y could get their information would be best explained by positing a historical Jesus.

I agree with your arguments on the "internal" evidence btw.

Hello there, gnosis, I kind of wondered where you disappeared, I enjoyed the exchanges on Thomas with you.

My view of the three mentions of HJ would have been different if any of them had cited some original source. They did not and what they say does not expand factually what is presumed to have been common knowledge of Christians history and beliefs among the Roman elite of their time. There were Christians, followers of Christ, (Chrestos, whatever his name) who (someone says - who knows) was executed in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate.

The situation appears analogous to that of the two later synoptic gospels. Are Matthew and Luke independent, direct witnesses ? No, they are derived from Mark and some additional source material now lost. Similarly, the most probable origin of the information for HJ for the two Roman chroniclers and a governor would be the Christian community itself, presumably via official reports (of which Pliny's is one) and other interpretive agents. We have no evidence to counter that view.

cheers,
Jiri

gnosis92 · 10-24-2006, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

'Evidence' means anything that provides material or information on which a conclusion or proof can be based. (See webster)

Trying to show the historicity of Jesus will always be time consuming if you have no evidence to support your view. HJers spend far too much time refuting the mythical position when all they have to do, simply, is to produce evidence. It is extremely easy, no headache whatsoever, just produce the evidence to support your view.

It amazes me that persons ,so late in the debate, are now claiming that they have no idea what the word 'evidence' means. This, in effect, wastes even more time, and, I wouldn't be surprised if they ask what the meaning of 'is' is.

The evidence for a historical Jesus is comparable to evidence for Philo, Josepheus, Paul, Pliny the Y, Salome, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, the Essenes, namely writings from antiquity. The New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels and Roman witness are ample evidence.

gnosis92 · 10-24-2006, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hello there, gnosis, I kind of wondered where you disappeared, I enjoyed the exchanges on Thomas with you.

My view of the three mentions of HJ would have been different if any of them had cited some original source. They did not and what they say does not expand factually what is presumed to have been common knowledge of Christians history and beliefs among the Roman elite of their time. There were Christians, followers of Christ, (Chrestos, whatever his name) who (someone says - who knows) was executed in the reign of Tiberius by Pontius Pilate.

The situation appears analogous to that of the two later synoptic gospels. Are Matthew and Luke independent, direct witnesses ? No, they are derived from Mark and some additional source material now lost. Similarly, the most probable origin of the information for HJ for the two Roman chroniclers and a governor would be the Christian community itself, presumably via official reports (of which Pliny's is one) and other interpretive agents. We have no evidence to counter that view.

cheers,
Jiri

Planet of the Apes LOL. Is there any evidence any of the Roman Elites of the time were skeptical of what the Christians believed? In fact, Celsus accepted the historicity of Jesus.

gnosis92 · 10-24-2006, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Well, seeing as how they all wrote between 109-120, in places far from Judea, this alone would make the claim that they got their info from first hand witnesses to a real live Jesus.

Add in the fact that Pliny is writing a letter ABOUT THE INTERROGATIONS OF CHRISTIANS, and he of course doesn't say said that they had personally seen Jesus, so its more than obvious that Pliny's letter is only discussing what Christian faithful had told the interrogators.

In fact the letter doesn't even mention Jesus, it only says that they cursed the name of Christ. Its no evidence at all.

Do you have any evidence that anyone was skeptical of the claims of a HJ some 70 years prior? IN fact Celsus accepted a HJ, and he was extremely hostile to Christianity. IS there any evidence that the three suggested Jesus did not exist as a way to deconvert the early Christians? No. Would they have reason to do so? Absolutely. They wanted them to recant and swear by the genius of the Emperor. If Jesus did not exist, woudl that be a reason for some Christians to recant and avoid torture? Absolutely. Did they? No.

I am well aware this won't persuade anyone here. But I think that responsible academic historians like Ehrman, Crossan, Mack, Pagels accept the historicity of Jesus fulfilling accepted canons of histority, and that claims to the contrary do not belong in any serious course on early Christian history taught at respected academic Universities. Shakespeare departments do not teach anti-Stratfordian conspiracy theories, and I think that Christ-mythicism is much the same as 9-11 conspiracy theories.

Malachi151 · 10-24-2006, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Do you have any evidence that anyone was skeptical of the claims of a HJ some 70 years prior? IN fact Celsus accepted a HJ, and he was extremely hostile to Christianity. IS there any evidence that the three suggested Jesus did not exist as a way to deconvert the early Christians? No. Would they have reason to do so? Absolutely. They wanted them to recant and swear by the genius of the Emperor. If Jesus did not exist, woudl that be a reason for some Christians to recant and avoid torture? Absolutely. Did they? No.

I am well aware this won't persuade anyone here. But I think that responsible academic historians like Ehrman, Crossan, Mack, Pagels accept the historicity of Jesus fulfilling accepted canons of histority, and that claims to the contrary do not belong in any serious course on early Christian history taught at respected academic Universities. Shakespeare departments do not teach anti-Stratfordian conspiracy theories, and I think that Christ-mythicism is much the same as 9-11 conspiracy theories.

There isn't any evidence of anyone saying anything about Jesus 70 years prior.

Really, the first reliable comment on Jesus from non-Christians is Tacitus, which occurs some 70 years after his supposed life, after Judea had been destroyed, and many many miles away from the origional location.

I see no reason why Tacitus wouldn't simply take the story at face value, as they tended to do with many people, even for example Romulus, Adonis, etc.

Actually, the main arguments against Jesus come from the Christians themselves, many of whom claimed that there was no Jesus, or that Jesus was just some guy who was walking along and then Christ descended on him, etc.

This makes sense really.

The outsides had no information to go on. Someone 70-100+ years later, who wasn't there and has no knowledge of the detials of the theology isn't going to have any reason to refute such claims.

However, the lines of Christians who had a tradition that was different would be the only ones who would have something to say about it.

If you tell me that your grandpa was in WWII and got shot in the leg, I'm just gonig to say "ok". I have no idea.

The only people who would really have a reason to doubt this would be the people who knew your grandpa.

Now, if Jesus never existed, who would know?

Only the people who actually lived in Judea during the reign of Pilate.

The story of Jesus, however, the gospels that is, only really made claims after all those people were dead and gone.

spin · 10-24-2006, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

The evidence for a historical Jesus is comparable to evidence for Philo,

Someone wrote the Philo texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Josepheus,

Someone wrote Josephus's texts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Paul,

Someone wrote Paul's letters.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Pliny the Y,

Someone wrote Pliny the Younger's letters.

Someone wrote the gospels. Get the distinction?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Salome,

Josephus mentions her several times and she is supported by gospel reference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

John the Baptist,

Josephus mentions him in a fashion which does not concord with the gospels, so the reference is hardly an insertion. So, both Josephus and gospel reference...

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

Pontius Pilate,

Josephus mentions him several times. He is also mentioned on an inscription from the era. This one is hard to dispute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

the Essenes,

The group is mentioned by both Philo and Josephus in mannerthat shows no reliance one on the other so there are two attestations...

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

namely writings from antiquity.

This is not sufficient that writings from antiquity mention someone. Did Trimalchio exist because he was mentioned in the Satyricon? You need to interact with texts to show that they are witnesses to history in some way. Josephus's narrative, at least for his own time, intersects with innumerable primary sources regarding personages and events. The Satyricon for example doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gnosis92

The New Testament and the Gnostic Gospels and Roman witness are ample evidence.

It is no wonder that the christian literature mentions Jesus, but no-one has done the work to show that these works relate to history any more than the book of Judith does.

To use texts, you must be able to make solid proposals for when texts were written, for if a text was not written during the period how can the writer know what he claims to know? Where was the text written? Again, if the writer cannot be placed at the scene how can he know? What was the literary context, for that context may help understand the text better than without it. Understanding the context may give what the writer is doing with the narrative, say what tradition it belongs to, what genre.

As to the "Roman witness", classical literature was maintained for centuries by christian scribes. Texts were commented on. It's not strange that some of them have marginal comments being incorporated into the main text. When orthodox corruption of scripture took place, why do we doubt that such corruption of classical sources also happened? What reason would such corruption have and how would it manifest itself? Obviously, there is little reason for classical texts to be corrupted for they don't deal with christian related issues, or only minimally, when they touch on issues which might be understood as related to christian topics, such as when the text of Josephus turns a reference regarding a James into an opportunity to touch on Jesus, who a scribe took to be the brother of this James. With the tradition that Nero, who gave the Jews a hard time, would have given the christians a hard time as well, being god's replacements for the Jews who had killed god's messenger, there is obvious reason for marginal comment about Nero's treatment of christians (whether he actually treated them some way or not) creeping into the text of classical authors.

(And before some silly person starts talking about mythicists to me, realise that I am not a mythicist, nor do I support a HJ. I am agnostic in these matters. That's in bold text so as to stress the notion, "agnostic", because there are those who cannot but see only two approaches to the issue.)

spin

gnosis92 · 10-24-2006, 09:54 PM

Paul and possibly Q and Thomas and the signs Gospel spoke of Jesus within 20-50 years. That's evidence.

The earliest relevant documents clearly depicts Jesus as having recently lived and crucified. That's evidence.

The earliest relevant documents records the putative sayins of Jesus. That's evidence.

The fact that there existed a religious movement of Jews who claimed Jesus was their messiah, and attested by secular pagan literature, that's evidence.

IS there any evidence that the secular evidence suggested Jesus did not exist as a way to deconvert the early Christians? No. That's evidence.

Would they have reason to do so? Absolutely. They wanted them to recant and swear by the genius of the Emperor. If Jesus did not exist, woudl that be a reason for some Christians to recant and avoid torture? Absolutely. Did they? No. That's evidence.

The claim Jesus existed is not extraordinary, and it was made by early Christians reflected in their own literature and in the writings of hostile pagans. That's evidence.

The fact that no Jewish group thought of a messiah who would be crucified and humilated prior to Christianity, but thought of a messiah as a kingly hero like David, and here we have such a group of Jews, that's evidence.

The fact that there are many similarities between the Essenes and early Christians speak of shared Jewish cultural mileu. That's evidence.

Is there any evidence John the Baptist existed? We know that an entire community of Essenes lived in Qumran, and read and wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. Can you name a single one? Do you have any writings of any Pharisee in Second Temple Era, besides Paul?

What would persuade Romans and Jews to worship a man they believed to be crucified under Pilate, over the Emperor of Rome under pain of death? That's evidence.

You are correct that if Jesus had never existed, who would know. But it is also correct that much positive evidence was lost when the Romans-Jewish war of 67-70, and the Jersuleum community headed by James and Cephas was destroyed. The evidence we have that does survive this catastrophe makes Jesus existence most probable.

Celsus was a second century debunker of Christianity, and had access to sources now lost to us. Did he find a non-existent Jesus? No. In fact, his sources identify Jesus mother as a Roman Soldier named Panthera. His sources failed to find a non-existent Jesus. He had every reason to try to debunk Christianity, so if he had any doubts, any sources, which woudl suggest Jesus did not exist, he would have used it. He did not. He instead found evidence, not contained in the New Testament, that Jesus learned witchcraft from the Egyptians.

That's evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

There isn't any evidence of anyone saying anything about Jesus 70 years prior.

Really, the first reliable comment on Jesus from non-Christians is Tacitus, which occurs some 70 years after his supposed life, after Judea had been destroyed, and many many miles away from the origional location.

I see no reason why Tacitus wouldn't simply take the story at face value, as they tended to do with many people, even for example Romulus, Adonis, etc.

Actually, the main arguments against Jesus come from the Christians themselves, many of whom claimed that there was no Jesus, or that Jesus was just some guy who was walking along and then Christ descended on him, etc.

This makes sense really.

The outsides had no information to go on. Someone 70-100+ years later, who wasn't there and has no knowledge of the detials of the theology isn't going to have any reason to refute such claims.

However, the lines of Christians who had a tradition that was different would be the only ones who would have something to say about it.

If you tell me that your grandpa was in WWII and got shot in the leg, I'm just gonig to say "ok". I have no idea.

The only people who would really have a reason to doubt this would be the people who knew your grandpa.

Now, if Jesus never existed, who would know?

Only the people who actually lived in Judea during the reign of Pilate.

The story of Jesus, however, the gospels that is, only really made claims after all those people were dead and gone.

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

10-24-2006, 06:40 PM	#2
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Well, seeing as how they all wrote between 109-120, in places far from Judea, this alone would make the claim that they got their info from first hand witnesses to a real live Jesus. Add in the fact that Pliny is writing a letter ABOUT THE INTERROGATIONS OF CHRISTIANS, and he of course doesn't say said that they had personally seen Jesus, so its more than obvious that Pliny's letter is only discussing what Christian faithful had told the interrogators. In fact the letter doesn't even mention Jesus, it only says that they cursed the name of Christ. Its no evidence at all.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.