Layman

Which of the best scholars are you referring to? And what,
exactly, do they say? Or where can I read what they say?

Doctor X

Mack's A Myth of Innocence quotes a great line from Koester. It also uses an epigraph: "All you need for a founding figure is a name and a place."

--J.D.

Amaleq13

There is no "honest" similarity. The consensus favoring Jesus as an historical figure is nowhere near as unanimously and consistently supported by as many lines of independent evidence as that favoring evolution. Likewise, the minority position of creationism has nothing even remotely approaching the coherence of, for example, Doherty's mythicist position. Your entire comparison is an ad hominem sideswipe and your apparently blind reliance upon "consensus" is an error in logic. I say "blind" because no one who was truly familiar with both bodies of evidence could make such a ridiculous comparison. It is a non-argument composed of multiple logical fallacies.

This, I agree with! There are actual examples of transitional fossils and the pattern of the rest of the evidence is consistent with such an interpretation. Likewise, there are actual examples of very early silence regarding an historical Jesus and the pattern of the rest of the evidence seems consistent with the interpretation of myth. The absence of early references is admittedly not as strong as the evidence for transitional fossils but the comparison is otherwise seems valid.

You clearly overstate the nature of the consensus. There is no "totally unanimous" agreement about anything except that a guy named Jesus existed in the 1st century and probably inspired all the subsequent interpretations of him.

There is, without a doubt, more than sufficient evidence to question the existence of the Gospel Jesus.

There is also sufficient evidence to doubt that there has ever been a single, coherent conception of Jesus (i.e. what he did, what he said, what he symbolized). The evidence goes back to Paul where we already find "false apostles" teaching "another gospel" in addition to the explicit disputes between Paul and the alleged original Disciples.

You are free to add up a list of scholars and claim, despite the differences in their individual interpretations and the logical fallacy involved in appealing to the total, that they all agree that Jesus existed. I'm more interested in the apparent absence of a consensus on what, exactly, it meant to say "Jesus existed", in the middle of the 1st century.

Vorkosigan

Still waiting, after three years, for anyone to give that scholarly methodology that underpins the "concensus" of -- wait, what is it? 24? 35? historical Jesus-s? As Crossan notes:

"I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way, acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer layer from all later strata."

..and of course:

"It is impossible to avoid the suspicion that historical Jesus research is a very safe place to do theology and call it history, to do autobiography and call it biography

and we must add:

"Methodology in Jesus research at the end of this century is about where methodology in archaeological research was at the end of the last."

Vorkosigan

Metacrock

Meta: Please! It was Cracker Jacks, can't you give my due!



Gosh, he sounds like a good enough authority. Don't waste your time and talent.



Meta: I try not to but this weekend I'm slumming.




Well, Julius Caesar, I can show you what he looks like and ummm, Set I, I can even give you his body. And the Battle of Qadesh, I can give you two contemporary accounts, one Egyptian and one Hittite. Now these things have evidence. Until you learn what evidence is, you're left with gambling with what may have happened, like the rest of these fellows you think worthwhile telling us about.




Meta: I'm betting you are first year college? I knew what historical evidence was when you were a very unacademic gleam in your father's eye! Your problem is you have no concept of what constitutes a good historical probability. You want total absolute proof or nothing. Most historicans don't work that way.




I'm convinced.




Meta: should be



Well, bugger me.

Incidentally, did you want to say something?


Meta: It would be over your head.

Metacrock

Meta: Not the same as knowing that he existed. Most of them will admit that he was some kind of great moral teacher, and that he may have claimed to be the Messiah. He must have done something to be rememberd, that much just follows!

Metacrock

Meta: The Mishna, Yalkut, and Josephus and also Philo to some extent.

Metacrock

Meta: We have statues of Mercury and Venus. Cesar's Gaulic wars were a political diatribe, by the standards of your citique of the Gosples, that's reason enough to dobut everything in it. You want to talk about reality, Paul met Peter! You really think they talked about the BS going around about this guy who didn't exist and Peter said "O yea I love those stories, keep them going! Have your people send a vision to my people!" That's not reality that's Van Donagan.








Meta: That's not secondary evidence. So and so knew this guy and I talked to so and so, that is not any more secondary than "Roger Mudd was at Kason, and I talked to Roger Mudd, so we have report of the battle." That's no more second hand than Papias met Aristion and the Elder John who saw Jesus with their own eyes.


Battle > Reporter > Interviewer

Jesus > Aristion > papias.



Nice cliches. But you as well have no evidence to back up what you say. YOu should come back when you have some.




Meta: Interviews of eye witnesses is direct evidence. Besides how much do you need just to prove the guy existed? You Mythers always seem to think if Jesus existed it's the same as saying he was the Son of God! why do you think that? I know many atheists who think Jesus existed and don't think he's the son of God. Why is it so threatening to you?

I've also done posts showing that there is reason to be a Christian even if Jesus didn't exist, so we aren't gonna get off your backs even if you are right!










Meta: Logos of John is not Platonic. It's the euphamism the Jews used when they spoke Greek for the Hebrew "memra" which was the presence of God in the OT. See Edersheim.




Hey, ya know dude, there may have been a Jesus, but neither you nor I have any of the evidence necessary.





Meta: Yea we do. We have more evidence for him than for a lot things.





Osiris is not directly relevant.





Meta: 2 years ago every myther on the net was entoning that name constantly. Now that we've debuncked that one they move away from it.


Cumont is a little old hat. You might try reading something written fifty years later.



Meta: show me something that outdates him on that point. You can't. He's never been outdated on that and contemporary scholars still say the same thing.





Cite a primary source reference.





Meta: Cumont is primary for that. there are no Mithric texts, almost all we know of them is from aritfacts and art works. So we have to use reports of excavations and the like. Or else go to Ostia and do the excavations yourself.




When were the gospels written? 150 CE?







Meta: Patheic peusdo scholarship. Almost all scholars date them aroud 80. But kosters provest he Passion narrative and other storeis were written as early as 50.



I love authorities. Why don't you let them post and you give me your evidence?





Meta: why don't you give me some evdience big guy! I don't see you documenting anything! all you know how to do is make bug assertions and stupid insults.





And the prevalence of Superman comics "means that we have to take seriously the basic storyline"?





Meta: It means there was a Segel and Schuster.




I guess this leads somewhere... but where?



And we have Paul's letters to Thecla and to Seneca. They gotta be real.




Meta: Straw man argument. I'm impressed that you know of that correspondence. But it doesn't prove anything. The existence of fake letters does not disprove the genuine ones. Moreover, almost no scholar questions Paul's autoriship of all but Pastorals.





Name me one guaranteed writer from the 1st century who "speak of him as a factually existing character". Hey, I know, Josephus the devout Jew who calls Jesus "the Christ". Yeah, sure. Bowdlerized text that nobody in antiquity knew about.




Meta: No source before the 19th century! no one ever questioned his historicity before those clowns that Schweitizer debuncked.






Has anybody ever argued that Superman didn't exist?




Meta: Segal and Schuster existed. Segal was athletic and poweful, Schuster was a wimp. So they based Superman on Segal's personality and Clark Kent on Schuster's. I didn't say I could prove Jesus was the son of God, I said he existed! How much trouble does that take to prove he existed?

we have no good reason to assume he didn't! that's the point!!!!!





Thrill me with a Mishna source from the 1st century.





It takes my breath away.



Great job, dude, but I wished you'd read this stuff before you sent it, so that you could make it a little easier to read by reducing the vast number of spelling mistakes. Ya know, I don't mind the occasional error, but there are limits.

Oh, and history is about evidence. You ain't got it, then you ain't doin' history. Get it?


Meta: Yes that's so clever of you to make fun of my spelling. that makes you very smart to be able to spell. Of course I have a problem in my brain that causes me to process information differently, it's called "dyslexia." but you could make fun of the way I look, that's real intellectual too.]


I don't see you offer once scarp of evidence for any of your idotic assertions. I've offered a lot more evidence than you have. i also don't think you have either the training or the God given common sense to see what contsitutes good evidence and what is a fallacy of raising the bar too high for the oppent to reach. Too bad you don't attempt the bar yourself.

Metacrock

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Amaleq13
[B]Paul explicitly says otherwise when he declares that there existed "false apostles" preaching a "another gospel" and "another Christ". Quite contrary to your assertion, there appear to have been competing versions of "the story" in the earliest documentary evidence.



Do you have the full arguments of these enemies? Or do you only have what their Christian opponents chose to quote in their rebuttals?


Meta: Your job to come up with one. When are you guys going to start doing more than just making bold assertions?

Metacrock

CHARLES W. HEDRICK


I.Traces of the Historical Jesus In Lost Gosples



NOt all of these are really "lost," some are actually found, and some are canonical readings. But, among a wide diversity of Gospels, both canoincal and otherwise, we find surviving forms of readings which indiate ealier readings. In other words, they are traces of previous Gspels, sometimes they are actualy fragments of them. These readings push the existence of the Jesus story in writteen form as far back as AD50.


Charles W. Hendrick, professor who discovered the lost Gospel of the Savior tells us



Mirecki and I are not the first scholars to find a new ancient gospel. In fact scholars now have copies of 19 gospels (either complete, in fragments or in quotations), written in the first and second centuries A.D— nine of which were discovered in the 20th century. Two more are preserved, in part, in other andent writings, and we know the names of several others, but do not have copies of them. Clearly, Luke was not exaggerating when he wrote in his opening verse: "Many undertook to compile narratives [aboutJesus]" (Luke 1:1). Every one of these gospels was deemed true and sacred by at least some early Christians


These Gospels demonstrate a great diversity among the early chruch, the diminish the claims of an orthodox purity. On the other hand, they tell us more about the historical Jesus as well. One thing they all have in common is to that they show Jesus as a historical figure, working in public and conducting his teachings before people, not as a spirit being devoid of human life.Hendrick says,"Gospels-whether canonical or not- are collections of anecdotes from Jesus' public career."

Many of these lost Gospels pre date the canonical gospels, which puts them prior to AD 60 for Mark:

Hendrick:


The Gospel of the Saviour, too. fits this description. Contrary' to popular opinion, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not included m the canon simply because they were the earliest gospels or because they were eyewitness accounts. Some non canonical gospels are dated roughly to the same period, and the canonical gospels and other early Christian accounts appear to rely oil earlier reports. Thus, as far as the physical evidence is concerned, the canonical gospels do not take precedence over the noncanonical gospels. The fragments of John, Thomas and theEgerton Gospel share the distinction of being the earliest extant pieces of Christian writing known. And although the existing manuscript evidence for Thomas dates to the mid-second century, the scholars who first published the Greek fragments held open the possibility that it was actually composed in the first century, which would put it around the time John was composed.

In sum, in addition to the four canonical gospels, we have four complete noncanonicals, seven fragmentary, four known from quotations and two hypothetically recovered for a total of 21 gospels from the first two centuries, and we know that others existed in the early period.



B. Traces of the Jesus Story Prior to the Writing of Mark


1) Diatessaron

The Diatessaron ..of Titian is the oldest known attempted harmony of the Gospels. It probably dates to about 172 AD and contains almost the entire text of the four canonicals plus other material, probably from other Gospels and perhaps oral traditions. It is attested to in many works and is probably the first presentation of the Gospel in syriac.

In an article published in the Back of Helmut Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels, William L. Petersen states:


"Sometimes we stumble across readings which are arguably earlier than the present canonical text. One is Matthew 8:4 (and Parallels) where the canonical text runs "go show yourself to the priests and offer the gift which Moses commanded as a testimony to them" No fewer than 6 Diatessaronic witnesses...give the following (with minor variants) "Go show yourself to the priests and fulfill the law." With eastern and western support and no other known sources from which these Diatessaranic witnesses might have acquired the reading we must conclude that it is the reading of Tatian...The Diatessaronic reading is certainly more congielian to Judaic Christianity than than to the group which latter came to dominate the church and which edited its texts, Gentile Christians. We must hold open the possible the possibility that the present canonical reading might be a revision of an earlier, stricter , more explicit and more Judeo-Christian text, here preserved only in the Diatessaron. (From "Titian's Diatessaron" by William L. Petersen, in Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development, Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990, p. 424)


While textual critics find it more significant that the early implications are for Jewish Christianity, I find it significant that the pre-Markan material in the Diatesseran includes a miracle story. Those miracles just never really fall out of the story. They are in there from the beginning. But for our purposes the most important point to make is that here we have traces of pre-Markan material. That is, Mark as we know Mark was not the earliest Christian Gospel written, it is merely the earliest of which we have a full copy. The date assigned to the composition of Mark is not the date assigned to the sources used to redact that composition. This pushes the written record of the Jesus story before A.D. 60 and makes it at least contemporaneous with Paul's writings. In other words it is clear that written Gospels with Jesus in an historical setting, and with Mary and Joseph the Cross and the empty tomb existed and circulated before the version of Mark that we know, and at the same time or before Paul was writing his first epistle (150'sAD).


2) Gospel of Thomas


The saying source of Thomas is clearly set within a Gnostic framework. It is widely attested and circulated in the second century. Not all of the sayings are authentic, in fact most are clearly latter additions that come with the Gnostic frame. Only a few sayings are viewed by Scholars as authentic sayings of Jesus. It is arguable even that these really predate the canonicals. There are is a large group of scholars which value it as an authentic source of original Jesus sayings (Hennecke-Schneemelcher-Wilson, NT Apocrypha1.99, 105). Nevertheless it is important to note that the source itself, Gospel of Thomas, assumes that Jesus was a flesh and blood man who really lived on the Earth and who really taught the things recorded. While the Thomas Jesus never speaks of the Cross or dying for sins or raising from he dead, he does claim to be divine. 28 Jesus said:


"I took my stand in the midst of the world, and in flesh I appeared to them. I found them all drunk, and I did not find any of them thirsty. My soul ached for the children of humanity, because they are blind in their hearts and do not see, for they came into the world empty, and they also seek to depart from the world empty. But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will change their ways."


This saying is remarkable for many reasons. As a Gnostic addition to the original saying source it is most curious because it does not say "I appeared as flesh" but "I took my stand in the midst of the world and in flesh I appeared to them...." At the very least this indicates an assumption that Jesus was a real person set in a real historical context. Since the notion of a flesh and blood Christ was abhorrent to the Gnostics, this is probably an authentic saying. IF it predates the canonicals it is very good indication that Jesus was viewed as a flesh and blood human before he was seen as anything else. If it does not predate it is passing strange that even the Gnostics would have less of a Gnostic redeemer than Paul! One who appeared in the flesh! And the fact that the Gnostics never argued that Jesus didn't have an historical setting speaks volumes, since their whole point was to abhor the flesh and to construct an ethereal Christ.



the upshot to all of this is, every single one of them portrays Jesus as a living flesh and blood person!



Ok Mythers! Time to fish or cut bait. Why is it that every single stich of a trace of a record or a methion of Jesus, before the 19th century accepts his historical existence? No one every called it into question!

What's more amazing, and time for you to come to terms with:

Every single scrap of it you question because it's not "direct eye witness"

that just sounds to me like an illuminoti theory. Do you really think history works that way? Like a highschool debate and unless we have direct work by an author saying "I had lunch with Jesus and he really existed" that it's realistic to think he didn't?

Do you ever care about truth? Do you ever care about facts? How could every single source ever mentioning Jesus before the 19th century be a tirck or a lie? Why is it that every single enstances it's just some fool being fooled, but Doherty who has nothing more than sheer speculation and a splcied together case out evidence form hither and yon sowen together by his imagination is treated as though he has direct evidence?

Our evidence is a lot better than his! His version of mystery cults didn't even exist until Platonias!