Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 12-13-2006, 06:21 PM

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

This is a totally rough draft, but I think the longest part of it is pretty much over with, and the rest will be smaller sections and a summary.

Yes, ti is long, as all my articles tend to be, but it will be about the same amount of reading that the Jesus Puzzle website, just on one page. I'll probably put links up at the top to the different sections as well.

The last few sentences need to be rewritten, you can ignore them for now.

Recommendations and corrections welcome.

Peter Kirby · 12-14-2006, 08:55 AM

You might want to remove the "Signs Gospel" as you have removed the "Passion Narrative" and the "Q" already.

--
Peter Kirby

Malachi151 · 01-02-2007, 01:01 PM

I am almost finished now. I have the first draft of all the major arguments completed. The only thing left now is a discussion of the rise of Christianity via a JM hypothesis, and then a conclusion.

Gorit Maqueda · 01-02-2007, 02:04 PM

I'll probably download the article to my Palm and read it on the train. Before that, could you please state in a few lines the differences between your position and Doherty's? Thank you.

Malachi151 · 01-02-2007, 02:48 PM

Our positions are probably not a whole lot different, but I think I more plainly address the material at hand for one thing, and I also address more issues than he does.

I don't necessarily fully subscribe to Doherty's interpretation of Paul, but it is probably pretty close to accurate, though perhaps not so well define as he makes it out to be.

My main points:

1) Mark was written as an allegorical tale and all the other Gospels flow from it
2) The entire story of Jesus can be explained as sourced from the Hebrew scriptures and other extant works, but mostly the scriptures
3) Pre-Gospel writers on Jesus held views that contradict a recent earthly Jesus
4) There are no non-Christian affirmations of the existence of Jesus
5) Not all early Christians believed in a "human" Jesus
6) Much effort was spent on the early defense of the humanity of Jesus, and this defense was all made on theological and scriptural grounds.

I cite the relevant texts in full with plenty of context and address them clearly, or at least I attempt to.

ynquirer · 01-02-2007, 03:43 PM

Hi Geoff,

Just a friendly recommendation. You discuss the TF and write:

Quote:

What I argue is that it's most likely that this entire passage is a later addition by someone else, and that even if it isn't, and Josephus did write something about Jesus here, his source was the Christian story, and therefore it doesn't provide any corroborating evidence for the existence of Jesus.

Delete it. Your position will look like more serious. Otherwise, it is implied that you don’t bother whether or not Josephus wrote it - that’s the scientific question - and that, in any case, your position is independent from evidence; in other words, that it is based on a prejudice. Stick either to the theory that Josephus did not write it or to the theory that he wrote it but was informed by Christians - whichever is easier for you to argue.

Malachi151 · 01-02-2007, 03:48 PM

ynquirer: I see your point and may take your advice, but I do argue both cases.

Basically, the apologists for the passage are the ones who propose speculative arguments based on no evidence.

The evidence that we have points to two possibilities, either it was a full insertion, or it was always there.

Those are the two things that we have evidence for. We don't have any intermediate passages that appear to be unbiased. We have the current form, which is obviously based on the Christian story, and if this current form is authentic then it is based on the Christian story.

If the current form is not authentic, or close to it, then the only other thing we have evidence for this that this is a full insertion by a later person.

Can I phrase this better somehow?

ynquirer · 01-02-2007, 04:19 PM

Do as you say, if you must. That way, however, you exclude a priori the possibility that Josephus, who is supposed to be a fairly reliable historian, tells the Christian story because the Christian story is substantially true. Don’t mind the miracles. Both Suetonius and Cassius Dio spoke about miracles performed by Vespasian, and no one deems today such stories to undermine Vespasian’s historicity.

Malachi151 · 01-03-2007, 08:10 PM

I'll look at your recommendation again ynquirer, but I wanted to complete the rest of the article in a first draft first, which I have now done:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

After a few days of editing, and the addition of a bibliography it should be ready to go.

Malachi151 · 01-07-2007, 06:15 AM

There is still some minor editing to do on this, but overall its finished, I have up posted on my website now:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/bl...try_id=1616768

Unfortunately my host has somehow screwed up my blog and you can't actually post comments. I'm working on getting that fixed.

12-13-2006, 06:21 PM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Half way through new JM article.... http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm This is a totally rough draft, but I think the longest part of it is pretty much over with, and the rest will be smaller sections and a summary. Yes, ti is long, as all my articles tend to be, but it will be about the same amount of reading that the Jesus Puzzle website, just on one page. I'll probably put links up at the top to the different sections as well. The last few sentences need to be rewritten, you can ignore them for now. Recommendations and corrections welcome.

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

12-14-2006, 08:55 AM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	You might want to remove the "Signs Gospel" as you have removed the "Passion Narrative" and the "Q" already. -- Peter Kirby

01-02-2007, 01:01 PM	#3
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I am almost finished now. I have the first draft of all the major arguments completed. The only thing left now is a discussion of the rise of Christianity via a JM hypothesis, and then a conclusion.

01-02-2007, 02:04 PM	#4
Gorit Maqueda Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Valdebernardo Posts: 73	I'll probably download the article to my Palm and read it on the train. Before that, could you please state in a few lines the differences between your position and Doherty's? Thank you.

01-02-2007, 02:48 PM	#5
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Our positions are probably not a whole lot different, but I think I more plainly address the material at hand for one thing, and I also address more issues than he does. I don't necessarily fully subscribe to Doherty's interpretation of Paul, but it is probably pretty close to accurate, though perhaps not so well define as he makes it out to be. My main points: 1) Mark was written as an allegorical tale and all the other Gospels flow from it 2) The entire story of Jesus can be explained as sourced from the Hebrew scriptures and other extant works, but mostly the scriptures 3) Pre-Gospel writers on Jesus held views that contradict a recent earthly Jesus 4) There are no non-Christian affirmations of the existence of Jesus 5) Not all early Christians believed in a "human" Jesus 6) Much effort was spent on the early defense of the humanity of Jesus, and this defense was all made on theological and scriptural grounds. I cite the relevant texts in full with plenty of context and address them clearly, or at least I attempt to.

01-02-2007, 03:48 PM	#7
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	ynquirer: I see your point and may take your advice, but I do argue both cases. Basically, the apologists for the passage are the ones who propose speculative arguments based on no evidence. The evidence that we have points to two possibilities, either it was a full insertion, or it was always there. Those are the two things that we have evidence for. We don't have any intermediate passages that appear to be unbiased. We have the current form, which is obviously based on the Christian story, and if this current form is authentic then it is based on the Christian story. If the current form is not authentic, or close to it, then the only other thing we have evidence for this that this is a full insertion by a later person. Can I phrase this better somehow?

01-02-2007, 04:19 PM	#8
ynquirer Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 572	Do as you say, if you must. That way, however, you exclude a priori the possibility that Josephus, who is supposed to be a fairly reliable historian, tells the Christian story because the Christian story is substantially true. Don’t mind the miracles. Both Suetonius and Cassius Dio spoke about miracles performed by Vespasian, and no one deems today such stories to undermine Vespasian’s historicity.

01-03-2007, 08:10 PM	#9
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I'll look at your recommendation again ynquirer, but I wanted to complete the rest of the article in a first draft first, which I have now done: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm After a few days of editing, and the addition of a bibliography it should be ready to go.

01-07-2007, 06:15 AM	#10
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	There is still some minor editing to do on this, but overall its finished, I have up posted on my website now: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/bl...try_id=1616768 Unfortunately my host has somehow screwed up my blog and you can't actually post comments. I'm working on getting that fixed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.