Geoff Hudson

Why do you doubt this then Peter?

Geoff

Gregg

Why don't you actually get some books on form criticism and STUDY THE ISSUE, Rad, instead of expecting to be spoon-fed the information? Nothing you say is going to make Biblical scholarship that's been going on since the 19th century go away. People who have spent considerable time carefully studying the way different people write about the same things have reached the conclusion that the Gospels are not merely independent retellings of the same story.

A writing style is like a fingerprint...no two are exactly alike. This is how we determine if something has been plagiarized. When a student submits a report that reads so much like the Encyclopedia Brittanica entry on the same topic that it can't be due to chance, he gets flunked.

If you would trust a handwriting expert to distinguish your handwriting from the handwriting on a forged murder confession, or an art expert to tell you whether the "Picasso" you picked up cheap at a rummage sale is a fake or the genuine article, then why do you dismiss out of hand the judgment of people who have spent much of their lifetimes learning to distinguish one person's written work from another's? I mean, yeah, even the experts can be wrong, but that doesn't mean you can just laugh off their opinions. Anway, I'm quite sure you WOULD trust the experts, and rub their conclusions in our faces, if they determined that, say, a newly discovered letter giving details of the Gospel story was likely written by Paul.

In any event, you still haven't explained why four people who apparently received exactly the same gospel and memorized it exactly as it was conveyed to them (down to grammar, sentence structure, etc.) to the point that what they wrote fools the experts into thinking they must have copied from each other, nevertheless blatantly contradict each other on numerous crucial points.

Remember, this is YOUR scenario--the apostles and other eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry and resurrection fanned out from Jerusalem to spread the word. Now, we have a couple ways this might have happened:

1. After the post-resurrection appearances and the Ascension, the twelve disciples and many other followers of Jesus get together to compare notes and get a complete, accurate picture of all that has transpired. This information is put together to form a unified gospel account, which everyone memorizes precisely (but no one writes down) before heading out.

Problem: Everyone's out there telling exactly the same story and stressing how important it is that the story be retold just so, because it is the true, accurate account of an astounding, never-to-be-repeated historical event. But when several people finally do write the story down, they inexplicably change many vitally important details (order & number of post-resurrection appearances, Jesus' words on the cross, etc., etc.) while leaving other, less important details alone.

2. Everyone just gets up and goes, singly or in small groups. There's no effort to form a consensus on what happened. People who have just bits and pieces of the whole story (heard about this appearance but not that one, for example) are going about telling the incomplete story in their own, unique, personal ways.

Problem: So after a period of 35 years or so, "Mark" manages to piece all these incomplete and sometimes contradictory stories and traditions about Jesus into something approaching coherence, and puts them together into a single written narrative. Over the next few decades, people in other churches, who have been amassing their own collections of stories and traditions, decide to do the same thing. And entirely by chance, without having seen "Mark's" gospel, they write accounts that experts 2,000 years later would swear on their mothers' graves were largely copied from Mark--that the odds of them having put their own collections of traditions together in such a similar way, and having so many passages that echo Mark basically word for word, were vanishingly small.

Or, you could argue that "Mark" (influenced by Greek and other pagan myths and allegories) wrote an allegorical story, based largely on Scripture and the Jewish liturgical calendar, placing his mythic, dying/rising savior god into a semi-historical setting. It proved very popular within his community as a teaching tool, a source of inspiration, and as a good story in and of itself, and eventually copies of it circulated to other churches in the region. A few people liked Mark's idea but didn't entirely agree with his theology, his depiction of Jesus, and the like, plus their communities had different needs and challenges to address. So they copied what they wanted, deleted some scenes, changed others, and invented still others, and added some material from other sources.

By the time these "gospels" began getting wider circulation, the Jewish War had devastated Palestine, and Christianity was on the way to becoming a predominately Gentile faith. As the gospels became more widely known among people who did not recognize them as allegories, had no way of checking their accuracy as histories, and did not have a Hellenistic or Jewish aversion to the idea of the divine having any actual contact with the world of matter, the basically pagan belief that Jesus had been a god that became a flesh and blood human being in the recent historical past (or a human being that became a god) began to take hold.

The above might seem complicated. But it also explains the known facts better than any other theory I've seen, while the seemingly "simpler" solutions raise all sorts of difficult questions. This is itself doesn't "prove" anything, of course.

Gregg

Gregg

And I think Richard Carrier would have a problem with your calling Doherty's work "bull" based on his analysis. This is from his conclusion:

"And it is for these reasons I am forced to rule against the historicist case, even if by a small margin. Maybe someone can finally take Doherty's thesis seriously and develop a single, coherent theory of Jesus' existence that explains all the evidence as well as Doherty's theory does, or better. As I have not seen it tried, I cannot say it can't be done. But someone is going to have to do it if they want to refute Doherty. Merely picking at his arguments, and again flinging prima facie plausibility and subjective notions of absurdity at it like they were heavy artillery, is not going to work. (emphasis mine)"

Also, if Doherty regards Carrier's analysis as devastating to his case, why does he post a link to it on his Web site, and make the following comment:

"I am referring to this piece as a “comment” rather than a “reply” or “rebuttal” because I regard Richard Carrier’s book review, published on the Secular Web, as fair and perceptive, and I agree with and accept its general thrust. With a few exceptions, I also agree with his Appendix of critical recommendations (“Problems”), although some of them need qualification. For all of it, I thank him. This is criticism at its most constructive—and encouraging. The review will no doubt be widely read, and these comments on it will serve to further the discussion on many of the points he raises."

You must be getting pretty desperate, Rad, if you're now trying to suggest that Carrier shares your low opinion of Doherty.

Gregg

Radorth

Actually I think you should explain it, and you should come up with something better than two people remembering "200 denari." You are simply asking me to "explain" that which verifies the stories, but which you see as some sort of problem. Why don't you explain why some " contradictions" make it unbelievable while many similarities also make it unbelievable. We await specifics other than gratuitous assertions that "200 denari" seen twice is evidence of a fraud.

There are three or four "blatant" contradictions in all the stories and that is being kind, I think. (Angel opening the grave in Mt, last words, geneologies, add your own) A perfectly rational and reasonable person might, comparing them with other historical accounts, decide that is an extraordinary record. S/he will see reasonable explanations for different "last words." You subject the stories to arbitrary tests of truth that would cause even known historical facts to be questioned. Meanwhile perfectly reasonable explanations other than sitting down and copying are ignored. And what if John did have Mark in hand? That doesn't prove anything at all. HC arguments are pin-pricks which, when taken together, the gullible assume to have taken down the elephant. And the HJ elephant stands for even liberal scholars, although they sit around torturing the scripture themselves.

It is a great marvel how they contradict each other when they are supposedly the more "rational" of the investigators.

Doherty says Luke "slavishly" copies Mark, but then says Luke adds in a few details of his own for political reasons. (No elaboration of course) Then he says "scholars believe" John is based on some synoptic. This is just lazy speculation and innuendo, with no attempt to get at the truth IMO. While I can use assertions by skeptics themselves to bring down their own arguments, Doherty must depend on the musings of liberal scholars to prop up his theory. He says "scholars believe" but doesn't say who they are.

I suspect you can't give a believable rationale for why some similar details make it a fraud, and some varying details make it a fraud. I think as soon as you get specific, we will find just how little evidence and rational thought has gone into your arguments.

Rad

Radorth

Don't be ridiculous. Doherty isn't going to regard anything as devastating to his case.

It is I who regard the criticism of Carrier as the more troubling because I suspect Carrier of a friendly bias that you do not. Are you claiming Carrier is unbiased, while the atheist Wells, the agnostic Durant and Jewish Klausner are biased in favor of the Christians?

Just how naive and gullible are you?

Rad

Radorth

Now let the skeptics explain how any of the following events/negative assertions, taken at random came to be invented by fishermen from Paul's writings:

1. "His conversation with the Pharisee's (Mk 11:27-33)

2. The story of Jesus' trial before Pilate, with attendant interesting details (Mk 15: 1-9)

3. "He could not do many miracles there." (location not in my concordance but I can find if pressed by the ignorant)

4. The whole story of Herod cutting off Jbap's head at the whim of a woman, his misgivings, Jesus hearing it and going off by himself (Mt 14: 1-13) What is this story doing there? Is it just made up for some reason? What is the reason?

5. Why does Jesus charge people "to tell noone, 'but go and show yourself to the priest...'" What is that doing there, pray tell. Why would mere inventors insert this when they were trying to make Jesus famous?

6. Harsh sayings like "Get behind me Satan" and "let the dead bury their dead" and "if you hand causes you to sin, cut it off." How do these attract any disciples?

7. Jesus' drinking, praising a prostitute because she "loved much" and speaking to a Samaritan woman. Why were those made up, if you don't mind me asking?

8. Jesus washing the feet of his disciples (John 13:14) Why would charlatans and inventors stick this in there? Are they known to wash each others feet? How does this attract disciples? These things never attracted me.

9. All the detail in the Lazareth story. Jesus waiting 3 days to go to Lazareth' tomb, then weeping while the writer tells us some thought he was weeping at the loss of his friend and other of their comments. Then there is long conversation with Martha, and little details about "Jews" trying to comfort Mary and guessing why she gets up "quickly" to go out. What is all this stuff doing there? It is as if the writer doesn't have anything to do, so he writes down all this stuff in case it means something.

10. Peter's denial of Christ with cocks crowing. What is this, some twisted, manipulative story using reverse psychology or something?

11. Luke has them saying "They disbelieved for joy" when they realized Jesus was raised from the dead. Another nice touch which needs to be explained.

Like I said, an historical Jesus and the swoon theory requires far less faith to believe and is just as damaging to the Christian belief system. Without a real physical resurrection, we believe and argue in vain.

Rad

Vorkosigan

Explain this if you will:

1. Gimli claiming that no dwarf could be unmoved by the loveliness of the caves of Helm's Deep, and would never mar it. A nice touch which needs to be explained.

2. The whole story of the Scouring of the Shire. What is this story doing there? Is it just made up for some reason? What is the reason?

3. .....

but you get it. The choices of an author writing fiction are not always apparent to the reader.

10. Peter's denial of Christ with cocks crowing. What is this, some twisted, manipulative story using reverse psychology or something?

Here's a good example. Do you honestly think that this event actually occurred? It's fiction, Rad. In Mark it is part of a Markan intercalation and occurs during the confession of Christ -- Jesus bravely confesses; Peter cravenly denies. That should be all the hint you need, but if you have Crossan sitting in front of you, you find the explanation on page 113 of The Birth of Christianity. "If you deny Jesus under pressure and even curse him to prove your innocence, there is still hope for repentence and forgiveness. Surely a very consoling double message...." (p. 113) Crossan also discusses a number of major scholars who see John's passion story as dependent on Mark's.

2. The story of Jesus' trial before Pilate, with attendant interesting details (Mk 15: 1-9)

A number of possibilities suggest themselves.Jan Sammer has a very interesting take on this. You don't have to buy his more speculative stuff to see the point there.

I suspect you can't give a believable rationale for why some similar details make it a fraud, and some varying details make it a fraud. I think as soon as you get specific, we will find just how little evidence and rational thought has gone into your arguments.

Crossan writes "...Maurits Sabbe, on the other hand, in a series of articles just as finely detailed and fully documented as Brown's book, concludes that the combination of direct dependence and literary creativity is the best explanation for John's relationship to the other three gospels."

In fact, 'dorth, the direct dependence and literary creativity thesis is the most widespread one in NT studies. All scholars think, for example, that the Synoptics are dependent on one another, and that each writer also added flourishes of his own, as well as sources of his own.

The "similar details" indicate dependence, which removes the possibility of independent testimony, and the "varying details" indicate literary creativity, a polite term for forgery.

You know, there are many wonderful books out there that discuss these issues. Have you read The Birth of Christianity or Raymond Brown's Intro or Theissen and Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide or similar? Durant just won't cut it. His doctoral work was in philosophy, not history, and worked with 19th century "Great Men" and triumphalist "theories" of history....

• Great men are not so much creators as midwives: they help to bring forth that which is already in the womb of time ... Great men may not be the causes of the events usually featured in history -- wars, elections, migrations, etc,; but they bring forth the inventions and discoveries demanded by the age. In this sense the growth of knowledge is the essence of history.(cited from here, the Will Durant foundation.

...now considered naive. He was also criticized for displaying an ethnocentric focus on the West, another 19th century relic in his thinking. It is unsurprising that someone working with a triumphalist, great-man idea of history would take the fictional representations in the gospels for reality; he also thought that the fictions about the Buddha and Mohammed represent reality. (Indeed, reflecting on Durant, one wonders if modern concepts historicity of Jesus is the result of not merely the urgency of Christian doctrine, but also, the continuing influence of 19th century historical thought in NT scholarship). Durant's historical writings are for non-specialists and have been panned by serious historians. Time to upgrade the library, 'dorth.

Now let the skeptics explain how any of the following events/negative assertions, taken at random came to be invented by fishermen from Paul's writings:

As you well know, nobody seriously believes that the gospel writers were fishermen. So why do you make comments like this?

BTW, I am still waiting for that list of "fringe scholars" Doherty depends on.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

Funny the naive Durant and Wells don't buy it. A cheap analogy I think.

By who, why, what? Somebody with an axe to grind no doubt. Durant was a skeptic. So were Klausner and Wells. They all like the swoon theory I would bet, because they don't have to consider a million confusing "possibilities" and accuse large groups of people of colluding, burning things and lying when they had no reason to do so. They don't have to torture the scriptures just to sell a new theory to 2% of the population. And they end up with the same effect. If I wanted to save the world from the horrid Jesus, I wouldn't be defending Doherty's fairy tales. While you guys were busy discussing new theories, M. Scott Peck was pointing out to 30,000,000 avid readers why he became a Christian even though he thinks there are errors in the Gospels.

Another clever, cynical idea. Anther "possibility" to for 2% of the population to yak about on Mars Hill. Another pin prick fro the bull elephant. Hopefully when atheists get their own radio program, they'll present some sort of cogent, unified theory somebody the average person can make sense out of.

And MaCready never built an airplane before the Albatross.

Why don't you take me up on my offer to argue Durant's points instead of just making assertions about his faults.

To skeptics.org no doubt. Thanks, but my inability to integrate 400 separate theories into a world-view is limited. Besides I read almost exclusively agnostic history anyway. That way I don't have to worry about getting neutral reporting. You should try it sometime.

Rad

Vorkosigan

Funny the naive Durant and Wells don't buy it. A cheap analogy I think.

Any piece of fiction would do as a comparative to the gospels. But since you don't seem to read much, I thought I'd better pick a well-known one.

Durant was a skeptic. So were Klausner and Wells. They all like the swoon theory I would bet, because they don't have to consider a million confusing "possibilities" and accuse large groups of people of colluding, burning things and lying when they had no reason to do so.

<yawn> What, back to the troll-post already? We've heard this rant before.

And they end up with the same effect. If I wanted to save the world from the horrid Jesus, I wouldn't be defending Doherty's fairy tales.

LOL. Nobody supports Doherty because they want to save the world from Jesus. The evil of Christianity really has nothing to with the historicity of Jesus. According to Barna, 40% of Christians, and 35% of evangelicals in the US, believe that Jesus was spiritually resurrected. Think about it -- the central message of Christianity is denied by 40% of its adherents in the States. Historicity is not relevant to Christianity. However, denying it sure seems to piss off some Christians.

While you guys were busy discussing new theories, M. Scott Peck was pointing out to 30,000,000 avid readers why he became a Christian even though he thinks there are errors in the Gospels.

It would be nice, if, at the end of this rant, there was an actual point.

Another clever, cynical idea. Anther "possibility" to for 2% of the population to yak about on Mars Hill.

This is not an argument against Crossan's position on the Markan intercalation preserved in John. Can you do something besides rant like a Turing machine crossed with a rap singer? Like, you know, cite a text or make an argument. Go look at Layman's first post in the thread on the "We" passages or Toto's replies.

[bAnother pin prick fro the bull elephant. Hopefully when atheists get their own radio program, [/b]

I already have my own radio program.....

...they'll present some sort of cogent, unified theory somebody the average person can make sense out of.

Ah, now I get it. You just don't understand historical methodology. This is probably why you find Durant so appealing. Why should all atheists have the same view about the historicity of the figure in the gospels? You're very confused, 'dorth.

Why don't you take me up on my offer to argue Durant's points instead of just making assertions about his faults.

No problem. Begin a thread and give me ten or so points to respond to.

To skeptics.org no doubt. Thanks, but my inability to integrate 400 separate theories into a world-view is limited. Besides I read almost exclusively agnostic history anyway. That way I don't have to worry about getting neutral reporting. You should try it sometime.

Child, one component of my doctoral work is in the history of technology, and another is in the economic history of Taiwan. I read real history by educated and intelligent people struggling with complex issues, not easy-to-digest oatmeal sweetened with a bit of fine prose.

Vorkosigan

Radorth

Do you want to argue with Durant's logic and points, or just continue impugning him with no examples, and making your own arguments from authority?

Rad