Ted Hoffman

Lost Number
Christ Mythers say Jesus' crucifixion was made up. I say it is more rational to believe there was a historical Jesus who was crucified, because the idea of the son of God being a human being who was treated bad, cruficied and died before his ultimate, final act (resurrection) would be an insult to most Jews (whom Christianity was first aimed at), who believed that the Son of God would be far too good a being to endure such humiliation and mistreatment from us inferior humans. If you think they still went ahead and made it up, anyway, then please explain why, by countering the point I made.
Whether or not its rational to beleive he was resurrected provides NO historical value to the claims of the existence of a historical Jesus.
It is YOUR opinion that it was an insult to the Jews. Do you have any evidence that the Jews perceived it as an insult? If they did, why did Matthew and other Jews write about it and propagate the story so much?
Was Inannas crucifixion an insult to those who worshiped her? Is great suffering and humiliation for a good cause an insult or it makes those being suffered for more beholden to their benefactor?

Do you have ANY evidence that proves Jesus was crucified?

And again, I am waiting for you to select one Jesus myther argument for fabrication and refute it. Your refutation must also render such an argument as baseless.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

The Lost Number

Alright then, aside from the fact that of all the Christ Myth founders, AFAICT the absolute best evidence from them you can find supporting your claim (that Jesus didn't necessarily have to be completely non-existent for Christ-Mythicism to be true) is maybe one or two of them saying something that could perhaps be interpreted as demonstrating they have an agnostic opinion on the existence of Jesus, or that he was "real" in the sense of being based on more than one real religious leaders, while the rest simply disbelieve his existence, tell me this: where do you draw the line on defining "Christ Myth"? What if somebody thinks the gospels are mostly fabrications, rip offs and such, but that a few of their (non-extraordinary) claims about Jesus are authentic? Do they count as a Christ Myther? What if they believe every single word of the Gospel is fiction save for one prominent story, such as Jesus being crucified? Does that make them a Christ Myther? What if they believe Jesus was just a mortal human and therefore only the supernatural stories about him are false, but everything else is true (at least that which isn't contradictory)? Are they then Christ Mythers? Where does one set the standard for just how much disbelief in the Christian Jesus makes a person a Christ Myther?

From all the evidence presented by Christ Mythers, I simply conclude that they are people who believed no real, physical Jesus existed or are strongly in favor of that idea. I've yet to see any leaders or important advocates of Christ-Mythicism that say the opposite.
Of course none of the stories which tell of any evidence for Jesus being divine or supernatural are true, but that does not at all necessitate concluding that every single non-extraordinary one they were mixed with is false.
Talk about easy opportunities for sarcasm! But I'll be nice, and give you some good advice: rethink your statement. Study history some more, particularly the methods used to seperate fact from fiction. Then, restate your opinion, which should be modified greatly by then. I'll kindly give you just one opportunity to do it before going on an all out intellectual bashing binge.
He was an insignificant cult leader. There was no reason to write about him.
Yeah, which means they are false (the word has multiple defintions that at times do loosely translate to equal: "incorrect"). Every claim that in any way, shape or form was based upon the idea that Jesus actually, physically existed, is false, if we listen to Christ Myth "logic".

Thus, in closing, we see that the Christ Myther cannot believe that any claims about or in any way dependent upon the existence of Jesus are true, because they believe he did not exist in any way.
Alright then, I'll go straight to the horse's mouth. What could be better for you than your own words, found in the first post you made on a recent topic you started; <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000380" target="_blank">I have become a Jesus Myther</a>? Here is a direct quote from you:

• "Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but at best he is merely reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions. No-one refers to this passage in Tacitus for another millenium, and our earliest manuscript dates to c.1100 CE ."

Right off the bat, we have this very low quality argument:
"at best he [Tacitus] is merely reporting Christian beliefs of his later times"The Christian belief that they themselves were all scumbags and full of it? Tacitus was an excellent historian. He would not have based his empty rumors or bad sources.

Then we have another one which is very inefficient:
"he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ ')"
What else was he going to call him, "Jesus"? Or perhaps "that guy who Christians worshipped"? A name needed to be pinned down for convenience and accuracy. There were a ton of semetic people named Jesus. The only other option was improvising on the name "Christ", because that was what he was popularly known as. It's pretty simple to understand why an even minor 'celebrity' of the time would be referred to by their last name or whatever was closest to it.

Then we have the third strike:
"No-one refers to this passage in Tacitus for another millenium, and our earliest manuscript dates to c.1100 CE ."
This suggest it's an interpolation. By who? Christians? Christians who wanted to make an inflamatory, insulting reference to themselves, even though at that time they had millions of followers, dominion over entire nations, and a ton of prisoners and executed corpses testifying to just how fruitless debating belief in Christianity was?

There you have it. One point containing three flat out bad arguments.

More reasonable are your arguments about the passage's failure to be mentioned, and the prefect/procurator linguistic issue. Still, they are in fact rendered invalid upon closer inspection.

It wouldn't be mentioned because, aside from Tacitus' writings being initially available usually to just a pretty limited audience, he was insulting to Christians, and mentioned nothing extraordinary about them or Jesus. Therefore it's expected that no apologist of that time would consider his writings significant.

The procurator/prefect argument seems valid at first, but in reality, it isn't. History shows that the two terms were and could easily be used interchangably for people like Pilate, who were in high positions of authority over both money and power, and Tacitus was known to sometimes use out of place vocabulary (he was't flawless). Of course the Jews considered it an insult! Did you ever wonder why Jewish mythology makes humans out to be so unworthy of God? Like having to take your shoes off when standing on "his" ground, or not even being able to see his face (usually), or the way Jews themselves hated a human claiming to be the son of God (as seen in both the Gospels and the Jesus-bashing Talmud)? Because they thought he was much, much better than us. A being this good, great, high and mighty etc. sending his son down and letting mere humans kill him would be an insult of the highest degree, because it would blasphemously assert that God would let himself be horribly mistreated by human beings, which was contrary to everything Judaism taught.
Because he was crucified, and they needed to stress their lame excuses for it as much as possible, least criticism of it steer away potential believers/customers.
This is blatantly false. Inannas was not crucified. She was a goddess (one of several divine beings) who was impaled by some other God. This was part of a much larger story, she was hardly the main God of the initial philosophy (though later, minor evolutions of it are a different story), and most importantly she was a pagan God. Pagans had religious concepts which were very different from Judaism. That you would try to connect the two as having similar opinions on this issue is just...very incorrect.
When it's a God doing it; yes, it is.
Plenty, and I've already given it. But I suspect your faith in Christ Mythicism will just cause you to baselessly reject it all, anway. I hope you'll prove me wrong.

Iasion

Greetings all,

The Lost Number said:

Then you obviously know nothing about the Jesus Myth position as you seem to have no idea what the argument is.[*] Jesus Mythers argue the Jesus of the Gospels was a myth.[*] SOME Jesus Mythers argue that there was a real person "Jesus" (but not like the Gospel Jesus).[*] SOME Jesus Mythers argue that there was NO real person Jesus in history, just real prior myths and stories and archetypes on which the myth was based.


Intensity:
The Lost Number :
Intensity is correct, and you are wrong - if you believe there IS such a methodology in NT studies, then let us all know. Vague comments about "history" are irrelevant.


Then why DID they write about him?


Rubbish - we see from your comments that you have no idea about the Jesus Myth position. It appears you got your knickers in a twist merely from the phrase "Jesus Myth" without spending any time to study the issues.


Are you serious?
Do you believe Tacitus said Christians "were all scumbags and full of it?"
You don't seem to even know what Tacitus wrote, let alone what it means.


Yes, the Romans would use names in the form of :
"Jesus, son of Joseph" or perhaps
"Jesus from Nazareth"

The fact that Tacitus uses the Christian appelation for Christ shows he is merely repeating the Christian talk of the day.
There could NOT POSSIBLY have been Roman records which said something like :
"today we crucified the Messiah"


Christ is not a last name - its a religious TITLE - your comments show you have no idea of even the basic issues.


Yes, Christians who wanted to bolster the notable lack of evidence for Jesus.


Poppycock!
What evidence is there for this rubbish?


No, all we have seen from you is emotive polemic and opinion, no evidence or even knowledgeable debate at all.

Quentin David Jones

[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: Iasion ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Lost Number
where do you draw the line on defining "Christ Myth"? What if somebody thinks the gospels are mostly fabrications, rip offs and such, but that a few of their (non-extraordinary) claims about Jesus are authentic? Do they count as a Christ Myther?
This is what you should have been doing from the start: asking questions - instead of walking into the subject with an open mouth and a chip on your shoulder.

Iaison has satisfactorily answered this question, but let me add my understanding on Jesus Mythicism.

Christ Mythers is NOT a club. There are no predefined set of requirements to qualify as a christ myther. The bottom line is, its one thing to disbelieve the gospel stories to be based on a historical Jesus, and its another to assert that they are about a mythical figure. So long as one claims the latter, one can be considered a Jesus myther - irrespective of their basis for doing so. Its not a passive position and its not an agnostic position. Its a positive assertion that the Jesus of the Gospels is not based on a historical individual.

What if they believe every single word of the Gospel is fiction save for one prominent story, such as Jesus being crucified?
You cant crucify a mythical being now can you?

What if they believe Jesus was just a mortal human and therefore only the supernatural stories about him are false, but everything else is true (at least that which isn't contradictory)?
So long as you beleive the Jesus of the gospels Jesus was a mortal man, you are NOT a Christ myther.
Remember, what you call "the supernatural stories about him" ARE the stories about him. Even in myths people do natural things.

Where does one set the standard for just how much disbelief in the Christian Jesus makes a person a Christ Myther?
Its not about quantity. If you espouse anything historical about the gospels' Jesus then you are NOT a Christ myther.

From all the evidence presented by Christ Mythers, I simply conclude that they are people who believed no real, physical Jesus existed or are strongly in favor of that idea. I've yet to see any leaders or important advocates of Christ-Mythicism that say the opposite.
Me too.

Of course none of the stories which tell of any evidence for Jesus being divine or supernatural are true, but that does not at all necessitate concluding that every single non-extraordinary one they were mixed with is false.
No it does not. Thats why we have to step outside the bible and seek supporting evidence. And what do we find when we do that? One controversial passage from Josephus' Antiquities 20. What does that tell you?

Talk about easy opportunities for sarcasm! But I'll be nice, and give you some good advice: rethink your statement. Study history some more, particularly the methods used to seperate fact from fiction. Then, restate your opinion, which should be modified greatly by then. I'll kindly give you just one opportunity to do it before going on an all out intellectual bashing binge.
If you need time to go and research, all you need to do is ask. Buying time behind a mask of cheap threats and hollow warnings smacks of ignorance and want of ammunition.

He was an insignificant cult leader. There was no reason to write about him.
He was such an insignificant cult leader that Mark wrote 16 chapters about his insignificance. Matthew, Luke and John saw the insignificance was so beautiful and decided they could not go to their graves before copying that insignificance and adding more insignificance to that insignificance.
Aaah, that insignificance must really have been some interesting insignificance.
Even the Romans were so disturbed by his insignificance that they crucified him.

Every claim that in any way, shape or form was based upon the idea that Jesus actually, physically existed, is false, if we listen to Christ Myth "logic".
Nice strawman. So far, we have NO sound claim or evidence for existence of a historical Jesus. UNTIL that time, what we have is not enough to demonstrate that there indeed existed a historical Jesus of the Gospels. We dont say they are all false, but NONE of the evidence is iron clad some, as you admit yourself have been fabricated.

Thus, in closing, we see that the Christ Myther cannot believe that any claims about or in any way dependent upon the existence of Jesus are true, because they believe he did not exist in any way
What they beleive has no bearing on the quality of the evidence available. The evidence is treated as inconclusive because it is inconclusive, OTOH, the evidence for a mythical Jesus is conclusive.
Maybe there indeed existed a historical Jesus, but at the moment, as a Jesus myther, and as someone who has paid his dues on the subject, I have no good reason to beleive so.
Instead of spending time complaining about Jesus Myth position, which you dont share, why not put some strong evidence on the table.

Tacitus was an excellent historian. He would not have based his empty rumors or bad sources.
Tacitus was a historian. Whether or NOT he was an excellent historian is irrelevant and is debatable. Tacitus did two major writings: Annals and The Histories which covered the history of Rome from the death of Augustus (in AD 96). Annals covered the reign of Tiberius, Claudius and Nero. From the Medieval Sourcebook Tacitus is described thus: Tacitus was apparently of the equestrian class, was an advocate by training, and had a reputation as an orator, though none of his speeches has survived" Tacitus rose through the ranks to become a senator.
He was not trained as a historian if that tells you anything about your "excellent historian" rant.
My argument does NOT state Tacitus used bad sources or that what Tacitus wrote was based on empty rumours. It would be naive of me to expect much cogent arguments from you but a strawman is pathetic even for you.
Read again, vacuous fulminations have no place here.

What else was he going to call him, "Jesus"?
That is not part of the argument (ie the argument does not address Tacitus' naming options). But if you really want to know, you might have to ask him so yourself.

The only other option was improvising on the name "Christ"
Its extremely poor argumentation to read the mind of a dead person. You dont know what options Tacitus had. We only know what he did, its shoddy debating practice to fling yourself in the sea of mindless speculation. Unless suicide is your only option (if it is an option).

because that was what he was popularly known as
You described him as an "insignificant" cult leader. Now you are propounding what he was "popularly" known as. Are you confused?

There were a ton of semetic people named Jesus
Very funny. Ever heard of "Jesus of Nazareth"? "Jesus Christ"? "Jesus called Christ"? "Jesus so-called Christ"? "Jesus King of the Jews"?

It's pretty simple to understand why an even minor 'celebrity' of the time would be referred to by their last name or whatever was closest to it.
Ah, so now he has transmogrified from an "insignificant cult leader" to "minor celebrity"? Please next time you post, make up your mind first.

earlier by Intensity"No-one refers to this passage in Tacitus for another millenium, and our earliest manuscript dates to c.1100 CE ."

Lost Numbers response This suggest it's an interpolation (sic).

It DOES NO SUCH THING. It just states a fact; it does not attempt to explain why the state of affairs is as it is. Stop flailing senselessly. When we suggest interpolation, we say so - EXPLICITLY. Put your wild imagination to rest.

There you have it. One point containing three flat out bad arguments.
You have not mustered even ONE weak counter-argument. Which is apallingly pitiful.
Look again, I am sure you can find a refutable argument (I am very flattered that you find me respectable enough to treat my arguments as an authoritative christ myther - I thought you could have picked Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty or Wells - that you picked me is flattering indeed - I am sorry I am not the soft underbelly you sought)

More reasonable are your arguments about the passage's failure to be mentioned, and the prefect/procurator linguistic issue. Still, they are in fact rendered invalid upon closer inspection.
Actually, the procurator issue is the weakest point of the argument.
You need to read a little. You could even end up refuting such arguments as the one I made right there.

I will ask again:
Do you have any evidence that the Jews perceived it as an insult?
I dont want baseless rationalizations. I said evidence. Do you understand what evidence means?

I asked: why did Matthew and other Jews write about it and propagate the story so much?

Lost Number's Response: Because he was crucified, and they needed to stress their lame excuses for it as much as possible, least criticism of it steer away potential believers/customers.
Lets take Mark - Mark has 16 Chapters - how many talk about Jesus' crucifiction? Does that tell us Mark wrote to stress that Jesus was crucified?

This is blatantly false. Inannas was not crucified. (sic)
A simple Google search can resolve your confusion. Or read Samuel Kramer's, History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Man's Recorded History.
The following quote is from a sumerian clay tablet
(emphasis mine) Wolkenstein and Kramer

She was hung from a hook/ nail (ie cricified) and was dead for three nights just like Jesus. She was then resurrected, just like Jesus.

Pagans had religious concepts which were very different from Judaism. That you would try to connect the two as having similar opinions on this issue is just...very incorrect.
That you do not appreciate the influence of the extant pagan mythologies on christianity is sad. The fact that resurrection, Hydropatetics, crucifiction, 12 disciples and other aspects of the Jesus story are not original to christianity should tell you something about pagan influences on christianity. You evidently have a LOT to read my friend. A lot.
Donald MacDonald's The Homeric Epics and The Gospel of Mark is one book among many that could edify you on some aspects of pagan influence of christianity
I asked: Is great suffering and humiliation for a good cause an insult or it makes those being suffered for more beholden to their benefactor?
Lost Number Responded: When it's a God doing it; yes, it is.
So you are admitting that christs suffering and humiliation was not an insult to the christians - BUT an act of grace and love.

Plenty, and I've already given it. But I suspect your faith in Christ Mythicism will just cause you to baselessly reject it all, anway. I hope you'll prove me wrong.
Provide the evidence and I will prove you wrong.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

The Lost Number

Iasion:

Regarding my "incorrect" opinion on why a Christ Myther is; I have just started a topic in this forum called <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000501" target="_blank">Exactly what is a "Christ Myther"?</a> for defining the Christ Myth, in case you're interested.
[note: you get to be the recipient of the deserved sarcasm instead if Intensity] ROTFLMAO! Wow, that's got to be one of the stupidest statements ever made on the web! Did you ever pass the history educational requirements made for even a 7 year old? Since we're on the subject of history, are you aware that if they wrote a book documenting historical examples of great ignorance, you deserve to be in it? Do you really, actually believe that the NT has some exception to the historical fact that certain statements about historical figures, events, places and such which contain fictional elements also possess some parts which are true? Have you never even heard the expression "separating fact from fiction"?

It's very, very simple to understand that we can believe certain facts about history even when they are sometimes found mixed up with fiction. That's why we (sane persons) believe in the existence of everyone from Vespasian to Billy the Kid, even though they had tall tales made up about them. We can apply this same methodology to the study of Jesus...oh, wait, you might just end up saying that Vespasian and Billy the Kid didn't exist, either.

A method of doing this is by reading the parts of a story which had no reason to be made up, considering them true, and then regarding the impressive and/or bias type stories as dubious or fictional.
"They" DID NOT write about him, as "they" are the historians of that time and era. Nobody wrote about Jesus when he was alive or even soon after he died.
No, he didn't say that explicitly, but his hostility towards them would be at least that insulting. Here are Mr. T's words:

• Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Note the bolded emphasis I added. Do those sound like pleasant descriptions of Christianity, or insulting ones? Not a chance. Maybe for someone who was more popular, but certainly not at that time and place, for somebody like Jesus, as they would not have known who Joseph was. That was a type of expression typically (though not always) reserved for the people of that particular region and culture, who would have known who Joseph was.
Which was a rather common name. We actually don't even know that he was from Nazareth, but even if he was, there would have been a number of other people from there named "Jesus". Saying "Jesus of Nazareth" in reference to him a lifetime after he died would be like a modern newspaper saying "Al from the Northside Chicago Suburbs" in reference to Al Capone. Not very practical.
Nobody is arguing that. He is (loosely) repeating the name that Jesus was most popularly known by, which was "Christ". That was the most practical thing to do.
I know it's not a last name. That's why I said: "last name or whatever was closest to it.". In Jesus' case, Christ was the closest thing he had to a practical last name. Lol! This is why almost all real scholars consider the Christ Myth to be a joke. You do indeed come up any ridiculous fabrication theory to explain things away, even though there is no evidence for it. If Christians wrote it, we can never trust them because they were making it up. If non-Christians wrote it, they got their info from those previously described unreliable Christian sources, and so can't be trusted, either. If either source for one reason or another just looks too reliable for a fabrication then they were interpolated. Using all of these unprovable, pathetic excuses means you just can't be wrong. Of course you could say the same of Dog only knows how many other historical figures, events and places, in order to "invalidate" their authenticity. In which case academic research would be so warped and awful that I'd just hope a comet hits the earth and makes us all history.
Oh, I don't know; how about a simple logical analysis? Procurator = financial advisor to Roman leaders (especially the Emperor). Prefect = militaristic leader, which realistically means almost all prominent Roman leaders. Procurators typically held a lot of power themselves, for example; a governor or one of his close assistants could be considered a procurator since they delt with Imperial finances. They also could easily be in a position of power, which meant they were either prefects or pretty similar to them.

Pilate was prefect of and governed over Judeah from A.D. 26-36, and would have needed, among other things, proper spending of money to stay in charge, which he would have had authority over and would have advised upon, just like a procurator. In fact proper control of finances was one of the most important duties of Roman governors. Hence the term "Procurator" for someone who was a Prefect. Josephus even refers to him as such. A modern analogy would be the way a U.S. president "Presides" over the country and is typically just called "The President", yet is sometimes referred to by the distinctly militaristic title "Commander and Chief".

Peter Kirby

US Constitution - Article 2, Section 2

"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States..."

So, no, the President is not a chief.

As to the procurator vs. prefect issue, I have found no evidence for the statement that "procurator" would have been an anachronistic way for Tacitus to refer to Pilate.

Click on the link to see <a href="http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/vor?lookup=procurator&lang=la&group=bilevel" target="_blank">ancient uses of the Latin term from Perseus</a>.

Here you can see that the word was used by, among other people, Cicero and Julius Caesar. So certainly the term itself was not a new one. If the term is claimed to be anachronistic, the claim would have to be that the title of the office in Judaea switched names in the middle or end of the first century. But where can we find evidence for that claim? Would Josephus be the one to mention that? Not that I've read in Josephus.

So, basically, I haven't seen much in this regard other than the claim of Wells that there actually was such a switcheroo of office titles. I am not at this time going to say that the claim is false, because I haven't seen enough material on the claim, but I will say that I haven't seen any good evidence for it. I look forward to Richard Carrier's treatment of the issue.

The Lost Number writes: Nobody wrote about Jesus when he was alive or even soon after he died.

I think this would be near irrefutable if you had said that no extant writings from the reputed time of Jesus' life mention the guy. But since you put it in absolute terms, I don't think it would have been inconceivable for a retainer of Pilate to write a sentence about Jesus if Pilate actually heard an accusation/suggestion and passed a death sentence (of course, as a non-citizen, that record would not have gone to Rome and would have been destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt at the latest). Although not quite as likely as the just mentioned, the possibility is there that one of the several people who came into contact with Jesus put down some notes about his sayings or deeds as an aid for teaching within a couple years of the death of Jesus. Of course, none of this is proven, and this presumes that there was a historical Jesus. So my suggestion is that your statement ought to refer to extant writings only.

The Lost Number writes: He is (loosely) repeating the name that Jesus was most popularly known by, which was "Christ".

What is "loose" about the Latin word that Tacitus uses to refer to Christ?

Intensity writes: the evidence for a mythical Jesus is conclusive.

By saying this, do you make a statement that is roughly comparable to "the evidence for a mythical Elvis is conclusive," i.e., that there is clear evidence that Elvis is a larger than life figure who has taken on significance for a culture and who has gotten false stories attached to him? Or, do you mean that there is conclusive evidence against the statement, "there was a historical Jesus whose life was the starting point for Christianity"? If so, what is the conclusive evidence? Or did you mean something else entirely? I am intrigued by the idea that we have conclusive evidence for something here.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Intensity writes: the evidence for a mythical Jesus is conclusive.

Peter Kirby writes:By saying this, do you make a statement that is roughly comparable to "the evidence for a mythical Elvis is conclusive," i.e., that there is clear evidence that Elvis is a larger than life figure who has taken on significance for a culture and who has gotten false stories attached to him? Or, do you mean that there is conclusive evidence against the statement, "there was a historical Jesus whose life was the starting point for Christianity"? If so, what is the conclusive evidence? Or did you mean something else entirely? I am intrigued by the idea that we have conclusive evidence for something here.

Intensity Huh, huh. You could have used a better analogy than the Elvis Presley version you have given above (is Elvis a myth?).
We cant prove a negative, but since the evidence available does not support the idea of the existence of a historical Jesus, together with the mythical nature of christianity and its mystical revelatory beginnings, a mythical Jesus figure under the sublunar incarnation theory as argued by Earl Doherty offers more explanatory power for the preponderant lack of historical evidence for a historical Jesus.
That is, in a nutshell.
But maybe I shouldnt state it so forcefully. It apparently bruises the sensibilities of moderates.

Vorkosigan

Do you really, actually believe that the NT has some exception to the historical fact that certain statements about historical figures, events, places and such which contain fictional elements also possess some parts which are true? Have you never even heard the expression "separating fact from fiction"?

Lost Number, we are all aware of the possibility. What Iason asked you for was not a series of statements or claims, but an actual methodology that could demonstrate that any part of the Jesus stories more or less faithfully reflected historical events. This is something that NT scholars do not yet have, so I would be very surprised to see one from you. We all understand that you think parts of the NT are history; what we want to know is the "why" of your selection. What are the underlying principles we can use to sort fact from fiction in the NT and other writings relating to Jesus? In other words, what is your methodology?

Of course you could say the same of Dog only knows how many other historical figures, events and places, in order to "invalidate" their authenticity.

Of course, Lost Number. That's exactly what scholars do. Many Founder Figures are regarded as partly or wholly mythical. There was a thread last month detailing reasons why a group of scholars believes Mohammed to be an entirely mythical person. Two recent works on Confucius have pretty much attacked both him and his religion as myth-construction. Did the Buddha actually live? Evidence is thin. I could go on, but you get the point.

Vorkosigan

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Intensity writes: You could have used a better analogy than the Elvis Presley version you have given above (is Elvis a myth?).

I picked Elvis as an excellent example of a person who is most certainly both a mythical figure and a historical figure. The vulgar meaning of "myth" as "false belief" - or, worse, pernicious false belief - is not the only way in which the word is used and particularly not the only sense of the word as used by historians of religion.

On the other hand, Jesus is most certainly a mythical figure, yet his historicity is on less sure footing than that of Elvis to put it mildly. I wanted to be sure that your statement concerned the place of Jesus as a figure in history. It would be trivially easy to prove that Jesus has become a myth in the same sense that Elvis has become a myth.

Intensity writes:

We cant prove a negative, but since the evidence available does not support the idea of the existence of a historical Jesus, together with the mythical nature of christianity and its mystical revelatory beginnings, a mythical Jesus figure under the sublunar incarnation theory as argued by Earl Doherty offers more explanatory power for the preponderant lack of historical evidence for a historical Jesus.
That is, in a nutshell.
But maybe I shouldnt state it so forcefully. It apparently bruises the sensibilities of moderates.

Perhaps these moderates want things to be stated accurately and precisely, without hyperbole?

Assume that we can't prove a negative. And assume that the non-existence of Jesus is a negative. And assume that "proof" may be defined as "conclusive evidence." Ergo: there is no conclusive evidence for the non-existence of Jesus. You can accept the conclusion or reject a premise (or do both).

Basically, what I hear you saying is that you have a theory, the entirely non-historical origins of the Jesus story, that you are advancing on the grounds that the theory posits the plausible mechanism of mystical revelation and sublunar incarnation beliefs and on the grounds that the theory's negation, the partially historical origins of the Jesus story, is not supported with (a preponderance of) historical evidence. Chances are that part of that went wrong in communication, so I welcome your correction before I go any further.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Peter Kirby
I picked Elvis as an excellent example of a person who is most certainly both a mythical figure and a historical figure.
I have never known Elvis to be a mythical figure - unless you care to provide some evidence. Is the person below an impostor or the photographs are fake? Didnt Elvis perform in concerts?


I do not think the historical existence of Elvis Presley is in doubt.

The vulgar meaning of "myth" as "false belief" - or, worse, pernicious false belief - is not the only way in which the word is used and particularly not the only sense of the word as used by historians of religion.

Aah, we have historians and we have critics. And there is what we call thinking out of the box.
I do not think its the job of all historians to make sense of history.

On the other hand, Jesus is most certainly a mythical figure, yet his historicity is on less sure footing than that of Elvis to put it mildly.
I dont think it has ANY footing. Unless you would like to be specific.

I wanted to be sure that your statement concerned the place of Jesus as a figure in history
If "a place in history" entails physical existence, then that will be a NO.

It would be trivially easy to prove that Jesus has become a myth in the same sense that Elvis has become a myth.

I would go back to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
But I dont see Elvis' historicity being "the same" in any way, to Jesus' historicity.
Elvis was a world known celebrity - Burton Mack postulates Jesus as a "cynical sage" others as an intinerant preacher etc.

Perhaps these moderates want things to be stated accurately and precisely, without hyperbole?
You have a point, and moderates can want what they choose. But hyperbole is a literary device. I reserve the right to employ it as I deem fit. We are communicating here - not providing measrement on some discrete data.

Assume that we can't prove a negative. And assume that the non-existence of Jesus is a negative. And assume that "proof" may be defined as "conclusive evidence." Ergo: there is no conclusive evidence for the non-existence of Jesus. You can accept the conclusion or reject a premise (or do both).
That was positive "proof" with physical evidence. (thats what I was referring to when I said one cant prove a negative)
Incompatible properties argument has been used to prove that God does not exist (I have just read your article on why you are an atheist - is it updated?), thus logical argumentation, based on available data can be used to prive that Jesus did not exist.
1. Christs soteriology and incarnation is similar to that of extant pagan religions during his time, especially the Greek cultic mystery religions. The cult deities conquered death in other sublunar realms that were not necessarily earthly.

2. The story of the life of christ is written in mythological expressions and starts and ends with events that lack naturalistic(or historical) plausibility.

3. The gospels are the only books that tell the story of Jesus and they were written through midrash and other unreliable means. Mark is the main book and its apparent plagiarism from the OT robs it of authenticity or originality. The fact that he is an anonymous figure also makes it impossible to judge his credibility as a historian.

4. Historians in the first and second century DO NOT indicate any direct knowledge of the existence of a historical Jesus. Numerous books in the New testament also indicate ignorance about the existence of a historical Jesus.

5. The purpose for the existence of Jesus is mythological and supernatural in nature.

6. It can be demonstrated that chief founder of christianity (Paul) did not necessarily base his beliefs on the existence of a historical Jesus. Early records indicate Christ was worshippes without any central or common dogma or beliefs.

7. There is NO reliable and unquestionable evidence (textual or otherwise) that indicates there existed a historical Jesus as is claimed by the Gospels.

8. Based on the above facts, it can be safely concluded that Jesus DID Not exist as a historical person.

Chances are that part of that went wrong in communication, so I welcome your correction before I go any further.
You are correct. You can start your refutation.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>