Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Family Man · 02-21-2003, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw1tch

There is a big difference between a population claiming 'Bobby Kennedy died and then rose from the dead' and 'Our grand exhalted leader Qaunto told us he communicated via neural link to the Uber Grand Alien Leader Xoraxch'.

The first is verifiable...the second is not.

Actually, they are both unverifiable. How would you disprove a claim that Kennedy rose from the dead?

Gooch's dad · 02-21-2003, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
My Summary of this Soap Opera:

S-W is probably read with a wooden-literalism and out of context. If he studied a certain culture and says that 40 years are usually needed for legendary development to take place we can't apply every other instance from different cultures to that specific context.

That sounds like special pleading. What grounds are there to claim that a culture will have radically different times for developing a myth? We've demonstrated cases in the 20th century where legends developed within days of the event (such as the Virgin Mary visions in Medjugorge). To claim that Judean culture has a LDT (legend development time) of 40 years, whereas the LDT of 20th century European or American culture is several days, seems to have no merit at all. But maybe you aren't arguing that, Vinnie.

Quote:

Historians have to explain why a man crucified by Rome around 30 AD was exalted in the highest possible terms within a few years of his death. This is not to say that there are no developments in the Gospels, but large scale developments in such short a time period would go against the common practice of the day. Would that be more reasonable?

Again, I don't see any reason why historians have to explain this. It doesn't seem unusual for the time at all. As Acts records, Paul and Barnabas were revered as God for making a lame man walk.

As Richard Carrier's excellent essay points out, there were many superstitions at that time that arose quickly and spread far and wide. Many of them lasted for centuries. Historians don't have any special burden to explain the rise of the Christian legend at all--unless you can give me a reference to the Palestian Skeptics Society and their record of debunking myths?

Cheers,

-Kelly

Greg2003 · 02-21-2003, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Historians have to explain why a man crucified by Rome around 30 AD was exalted in the highest possible terms within a few years of his death. This is not to say that there are no developments in the Gospels, but large scale developments in such short a time period would go against the common practice of the day. Would that be more reasonable?

Vinnie

Historians don't have to explain this, because is assumes that there was a real man who actually started christianity and then was crucified and immediately worshipped as a god man. This is an extraordinary claim from a historical perspective. Rather, the question of where did chrisitainity come from involves looking at the religious, political, cultural and textual settings of the time and tracing the roots of the beliefs behind christianity. It is not necessary to attribute the rise of christianity to a single historical person in order to answer this question. In fact, it is improbable, from a historical perspective that christianity started this way. A historian would likely look at a much broader period of time to find the antecedents to christianity. Hence, the argument about the quick rise of the jesus legend is undermined by resorting to historical analysis.

Vinnie · 02-21-2003, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Historians don't have to explain this, because is assumes that there was a real man who actually started christianity and then was crucified and immediately worshipped as a god man. This is an extraordinary claim from a historical perspective.

Actually Greg, given that virtually all mainline scholars acceptance the historicity of Jesus that is exactly what they must do. Sorry, but your fringe views are not a mjor factor in deciding what HJ scholars need to and don't need to explain. Historical Jesus scholarship is not done under your special views but under the exact opposite.

Quote:

That sounds like special pleading. What grounds are there to claim that a culture will have radically different times for developing a myth?

What grounds are there to claim that they won't be on such a large scale? And no one argued anything close to those small scale comments you mentioned. For instance, going from stage 1 Q to Paul in the fifteis and Mark in 70 ad is not the same thing as a "vision of the Virgin Mary".

Not to mention, how many visions and healing have their been in the history of the world where there was no major legendary development??? Obviously your examples would probably nothing more than exceptions to the general rule in human life but I have never read S-W yet I still think you are all ripping him and this entirely out of context.

Toto · 02-21-2003, 01:03 PM

Here is an expanded version of how Christian apologists use Sherwin-White:

Quote:

The Gospel accounts are more likely historical than legendary. First of all, they are too early. Carrying on from what I mentioned earlier in this regard, Professor A. N. Sherwin-White, an eminent historian of Roman times, has studied the rate at which myths were formed in the ancient Near-east. He chides New Testament critics for not recognizing the quality of the New Testament documents compared to the sources that he must work with in Roman and Greek history. He says these sources usually removed from the events that they describe by generations, even centuries. Despite when they were written and the typically biased approach of the writers, he says, historians can confidently reconstruct what actually happened. In stark contrast, Professor Sherwin-White tells us that, for the Gospels to be legendary, more generations would have had to have been needed between the events and the compilation of the Gospels. He's found that even the span of two full generations, fifty to eighty years, is not enough time for legend to wipe out the hard-core of historical fact. And even the late dating of the Gospels by the critics meets that criterion. The legends about Jesus that the critics are looking for do exist, but they rose in the second century, which is consistent with this two generation time frame discovered by Professor Sherwin-White. That is when all the eyewitnesses had died off. Thus, the trustworthiness of the Gospel accounts is highly probable because there just wasn't enough time for mythical tendencies to creep in and prevail over the historical fact.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...l/horner1.html

roughly the same quote is here:
http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...HistJesus8.htm

Since S-W is quoted the same by his critics and supporters, there is no particular reason to doubt what is reported. He is used to looking at Roman documents and taking them at face value. He just transposes this habit to examining the gospels, and decides that since it looks like history, it must be true. (Or else someone would have popped up and pointed out the problem.) This of course ignores that the gospels were certainly written and circulated after 70 CE, when any witnesses would have been wiped out. And it assumes that the early Christians took the gospels as history, not as allegory or gnostic mysticism.

Greg2003 · 02-21-2003, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Actually Greg, given that virtually all mainline scholars acceptance the historicity of Jesus that is exactly what they must do. Sorry, but your fringe views are not a mjor factor in deciding what HJ scholars need to and don't need to explain. Historical Jesus scholarship is not done under your special views but under the exact opposite.

I wasn't referring specifically to historical jesus scholarship, but rather general ancient history. I don't think my view of the rise of christianity from earlier religious threads is a fringe view generally speaking. There's a whole bigger world out there beyond HJ research.

Layman · 02-21-2003, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
Since S-W is quoted the same by his critics and supporters, there is no particular reason to doubt what is reported. He is used to looking at Roman documents and taking them at face value. He just transposes this habit to examining the gospels, and decides that since it looks like history, it must be true. (Or else someone would have popped up and pointed out the problem.) This of course ignores that the gospels were certainly written and circulated after 70 CE, when any witnesses would have been wiped out. And it assumes that the early Christians took the gospels as history, not as allegory or gnostic mysticism.

And you learned about SW's habits in studying history ..... how exactly?

Layman · 02-21-2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003
I wasn't referring specifically to historical jesus scholarship, but rather general ancient history. I don't think my view of the rise of christianity from earlier religious threads is a fringe view generally speaking. There's a whole bigger world out there beyond HJ research.

So are you saying that classicists are more likely to be Jesus mythers?

Like Robin L. Fox, A.N. Sherwin-White, or Michael Grant?

tw1tch · 02-21-2003, 02:20 PM

Family Man

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man
Actually, they are both unverifiable. How would you disprove a claim that Kennedy rose from the dead?

You'd go to his grave.

That's why myths need huge amounts of time to develop...because the witnesses surrounding the events can verify if it actually happened. To create a myth all the witness who know the truth have to be dead.

However, the 'myth' (your term...not mine) of Christ spread throughout the population within only a few years of the actual historic event.

Here's a little experiment for you: Try to start the myth that Ted Kennedy rose from the grave and see how much success you have.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Toto · 02-21-2003, 02:24 PM

Kennedy was the wrong example. Try Elvis. There are tours of his gravesite, but that hasn't stopped the Elvis sightings.

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

02-21-2003, 02:24 PM	#70
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Kennedy was the wrong example. Try Elvis. There are tours of his gravesite, but that hasn't stopped the Elvis sightings.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.