Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayman · 06-21-2002, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Sure -- if there were no other reason to think otherwise, we might possibly consider that Jesus is the one major Founder Figure not mythologized. But as it is, what you're doing here looks like special pleading. Why is it only your figure whose legends are to be regarded as history?

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Furthermore, after taking an Islamic history course this past semester, I can't agree with the premise either.

Quote:

Second, Paul's writings -- assuming they actually date from the first century (which I believe they do) -- show that the legend had not yet begun to be fleshed out.

That's debatable. At best (in your case) you can probably say that the evidence is unclear.

Quote:

Prophecy in the sense you mean cannot exist. There's nothing "biased" about using sound scholarly method -- one of which is to reject the possibility of magic prophecy.

How do you know that prophecy can't happen? Can you prove a negative? A truly unbiased scholar would be open to the possibility that prophecy may or may not be possible.

Quote:

The question should be framed 180 degrees different. Please present any outside the gospels that do give some details about the mythical savior's life.

Josephus.

Jayman · 06-21-2002, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi:
Ummm...just to point out a pet peeve of mine that is always overlooked and never addressed (especially by Bede that I can recall), the tomb WAS NOT EMPTY!

Mark tells us quite clearly that a "man" is sitting in the tomb when the gaggle of girls enter the already opened tomb.

Correct there was a young man dressed in white (16:5).

Quote:

No one asks who this "man" is or what he did with the body or anything at all about why some total stranger is just sitting there.

He is described as being dressed in white and therefore was most likely interpretted as an angel by Mark's audience. There is no need for anyone to ask who he is when it is so obvious. This interpretation is supported by the fact that Matthew (28:2), Luke (24:23) and John (20:12) all claim an angel was at the tomb.

Quote:

Nor, by the way, is it claimed in Mark that Jesus rose bodily from the dead. It isn't until later cult mythicists corrected Mark's mistakes that the myth grows into a bodily-resurrected Jesus.

That's debatable. It clearly states that Jesus rose from the dead (16:6). However, it does not claim that it was a "bodily" resurrection and it does not claim that it was a "spiritual" resurrection. As of now I'd say it's unclear whether Mark envisaged a bodily or spiritual resurrection. Perhaps the Greek text would be of more help, but I don't know Greek.

Quote:

Regardless, the dead do not and have never and will never rise from their graves. That is an absolute fact of existence that no amount of fiction will ever change, except in the minds of the gullible, and as such offer proof of mythology alone.

How do you know? You can't prove a negative.

Vorkosigan · 06-21-2002, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jayman:
Josephus.

Find me one that's not an interpolation. And the level of detail is low, low, low.

As for Founder Figures being mythologized, that's a rule for which there are no exceptions -- do you know of a number? Until you come up with a set of Founders whose legends closely follow their real lives, say prior to the advent of printing, you're just indulging in special pleading "Ok, my Founder is history, but yours are all legends."

Also, we just had a great discussion about the probable historicity of Mohammed's legend. Turns out the actual evidence is not only sketchier than for Jesus, but is actually contradicted by hard evidence...see <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000299&p=3" target="_blank">this thread</a>. There are links you can check out...

How do you know that prophecy can't happen? Can you prove a negative? A truly unbiased scholar would be open to the possibility that prophecy may or may not be possible.

I am not a truly unbiased scholar, then, and neither is any other, because current scholarly methodology holds that magic prophecy does not occur. This is backed by data from modern science. The onus is not on me to prove that natural laws can be violated, and humans have a facility not known to exist; it is on you. Further, a negative does not need to be "proved" where it is impossible. No human can spread their arms and fly with a 5 kph tailwind, and no human can prophecy by magic. I am only open to possibilities when they are demonstrated to be possible.

Vorkosigan

[ June 21, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

Jayman · 06-21-2002, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
Find me one that's not an interpolation. And the level of detail is low, low, low.

Although I think there's some interpolation, I think that it can be stripped away. I think that Jesus was mentioned, but wasn't deified in Josephus' text.

Peter Kirby · 06-22-2002, 01:42 AM

One thing that I noticed is that credit for the idea of successive redactions of Q1, Q2, and Q3 should be given to John Klopponborg, who "popularized" the idea among scholars in his book _The Formation of Q_. Kloppenborg had reference to earlier scholars who had done similar work in detecting redactions of Q, such as that of Helmut Koester.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 06-22-2002, 06:44 AM

Bede, I was wondering about how you came to the conclusion that MacDonald's argument with respect to the Acts of Andrew is successful, or at least more successful than MacDonald's argument with respect to the Gospel of Mark. Have you read MacDonald's Christianizing Homer?

06-23-2002, 09:39 AM

Peter, I haven't read it but was relying on Keith Hopkins - maybe he was too generous. I know I was on the Homeric Epics and Mark which I have read and think is very poor. That didn't seem to politic and my professor is really into semiotics and wanted to chuck him another bone.

Toto, thanks again. I've made the corrections. Would you like to proof read my next essay

?

James. Thanks - you can link or publish if you are interested.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

06-23-2002, 10:06 AM

So we have methodologies and theories. But do they work?

Two objections have been advanced against them which need to be looked at. The first is "The stories about all founders of religions are legend so why is Jesus any different?" If the Gospels are pure legend then no method will extract history. If they are not then methods might well be available to do so.

Of course, not all accounts of religious founders are pure legend. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, Martin Luther and John Calvin are all figures in modern history who founded a religion or sect and about whom historians know a great deal. Why? Because they are recent. Historians of ancient figures like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc suffer from all the usual problems of their trade. Records are often late or second hand, fragmentary and come with many legendary accretions. This means that, using poor methodology, one can construct a hypothesis of each figure being pure legend as one can with almost any ancient figure. There is always an iconclast ready to try.

The objection really reads "As a few scholars with whom I am in sympathy have taken a radical stance towards the evidence of certain ancient figures, why can't we do it with Jesus too?" Well you can, but don't pretend you are doing history when you are really a post modern literary critic.

The second objection is that we cannot know enough to get going in the first place. We saw this with John the Baptist. Effectively, the argument goes - if I can invent an alternative scenario which explains the text, then I am at liberty to ignore its stated meaning. We use the criterion of embarrassment to fix Jesus's baptism but the sceptic says - how do we know Mark was embarrassed? Well, maybe we don't. But the sceptic needs to do a lot more - he has to demonstrate a reason that the event appeared in the Jesus tradition that is more plausible than the obvious one - that it really happened. So the sceptic cannot be a forensic lawyer casting doubt on evidence. We all agree there isn't a lot that is beyond reasonable doubt. Instead they must present an alternative scenario that both comprehensively trumps the existing one and also has a demonstrable methodology of its own.

The best effort by far is the alternative hypothesis presented by Earl Doherty. But he fails because he is unable to show why his scenario should be prefered. He needs special pleading on Josephus, some off the wall readings of Paul and to totally debunk the Gospels. Sure his scenario is possible and I wouldn't convict someone on the evidence of Josephus. But he fails to present something that works better than the standard historical/critical model and fails to adhere to a particular method.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

RyanS2 · 06-23-2002, 11:46 AM

"Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, Martin Luther and John Calvin"

Good example, but we know this from disassociated historians, and not from their followers or their own thoughts of themselves. I would say Hubbard's followers add several mythological elements to it, as did Joseph Smith's followers. As another example, I'd add Bah'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i' faith.

<a href="http://www.chattanooga.net/bahai/whois2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.chattanooga.net/bahai/whois2.htm</a>

Though he told people not to record his "miracles", the Baha'i' community believes in many of them. However, our historiography method allows us to find out plenty about the real person himself. I liked some of his writings myself.

"Instead they must present an alternative scenario that both comprehensively trumps the existing one and also has a demonstrable methodology of its own."

Ah, the old historiographic problem. What you are asking for is the greater preponderance of evidence. Even if an alternative solution is plausible, it must be disregarded or only regarded as a possible alternative *if* it does not have the greater preponderance of evidence in its favor.

"he fails because he is unable to show why his scenario should be prefered."

A while back, Richard Carrier asked for specific criticisms to Earl Doherty's book. You should send him an e-mail and take him up on it, as I remember you having problems with Doherty in another thread. I don't know if Carrier is going to attempt to answer the criticisms, (Carrier isn't a Christ-myther based on his current articles), or if he's trying to stockpile a case against Doherty, or if he's just trying to write a balanced review. Being a fan of his work, the last seems most plausible.

"He needs special pleading on Josephus"

I think his case for the problems of Josephus is pretty good, but I think he suffers because a more compelling theory I heard was that the reference to Jesus in Josephus was deliberately taken out by Christians, and then reinserted but changed, because the original reference was less-than-flattering. Since the existence of Jesus was not being debated, rather, it was who was Jesus while he was on Earth, the reference was considered damaging. I wish I had the link, it was a pretty good case for it. Again, this deals with the greater preponderance of evidence, in which case, I side with Peter Kirby here, and I'm a fan of Doherty, which I don't think you'll claim.

Vorkosigan · 06-23-2002, 01:53 PM

So we have methodologies and theories. But do they work?

We have no methodologies, as yet.

Of course, not all accounts of religious founders are pure legend. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, Martin Luther and John Calvin are all figures in modern history who founded a religion or sect and about whom historians know a great deal. Why? Because they are recent. Historians of ancient figures like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc suffer from all the usual problems of their trade. Records are often late or second hand, fragmentary and come with many legendary accretions. This means that, using poor methodology, one can construct a hypothesis of each figure being pure legend as one can with almost any ancient figure. There is always an iconclast ready to try.

As usual, you have misread the point I am making. All communities make up legends about their founders; religious communities are no exception; and Jesus is no exception either. Looking at the examples you gave, if you look up Calvin, you'll soon find that <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm" target="_blank">several legends have coalesced around his name</a>. The official histories of the Mormon Church, and Mormon oral culture, tell many stories about Joseph Smith that are not found in objective scholarly histories. Similarly, the story of L Ron Hubbard <a href="http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_1d.htm" target="_blank">told by the Church of Scientology</a> is...umm..somewhat different than the <a href="http://www.lermanet.com/latimes/la90-1e.html" target="_blank">one more objective histories give</a>.

The question for the serious thinker then becomes not whether the accounts are pure legend, as you put it, Bede, but whether the legends reflect reality, and to what extent. Note that in the cases of moderns, the legends reflect reality more closely because written sources are permanently available. Note also that this has not prevented legends from arising.

The objection really reads "As a few scholars with whom I am in sympathy have taken a radical stance towards the evidence of certain ancient figures, why can't we do it with Jesus too?" Well you can, but don't pretend you are doing history when you are really a post modern literary critic.

Bede is all over the map with this one. First of all, we are talking about ancient religious figures who are founder figures in cults. Since there are no non-mythologized Founder Figures, in those cases we need to ask to what extent the myths comport with reality.

Second, in the specific case of Jesus, even the most fanatically committed scholar admits to a certain amount of legendary accretion. Most scholars reject some portion of the NT; for example, the Gospel of John is widely ignored in HJ constructions, as someone remarked on XTALK the other day. These rejections and acceptances, while couched in scholarly language, usually reflect the personal tastes of the scholar, declared as positive statements. As numerous scholars have noted, HJs tend to reflect the personal prejudices of the scholar in question.

Third, the idea that Jesus mythicists are "post modern literary critics" is laughable in the extreme. It appears that Bede will simply toss out any label he feels is pejorative s a general smear. In all other disciplines, the point of view that "the evidence currently does not support conclusions about X" is regarded as conservative and restrained. Only in NT studies is it regarded as radical.

The second objection is that we cannot know enough to get going in the first place. We saw this with John the Baptist. Effectively, the argument goes - if I can invent an alternative scenario which explains the text, then I am at liberty to ignore its stated meaning. We use the criterion of embarrassment to fix Jesus's baptism but the sceptic says - how do we know Mark was embarrassed? Well, maybe we don't. But the sceptic needs to do a lot more - he has to demonstrate a reason that the event appeared in the Jesus tradition that is more plausible than the obvious one - that it really happened.

Ummm...no. You've totally missed the boat here. The issue is not whether Jesus was baptized by JtB. The issue is whether the criterion of embarrassment can tell us so. It clearly cannot. As you admit, there is no way to know whether Mark was embarrassed by this story. Thus, as a historical tool, it fails. Not only is it unsupported by knowledge about Mark, but surviving hints of tension between Jesus and John, and the increasing subordination of john to jesus in the gospels, provide evidence of other motives for fashioning John-Jesus links.

So the sceptic cannot be a forensic lawyer casting doubt on evidence.

This misunderstanding runs through here. I am not casting doubt on the evidence; I am casting doubt on your tools for critical examination of it. Same as Crossan.

We all agree there isn't a lot that is beyond reasonable doubt. Instead they must present an alternative scenario that both comprehensively trumps the existing one and also has a demonstrable methodology of its own.

Lost in a sea of misunderstanding. I do not need an alternative methodology to undermine yours. anymore than I need an alternative god to declare that yours is a fiction. I simply need demonstrate that your 'methodology' cannot do what it claims to do. My position is that we cannot know anything about this figure, Jesus of Nazareth, because no more objective history exists outside this legend.

As for Doherty, I do not think Doherty's interpretation is correct, so I agree with your conclusions generally.

Vorkosigan

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]

06-23-2002, 01:53 PM	#30
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	So we have methodologies and theories. But do they work? We have no methodologies, as yet. Of course, not all accounts of religious founders are pure legend. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, Martin Luther and John Calvin are all figures in modern history who founded a religion or sect and about whom historians know a great deal. Why? Because they are recent. Historians of ancient figures like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc suffer from all the usual problems of their trade. Records are often late or second hand, fragmentary and come with many legendary accretions. This means that, using poor methodology, one can construct a hypothesis of each figure being pure legend as one can with almost any ancient figure. There is always an iconclast ready to try. As usual, you have misread the point I am making. All communities make up legends about their founders; religious communities are no exception; and Jesus is no exception either. Looking at the examples you gave, if you look up Calvin, you'll soon find that <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03195b.htm" target="_blank">several legends have coalesced around his name</a>. The official histories of the Mormon Church, and Mormon oral culture, tell many stories about Joseph Smith that are not found in objective scholarly histories. Similarly, the story of L Ron Hubbard <a href="http://www.aboutlronhubbard.org/eng/wis3_1d.htm" target="_blank">told by the Church of Scientology</a> is...umm..somewhat different than the <a href="http://www.lermanet.com/latimes/la90-1e.html" target="_blank">one more objective histories give</a>. The question for the serious thinker then becomes not whether the accounts are pure legend, as you put it, Bede, but whether the legends reflect reality, and to what extent. Note that in the cases of moderns, the legends reflect reality more closely because written sources are permanently available. Note also that this has not prevented legends from arising. The objection really reads "As a few scholars with whom I am in sympathy have taken a radical stance towards the evidence of certain ancient figures, why can't we do it with Jesus too?" Well you can, but don't pretend you are doing history when you are really a post modern literary critic. Bede is all over the map with this one. First of all, we are talking about ancient religious figures who are founder figures in cults. Since there are no non-mythologized Founder Figures, in those cases we need to ask to what extent the myths comport with reality. Second, in the specific case of Jesus, even the most fanatically committed scholar admits to a certain amount of legendary accretion. Most scholars reject some portion of the NT; for example, the Gospel of John is widely ignored in HJ constructions, as someone remarked on XTALK the other day. These rejections and acceptances, while couched in scholarly language, usually reflect the personal tastes of the scholar, declared as positive statements. As numerous scholars have noted, HJs tend to reflect the personal prejudices of the scholar in question. Third, the idea that Jesus mythicists are "post modern literary critics" is laughable in the extreme. It appears that Bede will simply toss out any label he feels is pejorative s a general smear. In all other disciplines, the point of view that "the evidence currently does not support conclusions about X" is regarded as conservative and restrained. Only in NT studies is it regarded as radical. The second objection is that we cannot know enough to get going in the first place. We saw this with John the Baptist. Effectively, the argument goes - if I can invent an alternative scenario which explains the text, then I am at liberty to ignore its stated meaning. We use the criterion of embarrassment to fix Jesus's baptism but the sceptic says - how do we know Mark was embarrassed? Well, maybe we don't. But the sceptic needs to do a lot more - he has to demonstrate a reason that the event appeared in the Jesus tradition that is more plausible than the obvious one - that it really happened. Ummm...no. You've totally missed the boat here. The issue is not whether Jesus was baptized by JtB. The issue is whether the criterion of embarrassment can tell us so. It clearly cannot. As you admit, there is no way to know whether Mark was embarrassed by this story. Thus, as a historical tool, it fails. Not only is it unsupported by knowledge about Mark, but surviving hints of tension between Jesus and John, and the increasing subordination of john to jesus in the gospels, provide evidence of other motives for fashioning John-Jesus links. So the sceptic cannot be a forensic lawyer casting doubt on evidence. This misunderstanding runs through here. I am not casting doubt on the evidence; I am casting doubt on your tools for critical examination of it. Same as Crossan. We all agree there isn't a lot that is beyond reasonable doubt. Instead they must present an alternative scenario that both comprehensively trumps the existing one and also has a demonstrable methodology of its own. Lost in a sea of misunderstanding. I do not need an alternative methodology to undermine yours. anymore than I need an alternative god to declare that yours is a fiction. I simply need demonstrate that your 'methodology' cannot do what it claims to do. My position is that we cannot know anything about this figure, Jesus of Nazareth, because no more objective history exists outside this legend. As for Doherty, I do not think Doherty's interpretation is correct, so I agree with your conclusions generally. Vorkosigan [ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

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

06-22-2002, 01:42 AM	#25
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	One thing that I noticed is that credit for the idea of successive redactions of Q1, Q2, and Q3 should be given to John Klopponborg, who "popularized" the idea among scholars in his book _The Formation of Q_. Kloppenborg had reference to earlier scholars who had done similar work in detecting redactions of Q, such as that of Helmut Koester. best, Peter Kirby

06-22-2002, 06:44 AM	#26
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Bede, I was wondering about how you came to the conclusion that MacDonald's argument with respect to the Acts of Andrew is successful, or at least more successful than MacDonald's argument with respect to the Gospel of Mark. Have you read MacDonald's Christianizing Homer?

06-23-2002, 09:39 AM	#27
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Peter, I haven't read it but was relying on Keith Hopkins - maybe he was too generous. I know I was on the Homeric Epics and Mark which I have read and think is very poor. That didn't seem to politic and my professor is really into semiotics and wanted to chuck him another bone. Toto, thanks again. I've made the corrections. Would you like to proof read my next essay ? James. Thanks - you can link or publish if you are interested. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

06-23-2002, 10:06 AM	#28
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	So we have methodologies and theories. But do they work? Two objections have been advanced against them which need to be looked at. The first is "The stories about all founders of religions are legend so why is Jesus any different?" If the Gospels are pure legend then no method will extract history. If they are not then methods might well be available to do so. Of course, not all accounts of religious founders are pure legend. Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, Martin Luther and John Calvin are all figures in modern history who founded a religion or sect and about whom historians know a great deal. Why? Because they are recent. Historians of ancient figures like Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha etc suffer from all the usual problems of their trade. Records are often late or second hand, fragmentary and come with many legendary accretions. This means that, using poor methodology, one can construct a hypothesis of each figure being pure legend as one can with almost any ancient figure. There is always an iconclast ready to try. The objection really reads "As a few scholars with whom I am in sympathy have taken a radical stance towards the evidence of certain ancient figures, why can't we do it with Jesus too?" Well you can, but don't pretend you are doing history when you are really a post modern literary critic. The second objection is that we cannot know enough to get going in the first place. We saw this with John the Baptist. Effectively, the argument goes - if I can invent an alternative scenario which explains the text, then I am at liberty to ignore its stated meaning. We use the criterion of embarrassment to fix Jesus's baptism but the sceptic says - how do we know Mark was embarrassed? Well, maybe we don't. But the sceptic needs to do a lot more - he has to demonstrate a reason that the event appeared in the Jesus tradition that is more plausible than the obvious one - that it really happened. So the sceptic cannot be a forensic lawyer casting doubt on evidence. We all agree there isn't a lot that is beyond reasonable doubt. Instead they must present an alternative scenario that both comprehensively trumps the existing one and also has a demonstrable methodology of its own. The best effort by far is the alternative hypothesis presented by Earl Doherty. But he fails because he is unable to show why his scenario should be prefered. He needs special pleading on Josephus, some off the wall readings of Paul and to totally debunk the Gospels. Sure his scenario is possible and I wouldn't convict someone on the evidence of Josephus. But he fails to present something that works better than the standard historical/critical model and fails to adhere to a particular method. Yours Bede <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

06-23-2002, 11:46 AM	#29
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	"Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, John Wesley, Martin Luther and John Calvin" Good example, but we know this from disassociated historians, and not from their followers or their own thoughts of themselves. I would say Hubbard's followers add several mythological elements to it, as did Joseph Smith's followers. As another example, I'd add Bah'u'llah, founder of the Baha'i' faith. <a href="http://www.chattanooga.net/bahai/whois2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.chattanooga.net/bahai/whois2.htm</a> Though he told people not to record his "miracles", the Baha'i' community believes in many of them. However, our historiography method allows us to find out plenty about the real person himself. I liked some of his writings myself. "Instead they must present an alternative scenario that both comprehensively trumps the existing one and also has a demonstrable methodology of its own." Ah, the old historiographic problem. What you are asking for is the greater preponderance of evidence. Even if an alternative solution is plausible, it must be disregarded or only regarded as a possible alternative if it does not have the greater preponderance of evidence in its favor. "he fails because he is unable to show why his scenario should be prefered." A while back, Richard Carrier asked for specific criticisms to Earl Doherty's book. You should send him an e-mail and take him up on it, as I remember you having problems with Doherty in another thread. I don't know if Carrier is going to attempt to answer the criticisms, (Carrier isn't a Christ-myther based on his current articles), or if he's trying to stockpile a case against Doherty, or if he's just trying to write a balanced review. Being a fan of his work, the last seems most plausible. "He needs special pleading on Josephus" I think his case for the problems of Josephus is pretty good, but I think he suffers because a more compelling theory I heard was that the reference to Jesus in Josephus was deliberately taken out by Christians, and then reinserted but changed, because the original reference was less-than-flattering. Since the existence of Jesus was not being debated, rather, it was who was Jesus while he was on Earth, the reference was considered damaging. I wish I had the link, it was a pretty good case for it. Again, this deals with the greater preponderance of evidence, in which case, I side with Peter Kirby here, and I'm a fan of Doherty, which I don't think you'll claim.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.