Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 12-16-2003, 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin
Neither have I. That's why I was shocked when I saw so many people getting away here with being able to simply assume it as obvious.

I think Lowder does a pretty good job at looking at the evidence, via his evaluation of Josh McDowell's book "Evidence That Demands a Verdict". Lowder concludes:

Quote:

I think there is ample evidence to conclude there was a historical Jesus. To my mind, the New Testament alone provides sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but the writings of Josephus also provide two independent, authentic references to Jesus.

As for McDowell's other sources for the historicity of Jesus, I think they are inconclusive. There is no evidence that the written works of the church fathers were based on independent sources. Tertullian's reference to Tiberius is inconclusive, as is Africanus' references to Thallus. Africanus' reference to Phlegon is probably an interpolation. The Talmud is too late to be of any value in establishing the historicity of Jesus. Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, and Lucian are not independent witnesses to the historicity of Jesus. Suetonius did not refer to Jesus. (GDon: My emphasis)

spin · 12-16-2003, 06:39 AM

Quote:

To my mind, the New Testament alone provides sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus

That's because the Lowder doesn't seem to be doing history. Here's his footnote:

Quote:

In other words, the mere claim that "Jesus existed" is not an extraordinary claim and therefore does not require extraordinary evidence.

What does he do with Little Red Riding Hood?

Quote:

but the writings of Josephus also provide two independent, authentic references to Jesus.

What does a person do with literature that was produced in the USSR, read them as they were written as truths? A lot of scholarship has been written on the two testimonies in Josephus and the results are not conclusive, ie one cannot simply use these citations as though they were genuine -- while they may be, there is a lot to suggest they weren't.

spin

rlogan · 12-16-2003, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
I see the mythicist position as forcing me to assume there is a mythmaker at the root of Christianity. I haven't seen the mythicists offer any evidence of who this might be, just some speculation of who it could have been.

-Mike...

I think this is one of the most interesting detective cases in history. But look to who wrote the documents and their sponsors - and you have your answers for the most part.

There isn't one mythmaker. I can't do justice to the whole enterprise in a few paragraphs here, but it was a centuries long process before the composite Jesus of canon was ossified.

I think you have to appreciate Mike that the entire history of the Bible is the same. The Church forgery and deception mill has been in business for thousands of years.

The creationists are still at it.

Layman · 12-16-2003, 07:26 AM

Hmm. I think I'll take the same poll at church next week. You know, a real scientific one.

spin · 12-16-2003, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
Hmm. I think I'll take the same poll at church next week. You know, a real scientific one.

But they won't need you to support your assumptions.

spin

spin · 12-16-2003, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
The Church forgery and deception mill has been in business for thousands of years.

I think the words "forgery and deception" aren't appropriate in this discussion. I don't think many religionists can look themselves in the eye while being responsible for "forgery and deception". This sort of thinking is quite modern and I'd say inappropriate for the situation we are trying to deal with.

Is the book of Daniel a forgery? It almost certainly wasn't written by a Daniel, it wasn't written around the time it was set and shows incomplete knowledge of the period. It even deals with completely different things, ie the struggle between Jerusalem and the Seleucid empire. Yet it was communicating to its readership for particular purposes, showing the state of the world with respect to Judea circa 165 BCE and giving hope to Jewish fighters dealing with Seleucid royal armies. It had to be packaged so that a casual reader couldn't get the real content of the document. A forgery? No, the term is inappropriate, as it is with most of the literature we are dealing with. The Pseudo-Pauline documents were written under the reverence of Paul and/or in his name by a school. Forgeries? No. Deception. No. Reflecting things in the world that happened, well, probably not.

spin

Apikorus · 12-16-2003, 09:50 AM

spin, I was wondering whether you hold in an historical Hillel, for example, and what are your reasons for accepting or rejecting his historicity (briefly).

I'm sorry I've been busy with work and haven't had time to start the promised discussion on the Essenes. I hope to find some time before the end of the year.

Amaleq13 · 12-16-2003, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
Five feet six inches, muscular build, shoulder length hair, rapid gait, gravely voice, large ears, distinctive mole on left cheek...

Jesus is Val Kilmer playing Jim Morrison!?!

Toto · 12-16-2003, 10:39 AM

I have read attempted scholarly discussions of the existence of Jesus, but they all come down to accepting the gospels as historical evidence of at least the existence of Jesus and/or accepting at least one of the references in Josephus as accurate. I don't find either of these very strong. Steve Mason in Josephus and the New Testament argued for the existence of Jesus based on one reference, but I got the impression that this would support a guess of 51% probability that Jesus existed and not much more, and doesn't tell us much about Jesus.

I have seen Christians claim that a historical Jesus is the only explanation of early Christian history, but I think this can be easily refuted.

No one has attempted to do what Carrier suggested, and construct a case based on the best explanation. I think that Christians would be reluctant to do this, because it implies that there might actually be some doubt on the issue, or because it undermines their faith. I think that a secular historian would not want to get into the issue because there is so little evidence to work with, and its not the kind of work that leads to tenure or fame and glory.

I recall a prominent atheist of my acquaintance advising that the issue of the existence of Jesus be avoided. It's a lot better, he said, to just admit or assume that someone like that existed, but that he was not divine, performed no miracles, and would have been appalled at what has been done in his name. Sometimes I think that was good advice.

Bookman · 12-16-2003, 11:32 AM

Toto (or anyone else),

Help out a novice. If I understand the "Q" hypothesis, there is supposed to have been this document, "Q", which was a collection of statements attributed to this alleged figure.

Was this a common sort of document in the first century? Does someone's effort to collect these sayings in one place indicate at all that in BCE 50(?) or so there was a belief held by some that Jesus was a real person, and that his statements of faith, spread orally through the region were worth jotting down all in one place?

The reason I ask is that these collections of common attributions seem like evidence to me that there was some sort of historic personage behind the statements at least.

Bookman
(Dammit man, I'm a mathmetician, not a historian! Please be gentle.

)

View Poll Results: Have you ever seen a scholarly presentation of evidence for the HJ?
Yes, definitely	8	14.29%
Yes, I guess so	5	8.93%
I haven't taken enough notice	1	1.79%
No, I don't think so	19	33.93%
No, definitely not	23	41.07%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

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

12-16-2003, 07:26 AM	#14
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	Hmm. I think I'll take the same poll at church next week. You know, a real scientific one.

12-16-2003, 09:50 AM	#17
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	spin, I was wondering whether you hold in an historical Hillel, for example, and what are your reasons for accepting or rejecting his historicity (briefly). I'm sorry I've been busy with work and haven't had time to start the promised discussion on the Essenes. I hope to find some time before the end of the year.

12-16-2003, 10:39 AM	#19
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I have read attempted scholarly discussions of the existence of Jesus, but they all come down to accepting the gospels as historical evidence of at least the existence of Jesus and/or accepting at least one of the references in Josephus as accurate. I don't find either of these very strong. Steve Mason in Josephus and the New Testament argued for the existence of Jesus based on one reference, but I got the impression that this would support a guess of 51% probability that Jesus existed and not much more, and doesn't tell us much about Jesus. I have seen Christians claim that a historical Jesus is the only explanation of early Christian history, but I think this can be easily refuted. No one has attempted to do what Carrier suggested, and construct a case based on the best explanation. I think that Christians would be reluctant to do this, because it implies that there might actually be some doubt on the issue, or because it undermines their faith. I think that a secular historian would not want to get into the issue because there is so little evidence to work with, and its not the kind of work that leads to tenure or fame and glory. I recall a prominent atheist of my acquaintance advising that the issue of the existence of Jesus be avoided. It's a lot better, he said, to just admit or assume that someone like that existed, but that he was not divine, performed no miracles, and would have been appalled at what has been done in his name. Sometimes I think that was good advice.

12-16-2003, 11:32 AM	#20
Bookman Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Nashville, TN, USA Posts: 2,210	Toto (or anyone else), Help out a novice. If I understand the "Q" hypothesis, there is supposed to have been this document, "Q", which was a collection of statements attributed to this alleged figure. Was this a common sort of document in the first century? Does someone's effort to collect these sayings in one place indicate at all that in BCE 50(?) or so there was a belief held by some that Jesus was a real person, and that his statements of faith, spread orally through the region were worth jotting down all in one place? The reason I ask is that these collections of common attributions seem like evidence to me that there was some sort of historic personage behind the statements at least. Bookman (Dammit man, I'm a mathmetician, not a historian! Please be gentle. )

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.