Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clutch · 07-09-2003, 11:44 AM

BTW, the use of "an" before "historical" is an artifact of obsolete British regional pronunciation. Pronunciation, not spelling or grammar, is the guide to usage of "a" and "an", as most language guides have now got round to acknowledging. (IIRC, Fowler's still ranks it permissible to use "an" when the first syllable of an aspirated "h" word is unstressed. Anybody want to write about offshore oil, an Hibernian resource? Sheesh.)

Paul Baxter · 07-09-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arken
I was originally going to simply vote 'no' because the Jesus described in the bible could not have existed since he committed all sorts of impossible feats, not the least of which was coming back from the dead.

Also, as others said, there's precious little in the way of extra-biblical historical evidence, evidence of deities before Jesus with similar biographies, etc.

However, I think the question of whether or not there was a revolutionary first century A.D. rabbi who headed a small Jewish offshoot sect whose name was Joshua, son of Joseph who had a mother named Mary and a brother named James, etc. is unanswerable so I guess in the end I'm sitting on the fence.

Not to pick on you too much for your answer here, but does the fact that miracles were attributed to someone bear much on the fact of their existence? Do you apply this criterion to the various Romans? Or St Benedict? (Have you ever SEEN the "Life of St Benedict"? Miracle on every page.) Guess I'm just not sure how this is relevant.

FWIW, as a Christian, I'm rather concerned about the actual history/ministry of Jesus and believe that the term "gospel" as used in the NT referred to his actual life and work, as used in the first verse of Mark. A Jesus outside of history is of no value to me.

Arken · 07-09-2003, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
Not to pick on you too much for your answer here, but does the fact that miracles were attributed to someone bear much on the fact of their existence? Do you apply this criterion to the various Romans? Or St Benedict? (Have you ever SEEN the "Life of St Benedict"? Miracle on every page.) Guess I'm just not sure how this is relevant.

FWIW, as a Christian, I'm rather concerned about the actual history/ministry of Jesus and believe that the term "gospel" as used in the NT referred to his actual life and work, as used in the first verse of Mark. A Jesus outside of history is of no value to me.

Normally, I would say that no, it didn't... but in the case of Jesus, virtually all records of him involve him performing some sort of magical feat or another and so he is essentially described by his magical abilities.

Rational BAC · 07-09-2003, 09:30 PM

Even still---forgetting all the "magical stuff" there was a historical record of Jesus's words and movement during a specific period in time. And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing.

Now-----if this was a secular man (Jesus I mean) would there be any doubt as to his historical veracity?

I think not. I think many of you are "upping the ante" simply because of the theistic connotations.

Let us be real here. Leave out all the religious crap --and Jesus does become a historical person---at least by most standards defining a historical person.

Peter Kirby · 07-09-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Even still---forgetting all the "magical stuff" there was a historical record of Jesus's words and movement during a specific period in time. And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing.

Now-----if this was a secular man (Jesus I mean) would there be any doubt as to his historical veracity?

I think not. I think many of you are "upping the ante" simply because of the theistic connotations.

Let us be real here. Leave out all the religious crap --and Jesus does become a historical person---at least by most standards defining a historical person.

The religious crap can't just be ignored. And I don't mean it in the sense that, "Oh no, if I believe that Jesus was a man, those nasty Christians might convert me!" I think that's what you are saying is wrong, and I would agree that it's wrong, but I don't think it describes many people. The relevant point is that the religious character of Jesus is essential to a possible explanation of his non-historicity. There is precedent for religious groups giving themselves an identity and etiological myth through a fictional founding figure.

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X · 07-09-2003, 10:00 PM

Quote:

And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing.

They depart from one another quite radically--particularly in message--compare Jn's "requirements" to salvation to Mk's, for example. Mt and Lk use Mk as a source so obviously there is some comparison, but they have separate dates for the birth off only a smidge--ten years!

This does not really constitute historical evidence, if anything, it demonstrates the process of mythmaking responding to the needs of the author and his audience in their time period.

I think very few argue that "no way . . . uh huh!" there was a 'istorical figure. To paraphrase a mentor, all you need is a name and a place.

The uncertainlty and the process of mythmaking--the religious development may disturb those who are religious. People would like to have faith in "da real story" rather than a later interpretation. Demonstration that such developed over time--and, worse, that many sects of radically different opinions existed fairly early only adds to an uncomfortable uncertainty.

--J.D.

07-09-2003, 10:12 PM

Greetings Rational BAC.

Quote:

there was a historical record of Jesus's words and movement during a specific period in time.

No,
there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus' words,
nor his movements or actions.

The only "evidence" is decades after the alleged events, with the earliest evidence being meagre, vague or suspect.

The Gospels only appear in history in early-mid 2nd century.

Quote:

And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing.

2 of them copy G.Mark in bulk while changing even Jesus' words when it suits then, and the other is totally different. That is not the sign of eye witnesses, but anonymous story writers.

Quote:

Now-----if this was a secular man (Jesus I mean) would there be any doubt as to his historical veracity?

Your claim is without foundation.
The historicity of Jesus is doubted because of the nature of the evidence, not because he is a religious figure.

Consider :
* King Arthur
* Robin Hood
* William Tell

These are all secular figures whose existance is doubted.

Conversely, there are other religious figures whose existance is also doubted :
* Krishna
* Buddha
* Moses
* even Mohamed !

Iasion

joedad · 07-09-2003, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Rational BAC:
Let us be real here. Leave out all the religious crap --and Jesus does become a historical person...

But the only reason "historical" Jesus might exist is because "religious" Jesus came first, religious Jesus and all the miracles.

I voted "no." Gospel Jesus or any derivative thereof is fictional first. Show me the beef!

lpetrich · 07-09-2003, 10:33 PM

And:

Romulus and Remus
Hercules

Romulus and Remus were the legendary founders of Rome, and they were described as being the sons of a god and a virgin.

Which seems suspiciously familiar; where have we heard that before?

In the previous bboards, I had had several threads featuring Lord Raglan's mythic-hero criteria and how they apply to various historical and legendary figures.

And Jesus Christ scores very high on the Lord Raglan scale.

Arken · 07-10-2003, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
And:

Romulus and Remus
Hercules

Romulus and Remus were the legendary founders of Rome, and they were described as being the sons of a god and a virgin.

Which seems suspiciously familiar; where have we heard that before?

In the previous bboards, I had had several threads featuring Lord Raglan's mythic-hero criteria and how they apply to various historical and legendary figures.

And Jesus Christ scores very high on the Lord Raglan scale.

Romulus and Remus discussed by Livy is one of the first written accounts of skepticism. In his History of Rome, Volume I, he gives an alternate explanation for the Romulus and Remus tale:

Quote:

The Vestal [Etruscan king Amulis' daughter Rea Silvia] was forcibly violated and gave birth to twins. She named Mars as their father, either because she really believed it, or because the fault might appear less heinous if a deity were the cause of it. But neither gods nor men sheltered her or her babes from the king's cruelty; the priestess was thrown into prison, the boys were ordered to be thrown into the river. By a heaven-sent chance it happened that the Tiber was then overflowing its banks, and stretches of standing water prevented any approach to the main channel. Those who were carrying the children expected that this stagnant water would be sufficient to drown them, so under the impression that they were carrying out the king's orders they exposed the boys at the nearest point of the overflow, where the Ficus Ruminalis (said to have been formerly called Romularis) now stands. The locality was then a wild solitude. The tradition goes on to say that after the floating cradle in which the boys had been exposed had been left by the retreating water on dry land, a thirsty she-wolf from the surrounding hills, attracted by the crying of the children, came to them, gave them her teats to suck and was so gentle towards them that the king's flock-master found her licking the boys with her tongue. According to the story, his name was Faustulus. He took the children to his hut and gave them to his wife Larentia to bring up. Some writers think that Larentia, from her unchaste life, had got the nickname of "She-wolf" amongst the shepherds, and that this was the origin of the marvellous story.

View Poll Results: Was there a "historical Jesus," as you define that phrase?
Yes, and I am a Christian.	15	8.33%
Yes, and I am not a Christian.	38	21.11%
No.	40	22.22%
I think the question is probably undecidable.	52	28.89%
I am looking for more information and argumentation.	35	19.44%
Voters: 180. You may not vote on this poll

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

07-09-2003, 11:44 AM	#31
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	BTW, the use of "an" before "historical" is an artifact of obsolete British regional pronunciation. Pronunciation, not spelling or grammar, is the guide to usage of "a" and "an", as most language guides have now got round to acknowledging. (IIRC, Fowler's still ranks it permissible to use "an" when the first syllable of an aspirated "h" word is unstressed. Anybody want to write about offshore oil, an Hibernian resource? Sheesh.)

07-09-2003, 09:30 PM	#34
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Even still---forgetting all the "magical stuff" there was a historical record of Jesus's words and movement during a specific period in time. And 4 Gospels written by different men recording essentially the same thing. Now-----if this was a secular man (Jesus I mean) would there be any doubt as to his historical veracity? I think not. I think many of you are "upping the ante" simply because of the theistic connotations. Let us be real here. Leave out all the religious crap --and Jesus does become a historical person---at least by most standards defining a historical person.

07-09-2003, 10:33 PM	#39
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	And: Romulus and Remus Hercules Romulus and Remus were the legendary founders of Rome, and they were described as being the sons of a god and a virgin. Which seems suspiciously familiar; where have we heard that before? In the previous bboards, I had had several threads featuring Lord Raglan's mythic-hero criteria and how they apply to various historical and legendary figures. And Jesus Christ scores very high on the Lord Raglan scale.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.