Iasion

Layman:
I wonder whether this is simply because we live in a Christian society?

Christianity being so dominant, the story so well known - sways both these views :

* Disagreement with Evolution is supported by a large number of Christians over the years - there is a large momentum to believing in Creationism.

* a Historical Jesus is similarly supported by the weight of tradition - there is a very large momentum to believing Jesus was historical.

So,
the fact there are more Creationists than MJ-ers is more likely to be due to our living in a Christian society where "everyone knows the story".

But,
I don't think its a strong argument for a HJ.

Those who claimed cigarette smoking was safe were in the vast majority for quite a while - that didn't make it true.

Quentin David Jones

King Arthur

I have a problem thinking that JD Crossan would have overlooked Origen's Contra Celsum. So, does anyone more knowledgeable know why he would say that Jesus' existence 'is never negated by even the most hostile critics of early Christianity (Jesus is a bastard and a fool but never a myth or a fiction!)'

Peter, Bede, Layman, anyone?

Peter Kirby

I feel no obligation to defend Dr. Crossan, but since you mentioned my name, I might suggest that Crossan has never read R. Joseph Hoffman's edition of the _True Discourse_, which is the source of the translation quoted above.

I don't agree with everything that Roger Pearse says, particularly in his characterizations of 'atheist hate-posts', but it may be of interest to the group to read his considerations:

<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/celsus/celsus.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/celsus/celsus.htm</a>

It appears that, in the quote as mentioned by Origen, Celsus had accused the disciples of Jesus of lying in the gospel accounts (or, more specifically, that Celsus put this accusation on the lips of his Jewish interlocutor). Here is the text as given in the CCEL:

-----
Chapter XXV.

We have mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of the declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was the "first-born of every creature," such as, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life," and such like; and others, again, which belong to that in Him which is understood to be man, such as, "But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the Father."76 And here, accordingly, he describes the element of weakness belonging to human flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which existed in His humanity: the element of weakness in the expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; "the readiness of the spirit in this, "Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt." And since it is proper to observe the order of our quotations, observe that, in the first place, there is mentioned only the single instance, as one would say, indicating the weakness of the flesh; and afterwards those other instances, greater in number, manifesting the willingness of the spirit. For the expression, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me," is only one: whereas more numerous are those others, viz., "Not as I will, but as Thou wilt; "and, "O My Father, if this cup cannot pass from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done." It is to be noted also, that the words are not, "let this cup depart from Me; "but that the whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and reverence, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." I know, indeed, that there is another explanation of this passage to the following effect:-The Saviour, foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people and the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the wicked deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a desire that they might escape the impending calamities, gave utterance to the prayer, "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me." It is as if He had said, "Because of My drinking this cup of punishment, the whole nation will be forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible, that this cup may pass from Me, in order that Thy portion, which was guilty of such crimes against Me, may not be altogether deserted by Thee." But if, as Celsus would allege, "nothing at that time was done to Jesus which was either painful or distressing," how could men afterwards quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings for the sake of religion, if He did not suffer what are human sufferings, but only had the appearance of so doing?

Chapter XXVI.

This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having invented these statements saying to them: "Even although guilty of falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of credibility to your inventions." In answer to which we have to say, that there was an easy method of concealing these occurrences,-that, viz., of not recording them at all. For if the Gospels had not contained the accounts of these things, who could have reproached us with Jesus having spoken such words during His stay upon the earth? Celsus, indeed, did not see that it was an inconsistency for the same persons both to be deceived regarding Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy, and to invent fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these statements were false. Of a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of inventing untruths, but such were their real impressions, and they recorded them truly; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not entertain these views, and were not deceived when they acknowledged Him to be God.

Chapter XXVII.

After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves, have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold, and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have altered the Gospel, save the. followers of Marcion, and those of Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.
-----

If it is possible to determine what it is that Celsus accused the disciples of Jesus of lying about through the device of the Jewish interlocuter, it would appear from the previous chapter that Celsus disputed, along with the docetists, that Jesus had truly suffered.

Thus, unless I can see further argument, quotes or evidence, I am not certain that Celsus accused Christians of making up everything that is said about Jesus. I do not hold the contrary opinion that Celsus accepted the existence of a Jesus, but I am not certain about the idea that Celsus did, like a 2d century Bruno Bauer, think that the Gospels were fictions in entirety.

best,
Peter Kirby

King Arthur

Thanks for the info Peter. I was led to believe that quote came directly from Origen. Anyway, the last review on Pearse's website was pretty damning in my opinion.

Watch your sources, Vorkosigan! Heh. Did you pull that quote directly from the book Peter mentioned or did you find it on the web?

Dark Jedi

The discussion seems to have gone back on track from the degeneration of a few days ago. Let's continue to keep it civil and debate issues, not people.

Thanks.

Toto

If I don't fact check you, you get away with murder.

Bede said:

"Minor point" doesn't sound like an apology to me, nor does accusing Peter of being not "quite so clear" on his website. It sounds like Bede not owning up to the magnitude of his gaffe.

Toto

Vinnie - you made a list of 10 points at some previous point in this thread. I thought they were worth responding to, but I don't have the time for an extensive dialogue at this point, and I think that some of them may have been covered in other threads. I suggest that you start a new thread if you want to pursue your points.

Koyaanisqatsi

So, after reading five pages, only one conclusion can be inferred: some people think a man named Jesus actually existed; some people don't.

That's it. Nothing else.

Great.

Toto

So sorry this thread did not rise to your standards, Koy.

Sauron

Indeed. The problem with claiming such methodology is precisely that no one agrees upon them. Both Meier and Crossan have widely different 'methods' - yet how could that be, if there were a received standard set of methodologies? They both start from different assumptions (about the book of Thomas, for example). So where is the commonly agreed upon 'mound of data' that all historians can investigate?

Neither the set of data, nor the method to sift through it, are agreed upon. Period.

This article outlines some of the differences between Meier and Crossan's approaches:

<a href="http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=180" target="_blank">http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showarticle?item_id=180</a>

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sauron ]</p>