Vorkosigan

To turtonm:

I hear what you say about scholarly tides but I am enough of a history snob to rather resent your implication that we've learnt nothing over the last sixty years and simply blow in the wind of fashion.

Well, what's really new since Loisy et al? Not much as far as the NT gospels are concerned. The gnostic gospels and the DSS really do not tell us whether Jesus was a single real historical person; indeed, the gnostic gospels, with their cheerful use of Jesus-as-metaphor, do the HJ further harm. The major change is that it has become unfashionable to label Jesus a myth, like we do without hesitation for other famous figures.

I will defend no more about Jesus except to say he was a Jewish preacher crucified by Pilate. In turth, not much more can be defended.

I am not sure I believe this. I believe the Pilate story is mythical embellishment, similar to the way Robin Hood is connected to Prince John in the legends, simply because he is one evil SOB. The Jesus of the gospels is clearly a composite figure, like Arthur, Robin Hood, Confucious, Buddha...

Normal methodologies of multiple independent attestation apply: for Jewish preacher - Q, GMark and Paul. Also maybe GJohn, GThomas, Josephus and other letters. For crucifixion: Paul, GMark, Tacitus, Josephus, Hebrews and other writings. Under Pilate: GMark, pseudo-Paul, Josephus, Tacitus maybe GJohn.

If this were history, they would. But all we get is attestation to some of the legendary points. Robin Hood's interactions with Prince John and association with (several) woodlands are multiply attested too. Pliny and Tacitus testify to the existence of the legend, no more.

These documents would be more trustworthy if the Church had not worked so many of them over, and deleted sources it didn't like.

Criteria of verisimilatude reinforces picture of Roman oppression of Jews; Pilate himself has a contempory inscription as witness.

Yes, but the Pilate of the gospels and of the historical record are soooooo different....which is why I doubt Jesus got whacked under Pilate. Probably happened earlier.

Parsimony leads to a common historical source for Q, Paul and Mark's Jesuses as they are all independent of each other.

No, it does not. Q is a collection of sayings...Paul knows nothing of the story in Mark, who seems to have invented his stories. About the only thing you can say is that they all know of the same legendary outline.

Criteria of non-contradiction notes fatally for the myth case that there was no branch of the notoriously fracticious early Christians denying Jesus was crucified (although some insisted it was a phantom, they didn't deny the event).

Also inconclusive. All versions of the notorius Hitchhiker by the Side of the Road urban legend (collected in numerous countries over a couple of centuries) insist that the Hitchhiker is a ghost. Does this make it true?

Although, personally, I agree with you here.

If HJ was a later invention you can bet that many Christians would have clung to the earlier preaching of non historical Christ but we have no witness of them or polemic against them.

Well, none that we know of. How likely is it anything could have survived?

Historical sociology tells us that it is inconceivable in that society that a myth would be invented around a criminal crucified by the very power that the myth needed to ingratiate.

Happens over and over again in colonial societies. Why do you think they used to draw and quarter rebels, and send the pieces to the far corners of the Empire? Historical sociology says that such myths are normal and natural -- I could cite many cases -- which is why I believe that the figure under the myth, whoever he was, wound up crucified and by the Romans. It's not the crucifixion story alone, but crucifixion + resurrection that is the signal we are dealing with some kind of wacky nationalist and his equally wacky followers who in desperation developed a belief that he would come back.

Finally, reading the sources against themselves, it is clear that they are engaged in special pleading with regard to explaining the crucifixion which they would clearly rather be without.

Yes, that is why I believe that the original figure was crucified by the Romans, probably before Pilate, though.


I hope this explains how historical methodology leads to a clear conclusion. Nothing is certain but in this case, it's the next best thing.

Thank you. But after all this, even you feel the only defensible position is that someone was executed by the Romans. There's no history anywhere in the gospels. It's all legendary accretion.

Michael

Peter Kirby

The empty tomb is a debated item.

This is quoted from my essay written here (cut and paste if you have to):

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/introduction.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/peter_kirby/tomb/introduction.html</a>

A list of 20th century writers on the NT, with references to relevant works, who do not believe that the empty tomb story is historically reliable: Gunther Bornkamm (Jesus of Nazareth), Rudolf Bultmann (History of the Synoptic Tradition), Peter Carnley (The Structure of Resurrection Belief), John Dominic Crossan (The Birth of Christianity), Michael Goulder (Resurrection Reconsidered), Hans Grass (Ostergeschehen and Osterberichte), Charles Guignebert (The Christ), Uta Ranke-Heinemann (Putting Away Childish Things), Randel Helms (Gospel Fictions), Herman Hendrickx (Resurrection Narratives), Roy Hoover (Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?), Hans Kung (On being a Christian), Alfred Loisy (The Birth of the Christian Religion), Burton Mack (A Myth of Innocence), Willi Marxsen (Jesus and Easter), Gerd Ludemann (What Really Happened to Jesus? A Historical Approach to the Resurrection), Norman Perrin (The Resurrection according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke), John Shelby Spong (Resurrection: Myth or Reality?), and Rev. John T. Theodore (Who Was Jesus?). A list of other people who doubt that the empty tomb story is historical: Marcus Borg, Gerald Boldock Bostock, Stevan Davies, Maurice Goguel, Helmut Koester, Robert Price, Marianne Sawicki, and Howard M. Teeple.

Note that I am not saying that this list of scholars 'proves' that the empty tomb is a fiction or something. I only made the list to debunk the apologetic claim that 'the fact of the empty tomb' is universally accepted in scholarly circles.

Because you brought up Crossan, here is a bit of elaboration on the views of Crossan.

Crossan contributed the section on chapter 16 of Mark in _The Passion in Mark_, edited by Verner H. Kelber (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976). In this essay, Crossan argued that the empty tomb story finds no corroboration before Mark, that the empty tomb story is only found after Mark where other authors have copied it over, and that the empty tomb story in Mark is congruent with Mark's narrative aims. On this basis, Crossan regards the empty tomb story as the creation of the evangelist Mark.

It is in the 1976 essay that Crossan laid down his dictum, which was repeated in his 1991 book _The Historical Jesus_: "With regard to the body of Jesus, by Easter Sunday morning, those who cared did not know where it was, and those who knew did not care. Why should even the soldiers themselves remember the death and disposal of a nobody?" (p. 394)

In 1994, Crossan's _Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography_ was published. On p. 154, Crossan states: "What actually and historically happened to the body of Jesus can best be judged by watching how later Christian accounts slowly but steadily increased the reverantial dignity of their burial acconts. But what was at the beginning that necessitated such an intensive volume of apologetic insistence? If the Romans did not observe the Deuteronomic decree, Jesus' dead body would have been left on the cross for the wild beasts. If the Romans did observe the decree, the soldiers would have made certain Jesus was dead and then buried him themselves as part of their job. In either case, his body left on the cross or in a whallow grave barely covered with dirt and stones, the dogs were waiting. And his followers, who had fled, would know that, too. Watch, then, how the horror of that brutal truth is sublimated through hope and imagination into its opposite." Crossan proceeds to trace a development from the hypothetical Cross Gospel with a burial by Jesus' enemies, through Mark with a person who is both in power (with the enemies) and a friend ("waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God"), through Matthew and Luke who try to make better sense of Mark's Joseph of Arimathea, and finally to John in which Jesus is given a full regal burial.

In 1998, Crossan's _The Birth of Christianity_ came out. Crossan states (p. 552): "Mark created both the women's discovery of the empty tomb and the burial story needed in preparation for it." After some detailed elaboration, Crossan concludes (p. 555): "Mark's story presented the tradition with double dilemmas. First, if Joseph was in the council, he was against Jesus; if he was for Jesus, he was not in the council. Second, if Joseph buried Jesus from piety or duty, he would have done the same for the two other crucified criminals; yet if he did that, there could be no empty-tomb sequence. None of these points is unanswerable, but together they persuade me that Mark created that burial by Joseph of Arimathea in 15:32-47. It contains no pre-Markan tradition."

So it seems safe to say that, at no point in Crossan's academic career has he held to the hypothesis that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was found empty three days later. Instead, Crossan consistently argues that the tomb burial by Joseph of Arimathea is a fiction, although Crossan gives somewhat different arguments in each of his books.

I have not posted this to defend Crossan's arguments against the tomb burial of Jesus but rather to show that it is baseless to claim that Crossan takes the empty tomb for granted.

best,
Peter Kirby

Iasion

Greetings Vinnie,

thanks for your comments,

an original T.F. was authentic?

You agree that the T.F. was a later interpolation, yet also argue that there was an original, authentic (and negative) comment by Josephus - but there is NO evidence for such an original Josephan T.F. - it is merely wishful thinking, based on nothing more than hopeful speculation. Perhaps you can explain exactly what you base this notion of an earlier authentic passage on?

If there had been ANY comment about Jesus, we would expect at least some of the early Christian Fathers to have noticed it, whether to argue against it, or agree and/or amplify, yet -

G.A. Wells notes :
There appears to be NO EVIDENCE what-so-ever for an original (non-Christian) Josephan T.F.


Digression

You quote verbosely that the alleged original un-tampered T.F. (for which we have NO evidence) MAY have been a real Josephan digression - sure it MAY, but you give no case that it WAS - the mere fact that an unknown and un-attested passage MAY have been a real digression does not prove it WAS.

Furthermore, the arguments from Crossan you give for the T.F. being in context are weak - the subject in question is the misfortunes and upheavals of the Jews - but Jesus does not fit this subject - G.A. Wells notes :


Overlap

You quote Crossan at length about the overlap between Antiquities and War - but he fails to address the issue that the passage is not found at all in War even though it is almost as detailed - Feldman argues :

And Crossan is hardly considered 'unbiased' by all - the Jesus Seminar never dealt properly with the issue of Jesus' historicity (apart from an informal show of hands) - they ASSUMED at the start that Jesus existed - i.e. a pre-judgment.


Tacitus
You also quote Tacitus, yet he, like Pliny, is at best merely repeating Christian beliefs of his time and gives no details unknown to believers of the period - Wells says :
It beggars belief to think that Rome kept written records of all the THOUSANDS of crucifixions in the far-flung provinces.

Wells gives several arguments that Tacitus is merely repeating hearsay of his time :
Furthermore, Tacitus is another case that no early Church Father noticed - it is not at all clear that the Tacitus passage is authentic.

Quentin David Jones

Skeptical

It means nothing of the kind. At the very most, it means that they had a desire to make the stories appear to be historical. This does not count as evidence for their truth anymore than the fact that historical novels contain elements of true history indicates they are true accounts.

That was _not_ my point. My point was that you claim the stories were unique WRT the unrecognized hero. I said I doubted this were true and in any case even if they were unique in some ways I would not be suprised as the Jews writing the stories would most likely have tried to differentiate them from the other myths of their time.

Sorry, I thought the Jesus myth hypothesis was fairly widely known. Try reading "The Jesus Mysteries". I don't subscribe to all of the beliefs in that book, but they do present the theory regarding the formation of a Jesus myth from other, older myths. (not a new theory, as they acknowledge)

First, emperors do not need a "political platform". Second, if you believe that Constantine chose to follow Christianity for pragmatic reasons, you must not believe the story of his supposed vision prior to battle that caused his conversion as related by Eusebius. It is interesting to me that you don't take the story of Constantine's conversion at face value.

If you read some of the Christ myth literature, you'll find ample theories about the rise of Christianity that don't even require a real Jesus, much less a real resurrected Jesus. The point isn't that this theory is correct, it's just that there are other theories, how reasonable they are is obviously in the eye of the beholder. Since in my opinion you haven't presented any evidence of any kind, I don't feel the need to either. You have simply made assertions about why you think Christianity spread. I have made a counter-assertion that it could have spread without it. Since you are the one claiming a supernatural force as the cause, something outside of human experience, the onus is on you to provide extraordinary evidence and in my opinion you have utterly failed to do so. Simply because you claim the rise of Christianity couldn't have happened otherwise does not make it true, especially when there are other reasonable theories.

A complete red herring, but it doesn't seem to stop apologists such as yourself from continually bringing it up. It's the difference between testable and untestable assertions. All scientific assertions are testable. People believe them because many scientists have actually tested the assertions, and, in theory, anyone could in fact test the assertion for themselves. Compare this to the NT claims or any other supernatural claims. Untestable, pure and simple. I would appreciate it if your going to make an argument if you wouldn't bring up nonsense that any 5 year old could see through.

Fact: False child molestation claims are extraordinarily common in divorce cases
Fact: There are many true cases of child molestation, it is common, unfortunately, in the human experience
Fact: The stories in the NT record events never seen in the modern world. If you make such a claim, the requirement for evidence is extraordinarily high.

If you want to compare the NT stories to something in the modern world, compare it to alien abductions. I would argue that there is actually considerable more evidence for alien abductions than for the stories in the NT, and I think the alien abduction stories are nonsense. At least in the case of alien abductions we have thousands of witnesses with _some_ sort of physical evidence. (scars for example)

First, I don't know the stories because, as I said, I'm not a Scientologist and from what I understand it takes big bucks to get the whole story. Second, I understand perfectly your argument, it's just a weak argument. You have utterly failed to show what you claim, that there is no other reasonable explanation for the growth of Christianity without the resurrection. You are simply assuming that is the case. There are other explanations that don't require supernatural causes, you just refuse to acknowledge them. (again, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the Jesus myth literature)

It would really help if you would familiarize yourself with the Jesus myth hypothesis. There are many arguments about why Jesus became the mythical figure that he did, most revolve around local pagan stories being attributed to a collection of individuals collected under the name "Jesus". The mystery relgions of the time were very widespread throughout the near east. Adapt the mystery religions to a Jewish idea of an actual, physical messiah and it's a small jump to Christianity. The point isn't that these theories are necessarily true, it's that there are other explanations, ones that don't require supernatural causes.

I just don't see how this is evidence of truth. At most, it _might_ be evidence that someone named Jesus lived in Palestine and was an itenerrant preacher and healer that had followers. That's not really saying much.

It compelled me as an agnostic, but I know that evidence that is compelling to one may not be to another!

It may not be a "hotly debated" item in the literature you are familiar with, but there are people who doubt that Jesus even existed, and provide long, reasoned arguments about it. Try looking at Earl Doherty's web site. (sorry, don't have the url in front of me but you can find it easily with a search engine)

Nonsense. My replies are long because the original post was long. Just because in my opinion the evidence is severly lacking does not keep people like yourself from posting long apologetics about it, and from people like me from replying to it. Try keeping your comments relevant please.

It would be nice if you would stop jumping in the middle of my posts to ask a question I answer later. In the next sentences I explain why I think you are assuming the answer.

I don't "rule it out" because it is 2,000 years old and anecdotal. I don't even rule it out. I say, again, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The point is that if the only evidence for the NT stories are the stories themselves, no reasonable person could accept this as evidence.

Sorry, that should have read "2 of the stories...", by which I meant the reliance of Luke and Matthew on Mark. John being the one that does not. I didn't count Q as a source, so I suppose one could argue that there are 3 sources and not 2.

Not necessarily, but barring other external evidence it makes the evidence pretty thin compared to the extraordinary evidence required to validate an extraordinary claim.

Mythology can spring up very quickly. Take the example of Scientology. Take further the example of alien abductions and Roswell. Arguing about what was included and was not included in the NT stories may be an interesting conversation, but it doesn't do much for determining their veracity.

The point isn't that Paul should have given every detail about the resurrection in every mention of it. The point is that in all of his genuine letters he never mentions details that would ground the resurrection in an historical setting. It defies logic that no element of historical setting would have crept in to his letters about this monumental event, even in passing, during his letters unless Paul himself did not see this as an historical event.

The exact latitude and longitude coordinates would be nice.

Something more than anecdotal stories would be required. Here's a short list of some things that might indicate supernatural backing for the NT:

1) If modern Christians could raise the dead (Jesus followers are said to have done so, it logically follows that modern followers should be able to do so)
2) If there were a prayer in the NT that, when uttered, allowed you to have a real (not figurative) conversation with God
3) If there were clear, unambiguous prophecies of future events that were not later forgeries. For example, a prediction of a day and time of a modern earthquake or of the start of a major war.

There are other examples that could be given. The point is that if you make a supernatural claim, you are going to have to provide some at least somewhat supernatural evidence. Nothing like supernatural evidence is to be seen. Nothing close is seen. You continually fail to grasp the requirement for extraordinary evidence. Listing guard names is not evidence. Having more sources is not evidence. According to the criteria you have used, if we were to discover new documents of a heretofore unknown religion that reigned supreme prior to Christianity, that had documents making supernatural claiims that was wide-spread in antiquity prior to Judaism and that would have propsered in the near-east had not a calamitous flood destroyed the temple and most of the sacred documents, we would have good reasons for believing in this religion.

Well, I can only say that you have not developed a skeptical mindset. I am curious though, what constitues your investigation of religious claims? What is your criteria for determing their truth? It appears that for you the growth rate is a strong indicator, so do you believe that Islam is equally valid? Pleae lay out for me your testing methodology.

It's not a fallacy, its an opinion and was clearly expressed as one, besides which I stated it twice despite your hyperbole. You also assume, as most Christians, that if you do not accept the NT stories, you are an atheist. I never stated I was and your assumption speaks volumes about your world view. I could just as easily be a Hindu or Muslim. (unless you consider those "atheist" beliefs) Since you brought it up, I consider myself a religious agnostic, by which I mean I believe that no religion has demonstrated evidence that would convince a skeptic. I have yet to see an argument to convince me of the truth of Christianity.

lpetrich

Earl Doherty's site is <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">http://www.jesuspuzzle.com</a> -- "The Jesus Puzzle".

It's the best case for the mythicist hypothesis that I've ever seen.