Freethought & Rationalism Archive

09-14-2004, 01:53 AM

Greetings all,

Mention was recently made of a chapter in

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus) by Robert E. Van Voorst, Bruce Chilton. Amazon Link

which deals with the Jesus Myth theory, and argues against it.

I haven't read the book, nor the chapter, but I note that a reviewer C. Price has helpfully included a summary of the argument. I thought readers here may be interested to see even this brief summary.

Quote:

Indeed, Van Voorst is one of the few contemporary New Testament scholars to devote much time to the Jesus Myth. He devotes most of Chapter 1 to discussing the Jesus Myth, including a helpful overview of its historical development. At the end of the chapter, Van Voorst helpfully summarizes seven grounds upon which New Testament scholars and historians have continuously rejected the Jesus Myth:

1. Jesus Mythologists routinely misinterpret Paul's relative silence about some biographical details of the life of Jesus.

2. Jesus Mythologists are forced to offer radically late and unsupported datings of the Canonical Gospels.

3. Jesus Mythologists often claim that evidence of literary development and errors in the Gospels support the idea that Jesus did not exist. But as Van Voorst points out, "development does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove non-existence."

4. Jesus Mythologists have failed to "explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it."

5. Jesus Mythologists rely partially on "well-known text-critical and source-critical problems" in ancient Non-Christian references to Jesus, but go beyond the evidence and difficulties by claiming that these sources have no value. They also ignore "the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy."

6. Jesus Mythologists are not doing history, but polemics. "Wells and others seem to have advanced the non-historicity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Free thought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair."

7. Jesus Mythologists have consistently failed to offer a better explanation for the origins of Christianity than the existence of Jesus as its founding figure. Though various mythical origins have been attempted, they are even more deficient in corroborative evidence than the existence of Jesus.

Mocking these points hardly advances the Jesus Myth's agenda. Nor does raising red herrings like evolutionary theory and supposed double standards (not evidenced in the book by any means). Van Voorst is summarizing a war already won, not refighting all of the battles. The Jesus Myth has been leveled again and again by scholars--particularly earlier in the previous century (by scholars like Maurice Gougel and Shirely Case). Subsequent scholarly trends have been even less kind. Van Voorst helpfully distills down the reasons that "[b]iblical scholars and classical historians now regard [the Jesus Myth] as effectively refuted."

C. Price "Layman, Lawyer, Blogger"

Comments will follow in separate post.

Iasion

Peter Kirby · 09-14-2004, 02:06 AM

Here is Lowder's review of that part (also from Amazon).

Quote:

As a nontheist who thinks there was a historical Jesus, I often find myself caught between two extremes. On the one hand, I don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, was the son of God, etc. But on the other hand, I simply am not convinced by mythicist arguments that there was no historical Jesus. Central to the debate between these two competing positions is the issue of alleged extra-biblical references to the historicity of Jesus. That issue is the subject of Van Voorst's book, which he deals with in great detail. Van Voorst discusses alleged references to Jesus in virtually all of the non-Christian sources, as well as various Christian sources about Jesus outside of the New Testament. All of this combined makes the book the most comprehensive English lenguage review of alleged extra-Biblical references to Jesus written in recent memory.

With that said, I was frankly disappointed with the first chapter of the book, in which Van Voorst spends ten pages refuting the Christ-myth hypothesis. To his credit, Van Voorst is very familiar with the various books and essays which deny the existence of Jesus. He writes, "Some readers may be surprised or shocked that many books and essays--by my count, over one hundred--in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus" (p. 6). Nevertheless, he says, the Christ-myth hypothesis is not only rejected by virtually all New Testament scholars, but that the hypothesis has been almost completely ignored within the guild of New Testament scholarship since the 1940s. However, Van Voorst acknowledges that there is tremendous interest in the historicity of Jesus.

He has a very interesting and educational history of the Christ-myth movement. However, he apparently does not know that G.A. Wells, in his latest book THE JESUS MYTH, in which Wells *accepts* the historicity of Jesus based on the arguments of Burton Mack concerning Q. Van Voorst then, briefly, has occasion to criticize Michael Martin's defense of the mythicist hypothesis, given Martin's reliance on Wells.

Van Voorst then summarizes seven objections against Wells's (former) position that Jesus never existed. Many of these objections are downright comical.

1. "Wells misinterprets Paul's relative silence about some details in the life of Jesus: the exact time of his life; the exact places of his ministry, that Pontius Pilate condemned him, and so forth. As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist. Arguments from silence about ancient times, here about the supposed lack of biblical or extrabiblical references to Jesus, are especially perilous."

Lowder's comment: it seems to me there is a double-standard on the part of conservative Christians. When discussing the historicity of Jesus, Christians will tell us that no historian takes arguments from silence seriously. But when defending the empty tomb, Christians will conveniently engage in arguments from silence (e.g., "The tomb was empty because there is no evidence of the Jewish authorities denying it.") Yet the same facts appealed to by Christians in their arguments from silence for the empty tomb--like the lame argument that the Jews never denied the empty tomb--can itself be dismissed on the grounds that 'first-century Jews typically viewed the empty tomb story as so weak or bizarre that they ignored it completely." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

2. Wells dates the gospels around 100, which is too late. Mark was written around 70 while Matthew and Luke were probably written in the 80s. Van Voorst may well be right about his dating. But so, too, might Wells. What I find objectionable about Van Voorst's objection is that he gives no argument for it. *Why* should we accept Van Voorst's dating scheme for the gospels? Van Voorst never says.

3. The development of the Gospel traditions and the historical difficulties within them "do not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence." But, to the best of my knowledge, Wells never argues that development of traditions and historical difficulties *necessarily proves* the mythicist hypothesis.

4. This one is a real howler: "Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it." This is an argument from silence! I agree that there is no evidence that the historicity of Jesus was questioned in the first century. But that fact does not, by itself, make it probable that Jesus existed. Even on the assumption that Jesus never existed, Christianity was a minority religion viewed as a cult by outsiders. Had Jesus never existed, there is no reason to suppose that anyone would have made an effort to show that. Indeed, I think it is even doubtful that it would have occurred to anyone to question the historicity of Jesus!

5. Despite Wells' objections to the contrary, non-Christian witnesses to Jesus, especially Tacitus and Josephus, are basically trustworthy because there is a "strong consensus" saying so. Does this mean that from now on that evolutionists can argue that evolution is true simply because a "strong consensus" of biologists says it's true? This is a really lame argument.

6. Another howler: "Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, antireligious purposes."

7. "Wells and his predecessors have failed to advance other, credible hypotheses to account for the birth of Christianity and the fashioning of a historical Christ." I think this objection has some force.

In conclusion, while I think Van Voorst's book is useful as a comprehensive overview of extra-Biblical references to Jesus, his direct attacks on the mythicist hypothesis are mainly ineffective. His best objection to the mythicist hypothesis is that some of the extra-Biblical sources *do* provide independent confirmation of Jesus, an issue which he deals with ably in the remainder of the book.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 09-14-2004, 03:07 AM

Iasion:

How about getting the whole enchilada? You can then write a full reply and submit it for publication on Christian Origins.

Here it is (pp. 14-16):

Quote:

On what grounds have New Testament scholars and other historians rejected the nonexistence hypothesis? Here we will summarize the main arguments used against Wells's version of this hypothesis, since his is both contemporary and similar to the others. First, Wells misinterprets Paul's relative silence about some details in the life of Jesus: the exact time of his life, the exact places of his ministry, that Pontius Pilate condemned him, and so forth. As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist. Arguments from silence about ancient times, here about the supposed lack of biblical or extrabiblical references to Jesus, are especially perilous. [n. 34. As Morton Smith remarks, Wells's argument is mainly based on the argument from silence. He criticizes Wells for explaining this silence by arguing for "unknown proto-Christians who build up an unattested myth . . . about an unspecified supernatural entity that at an indefinite time was sent by God into the world as a man to save mankind and was crucified" (Morton Smith, "The Historical Jesus," in Jesus in Myth and History, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman and Gerald A. Larue [Buffalo: Prometheus, 1986] 47-48). This 'Christ before Jesus' myth has also been promoted by J. G. Jackson, Christianity before Christ (Austin: American Atheist Press, 1985).] Moreover, we should not exdpect to find exact historical references in early Christian literature, which was not written primarily for historical purposes. Almost all readers of Paul assume on good evidence that Paul regards Jseus as a historical figure, not a mythical or mystical one.

Second, Wells argues that Christians invented the figure of Jesus when they wrote gospels outside Palestine around 100. Not only is this dating far too late for Mark (which was probably written around the year 70), Matthew, and Luke (both of which probably date to the 80s), it cannot explain why the Gospel references to details about Palestine are so plentiful and mostly accurate.

Third, Wells claims tha the development of the Gospel traditions and historical difficulties within them shwo that Jesus did not exist. However, development does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence. (Some of Wells's readers may get the impression that if there were no inconsistencies in the Gospels, he would seize on that as evidence of their falsehood!)

Fourth, Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it. [n. 35. The only possible attempt at this argument known to me is in Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, written in the middle of the second century. At the end of chapter 8, Trypho, Justin's Jewish interlocutor, states, "But [the] Christ--if indeed he has been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know himself, and has no power until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him known to all. Accepting a groundless report, you have invented a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake you are unknowingly perishing." This may be a faint statement of a nonexistence hypothesis, but it is not developed or even mentioned again in the rest of the Dialogue, in which Trypho assumes the existence of Jesus.]

Fifth, Wells and his predecessors have been far too skeptical about the value of non-Christian witnesses to Jesus, especially Tacitus and Josephus. They point to well-known text-critical and source-critical problems in these witnesses and argue that these problems rule out the entire value of these passages, ignoring the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy.

Sixth, Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of thsoe who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Freethought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would sound the death knell of Christianity, but the theory remains unproven.

Finally, Wells and his predecessors have failed to advance other, credible hypotheses to account for the birth of Christianity and the fashioning of a historical Christ. The hypotheses they have advanced, based on an idiosyncratic understanding of mythology, have little independent corroborative evidence to commend them to others. The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. [n. 36. Russell, in his Why I Am Not a Christian (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1957), implicitly accepts the historicity of Jesus.] Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted. Nevertheless, it has consistently brought attention to the question before us: What is the meaning and historical value of ancient evidence outside the New Testament for Jesus?

This is preceded by a much more helpful history of the Jesus Myth hypothesis. If only he provided a bibliography of the 100+ articles and books he found on the subject!

best,
Peter Kirby

09-14-2004, 03:10 AM

Greetings all,

Having posted that summary, I thought a few words were in order..

Quote:

1. Jesus Mythologists routinely misinterpret Paul's relative silence about some biographical details of the life of Jesus.

Well,
mis-interpretations may occur, but this blanket criticism is too vague to be answered.

Quote:

2. Jesus Mythologists are forced to offer radically late and unsupported datings of the Canonical Gospels.

False.
A common false perception - e.g. Doherty does not date the Gospels so.

However, Doherty and others do point out that no Christian shows clear knowledge of the Gospels or the Ministry until 2nd century, with the story of Jesus growing in details over the decades of the 2nd century.

No refutation there.

Quote:

3. Jesus Mythologists often claim that evidence of literary development and errors in the Gospels support the idea that Jesus did not exist. But as Van Voorst points out, "development does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove non-existence."

Hmmm..
Development may not prove invention per se, nor difficulties prove non-existance, but they do support the argument - and the argument is not based on just those factors.

No refutation there.

Quote:

4. Jesus Mythologists have failed to "explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it."

Well,
There are some explanations -
1. Considering the burning of books such as Porphyry's and Celsus's criticism of the church, if there was an ancient work which clearly denied Jesus' historicity, we can be sure it was destroyed by the Church.
2. A religious figure such as Jesus was entirely plausible and common for the times (which believed in all sorts of rubbish) - his basic existance would have seemed probable, so it was assumed.
3. The Gospels stories only became known to the community in early-mid 2nd century, a century and 2 wars after the events - no-one was left to check with.

Perhaps most historians have not been satisfied, but a few have - e.g. Robert Price.

So,
a valid criticism of the JM theory, but not a strong one.

(Also, JMers do not exactly argue that Christans invented Jesus around 100.
But perhaps this is poor phrasing, perhaps he means the gradual change from spiritual Christ to historical Jesus - which was happening roughly around that time according to some JMers.)

Quote:

5. Jesus Mythologists rely partially on "well-known text-critical and source-critical problems" in ancient Non-Christian references to Jesus, but go beyond the evidence and difficulties by claiming that these sources have no value. They also ignore "the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy."

False.
I am not aware of any JMer who argues these documents "have no value".
Tacitus, Josephus, Pliny, Suetonius, Plegon, Thallus etc. have been discussed at length and judged on their merits by very many authors.

There is no "strong consensus" at all - I see raging debates everywhere.
"Most" passages are "basically trustworthy" ? Bollocks.

No refutation there.

Quote:

6. Jesus Mythologists are not doing history, but polemics. "Wells and others seem to have advanced the non-historicity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Free thought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair."

Ad hominem rubbish.

No refutation there.

Quote:

7. Jesus Mythologists have consistently failed to offer a better explanation for the origins of Christianity than the existence of Jesus as its founding figure. Though various mythical origins have been attempted, they are even more deficient in corroborative evidence than the existence of Jesus.

Doherty et al have clearly enunciated a better explanation - that the original Christ was a heavenly being, later mis-understood as a historical person.

The above comment amounts to little more than "I don't believe it".

No refutation there.

Well,
I can only assume this weak effort was merely C. Price's poor attempt to summarise Van Voorst's work - I find it hard to believe the original chapter was so empty.

Does anyone have the whole chapter?
(Would it be fair to post one chapter online?)

Iasion

Peter Kirby · 09-14-2004, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Does anyone have the whole chapter?
(Would it be fair to post one chapter online?)

As you can see, I have posted the relevant passage from Van Voorst. It isn't that long.

Since it is a rather sorry attempt, yet is published in an academic book, it's probably a good idea to put a response up on my web site, as mentioned.

best,
Peter Kirby

09-14-2004, 03:19 AM

Greetings Peter,

I see we cross-posted :-)

Thanks for your comments, I'll see if I can find time to write a decent reply.

Iasion

Vorkosigan · 09-14-2004, 03:22 AM

Thanks, guys. It's always great to see another flatpetered attempt to punch out mythicism.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby · 09-14-2004, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iasion

Greetings Peter,

I see we cross-posted :-)

Thanks for your comments, I'll see if I can find time to write a decent reply.

Great! It's probably best to respond to each paragraph by quoting Van Voorst's paragraph and then commenting. This way, the reader knows he is getting everything that Van Voorst said about the subject. (Except for the non-Christian references, which are discussed in the rest of the book.)

A factual error, that is also made by Michael Martin, is the idea that Bertrand Russell believed in the historical existence of Jesus. Here is what he actually said:

"Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise."

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 09-14-2004, 03:37 AM

Here is Voltaire's opinion:

In the involved and prudent manner forced upon him, Voltaire pointed out the small documentary value of Gospels "written by persons acquainted with nothing, full of contradictions and imposture"[1]—the improbability of the eschatological prophecies, against which good sense rebelled. "Let each ask himself," he writes, "if he sees the possibility of pushing imposture and the stupidity of fanaticism farther."[2] "The whole history of Jesus—only a fanatic or a stupid knave would deny it—should be examined in the light of reason."[3] Voltaire on several occasions draws attention to the silence of non-Christian authors concerning the Gospel history.[4] Obviously, Christian tradition does not inspire in him any confidence. However, he does not go so far as to maintain that it corresponds to no reality at all. He is aware that "certain followers of Bolingbroke, more ingenious than erudite," considered themselves authorized by the obscurities and contradictions of the Gospel tradition to deny the existence of Jesus.[5]

In so far as he is concerned, he rejects this conclusion, and it appears that this is not entirely for reasons of prudence, as is sometimes the case when he wishes to hint at opinions which it might be dangerous to profess openly. Indeed, Voltaire in this case gives weighty reasons for setting aside the negations he cites. He quotes precise cases of forged genealogies, of stories embellished and transfigured, and as for the disproportion which appears to exist between the humility of the person of Jesus and the importance of the movement which He inaugurated, he relates the case of Fox, "a very ignorant shoemaker, founder of the sect of Quakers." He concludes: "It is necessary, whilst awaiting faith, to limit oneself to drawing this conclusion: There did exist an obscure Jew, from the dregs of the people, named Jesus, who was crucified as a blasphemer in the time of the Emperor Tiberius, it being impossible to determine in which year."[1]

Voltaire has not sketched any history of the origins of Christianity. His effort to place the study of the documents within the province of reason—we should say in modern phrase the province of history—is none the less very remarkable. In doing so he dealt the traditional conception decisive blows.

[1] Voltaire, Examen important de Milord Bolingbroke (Edition Kehl) xxxiii, pp. 44-60. Cp. Sermon des Cinquante, xxxii, pp. 399-400; Hist. de l'Etabt. du Christianisme, xxxv, pp. 274-93.
[2] Id., Ex. de Milord Bolingbroke, xxxiii, p. 68.
[3] Id., Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 271.
[4] Id., ib., p. 272; Sermon des Cinquant, xxxii, p. 401; Hist. de l'Étabt. du Christianisme, xxxv, p. 274.
[5] Id., Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 273.
[1] Voltaire, Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 279. Further to what has been quoted it is necessary to read l'Essai sur les Maeurs (especially chap. ix); Les Homelies prononcées �* Londres, 1765, xxxii; Conseils raisonnables �* M. Bergier, xxxiii; Questions de Zapata, xxxiii; Epitre aux Romains, xxxiii; many articles in the Dictionnaire Philosophique, xxxvii to xliii. With the ideas of Voltaire may be compared those of Holbach, Systems de Nature, Londres, 1770; under the name of Mirabeau, Le bons sens du curé Meslier, Londres, 1772.

From http://www.didjesusexist.com/goguel/ch1.html

However, the statement by Van Voorst conceals as much as it reveals: the existence of Christ was a live question for the French philosophes. As Goguel notes: "Napoleon I was under the influence of Volney when, in a conversation that he had with Wieland at Weimar, in 1808, he said it was a great question to decide whether Jesus had existed (Schweitzer, Gesch., p. 445)." One wonders if this stance of Napoleon inspired two nineteenth century proofs that the French dictator need not have existed.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 09-14-2004, 04:17 AM

I just finished Frances Woods' excellent Did Marco Polo go to China? Her conclusion is basically "no."

1. extrapolo sources silent on marco's trip in both China and Italy.

2. First real defense of polo's trip arises a decades later (Ramusio)

3. No recognition of Polo by Republic of Venice

4. Book is actually written in the style of another writer whom Polo was said to have dictated the book to.

5. Polo is silent on many Chinese practices, from chopsticks to tea to foot binding.

6. Attempts to repeat his travels as he describes them have been failures

7. his geography often erroneous or fantastic

8. His history often parallels that of a persian writer of the same era, doubling the arab's mistakes. It contains historical impossibilities, such as Polo present at battles concluded prior to his arrival in China.

9. Polo's own account is full of internal contradictions and strange silences. For example, his father is with him, but he never tells us what dad did while Polo is gallivanting around China on the Khan's behalf.

10. There are about 150 manuscripts and they often disagree, have been expanded, edited, and deleted. The original text has long since disappeared.

Does any of this sound familiar?

Vorkosigan
Bonus you-never-knew factoid: I learned from this book that pasta is actually a persian import into both China and Italy. The Arabs brought durum wheat to both places (in 828 to Italy when they occupied S. italy), and in Italy, some pasta shapes still retain their original arabic names. IN China, cookbooks from the Yuan era show that pasta dishes all had names that were turkic in origin, through either arabian or persian, proving that they were alien to the Chinese as well.

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

09-14-2004, 03:19 AM	#6
Iasion Guest Posts: n/a	Greetings Peter, I see we cross-posted :-) Thanks for your comments, I'll see if I can find time to write a decent reply. Iasion

09-14-2004, 03:22 AM	#7
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Thanks, guys. It's always great to see another flatpetered attempt to punch out mythicism. Vorkosigan

09-14-2004, 03:37 AM	#9
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Here is Voltaire's opinion: In the involved and prudent manner forced upon him, Voltaire pointed out the small documentary value of Gospels "written by persons acquainted with nothing, full of contradictions and imposture"[1]—the improbability of the eschatological prophecies, against which good sense rebelled. "Let each ask himself," he writes, "if he sees the possibility of pushing imposture and the stupidity of fanaticism farther."[2] "The whole history of Jesus—only a fanatic or a stupid knave would deny it—should be examined in the light of reason."[3] Voltaire on several occasions draws attention to the silence of non-Christian authors concerning the Gospel history.[4] Obviously, Christian tradition does not inspire in him any confidence. However, he does not go so far as to maintain that it corresponds to no reality at all. He is aware that "certain followers of Bolingbroke, more ingenious than erudite," considered themselves authorized by the obscurities and contradictions of the Gospel tradition to deny the existence of Jesus.[5] In so far as he is concerned, he rejects this conclusion, and it appears that this is not entirely for reasons of prudence, as is sometimes the case when he wishes to hint at opinions which it might be dangerous to profess openly. Indeed, Voltaire in this case gives weighty reasons for setting aside the negations he cites. He quotes precise cases of forged genealogies, of stories embellished and transfigured, and as for the disproportion which appears to exist between the humility of the person of Jesus and the importance of the movement which He inaugurated, he relates the case of Fox, "a very ignorant shoemaker, founder of the sect of Quakers." He concludes: "It is necessary, whilst awaiting faith, to limit oneself to drawing this conclusion: There did exist an obscure Jew, from the dregs of the people, named Jesus, who was crucified as a blasphemer in the time of the Emperor Tiberius, it being impossible to determine in which year."[1] Voltaire has not sketched any history of the origins of Christianity. His effort to place the study of the documents within the province of reason—we should say in modern phrase the province of history—is none the less very remarkable. In doing so he dealt the traditional conception decisive blows. [1] Voltaire, Examen important de Milord Bolingbroke (Edition Kehl) xxxiii, pp. 44-60. Cp. Sermon des Cinquante, xxxii, pp. 399-400; Hist. de l'Etabt. du Christianisme, xxxv, pp. 274-93. [2] Id., Ex. de Milord Bolingbroke, xxxiii, p. 68. [3] Id., Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 271. [4] Id., ib., p. 272; Sermon des Cinquant, xxxii, p. 401; Hist. de l'Étabt. du Christianisme, xxxv, p. 274. [5] Id., Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 273. [1] Voltaire, Dieu et les Hommes, xxxiii, p. 279. Further to what has been quoted it is necessary to read l'Essai sur les Maeurs (especially chap. ix); Les Homelies prononcées �* Londres, 1765, xxxii; Conseils raisonnables �* M. Bergier, xxxiii; Questions de Zapata, xxxiii; Epitre aux Romains, xxxiii; many articles in the Dictionnaire Philosophique, xxxvii to xliii. With the ideas of Voltaire may be compared those of Holbach, Systems de Nature, Londres, 1770; under the name of Mirabeau, Le bons sens du curé Meslier, Londres, 1772. From http://www.didjesusexist.com/goguel/ch1.html However, the statement by Van Voorst conceals as much as it reveals: the existence of Christ was a live question for the French philosophes. As Goguel notes: "Napoleon I was under the influence of Volney when, in a conversation that he had with Wieland at Weimar, in 1808, he said it was a great question to decide whether Jesus had existed (Schweitzer, Gesch., p. 445)." One wonders if this stance of Napoleon inspired two nineteenth century proofs that the French dictator need not have existed. best, Peter Kirby

09-14-2004, 04:17 AM	#10
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I just finished Frances Woods' excellent Did Marco Polo go to China? Her conclusion is basically "no." 1. extrapolo sources silent on marco's trip in both China and Italy. 2. First real defense of polo's trip arises a decades later (Ramusio) 3. No recognition of Polo by Republic of Venice 4. Book is actually written in the style of another writer whom Polo was said to have dictated the book to. 5. Polo is silent on many Chinese practices, from chopsticks to tea to foot binding. 6. Attempts to repeat his travels as he describes them have been failures 7. his geography often erroneous or fantastic 8. His history often parallels that of a persian writer of the same era, doubling the arab's mistakes. It contains historical impossibilities, such as Polo present at battles concluded prior to his arrival in China. 9. Polo's own account is full of internal contradictions and strange silences. For example, his father is with him, but he never tells us what dad did while Polo is gallivanting around China on the Khan's behalf. 10. There are about 150 manuscripts and they often disagree, have been expanded, edited, and deleted. The original text has long since disappeared. Does any of this sound familiar? Vorkosigan Bonus you-never-knew factoid: I learned from this book that pasta is actually a persian import into both China and Italy. The Arabs brought durum wheat to both places (in 828 to Italy when they occupied S. italy), and in Italy, some pasta shapes still retain their original arabic names. IN China, cookbooks from the Yuan era show that pasta dishes all had names that were turkic in origin, through either arabian or persian, proving that they were alien to the Chinese as well.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.