Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 09-26-2002, 07:35 AM

Perhaps the question I raised above is so naive or inappropriate that some avoid addressing it so as not to embarrass me. While I appreciate the concern, I continue to believe that the absence of historical reference is noteworthy only to the extent that it's uncommon. So, for example ...

Quote:

Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.85-87:

For a man who made light of mendacity and in all his designs catered to the mob, rallied them, bidding them go in a body with him to Mount Gerizim, which in their belief is the most sacred of mountains. He assured them that on their arrival he would show them the sacred vessels which were buried there, where Moses had deposited them. His hearers, viewing this tale as plausible, appeared in arms. They posted themselves in a certain village named Tirathana, and, as they planned to climb the mountain in a great multitude, they welcomed to their ranks the new arrivals who kept coming. But before they could ascend, Pilate blocked their projected route up the mountain with a detachment of cavalry and heavily armed infantry, who in an encounter with the first comers in the village slew some in a pitched battle and put the others to flight. Many prisoners were taken, of whom Pilate put to death the principal leaders and those who were most influential among the fugitives.

- <a href="http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants06.html" target="_blank">The Samaritan prophet (36 CE)</a>

Subsequently:

Quote:

... the Samaritan council went to Vitellius, the governor of Syria, and accused Pilate of massacre. Vitellius sent Marcellus, one of his friends, to take charge of Judea, ordering Pilate to return to Rome and defend himself before the emperor against the Samaritan charges. And so Pilate, having spent ten years in Judea, hurried to Rome in obedience to Vitellius' orders, since he could not refuse them. But before he reached Rome, Tiberius had already died.

- <a href="http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar23.htm" target="_blank">Pilate's Recall</a>

How widely attested is this 'Samaritan Prophet' and his role in Pilate's downfall?

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

Radcliffe Emerson · 09-26-2002, 07:45 AM

It doesn't add up though. The bible says Jesus became famous throughout Galilee. If that's true, and he was indeed son of god and resurrected, I can't believe other people in the region would not have written about him.

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

Jonesy · 09-26-2002, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plebe:
For most of my life, I too thought Jesus had existed in regular history books. A little study proves otherwise and shows with respect to the fabulous tales about him in what is known as the Bible that he is no different and no more historical than say, Apollo as M.M. Mangasarian writes here <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> or in ancient history books as is discussed here
<a href="http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html" target="_blank">http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html</a>
..."They Should Have Noticed
John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence (The Truth Seeker Company, NY, no date, pp. 24-25), lists the following writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus is supposed to have lived:
Josephus
Philo-Jud�us
Seneca
Pliny Elder
Arrian
Petronius
Dion Pruseus
Paterculus
Suetonius
Juvenal
Martial
Persius
Plutarch
Pliny Younger
Tacitus
Justus of Tiberius
Apollonius
Quintilian
Lucanus
Epictetus
Hermogones Silius Italicus
Statius
Ptolemy
Appian
Phlegon
Ph�drus
Valerius Maximus
Lucian
Pausanias
Florus Lucius
Quintius Curtius
Aulus Gellius
Dio Chrysostom
Columella
Valerius Flaccus
Damis
Favorinus
Lysias
Pomponius Mela
Appion of Alexandria
Theon of Smyrna
According to Remsburg, "Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ." Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles - increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity.

Yes, Jesus did exist:

<a href="http://www.thiaoouba.com/ebook.htm" target="_blank">www.thiaoouba.com/ebook.htm</a>

read the book to find out. Ofcourse, this is just another interpretation...(although better than many !)

Asha'man · 09-26-2002, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:
Yes, it's all an invention. A phantasmagorical tale. Hmmm...

To serve what purpose?

To control people.

MortalWombat · 09-26-2002, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radcliffe Emerson:
I tend to think the man probably existed, but Jesus the man wasn't even close to the Jesus he became in the bible.

Given that the largest part of what we know about Jesus is through the bible, how is this then any different than saying that Jesus is mythological? To me, it's a matter of semantics to differentiate between the position that there may have been a Jesus who was probably nothing like what is described in the bible on one hand, and that Jesus is a mythological character on the other.

Apikorus · 09-26-2002, 10:24 AM

"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.

I think what sets people to argue and make insulting statements is that the historicity of Jesus matters so much to them. For Christians, Jesus' existence is central to their faith and worldview. 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.

As a scientist, I certainly don't believe that the historical Jesus wrought miracles (e.g. raised the dead, multiplied foodstuffs, went to hell and back), was the literal "son of God", was resurrected, etc.), any more than I believe that Ea saved Utnapishtim from the flood, or that Prometheus brought fire to mankind. 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. So it hardly seems reasonable to conclude that the gospel authors (canonical and noncanonical) confabulated the whole shebang. But if one were to convincingly establish (this would require new evidence) that they did so, it wouldn't rock my world. Similarly, I accept that the works commonly attributed to Shakespeare were the work of a single author. But if turned out that this could, to my satisfaction, be proven false, it would not cause me any anguish.

galiel · 09-26-2002, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Apikorus:

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.

Logical fallacy. The existence of Troy does not depend on the Iliad, and there have been no excavations of Jesus's head, arms or any other level. In fact, the entire premise for the existence of Jesus comes from the biblical sources, with no empirical evidence.

leonarde · 09-26-2002, 11:41 AM

Posted by galiel:

Quote:

The existence of Troy does not depend on the Iliad, and there have been no excavations of Jesus's head, arms or any other level. In fact, the entire premise for the existence of Jesus comes from the biblical sources, with no empirical evidence.

It's true that the existence of Troy does not depend on the Iliad but SOME had believed in its
existence for centuries before Schliemann came along and launched archaelogical digs. The question is: what is the analog of such digs in
the situation of a human being???
Talking about "excavations" on Jesus's head and/or
arms seems to indicate that unless we find a corpse (and how would we identify to everyone's
satisfaction the corpse in this scenario?)then we
can't say that the person existed!!! But on top of
that in this particular case the scuttlebutt is (heck the preponderance of the interest is due to)the notion that there IS no body, no remains since there was a resurrection.
But in saying "the entire premise for the existence of Jesus comes from the biblical sources, with no empirical evidence." what type of evidence are you looking for???
People who knew Jesus intimately in life saying they encountered Him post mortem (as is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles)is probably as good
a piece of evidence as you can expect.....

Layman · 09-26-2002, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Plebe:
[QB]For most of my life, I too thought Jesus had existed in regular history books. A little study proves otherwise ....

Well, it is probably true that a
"little study" would tend to show otherwise.

And, Josephus did refer to Jesus.

But as for the others. How many mentioned Paul of Tarsus or Peter of Galilee? Or, other than Josephus, how many mentioned James the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem?

Kosh · 09-26-2002, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:


Well, it is probably true that a
"little study" would tend to show otherwise.

And, Josephus did refer to Jesus.

But as for the others. How many mentioned Paul of Tarsus or Peter of Galilee? Or, other than Josephus, how many mentioned James the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem?

Of course, if you're arguing that a lack of external reference implies a non-existance of Jesus, then it would follow that other characters might be fictional as well (such as Peter and James). Hard to have a brother of a fictional character.

But as for Paul, care to tell us of any references of him? Does it matter since we have his writings?

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

09-26-2002, 07:45 AM	#22
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	It doesn't add up though. The bible says Jesus became famous throughout Galilee. If that's true, and he was indeed son of god and resurrected, I can't believe other people in the region would not have written about him. I tend to think the man probably existed, but Jesus the man wasn't even close to the Jesus he became in the bible.

09-26-2002, 10:24 AM	#26
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	"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. I think what sets people to argue and make insulting statements is that the historicity of Jesus matters so much to them. For Christians, Jesus' existence is central to their faith and worldview. 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. As a scientist, I certainly don't believe that the historical Jesus wrought miracles (e.g. raised the dead, multiplied foodstuffs, went to hell and back), was the literal "son of God", was resurrected, etc.), any more than I believe that Ea saved Utnapishtim from the flood, or that Prometheus brought fire to mankind. 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. So it hardly seems reasonable to conclude that the gospel authors (canonical and noncanonical) confabulated the whole shebang. But if one were to convincingly establish (this would require new evidence) that they did so, it wouldn't rock my world. Similarly, I accept that the works commonly attributed to Shakespeare were the work of a single author. But if turned out that this could, to my satisfaction, be proven false, it would not cause me any anguish.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.