Vorkosigan

Hi Quentin,

If the Jesus myth is a second-century product, why do Tacitus, and Pliny reproduce it so early in the century?

Michael

spin

Your ad hominems about my ad hominems are an excuse for you not to do your work. I'm still waiting for a scholarly approach from you to the problem of the ahistorical Jesus.

Jayhawker Soule

For us lesser mortals, i.e., those of us who did not "learn Greek. Then read and read and read from mainstream scholarly textbooks. Then read ALL the sources (preferably in Greek).", we're left with

• a Jerusalem roughly the size of Disney's Animal Kingdom,
• an immensely popular Jesus who rides in to the applause of the multitudes,
• a furious priesthood upset with Jesus but amazed and constrained by his popularity,
• a cautious Pilate no less worried about that popularity, and
• a Philo that never heard of the guy.

Since you have no doubt "read and read and read from mainstream scholarly textbooks." perhaps you can point to the one that offers independent evidence of the Jesus of Matthew 21.

Alexis Comnenus

We are not talking about the authencity of particular Gospel passages which we agree are largely myth. We are asking whether Jesus existed - I have made no other claim except that an obscure peasant preacher called Jesus was crucified by the Romans.

Regards

Alex

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks, but that raises at least 3 questions:

• Why the pedantic insistence on Greek literacy and a massive reading endeavor if your assertion is that Jesus was so obscure that nobody wrote about him?
• Why might you consider his exit from Jerusalem more authentic than his entrance?
• How do you say "cherry-picking" in Koine?

Alexis Comnenus

There's nothing pedantic about the need for the relevant language skills to do history. The sources in question are a vast array of Christian writings.

It seems you can't get your mind around the idea I don't have any desire to defend the accuracy of the Gospels and you call this cherry picking because I won't play ball. In fact, Jesus's crucifixion is attested in Paul and Josephus. Matt 21 is not.

Regards

Alex

lpetrich

As to the amount of Jesus Christ's fame, the Gospels state that he had become well-known enough to be followed around by huge crowds. This in itself would have been enough to interest Philo or Josephus; Philo had written about such sects as the Therapeutae, and Josephus had written in detail about several self-styled prophets. So both these gentlemen would have found the case of Jesus Christ very interesting. But Philo has zero mentions and Josephus a few short and very controversial comments.

Jayhawker Soule

Define "the sources in question" however you wish. As for "Extrabiblical references to Jesus", Paul seems less than satisfactory and Josephus is, at the very best, second hand, corrupted information about a claimed event decades in the past.

sotzo

Reasonable Doubt:

Sorry about not answering your question sooner! Here goes...

The compelling evidence for the resurrection, for me, was encountered during my study of the Gospels/church and it consists of 3 main lines of reasoning:

Unique genre

There are two points under this heading:

1 - The Gospels do not match the myths which are held, by some, to be the cloth from which the Gospels are cut. For instance, the resurrection, while certainly not unparalleled as an event in myhtic literature, is not expected by Jesus' followers even after the resurrection occurs in the Gospels (ie, Thomas, Mary, etc.). The "political revolutionary" Jesus which scholars such as Crossan put forth is exactly what the disciples wanted. Yet, if the Gospel writers fabricated the stories of Jesus resurrection, it would be within the same stories that their ignorance as to who Jesus actually was would show. In other words, the Gospels don't carry the common mythic element where the deity of the main character is never in question. Rather, what happens in the Gospels is a complete misunderstanding of the main character, his purpose and mission, on the part of his disciples and a subsequent ackowledgement of an event which goes against that initial misunderstanding (the resurrection).

2 - Mythic stories are usually written to celebrate heroism/foster patriotism within a culture or to teach some moral code. In the Gospels, however, the theme is the person and work of Jesus. This is not to say that moral teaching is not given in the NT. Rather, that the moral teaching is presented as commands to be followed only secondary to them being themselves signposts pointing to Jesus. The Gospel writers speak of the "things" they wrote down which "testify" to the truth of Jesus being God incarnate (see John 21:24-25, Luke 1:1-4). In other words, the Gospels do not follow the common mythic pattern in this regard either.


The rise of the early church

- As NT Wright has said, there is no good reason why the church should have grown as it did. Even prior to Constantine and in the midst of a myriad of polytheistic options it grew rapidly. In the abence of a resurrection, one has to give another explanation as to how that could have happened.

The empty tomb

- Either Jesus was placed in the tomb or he was not. From there, there are two options: the tomb was either empty after his burial or it was not. If it was empty then he either resurrected from the dead or there is some other naturalistic explanation. I've not yet found any naturalistic explanation that accounts for all of the data. One may choose to argue that any naturalistic explanation is superior to the resurrection hyopthesis, but that begs the question and does not allow the cards to fall where the may. Some folks argue that it is legitimate to hold naturalistic hyoptheses superior to the resurrection hyopthesis because resurrections don't comport with our experience (ie, we've never seen a resurrection ourselves). But surely this is fallacious reasoning as well since it assumes the same thing, namely that our sense experience defines the boundaries of truth.

Cheers!

-jkb

sotzo

lptreich said:

That's not the genetic fallacy at all. It's an application of the old rule of evidence, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "false in one thing, false in all".

I think you've misapplied that principle. The falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus applies to individuals. For instance, if a witness gives false testimony on one issue of fact, he is not to be trusted on other issues of fact.

You have applied it to an entire culture. It is analgous to saying "All white men lie because Bill lied and Bill is white". Even granting that the Greco-Roman world of the NT was filled with myth, that does not mean (and it is a fallacy to argue) that the NT is therefore myth - at least not soley on that basis.

So my original point, which was that Carrier's article on Kooks and Quacks, and others in this thread, commit the genetic fallacy in this regard, stands up in my view.

Cheers!
-jkb