Freethought & Rationalism Archive

bacht · 06-16-2009, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

I agree with ApostateAbe's analysis for the evidence for an HJ. I would add that from my readings in both the NT and myth the contradictions about Jesus in the gospels speaks for a real person, not a myth. Myths tend to be more internally consistent -- they build on each other, making the character more and more fantastic without introducing contradictions. Fiction is more consistent than fact, especially in biographies. The diverse views given of Jesus by the synoptic authors, gJohn, and the gnostics all call out for a real character.

Can you point to anything in the gospel stories which isn't traceable to the Hebrew scriptures? Why is it farfetched to think that Mark, Matthew et al simply concocted a man who personifies Israel as described by the prophets (with a little help from Josephus)?

No Robots · 06-16-2009, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Pontius Pilate is presented in the gospels as the total opposite of how he's depicted in Josephus' and Philo's writings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius...ish_Literature

But the historical Pilate — as we have already remarked — in the reports of the trial, merely plays the part of a Roman official who is personally hostile to and suspicious of the Jewish authorities, as he is described by Josephus to have been. And even the unscrupulousness, which is stated both by Josephus and Philo to have been a fundamental ingredient in his character, is clearly shown by his finally yielding up Jesus to save himself, contrary to a momentary better impulse which had possessed him. In fine, his conduct throughout the trial is entirely consonant with what we know of human nature, where sound principles are lacking. — The mythical interpretation of the Gospels: critical studies in the historic narratives / Thomas James Thorburn, p. 242

No Robots · 06-16-2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Can you point to anything in the gospel stories which isn't traceable to the Hebrew scriptures? Why is it farfetched to think that Mark, Matthew et al simply concocted a man who personifies Israel as described by the prophets (with a little help from Josephus)?

We cannot fail to recognize in [Christ's proverbs] a single, remarkable personality, showing exceptional ability to grasp the innermost principle and to voice it in a short, shrewd proverb, grasping the idea in its fulness and drawing from it some conclusion which can never again be forgotten. -- Jesus of Nazareth : His life, times, and teaching / Joseph Klausner.

show_no_mercy · 06-16-2009, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Pontius Pilate is presented in the gospels as the total opposite of how he's depicted in Josephus' and Philo's writings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius...ish_Literature

But the historical Pilate — as we have already remarked — in the reports of the trial, merely plays the part of a Roman official who is personally hostile to and suspicious of the Jewish authorities, as he is described by Josephus to have been. And even the unscrupulousness, which is stated both by Josephus and Philo to have been a fundamental ingredient in his character, is clearly shown by his finally yielding up Jesus to save himself, contrary to a momentary better impulse which had possessed him. In fine, his conduct throughout the trial is entirely consonant with what we know of human nature, where sound principles are lacking. — The mythical interpretation of the Gospels: critical studies in the historic narratives / Thomas James Thorburn, p. 242

Because you're quoting a book, the argument it presents must be completely true and cogent, right?

ApostateAbe · 06-16-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

One of those writings is the Epistle to the Galations, written in the early 50's CE. In it, he writes in passing of meeting James, the brother of Jesus:

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

James is given as a name of one of the brothers of Jesus in both Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3.

And we know for a fact, do we, that the James to whom Paul referred was the same person to whom the authors of Matthew and Mark referred? And that Paul never used the word "brother" except to mean "male sibling"?

It is about probability, not about absolute certainty. You can speculate that Paul meant something else when he said, "Lord's brother," and maybe the names just happen to be the same. You flip a coin three times, and it lands on heads three times: you can say, "oh, that is just normal expected random luck." You flip a coin fifty times, and it lands on heads fifty times: now you'll need a better explanation. The compounded probabilities of the evidence leads to conclusion of the historical Jesus.

No Robots · 06-16-2009, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Because you're quoting a book, the argument it presents must be completely true and cogent, right?

Those who have eyes, let them read.

ApostateAbe · 06-16-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The earliest writings that give details about Jesus is NOT the gospel of Mark, but it is the writings of the apostle Paul. One of those writings is the Epistle to the Galations, written in the early 50's CE. In it, he writes in passing of meeting James, the brother of Jesus:

"Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother."

James is given as a name of one of the brothers of Jesus in both Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Also, "Cephas" is the Aramaic translation of "Peter."

All this says is that Jesus had a brother. And "Cephas" is mentioned apart from "the twelve" in 1 Cor 15:5; however in the gospels "Peter" is part of the Twelve (or "the Eleven" after Judas betrays Jesus). Assuming that Cephas and Peter are the same people is reading into Paul's letters with the gospels in mind.

Peter is a "close associate" of Jesus only in the gospels. Paul relates nothing about any "close associates" of Jesus; Jesus wasn't thought to have had "students" until the gospels were written.

I'm not arguing for the MJ theory, so this is all moot.

Pontius Pilate is presented in the gospels as the total opposite of how he's depicted in Josephus' and Philo's writings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius...ish_Literature

So the Pilate in the gospels is more than likely a fictional depiction.

In the gospels, Jesus was supposed to have cleansed the Temple of the "money changers"; the Temple wasn't just some run-of-the-mill synagoge, it also was a military fortress. How could Jesus have caused such a ruckus kicking out people and keeping them outside a Temple the size of a football field? By himself??

So Jesus "clearing the temple" is also probably a ficticious event.

The Pharisees in the gospels are depicted as being "legalistic", whereas the Pharisees were actually about the spirit of the law and not its literal adherence. The Sadducees were actually the legalistic ones since their power base came from strict adherence to the law.

So any historical Jesus would have been antagonistic towards the Sadducees and not the Pharisees; his problems with the Pharisees is also probably fiction.

According to the gospel of John, Samaritans accepted Jesus as the Christ in droves. How can that possibly be when the Samaritans didn't and don't accept any Davidic lineage for their Messiah? Also fiction.

Josephus says that John the Baptizer dunked people in water not to cleanse people of sins, but to purify the body. However in the gospels, he's described as baptizing specifically to remove sins. This is a complete contradiction; however it's only a contradiction between Josephus and the gospel writers so who knows who's telling the truth.

This is the Jesus according to the gospels, not the Jesus according to the epistles in the first century. Again, the Jesus in the writings of Paul, James, 1 Peter, Jude, and John don't mention any apocalyptic "sayings" of Jesus - he seems to function more like Philo's "logos" instead of a doomsday prophet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The hypothesis that Jesus began as a myth is very thoroughly trounced by the difference in weight of the evidence.

I'm not arguing for a mythical Jesus, I'm saying that there were many ideas about "Jesus" in the first century and they're all contradictory. In order to get some sort of "historical Jesus" out of the early Christian writings you have to assume the Jesus you're looking for. That is circular. We really have no idea what any sort of historical Jesus was like.

Assuming a Pharisee Jesus, Christianity should have been more like the Ebionites; but since Christianity spread among Gentiles - who were already accustomed to worshipping humans as gods - we get the Christianity that is practiced today.

You are arguing for a fictional Jesus, not a mythical Jesus, but I think roughly the same problems are present for a fictional Jesus, with more problems that go on top. I don't want to argue each individual point with you, because it is far more time-consuming than it is worth for me. I think I would tell you the same as I told Doug Shaver about compounded probabilities. You can always make ad hoc alternative explanations for anything, but it is better if you actually have evidence, so you can actually tilt the evidence toward your position. For all we know, Jesus could be an outer-space alien, but the proposal needs evidence and probability in order to be taken seriously.

bacht · 06-16-2009, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Can you point to anything in the gospel stories which isn't traceable to the Hebrew scriptures? Why is it farfetched to think that Mark, Matthew et al simply concocted a man who personifies Israel as described by the prophets (with a little help from Josephus)?

We cannot fail to recognize in [Christ's proverbs] a single, remarkable personality, showing exceptional ability to grasp the innermost principle and to voice it in a short, shrewd proverb, grasping the idea in its fulness and drawing from it some conclusion which can never again be forgotten. -- Jesus of Nazareth : His life, times, and teaching / Joseph Klausner.

Oh yeah, that does it, I'm convinced now

This kind of quote is why people are skeptical about the intellectual honesty of Biblical scholars. Which Jesus is Klausner praising (the apocalypticist? the messiah? the prophet of realized eschatology?) Was Jesus anti-Pharisee, or anti-temple, or pro-Torah, or anti-Gentile?

Jesus is a Rorschach inkblot, or an Ebion, or a Ned Lud.

No Robots · 06-16-2009, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Oh yeah, that does it, I'm convinced now

I had no intention of convincing you of anything. I just wanted to show, for the benefit of others, that the position you anonymously put forward is specifically contradicted by someone of repute.

Quote:

This kind of quote is why people are skeptical about the intellectual honesty of Biblical scholars. Which Jesus is Klausner praising (the apocalypticist? the messiah? the prophet of realized eschatology?) Was Jesus anti-Pharisee, or anti-temple, or pro-Torah, or anti-Gentile?

One would think that you would take the time to read Klausner's book yourself. This kind of no-nothingism is why people are contemptuous of the intellectual laziness of anonymous web posters.

andrewcriddle · 06-16-2009, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Hillman

There were historical characters about whom legendary cycles developed - Dietrich von Bern for example- but Arthur wasn't one of them. The earliest stories about Arthur have him as a timeless figure harrowing Hell, fighting monsters witches and giants. He was historicised at various times -as an enemy of the Saxons, or of the Vikings, or of the prehistoric giants. The later historicisation included in Nennius then in Annales Cambriae reflect political agendas by different Welsh kingdoms, but written narratives derive a spurious authority merely by being written - so the stories were followed literally by later writers - unless they felt like the neeeded to change them

Hi David

Your account of the origin of the Arthur legends may very possibly be true. What makes me a little uneasy is that this sort of analysis seems to involve controversially early dates for the 'mythical' Arthur material eg Preideu Annwfyn and controversially late dates for 'historical' Arthur material eg regarding the Arthur references in Annales Cambriae as introduced in the final redaction of this material.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.