dog-on

Steve, in fact, all of the arguments for an historical Jesus must take, as their basis, that Mark was not writing a fictional story. There are not enough details in Paul alone to say much at all, without reading in Mark's story. I wish we had information available that would verify Mark's intent, one way or another, but we do not.

Toto

You seem to working on perfecting the art of misstating the arguments of your opponents.

The Holocaust is a well documented event of recent history. Most of the residents of the city I live in are personally acquainted with someone who survived the Holocaust. The only people who deny that it happened are demonstrable ideologues. Nevertheless, skeptic Michael Shermer took the time to write a book demolishing their arguments with hard historical evidence.

Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?, Updated and Expanded (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman and Arthur Hertzberg

So luckily for you, you don't have to waste any time considering the arguments of Holocaust Deniers.

There are a few issues like this that are settled, and are only denied by ideologues. There are many more issues that are not in fact settled, where you risk missing out if you just go with the conventional wisdom.

One of the tactics of Christian apologists is to claim that the existence of Jesus is a settled historical fact, and that only an ideologue would deny it. This is a lawyerly argument, but it does not hold up to simple scrutiny, although it might bamboozle a hand-picked jury.

What is your game here? If you want to discuss the evidence, the floor is open. If you just want to insult people who disagree with you, please find another way of goofing off at work.

Atheos

Fair question. First of all I guess I should break my arm patting myself on the back because I argued that your "criterion of embarrassment" assumes far too much about each writer's agenda (whatever that might be). If what they wrote happened to be in disagreement with the viewpoints of later adherents to variations of the underlying myth, big whoop. The criterion of embarrassment does nothing to assuage the very real evidence that different people believed different things about this mythological figure.

Secondly, the "multiple independent attestation" you keep claiming exists has been thoroughly debunked by the arguments presented by several knowledgeable participants in this thread and yet you keep presenting it as if it has merit. Tacitus is simply not evidence of anything other than the fact that there were people who were claiming the alleged events took place and we already know that. You know better than to bring up Josephus and there really is nothing else. Nothing. Everything else is either an obvious forgery perpetrated by people with an agenda or it's clearly attached to the myth itself.

The staggering dearth of evidence precisely where one would expect to see it just cannot be ignored by people without an agenda. The earliest christian writings (Those of "Paul", for example) never say anything about a historical Jesus, whether it be WRT the virgin birth, Joseph, Mary, his brothers, his disciples, Judas, etc. Those details begin surfacing later as the myth develops. That speaks way louder than these perceived "embarrassing" things you keep pointing out.

Here's the deal: I'm the person you're gunning for in this fight. I'm an uncommitted mythicist who honestly doesn't give a rip whether or not there was a historical person who couldn't actually walk on water or float off into the sky, but actually did preach to a doomsday cult and get his ass crucified for his efforts.

I'm going to say that again: I honestly don't care whether a core "Jesus" existed or not. I'm honestly willing to go wherever the actual evidence leads.

The evidence weighs heavily on the side of the mythicist position. The character has many of the traits found in purely mythological figures (such as Hercules, Perseus, Promethus, Dionysus, Mithras, etc). The evidence strongly suggests that the myth was nebulous at first and developed details including time frame (on which GMatt and GLuke disagree incidentally), parents, family members, named associates and interaction with actual historical figures over time. You know as well as anyone here that fictional characters can be placed in historical time frames and interact with actual historical figures and events (e.g., Rhett Butler in Gone With The Wind).

Further, the evidence conclusively demonstrates that adherents have done everything in their power to produce physical evidence of the character's actual existence, even to the point of fabricating it. The likelihood is that if there were actual disciples and followers of this person they would have preserved some physical evidence, if nothing else but the precise location of the character's interment or the note pinned on top of the cross saying "King of the Jews". Nary a sausage.

Your criterion of embarrassment just doesn't do a thing for me. There were lots of different viewpoints on this myth back then just as there are now. People can happily rationalize "He that hateth not his father and mother is not worthy of me". Why would they be embarrassed by these trivial details you keep bringing up?

bacht

There have been debates here about "evidence". Spin has pointed out the inherent problems of dealing with texts that have passed through the gauntlet of Christian copyists.

Commentators have struggled for centuries with the lack of corroboration in the Jewish literature of the time. As mentioned, it would be wonderful if we had some hostile witness to confirm some part of the narrative we all know. The best we find are coded stories about Pantera and such, generally considered much later than 1st-2nd C.

I believe there were conflicting stories about the cause of death for Alexander the Great (poison, exhaustion, fever) but historians don't insist on picking one just for the sake of closing the question. Ambiguity and uncertainty are part of the scientific approach; certainty and closure of debate are part of the dogmatic authoritarian approach.

avi

Though I am a hard core mythicist, I completely disagree with this assertion.

I would have written, instead,
"In view of the absence of any credible evidence, outside the gospels, which I consider fiction, the mythical argument, rather than the historical alternative, is the most persuasive."

I know of no evidence to support the mythical character of JC. I do know of a dearth of genuine evidence for an historical JC, and therefore, by default, the pebbles that fell through the sieve, represent the MYTHICAL existence of JC.

An analogy would be a requirement to procure evidence that Mohammed did not fly to heaven to meet God....I have none. Does the absence of evidence of the mythical character of Islam, therefore repudiate my opinion that the religion is utter nonsense? The fact that I have no evidence refuting this myth, in no way impedes my belief that Islam is a fairy tale.

The burden of proof is not on mythers. It is on the HJ's. What? Do I need proof that the tooth fairy is a myth?

avi

jgoodguy

I mostly agree with this. The exception that if the mythers make an argument, they have the burden of proof to support that argument. There are at least 4 possible states of Jesus. The supernatural cosmic Jesus of the gospels, the Historical Jesus(es), one or more Mythical Jesus(es), and no evidence. Therefore the mythers have to prove their case.

The problem with the pebble argument is that the lack of proof for one argument is not proof for another. The pebbles could be some unrelated state. It is akin to the argument that if science cannot explain it, it must be god. So a gospel Jesus advocate could claim the pebbles as evidence of a gospel Jesus.

In the case of the tooth fairy, you can simple say it don't exist AKA there is no evidence and stop. You can assert an argument that says that the tooth fairy is a myth based on x. In the latter you have a burden of proof for x.

IMHO there is no credible evidence for the existence of Jesus. Christianity is a myth.

Atheos

Well I disagree with your disagreement. I might be willing to retract the word "heavily", as what paltry evidence there is certainly doesn't provide staggering proof. But if you have a gram of evidence on one side and 1/10th a gram of evidence on the other it's not difficult to imagine which way the balance will tip.

As I see it, here is the evidence on the mythicist's side:

• Dozens of "hero god" myths fabricated over the centuries before the Jesus character ever appears, many of which share common characteristics with the Jesus character
• Extraordinary claims about super powers possessed by the character in question
• Details about the character's origins that can be demonstrated to be fabrications (e.g., Herod's alleged slaughter of the innocents, Ceaser's musical chairs census, the magical star that led the wise men to the manger)
• Development of details from nebulous concepts (Paul's early Jesus revealed through visions) to historical figure with details being added as the decades pass

And here is the evidence on the HJ side:

• Tacitus
• Josephus
• Christian writings produced decades after the alleged events
• Abe's "Criterion of Embarrassment"

Tacitus is weak at best. Josephus is a forgery. The christian writings are suspect by definition, as they only provide evidence that people took these things seriously. I've given Abe's criterion of embarrassment a fair hearing for a long time now and I'm just not feeling it. Sorry.

Looks like a mythical character to me. But like I said before, I really wouldn't lose any sleep at all if someone uncovered a verifiable Roman Crucifixion Ledger tomorrow from circa 33 C.E., that had the name of some "Jesus" sentenced to death one spring Friday by Pontius Pilate. If he got crucified on Friday he sure as hell didn't wake up Sunday morning and go visit his peeps.

Juststeve

Atheos:

I take it when you say that Tacitus is weak at best you are stating an opinion not a fact. Do you know that a substantial number of recognized scholars conclude that Josephus contains an authentic reference to Jesus to which later Christian scribes added material? Christian writings are no more suspect by definition that are atheist writings suspect by definition, a claim often made by evolution deniers, and that you are not "feeling it" isn't much of an argument against the criteria of embarrassment.

Believe what you want.

Steve

Juststeve

Toto:

I would be more inclined to think you were concerned about insulting remarks if I saw you snarking at the mythers who make insulting remarks to Abe, but I don't. I think your real agenda is to defend the myther orthodoxy.

Steve

Toto

If you think anyone is insulting Abe on a personal level, you can report it.

I don't think I can defend a "myther orthodoxy" since I don't know what it is.