Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ramoss · 03-10-2010, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

To me, the only thing in the gospels about Jesus that could have an historical basis is the so-called "Passion Narrative," the arrest, trial and execution of the Jesus Character. It appears as a rather vivid account and lacks the supernatural and obviously satirical elements that mark the other nine tenths of the gospels.

The Passion Narrative is such an objective, straight forward account, that it reminds one of a newspaper account. One forgets that there were no newspapers and no reporters in Roman times. It therefore cannot be so straight forward as a newspaper account on an historical event.

There is a possibility that it originates in some specific historical event. The mythological elements are added to the gospel later to explain the historical event.

On the other hand, there is also the possibility that it is an allegorical account based on stock characters and typical situations of the time. It could have been originally presented as either a novel (like "The Metamorphoses" of Lucius Apuleius), satire (a la Juvenal's, or Philo's "Embassy to Nero") or a mime play which dealt with crucified robbers.

We can also postulate a third theory which is a synthesis of the two. Let us suppose that it does report on an historical event, but not the death of Jesus, but the death of John, the Baptist. We may suppose that John was actually a radical Jewish preacher who offended the powers that be. We know that he was executed by Herod. Changing Herod to Pilate and John to Jesus, and a head chopped off to crucifixion would have been simple enough. Other events in the gospels, such as the birth narrative, the Sermon on the Mount and the baptism seem to me to be derived from prior John material. Perhaps the passion was also.

All three of these seem possible to me. What I lack is a means for testing the three hypotheses. Suggestions?

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Well, there are problems with the account of the Trial of Jesus. It violates Jewish law and custom, since there were very specific criteria on how to handle capital execution cases. They include

1) Trials have to last at least 3 days
2) Trials have to be done during the day, not after dark.
3) Trials and executions can not be done on the Sabbath or on high holy days.
4) Before someone can be executed, it has to be announce, and a time period has to be waited to see if someone can come up with extenuating circumstances.
5) Crucifixion is not a legal way to execute someone in Jewish law.

Toto · 03-10-2010, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...can you explain to me why so many people in this forum think it is counter-productive to openly discuss the social madness, the evidenced types of art and literature, and the political and religious roles associated with the known publisher and the known editor-in-chief of the first known widely distributed editions of the gospels in the Roman empire of the 4th century?

You can and have discussed this, but you have not shed any light on the gospel story. All you want to say is that Constantine was a thug and Eusebius a forger. If we grant this, how does it help us understand the gospel narrative?

avi · 03-11-2010, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Remember that before Sigmund Freud, people generally thought that dreams were visitations from the Gods or nonsense. Freud showed that they weren't visitations from the Gods, but they weren't nonsense either. They had their own logic and by understanding them, we could understand human beings better.

Hi Jay!

While the thread itself, and your many wonderful replies to arguments offered within it, are both excellent, this particular comment needs a tiny bit of refinement, in my opinion.

The notion that Freud is somehow the original investigator of dreaming, is widespread, and erroneous.

Sorry.

Many cultures have investigated, analyzed, described, and sought to explain dreaming, and while, yes, you are correct, the ancient Egyptians, and perhaps also the Greeks, imagined that dreams represented visitations from supernatural creatures, not all inquiries into dreaming, in antiquity, were so focused.

In particular, the man whose identity I have purloined, as a nickname, AviCenna, published, in the early eleventh century, an account of human behaviour, embracing the following: "emotional aspects, mental capacity, moral attitudes, self-awareness, movements and dreams." One of his successors in the arena of renaissance men whose intellectual exploits extended widely across multiple domains, three centuries later, ibn Khaldun, wrote: "confused dreams" are "pictures of the imagination that are stored inside by perception and to which the ability to think is applied, after (man) has retired from sense perception." A couple of hundred years later, the Chinese poet, Zhuang Zi, wrote his famous poem, questioning his own dreaming. Introspection, and analysis, were not invented by Sigmund Freud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

I think we now have lots of analytical tools developed over the last century that we can use to understand the development of the Gospels.

Well, thanks, Jay, that is a spirit of optimism always welcome on the forum. I, on the other hand, am invariably presenting a doom and gloom viewpoint, on this or any other subject. I simply deny the alleged progress in "analytical tools", and I certainly doubt much of the supposed "scholarship" of the past century. I am looking for EVIDENCE, not tools. I don't find it. All I see is wishful thinking, acceptance of a considerable quantity of forgery, and stereotyped cogitation.

"development of the Gospels". Holy Cow. Other than speculate, what else can you propose? Was Mark first? Some editions have him last. Was John first? Some have him last. Where are these "analytical tools" that assist us in rationally proceeding to uncover the truth about the authorship and date of original publication of these books? I genuinely admire your confidence, and enthusiasm, but, gosh, I just cannot fathom to what sort of analytical tools you are referring.

If one objectively inquires about dreaming, for example, we DO have a relatively (thirty five years old) new analytical tool which can be used to study various aspects of the dream state: PET scan (Positron Emission Tomography).

Which new analytical tool(s) exists to aid us in uncovering the genuine history behind the evolution of Christianity? Do we even possess a catalogue of titles, with authorship and original date of publication, listed for all to see, the veracity of each entry acknowledged by everyone? I think we do not possess such a list. I will give you the simplest example, to illustrate the problem, as I see it:

"Paul's" letters to Seneca. Widely believed to represent forgery. Fine. Why? Why are those documents regarded as illustrations of forgery, but not his other "epistles". More importantly, where is the "analytical tool" that permits us to peek inside an ancient document, like Papyrus 46, to affirm its ostensible veracity, or lack thereof?

avi

aa5874 · 03-11-2010, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

If proto-John was a post war revisionist response to an historical pre-war revolutionary person who was crucified or a revision of a story about an imaginary literary pre-war revolutionary is the million dollar question.

But, the question of the historicity has already been answered in the negative or more likely to be negative based on the extant information of antiquity unless we are moving in circles.

The author of John has already described his Jesus and it was God the Creator of heaven and earth.

Why do people continue to reject the evidence?

John has answered the question in DETAIL that Jesus was God.

See John 1.1-14

Quote:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2The same was in the beginning with God.

3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

It would appear to me that what is happening is most unprecedented where as it were the jurors of a trial are refusing to deliberate after all the evidence have been submitted and are waiting for a miracle to happen, that some-one will show up with evidence after the case have come to an end.

John's Jesus was God. Jesus believers do not worship men as God. There is no historical source that can show Jesus believers would have worshiped a man as a God. Since the time of Philo, people believed the son of God was purely philosophical, not at all physical.

This is my verdict. My deliberations are over.

The historicity of Jesus is an extremely weak theory.

The historicity of Jesus is near ZERO.

The MJ is a far better and well-supported theory.

Only evidence can overturn my verdict, not imagination.

andrewcriddle · 03-11-2010, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramoss

Well, there are problems with the account of the Trial of Jesus. It violates Jewish law and custom, since there were very specific criteria on how to handle capital execution cases. They include

1) Trials have to last at least 3 days
2) Trials have to be done during the day, not after dark.
3) Trials and executions can not be done on the Sabbath or on high holy days.
4) Before someone can be executed, it has to be announce, and a time period has to be waited to see if someone can come up with extenuating circumstances.
5) Crucifixion is not a legal way to execute someone in Jewish law.

Our earliest source for most of these is the Mishnah which took its present form shortly after 200 CE.

It is unclear how far these rules were in effect before 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 03-11-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by ramoss

Well, there are problems with the account of the Trial of Jesus. It violates Jewish law and custom, since there were very specific criteria on how to handle capital execution cases. They include

1) Trials have to last at least 3 days
2) Trials have to be done during the day, not after dark.
3) Trials and executions can not be done on the Sabbath or on high holy days.
4) Before someone can be executed, it has to be announce, and a time period has to be waited to see if someone can come up with extenuating circumstances.
5) Crucifixion is not a legal way to execute someone in Jewish law.

Our earliest source for most of these is the Mishnah which took its present form shortly after 200 CE.

It is unclear how far these rules were in effect before 70 CE.

Andrew Criddle

But, there are the writings of Josephus where it is found that the Sanhedrin were able to have people stoned to death before 70 CE. There is no mention of anyone crucified by the Sanhedrin in Josephus.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1

Quote:

....But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority].

Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned....

PhilosopherJay · 03-11-2010, 01:07 PM

Hi Pete,

Yes, I think that understanding structures goes both ways and understanding present structures also helps us to understand past structures. We always, however, have to be careful and realize that similar historical structures may rest on very different and contingent elements.

As you know I think that Eusebius and Constantine, while they did not originate Christianity, did radically alter Christianity and put it on a new orthodox basis. I think a case can be made that they were more or less the originators of Orthodox Christianity. I also appreciate that the physical evidence for Christianity before their time is not all that solid, and people do need to be reminded about that.

I do think, as Toto suggests, that your insights on these issues are probably more relevant to some threads than to others.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I think that by understanding the gospels better, we can understand some of the social madness behind religion and certain kinds of politics as well as the popularity of certain kinds of art and literature.

Hi Philosopher Jay.

Do you think that the reverse applies? That if we understand the social madness behind religion and certain kinds of politics as well as the popularity of certain kinds of art and literature, then we can understand the gospels better?

And if in fact you agree with this, then can you explain to me why so many people in this forum think it is counter-productive to openly discuss the social madness, the evidenced types of art and literature, and the political and religious roles associated with the known publisher and the known editor-in-chief of the first known widely distributed editions of the gospels in the Roman empire of the 4th century?

PhilosopherJay · 03-11-2010, 02:34 PM

Hi Avi,

Thank you for pointing out that Freud was not the first in history to analyze dreams. He did follow in a long line of brilliant writers. He did manage to systematize the work of these earlier writers and his work had a greater influence in the Twentieth century than any other writer on the subject.

As for the analytical tools, you are right that we do need a list of them. I think they are working almost unconsciously on a lot of writers and a list of them would be quite useful. I'm hoping to include them in a book I'm writing.

Among the people who I think have done very significant work in the last twenty years are:

1. Burton Mack (seeing the literary and stoic influences on the gospels) Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth
2. Hyam Maccoby (seeing the separateness of Paul's doctrines from the gospels) See, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity
3. John Dominic Crossan (Seeing Jesus as a Jewish Revolutionary) Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography
4. Robert Price: Showing that virtually every bit of the gospels suspiciously corresponds to Hebrew Scriptures) The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?
5. Earl Doherty (showing that Paul wasn't even worshiping an Earthly Jesus) The Jesus Puzzle

There are a number of others also making substantial contributions to our understanding within the last five years.

As far as Paul's letters to Seneca, the fact that nobody mentions them before Jerome in the Fifth century makes them extremely suspect. The letters really do not say anything that adds directly to the Pauline epistles. Likewise, they add nothing directly to the Senecan corpus. They simply have Seneca declaring that he is a secret Christian and a great fan of Paul's, while Paul also exclaims his devotion to Seneca.

Imagine a series of letters between Franklin Delanor Roosevelt and Benito Mussolino in which they express their love and admiration for each other and suggest that they have had sexual relations. One really doesn't have to take them seriously because they drastically contradict all known history about Roosevelt and Mussolino.

On the other hand, at least six or seven of the letters of Paul do seem to hang together in some sense as a single corpus and they seem to be known by the middle of the Second century. Therefore, if authentic or not, we can still deal with them and try to understand what is being proposed in them. Here, I think that the ideas and concepts are so drastically different than the ideas and concepts found in the gospels is what is important.

Warmly,
Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

Remember that before Sigmund Freud, people generally thought that dreams were visitations from the Gods or nonsense. Freud showed that they weren't visitations from the Gods, but they weren't nonsense either. They had their own logic and by understanding them, we could understand human beings better.

Hi Jay!

While the thread itself, and your many wonderful replies to arguments offered within it, are both excellent, this particular comment needs a tiny bit of refinement, in my opinion.

The notion that Freud is somehow the original investigator of dreaming, is widespread, and erroneous.

Sorry.

Many cultures have investigated, analyzed, described, and sought to explain dreaming, and while, yes, you are correct, the ancient Egyptians, and perhaps also the Greeks, imagined that dreams represented visitations from supernatural creatures, not all inquiries into dreaming, in antiquity, were so focused.

In particular, the man whose identity I have purloined, as a nickname, AviCenna, published, in the early eleventh century, an account of human behaviour, embracing the following: "emotional aspects, mental capacity, moral attitudes, self-awareness, movements and dreams." One of his successors in the arena of renaissance men whose intellectual exploits extended widely across multiple domains, three centuries later, ibn Khaldun, wrote: "confused dreams" are "pictures of the imagination that are stored inside by perception and to which the ability to think is applied, after (man) has retired from sense perception." A couple of hundred years later, the Chinese poet, Zhuang Zi, wrote his famous poem, questioning his own dreaming. Introspection, and analysis, were not invented by Sigmund Freud.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Philosopher Jay

I think we now have lots of analytical tools developed over the last century that we can use to understand the development of the Gospels.

Well, thanks, Jay, that is a spirit of optimism always welcome on the forum. I, on the other hand, am invariably presenting a doom and gloom viewpoint, on this or any other subject. I simply deny the alleged progress in "analytical tools", and I certainly doubt much of the supposed "scholarship" of the past century. I am looking for EVIDENCE, not tools. I don't find it. All I see is wishful thinking, acceptance of a considerable quantity of forgery, and stereotyped cogitation.

"development of the Gospels". Holy Cow. Other than speculate, what else can you propose? Was Mark first? Some editions have him last. Was John first? Some have him last. Where are these "analytical tools" that assist us in rationally proceeding to uncover the truth about the authorship and date of original publication of these books? I genuinely admire your confidence, and enthusiasm, but, gosh, I just cannot fathom to what sort of analytical tools you are referring.

If one objectively inquires about dreaming, for example, we DO have a relatively (thirty five years old) new analytical tool which can be used to study various aspects of the dream state: PET scan (Positron Emission Tomography).

Which new analytical tool(s) exists to aid us in uncovering the genuine history behind the evolution of Christianity? Do we even possess a catalogue of titles, with authorship and original date of publication, listed for all to see, the veracity of each entry acknowledged by everyone? I think we do not possess such a list. I will give you the simplest example, to illustrate the problem, as I see it:

"Paul's" letters to Seneca. Widely believed to represent forgery. Fine. Why? Why are those documents regarded as illustrations of forgery, but not his other "epistles". More importantly, where is the "analytical tool" that permits us to peek inside an ancient document, like Papyrus 46, to affirm its ostensible veracity, or lack thereof?

avi

mountainman · 03-11-2010, 03:04 PM

Thanks Philosopher Jay.

You make an extremely cogent point when you state that Constantine and Eusebius may be considered to be the originators of "Orthodox Christianity". They obviously made a huge impact upon the then-existing landscape, which may have indeed included a large number of contributory proto "Christianities", as your book outlines in depth.

From this perspective we might look at the origination of Orthodox Christianity as an impact event -- like a meteor - in the ancient milieu of all possible forms of proto-Christianities. It would seem to me that, as geologists of the ancient landscape of literature, we should take special measures to study this impact event very closely. In fact I would go so far as to say (in parallel to the geological analogy) that if we do not study this impact event very closely, then we are never going to really understand what may have indeed preceeded it.

I am just trying to be careful in the study of this field.
Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

Yes, I think that understanding structures goes both ways and understanding present structures also helps us to understand past structures. We always, however, have to be careful and realize that similar historical structures may rest on very different and contingent elements.

As you know I think that Eusebius and Constantine, while they did not originate Christianity, did radically alter Christianity and put it on a new orthodox basis. I think a case can be made that they were more or less the originators of Orthodox Christianity. I also appreciate that the physical evidence for Christianity before their time is not all that solid, and people do need to be reminded about that.

I do think, as Toto suggests, that your insights on these issues are probably more relevant to some threads than to others.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay.

Do you think that the reverse applies? That if we understand the social madness behind religion and certain kinds of politics as well as the popularity of certain kinds of art and literature, then we can understand the gospels better?

And if in fact you agree with this, then can you explain to me why so many people in this forum think it is counter-productive to openly discuss the social madness, the evidenced types of art and literature, and the political and religious roles associated with the known publisher and the known editor-in-chief of the first known widely distributed editions of the gospels in the Roman empire of the 4th century?

mountainman · 03-11-2010, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...can you explain to me why so many people in this forum think it is counter-productive to openly discuss the social madness, the evidenced types of art and literature, and the political and religious roles associated with the known publisher and the known editor-in-chief of the first known widely distributed editions of the gospels in the Roman empire of the 4th century?

You can and have discussed this, but you have not shed any light on the gospel story. All you want to say is that Constantine was a thug and Eusebius a forger. If we grant this, how does it help us understand the gospel narrative?

Thanks for the response Toto. It is probably appropriate that I do not disturb this thread with any reply at the moment, however I will certainly consider your question and possibly, attempt to prepare a response elsewhere at some later date.

Best wishes

Pete

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.