Amaleq13

I've been intending to mention that you can use my real name (Doug), if you want. I'm pretty sure I've used it in my PM's but I didn't bother to indicate it was available to the public as well. I essentially outed my "secret identity" in the Lounge and my reasons for retaining it are no longer valid.

This isn't really analogous since indicating the prophecy was intended as a metaphor doesn't require a change in appearance of the entire story since Jesus still spoke the words. Acknowledging the "fact" of the empty tomb to be allegorical calls into question the entire story.

I don't see how that scores any points against his critics since it would necessarily involved an admission that the fate of the body was unknown.

I agree it suggests he knew at least some of his readers were taking the story literally but not necessarily the author, himself. If he was personally responsible for some of the clearly fictional embellishments (eg rising saints, sleeping guards), then he certainly knew the story was not literally true but he was apparently interested in ensuring that at least some of his readers to continue think so. New converts? "Baby" Christians whose faith might not yet be strong enough to handle the notion that the fate of the body was actually unknown?

Yup.

Damian

There are other more fundamental reasons for not believing in his historicity. Simply looking at the late dates of the gospels, lack of eyewitnesses, unoriginality of various elements of the legend, etc. I look at the "myth" theories simply as possible explanations as to why his historicity is not solidly validated in any concrete way. There are a lot of stories about King Arthur, and surely the thought that he was a myth or legend are accepted, but what there is no "proof" that the myth isn't based on a historical figure. That doesn't mean that he deserves the validation of historians. Authurian legends also predict that he will return. Does the fact that he hasn't, and never will, imply that he was a historical figure?

jakejonesiv

The author of Matthew was not comfortable with the ambiguities in Mark's gospel, including the empty tomb.

IMO the gospels are all second century works. The authors were so far removed from the time and location of the alleged events that their beliefs cannot credibly be a reflection of history.

Jake

jjramsey

What I find though is that though there isn't a smoking gun pointing to Jesus' historicity--though the offhand references to Jesus having brothers come very close to this--an HJ is a much cleaner fit to the evidence that we have. The MJ theories are at best speculative and have to explain away evidence that points to historicity.

Damian

But, after coming to a (very reasonable) conclusion that there was no HJ, theorizing what all the data means, and where it came from is reasonable and logical. Using King Arthur as an example, one could come to the very reasonable conclusion that there was no King Arthur, based on lack of sufficient evidence. From there, it would be reasonable to theorize that all the stories we have about King Arthur originated in myth.

Another example: we can all agree that there is no Santa Claus. However, was there ever a historical santa? We have St. Nicks and Chris Cringles and Papa Noels and what have you, how else to explain them all without a historical focal figure? It seems completely reasonable, and within the bounds of proper historical and scientific methodology, to conclude that there was no historical santa claus because of lack of evidence. Not smoking gun proof, but a lack of evidence, which should apply to all scientific inquiries. Agree or disagree? Assuming that you at least allow that it's reasonable for a large percentage of individuals to conclude that there was no historical santa, where do those individuals proceed from there? I think the only logical step is to conclude that Santa is a myth, and arose from a myth. It's entirely credible. I think the only debate should be the specific mechanism of the myth. (i.e. based on observable facts, it appears to reasonable, scientific minds that life evolved, but specific mechanisms, such as Darwin's theory, are unproven).

That's how I view the Jesus Puzzle et al. I am not convinced there was a historical Jesus for lack of evidence, and therefore it is reasonable for me to explore other possibilities. Earl Doherty's theory is one possible mechanism. It is not possible for me to believe it, but it can't be proven wrong any more than the big bang theory can, at this point.

Damian

By the way, lately I've lost faith in the whole "Occam's Razor" thing. It has it's uses, but it's not absolute. I mean shit, what is the simpler explanation, that there's a god that created everything (case closed, let's go home) or that there was a big bang, there was primordial ooze, UV light, blah blah blah.

Hence, my skepticism of the "cleaner fit" of an HJ.

(by the way, if there was a god, i'm fairly certain he would rewrite our memories to retroactively change the first letter of either "historical" or "jesus" so that these discussions would no longer be inundated with "HJ's." It's kind of distracting. Which I suppose could be his plan...)

Ben C Smith

Ah, but that was not my question. My question was: Did Matthew believe in a literally empty tomb?

Ben.

jjramsey

I may be misunderstanding you, but you write as if you are taking the HJ theories off the table before you start "theorizing what all the data means." Also, you need to clarify what you mean by "reasonable." I could say that the conclusion that there was no HJ seems reasonable on its face but becomes more unreasonable when closely scrutinized and compared with competing theories positing an HJ.

Remember that Occam's Razor is finding the simplest explanation that fits the facts. "God did it" is only simple in the sense of being stateable in few syllables, not in the sense of being a cleaner fit to the facts. For example, the existence of the same retroviral DNA in both humans and primates in the same chromosomal locations is trivial to explain as a result of evolution by common descent, but is problematic for the competing theory of creation by divine fiat. Here, once the facts in evidence are scrutinized, Occam's Razor favors evolution.

BTW, there is a problem with the analogy between Santa Claus and Jesus. There is very little about Santa Claus that could belong to a plausible human being. If we strip away the elves, the North Pole, reindeer, sleigh, etc., we have a fat old man from who knows where. Santa is pretty much defined by his legend. By contrast, there are enough features of Jesus that can easily belong to a real human: him being a Galilean Jew from the village of Nazareth, him being crucified, him preaching, even him doing things that were thought to be miracles (and Mark 6:1-6 points to the possibility of him having employed a placebo effect, which didn't work so well with those familiar with him).

Ben C Smith

I used to know it was Doug, but had forgotten.

The analogy was between Jesus and Mark. It was Mark who wrote the words of the empty tomb story that Matthew read. It runs like this:

1. Jesus made a prophecy about the temple. Mark wrote a story about an empty tomb.
2. A skeptic claims the temple prophecy did not come true (presuming a literal interpretation of a temple rebuilt in three days). A Jewish opponent claims the disciples stole the body (presuming a literal interpretation of the empty tomb story).
3. A fundamentalist apologist claims it will come true in the future (presuming a literal intepretation of the prophecy). Matthew claims there were guards at the tomb so the disciples could not have stolen the body (presuming a literal interpretation of the story).

Why would admitting that the fate of the body was unknown bother somebody for whom the bodily resurrection from a physical tomb was only metaphorical?

Ben.

Vorkosigan

There's something delightfully ironic about a man without a methodology lecturing others on what counts as evidence. Ramsey, you're in about six different threads, and so far, including those threads in which you tossed out blanket insults, you haven't offered any reason to take the texts as history -- you simply claim, faithlike, that you can do so. Methodological backing for your position please?

Vorkosigan