Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Rick Sumner · 03-21-2006, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

I use the word "archaeological evidence" in a broad sense. Again, no mention on the part of the secular historians of the day, and again, no writings even from Jesus himself (unlike, Paul.)

I didn't say a word about "archaeological evidence." I addressed your statements regarding why Christians didn't save artifacts. There's no reason to expect them to.

Quote:

Okay, fine, if Jesus was a real historical person, I am "okay" with that. As far as I am concerned, he was a religious loon, if he existed, but if he had been a "teacher of righteousness" or some other religious leader of his day, so what?

One needs to apologize for studying Christian origins? History is studied simply for the sake of studying history. There is no "so what" beyond that.

Quote:

But, then again, the fact that Paul had epilepsy has been firmly established (to my satisfaction, at least)

You'd be in a pretty distinct minority then. If it's "pretty firmly established," one must wonder why scholarship at large doesn't concur. That people purported to have revelatory experiences in antiquity doesn't make them epilectic. It's certainly nothing terribly remarkable.

Were Paul an epileptic, and his vision an epilectic seizure, one must wonder why he doesn't appear to have met challenges on those grounds. They were, after all, considered demon possessed. Paul's opponents seem to have had a lot of bad things to say about him, but that's one charge he never addresses.

Quote:

and as the old saying goes, "Birds of a feather..." So, Paul likely associated with other epileptics and together they created the "Jesus, Son of Man" vision experience which later evolved into the "historical Jesus." Just my two cents...

Old sayings are all well and good. Facts, of course, are something of an entirely different nature. What evidence can you provide that epileptics are inclined to associate with other epileptics?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Julian · 03-21-2006, 12:32 PM

Where does this epilepsy claim come from? This is the first I have ever heard of it.

Julian

Rick Sumner · 03-21-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't think that most of the artifacts about Jesus were used in rituals, so I am not sure why we would have a record of any artifacts connected with the ToR.

I can grant that (though I disagree). Why would we expect to have a record of artifacts connected with Jesus then? What makes him different in this regard? Where would you expect to find these mentions, and why would you expect to find them in those locations. I'm looking for specific examples, not generalizations.

Quote:

You see this as evidence that historicism is not connected to the worship of relics.
I see it as evidence that 3rd century Christians were not complete "historicists" the way fourth century Christians were. The third century Christians took the theological stance that Jesus became man, but who is to say that they thought the actual historical details were important?

Irenaeus was saying it in the second century.

Quote:

The fourth century is not the anomaly. Christians from the fourth century to the current day are interested in artifacts, in traveling to the actual location where Jesus allegedly lived, preached, and died. Other religions and political movements show a similar interest in visiting the places or owning the relics of their founders. The anomaly lies in the Christian movement before the fourth century.

Again, this is an anachronism. Before the fourth century, a general lack of interest in such things is pretty uniform across cultures. You'd need to establish it as a regular precedent before you could consider this behavior an expectation.

Perhaps you could name some of these "other religions" you talk about. Buddhists did it, to some degree, though not until centuries after the Buddha lived. Otherwise, it's pretty slim pickings. It's something done from time to time. It's certainly not the norm, and there's no reason to hold Christianity to that standard. As jjramsey has noted, it wasn't done in general. More speciically, it wasn't done by Jews. No doubt largely a result of their distaste for iconography.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

No Robots · 03-21-2006, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

I, quite candidly, don't know what exactly inspired the new interest in the fourth century. What I do know is that there is absolutely no evidence that anyone was interested before then, and absolutely no reason to expect them to be. The fourth century fascination is an anomaly. The previous ambivalence is all we have any right to expect.

Veneration of relics was something brought to Christianity by pagan converts. It had no place in Judaism and therefore none in early Christianity.

Jehanne · 03-21-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Where does this epilepsy claim come from? This is the first I have ever heard of it.

Julian

They "deleted" Mohamed a short time after the Danish cartoons:

www.epilepsy.com/epilepsy/famous_religious.html

Toto · 03-21-2006, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

Where does this epilepsy claim come from? This is the first I have ever heard of it.

Julian

The epilepsy claim is based on the story of Paul's conversion in Acts. But the historical content of this story (which appears in 3 different versions in Acts) is probably about zero, so there is no hard evidence to back it up.

There are additionally hints in Paul's letters of some sort of physical problems, but nothing consistent with epilepsy.

Toto · 03-21-2006, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

. . . . More speciically, it wasn't done by Jews. No doubt largely a result of their distaste for iconography.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

The last time we discussed iconography: 7th Century crucifixion iconography - Why so late?

I mentioned there the murals at Dura Europa, Jewish images of historical figures, showing that Hellenistic Jews showed no distate for iconography, and quoted this from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote:

That the first Christians had any sort of prejudice against images, pictures, or statues is a myth (defended amongst others by Erasmus) that has been abundantly dispelled by all students of Christian archaeology. The idea that they must have feared the danger of idolatry among their new converts is disproved in the simplest way by the pictures even statues, that remain from the first centuries. Even the Jewish Christians had no reason to be prejudiced against pictures, as we have seen; still less had the Gentile communities any such feeling.

jjramsey · 03-21-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

I agree that that particular reason is not overly strong. I was thinking of the use of the word χριστος which is never used by Josephus (except in the longer section) and would likely be incomprehensible to a Roman audience in this context at the time of Josephus writing.

This was mentioned in an old post on the XTalk list:

Quote:

This argument is rather weak, as by the time of Domitian (c. 86-96)
Christians were already undergoing their second round of serious
persecution (the first was by Nero after the fire of 64CE), so would
have been known to both Josephus and his audience when he wrote
Antiquities (c. 93CE).

From Peter Kirby again:

Quote:

The fact that the term "Christ" appears only in Ant. 18.3.3 and here in 20.9.1 seems to do little to suggest the authenticity of the phrase. It has been often observed that Josephus avoided the subject of messianic expectation. Crossan states:

The more important point, however, is that neither there nor anywhere else does Josephus talk about messianic claimants. He makes no attempt to explain the Jewish traditions of popular kingship that might make a brigand chief or a rural outlaw think not just of rural rebellion but of regal rule. The reason is, of course, quite clear and was seen already. For Josephus, Jewish apocalyptic and messianic promises were fulfilled in Vespasian. It is hardly likely, that Josephus would explain too clearly or underline too sharply the existence of alternative messianic fulfillments before Vespasian, especially from the Jewish lower classes. (The Historical Jesus, p. 199)

Even in the passage where Josephus seems to describe Vespasian as the fulfillment of the messianic oracles, Josephus does not make use of the term "Christ."

Although strong at first glance, this argument does not hold up to examination. The simple fact is, there is no good evidence that anyone, anywhere was ever referred to as "Christ," with the exception of course of Jesus himself. One searches the extant Jewish literature in vain to find some example of a messianic pretender who had actually been called "Christ" by anyone. Jesus was unique in being called "Christ," and so it is not surprising that this term is only used when identifying Jesus. Josephus could have used it in the sense of a nick-name, not as a title, and thus there would be no need to explain the meaning of the name. Josephus may have simply assumed that his readers would have heard of this "Christ" of the sect called "Christians" and left it at that.

And now for something completely different ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are additionally hints in Paul's letters of some sort of physical problems, but nothing consistent with epilepsy.

Some have suggested that Paul suffered from migranes, which would explain the blindness after his conversion vision.

mens_sana · 03-21-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

I don't think so. It's like a person being born, living their life here in the US, and not having a birth certificate, death certificate, society security card, etc. With Jesus, no artifacts of any kind whatsoever! Doesn't that fact amaze you? (It does me!)

I don't see the comparison. Where are the 1st century government records (local or national) today that list vital stats for 1st century populace at the peon level? No one kept track of that sort of thing, outside the local tax collector, and he did not report the details to the government, he just handed over the required amount of money. I find no amazement at all at the lack of records. That WE are amazed at such is solely because we are looking at the period through (conditioned) eyes that say Jesus is so important historically that there should have been some records.

mens_sana · 03-21-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jehanne

I use the word "archaeological evidence" in a broad sense.

"Artifactual" evidence is a good term.

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

03-21-2006, 12:32 PM	#92
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	Where does this epilepsy claim come from? This is the first I have ever heard of it. Julian

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.