Apikorus

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. -galiel

Hmmm...where to begin? Well, for starters I happen to be an atheist. Secondly, I'm a physicist on the faculty of a major research university. So I am a very big fan of the scientific method indeed. I'd venture to say most of my colleagues are atheist/agnostic or perhaps very weakly religious. But some are quite religious, and being religious doesn't preclude being a good or even a great scientist.

The scientific method itself has some applicability to historical investigations, but if you think that it can be applied, mutatis mutandis, then you haven't read much history. History as a discipline would be very boring if it were limited by the scientific method.

The inescapable fact remains that the vast, overwhelming majority of scholars of the period in question, even excluding evangelicals and the like, conclude that Jesus was an historical figure. Jewish scholars like Shaye Cohen or David Flusser or Louis Feldman are hardly likely to be pursuing some crypto-Christian agenda. And, like it or not, these folks, and others like John Meier, Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, J. D. Crossan, Raymond Brown, et al. are recognized as experts, whereas Earl Doherty and Acharya S are not. (Again, this does not guarantee that they are all right - they don't even all agree with each other when it comes to HJ reconstructions! - or that Doherty is wrong. But there is a sensible delineation of scholarship within the field of HJ inquiry, and the fringe elements which state that Jesus is completely fictional clearly qualify as extreme (i.e. hyper-) skeptics.) Heck, even Hyam Maccoby believes that Jesus existed, and it is hard to get more skeptical than Hyam Maccoby.

I suspect that behind your blustery "logical fallacy"/"scientific method"/"evidentiary claims"/Occam/Hume/"rational skeptic" talk lies a rather shallow knowledge of the primary sources, of the historical context, and of the big picture of the field as a whole. Your knee-jerk assumption that I must be a theist whose "belief is based on the Bible" doesn't quite square with your proud claims of being a careful, rational, "scientific" thinker.

To answer your question, certainly if a 2nd century ms of Antiquities were discovered and found to contain no mention of Jesus, I'd be forced to reevaluate my beliefs regarding Jesus' historicity.

It is commonly accepted by historians of the period that the famous rabbi Hillel (the elder, ca. 30 BCE - 20 CE) was an historical figure. Hillel figures prominently in the early rabbinic literature, but that is at least two centuries later than the notional Hillel himself. Hillel isn't mentioned at all by Josephus. But noone seems to get all bent out of shape over the question of whether or not Hillel was an historical figure. Incidentally, some of the Jesus skeptics would claim that much of Jesus' allegedly original philosophy can be traced to Hillel.

Michael, of course I do believe that the NT gospels are largely fictional. And while there is of course great diversity among HJ reconstructions, there are several elements that are widely accepted by most such scholars: that Jesus was a first century itinerant preacher, that he was a Jew, that he taught about the kingdom of heaven, that he was crucified.

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

Toto

Layman - you are so well read. Why not read Doherty? It would make you more effective when you argue against him, don't you think? In fact, I'll make you a deal. I will find a copy of Sanders, and you read Doherty.

Perhaps you missed some of the previous discussion on this. We are looking for a methodology, not just idiosyncratic methods that could lead to any conclusion. If there were such a methodology, historians would use it instead of each using their own methods.

Meier has a method of deciding which of the purported statements of or about Jesus were most likely to be authentic, assuming he existed in the first place. But he has no methodology which would show that Jesus was a real person, versus an entirely legendary figure.

Crossan stated he was not even interested in the question of whether Jesus existed.

I picked up a copy of Michael Grant's Jesus: an Historian's Review of the Gospels. (We still don't know whether he is an atheist, but there is no hint of it in this book.) He devotes an appendix to methodology, in which he first dismisses the Jesus Myth hypothesis, and then tries to steer a middle road between believers and unbelievers. He rejects practically every other methodology as flawed in one way or another, and then decides that anything that clashes with what you might expect to read about Jesus is probably true, especially since a coherent portrait of Jesus emerges.

He writes with a lot of style and works in quotes from other scholars, but this is really pathetic as a search for historical fact. What he finds surprizing or unexpected is in his own mind, so he is just another person looking at the Rohrschach test of the Gospels, and finding a reflection of himself.

Vorkosigan

It is not the facts that you assert above I reacted to, but the constant deployment of terms like "unreasonable" and "hyperskeptic" and "creationist" that I find objectionable and ridiculous. HJ scholarship is a form of literary analysis that entirely lacks the critical tools it needs to justify the epithets it deploys against dissenters.

Plebe

Everyone has contributed quite a bit to this thread, now for the sake of argument and perspective, let's change "HJ"[Historical Jesus] to "HA"[Historical Apollo]and read the below article by M.M. Mangasarian titled "The Truth About Jesus" which compares Apollo and Jesus. In ancient times people believed in Apollo just like Jesus and Apollo like Jesus and Asclepius was claimed to have done many of the same things and had many fabulous stories about him. They were all godmen and in the minds of the devout equally worthy of faith. Likewise, in the minds of the skeptical they were not believed.
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html</a>
In my opinion, the truth about the actual existence of all of these godmen is obscured by the fabulous stories and any reality to them having been historical human beings is truly Unknown..
More on Apollo also known as Apollonius and a little on Asclepius:
Apollonius and Jesus
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/reliability.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/reliability.html</a> .."Scholars have long recognized that a close parallel exists between the biography of Apollonius (2-95 CE) written by Philostratus in 220 CE and the New Testament gospels.19 Exploring and comparing Jesus to Apollonius, therefore, may help to determine how we should read the gospels and understand their genre.20 Ancient biography engaged in embellishment in order to enlarge the reputation of the king or emperor who is the subject of the work. In Greek civic cult and the Roman cult of the emperor, this embellishment began at birth since one god or another chose every great man.21 Thus, Apollonius experienced a supernatural birth:

Just at the moment of the birth, a thunderbolt seemed about to fall to earth and then rose up into the air and disappeared aloft; and the gods thereby indicated, I think, the great distinction to which the sage was to attain, and hinted in advance how he should transcend all things upon earth and approach the gods (I, 5).
The thunderbolt that announces the birth is an epiphany of Zeus, demonstrating the god's favor upon Apollonius. At his baptism, an epiphany of God visits Jesus in the form of a dove, representing Sophia, the Jewish female personification of wisdom. Although Mark did not provide Jesus with a supernatural birth, Matthew and Luke decide to do so in their narratives. The community that produced the Gospel of John went one step further to insist that Jesus was not a human being at all but rather the divine Logos. The absence of a birth narrative in John's gospel reflects this unique theological trajectory.

Josephus reports that exorcisms were common among the "descendants of Solomon" and relates an eyewitness story of how Eleazar ordered a demon out of a possessed man. To prove that the demon had indeed left the person, Josephus relates that Eleazar ordered the demon to knock over a cup full of water on its way out.22 In like manner, Jesus casts out a legion of demons and permits them to enter a herd of swine, serving as proof that they had left the demoniac (Mk. 5:1-14). For his part, Apollonius casts out a demon with great authority in a similar situation to the exorcisms performed by Jesus and Eleazar:

Now when Apollonius gazed on him, the ghost in him began to utter cries of fear and rage . . . and the ghost swore that he would leave the young man alone . . . But Apollonius addressed him with anger . . . and he ordered him to quit the young man and show by a visible sign that he had done so (IV, 20).
The demon knocks down a statue in the temple as proof that it has left the demoniac. Just as with Jesus' disciples, the young man whom Apollonius exorcises gives up all of his worldly possessions and adopts an austere life to follow the penniless Apollonius. Stories such as these served to bolster the propagandistic value of the teacher's philosophy and were very common in the mystery religions of the Hellenistic period. Greek healers attracted followers to their philosophy with successful demonstrations of their healing prowess. Part of the propaganda of the mystery religions involved credible stories about resurrecting the dead. Primitive Christian iconography portrays Jesus as a magician with a magic wand that he uses to raise the dead.23 Apollonius can also raise the dead, which Philostratus describes as a "miracle" witnessed by many bystanders (IV, 45).

Apollonius and Jesus both endure dangerous brushes with authority. The Sanhedrin turns Jesus over to Pilate for questioning on charges of sedition (Mk. 15:1-5 and parallels). The authorities imprison Apollonius for uttering impieties against the Emperor Nero. Tigellinus, Nero's minister, calls for Apollonius to question him but is cautious since he has been warned that the gods favor Apollonius. When the scroll upon which the charges against Apollonius were written is opened to be read aloud, Tigellinus discovers that the words have been magically erased (IV, 44). Tigellinus takes Apollonius aside and asks who he is and whether it is true that he can exorcise demons. Apollonius answers Tigellinus' charges cryptically but with great wisdom. In response

Tigellinus was astonished [at Apollonius' answers] and said: `You may go, but you must give sureties for your person.' And Apollonius answered: `And who can go surety for a body that no one can bind?' This answer struck Tigellinus as inspired and above the wit of man; and as he was careful not to fight with a god, he said: `You may go wherever you choose, for you are too powerful to be controlled by me' (IV, 44).
Apollonius' successful confrontation with those in authority serves as propaganda for his movement and such stories help to attract followers to him. Thousands of fragments from excavations at Asclepiums (such as at Epidaurus) also describe the exploits and healing powers of Asclepius. Dozens of such cults and movements sprung up in the few centuries before the emergent Christian mystery of Christ. This mythologizing tendency in Greco-Roman biography informs the New Testament gospels. The evangelists use the kerygma of the resurrection as their central message to proclaim to the world that Jesus is superior to Apollonius, Asclepius, and other healing man-gods of the time."

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Plebe ]</p>

Vinnie

{quote]Alas, these vectors are not independent (without assuming the gospels, why would you put the HJ in the 30s? [/quote]

Why ask a question you already know the answer to? Crossan accepts a partially reconstructed TF. Jo mentions crucifixion by Pilate. Pilate's term can be dated can it not?

I think we should note that these methodologies don't seem to really address the historicity of Jesus. They seem to assume it based upon other ideas and go from there.

Vinnie

Steven Carr

But that person is not Jesus!

Did the George Washington who chopped down the cherry tree ever exist, or is he a literary invention?

Jayhawker Soule

You assert this as doctrine. One would think that such absolute knowledge could only come through revelation.

Vorkosigan

<strong>I think we should note that these methodologies don't seem to really address the historicity of Jesus. They seem to assume it based upon other ideas and go from there.
Vinnie</strong>[/QUOTE]

Well, Crossan goes beyond a partially interpolated TF to assume that the original was positive.

Although, in fairness, can anyone recall a statement in any ancient history that negated the existence of person claimed by some group? I cannot think of one offhand. What I mean is, can anyone recall a statement like: "I have looked into the existence of this X of {city} and concluded that this guy never lived, so all the X-ites of the Anatolian Plateau are wrong in their worship.

Vorkosigan

Jayhawker Soule

The thread is titled, in part: "42 Ancient Historians Should Have Noticed"

So far, there seems to be an almost embarrassing absence of evidence supporting this assertion.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

galiel

Not to mention an almost embarassing absence of evidence to the contrary.

(Apikorus, not ignoring you, I won't have time to respond with the attention your post deserves until later)