Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 01-13-2006, 12:38 PM

This part?

"The Armenian reference places the end of Thallus' "brief compendium" at the 167th Olympiad (which spans 112-109 BC). This would remain uncontested if it were not for a single reference to Thallus regarding an event long after that time: namely, the darkness at the death of Christ. Since this event must have occurred in the 1st century AD, and no doubt sometime between 28 and 38 AD, there are two possibilities: either the Armenian text is referring to a different work, or the date has been corrupted. Virtually every scholar to date has opted for the latter and made efforts to conjecture the original date--the only two plausible (though still unlikely) options are the 207th Olympiad (which spans 49-52 AD) and the 217th Olympiad (which spans 89-92 AD). The latter in fact is the more likely, judging from palaeography. But as I've already noted, it seems far more likely that the Armenian reference is to a different work. It could even be an excerpted epitome of a longer chronology.

This leaves us with no clue as to when Thallus wrote. Since the 1st-century darkness was probably not mentioned in the "brief compendium," there is no reason to suppose that the date of 109 BC is incorrect--there is nothing physically wrong with the text, nor any other reason to suspect an error (although Mosshammer claims otherwise, his reasoning is hard to justify). However, if Thallus did mention the darkness in another work (probably the Histories), he clearly had to have written after 28 AD. Although the guess of 52 AD as the end-date for the compedium is the one most commonly mentioned, if the date is wrong at all then 92 AD is more likely correct. But all these possible dates--109 BC, 52 AD, 92 AD--only give us the "time after which" he had to have written this "brief compendium." These dates do not tell us when he wrote the Histories or whatever work that mentioned the darkness."

spamandham · 01-13-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You will find most of these alleged sources discussed I will leave the Talmud to others.

Better yet, let those "others" be the ones who introduce it in support of a historical Jesus. Before it can be used for such a claim, we would need to know when the ideas behind the passages referring to Yeshu were initiated to determine if they were independent of Christian claims or if they amounted to a Jewish apologetic response to the presumed history they heard from Christians. There is no concensus on this regarding the references to Yeshu in the Babylonian Talmud. It can not be hand waved away, yet it also confirms nothing. Without further information, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

IMO, there seems to be a nearly universal flaw in the way the historical Jesus debate is handled from the mythicist perspective. To start with the Bible and sort through it filtering obvious myth from possible history, presumes a historical Jesus a priori. The right approach is to examine the evidence from the perspective of the hypopthesis.

There are historical reasons to hypothesize that Jesus was not historical. So we have met the first criterion of forming a valid theory. If we use the hypothesis that Christ began as mystical and was turned into a historical figure by those who came later, then the evidence should be examined from that perspective.

The questions to ask are "What evidence is there that precludes a purely mythical Jesus" and "Is the hypothesis a valid induction based on the evidence." This is the approach we use in any scientific endeavor, and I can see no reason an exception should be made for this case.

ynquirer · 01-13-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

There is no evidence for HJ there.

See
The Jesus the Jews Never Knew: Sepher Toldoth Yeshu and the Quest of the Historical Jesus in Jewish Sources by Frank R. Zindler.

The Tol’doth Yeshu is only one of the six or seven possible references to Jesus in the Talmud – but not one specifically in the Tractate Sanhedrin, which is the book I linked to in my post.

Many thanks for the reference, anyway.

ynquirer · 01-13-2006, 03:46 PM

Toto

Thank you very much for a most interesting article, which I didn’t know. It, however, does not address Sanhedrin 43a as thoroughly as I would desire.

I am addressing the issue in a new thread, so as not to interfere with the main discussion in this one.

Cogitate · 01-13-2006, 11:31 PM

Thank you all for your responses, this gives me a lot to be going on with. I must admit I was daunted by the shotgun approach of so many sources, most of whom I had never heard.

I will post my reply here for your criticism before replying on the other board, though it might not be for a couple of days.

Cogitate

Cogitate · 01-14-2006, 02:06 AM

Okay, this is what I intend to reply with. I hope none of you mind being paraphrased :

Quote:

Before I go on to the evidence for a historical Jesus, I would like to request that if we are going to continue with this discussion (and I would like to) please can we deal with one piece of evidence at a time. I have responded to all the points in your previous post, but I do not have enough time or expertise on these matters to go in to such depth in every post.

Now, on to the discussion.

First I would like to point out that I am personally agnostic on the existence of a historical person called Jesus in first century Palestine, or one called Christus, or even a cult leader called Jesus the Christ. I do not consider the claim fantastic, therefore the evidence for his existence (as opposed to his divine nature or ability to perform miracles) does not have to be extraordinary.

Quote:

Clearly the primary source is the New testament itself. Now many will dismiss this as partisan and unreliable, but that is not a valid historical view to take.

Since we are trying to establish the authenticity of the New Testament, it is most definitely legitimate to treat it with scepticism and seek corroboration.

Quote:

Josephus (37-100 AD) AntiquitiesXVIII 33 describes the life and teaching of Jesus, and his reputation as a miracle worker, though again it is clear that Josephus does not believe a word of it. In AntiquitiesXX 9 he describes Jesus trial before Annas the high priest.

Flavius Josephus published a history of the Jews in twenty books around 93 CE. In the 18th and 20th books, there are two little references to Jesus that have inspired a massive literature on their authenticity or spuriousness.

Quote:

it has also been suggested that some sources (such as Josephus) may be prejudiced, or even have been doctored after the fact.

That is putting it mildly.

From here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode....html#josephus

Quote:

Scholarly opinion can be divided into three camps: those who accept the entire passage as authentic; those who reject the entire passage as a Christian interpolation into the text (perhaps authored by the fourth-century church historian Eusebius); and those who believe that the original text contained an authentic reference to Jesus but was later embellished by Christian copyists.

Quote:

Tacitus (AD 55-120) Annals XV 44, refers to the execution of 'Christus' by Pontius Pilate

This passage provides strong support for the claim that there were Chritians in Rome during the first century CE

From here: http://www.textexcavation.com/tacitustestimonium.html

Quote:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.

Tacitus anachronistically identifies Pilate as a procurator, when the proper title would have been prefect. Tacitus also refers to the founder of the name as 'Christus', while written records would presumably have used the name Jesus and as meticulous as the Romans were, crucifixion records hardly went back nearly a century in time (the Annals being written c. 115 CE). It is therefore likely that Tacitus was relying on testimony rather than historical records.

Unfortunately for your case this merely tells us that there were in Rome, in 115 C.E. people who related the story of Christus’ crucifiction to Tacitus,and says nothing about the vercity of that story.

Quote:

Lucian of Samosata (c. 140 AD) Death of Peregrine describes the resurrection of Jesus, although it is clear that he does not believe it himself.

From here:
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jdtabor/saw.html (scroll down)

Quote:

It was then that he [Perigrinus] learned the wondrous lore of the Christians by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And--how else could it be? He made them all look like children; for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.
... The poor wretches have convinced themselves first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody, most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another, after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods, and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property--receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan or trickster able to profit from them comes along and gets among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.

Lucian was a parodist, not a historian, although he is probably as reliable as many of the historians of the day. He describes the crucifixion, but I have found no description of the resurrection. Lucian is evidence that there were Christians who acted and believed in a certain way, but hardly evidence of Jesus.

Quote:

Suetonius Life of Claudius 25.4 describes the disruption made by the Christians in Rome. Also in his Lives of the Caesars he describes the persecution of Christians under Nero, and how they were proclaiming the resurrection of Jesus by AD 64

Suetonius describes a disruption made by Jews in Rome, under the leadership of Chrestus - a common name that would have been pronounced the same as Christus in the second century. But it is stretching things to call this evidence of Christianity. He records that Christians were punished by Nero - but not for proclaiming the resurrection or for any other reason.

Quote:

Pliny the Younger (c. AD110) Epistles X 96 describes the Christians worship, their singing, their belief in the resurrection and their bravery when being executed.

This is evidence of Christians, not independent evidence of Jesus. And once again, there is no mention in Pliny of the resurrection - only that the Christians sang hymns to Christ as to a God.

Quote:

Thallus (c. AD 50) described the darkness that came over the earth at the time of Jesus' death, although his explanation is that it was an eclipse of the sun. Chronography 18.1 Phlegon (c. AD 60) chronicles also describes the darkness at the time of Jesus death.

from here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/thallus.html

(The article addresses both Thallus and Phlegon)

Quote:

We know next to nothing about Thallus or his works. We don't even know if he wrote only one book or several. The only information we have about him, even his name, comes entirely from Christian apologetic sources beginning in the late 2nd century, and that information is plagued with problems. Scholars since the 18th century have even invented facts about him, and some of these groundless notions--like the idea that he was a Samaritan--are repeated even today. Claims are also made, mainly but not exclusively by modern Christian apologists, which make Thallus into the earliest literary witness to the gospel tradition

and

Quote:

This leaves us with four options: Africanus meant Phlegon, not Thallus; or Eusebius quoted Thallus verbatim, revealing that Thallus did not mention Jesus; or Thallus mentioned Jesus, but wrote in the 2nd century, when we know the gospels were already in circulation; or Thallus mentioned Jesus and wrote in the 1st century, and is the earliest witness to the gospel tradition. Although all of these are possible, it is clear that any of the first three are more likely than the last one, since there are several facts which support each of them, but none which support the last one--in other words, it is a "mere" possibility, whereas the others actually have some arguments in their favor.

Quote:

Mara bar-Serapion (c. 75 AD) records the death of Jesus and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the Dispersal of teh Jewish people.

Mara Bar-Serapion, an imprisoned Syrian who wrote sometime after 73 CE, made the following statement in a letter to his son:

Quote:

From barSerapion’s letter What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their Kingdom was abolished

Since there is no specific mention of Jesus and, since Jesus never was a king of the Jews (except, perhaps, in the metaphorical sense) this passage may not refer to Jesus, however,

From: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hap5.html#mara

Quote:

given that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, not the Jews, Bar-Serapion's choice of words is inexplicable unless we assume that he received his information about this 'wise King' from Christians. (Remember that the Christians held the Jews at least partially responsible for Jesus' crucifixion.) However, if Bar-Serapion received his information from Christians, two conclusions follow. First, it is highly likely that this 'wise King' was Jesus.[136] Second, Bar-Serapion does not provide independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus

also note that:

Quote:

Bar-Serapion's letter contains other errors. Till notes that the letter implies Pythagoras had been killed by his countrymen, yet "Pythagoras left the island of Samos in 530 B. C. and emigrated to the Greek colony of Croton in Southern Italy. He later died in Metapontum, which is now Metaponto, Italy."

Quote:

Babylonian talmud Sanhedrin 43 a describes Jesus being hung on a tree; Sanh 107b mentions five of his disciples; Sabb 104b mentions the story of his virgin birthm, though clearly attributes it to Mary being unfaithful, rather than to God's agency.

More on this here: http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...p5.html#talmud

Quote:

The Talmud [42] is a massive compilation divided into two parts, the Mishna [43] and the Gemara [44]. The Mishna was codified by Rabbi Jehudah ha-Nasi circa 200 CE but was not actually committed to writing until the fifth century; it discusses numerous subjects, including festivals, sacred things, etc. The Gemara was completed in the fifth century and is really a commentary on the Mishna.

Before the Babylonian Talmud can be used to support the historicity of Jesus, we would need to know when the ideas behind the passages referring to Yeshu were initiated to determine if they were independent of Christian claims or if they amounted to a Jewish apologetic response to the presumed history they heard from Christians. There is no consensus on this regarding the references to Yeshu in the Babylonian Talmud. It can’t be dismissed out of hand, yet it also confirms nothing.

Quote:

Now one obvious retort is that these pagan and Jewish sources contradict the accounts given in the NT, and it is obvious that they would, because if they believed in the gospel, they would no longer be pagans.

It may be an obvious retort, but it is also a fair one. If 2000 years from now someone was to dig up one of the many documented references to Joseph Smith, would that count as evidence for the veracity of Mormonism?

Quote:

The point of these quotations is that they provide strong extra-biblical evidence for the main events of Jesus life, and make it impossible to maintain that Jesus did not exist.

I think we can see that none of the sources are uncontroversial, but in my opinion it more likely than not that a historical man called Jesus existed. As I stated at the start of this reply, I do not consider the claim that a man called Jesus existed in first century CE Palestine fantastic, therefore the evidence for his existence did not have to be extraordinary.

But the evidence that he was anything other than a cult leader is completely lacking.

Your comments and criticisms would be appreciated.

Cogitate

Roger Pearse · 01-14-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

This part?

"The Armenian reference places the end of Thallus' "brief compendium" at the 167th Olympiad (which spans 112-109 BC). This would remain uncontested if it were not for a single reference to Thallus regarding an event long after that time: namely, the darkness at the death of Christ. Since this event must have occurred in the 1st century AD, and no doubt sometime between 28 and 38 AD, there are two possibilities: either the Armenian text is referring to a different work, or the date has been corrupted. Virtually every scholar to date has opted for the latter and made efforts to conjecture the original date--the only two plausible (though still unlikely) options are the 207th Olympiad (which spans 49-52 AD) and the 217th Olympiad (which spans 89-92 AD). The latter in fact is the more likely, judging from palaeography. But as I've already noted, it seems far more likely that the Armenian reference is to a different work. It could even be an excerpted epitome of a longer chronology.

This leaves us with no clue as to when Thallus wrote. Since the 1st-century darkness was probably not mentioned in the "brief compendium," there is no reason to suppose that the date of 109 BC is incorrect--there is nothing physically wrong with the text, nor any other reason to suspect an error (although Mosshammer claims otherwise, his reasoning is hard to justify). However, if Thallus did mention the darkness in another work (probably the Histories), he clearly had to have written after 28 AD. Although the guess of 52 AD as the end-date for the compedium is the one most commonly mentioned, if the date is wrong at all then 92 AD is more likely correct. But all these possible dates--109 BC, 52 AD, 92 AD--only give us the "time after which" he had to have written this "brief compendium." These dates do not tell us when he wrote the Histories or whatever work that mentioned the darkness."

Probably.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 01-14-2006, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cogitate

[B]Okay, this is what I intend to reply with. ... Your comments and criticisms would be appreciated.

If I were you, I would check the material you intend to repeat personally, rather than just relying on someone else's word. Particularly since all of this rather commits you to a position of a question of history held (as far as I know) only by cranks.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Cogitate · 01-14-2006, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cogitate

I think we can see that none of the sources are uncontroversial, but in my opinion it more likely than not that a historical man called Jesus existed

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

If I were you, I would check the material you intend to repeat personally, rather than just relying on someone else's word. Particularly since all of this rather commits you to a position of a question of history held (as far as I know) only by cranks.

Well if thats what you think

Seriously though, if you have any specific issues with what I wrote,please let me know. I have not gone to the original texts it is true, precisely for the same reason I came here for help - I'm not an expert. I am happy to defer to more knowledgeable posters when they are pointing out the flaws in arguments or evidence, but I have been lurking on these forums long enough to recognise the form of ad-hominem known as 'poisoning the well'.

You might also note that I have not committed myself to anything.

Cogitate

youngalexander · 01-14-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Particularly since all of this rather commits you to a position of a question of history held (as far as I know) only by cranks.
Roger Pearse

In the light of Cogitate's reply, it would appear that you did not read his proposed submission as carefully as you might have. It seemed a reasonable and balanced exposition, given his expressed level of expertise.

He has given the various views of each evidentary case presented to him and plumped for a probable HJ.

I am curious as to which parts you think constitute the (cranky = eccentric, strange) bits?

01-13-2006, 12:38 PM	#11
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	This part? "The Armenian reference places the end of Thallus' "brief compendium" at the 167th Olympiad (which spans 112-109 BC). This would remain uncontested if it were not for a single reference to Thallus regarding an event long after that time: namely, the darkness at the death of Christ. Since this event must have occurred in the 1st century AD, and no doubt sometime between 28 and 38 AD, there are two possibilities: either the Armenian text is referring to a different work, or the date has been corrupted. Virtually every scholar to date has opted for the latter and made efforts to conjecture the original date--the only two plausible (though still unlikely) options are the 207th Olympiad (which spans 49-52 AD) and the 217th Olympiad (which spans 89-92 AD). The latter in fact is the more likely, judging from palaeography. But as I've already noted, it seems far more likely that the Armenian reference is to a different work. It could even be an excerpted epitome of a longer chronology. This leaves us with no clue as to when Thallus wrote. Since the 1st-century darkness was probably not mentioned in the "brief compendium," there is no reason to suppose that the date of 109 BC is incorrect--there is nothing physically wrong with the text, nor any other reason to suspect an error (although Mosshammer claims otherwise, his reasoning is hard to justify). However, if Thallus did mention the darkness in another work (probably the Histories), he clearly had to have written after 28 AD. Although the guess of 52 AD as the end-date for the compedium is the one most commonly mentioned, if the date is wrong at all then 92 AD is more likely correct. But all these possible dates--109 BC, 52 AD, 92 AD--only give us the "time after which" he had to have written this "brief compendium." These dates do not tell us when he wrote the Histories or whatever work that mentioned the darkness."

01-13-2006, 11:31 PM	#15
Cogitate Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: NB, Canada Posts: 35	Many thanks Thank you all for your responses, this gives me a lot to be going on with. I must admit I was daunted by the shotgun approach of so many sources, most of whom I had never heard. I will post my reply here for your criticism before replying on the other board, though it might not be for a couple of days. Cogitate

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

01-13-2006, 03:46 PM	#14
ynquirer Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Madrid, Spain Posts: 572	Toto Thank you very much for a most interesting article, which I didn’t know. It, however, does not address Sanhedrin 43a as thoroughly as I would desire. I am addressing the issue in a new thread, so as not to interfere with the main discussion in this one.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.