Ben C Smith

I am quite serious about the possibility of the miracle stories circulating in the forties. While it is true that I will not commit firmly to that position, it is also true that I will not yet commit firmly to any position, and the forties are my best estimate so far.

I gave you my hypothetical position because you asked for it. I now see that this was a diversionary tactic on your part, since what is at stake is your apparent claim that these legends cannot have arisen by then.

Your position was that miracles stories (at least certain kinds of miracle stories) cannot be told to people who were alive at the time of the alleged miracle and from that same city; resurrection was one kind of miracle that you put forward for this category. My counterevidence is Augustine of Hippo alleging a resurrection from the dead during a funeral in Hippo within living memory. This counterevidence is not hypothetical.

Yes, and my position is that these legends, which you will recall are the actual topic, arose only 15 years or so after their alleged occurrence. Does my position conflict with yours or not? Could these legends have arisen in the forties or not? And how does my evidence (Augustine) fit into your conclusion?

I will demonstrate how I arrived at this date just as soon as we clear up your assertion that these kinds of legends cannot have arisen in the same place as their alleged occurrence and among people from that same city, since that of course is the topic at hand. You said that we need at least a full generation, and I say that we do not. I have provided counterevidence to your claim, and am patiently waiting for you to back up your claim against this counterevidence (Augustine).

Ben.

Amaleq13

Does Crossley address this, Ben?

Ben C Smith

I do not recall. I got the book on an unusually short interlibrary loan, and then had to rush to finish it when other matters cropped up, so I was unable to digest it as well as I would have liked. Sorry.

There are several reviews online:David du Toit; John Painter; Stephen Carlson.

Also, Crossley responds to the first two in one weblog post and to the last in another.

And Mark Goodacre has some comments on one aspect of the issue.

Ben.

Koyaanisqatsi

It follows that legends would grow around a martyred insurgent leader (particularly in the region and time we're talking about) that was sentenced to death by Roman law in the most publicly heinous manner available at the time. It also follows that such legends would need to be quelled, or otherwise diverted at or around the time of a genocidal military progrom, if not in the region, at, or around the region that may think to mount some sort of flanking, joining opposition. This is the same military acumen/propaganda we would expect of any intelligent occupying force (that we, Americans, at least have employed again and again and again). In fact, it's telling (IMO) that the legend of a pro-Roman Jesus was taught and embraced primarily outside of Jerusalem and mighty convenient that it was all justified by the ridiculous notion of "the Jews" (plural, non-specific) in Jerusalem pushing the new "cult" out.

As others have pointed out, there were many non-orthodox sects of Judaism in Jerusalem at that time, yet none of them received such focus, most likely because they weren't so openly seditionist. So what was so profanely "anti-jewish" about this sect? Nothing. If anything, it wold be that they were "terrorists."

Once again, to me at least, the only thing that explains all of the Jesus legend is that the actual Jesus was a "terrorist" insurgent leader against the Roman occupation who became a martyr to the cause when he was captured by the Romans and summarily publicly mocked and executed by the Romans as a "lesson" to all that followed him. Not in a religious sense, but in a military, insurrectionist sense as is replete in the region's historical ideology.

Years of Roman occupation, oppression, compromise, and corruption during a time of sticks and stones would naturally, eventually give rise to a centralized, local militant insurgent faction that equally naturally would have at its heart a Rabbi who had to augment OT laws in keeping with such militant activism (just like we see today and have seen for centuries in the region and, indeed, wherever dogma is force fed on all "sides"). Just as the need to put such ideology down in and around the region; wherever it would do the most good.

Here's the likely scenario, IMO. Occupation gives rise to centralized opposition that results in the leader of that opposition being captured (perhaps betrayed; that's part of the legend and probably true, but by whom is still open). The leader is publicly sentenced to the most heinous death and publicly mocked by the Romans for being "King" of the Jews (meaning, of course, that he was their underground, insurgent "true" military leader).

His brutal, public death has the desired effect on the average "mom and pop" locals, but not on his subordinate "freedom fighters" (aka, "terrorists"), who flee from the immediate region to the outlaying regions, where they regroup and start making bolder and bolder attacks "in the name of Jesus." The legend of this leader grows to the point where he actually defeated death at the hands of his oppressors and thus, to a primarily Jewish offshoot cult and their much needed recruits becomes a "messiah" tale; keeping in mind that in Judaism there are many messiahs, not just one ultimate messiah. Fifteen to eighteen years is nothing in this region, where time is literally measured by the sunrise and sunset. There was no mass communication in those days, of course. So you would have a militant group of radical seditionists scattered to the desert winds just after their leader was murdered by the Roman oppressors.

And they would desperately need recruits, so the first, original legend of Jesus is spread. He was a messiah who healed the sick and preached nothing but love and goodness, though he came not to bring peace, but a sword.

This would be a "new" messiah, not necessarily envisioned by the prophets of old, but not entirely outside their visions. Pieces of OT prophesy are used to recruit and the "scattered" insurgency from 33 C.E. become a much more focused insurgency around say, 40 C.E. That's being extremely generous, btw, considering the historical nature of the region's people as evidenced today in a world where there is mass communication. Paul is said to come onto the scene around 45-50 C.E.? So let's set the wayback machine to 43 C.E. That would be about ten years after the martyred leader of a charismatic insurgency had been so publicly humiliated and killed. Ten years for a myth to grow amongst the followers (aka, "terrorists") in the region that Roman operatives within the region must have reported to their supperiors. This, btw, long after Pilate had been recalled to Rome due to massive complaints about his alleged brutality against the locals under his governorship, where his own legend has it, he committed suicide.

Can anyone, btw, provide details of the person, or persons who fllled that vacuum until the genocide attempt of 70 C.E.?

Anyway, Rome has reports of a growing insurgency (of the locals killing Romans "in Jesus' name" perhaps?) in the years that follow Jesus' death that they don't want to acknowledge until they no longer have a choice. So, they send in (or "turn") an operative around 45 C.E. let's say (some ten years after the murder and martyrdom of their leader); a pro-Roman "spook" (Paul) who has the local clout to pull a true "Judas" on anyone who will listen to spread a brand new tale of the martyred leader; one that twists the truth the local populace may think they heard (small groups, by small groups) about their ten, fifteen, thousand year dead insurgent leader; it wasn't the Romans that killed him so long ago, it was your own leaders that conspired against him and had him killed. And when that didn't work within Jerusalem (if, indeed, he even bothered to start there), he went to the outlying regions where the legendary seditionist was even farther removed from any kind of truth; a "pre-emptive" measure (sound familiar) against the most likely sympathetic regions from joining the anti-Roman "cause."

So, who does Paul blame for the actual death of their beloved, legendary anti-Roman leader? "The Jews" (plural, non-specific), sowing the seeds for a pro-Roman/anti-Judaic (not anti-semitic) sentiment among those who were already fairly pro-Roman in the sense that they didn't want to be killed and their daughters raped as the tales no doubt told. A politically charged region surrounding the main city where the "insurgents" were fighting the fight. This would be s.o.p. today and "Western" history (aka, Greco-Roman history) proves that we act in a vacuum.

It doesn't work in the areas that it is most needed, of course. The same Christian apologetic of "there would be eyewitnesses to prevent anyone believing it was all a myth" fails precisely because (as history proves) Jews in Jerusalem did not buy the idea that Jesus was a pro-Roman Jewish Messiah. So, you've got Paul desperately preaching to anyone who would listen (and to those who didn't; at least in regard to the resurrection, supposedly) even to the point of openly justifying lies, so long as it serves his "cause," in and around the period just prior to a concentrated Roman genocidal "final solution" progrom that just happens to coincide with a passion narrative (Mark) to be written and presumably circulated that not only corroborates and extends Pual's story, but takes it even further to paint Jesus as a completely docile "messiah" that teaches love of earthly suffering and rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and turn the other cheek to earthly authority, etc, and, most importantly, a "trial" sequence that could have never happened wherein the much hated Pilate actually acquits Jesus, but it's the "crowd of Jews" (plural, again, non-specific) that calls for his inexplicable murder.

The "Jews" are to blame just as the Roman garrisons descend for the "final solution" and if I could translate Arbeit Macht Frei into Latin, you might actually get my long winded point. Only a Roman could write Mark as is evidenced by his repeated misunderstanding of both Messianic prophecy and blatant pro-Roman apologia.

And only a Roman agent could blame "the Jews"(plural, non-specific) for Jesus' crucifixion, because, if you knew any Jews at all, they would never blame one of their own for such treachery, even if it were true. It would be a deeply private matter, handled solely within the Jewish community, as evidence by the two alleged attempts at stoning Jesus to death for blasphemy in the first two places.

:huh:

Koyaanisqatsi

I've said it before and I'll say it again, everything about the passion narrative is designed for a Roman audience and certainly not a Jewish one, which makes absolutely no sense if indeed this "messiah" is a Jewish messiah as the authors all claim him to be, so either the whole thing got a whitewash under Constantine (likely regardless), or it was Roman propaganda from the start.

The extent to which it is pro-Roman (and anti-Judaism) also precludes it from being "cautiously" pro-Roman as a favored apologetic goes. The synoptics and Paul's letters are all designed specifically to not just exonerate the Romans and demonize "the Jews," but to instruct followers to "rejoice" in their oppression and suffering and actively hate "the Jews" (plural, non-specific) and to stop waiting for their Messiah to come free them and kill their enemies, because he already came and "the Jews" killed him.

You could not get more anti-Judaic if you sat down with a quill and parchment.

Ben C Smith

Sorry, Koyaanisqatsi. I skipped your post for some reason. I was not trying to ignore you.

I think I agree.

My point is that rlogan said that such an early circulation for the more spectacular kinds of legends (such as resurrection tales and miraculous feedings of large crowds) is impossible.

I do not think that the relatively short time span would necessarily have any impact, pro or con, on the supernatural claims of the myth.

Remember that it is my position that spectacular supernatural claims can arise very early on, and that I am trying to refute a claim that they cannot.

So I take it you would disagree with the following statement:

I think that your argument is with rlogan, not with me.

You have (re)stated my point exactly. They could easily have arisen in the forties. That is my only point here. And yes, the proximity of those claims to the alleged events does not mitigate their legendary status. Statements about a person are not true just because they are uttered within 15 years of his or her death.

Ben.

Koyaanisqatsi

I wasn't following your discussion with rlogan too closely, so my apologies for assuming you were trying to lay the groundwork, as it were, on the old "it couldn't be mythical if it were written within the lifetimes of those alleged to be present" fallacy.

Ben C Smith

No problem.

Ben.

rlogan

blah blah blah...I have no position but I might throw out hypotheticals I do not even believe myself.

This is my last response, as you simply are disengenuous with this whole exchange.


You are repeatedly and purposefully ignoring that my specific conditions refer to a god-man having such astonishing miracles as with Jesus.

So the question is, after already discussing this in great detail why you would speak falsely about my position and pretend to have submitted "evidence" against what I have repeatedly told you is not my position.

Really cute, aren't we.

The "legends" of Jesus, by your own admission (in a generous early dating) are not recorded until at least a generation after the alleged events.

You have submitted no other evidence, (a horse-talker) but have argued with me about why I should accept your evidence that does not meet my original specifications.


So you are incapable of any examples whatsoever of such miracles, performed by an alleged god-man, circulating during the life of said person, or even shortly afterwards when principals are still alive to contradict.

And that is precisely why this position is so obviously true. There are no examples of it. Hypothetical all you want. But there simply are none.

The "third party" nature of such miracles is also somewhat important, and one I'm sure you would like to pretend I did not state or is not relevant. Jesus allegedly did things that affected others and thereby can be tested. I gave a specific example with running two thousand pigs into the sea, and some others.

At any rate, I'm putting you on ignore. There is no reason to be interacting with these kind of games.

NatSciNarg

There is, of course, the messianic claimant, Sabbatai Sevi, in the 1660s.
As Robert Price writes in 'The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man' (p133), citing Gershom Scholem's biography of Sevi as his source:
Farrel Till also comments, in a debate with Michael Horner here:
So, even in the 17th century, people were happy to believe that their new-found messiah had carried out miracles despite his disciple saying he wouldn't, and despite the person in question's still being alive.

Matthew