Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jakejonesiv · 11-13-2006, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...
In my mind, Jesus is either pure myth, or he is a historical figure whom people wrapped up into pre-existing myths and legends and then grew them from there. Outside Christian "scholars", I don't think anyone seriously considers a magic god-man named Jesus may have walked the earth.

In my mind, this discussion is about an ordinary man and why there is a scholarly concensus that he not only existed, but was an itinerate preacher in the first century.

This is a good sumary of the discussion. What pre-existing myths and legends do you see being wrapped around the ordinary man?

I mean, it seems to me if (for sake of argument) there was a HJ, he didn't amount to anything special, and had to be incorporated into a pre-existing mythical structure.

And that is what I see as the crucial dividing line in this debate. Not whether there was some failed preacher that manged to get himself killed, but whether there were pre-existing myths or legends that incorporated this guy.

IMHO, the debate is really about whether Christianity began as a unique religion sparked off by the deeds of a single historical man, or whether it evolved out of the myths, legends, and religions of the time, no matter if a historical man (or several) were incorporated.

Jake Jones IV

Clivedurdle · 11-13-2006, 12:17 PM

On oral and literary traditions, yes there is loads of evidence of very good memories and training in this, from Rome, druidism, Midrash etc.

There is also loads of very good evidence of story telling, of poetry, of trance states. There is no reason to believe what someone passes orally on is not amended, tweaked, improved on. The latest psychological studies are showing that we individually construct memories in our heads. The process of verbalising what we think we saw or heard is not direct.

And in cultures that wrote stuff down, there is loads of evidence of superb structures, highly skilled plays and again people tweaking things, amending them, taking a story from here and there and weaving them together.

An oral tradition simply and correctly passing on what happened between two and five generations afterwards is extremely unlikely, especially as there is clear evidence in the passion story especially of it being a play.

Ben C Smith · 11-13-2006, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

In regards to Gal. 4:4, you have previously stated that the "Son of God" is mystical or theological.

So you are off on the wrong foot for a literal interpretaion of Gal 4:4.

How can I possibly be off on the wrong foot here? I have made every distinction I know to make. Son of God is, I believe, a theological affirmation (in a modern sense, since I doubt the ancients would have made the same distinctions we do); it was applied to Roman emperors, too. Born of a woman is, I believe, a literal affirmation. I think that Paul, like the proto-orthodox and orthodox after him, believed Jesus to be both human and divine.

You cannot play the one against the other as if neither Paul nor I had noticed the difference.

Quote:

Your argument then must depend on the identification of the woman in Gal. 4:4 with Mary. But it doesn't say Mary, so you are left with mere assumption.

I do not assume that Paul knew the name of the mother of Jesus, any more than the exact name of the mother matters in other instances of the phrase born of a woman.

Quote:

But perhaps you will say, the woman in Gal. 4;4 doesn't have to be Mary, it could be any unidentified woman, just so long as she is an individual human being. I will state the obvious; if this is indeed your argument, then Gal 4:4 is divested of historical content.

Ah, the root of the problem. You seem to think that I am insisting that Galatians 4.4 proves that Jesus existed. That is not my argument at all.

My argument is that Galatians 4.4 shows that Paul thought that Jesus was really human, that Paul was not consciously writing of a purely mythical personage.

To put this argument into perspective, Galatians 4.4, on its own merits, strikes against mythicists like Doherty, but is useless against mythicists like Wells.

Quote:

But your postion is even worse. You have been looking for an example where a woman gives birth, but the woman is not a literal human being.

No, born of a woman is a verifiably idiomatic expression. I have been looking for instances of that expression.

Quote:

I can understand why you, and many other Christian scholars, are wary of Revelation Chapter 12.

I am not aware of being wary of Revelation 12. When you first pressed me about that, I responded that I was not sure about it, not because I was wary of it, but rather because I had no idea how you were going to make it relevant; I had no idea in what direction you were going to press that chapter.

Quote:

Here we have what you have been looking for; a birth from a woman that is clearly not literal. This counts against the literal interpretation of Gal 4:4.

I have not been looking for a nonliteral birth. Those are actually quite common. What I have been looking for is a nonliteral application of the idiomatic expression born of a woman. Revelation 12 lacks that expression.

Quote:

Ben, I don't don't see the relevance of the adjective "hortatory" has in this discussion. Can you explain?

Certainly. Hortatory documents (as the epistle to the Galatians quite plainly is, IMHO) generally strive for clarity in a way that apocalyptic documents do not.

We should read hortatory epistles differently than apocalypses.

Quote:

And certainly you must admit that Paul was no stranger to visions, 2 Cor. 12:2. (Sounds similar to the reported experience in Revelation).

Right. Paul apparently experienced them with some frequency. This in no way means that he always, or even ever, wrote as if he were experiencing one at the time of writing.

The Quaker John Woolman experienced visions, too. But his journal is quite easy to read, and quite literal.

Quote:

[SIZE="1"]It has been my primary argument that since "born of a woman" didn't appear in Marcion's version of Gal. 4:4 that it is a latter interpolation by a proto-orthodox redactor. If "born of a woman" had been original, Tertullian would certainly have turned the phrase against Marcion. However, arguments down this line have not been persuasive to you (perhaps you still are thinking of Earl Doherty), so I am pointing out in this thread that even as allegedly redacted, born of a woman falls short of evidence for a human birth.

On the one hand, born of a woman is such a good indicator of humanity that Tertullian would certainly have used it against Marcion; on the other hand, born of a woman falls short as evidence of humanity. I honestly do not understand your position here.

Quote:

And, while I am at it, just because somebody wrote down that a person was born (I am thinking of the gospels accounts now, not Paul) isn't evidence that they were historical, especailly in tales that are filled up with fabulous occurances and myth. They could be lying, misinformed, telling a moralistic tale, creating a fiction, creating allegory, etc.

Absolutely correct. The weight that I place on Galatians 4.4 is not that it proves Jesus existed, but rather that it shows that Paul thought he existed. Which is a serious blow against some mythicists, but not all.

Ben.

ynquirer · 11-13-2006, 12:32 PM

Hi TerryTryon,

As time passes by I get increasingly convinced that yours is an important point. This board is two-fold and sometimes my vision becomes exceedingly one-sided. On the one side, it is a forum that welcomes everybody that is willing to learn from others and/or share their knowledge, opinions or mere conjectures. That is the side you vindicate. On the other side, it is a sort of field in which a group of people play intellectual sports, the more competitive, the better. I must confess that I am inclined to give more importance to this side than to the other, because I use to concentrate on the game, that is, on the sport. Have my discussion with spin in this thread, which you mentioned in a previous comment. He is a hard opponent, to be sure. That’s fine. Neither asked for mercy. That’s ok, too. He has all my respect, yet I don’t think next time it will be less hard. Both of us know that, and that’s ok. You say I am arrogant. Perhaps I am: I accept your critique. Thing are as they are, though. The sport side of the board is what it is. Other participants have accepted this, too. And courtesy of all together this thread has had a fairly good audience: 451 posts and 6,100+ views so far. I’d say it is a good thread.

For the records, a brief survey of the Tacitus issue, for others can speak of issues as important in this thread. Tacitus is a significant issue because it is secular evidence for the consensus that Jesus existed as a human - that’s the topic of the thread. Annals 15:44 says that one Christus, from whom the name of Christians is derived, was put to death by procurator Pontius Pilate under the rule of emperor Tiberius. If accepted at face value, this is hard evidence that Jesus existed as human. So far so good.

Bruno Bauer (1809 - 1882), a disciple of Hegel the German philosopher and the founder of modern mythicism, was skeptic of the narrative of the gospels, which he deemed to be a purely literary undertaking. He spoke, in particular, of Pontius Pilate as a fictional character. In 1961, a stone was found that contained the name of Pilate and the incomplete phrase “…ectus Iudaeae,” and there is a consensus that it is the end of a phrase meaning “the prefect of Judea.” On the one hand, Pilate was not a fictional character after all; on the other, the inscription does not call him “a procurator of Judea,” as Annals 15:44 says, but “a prefect of Judea.”

A contemporary mythicist, G.A. Wells, writing in 1971, took for granted that Pilate was not a procurator and questioned Tacitus’ care in cross-checking his sources. During the last three and a half decades, however, extensive research has proven that Tacitus’ information is for the most part reliable, and it is assumed that reliable information is not available as a whole but through a careful checking of sources. Although Wells’ hypothesis that Tacitus was careless this time has not lost all its teeth - you have perhaps noticed that some participants in the thread still adhere to it - another conjecture developed that Annals 15:44 might be a later, misinformed interpolation within a work that is trustworthy wholesale. This is a position in which skepticism has grown stronger - and is spin’s position, by the way.

I have for months followed current as well as past discussions on the topic in this forum and found that there was a consensus, or a near-consensus on the opinion that Annals 15:44 is a later interpolation. I assumed the challenge to prove that the issue is far from settled. If you now say that spin cast doubts on the authenticity of Annals 15:44, that for me is useful feedback, as I said, since it implies that it was I that defended the consensus while I was supposed to criticize it. I am more than satisfied. Thank you very much, indeed.

As for you feeling of boredom in reading my comments, I realize it may be so. Sadly enough, criticizing consensus in such a belief-loaded field as this is a task of minutia and endless details, not of bright, sudden revelation. I hope you will understand that mine is not the role of a preacher like Paul. I’d like to be, but I’m not. Sorry. I apologize for the inconvenience - the time, paper and toner you have wasted. I’ll try to improve next time.

All the best,

Clivedurdle · 11-13-2006, 12:56 PM

I thought it was agreed Pilate existed. How is that relevant to any discussion about jesus existing? James Bond met Margaret Thatcher in one film!

spamandham · 11-13-2006, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

What pre-existing myths and legends do you see being wrapped around the ordinary man?

I'll provide some, but I have no intention of supporting these, so take them or leave them as you see fit:
- the story of the 153 fish in Matthew is derived from the Pythagoreans
- the story of the resurrection of Lazarus is derived from pyramid texts. I have seen a lot of claims that this was pulled straight out of the backside of Achira S., but I have seen translations of the texts, so I believe it is genuine
- The birth story in Matthew is astrological symbolism
- The water into wine trick comes from followers of Bacchus
- The virgin birth idea comes from astrotheology

This is not intended as a complete list by any means.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Triplicate post. A new personal record.

Heh, I got one four times yesterday. That makes me 1/3rd better than you. :Cheeky:

ynquirer · 11-13-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I thought it was agreed Pilate existed. How is that relevant to any discussion about jesus existing? James Bond met Margaret Thatcher in one film!

Not all skeptics accepted this before the stone was found in 1961. Now, things are quite different.

spamandham · 11-13-2006, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

... especially as there is clear evidence in the passion story especially of it being a play.

Assuming this is true, does this support the idea that Jesus was invented as a fictional character whom people later came to believe had been historical? Do you suppose Christianity was the first century's version of The Church of the Jedi?

Could it be that Paul knew Jesus was a fictional character from a play, and that's why he preferred to concentrate only on "Christ crucified", never really mentioning anything salient about the life of Jesus?

xaxxat · 11-13-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

I thought it was agreed Pilate existed. How is that relevant to any discussion about jesus existing? James Bond met Margaret Thatcher in one film!

Pussy Galore is real too. When I was a teenager, she appeared to me in several nightly visits. I was exstatic to see her. She left an indelible impression on me...

Toto · 11-13-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Not all skeptics accepted this before the stone was found in 1961. Now, things are quite different.

ynquirer - We had a long thread a while back in which we tried to find anyone who had doubter the existence of Pilate. We couldn't. Pilate is attested to in Josephus and Philo. It appears that Christian apologists have invented the myth that skeptics doubted the historical existence of Pilate for their own purposes.

Please provide some support for the idea that Bruno Bauer doubted the existence of Pilate.

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

11-13-2006, 12:17 PM	#452
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	On oral and literary traditions, yes there is loads of evidence of very good memories and training in this, from Rome, druidism, Midrash etc. There is also loads of very good evidence of story telling, of poetry, of trance states. There is no reason to believe what someone passes orally on is not amended, tweaked, improved on. The latest psychological studies are showing that we individually construct memories in our heads. The process of verbalising what we think we saw or heard is not direct. And in cultures that wrote stuff down, there is loads of evidence of superb structures, highly skilled plays and again people tweaking things, amending them, taking a story from here and there and weaving them together. An oral tradition simply and correctly passing on what happened between two and five generations afterwards is extremely unlikely, especially as there is clear evidence in the passion story especially of it being a play.

11-13-2006, 12:32 PM	#454
ynquirer Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 572	Hi TerryTryon, As time passes by I get increasingly convinced that yours is an important point. This board is two-fold and sometimes my vision becomes exceedingly one-sided. On the one side, it is a forum that welcomes everybody that is willing to learn from others and/or share their knowledge, opinions or mere conjectures. That is the side you vindicate. On the other side, it is a sort of field in which a group of people play intellectual sports, the more competitive, the better. I must confess that I am inclined to give more importance to this side than to the other, because I use to concentrate on the game, that is, on the sport. Have my discussion with spin in this thread, which you mentioned in a previous comment. He is a hard opponent, to be sure. That’s fine. Neither asked for mercy. That’s ok, too. He has all my respect, yet I don’t think next time it will be less hard. Both of us know that, and that’s ok. You say I am arrogant. Perhaps I am: I accept your critique. Thing are as they are, though. The sport side of the board is what it is. Other participants have accepted this, too. And courtesy of all together this thread has had a fairly good audience: 451 posts and 6,100+ views so far. I’d say it is a good thread. For the records, a brief survey of the Tacitus issue, for others can speak of issues as important in this thread. Tacitus is a significant issue because it is secular evidence for the consensus that Jesus existed as a human - that’s the topic of the thread. Annals 15:44 says that one Christus, from whom the name of Christians is derived, was put to death by procurator Pontius Pilate under the rule of emperor Tiberius. If accepted at face value, this is hard evidence that Jesus existed as human. So far so good. Bruno Bauer (1809 - 1882), a disciple of Hegel the German philosopher and the founder of modern mythicism, was skeptic of the narrative of the gospels, which he deemed to be a purely literary undertaking. He spoke, in particular, of Pontius Pilate as a fictional character. In 1961, a stone was found that contained the name of Pilate and the incomplete phrase “…ectus Iudaeae,” and there is a consensus that it is the end of a phrase meaning “the prefect of Judea.” On the one hand, Pilate was not a fictional character after all; on the other, the inscription does not call him “a procurator of Judea,” as Annals 15:44 says, but “a prefect of Judea.” A contemporary mythicist, G.A. Wells, writing in 1971, took for granted that Pilate was not a procurator and questioned Tacitus’ care in cross-checking his sources. During the last three and a half decades, however, extensive research has proven that Tacitus’ information is for the most part reliable, and it is assumed that reliable information is not available as a whole but through a careful checking of sources. Although Wells’ hypothesis that Tacitus was careless this time has not lost all its teeth - you have perhaps noticed that some participants in the thread still adhere to it - another conjecture developed that Annals 15:44 might be a later, misinformed interpolation within a work that is trustworthy wholesale. This is a position in which skepticism has grown stronger - and is spin’s position, by the way. I have for months followed current as well as past discussions on the topic in this forum and found that there was a consensus, or a near-consensus on the opinion that Annals 15:44 is a later interpolation. I assumed the challenge to prove that the issue is far from settled. If you now say that spin cast doubts on the authenticity of Annals 15:44, that for me is useful feedback, as I said, since it implies that it was I that defended the consensus while I was supposed to criticize it. I am more than satisfied. Thank you very much, indeed. As for you feeling of boredom in reading my comments, I realize it may be so. Sadly enough, criticizing consensus in such a belief-loaded field as this is a task of minutia and endless details, not of bright, sudden revelation. I hope you will understand that mine is not the role of a preacher like Paul. I’d like to be, but I’m not. Sorry. I apologize for the inconvenience - the time, paper and toner you have wasted. I’ll try to improve next time. All the best,

11-13-2006, 12:56 PM	#455
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I thought it was agreed Pilate existed. How is that relevant to any discussion about jesus existing? James Bond met Margaret Thatcher in one film!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.