Freethought & Rationalism Archive

seraphimkawaii · 06-09-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pervy

I know what the problem is here.

You guys are reading the thread title wrong.

Look carefully. It doesn't say "Extrabiblical Evidence For Jesus". It says "Extra Biblical Evidence For Jesus".

That is why PV isn't posting any evidence from outside the Bible. The thread is about extra evidence from inside the Bible.

It's very unfair of you all to derail this thread with demands for evidence from outside the Bible. Jesus is mentioned in the Bible and that should be all the evidence you need.

well, they seem to insist that there's some credible extrabiblical evidence too...and we'd still like to see that

Gamera · 06-09-2006, 05:18 PM

[QUOTE=Sauron]

Quote:

His contribution was in the attempt and process to collect the history. But he was not a historian, in the forensic sense of the word, no.

Don't believe me? Herodotus wrote about flying serpents:

[2.75] I went once to a certain place in Arabia, almost exactly opposite the city of Buto, to make inquiries concerning the winged serpents. On my arrival I saw the back-bones and ribs of serpents in such numbers as it is impossible to describe: of the ribs there were a multitude of heaps, some great, some small, some middle-sized. The place where the bones lie is at the entrance of a narrow gorge between steep mountains, which there open upon a spacious plain communicating with the great plain of Egypt. The story goes that with the spring the winged snakes come flying from Arabia towards Egypt, but are met in this gorge by the birds called ibises, who forbid their entrance and destroy them all. The Arabians assert, and the Egyptians also admit, that it is on account of the service thus rendered that the Egyptians hold the ibis in so much reverence.

[2.76] The ibis is a bird of a deep-black colour, with legs like a crane; its beak is strongly hooked, and its size is about that of the land-rail. This is a description of the black ibis which contends with the serpents. The commoner sort, for there are two quite distinct species, has the head and the whole throat bare of feathers; its general plumage is white, but the head and neck are jet black, as also are the tips of the wings and the extremity of the tail; in its beak and legs it resembles the other species. The winged serpent is shaped like the water-snake. Its wings are not feathered, but resemble very closely those of the bat. And thus I conclude the subject of the sacred animals.

Should we accept his accounts of such serpents?

If "yes", you're a fool.
If "no", then you understand why skepticism about NT accounts is warranted.

Your argument seems to be, historians have to get it right every time. If that's your standard, there are no historians period. Heroditus was a creature of his time, but clearly a historian. But again, worrying about "historians" is silly -- the issue is texts. History is texts, not authors.

Quote:

THen you're tragically uninformed. History is far more than written texts. It's places, artifacts, physical items, as well as the analysis of all these items.

Nope, history begins with written texts by definition. Other items can augment texts, but without writing there is by definition no transmission of information and hence no history, just artifacts.

Quote:

No, but it's a better history of the mental state of Hitler than third-person accounts are. As I said: it depends upon what purpose you try to use the item for.

I agree with that. That's why I don't get worked up about "inconsistencies" in the New Testament. The purpose of the NT documents is not factual details, but a narrative relating to Jesus and his life.

Gamera · 06-09-2006, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smullyan-esque

Name another "hoax"?

From the point of view of the Christians: Every other religion, from Buddhism to Mormonism.

Why should the founding documents of Christianity be treated differently than the founding documents of other religions? If someone claims that their religion says a mountain moved to go to their prophet, you would demand to see corroborative evidence, since a moving mountain would be a pretty big deal. And not just a report from 100 years later from someone who says "There are these folks, quite a lot of them, who claim this mountain moved. They are starting this new religion, and causing the authorities all sorts of trouble..." That's not corroborative evidence! You'd want something contemporaneous, from someone outside the religion in question.

"Corroborative evidence" is pretty much what this thread is SUPPOSED to be about. I mean, read the freaking NAME of the thread: "Extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus."

I don't think we agree on the definition of "hoax." A hoax is a caculated attempt to decieve by a perpetrator who wants to foists off a thing as something else. Piltdown Man comes to mind.

Buddhists texts aren't hoaxes, even if I don't happen to find them useful. They are what they are -- religious texts.

Gamera · 06-09-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldYgg

History - as all sciences and social sciences - evolves and has been refined over time. What was considered history once in the past - does not necessarily pass must now as history. Herodotus (spelled correctly) was great in that he gathered a lot of information from a wide number of resources and wrote it down. This doesn't say anything in particular about the sources he used - or in the end the accuracy of his statements.

See this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herodotus

Mein Kampf has its place in history, but a reader should certainly be skeptical of the contents of that book and actual events as Hitler - to say even the most polite way - had an agenda.

Newspapers, are actually great forms of first person reports on events - when they exist. They have to be assigned weight about events - depending on the bias of the paper or if the paper is truly unbiased in its reporting.

Official documents vary in their form. Birth certificants - which are witnessed and sealed represent first person documents. CIA reports of spying activity against various people may sometimes need to be filtered by the bias of the reporting agents, their bosses or the politicians they work for.

There is an incredible file on Albert Einstein - and one too on John Lennon. These files are filled with slander and allegations at even the hint that either spoke to a person from another country. This - after Albert Einstein asked our government to investigate a certain theory about nuclear weapons - so that we had it before any other country on Earth. The ethical long term value of this is debatable, but also it is known that we would rather have had it before the Soviets.

A law is a historical, first person document, but what it tells you about the past is questionable. It really depends on the law. As we all know some laws are passed that few in the populace at large believe. We couldn't take laws and say - 'this is what everyone believed at that time.' You could only say that this is what the politicians saw benefit in passing at that time.

Court records are excellent first-person documents. Indeed there are records of Inquisition trials that are full of information - especially when exploring a person like Giordano Bruno - killed for his belief that the stars were other suns and that life was possible on other planets - and the fact that he wouldn't recant like Gallileo did.

You even have to question and have verifying documents about things like diaries. You verify as many facts through other sources before you go out on a limb and claim that everything (or even most things) in a particular diary are in fact - facts and not false statements.

There was the diary of Ann Frank. By itself, with no other documentation of the events in WWII, would you say what she wrote was true and factual? No.

But we have many documents about the way things were at that time, and what was going on. We have context and independent verification that leads us to say that Ann Frank's diary talks about events that happened in the real world, not fictional.

And lastly, we have to watch out for people that both alter historical documents on purpose in the future of those records or that alter them as they are created. Indeed, some of these may remain questionable - and without independent verification, cannot be held as truth. There have been many forgeries in history. And there are many countries that form the opinions of their children by giving them history books that are limited at best - and grossly biased at worst.

Court documents are great first person documents about what is going on in that court room, but do they really detail the truth? Do people lie under oath? Hell yeah, they do. Determining if they did or not, that is the trick.

Given that even normal human events have to be verified from multiple sources - imagine the proof that is necessary for abnormal events or supernatural events? If the events happened as you allege about Jesus, there should have been hundreds of people who would have talked about it, written about it, talked some more and continued on and on - as we do today when things happen. There were fewer of them and fewer of them were writers, but when something important happens it was documented, and not just by a couple of people.

Something as simple as the real identity of Shakespeare is quite difficult to discern with 100% accuracy - as there are inconsistencies in the historical record. Was it even a single individual?

So, you tell me Jesus exists and was a real person. You role out some pitiful proof - that I can count on my two hands, that was not written during the life of Jesus Christ, and furthermore stretches the time frame in which someone could possibly have been alive at the time of Jesus Christ and you tell me 'oh I've got proof! If you don't believe me you're being deliberately stubborn!' Well, I've got to tell you, that you have 1) too few documents, 2) documents in the wrong time period 3) documents that are not specific about the events they claim to tell us about 4) Books that fit mythological, not factual in style, description and substance (the bible).

There were many things that happened in JC's lifetime that are well documented and taken as historical fact. If he existed and the things that happened to him did in fact happen, where is the documentry proof?

I'm not saying that things don't happen that aren't documented. If they did happen, you might say that you personally believe that x or y happened, but you can never say you have historical evidence that x or y happened.

Old Ygg

That's what I said. History is made up of texts. We have to evaluate them, but they're texts and nothing more. There isn't a special body of "history" texts and "other" texts. There are texts, and rational people can evaluate them for reliability.

The NT is a collection of texts. They can be evaluated for reliability based on a whole number of criteria -- closeness in time to the event, provenance, references in other texts, etc.

I conclude that the NT is pretty reliable as to the existence of the man Jesus and the movement he started. I don't see how any other conclusion can be reached.

Gamera · 06-09-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't think so. I think you're only obliged to say that the evidence for Socrates' existence, like the evidence for Jesus' existence, is inconclusive.

Here is my comparative analysis of the evidence for each: http://dougshaver.com/christ/socrates/socrates00.htm. Would you care to critique it?

I broadly agree with you, Doug. And I have no problem stating that "inconclusive" is the right word. Though I would hasten to add that this is probably the same word we would be forced to use for virtually every historical figure prior to the mediaeval period and the rise of contemporaneous written records. There simply wasn't an industry for producing texts about contemporaneous persons on a sufficienty massive level unti recently to have much conclusive evidence about anybody in the classic period except the most prominent of men or women.

I would note that you overlook Xenophon's and Plato's possible motives to fictionalize -- an argument that those who attack Jesus historicity rely upon.

Xenophon was on bad terms with Athens and was ultimately exiled. He clearly was enamored with the values of the Socratic mentality, which was at odds with much of classic paganism, and most philosophical schools of the time. Given that motive, it's not crazy to think that he took a body of work from a school of thought, affixed a person to it, and concocted a trial narrative showing how corrupt and wrongheaded Athens was. There is no more direct evidence of Socrates' trial than Jesus (i.e., no court records).

A similar argument can be made about Plato, who for all we know took up the Xenophon fiction and ran with it.

I don't believe this. Indeed, I think it's absurd. But my point is it's no less absurd than attacking Jesus' historicity using similar arguments.

There's pretty good evidence Socrates existed; and pretty good evidence that Jesus existed. Not conclusive but some.

Gamera · 06-09-2006, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

There is a reason for that, you know. Given that we only know of the works of (classic pagan) Aristotle because of the diligence of the Muslims, I wouldn't be at all surprised if quite a bit of evidence for the existence of Socrates wasn't deliberately destroyed by the Christians.

You do know that our lack of knowledge regarding "classic pagan culture" is due to a deliberate and systematic destruction of any record of that culture, don't you?

Actually no, what remains of classic culture was often preserved by Christians. And in fact what remains of the pagan past of non-mediterranean cultures is almost exclusively through the diligence of christian clerics, many of whom had a passion for their pagan past -- if not a form of ancestor worship - and lovingly tried to preserve their national (pagan) past.

Beowulf is a case in point. The Anglo-Saxons (and Germanic tribes generally) held their pagan past in high regard, and clerics had no problem copying pagan texts.

Your view of christian culture is clearly uninformed.

Gamera · 06-09-2006, 06:05 PM

[QUOTE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cajela

If you are correct about the sources, Gamera, then you make a fair point. I'm inclined to believe you about the sources for Socrates but not about those for Herod. (But I'm not a historian so I may be wrong.)

So without any primary sources, what can you conclude? The possiblities are:
1) Socrates/Jesus was real and the accounts are true
2) Socrates/Jesus was real and the accounts are a mix of truth and fiction
3) Socrates/Jesus was real, but the accounts are false
4) Socrates/Jesus was not real at all

I'm inclined to dismiss 1 and believe 2 in both cases, with a *very* heavy mixture of fiction for JC. Case 3 is pretty much indistinguishable from 4; if everything you know about someone is fiction, then it doesn't much matter if a real person's name was atttached to the fiction.

I think there is some terminological ambiguity here.

The problem with the NT is that involves not only historical claims that can be either factual or false (was there a guy named Jesus, was he born in Bethlehem, was he born during Herod's reign, etc.), but also claims that are beyond factual verification (was Jesus divine, was he resurrected, etc.)

I don't expect any historian to accept the latter type of claims. Indeed, I would submit that no Christian can accept them based on historical evidence. They are items of faith, not empirical matters.

So, I have no problem with choice number 2, if by "fiction" you mean, some of the narrative isn't factual, but gets factual matters wrong (such as when Jesus was born). I think that's exactly the case. I think the NT mss accurately relate a narrative of a real man who made certain claims about himself. That much is accurately related. The claims themselves are not subject to empirical evidence. And the details (which aren't important for the purpose of the narrative) sometimes go astray.

Quote:

The mythicists argue for 3 or 4. In that case I think that you need an account of why the fiction came to be, to substantiate the argument. And they do have that. It's not a weird conspiracy theory; it's an account of a religion that fits in with the ethos of the times. It uses a lot of mystery and symbol. And later on, people started mistaking the allegories and myths for true stories. I find this also quite reasonable and plausible.

I think they have to do more. I think they have to explain why this particular mythic discourse was misinterpreted and not some other mythic discourse (especially when this myth requires so much of people -- like being altruistic and getting fed to lions). It would seem so much easier to opt for Dionysus and reject this whole Jesus guy. They have to explain what changes in culture resulted in the lose of the fictive sensibility and hence relegated the NT to a historical interpretation. And they have to explain why there are no contemporary texts commenting on the NT texts as fictive texts.

cjack · 06-09-2006, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Actually no, what remains of classic culture was often preserved by Christians. And in fact what remains of the pagan past of non-mediterranean cultures is almost exclusively through the diligence of christian clerics, many of whom had a passion for their pagan past -- if not a form of ancestor worship - and lovingly tried to preserve their national (pagan) past.

Beowulf is a case in point. The Anglo-Saxons (and Germanic tribes generally) held their pagan past in high regard, and clerics had no problem copying pagan texts.

Your view of christian culture is clearly uninformed.

Gosh, I guess I failed to notice all the lovingly preserved pagan rituals and rites the last time I was in a church. The fact that the modern neo-Pagan movement is based almost entirely upon recently invented rituals and guesses at what the original rites must have been like is a real tragedy, considering that the Catholic church in particular went out of their way to preserve pagan culture.

I mean, to think that the dearth of knowledge about Stonehenge or the Druids could be remedied with a quick call to a Christian scholar!

I'm personally fascinated by pagan/pre-christian cultures, and I studied history in college, so I'd love it if you could direct me to this carefully preserved trove of pagan history I've never heard of.

Oh, and to keep this post on-topic, how 'bout some contemporary, extra-bilbical evidence for Jesus?

xaxxat · 06-09-2006, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cjack

Oh, and to keep this post on-topic, how 'bout some contemporary, extra-bilbical evidence for Jesus?

I want some too. I've had enough of this preaching shite...

Smullyan-esque · 06-09-2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

I think they have to do more. I think they have to explain why this particular mythic discourse was misinterpreted and not some other mythic discourse (especially when this myth requires so much of people -- like being altruistic and getting fed to lions). It would seem so much easier to opt for Dionysus and reject this whole Jesus guy. They have to explain what changes in culture resulted in the lose of the fictive sensibility and hence relegated the NT to a historical interpretation. And they have to explain why there are no contemporary texts commenting on the NT texts as fictive texts.

1. Self-sacrifice has a strange but powerful pull. It's counter-intuitive, but real. Notice all the suicide bombers we are getting? They are NOT predominantly poor, desperate people. They mostly come from fairly well-off, middle-class backgrounds. The ideology sucks them in. So it's quite easy to see how the Jesus myth was more popular than the Dionysus myth.
2. You don't see "loss of fictive sensibility" happening in other areas? People taking Genesis as literal truth, when it is obviously counter-factual, and therefore fictional? Even within the Jesus myth, there are these things called "parables" that are clearly intended to be fictional. Yet there are people who will tell you "the prodigal son is a true story"!
3. Lack of contemporary texts commenting on the fictive nature of the NT? You think this is something we would expect to find for the myths of a fringe group? And, if such documents existed, this is something you would expect to survive the periodic swings to fundamentalism the Church has had over it's long history? I don't think that is reasonable. On the other hand, you would expect the Church to bend over backwards to preserve corroborative evidence. They might even go so far as to make some up (Josephus, anyone?). So, if in reality 2000 years ago there were some corroborative and some anti-corraborative documents, you would expect the former to survive in far greater numbers than the latter. Yet we can't seem to find those corroborative ones. So, it seems likely that, either there were no relevant documents generated either way (not good news for Historical Jesus) or that there just weren't any corroborative documents generated (even worse news for Historical Jesus).

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.