DCHindley

You threw me off, as I was thinking of the Acts of Pilate proper, not the Descent into Hell which was added to it in later times.

These Karinus and Leucius (a corruption for Leucius Charinus, the name given by church writers to the supposed author of the Apocryphal Acts of John, Paul, Peter, Andrew, and Thomas) are said here to be the dead sons of the High Priest Simon who had held the baby Jesus in his hands, who were resurrected along with Jesus, and found on their knees praying to God in Aramithea by the representatives of Annas, Caiaphas, Nicodemus, Joseph (not the father of Jesus) and Gamaliel, and who told their story of seeing Jesus descend to Hades to free them.

Not quite scribes.

DCH

Zaphod

To answer in reverse chron order:


1) It would matter enormously because the vast majority of believers believe, at the very least, that Jesus was a living philosopher who expounded truths so profound that they provide a moral code worthy of emulation today.

Further, most Christians today believe much more than that, and they value the Church, respect its authority, and maintain their religious faith based upon an understanding that the story of Jesus is more or less true.

I think that most Christians would leave Christianity if their faith was broken by the certain realization that their religion was based on deliberate falsification.

I think it is important to understand that, IMO, you have it exactly backwards.

From the argument of silence to the many examples in this forum alone of incoherence, deletions, and interpolations of the Christian texts, IMHO the only honest and scientifically objective position is that the historicity of Jesus Christ is almost certainly false, and that the burden of proof must be upon those who claim it to be true.

I truly can not think of any other instance of academic study where any modern (non apologetic) scholar or scientist would purport to assume the validity any claim so poorly evidenced as the claim of the historicity of Jesus Christ.

And I can not remember an instance anywhere in science, where what is so clearly false as the historicity claims of Christ was championed without near universal derision. And yet the opposite is true with this issue.

Clearly, the true objective scholars of the historicity of Jesus Christ simply have no balls.

As an atheist, I feel that the objective reporting of what should be a nearly-universal academic appraisal of the lack of historicity of Jesus Christ is long, long overdue. It is a scandal.

Doug Shaver

Thanks, DC.

jakejonesiv

:clapping::notworthy::clapping::notworthy::clappin g:

mountainman

The records which are known as the NT gospels are by many presumed to have been authored perhaps in the second century, and very little information is available about the authors. In contradistinction, the records known as "The Gospel of Nicodemus" and the "Acts of Pilate" - which are somehow conflated - specifically name the authors - the actual scribes of the text. The question "Who is "Leucius Charinus"?" is appropriate. What do we know of them/him? Why is nobody interested in this named author?

dog-on

The NT and the associated external writings are the best records, that I can think of, that prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ was a literary creation.

Even if these writings were based on an individual or individuals, the character as portrayed in the aforementioned writings most certainly never existed.

Case closed.

ChuckE99

We have modern-day proof, in the form of confessions from the purpetrators, that things like crop circles and bigfoot don't exist. Yet that doesn't stop the true believers.

There's a great scene in "Monty Python's Life of Brian" where Brian pleads to the crowd of believers who are following him everywhere: "I'm NOT THE MESSIAH," he screams. A woman turns to the crowd and says, "Only the true Messiah would deny his own divinity!" Brian looks incredulous, and asks, "Well, what chance does that give me?"

Same thing with believers in Jesus. You could dig up Mark's body, holding a golden tablet enscribed with the words, "I made up Jesus and the gospel" and true believers would just dismiss it.

Minimalist

Archaeology digs up the remains of what "was." Not what "wasn't."


Look at Nazareth. There is no indication of even a small village at the site in the early first century but xtians still insist it was a real place.

Ktotwf

Why?

If we assume that the Early Doherty Christ Myth hypothesis is legit, wouldn't it then be clear that Christianity as we know it today is in fact a perversion of the original, spiritual Christianity?

In other words, I would hope people would be happy to get back to the TRUE Christianity.

spin

Here's another glimpse, if foggy, of error entering tradition. Too bad the name Leucius Charinus doesn't seem to appear until the time of Photius. Can one really know exactly what happened here? Are Leucius and Karinus a corruption of "Leucius Charinus" or a misunderstanding in the other direction? If there's more information, I'd be interested in hearing about it. I like to find traces of how traditions absorb information.


spin