Amos

But don't let resurrection be a stumbling block because that is the easiest of all. If you had your ego slain would't you soon realize that only your ego was slain? (hint, the pivotal speach made by Mark Anthony in Julius Ceasar is an example of this). The secret is how to get your ego slain and that is where the mystery of faith lies. It is easy enough to call yourself a Christian and easier yet to get 'laid' by a marauding evangelist but 'from there to eternity' is when the Jesus-way is needed. Failing this we will go the way of Seneca, who was a contemporay of Jesus to show the difference but himself was another Jesus or he could not possibly know the difference (why things can go wrong).

If you want to read how James Joyce did it just go to the last lines of his Portrait and there find his 40 day count-down. 37 dayes are numbered and after "Old father, old artificer, stand me now and ever in good stead" he goes underground for 3 days to rise again on May 1st to count for his 40 days.

Bede

1. None of these documents are independent. So multiple attestation cannot apply.

Independence is tested in various ways and these docs pass them all (except perhaps John). They include use of traditions we expect to be helpful, plain old literary depndence, use of common themes etc. As everyone agrees that Paul's Jesus is not like the man in Mark we already know they are independent.

2. Alternative histories known as well -- Jesus whacked by Herod in other gospels (hint in Luke).

First century evidence of this please.

3. All stories of Crucifixion embedded in fictions, so therefore in doubt; earliest claims contain no mention of Pilate.

Pilate is mentioned by pseudo Paul, all the evangelists, Tacitus and Josephus. That is, apart from T, all first century. The trial accounts are not fictions nor embedding in fictions.

4. Tacitus too late, obviously recounts Christian legend.

But clearly another early independent tradition in Rome.

5. Josephus is complete forgery. Other points too numerous to list. After all, three Scottish historians treat Robin Hood as historical figure...

Quite rightly. Robin Hood is historical. Josephus's second ref is not a forgery as everyone but mythers now accepts.

6. Actually, there are no "normal" procedures for determining this. Scholars on both sides simply make them up as they go along. Witness Haran's comment in the thread about Doherty's reading of "born of a woman." And Doherty's position is not a whole lot better, save by virtue of being more restricted.

Vork, if you had trained in history you would know there are normal proceedures in textual analysis. Haran and Layman use them, Doherty does not.

7. Oppression of Jews does not mean anything regarding Jesus' historicity. Plausibility is not reality. Robin Hood is a very plausible outlaw in the early stories.

And a fact. So what?

8. Mark, Q and Paul may be independent, may not. Common source may be tradition, may not. No evidence here either way. Your certainty is not supported by the record.

There is no dependence between Mark, Paul and Q. As we have no evidence at all they are connected we must accept they are not. Otherwise we must also accept the invisible dragon in my garage.

9. No one denies Crucifixion on myther side. Merely gospel account of it, which is obvious fabrication. What happened at Crucifixion, and whose is being recounted, is no longer accessible to us. Confusion apparently on Historicist side.

Nope. Mythers all deny crucifixion of Jesus or they are not mythers. Clear confusion from you.

10. Historical sociology also tells us that retrojecting future historical claims into stories of past events is common. And also tells us, even more urgently, that origin stories are myths.

Nope. Tell's us exactly what I said it tells us. Plain old history tells us many origin stories, like Islam's, Mormonism's and Christianity's are, in large part, factual.

11. The earliest record makes no mention of Pilate's hand in Jesus' death. That is later gospel fabrication.

Evidence for this assertion? The earliest records WE NOW HAVE say Jesus was crucified in Judea and his brother is still alive. The Roman governor did it even without Pilate's name.

12. None of the methodologies you propose offers any hope of analysis of content to determine what is historical or not.

Actually, they do.

13. Good luck.

Thanks.

Yours

Bede

No more from me on this waste of a subject. Ask an anti-creationist how I feel.

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Haran

Nothing would convince spin, anyway. With his methodology, there is no history. There is probably nothing anyone can prove with absolute certainty in the ancient past. I think this quite bothers spin, he tries so hard, because he cannot say with absolute certainty that Jesus did not exist and definitely did not do the things attibuted to him. In short, he can never absolutely destroy anyone's faith in Jesus like he seems to desire.

spin away, spin... spin away...

Toto

We have no evidence that spin is trying to destroy anyone's faith in Jesus, only in their dogmatic assertion that there is evidence for Jesus that others must accept.

Are there any more substantive replies? If not, this thread will be closed.

Layman

1. None of these documents are independent. So multiple attestation cannot apply.

There are a number of independent NT documents. Paul's letters vs. Mark vs. Q vs. L and probably John.

2. Alternative histories known as well -- Jesus whacked by Herod in other gospels (hint in Luke).

Please list this evidence.

3. All stories of Crucifixion embedded in fictions, so therefore in doubt; earliest claims contain no mention of Pilate.

This seems to be a bit of inarticulate genre criticism. Calling the gospels "fiction" is anachronistic. What genre did they fit it? Mark, Matthew and John were probably ancient biography. Luke/Acts ancient historiography. None are "Romantic Novels" which would probably be the closest genre to modern day "Fiction."

Of course, Paul's letters and the Epistle to the Hebrews are also not fiction.

4. Tacitus too late, obviously recounts Christian legend.

Perhaps, but still significant. Especially as a blow against Doherty and similar mythologists.

5. Josephus is complete forgery.

Wrong. The reference in 20 is universally accepted and the reference in 18 enjoys a broad scholarly consensus as partially authentic. About the only modern scholars who doubt these also happen to be Jesus Mythers. Go figure.

Other points too numerous to list.

Convenient. But then I'd add to Bede's list the early, primative kerygma preserved in Acts, especially in Chapters 12 and 13.

An irrelevant analogy as presently aritculated. You tried something similar with Jesus' miracles and Taoism. Upon closer examination it turned out you felt justified to compile a few thousand years of Tao tradition vs. only 30 years of Christian. It caused me to lose all faith in your little blurbs about these similarities.

Haran

There was nothing substantive to begin with, Toto, just an thinly veiled insult directed at Christians. I say close it.

Layman

Perhaps you could split your Mod posts and your Opinion posts. You usually slam the Christians in a thread then threaten official action. It gives at least the appearance of bias.

Layman

It is interesting that the OP was snide and insulting but no one bothered to intercede until . . . .

Haran

Definitely...

The quality of discussion has been steadily going down hill here. I do not wish to debate (or argue) history with those who deny it all out of their own unrecognized dogmatism anyway.

spin

I think it might be worthwhile looking at what scholars are doing these days when dealing with ancient (non-biblical) literature. You'll find that they are weighing it up at each occasion and comparing it with the epigraphic and archaeological evidence. I see no reason why such standards should not be introduced here in discussions of biblical literature.


spin