Layman

What the absence of references shows for Paul, is that we should not be surprised that there are no references for other significant religious figures. Paul's ministry lasted longer than Jesus' (by a factor of 10), covered much more territory, clashed with many more Jewish and Roman leaders, amassed many more followers, and ended up -- most likely -- at trial in Rome. But not a hint of any nonChristain references.

So Paul is real, but his mention of meeting with Peter and James is fictional? Do you really want to defend that argument Kosh? You really think Peter and James are as mythical as Jesus?

I doubt it. And I doubt most would agree with you -- not even the JMers. So, for all those who are not as extreme as you are, the fact is that Peter and James also had ministries that lasted much longer than Jesus and most likely amassed many more followers, yet they left no trace in the secular record.

Which demonstrates just how little probative value the "silence" about Jesus really is.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

This was my first post to the JesusMysteries group. It might be useful.

best,
Peter Kirby

Kosh

I'm not arguing that. My statement was that IF Jesus is mythical, it would follow that James the brother of Jesus and Peter could be mythical.

Apikorus

galiel:

The point of course is not to liken Jesus to an ancient city, but rather to point out that even fictional literary works can contain historical elements. I don't believe that the shadow on Hezekiah's sun dial moved backward, like it says in 2 Kings, but I do believe that there was a King Hezekiah of Judah - he is referred to extensively in the Rassam prism inscription of Sennacherib.

Similarly, I don't believe that Jesus raised the dead or was himself resurrected, but I do believe that Jesus existed - he is referred to twice in the works of Josephus.

Hyperskeptics will invariably discount the Josephus references (both of them), insisting that they are the work of a later Christian interpolator. Most Josephus scholars believe that the passage in Antiquities 18 has been tampered with, but that in its original form it did contain some reference to Jesus. No less an authority than Louis Feldman believes this to be the case. If you then insist that Feldman is not really qualified, or that he has a secret pro-Christian agenda, then you merely identify yourself as a fool.

Of course this does not necessarily mean that the Testimonium Flavianum isn't entirely an interpolation after all - some people, like Peter Kirby, are prepared to make intelligent, scholarly arguments in this direction. But what it does mean is that it is utterly untenable to insist that "elementary logic" demands one conclude that Jesus was a fictional character. It is childish, really. It is as if you have some emotional investment in whether or not some first century itinerant Galilean preacher named Jesus might have lived and served as a model for the gospel hagiographies. I understand why it is so important for religious Christians to believe that Jesus did exist. But why is it so important for you to believe that Jesus was fictional?

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

If the writings of Paul are not some elaborate hoax, there was a tension between Paul and the Jerusalem group, with Paul seemingly forced to fight for a credibility that the latter seemed to inherit by default. How likely is it for such a group to have evolved without a charismatic leader?

Edited to add: (1) My question re the Samaritan Prophet still stands. (2) Thanks, Peter.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Layman

That's not a logical argument as to Peter and its an irrelevant argument as to James. I specifically talked about James the leader of the Jerusalem Christians. Whether or in what way he was the "brother of Jesus" or the "brother of the Lord" really does not affect the absence of secular references to him.

But you are completely wrong. Doherty believes in Peter and James "the brother of the Lord" even though he expressly denies the existence of Jesus. And I believe even Wells accepted that Peter and James were real people as well who were active in the early Christian church.

So the point stands. Peter, James, and Paul -- real guys accepted by even Doherty -- all had active ministries that lasted much longer than Jesus' and attracted more followers than Jesus are not mentioned in the secular sources (other than the "disputed" reference to James in Josephus). This is even more significant in the case of Paul because he had so much contact with so many authorities and had a vast geographic influence.

Vorkosigan

"I tend to think the man probably existed, but Jesus the man wasn't even close to the Jesus he became in the bible."

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

The New Testament doesn't have to be unswervingly historical in order to conclude that there was an historical Jesus. After all, there really was a Troy (nine levels have been excavated; Troy I through V dates to EB-MB), even if other elements of the Iliad are very likely fictional.

Not necessarily. <a href="http://tenaya.cs.dartmouth.edu/history/bronze_age/lessons/27.html" target="_blank">Troy VII and the historicity of Homer</a>.

For certain atheists, remaining hyperskeptical about Jesus (while they might well accept the historicity of a minor Egyptian pharaoh simply by virtue of his name being recorded once in the Egyptian king lists), is an ideological imperative, lest they cede any ground at all to their Christian opponents.

"Gosh, I'm just so much more reasonable than anyone here! Look how reasonable I am!"

As we all know, skeptics are never motivated by the desire to understand what actually happened, all skepticism is hyperskepticism, and in all of human history, no religious movement has ever made up a Founder Figure.

But based on my understanding of late Second Temple Judaism from readings of Josephus, Philo, the Qumran corpus, the New Testament, and early Rabbinic literature, it seems to me that certain elements of the NT Jesus (e.g. an itinerant preacher who taught of the coming kingdom of heaven) fit very well into a first century CE milieu.

No, really? Imagine first century authors writing a fiction that fit into their milieu! Who would have thought it possible?

So it hardly seems reasonable to conclude that the gospel authors (canonical and noncanonical) confabulated the whole shebang.

No doubt this accounts for the astounding unity among scholars who focus on the historical Jesus.

But if one were to convincingly establish (this would require new evidence)

Or new understandings of old evidence....

Vorkosigan

galiel

The number of logical fallacies seems to multiply the more theists attempt to defend their irrational beliefs on pseudo-scientific grounds.The fact that they even feel it necessary to try and misuse the tools of the scientific method to lend credibility to their irrational claims, is testamony to the ever-more superior explanatory power of science.

Correlation vs. causality, and reverse causality. The fact you cite has no bearing on the likelihood of a given figure in a possibly fictional written narrative being real.

If you merely "believe" it, then you are relying on other than empirical data. If, on the other hand, you cite corroborative evidence as the reason for your belief, as I believe there is in the case of King Hezekiah, then you must accept the value of corroborative evidence. If you do so (assuming you are following the rules of logic and not blind faith), you must take the paucity of corroborative evidence of Jesus as relevant to the debate about his existence.

Now you are resorting to ad hominem attempts to discredit, circular appeals to authority (if you don't accept the authority then you are a fool, therefor the authority is valid), and a controversial claim (that there was a reference to Jesus in the original form). Characterising scholars who reach different conclusions than the one you would like them to reach as "hyperskeptics" is another disingenuous attempt to avoid confronting the evidentiary challenge.

Basically, you are not honestly making a judgement based on empirical findings and rational analysis; you are starting with an assumption--that Jesus exists--and attempting to justify that blind faith with appeals to pseudo-reason. If evidence surfaces that there was, in fact, no original reference to Jesus in Josephus's writings, will you therefor conclude that is no evidence that Jesus exists? Of course not. Ultimately, your belief is based on the Bible, and that is that.

Actually, it is entirely tenable and consistent--IF one is willing to be logically consistent, and let conclusions arise from wherever the evidence takes us, rather than begining with an unshakeable dogma and then selectively seeking supportive evidence.

This, in fact, is at the crux of the difference between science and religion, and why they are utterly irreconcilable.

Again, a logical fallacy. Instead of defending your evidentiary claims or refuting mine, you resort to a strawman attack, implying some sort of underlying dark motive in order to discredit the actual substantive argument. I have no stake either way. As a rational skeptic, I merely follow the scientific method: develop a testable hypothesis, examine the evidence, and use empiricism, rationalism and skepticism to reach a conclusion consistent with Occam and Hume. When enough evidence supports a particula conclusion, and in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, said conclusion reaches the status of "theory", in the scientific sense.

In this case, there is simply no particular reason to believe that there was a Jesus.

Your arguments and methodology, incidentally, are identical to those of the creationists. Which is why it is a waste of time to try and pin your down. Your standard of proof is an ever moving target.

RJS

<a href="http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01.html</a>

feel free to rip away. I am not interested in debating/defending.

Toto

Doherty accepts Paul's letters as evidence of a person named Paul (or something like that) and uses Paul's letters to argue that the Jesus he believed in was spiritual (or at least the ones that are generally considered not to be forgeries.)

The mention of James, Peter / Cephas, and John in Paul's letters has a ring of truth to it that Acts definitely does not have. It is a tale of a struggle for power, negotiations, ego, and personal failings. (Cf. the criterion of embarrassment.)

But Doherty is not the most skeptical of all Biblical scholars. There is a Dutch school that holds that Paul was an invention of the gnostics, and his letters are all forgeries, and that the orthodox church coopted this mythical figure and forged more letters.

Christians require a historical Jesus. But non-believers do not require that Jesus be a myth. It mischaracterizes the JM's motives to claim that they are motivated by a need to tear down Christianity. Freke and Gandy seem to be motivated more by pro-gnostic leanings than anti-Christianity. Most of the others are post-Christians for whom this is only an intellectual puzzle.