Didymus

First, there's an enormous difference between a deliberate lie and a false conclusion based on "known data," e.g., scripture, the current state of the world, and a shared vision of a coming Kingdom of God.

Second, from the enormous salific value that they placed on Christ's suffering on the cross, it's clear that the NT authors viewed crucifixion from a much different perspective than Celsus and other anti-Christians. That would be true whether or not Jesus' crucifixion was a historical event. Once again, there were bigger things at stake than embarrassment.

As I said before - I wish you'd read more carefully - the implicit assumption in the embarrassment criterion is that mythicists think the NT authors were "making stuff up" (consciously or unconsciously). I addressed this straw man assumption in my previous post, to wit, the NT authors believed they were extrapolating historical and theological truth from sacred scripture. They were not "making stuff up" anymore than solving a mathematical equation is "making stuff up." They were telling the truth as they saw it; religious fanatics with a passionate attachment to an earthshaking "truth" don't give a damn whether it's embarrasssing or not.

As anyone can see who has read the previous posts, I have not "dodged" the motives question. I have already addressed it twice. And now you have the nerve, not only to repeat a rude charge, but to rejigger the question in order to prop up your accusation. Cheesy.

One more time: Even if there was such a strong cultural bias, the motive to "do good" - save mankind - overcame any anxiety the authors MIGHT have had about getting a poor reception. And further: The possibility of an indifferent or negative response was of little consequence to them. They had nothing to lose - no big book deals, no appearances on Oprah, no shot at a mansion in Florida.

NOW do you get it?

So... do present-day Palestinians consider suicide bombers and Hamas members who have died at Israeli hands to be failures because Israel hasn't been wiped of the face of the earth? Perhaps some do, but many don't. Josephus' antipathy aside, the Zealots were viewed by many Jews as martyrs. The parallel is there, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

That might be a problem for you, but it's sure not a problem for me.

Didymus

Ben C Smith

Absolutely.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Yes, so do I. Myths evolve over time, and accumulate specific details from the current local culture, while retaining the underlying structure.

Jake

jjramsey

No, just stretching the truth. Look at his actual line of argument: "What we believe is really what you believe, but you don't know it because what you believe is a demonically distorted copy of what we believe."

Didymus

From the Blue Letter Bible commentary:

"The textual reading is ka�ri, 'as a lion my hands and feet;' but several MSS., read k�roo, and others karoo in the margin, which affords the reading adopted by our translators. So the LXX [oryxan cheiras mou kai podas] so also the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic; and as all the Evangelists so quote the passage, and apply it to the crucifixion of Christ, there seems scarcely the shadow of a doubt that this is the genuine reading; especially when it is considered, that the other contains no sense at all. The whole difference lies between [v�v] wav and [y�wd] yood, which might easily be mistaken for each other."

Regardless of the inerrantist source, the "makes no sense at all" argument is pretty persuasive. Of course, if a fervent historicist insists on making sense out of "as a lion my hands and feet," they'll do just that, just as a Christian will insist that "they pierced my hands and feet" was a divinely inspired prophesy foretelling the crucifixion.

D

jjramsey

Except that what you think the NT authors are doing is not similar to solving a mathematical equation. What you are saying is that the NT authors get their doctrine of a crucified savior from their interpretation of the OT text. The problem is to get that doctrine from the text, they have to be reading it into the text, which means that the idea of the crucified savior would be coming from them, not the text, even if they attribute it to the text. Since it is really coming from them, they are essentially making it up.

That puts us right back to the question I had before: Why would they make up something that goes against their biases?

The comparison to the present-day Palestinians is problematic because for Hamas, etc., the war is not over. In the Zealots' case, the war was over, and they lost. Losers aren't messiahs.

Actually, it's not a problem for me. If there was a real Jesus, there are obvious reasons why sayings would be ascribed to him, even if they were ascribed in error. Your problem is where your legendary Jesus came from.

JoeWallack

JW:
To quote that great 21st century Linguist, Spin, "Oh for fuck's sake". Didly, the underlieing Greek does not yield a possible meaning of "pierced". Shit, Ben already said as much. Who do you think is behind the Blue Letter Bible commentary?

The overall argument is the exact opposite of what you quote above. Even though all the Evangelists refer to Psalm 22, none refer to "Piercing of the hands and feet" which is better evidence against Ben's "dig" than anything he has for it.

If you don't understand something why don't you just ask? Especially after it's pointed out to you. If you're this wrong so far what do you think the chances are that you're right about "Regardless of the inerrantist source, the "makes no sense at all" argument is pretty persuasive" (probably still better than Jesus returning SOON though).

Moderators, this is why we need a Thread about Psalm 22, because even probably pretty otherwise knowledgable Skeptics like Didymus accept Christian assertions that are unchallenged and I have Faith that the Christian Bible scholars assigned to the Unfaithful here, Carlson and Criddle, won't be correcting Dudymus anytime soon.

So, are you Mods going to start a Thread or not?



Joseph

Didymus

No, they are not. We don't know the exact process of their thoughts, but from the evidence it appears they deduced the crucifixion from a multiplicity of facts, beliefs, aphorisms, prophesies (scriptural and otherwise) and even dreams and visions.

A. They didn't "make it up."

B. You don't know what their biases were, and you cannot assume that they shared the same biases with the likes of Celsus.

They were erstwhile messiahs, and that's more than sufficient to bring to mind the obvious parallel.

That wasn't your original question. Once again, we have shifting sands.

There's no dearth of material regarding the origins of the Jesus myth. You can research that one on your own. See the Forum Library.

Didymus

Toto

On behalf of the mods, I invite you, Joseph, to start a thread on Psalm 22.

Alternatively, you might try to find a previous thread where this has all been discussed-

My teacher said Psalms talks about crucifiction before there ever was a crucifiction

and I think there has been some more in depth discussion.

Ben C Smith

Is dig what you were objecting to in my post? You never answered my inquiry. I do not care much which English word you use to gloss ορυσσω. My point was that ορυσσω does not appear to be normatively associated with crucifixion. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means produce it. I am glad to receive correction.

Ben.