Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ApostateAbe · 05-24-2010, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Chaucer,

Actually, it was viewing this clip that made me put Hitchens on the list in the first place.

Hitchens says, "On the historicity point, there are only two reasons I think to suppose that there may have been the figure of some kind of deluded rabbi, a presence at that time."

If I said that there were only two reason to suppose that Robin Hood may have existed, I would not be saying that I believe Robin Hood existed. I would be saying that there were merely some reasons to believe it.

After giving the first reason about the confusion of the nativity at Bethlehem and Nazareth, he says, "…Yes, there may have been a charismatic deluded individual wandering around at that time."

Again, he is simply granting the possibility that some character may have inspired the gospels in some way.

His second reason is the use of women as witnesses at the tomb.

After this, he says in a rather confused impromptu fashion:

Quote:

Its impressive to me that the evidence is so thin and is so hysterical and is so feeble and is so obviously, strenuously cobbled together, because it suggests that something was going on, some character, I therefore do not want to therefore profane those who think that no…there must have been something and say that no, there must have been something. This is not at all … {gabbled}fabrication, but it is a very human and very intelligible, and very pitiable, I think practice of fraud.

The position seems to be that he thinks there is some slight evidence for the existence of some kind of Jesus character, but the vast majority of the text is fraudulent. It is based on this that I would put him in the camp of those who see Jesus as primarily mythological.

I think that there is some evidence that an actual historical character was the basis for the Heracles/Hercules character, some traveling strong man who impressed his listeners with his tales of killing animals and monsters. However, I would still classify Heracles as a mythological character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thank you for making a partial transcript of that, Philosopher Jay. I found a complete transcript of the whole debate on this PDF file:

http://thegodshow.co.uk/debate_FF08_Hitchens_DSouza.pdf

Here is a more complete excerpt:

Now, there is on the historicity point, there is only - there are only two reasons I think
to, to suppose that there may have been the figure of some kind of deluded rabbi,
present at that time. The first is the fakery of the story: the fakery itself proves
something.

The prophecy says, this man must [be] born in the house of David, of David’s line in
David’s town. It means he must be born in Bethlehem. Jesus of Nazareth is well
known to be born in Nazareth. In order to get him to Bethlehem a huge fabrication
has to be undertaken. A census is proposed by Caesar Augustus. No such census
ever took place. The people of the region were not required to go back to their home
town to be registered. That’s never happened. Quirinius was not governor of Syria in
that year as the Gospels say. None of the story of the Nativity is true in any detail and
not one of the Gospels agrees with each other on this fabrication. But the fabrication
itself suggests something. If they were simply going to make up the whole thing and
there’d never been any such person then why not just have him born in Bethlehem
right there, and leave out the Nazarene business.

So the very falsity of it, the very fanatical attempt to make it come right suggests that
yes, there may have been a charismatic, deluded individual wandering around at
that time. But which is most impressive to you: the fantastical fabrications, the
unbelievably inane and inarticulate preachments, or the inconsistencies in the story?

You could mention another thing about the resurrection: most of the witnesses to this
are women. Illiterate, stupid, deluded, hysterical females of the kind who in a Jewish
court at that time would have had about as much chance of being listened to as they
would in an Islamic court today.

What religion that wants its fabrication to be believed is going to say, “You’ve got to
believe it ‘cos we have some illiterate, hysterical girls who said they saw this.” No,
it’s impressive to me. It’s impressive to me that the evidence is so thin and is so
hysterical and is so feeble and is so obviously, strenuously cobbled together because
it suggests that there was - something was going on, there was some character.
And I don’t want to therefore to profane those who think that, “no, there must have
been something”, and say “no, there was nothing.” This is not a whole-cloth
fabrication. But it is a very human and very intelligible and very pitiable I think,
practise of fraud. That may have worked on stupefied peasants in the greater
Jerusalem area but should really have no power to influence anyone in this room
whereas the noble methods and words and systems by which Socrates reasoned will
continue to illuminate our path for as long as we care about the only real gift we have
which is our independent intelligence.

The point about Nazareth is a big one to me, but I certainly wouldn't exclude it to two arguments. Other than the word, "only," I agree with everything he says, though I hope you wouldn't classify me as a mythicist. Hitchens actually touches on an argument that is central to me, a bit earlier (my emphasis):

I’m willing to grant it all. I’m willing to grant the immaculate conception ﬁrst, then
the virgin birth, then the resurrection. And the annunciation and the assumption. I’m
willing to grant all of it. It doesn’t prove the truth of the proposition that you should
take no thought for the morrow, the central doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, take no
thought for the morrow.

No investment, no thrift, no care for your children, that you should abandon your
family, not worry about construction, about investment, about anything. Just follow
me. A ridiculous and immoral proposition that as C. S. Lewis so cleverly and I must
say for him very honestly puts it, means that the man must either have been a maniac,
a sick man, an evil man, or he must have believed that the world was coming
immediately to an end, and that he was commanded to announce this fact to the
deluded bronze-age inhabitants of Palestine.

aa5874 · 05-24-2010, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

......No investment, no thrift, no care for your children, that you should abandon your
family, not worry about construction, about investment, about anything. Just follow
me. A ridiculous and immoral proposition that as C. S. Lewis so cleverly and I must
say for him very honestly puts it, means that the man must either have been a maniac,
a sick man, an evil man, or he must have believed that the world was coming
immediately to an end, and that he was commanded to announce this fact to the
deluded bronze-age inhabitants of Palestine.[/INDENT]

First of all predictions about the end of the world was already found in Hebrew Scripture so a character claiming that the world would come to an end at around 33 CE or shortly would not be anything unprecedented.

And the conditions for Jews to expect the END of the world did NOT EXIST during the reign of Tiberius and governorship of Pilate it was at around 70 CE that the conditions for JEWS to expect the END of the world DID OCCUR.

At around 70 CE, Jerusalem was MADE DESOLATE, the Temple had Fallen, JEWS were being massacred and STARVED to death. According to Josephus a woman ate PARTS of her own baby due to a massive famine.

It was the author himself/herself who invented the Jesus story who thought the world was coming to an end AFTER the desolation of Jerusalem and the Fall of the Temple.

It would appear that the author himself/herself thought the prophecy of Daniel had been fulfilled at around 70 CE.

Mark 13:14 -

Quote:

But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains...

Daniel 11:31 -

Quote:

And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.

It would appear the author concealed his/her name and date of writing to give the FALSE impression that he/she wrote LONG BEFORE the desolation of Jerusalem and the Fall of the Temple which in turn made LONG past events appear to be future predictions by the fabricated God/man called Jesus.

Chaucer · 05-25-2010, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Chaucer,

Actually, it was viewing this clip that made me put Hitchens on the list in the first place.

Hitchens says, "On the historicity point, there are only two reasons I think to suppose that there may have been the figure of some kind of deluded rabbi, a presence at that time."

If I said that there were only two reason to suppose that Robin Hood may have existed, I would not be saying that I believe Robin Hood existed. I would be saying that there were merely some reasons to believe it.

After giving the first reason about the confusion of the nativity at Bethlehem and Nazareth, he says, "…Yes, there may have been a charismatic deluded individual wandering around at that time."

Again, he is simply granting the possibility that some character may have inspired the gospels in some way.

His second reason is the use of women as witnesses at the tomb.

After this, he says in a rather confused impromptu fashion:

The position seems to be that he thinks there is some slight evidence for the existence of some kind of Jesus character, but the vast majority of the text is fraudulent. It is based on this that I would put him in the camp of those who see Jesus as primarily mythological.

I think that there is some evidence that an actual historical character was the basis for the Heracles/Hercules character, some traveling strong man who impressed his listeners with his tales of killing animals and monsters. However, I would still classify Heracles as a mythological character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thank you for making a partial transcript of that, Philosopher Jay. I found a complete transcript of the whole debate on this PDF file:

http://thegodshow.co.uk/debate_FF08_Hitchens_DSouza.pdf

Here is a more complete excerpt:

Now, there is on the historicity point, there is only - there are only two reasons I think
to, to suppose that there may have been the figure of some kind of deluded rabbi,
present at that time. The first is the fakery of the story: the fakery itself proves
something.

The prophecy says, this man must [be] born in the house of David, of David’s line in
David’s town. It means he must be born in Bethlehem. Jesus of Nazareth is well
known to be born in Nazareth. In order to get him to Bethlehem a huge fabrication
has to be undertaken. A census is proposed by Caesar Augustus. No such census
ever took place. The people of the region were not required to go back to their home
town to be registered. That’s never happened. Quirinius was not governor of Syria in
that year as the Gospels say. None of the story of the Nativity is true in any detail and
not one of the Gospels agrees with each other on this fabrication. But the fabrication
itself suggests something. If they were simply going to make up the whole thing and
there’d never been any such person then why not just have him born in Bethlehem
right there, and leave out the Nazarene business.

So the very falsity of it, the very fanatical attempt to make it come right suggests that
yes, there may have been a charismatic, deluded individual wandering around at
that time. But which is most impressive to you: the fantastical fabrications, the
unbelievably inane and inarticulate preachments, or the inconsistencies in the story?

You could mention another thing about the resurrection: most of the witnesses to this
are women. Illiterate, stupid, deluded, hysterical females of the kind who in a Jewish
court at that time would have had about as much chance of being listened to as they
would in an Islamic court today.

What religion that wants its fabrication to be believed is going to say, “You’ve got to
believe it ‘cos we have some illiterate, hysterical girls who said they saw this.” No,
it’s impressive to me. It’s impressive to me that the evidence is so thin and is so
hysterical and is so feeble and is so obviously, strenuously cobbled together because
it suggests that there was - something was going on, there was some character.
And I don’t want to therefore to profane those who think that, “no, there must have
been something”, and say “no, there was nothing.” This is not a whole-cloth
fabrication. But it is a very human and very intelligible and very pitiable I think,
practise of fraud. That may have worked on stupefied peasants in the greater
Jerusalem area but should really have no power to influence anyone in this room
whereas the noble methods and words and systems by which Socrates reasoned will
continue to illuminate our path for as long as we care about the only real gift we have
which is our independent intelligence.

The point about Nazareth is a big one to me, but I certainly wouldn't exclude it to two arguments. Other than the word, "only," I agree with everything he says, though I hope you wouldn't classify me as a mythicist.

Thank you, Abe. Precisely my point.

Chaucer

Doug Shaver · 05-26-2010, 06:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchens

What religion that wants its fabrication to be believed is going to say, “You’ve got to believe it ‘cos we have some illiterate, hysterical girls who said they saw this.”

That could be a good point, if we assume that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true. Absent that assumption, credibility issues of that sort lose a lot of their relevance.

PhilosopherJay · 05-26-2010, 11:01 AM

Hi Apostate Abe,

Thanks for the full transcript.

In this case, I think the phrase "only two reasons." and "may have been" are key. If he had said, "There are at least two reason" or "there are two excellent reasons," I would not have put him in the mythicist category. His use of the phrase "may have been" instead of "was" indicates that even these two lone reasons are insufficient for him to conclude that there was an historical Jesus.

Even myself, holding a substantially mythical Jesus position, have to admit to there being reasons to suppose some of the gospel text may have been influenced by an actual historical rabbi or cynical philosopher or magician. In the same way that I have to admit that there is evidence that the Superman/Clark Kent character was based on the historical figures of Douglas Fairbanks and Harold Lloyd.

In this case, Hitchens becomes awfully confused when he tries to explain those "only two reasons." I suspect the reason for this is that he is tackling a myriad of issues already and doesn't want to be discredited by being seen as part of a radical "Jesus never existed" movement. Ironically, he probably feels it might hurt his credibility as a leader of the Atheist movement.

As for these two reasons, we can easily see some of the weaknesses in them. Neither the change in the texts from Nazareth to Bethlehem, nor the women being the finders of the empty tomb point exclusively or strongly towards an historical Jesus.

In the first case, one has to prove that a particular change of an element of the text has been done to disguise an historical fact as opposed to changing an element for other reasons. For example, let us take the narrative of Romeo and Juliet. We know that it is a quite fictitious story with roots going back to the Greek myth of Pyramus and Thisbe.

In Shakespeare's version Romeo meets Juliet in April at a party thrown by Juliet's father, Capulet, in order to get Juliet to fall in love with Paris, was he tells him:

Quote:

This night I hold an old accustom'd feast,
Whereto I have invited many a guest,
Such as I love; and you, among the store,
One more, most welcome, makes my number more.
At my poor house look to behold this night
Earth-treading stars that make dark heaven light:
Such comfort as do lusty young men feel
When well-apparell'd April on the heel
Of limping winter treads, even such delight
Among fresh female buds shall you this night
Inherit at my house;

In the earlier poem by Arthur Brooke, Romeus and Juliet, first published in 1562, two years before Shakespeare's birth, the party is Capulet's annual Christmas party. The narrator explains this in Lines 155-308:

Quote:

The weary winter nights restore the Christmas games,
And now the season doth invite to banquet townish dames.
And first in Capel's house, the chief of all the kin
Spar'th for no cost, the wonted use of banquets to begin.
No lady fair or foul was in Verona town,
160
No knight or gentleman of high or low renown,
But Capulet himself hath bid unto his feast,
Or by his name in paper sent, appointed as a geast.
Young damsels thither flock, of bachelors a rout,
Not so much for the banquet's sake, as beauties to search out.
But not a Montague would enter at his gate

One could argue that Shakespeare knows that Romeo truly met Juliet at a Christmas party, but he wants to change it to a more Romantic party in the Spring time, April, because love is traditionally associated with Spring.

In the same way, one may argue that writers have changed Nazareth to Bethlehem because a messiah is traditionally associated with Bethlehem in Hebrew Scriptures.

However, the changing of the Christmas to Spring time does not in any way prove that there must have been an historical Romeo and Juliet, the changing of Nazareth to Bethlehem in no way proves an historical Jesus. Just as the Christmas party has no more claim to historicity than the Spring Party, a Jesus born in Nazareth has no more claim to historicity as a Jesus born in Bethlehem.

We can give another example where a change in a story does not really indicate a higher chance of historicity. In an earlier version of the Superman story, Superman was born on Earth in the future, a dying planet, and sent back in time to fix things. At some point, Jerry Siegel changed this and had Superman born on the planet Krypton. Does the change of Superman being born on Earth in the future to the planet Krypton really provide us with evidence that Superman is an historical character?

If Hitchens could prove that by itself changing an element in rewriting a fictional story makes the original element more likely to be historical, he would have a case. However, he doesn't prove that. If he should, he would then have to face the argument that Nazareth didn't exist at that time and Nazareth is derived from the word "Nazarene." However, he doesn't need to face this roadblock until he first proves that a change indicates that the original element was more likely to be historical.

As far as the women at the tomb argument, Doug Shaver makes the excellent point:

Quote:

That could be a good point, if we assume that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true. Absent that assumption, credibility issues of that sort lose a lot of their relevance.

I have postulated that the original gospel tale ended with the Roman soldier affirming that Jesus was a son of God (a devout religious man as opposed to the magician phony the Jews thought him). The tomb scene was added as a coda. I have also postulated that the tale was first written by a woman, which explains why Mary is left to tell the tale that nobody believes.
The autorial strategy of the only one knowing the tale telling the tale was used for the ending of Moby Dick:

Quote:

The drama's done. Why then here does any one step forth?- Because one did survive the wreck.

It so chanced, that after the Parsee's disappearance, I was he whom the Fates ordained to take the place of Ahab's bowsman, when that bowsman assumed the vacant post; the same, who, when on the last day the three men were tossed from out of the rocking boat, was dropped astern. So, floating on the margin of the ensuing scene, and in full sight of it, when the halfspent suction of the sunk ship reached me, I was then, but slowly, drawn towards the closing vortex. When I reached it, it had subsided to a creamy pool. Round and round, then, and ever contracting towards the button-like black bubble at the axis of that slowly wheeling circle, like another Ixion I did revolve. Till, gaining that vital centre, the black bubble upward burst; and now, liberated by reason of its cunning spring, and, owing to its great buoyancy, rising with great force, the coffin life-buoy shot lengthwise from the sea, fell over, and floated by my side. Buoyed up by that coffin, for almost one whole day and night, I floated on a soft and dirgelike main. The unharming sharks, they glided by as if with padlocks on their mouths; the savage sea-hawks sailed with sheathed beaks. On the second day, a sail drew near, nearer, and picked me up at last. It was the devious-cruising Rachel, that in her retracing search after her missing children, only found another orphan. FINIS

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Chaucer,

Actually, it was viewing this clip that made me put Hitchens on the list in the first place.
{snip}

The position seems to be that he thinks there is some slight evidence for the existence of some kind of Jesus character, but the vast majority of the text is fraudulent. It is based on this that I would put him in the camp of those who see Jesus as primarily mythological.

I think that there is some evidence that an actual historical character was the basis for the Heracles/Hercules character, some traveling strong man who impressed his listeners with his tales of killing animals and monsters. However, I would still classify Heracles as a mythological character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Thank you for making a partial transcript of that, Philosopher Jay. I found a complete transcript of the whole debate on this PDF file:

http://thegodshow.co.uk/debate_FF08_Hitchens_DSouza.pdf

Here is a more complete excerpt:

Now, there is on the historicity point, there is only - there are only two reasons I think
to, to suppose that there may have been the figure of some kind of deluded rabbi,
present at that time. The first is the fakery of the story: the fakery itself proves
something.

The prophecy says, this man must [be] born in the house of David, of David’s line in
David’s town. It means he must be born in Bethlehem. Jesus of Nazareth is well
known to be born in Nazareth. In order to get him to Bethlehem a huge fabrication
has to be undertaken. A census is proposed by Caesar Augustus. No such census
ever took place. The people of the region were not required to go back to their home
town to be registered. That’s never happened. Quirinius was not governor of Syria in
that year as the Gospels say. None of the story of the Nativity is true in any detail and
not one of the Gospels agrees with each other on this fabrication. But the fabrication
itself suggests something. If they were simply going to make up the whole thing and
there’d never been any such person then why not just have him born in Bethlehem
right there, and leave out the Nazarene business.

So the very falsity of it, the very fanatical attempt to make it come right suggests that
yes, there may have been a charismatic, deluded individual wandering around at
that time. But which is most impressive to you: the fantastical fabrications, the
unbelievably inane and inarticulate preachments, or the inconsistencies in the story?

You could mention another thing about the resurrection: most of the witnesses to this
are women. Illiterate, stupid, deluded, hysterical females of the kind who in a Jewish
court at that time would have had about as much chance of being listened to as they
would in an Islamic court today.

What religion that wants its fabrication to be believed is going to say, “You’ve got to
believe it ‘cos we have some illiterate, hysterical girls who said they saw this.” No,
it’s impressive to me. It’s impressive to me that the evidence is so thin and is so
hysterical and is so feeble and is so obviously, strenuously cobbled together because
it suggests that there was - something was going on, there was some character.
And I don’t want to therefore to profane those who think that, “no, there must have
been something”, and say “no, there was nothing.” This is not a whole-cloth
fabrication. But it is a very human and very intelligible and very pitiable I think,
practise of fraud. That may have worked on stupefied peasants in the greater
Jerusalem area but should really have no power to influence anyone in this room
whereas the noble methods and words and systems by which Socrates reasoned will
continue to illuminate our path for as long as we care about the only real gift we have
which is our independent intelligence.

The point about Nazareth is a big one to me, but I certainly wouldn't exclude it to two arguments. Other than the word, "only," I agree with everything he says, though I hope you wouldn't classify me as a mythicist. Hitchens actually touches on an argument that is central to me, a bit earlier (my emphasis):

I’m willing to grant it all. I’m willing to grant the immaculate conception ﬁrst, then
the virgin birth, then the resurrection. And the annunciation and the assumption. I’m
willing to grant all of it. It doesn’t prove the truth of the proposition that you should
take no thought for the morrow, the central doctrine of Jesus of Nazareth, take no
thought for the morrow.

No investment, no thrift, no care for your children, that you should abandon your
family, not worry about construction, about investment, about anything. Just follow
me. A ridiculous and immoral proposition that as C. S. Lewis so cleverly and I must
say for him very honestly puts it, means that the man must either have been a maniac,
a sick man, an evil man, or he must have believed that the world was coming
immediately to an end, and that he was commanded to announce this fact to the
deluded bronze-age inhabitants of Palestine.

aa5874 · 05-26-2010, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitchens

....What religion that wants its fabrication to be believed is going to say, “You’ve got to believe it ‘cos we have some illiterate, hysterical girls who said they saw this.”

But, there is no such thing in the NT.

Where can it be found that the women who visited the tomb were illiterate?

Some people become victims of their own imagination and think what they imagine is history.

And the NT Canon is about Jesus who supposedly made predictions that came true, not about Mary Magdalene and the other women who were hardly ever mentioned and some only in the final chapter.

Mary Magdalene is mentioned ONLY 12 times and Jesus was mentioned over 600 times in the Gospels.

ApostateAbe · 05-26-2010, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Apostate Abe,

Thanks for the full transcript.

In this case, I think the phrase "only two reasons." and "may have been" are key. If he had said, "There are at least two reason" or "there are two excellent reasons," I would not have put him in the mythicist category. His use of the phrase "may have been" instead of "was" indicates that even these two lone reasons are insufficient for him to conclude that there was an historical Jesus.

Even myself, holding a substantially mythical Jesus position, have to admit to there being reasons to suppose some of the gospel text may have been influenced by an actual historical rabbi or cynical philosopher or magician. In the same way that I have to admit that there is evidence that the Superman/Clark Kent character was based on the historical figures of Douglas Fairbanks and Harold Lloyd.

In this case, Hitchens becomes awfully confused when he tries to explain those "only two reasons." I suspect the reason for this is that he is tackling a myriad of issues already and doesn't want to be discredited by being seen as part of a radical "Jesus never existed" movement. Ironically, he probably feels it might hurt his credibility as a leader of the Atheist movement.

As for these two reasons, we can easily see some of the weaknesses in them. Neither the change in the texts from Nazareth to Bethlehem, nor the women being the finders of the empty tomb point exclusively or strongly towards an historical Jesus.

In the first case, one has to prove that a particular change of an element of the text has been done to disguise an historical fact as opposed to changing an element for other reasons. For example, let us take the narrative of Romeo and Juliet. We know that it is a quite fictitious story with roots going back to the Greek myth of Pyramus and Thisbe.

In Shakespeare's version Romeo meets Juliet in April at a party thrown by Juliet's father, Capulet, in order to get Juliet to fall in love with Paris, was he tells him:

Quote:

This night I hold an old accustom'd feast,
Whereto I have invited many a guest,
Such as I love; and you, among the store,
One more, most welcome, makes my number more.
At my poor house look to behold this night
Earth-treading stars that make dark heaven light:
Such comfort as do lusty young men feel
When well-apparell'd April on the heel
Of limping winter treads, even such delight
Among fresh female buds shall you this night
Inherit at my house;

In the earlier poem by Arthur Brooke, Romeus and Juliet, first published in 1562, two years before Shakespeare's birth, the party is Capulet's annual Christmas party. The narrator explains this in Lines 155-308:

One could argue that Shakespeare knows that Romeo truly met Juliet at a Christmas party, but he wants to change it to a more Romantic party in the Spring time, April, because love is traditionally associated with Spring.

In the same way, one may argue that writers have changed Nazareth to Bethlehem because a messiah is traditionally associated with Bethlehem in Hebrew Scriptures.

However, the changing of the Christmas to Spring time does not in any way prove that there must have been an historical Romeo and Juliet, the changing of Nazareth to Bethlehem in no way proves an historical Jesus. Just as the Christmas party has no more claim to historicity than the Spring Party, a Jesus born in Nazareth has no more claim to historicity as a Jesus born in Bethlehem.

We can give another example where a change in a story does not really indicate a higher chance of historicity. In an earlier version of the Superman story, Superman was born on Earth in the future, a dying planet, and sent back in time to fix things. At some point, Jerry Siegel changed this and had Superman born on the planet Krypton. Does the change of Superman being born on Earth in the future to the planet Krypton really provide us with evidence that Superman is an historical character?

If Hitchens could prove that by itself changing an element in rewriting a fictional story makes the original element more likely to be historical, he would have a case. However, he doesn't prove that. If he should, he would then have to face the argument that Nazareth didn't exist at that time and Nazareth is derived from the word "Nazarene." However, he doesn't need to face this roadblock until he first proves that a change indicates that the original element was more likely to be historical.

As far as the women at the tomb argument, Doug Shaver makes the excellent point:

Quote:

That could be a good point, if we assume that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true. Absent that assumption, credibility issues of that sort lose a lot of their relevance.

I have postulated that the original gospel tale ended with the Roman soldier affirming that Jesus was a son of God (a devout religious man as opposed to the magician phony the Jews thought him). The tomb scene was added as a coda. I have also postulated that the tale was first written by a woman, which explains why Mary is left to tell the tale that nobody believes.
The autorial strategy of the only one knowing the tale telling the tale was used for the ending of Moby Dick:

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Philosopher Jay, as you know, for me, it is about probability. The established position or critical scholars, which is the position that I accept, has details. Therefore, it is capable of being criticized. There does not seem to be any settled details on what the mythicist position. For example, Doug Shaver said,

That could be a good point, if we assume that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true. Absent that assumption, credibility issues of that sort lose a lot of their relevance.

OK, but what is the alternative assumption? There is the assumption that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true, largely because we have a small library of early Christian writing to indicate exactly that. To propose otherwise requires that there was a drastic and undetected shift in religion between the time the gospels were written and the time of early Christian apologetics. The problem is compounded for those who propose that the gospels were composed in the second century, which would mean that they were composed at the same time as the writings of Marcion, Tertullian and Irenaeus, all of whom strongly defended their versions of Christian history. In a serious debate, it is not enough to propose that an assumption lacks sufficient certainty. If there is no plausible alternative, then the assumption stands, because absolutely anything can be uncertain. It is easy to always argue from a skeptical vantage point in this matter, but it is more difficult to build a consistent and plausible alternative theory of how things were. If the gospels were not intended as truth, then what were they intended to be?

You think that: "Neither the change in the texts from Nazareth to Bethlehem, nor the women being the finders of the empty tomb point exclusively or strongly towards an historical Jesus." That's fine. All by themselves, I wouldn't accept them as strong evidence, especially if there is an alternative explanation that fits the evidence far better. Perhaps it can be conceded that these two lines of evidence encourage the theory of a historical Jesus at least weakly.

show_no_mercy · 05-26-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That could be a good point, if we assume that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true. Absent that assumption, credibility issues of that sort lose a lot of their relevance.

OK, but what is the alternative assumption? There is the assumption that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true, largely because we have a small library of early Christian writing to indicate exactly that. To propose otherwise requires that there was a drastic and undetected shift in religion between the time the gospels were written and the time of early Christian apologetics. The problem is compounded for those who propose that the gospels were composed in the second century, which would mean that they were composed at the same time as the writings of Marcion, Tertullian and Irenaeus, all of whom strongly defended their versions of Christian history.

For one, the gospels being written in the 2nd century in no way precludes what you allude to. Irenaeus is writing in the late 2nd century. Tertullian is writing in the late 2nd/early 3rd century. This is absolutely no problem at all for anyone who thinks that the gospels were written in the 180 years prior to Irenaeus or even 40 years before Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE). What makes less sense would be the conservative position; that the orthodox gospels were written prior to the fall of the temple and it took almost a century for any orthodox Christian to become aware of them.

Marcion, on the other hand, seemed to have been angered or annoyed that a gospel had been corrupted by "judaizers" and sought to correct them. Which probably means that written synoptic gospels were being created during his lifetime.

Realize that gnostics were writing their homilies of gospels and other craziness before the orthodox started attacking them; that's the entire point of the hereseiologists' writings. Papias, writing in the early 2nd century, claimed to not trust writings and tried to rely on word of mouth. Probably because writings were all craziness by the gnostics.

I think Mark, et. al. were writing theology. They weren't writing intentional lies and they weren't writing history. They were probably writing what they wanted to believe - and probably in Mark's case - with a lot of entertainment value. But we're under no obligation to implicitly trust the historicity of writings written by unknown people at an unknown time for an unknown audience.

aa5874 · 05-26-2010, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Philosopher Jay, as you know, for me, it is about probability. The established position or critical scholars, which is the position that I accept, has details....

But, this is certainly not true. You yourself has described the evidence as akin to a "pile of dog crap".

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

There does not seem to be any settled details on what the mythicist position.....

That is also not true. The mythicist position is settled. Jesus was a myth, that is non-historical.

The details of the MYTH Jesus can be found in the NT and Church writings.

See Matthew 1.18. Luke 1.35, John 1, Mark 9.2, Mark 16.6, Acts 1.9, Galatians 1.1, the preface to De Prinicipiis by Origen, "Against Heresies" by Irenaeus, "On the Flesh of Christ" by Tertullian and more.

ApostateAbe · 05-26-2010, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

That could be a good point, if we assume that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true. Absent that assumption, credibility issues of that sort lose a lot of their relevance.

OK, but what is the alternative assumption? There is the assumption that the gospel authors intended their readers to think the stories were factually true, largely because we have a small library of early Christian writing to indicate exactly that. To propose otherwise requires that there was a drastic and undetected shift in religion between the time the gospels were written and the time of early Christian apologetics. The problem is compounded for those who propose that the gospels were composed in the second century, which would mean that they were composed at the same time as the writings of Marcion, Tertullian and Irenaeus, all of whom strongly defended their versions of Christian history.

For one, the gospels being written in the 2nd century in no way precludes what you allude to. Irenaeus is writing in the late 2nd century. Tertullian is writing in the late 2nd/early 3rd century. This is absolutely no problem at all for anyone who thinks that the gospels were written in the 180 years prior to Irenaeus or even 40 years before Justin Martyr (c. 150 CE). What makes less sense would be the conservative position; that the orthodox gospels were written prior to the fall of the temple and it took almost a century for any orthodox Christian to become aware of them.

Marcion, on the other hand, seemed to have been angered or annoyed that a gospel had been corrupted by "judaizers" and sought to correct them. Which probably means that written synoptic gospels were being created during his lifetime.

Realize that gnostics were writing their homilies of gospels and other craziness before the orthodox started attacking them; that's the entire point of the hereseiologists' writings. Papias, writing in the early 2nd century, claimed to not trust writings and tried to rely on word of mouth. Probably because writings were all craziness by the gnostics.

I think Mark, et. al. were writing theology. They weren't writing intentional lies and they weren't writing history. They were probably writing what they wanted to believe - and probably in Mark's case - with a lot of entertainment value. But we're under no obligation to implicitly trust the historicity of writings written by unknown people at an unknown time for an unknown audience.

The alternative mythicist proposition I had in mind was that the gospels were written after the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132-136 BCE, which would give a minimum date, and it really pushes the limits of the proposition that the gospels were intended as something other than truth, because it pushes right up against the dates of the early apologies. What do you make of that? Sometimes, an ad hoc alternative explanation by itself can seem acceptable, and another ad hoc alternative explanation by itself can seem acceptable, but the two of them don't fit together into a consistent and sensible theory. I left out Polycarp and Justin Martyr, apologists who were discussed in the works of their students, and they, also, would need to be taken into consideration. You brought up a comparison to conservative theories, that the gospels were composed before the fall of Jerusalem. But, I am not an conservative orthodox proponent, and they are not part of the debate, so why would you bring them up? The arguments of the ultra-skeptics easily win against the positions of the Christian apologists, and that may lead you into an illusion that you have a winning position, but I think maybe you need to get a handle on who your competition truly is.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.