Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rlogan · 11-18-2006, 01:28 PM

It strikes me in reading GMark the number of times Scribes are expressly mentioned observing with amazement Jesus healing the sick amongst multitudes, having Jesus smack them down on scripture, the alleged trial, and etc.

In a search of GMark, "Scribe" appears 21 times, and the vast majority are instances where a scribe is present in some gospel event.

Yet, no record exists of any scribe actually recording any of these deeds. Nor is there any secondary reference to such recordings at a later date.

The historical Jesus approach is of course to put forward a completely different Jesus than that of the gospels - an insignificant itinerant with almost no following completely escaping notice.

When you have such an overwhelming abundance of references like this though, and it is coupled with the numerous other exploits of fame - running thousands of pigs into the sea, healing the offspring of high officials, outright claims he is known to the ruler, and all the rest of it -

This is so central to the assertion about Jesus you simply cannot excuse it. It's like looking for a "Historical Muhammed Ali" who never boxed.

The entire message about Jesus was that he shook up the old order, overturned the tables (literally), and brought the "New Testament" in seismic fashion. In front of multitudes of scribes.

The historicists are infatuated with their stretching of the "argument from silence" out of all proportion. We have emphatic wagon loads of assertions in the gospels that scribes are present. Scribes are amazed. Scribes who then record absolutely nothing.

When the gospel accounts go so far out of their way to insist on the presence of scribes then the absence of recordings indeed becomes a key piece of evidence against that claim - for they have not explained the canyon gulf between these mutually exclusive positions.

And this indeed is why the historicists dodge the matter by agreeing there was no such Jesus. That Jesus is mythical, they say hypocritically while sneering at the "Jesus Myth".

And what record is there of any Jesus that the historicists lay claim to? There is none. They expressly deny the existence of the Jesus in the gospels, proposing instead some personage for which there is no record at all.

I'm calling them on this. There are no records whatsoever amongst the Docetists, Marcionites, and proto-catholics or whatever about the lowly Jesus of no note. There is no tradition, no record - nothing.

The historicists thinks himself cunning by saying "why should you expect such a record?" Argument from silence, they say!

Well that is bizarre. Insisting on the existence of a person for which not only does no record exist whatever - but a person for which the entire written record is in the most significant way diametrically opposed to.

As if Paul Bunyan was the proof for the existance of the 98 lb weakling.

We also hear the ridiculous criterion of "embarassment" being used to legitimize Jesus - that the fact the crucifiction is mentioned, for example, is so embarrassing that it must be true.

This flies in the face of the whole thrust of the gospels in which Jesus is depicted as drawing multitudes and performing miracles. If there is any merit to the "embarrassment" criteria, and if there was indeed a Historical Jesus of the form the historicists claim, then it is precisely here that the lowly, insignificant life of the itinerant loser would be recorded.

GakuseiDon · 11-18-2006, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

It strikes me in reading GMark the number of times Scribes are expressly mentioned observing with amazement Jesus healing the sick amongst multitudes, having Jesus smack them down on scripture, the alleged trial, and etc.

In a search of GMark, "Scribe" appears 21 times, and the vast majority are instances where a scribe is present in some gospel event.

Yet, no record exists of any scribe actually recording any of these deeds. Nor is there any secondary reference to such recordings at a later date.

Which scribes do we have recordings of, rlogan? Can you name them, and their recordings? Did they record, say, John the Baptist, Bar Kochba, or any others similar to Jesus? Here is an article on scribes:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010207.htm

Richard Carrier has written previously on this board:

we have no reason to expect any historical record of a HJ [historical Jesus]. We are lucky to have any sources at all from that time and place, and those sources do not record every movement or its founder

It's reasonable to ask: "Why didn't more people write about Jesus?" But, as Carrier noted, we need to take into account that a lot of material simply didn't survive (for example, Papias's 5 volumes of oracles on Jesus), much less that of a cult that didn't appear to register in the consciousness of society until the Second Century (except possibly in certain circumstances).

It's reasonable to ask: "Why didn't such-and-such write about Jesus?" But then we need to ask whether the author wrote about equivalent figures. For example, there is a miracle-working divine figure (with divine origin) who has millions of adherents living today. He has been performing miracles for decades. It is rumoured he has even raised at least one person from the dead. That the newspapers of the world (and posts on this board) aren't filled with information about that person should perhaps be taken into consideration.

aa5874 · 11-18-2006, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It's reasonable to ask: "Why didn't more people write about Jesus?"

More has been probably written about Jesus than any other character in the known world, however it has been found to be not credible.
The stark reality is Jesus can not be placed in history, there is no evidence to support him. The NT is not credible, both in chronology and events. HJ is a hopeless position and is only for those with vivid imaginations.

Clivedurdle · 11-18-2006, 03:06 PM

And seriously HJ is probably an enlightenment position. All the main creeds talk of Jesus having God as his father and he being equal to God.

Logically that means most xianity is actually mythicist, unless Jesus is the only godman in the universe and the xians are therefore correct.

wabbit · 11-18-2006, 03:15 PM

It is interesting, isn't it? Just by their name, one could expect this particular group to have written more. But then again, I doubt that they thought of themselves as “scribes.” It sounds more like the sort of name that a Rush Limbaugh of the time would bestow on someone. Think, “oh, you don't need to listen to him – he's a scribe.”

In contrast are the Pharisees. There seems to be evidence that this group actually existed and had a clear identity. Yet, seldom does one find a reference to one group without a mention of the other. It is almost always “scribes and pharisees”, very much like “those damned liberals” that we heard so much about over the past several months. Have you ever met anyone who calls themselves a “damned liberal?” I'm still looking.

But, it could also be that Hebrew scribes simply were not respected. Most of the writing that has been preserved from 2000 years ago was from the Greeks and Romans. So the “historical” accounts of the life of Jesus have their slant on things. Could it be that what Josephus thought and put into writing was considered far more important that what some Hebrew had to say? Was one preserved and the other not?

Of the writings that later were called “the bible”, most were in Greek or Latin, although some Aramaic survived. Why is that? Is this related to one of the many diasporas, or is it that if something was really important, it was written in a language that was relatively universal at the time? Greek and Latin were the English of their time. If you wrote something that you felt was important for everyone to read, would you write it in Esperanto?

But thanks for making me think about it.

rlogan · 11-18-2006, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Which scribes do we have recordings of, rlogan? Can you name them, and their recordings?

What an odd response. The first seems to imply I need to know the names of specific scribes to make any statements about scribes.

And yes - scribes were quite busy copying texts, recording official documents, making correspondence for their employers - that is how we have the written record, GakuseiDon - from the extant copies of the work from scribes.

Quote:

Did they record, say, John the Baptist, Bar Kochba, or any others similar to Jesus?

I don't have any written works as I do from the hands of scribes who recorded the gospels that either of these appeared before multitudes of scribes performing amazing feats.

Quote:

Here is an article on scribes:
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2001/20010207.htm

That article has nothing pertinent to bring to bear on this thread. Scribes recorded things.

Quote:

Richard Carrier has written previously on this board:

we have no reason to expect any historical record of a HJ [historical Jesus]. We are lucky to have any sources at all from that time and place, and those sources do not record every movement or its founder

The character he is speaking of is not the gospel Jesus. So this is the old bait-and-switch routine. Propose a historical Jesus diametrically opposed to the gospel Jesus in order to explain why there is no record of the gospel Jesus.

Quote:

It's reasonable to ask: "Why didn't more people write about Jesus?"

It isn't reasonable for the historicist to keep substituting this for the fact that NO scribe - from the multitudes the gospels insist attended his numerous feats - wrote ANYTHING about him that is even indirectly attested to.

Quote:

much less that of a cult that didn't appear to register in the consciousness of society until the Second Century (except possibly in certain circumstances).

Always. Always. Always.

Keep putting up the "Historical Jesus" that is 100% antithetical to the gospels and heretics alike. Invent one that absolutely nobody in the 1st or second centuries records.

Every time putting up the 98 lb weakling where the gospels put out Muhammed Ali and the heretics put out George Foreman.

Quote:

It's reasonable to ask: "Why didn't such-and-such write about Jesus?" But then we need to ask whether the author wrote about equivalent figures. For example, there is a miracle-working divine figure (with divine origin) who has millions of adherents living today. He has been performing miracles for decades. It is rumoured he has even raised at least one person from the dead. That the newspapers of the world (and posts on this board) aren't filled with information about that person should perhaps be taken into consideration.

I see. You found out about this person through osmosis?

I am focusing in on the dozens of assertions in the gospels regarding the presence of scribes at his amazing feats.

Maybe you would first like to address that point. Do you believe or do you not believe that there were scribes present as the gosples emphatically attest to?

Cheers.

Clivedurdle · 11-18-2006, 03:44 PM

Some of them might also have known how to chip something on a stone!

Quote:

Nestorianism in China
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The form of Christianity often called Nestorianism but better described as the Church of the East spread widely across the continent of Asia following the banishment and condemnation of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
Christianity was first introduced into China during the Tang Dynasty (Note: It has also been suggested that the Patriarch of Seleucia-Ctesiphon created a metropolitan see in China in 411). It came through representatives of the Church if the East, popularly known as the Nestorians. In China, the religion was known as Jingjiao (景教). They initially entered China more as traders than as professional misisonaries. The Nestorians were largely of Hebrew extraction, tracing their lineage to those who did not return to Palestine following the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. During the early centuries of Christian expansion, they considered the message of Jesus a fulfilment of their Jewish faith. Eventually, the Nestorians intermarried with other Syriac-speaking peoples east of the Euphrates and spread their faith throughout Turkestan, Mongolia, China and Japan. Some records indicate that Jacobite Christians also visited China during this period, but their impact was minimal. A stone stele erected at the Tang capital of Chang-an in 781 and rediscovered in the seventeenth century describes flourishing communities of Christians throughout China, but beyond this and few other fragmentary records relatively little is known of their history.
What is known, however is significant. The Nestorians faced the world's vastest empire at the zenith of its cultural, intellectual and administrative attainment. Tang China possessed a most sophisticated religious and ethical system; its people had long lived in an environment of religious syncretism. When Tang forces conquered Turkestan (630) and reopened the ancient trade route to the West, Alopen, the Persian bishop, felt the time had come to evangelize this mighty empire. Indeed, he was welcomed by the authorities in line with their broad policy of toleration and interest in fostering foreign religions.
When Alopen arrived at Chang-an (635) he was almost immediately commissioned to translate the Nestorian Sutras into Chinese. Scholars were assigned to assist him. In 638, the first Christian book was published, The Sutra of Jesus the Messiah. It sought to introduce the Chinese to the Christian faith and specifically pointed out that the gospel contained nothing subversive to China's ancient traditions, loyalty to the state and filial piety being of the essence of the law of Christ. This pleased the emperor, and by decree he proclaimed the virtue of the Nestorian religion, gave Alopen the title of “Great Spiritual Lord, Protector of the Empire” (ie, metropolitan Chang-an), and opened China's doors to the gospel: “Let it be preached freely in our empire.”
Unawed by the challenge, the Nestorians proceeded to build and staff monasteries in China's key cities. They were also quite aggressive in their proclamation of the Christian faith. they Persevered in their efforts to phrase the Christian message in the philosophical language of the Confucian court in order to make it intellectually acceptable to the literati.
Although the ancient stele says, “The religion spread throughout the ten provinces....monasteries abound in a hundred cities,” the Nestorians experienced a series of setbacks as a result of court intrigues, the jealousy of Taoist and Buddhist leaders, and the upheavals of civil war. By their medical knowledge and surgical skill the Nestorians gave a good name to their faith, but their top-heavy, non-Chinese leadership tended to lead them to be classed with Buddhism and Zoroastrianism as another “foreign religion”. Although their monasteries were self-supporting, self-governing, and self-propogating entities, Chinese clergy were only permitted to fill the lowest ranks. From this one may gather that the Nestorians gave an inordinately high priority to serving the foreign trading community. At any event, they depended largely upon its representatives for initiative and leadership.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism_in_China

Toto · 11-18-2006, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

.... For example, there is a miracle-working divine figure (with divine origin) who has millions of adherents living today. He has been performing miracles for decades. It is rumoured he has even raised at least one person from the dead. That the newspapers of the world (and posts on this board) aren't filled with information about that person should perhaps be taken into consideration.

Are you referring to Sai Baba? I think you will find a few references to him on this board and a lot of press coverage in his native India.

gstafleu · 11-18-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

It's reasonable to ask: "Why didn't more people write about Jesus?" But, as Carrier noted, we need to take into account that a lot of material simply didn't survive (for example, Papias's 5 volumes of oracles on Jesus), much less that of a cult that didn't appear to register in the consciousness of society until the Second Century (except possibly in certain circumstances).

Quite so. So you have now explained why there is no evidence. Explaining why there is no evidence does not turn the lack of evidence into a presence of evidence. So there is no evidence, which is one of the three things MJ has been saying all along. Thanks for helping out

.

Gerard Stafleu

jjramsey · 11-18-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

So this is the old bait-and-switch routine. Propose a historical Jesus diametrically opposed to the gospel Jesus in order to explain why there is no record of the gospel Jesus.

The various models of a historical Jesus were not proposed in order to explain the lack of Gospel references. If you remove the obvious legendary material from the stories of Alexander the Great and take into account that things like the size of his armies, his personal prowess, etc. are likely to have been exaggerated, what is left is pretty substantial. When the same thing is done with Jesus, there isn't much left because the bulk of his story is miraculous, and there is as much reason to be skeptical of the reported size of the crowds that followed him as there is reason to be skeptical of the reported size of Alexander's armies. That leaves behind some flavor of itinerant preacher who gets crucified.

Also, calling it a bait-and-switch only makes sense if someone is trying to use the HJ to get you to believe in the gospel Jesus.

11-18-2006, 01:28 PM	#1
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	scribes who failed to record Jesus It strikes me in reading GMark the number of times Scribes are expressly mentioned observing with amazement Jesus healing the sick amongst multitudes, having Jesus smack them down on scripture, the alleged trial, and etc. In a search of GMark, "Scribe" appears 21 times, and the vast majority are instances where a scribe is present in some gospel event. Yet, no record exists of any scribe actually recording any of these deeds. Nor is there any secondary reference to such recordings at a later date. The historical Jesus approach is of course to put forward a completely different Jesus than that of the gospels - an insignificant itinerant with almost no following completely escaping notice. When you have such an overwhelming abundance of references like this though, and it is coupled with the numerous other exploits of fame - running thousands of pigs into the sea, healing the offspring of high officials, outright claims he is known to the ruler, and all the rest of it - This is so central to the assertion about Jesus you simply cannot excuse it. It's like looking for a "Historical Muhammed Ali" who never boxed. The entire message about Jesus was that he shook up the old order, overturned the tables (literally), and brought the "New Testament" in seismic fashion. In front of multitudes of scribes. The historicists are infatuated with their stretching of the "argument from silence" out of all proportion. We have emphatic wagon loads of assertions in the gospels that scribes are present. Scribes are amazed. Scribes who then record absolutely nothing. When the gospel accounts go so far out of their way to insist on the presence of scribes then the absence of recordings indeed becomes a key piece of evidence against that claim - for they have not explained the canyon gulf between these mutually exclusive positions. And this indeed is why the historicists dodge the matter by agreeing there was no such Jesus. That Jesus is mythical, they say hypocritically while sneering at the "Jesus Myth". And what record is there of any Jesus that the historicists lay claim to? There is none. They expressly deny the existence of the Jesus in the gospels, proposing instead some personage for which there is no record at all. I'm calling them on this. There are no records whatsoever amongst the Docetists, Marcionites, and proto-catholics or whatever about the lowly Jesus of no note. There is no tradition, no record - nothing. The historicists thinks himself cunning by saying "why should you expect such a record?" Argument from silence, they say! Well that is bizarre. Insisting on the existence of a person for which not only does no record exist whatever - but a person for which the entire written record is in the most significant way diametrically opposed to. As if Paul Bunyan was the proof for the existance of the 98 lb weakling. We also hear the ridiculous criterion of "embarassment" being used to legitimize Jesus - that the fact the crucifiction is mentioned, for example, is so embarrassing that it must be true. This flies in the face of the whole thrust of the gospels in which Jesus is depicted as drawing multitudes and performing miracles. If there is any merit to the "embarrassment" criteria, and if there was indeed a Historical Jesus of the form the historicists claim, then it is precisely here that the lowly, insignificant life of the itinerant loser would be recorded.

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

11-18-2006, 03:06 PM	#4
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	And seriously HJ is probably an enlightenment position. All the main creeds talk of Jesus having God as his father and he being equal to God. Logically that means most xianity is actually mythicist, unless Jesus is the only godman in the universe and the xians are therefore correct.

11-18-2006, 03:15 PM	#5
wabbit Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Moss Beach, California Posts: 16	It is interesting, isn't it? Just by their name, one could expect this particular group to have written more. But then again, I doubt that they thought of themselves as “scribes.” It sounds more like the sort of name that a Rush Limbaugh of the time would bestow on someone. Think, “oh, you don't need to listen to him – he's a scribe.” In contrast are the Pharisees. There seems to be evidence that this group actually existed and had a clear identity. Yet, seldom does one find a reference to one group without a mention of the other. It is almost always “scribes and pharisees”, very much like “those damned liberals” that we heard so much about over the past several months. Have you ever met anyone who calls themselves a “damned liberal?” I'm still looking. But, it could also be that Hebrew scribes simply were not respected. Most of the writing that has been preserved from 2000 years ago was from the Greeks and Romans. So the “historical” accounts of the life of Jesus have their slant on things. Could it be that what Josephus thought and put into writing was considered far more important that what some Hebrew had to say? Was one preserved and the other not? Of the writings that later were called “the bible”, most were in Greek or Latin, although some Aramaic survived. Why is that? Is this related to one of the many diasporas, or is it that if something was really important, it was written in a language that was relatively universal at the time? Greek and Latin were the English of their time. If you wrote something that you felt was important for everyone to read, would you write it in Esperanto? But thanks for making me think about it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.