Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steve Weiss · 10-22-2010, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

You seem to want to elevate speculation to a probability that it does not deserve. I can surmise anything that my imagination allows me to. I can imagine elephants flying, but history and science is based upon hard evidence that can stand intense scrutiny, and a critical mind requires much more evidence than is available for the existence of a King David.

It is also a myth that the Hebrews were slaves in Egypyt, that there was a massive exodus, that the Jews were a roving mob in the desert for 40 years until they decided to start taking over cities occupied by those who did not honor Yahweh. Worker villages have been excavated around the Great Pyramids showing that contract labor by Egyptians who couldn't get out of the job by paying tax had to do the dirty work of building. There was no opening of the Red Sea for the departing Hebrews, and neither was the Jordan parted for Joshua.

If we go down to the bedrock of evidence for biblical events outside the OT and NT, we find little, if anything, that would support the mythology in those pages sold the gullible as holy writ. The Greatest Story ever told remains a fiction until someone can produce far more evidence than now exists, and don't hold your breath for that to happen.

Moses seems unrecoverable, probably invented. David I agree is almost the same. I'm just playing devil's advocate here, not trying to bolster the maximalists.

Let's assume that the Torah was largely if not wholly post-Exilic. Who was living in Samaria and Judah before the 6th C bce? Are they lost to history? Were there any cultural elements from Iron Age Canaan that were incorporated into the Tanakh, or did the Babylonian Jews import everything as an overlay during the Persian adminstration? I would guess that they had some material to start from, maybe Mesopotamian models which at the least they modified with names and places from Palestine.

Maybe Abraham is the key character: leaving southern Babylonia and travelling into the Jordan valley and beyond. Maybe he is the personification of the origin of the Jewish population in Palestine in the 6th-5th C? If the Jerusalem group did come from Babylon would this explain their mutual hostility with the Samaritans?

Interesting speculation, but, of course, we will never know the truth. All kinds of myths and stories circulated in various cultures each borrowing from the other, and all fictional. A lot of these myths probably had an Egyptian origin or origins in other areas of the Near East. Interesting stuff to talk about when sitting around the camp fires when each story-teller probably tried to out BS his associates. After a while people probably started to take these tall tales seriously, and traditions were formalized. My dad can beat your dad; my clan is better and more powerful than yours. Our god can kick the shit out of yours. And on and on it went.

Steve Weiss · 10-22-2010, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

That would be a massive jumping to conclusions that re-inforce one's presumptions. A few broken and incomplete artifacts mentioning a name is far from what would be necessary to establish possibility let alone probability.

Okay, but we still have to explain where the character of David came from, if not from early tribal history. Are you endorsing an agnostic position about whether such a man ever existed?

We know that the Philistines were real don't we? Is it implausible to imagine that the inland Canaanites were challenged by them? Is it implausible that some folk memory of a Hebrew champion (whether victorious or not) appeared in interior Canaan? Isn't this the sort of thing we would expect from semi-literate semi-civilized tribespeople?

You can speculate all that you wish, but as to what is truth and what is fiction, that is anyone's guess because there is no evidence. My presumption is that it is all fiction unless proved otherwise. In other words, fiction is the default position.

Doug Shaver · 10-23-2010, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Weiss

In other words, fiction is the default position.

Is that the default position for all narrative writings, or just narrative writings with religious messages?

Frankencaster · 10-23-2010, 09:33 AM

I lean towards fiction rather than agnosticism.

The Jesus myth fulfilled the need of a niche religious sect of some type to give themselves legitimacy.

It reduces to a 'We are special. We are chosen' and here's 'the proof'. the same theme played out hundreds of times in various human cultures.

Jesus emerges from a cauldron of imaginary tales...from virgin birth to rising from the dead...ascending into heaven and all types of imaginary tales in between.

There's no need for a 'real person' to be a the center of the Jesus myth anymore than there is a need fro a 'real person' to me at the center of the myth of Zeus, Superman, Adam, or thousands of human-like mythological figures.

I studied Latin for 5 years. The Romans were well written. Not a smidgeon of mention of a guy who claimed virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc. This would have been BIG STUFF just as it would be today. The last thing the Romans would have done is executed him...he's be brought back to Rome to perform his tricks for the emperor..

Chaucer · 10-23-2010, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frankencaster

I lean towards fiction rather than agnosticism.

The Jesus myth fulfilled the need of a niche religious sect of some type to give themselves legitimacy.

It reduces to a 'We are special. We are chosen' and here's 'the proof'. the same theme played out hundreds of times in various human cultures.

Jesus emerges from a cauldron of imaginary tales...from virgin birth to rising from the dead...ascending into heaven and all types of imaginary tales in between.

There's no need for a 'real person' to be a the center of the Jesus myth anymore than there is a need fro a 'real person' to me at the center of the myth of Zeus, Superman, Adam, or thousands of human-like mythological figures.

I studied Latin for 5 years. The Romans were well written. Not a smidgeon of mention of a guy who claimed virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc. This would have been BIG STUFF just as it would be today. The last thing the Romans would have done is executed him...he's be brought back to Rome to perform his tricks for the emperor..

Once and for all, no HJer is suggesting that the real Jesus, a normal human being with nothing magical about him at all, ever "claimed virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc." Consequently, the real HJ would have been of no interest to the Romans as an exhibit. The real HJ is consistently shown in the earliest Syriac fragment of Josephus' Antiq. XVIII and in the only text we have of Jos. Antiq. XX and in the reference in Tacitus and in the reference in the Mishnah and in the non-Biblical Thomas as an obscure and perfectly normal human who merely gained himself a modest notoriety among the locals. That's it, and that's the consiilience of five different references, none of which is in the Bible. No claim here of "virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc." whatsoever. It is absurd for anyone to try and suggest that each and every one of these 5 entirely separate extra-Biblical references to a perfectly normal human can each be coincidentally dismissed for one reason or another.

Chaucer

Sheshbazzar · 10-23-2010, 05:40 PM

All fucked with and/or misinterpreted writings.

Chaucer · 10-23-2010, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

All fucked with and/or misinterpreted writings.

By saying that, you're buying into an absurdly five-way coincidence. The SECULAR study of ancient history is not about yes/no proofs. It's about what's more likely. With five distinctly separate NON-Biblical references all agreeing on a perfectly normal human being who simply gained a notoriety among the locals, it becomes way more likely than not that A) Jesus was a real and a normal human being who was really executed during Tiberius's reign and B) had none of the magical properties described in Scripture.

Chaucer

Sheshbazzar · 10-23-2010, 05:55 PM

And each of these five NON-Biblical 'references' suffer from credibility 'problems'. Making it hardly any coincidence.

Frankencaster · 10-23-2010, 06:20 PM

A summary:

-Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought)

"The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life."

-

Chaucer · 10-23-2010, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

And each of these five NON-Biblical 'references' suffer from credibility 'problems'. Making it hardly any coincidence.

My, my, what a coincidence. Ever heard of Occam's Razor?

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

10-23-2010, 09:33 AM	#304
Frankencaster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Rocky Mountains, Canada Posts: 2,293	I lean towards fiction rather than agnosticism. The Jesus myth fulfilled the need of a niche religious sect of some type to give themselves legitimacy. It reduces to a 'We are special. We are chosen' and here's 'the proof'. the same theme played out hundreds of times in various human cultures. Jesus emerges from a cauldron of imaginary tales...from virgin birth to rising from the dead...ascending into heaven and all types of imaginary tales in between. There's no need for a 'real person' to be a the center of the Jesus myth anymore than there is a need fro a 'real person' to me at the center of the myth of Zeus, Superman, Adam, or thousands of human-like mythological figures. I studied Latin for 5 years. The Romans were well written. Not a smidgeon of mention of a guy who claimed virgin birth, rec'd gifts from kings, walked on water, etc. This would have been BIG STUFF just as it would be today. The last thing the Romans would have done is executed him...he's be brought back to Rome to perform his tricks for the emperor..

10-23-2010, 05:40 PM	#306
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	All fucked with and/or misinterpreted writings.

10-23-2010, 05:55 PM	#308
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	And each of these five NON-Biblical 'references' suffer from credibility 'problems'. Making it hardly any coincidence.

10-23-2010, 06:20 PM	#309
Frankencaster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Rocky Mountains, Canada Posts: 2,293	A summary: -Moncure D. Conway [1832 - 1907] (Modern Thought) "The world has been for a long time engaged in writing lives of Jesus... The library of such books has grown since then. But when we come to examine them, one startling fact confronts us: all of these books relate to a personage concerning whom there does not exist a single scrap of contemporary information -- not one! By accepted tradition he was born in the reign of Augustus, the great literary age of the nation of which he was a subject. In the Augustan age historians flourished; poets, orators, critics and travelers abounded. Yet not one mentions the name of Jesus Christ, much less any incident in his life." -

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.