Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Tharmas · 05-30-2003, 11:28 AM

While searching on the Web for information regarding the �embarrassment criterion� and Gospel studies I came across the following book-length article by a Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, on a site called Islamicperspectives.com: The Mysterious Disappearance of Jesus and the Origin of Christianity.
I do not remember having seen this work referenced on these boards so I thought I�d bring it up for comments.

Having read through the Introduction, I�d say it looks worthy of further investigation.

Dr. Shafaat�s main thesis is that while Jesus was probably a historical personage, the crucifixion never occurred. He argues that the crucifixion was an ad hoc or ex post facto explanation created to reconcile a number of disparate accounts and perspectives.

He claims that by removing from our perception the idea of the crucifixion as fact, and then looking at the ur-texts of Christianity (Thomas, Mark, Paul, etc.), we are able to perceive a different story about what happened to Jesus� ministry and the reactions of his various followers.

I am impressed by Dr. Shafaat�s attempts to define a working methodology. He explains that he is not attempting to account for every single fact so much as discover (his analogy) the curve that makes the �closest fit� to all the data points. So, anyway, I throwing it out for the Infidels to enjoy.

Toto · 06-01-2003, 02:14 PM

I looked through the intro, and it claims that the 500 witnesses mentioned by Paul (or some later forger) are a definite fact. I didn't see any particular methodology behind that.

The chapters are not linked to the index, and only chapters 1- 7 are online.

He discusses the Passion Narrative here in detail. He's obviously done a lot of research. He concludes that because there are such variations in the PN, that Jesus probably just disappeard, and different rumors started about what happened. He quotes Jan Vansina:

Quote:

A tradition from eastern Burundi tells how a certain Kilima, who had been a rival claimant to the throne, was killed by King Mweezi II, his head being subsequently displayed in the royal kraaz. Nothing of the kind in fact occurred. Mweezi died in 1908, and Kilima died later. (Vansina, Oral Tradition, p. 117).

This tradition was found by Vansina in the 1950's while the events involved took place about forty years earlier. That is, some decades after the original events, the story of an execution that never happened still circulated. This example is instructive because here the story of execution was probably formed during the lifetime of the "executed" person. It is thus quite possible that while Jesus was being seen in Galilee, in Jerusalem many came to believe that he had been executed.

This is interesting, but Shafaat accepts lots of "facts" about Jesus that have a similar amount of variation.

Tharmas · 06-01-2003, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I didn't see any particular methodology behind that.

I would agree, if you were in any way correct about what Shafaat actually says. Of course, Shafaat doesn't accept the appearance to the 500 as a definite fact. He accepts Paul's reporting of it as a "fact." He calls the appearance to the 500 a "tradition," not a fact, and he wants to know what happenned to this Pauline tradition by the time the Gospel traditions were formed.

His point is, we have many mutually-contradictory stories about Jesus appearing in many different places after his supposed death. Remove the supposed fact of his death from the equation and suddenly the other contradictions disappear.

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto

This is interesting, but Shafaat accepts lots of "facts" about Jesus that have a similar amount of variation.

Well, and you may be correct, overall. I thought it was an interesting idea - "just crazy enough to be right" - but I don't know if I'd pay actual money for the book. Thanks for your thoughts.

Toto · 06-01-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tharmas
I would agree, if you were in any way correct about what Shafaat actually says. Of course, Shafaat doesn't accept the appearance to the 500 as a definite fact. He accepts Paul's reporting of it as a "fact." He calls the appearance to the 500 a "tradition," not a fact, and he wants to know what happenned to this Pauline tradition by the time the Gospel traditions were formed.

Sorry, I just skimmed that part. But even there, the appearance to the 500 is not so clearly an established tradition. It seems to contradict Acts 1:15, where the number of believers is 120, and there is no other mention of a number of that magnitude.

Quote:

His point is, we have many mutually-contradictory stories about Jesus appearing in many different places after his supposed death. Remove the supposed fact of his death from the equation and suddenly the other contradictions disappear.

Not all contradictions disappear - the 2 different geneologies in Matthew and Luke come to mind.

Quote:

Well, and you may be correct, overall. I thought it was an interesting idea - "just crazy enough to be right" - but I don't know if I'd pay actual money for the book. Thanks for your thoughts.

It is an interesting idea, and there is a certain logic behind it. Of course, if you remove Jesus' death by crucifixion from the story, you remove the lynchpin of the Christian religion, which would not upset Islamic apologists like Shafaat. Islam accepts Jesus as a historical prophet, born of a virgin. I forget now what their position is on the crucifixion.

Vorkosigan · 06-01-2003, 05:42 PM

A tradition from eastern Burundi tells how a certain Kilima, who had been a rival claimant to the throne, was killed by King Mweezi II, his head being subsequently displayed in the royal kraaz. Nothing of the kind in fact occurred. Mweezi died in 1908, and Kilima died later. (Vansina, Oral Tradition, p. 117).

I've been looking for things like this. Very useful.

Peter Kirby · 06-01-2003, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I forget now what their position is on the crucifixion.

Qu'ran 004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 06-01-2003, 11:04 PM

Yes, I remember now that Muslims tend to believe in the substitution theory of the crucifixion - that Judas was crucified in Jesus' place.

Quote:

The so-called Gospel of Barnabas, a forgery from the late Middle Ages, claims to be the only true Gospel of Jesus Christ, but contains many Muslim doctrines which attack the Bible. This gospel has become very famous in the Muslim World especially since its translation into Arabic in the 20th century. It argues that having been made so similar to Jesus that the Messiah's own familiy and disciples considered him to be Jesus, Judas was crucified against his will in Jesus' place. Then Judas was led to the Mount of Calvary.
. . .

When dealing with Jesus' crucifixion, Muslim theologians also go back to higher criticism of European theologians, who pointed out, that the biblical narratives of the crucifixion themselves report that a chaos and a great confusion emerged because of the darkness and the earthquake, so that nobody knew, what happened to Jesus. The narratives of the different gospels are considered to contradict each other and are therefore untrustworthy. One Muslim opinion, that Jesus survived his crucifixion, also gets its support from the so-called rationalism, the last epoch of enlightenment theology of the 18th and 19th century.

. . .
One can see, that the older Qur'�n commentators are relatively cautious in deciding what happened to Jesus. Most theologians restrict themselves to emphasizing one part of the crucifixion verse: "They slew him not neither crucified him", but do not explain specifically what happened to Jesus. In modern Qur'�n commentaries this attitude has changed: The commentators explain more precisely what is meant by Sura 4,157-158. Most of them prefer the 'substitution theory', that another person has died in Jesus' place. Especially after the Arabic translation of the Gospel of Barnabas 1908, most Muslims accept from this so-called Gospel, that Judas has been crucified in Jesus' place. Also the theory that Jesus was crucified but survived crucifixion, did perhaps not emerge in Islam itself, but was possibly imported from Europe, since rationalistic theologians speak of a deathlike rigidity into which Jesus fell after crucifixion. He was revived afterwards because of the thunderstorm and the earthquake, and then invented the myth of his resurrection from the dead.

from The Crucifixion of Jesus in View of Muslim Theology

Radcliffe Emerson · 06-02-2003, 02:45 PM

Why does the bible usually just say stuff like '500 people saw it', or 'the saints came out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem?'
Why don't those stories give names, dates, addresses, etc?
Because they're myth.

malookiemaloo · 06-05-2003, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson
Why does the bible usually just say stuff like '500 people saw it', or 'the saints came out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem?'
Why don't those stories give names, dates, addresses, etc?
Because they're myth.

The point about the people coming out of their graves is an interesting one but it did pale into insignificance compared to the resurrection and its implications.

So what if the Bible DID record names and addresses and other info., what real difference would that make? Would it convince more people to believe?

m

Radcliffe Emerson · 06-05-2003, 12:50 PM

Hard to say. But imagine a reporter today just saying "something happened, lots of people saw it", without providing details.
He'd be laughed out of his profession.
Unless of course he works for Fox News.

And if a bunch of dead saints got out of their graves and walked around, you'd think someone other than just a Christian who wrote it down would have seen them. And how could they be saints if Jesus had just died? Saints didn't officially come along later, when the church started making the mythological people saints.
And what did the saints do after that? Did they go back into the grave? Did they whisp up into the clouds? Did they go back to their families, jobs, etc?

I'm sorry, but I just cannot understand why anyone is gullible enough to believe this fairy-tale nonsense.

05-30-2003, 11:28 AM	#1
Tharmas Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Dallas Posts: 184	Shafaat on the Crucifixion While searching on the Web for information regarding the �embarrassment criterion� and Gospel studies I came across the following book-length article by a Dr. Ahmad Shafaat, on a site called Islamicperspectives.com: The Mysterious Disappearance of Jesus and the Origin of Christianity. I do not remember having seen this work referenced on these boards so I thought I�d bring it up for comments. Having read through the Introduction, I�d say it looks worthy of further investigation. Dr. Shafaat�s main thesis is that while Jesus was probably a historical personage, the crucifixion never occurred. He argues that the crucifixion was an ad hoc or ex post facto explanation created to reconcile a number of disparate accounts and perspectives. He claims that by removing from our perception the idea of the crucifixion as fact, and then looking at the ur-texts of Christianity (Thomas, Mark, Paul, etc.), we are able to perceive a different story about what happened to Jesus� ministry and the reactions of his various followers. I am impressed by Dr. Shafaat�s attempts to define a working methodology. He explains that he is not attempting to account for every single fact so much as discover (his analogy) the curve that makes the �closest fit� to all the data points. So, anyway, I throwing it out for the Infidels to enjoy.

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

06-01-2003, 05:42 PM	#5
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	A tradition from eastern Burundi tells how a certain Kilima, who had been a rival claimant to the throne, was killed by King Mweezi II, his head being subsequently displayed in the royal kraaz. Nothing of the kind in fact occurred. Mweezi died in 1908, and Kilima died later. (Vansina, Oral Tradition, p. 117). I've been looking for things like this. Very useful.

06-02-2003, 02:45 PM	#8
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Why does the bible usually just say stuff like '500 people saw it', or 'the saints came out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem?' Why don't those stories give names, dates, addresses, etc? Because they're myth.

06-05-2003, 12:50 PM	#10
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Hard to say. But imagine a reporter today just saying "something happened, lots of people saw it", without providing details. He'd be laughed out of his profession. Unless of course he works for Fox News. And if a bunch of dead saints got out of their graves and walked around, you'd think someone other than just a Christian who wrote it down would have seen them. And how could they be saints if Jesus had just died? Saints didn't officially come along later, when the church started making the mythological people saints. And what did the saints do after that? Did they go back into the grave? Did they whisp up into the clouds? Did they go back to their families, jobs, etc? I'm sorry, but I just cannot understand why anyone is gullible enough to believe this fairy-tale nonsense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.