andrewcriddle

I'm not sure this is right.

Josephus mentions various revolutionaries religious charlatans etc, but apart from the references to Jesus Christ he does not IIUC say that any of these figures claimed to be Christ or the Messiah.

Andrew Criddle

stonewall1012

Roger, I'm pretty sure that Josephus does not call them Messiah's or Christs. However, there is pleanty of indication that they MIGHT have called themselves something similar. I don't think Josephus would have expected the Romans to understand the history and nature of Messianic claims without thinking the Jews were inherently rebellious. Josephus seems to be writing to Romans about Jewish history.


That's a little bit deceptive isn't it Toto? I mean the whole point is that we are trying to determine WHAT is a historical fact. This is kind of difficult when any reference to Jesus as a historical person is either A) dismissed as 2nd hand knowledge or B) dismissed as interpolation.

Now I'm not saying that Jesus is or is not historical but when your only interested in "factual basis" but destroy the reliability of the facts it makes it kind of obviously one sided.

It also seems disinguenious to speak about "factual basis" as if Tactitcus, Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, are established as fraudes is a historical FACT when that establishment itself is in dispute.

Toto

No, it's not deceptive, but perhaps I didn't spell things out in enough detail. We are not interested in statements like "most experts agree that Jesus existed." We are interested in what lies behind the opinion that Jesus existed.

We can then discuss whether the literary references to Jesus count as evidence, and if so, what sort of weight they deserve.

Yes, the passages in Josephus, in particular, have been challenged as interpolated by later Christian editors. This doesn't mean that they have been completely discredited, but the challenge has enough academic support so that it cannot be dismissed lightly. The other passages only attest to the existence of Christians, not to Jesus.

I believe that in other threads you have claimed to rely on some post-modernist ideas of historigraphy, but this seems inconsistent with your apparent desire to rely so uncritically on these ancient documents.

But perhaps I am not understanding you. Feel free to spell out what you think the basis for your opinion is.

stonewall1012

I never said that Josephus was NOT interpolated, I also never said that these documents should be accepted "as is". What I object to this selective dismissal and selective assumption of guilt. I also object to selectively shifting burden of proof and selectively choosing which standard applies to which claim.

My reliance upon PM is not a reliance but an "introduction" of their perspective into this discussion that appears to believe it is beyond being "biased".

Whether or not I agree with Derria or Michael Foucault is not the point. I was curious to see if anyone here was wrestling with how their own perspective affects their interpretation of history. So far the best answer I've received is from mountainman who contends it's a "phase"; like the idea of your perspective affecting the way you view history is going to just "go away" because we here wish it to.

Most people here contend that they ARE viewing history dispassionate and "objective" and their conclusion is: the gospels are pure fiction; Tatitcus, is a victim of papal conspiracy; Pliny is either interpolated or merely evidence of christians being in egypt; Josephus is interpolated entirely; Seutonius is referencing any other person BUT Jesus; All or most of Pauls letters are interpolations; the early 1st century church was mafia like in its control of its documents; Nicea "created" christianity; Christ through chinese whispers is referencing ANY other deity; and that a negative assertion is the "default" assumption and does not require proof.

Based upon all these "historical facts" I can see why you would view Jesus as fiction. However, forgive me if I some how doubt your atheism is not affecting your judgement.

Toto

You have given no basis for claiming "selective dismissal" or selectively shifting any burden of proof. Why do you think this is so?

I reject this. I think you are making assumptions that have no basis in fact.

Again, you appear to not know what you are talking about. Yes, everyone has biases, and you can do the best to minimize your own biases and acknowledge them. But you are insulting everyone here if you charge that we have only reached our conclusions because we want some inconvenient history to just go away. This is a very serious charge, and you can't even begin to back it up.

You have jumbled together a number of different contentions as if there were a group here that believed all of those assertions, none of which have any support. You are wrong.

In the first place, most atheists probably believe in a historical Jesus (but not a divine one.) It's actually more convenient, since you can show how far Christianity has strayed from the real Jesus. There is nothing in atheism that predisposes one to believe that there was no historical Jesus.

Then lets look at your list of horribles:

the gospels are pure fiction - a position held by many scholars, including Christians.

Tatitcus [sic], is a victim of papal conspiracy; - I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Pliny is either interpolated or merely evidence of christians being in egypt; - I don't know of a case for Pliny being interpolated. But the idea that he is only evidence of the existence of Christians is pretty common among - Christians.

Josephus is interpolated entirely; - again, an interesting question, there is no consensus among atheists, and not necessary to the case for Jesus mythicism.

Seutonius is referencing any other person BUT Jesus; - same

All or most of Pauls letters are interpolations; interpolations imply that there were original letters. There is a Dutch Radical school that claims that Paul's letters were complete forgeries from the second century, which is not a position that most atheists hold, although some do. Most mythicists do not.

the early 1st century church was mafia like in its control of its documents; - nonsense. You can't show that there was a first century church. It is the second century church and later that started to attempt to control the Christian canon. Only one person here uses the term mafia, and he has no following.

Nicea "created" christianity; not my position.

Christ through chinese whispers is referencing ANY other deity; again, not my position

and that a negative assertion is the "default" assumption and does not require proof. - this is not my position and is too confused to even reply to.

If you want to discuss things here, please start to pay more attention to the real issues, instead of casting aspersions on other people's motives.

stonewall1012

I will gather together the post and assertions made here... this will require time as I do bear the burden of proof that these assertions have been made here on this post... it will take time.. which I do not have right now.

I never asserted that there was some kind of formal group. However, most posts here are united in a common assumption (ie that the 4 accounts are mainly mythological, and if not mythological entirely interpolated so much that the "historic" Jesus is lost beyond recovery) most posts here are concerned with proving this assertion not determining what actualy is the truth...

As I have stated I am not here to "convert" or prove the historical Jesus. I object to improper reasoning and fallacious arguments being passed off as logic.

Toto

You say you have no time to back up your charges? Don't make them.

The idea that the four gospels are not historical is common with liberal Christians and NT scholars. Few people feel the need to "prove" it. And I don't know what you mean by "determining what actually is the truth" - what method do you propose?

So far, I don't think you haven't identified any improper reasoning being passed off as logic, although you like to cast aspersions and ramble on. . .

stonewall1012

I will back up my assertions please be patient.
In case you have forgotten I am trying to get you to engage me on another issue concerning the assertion that a negative assertion requires no proof and is the "default" assumption.

mountainman

We have our own conditioning to contend with not only in the business of doing history, but in the business of doing anything at all in every single aspect of our life. Objectivity is obviously one of the goals that reflective minds might seek, when those minds understand that their thoughts are often inextricably associated with their own education levels and experience of life and the world in general.

Ancient History does not require a stated belief - one way or the other - in support or otherwise of any notion of theism and/or atheism. You should know that stonewall1012.

Whatever happened back then actually happened. If we could travel faster than light and race the light sphere which emmanated from earth in the fourth century, and then overtake it and look back into history, then we would see whatever is the historical truth.

I'd really like to know what actually happened when christianity came out of the closet in the fourth century -- simply because I am exceedingly curious for historical truth.


Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

This is NOT my assertion. I have said that I don't think it is at all a useful approach. And I wish that you would stop dragging theads off topic.

To summarize my position so you will drop this: in the legal system, it is often necessary to reach a decision based on incomplete information. The "burden of proof" is just a way of forcing a decision by allowing assumptions to be made. If you are charged with a crime and there is no evidence, the case is dismissed. If you claim a right based on a contract, you have to produce the contract.

There is no need for this in historical research. If there is no evidence, we can just say "there is no evidence" and go on. The default position can be agnosticism.

In debates in general, if you make an assertion, you are presumed to have the burden of producing some evidence; this is sometimes called the burden of proof, but it is really about producing evidence to back your charges as a matter of politeness. If you fail to back up your charges, the opposite is not presumed to be true - the question is left open.

Okay?