Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RyanS2 · 07-05-2002, 09:16 AM

Concerning the embarrasment criteria, as I posted in another thread, a scholar named Lammens was doing works on the hadiths, (traditions), which were written somewhere between 140 to 300 years and further after Muhammad's death. He wanted to find the historical kernal of Muhammad's existence, and at the time, it was assumed the more embarrasing a presentation of Muhammad was, the more likely it was to be true. However, Lammens showed that even if a source is unflattering by modern day standards, or even by contemporary standards, it all depended upon the mind-set of the person who was recording it, so that what might strike us as a major flaw in the character of Muhammad would be perfectly appeasing to a pious Muslim recording what he thinks Muhammad was really like. Here, we are assuming we know the mindset of what the author of the Gospels was telling.

As an example, the Gospel of Mark has the worst portrayal of the other disciples than any other book of the Bible. By the embarrasment criteria, this would seem to be truthful. Who would try to say that a religion was preached to 12 bumbling disciples, and considering how bad Mark's Greek knowledge is, we can assume he wasn't well educated either. However, it was worse than formal education, they didn't understand basic parables, the actual teachings of Jesus were admittedly misunderstood by the disciples unless Jesus spelled them out for them. Isn't that embarrasing for a new religion?

As a question, does this establish the authenticity of that being true, or does it tell us that Mark didn't like the other disciples, or that it was just part of an imitation of Homer's play and the ineptness of Oddyseus companions?

Radcliffe Emerson · 07-05-2002, 09:56 AM

Hi Intensity. The reasons you cited, plus studies of when the New Testament was written, the history of Palestine during that period, and details about why the gospel accounts don't agree with each other also convinced me it is myth.
I was a bible-totin believer through and through, almost to the point of fundamentalism.
Studying the histories of all these subjects however made it painfully clear to me the stories are myths.

Vorkosigan · 07-05-2002, 03:05 PM

I already did, but I'll do it in more detail here: The Gospel version of John the Baptist's baptism is one for the remission of sins. The Gospel version of Jesus is of a perfect, flawless being i.e. one who never sinned in any way. He therefore would not be baptized.

This is the usual argument. But of course, it fails because we do not know what Mark thought of the Baptism. We only know what was later said about it -- you're reading later Christology back into Mark.

But (the real) Jesus was of course not anything near a perfect being. He was a normal human, probably devoutely religious, which means he could easily have had himself baptized (and apparently did).

Maybe. But Josephus says explicitly that John was not baptizing for remission of sins.....

The Gospel authors and others of their time were well aware of this very relevant this fact.

Which one? That Jesus was human or that he was baptized?

A biography of Jesus would be more authentic the more closely it followed what people "knew" about Jesus, including his baptism. Further, an excuse was needed as for why a being without sin would do something that was supposed to take away sin, hence the excuse/s of the Gospel ("to fulfill all righteousness", or some such jibberish).

Unfortunately, this does not do what I asked: demonstrate that Mark thought it embarrassing. Can you come up with an argument that does that? We have one prima facie evidence that Mark did not think it at all embarrassing: he included it in his story of Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Sojourner553 · 07-05-2002, 03:47 PM

Hi Intensity,

A concern of mine re: your position is that
it should be "enough" to merely prove Jesus was not a God. That, by lowering the bar-- you risk a debater illogically arguing that if s/he can only prove Jesus "existed" this somehow translates into "proof" Jesus "must" also be God....

Here is the analysis that convinced me that Jesus was probably a historical person (but definitely NOT a God.)

Josephus "ANTIQUITIES was written around the year 93 C.E., and includes a section on Jesus and the early Christian movement. Unfortunately there
appears to be evidence that his text had been "revised", probably by some later Christian copyist(s). I have included the whole text, while highlighting those areas that were probably later additions to the original. (Note this
analysis borrows heavily from James H. Charlesworth, JESUS WITHIN JUDAISM--NEW LIGHT FROM EXCITING ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES):

At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, IF INDEED ONE MIGHT CALL
HIM A MAN. For he was one who accomplished surprising feats and was a
teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He won over many
of the Jews and many of the Greeks. HE WAS THE MESSIAH. When Pilate,
upon an indictment brought by the principal men among us, condemned
him to the cross, those who had loved him from the very first did not
cease to be attached to him. On the third day he appeared to them
restored to life, FOR THE HOLY PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THIS AND MYRIADS
OF OTHER MARVELS CONCERNING HIM. And the tribe of the Christians, so
called after him, has to this day still not disappeared.

Josephus was a Jew living in Rome, who was writing his great histories primarily for a Roman pagan audience. He would have had to have been a
Christian himself to make such statements as "He was the Messiah" and so forth. Yet, as we have already seen in his JEWISH WARS, he harshly speaks out against Jewish "[i]mposters and demagogues, [who] under the guise of divine inspiration, provoked revolutionary actions and impelled the masses to act like madmen."
(See Chapter 3). Also, after he surrendered to the Romans, he proclaimed the Roman general Vespasian (later named Roman emperor after his popular victory in Palestine) as the expected Jewish messiah. Later, Josephus moved to Rome,
and under the patronage of Vespasian wrote his Jewish histories.

There is other evidence that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, Origen, the third century C.E. Christian leader wrote on his astonishment in reading Josephus' works--how Josephus spoke so highly of James (the brother
of Jesus), while disbelieving Jesus was the Messiah.

Various scholars have shown that if certain "pro-Christian" passages are
removed, then the text reads more like a detached formal reporting of the situation. If this analysis is correct, here is an example of what might have approximated Josephus' original text:

"At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man...He performed astonishing feats and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He attracted many Jews and many of the Greeks...Upon an indictment brought by leading members of our society, Pilate sentenced him to the cross, but those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached
to him... On the third day he appeared to them restored to life...
The brotherhood of the Christians, named after him, is still in existence."

Notice how certain phrases are really unflattering when examined carefully. For example, the text states that Jesus was a "teacher" for such people who are "eager for novelties." Also, the last sentence "The brotherhood of the Christians, named after him, is still in existence", would appear to be more
appropriately written by someone who believed that this sect would NOT be in existence for a long time.

Another reference to Josephus' passage on Jesus has been discovered in an Arabic work, called the BOOK OF THE TITLE. The author Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and bishop in Asia Minor, who read Josephus' work and translated his early source into Arabic. The translation of his work from Arabic to English, has Josephus say:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct
was good, and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the
Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned
him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples
did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared
to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive,
accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets
have recounted wonders."

Notice that although it does NOT have the controversial phrases "if indeed
one might call him a man", "He was the Messiah", etc. This version also talks third person (ie "They reported") on Jesus resurrection, and he was "perhaps the Messiah". However it is obvious that any alteration here was
MINOR in comparison to the Greek version that is more famous. (Of course, it is possible that there was NO deliberate alteration in this case, and any minor differences were due to the process of translating the text from Greek
into Arabic!)

In cross-referencing these two translations, we see that it is highly probable that Josephus had included an account of Jesus in his Jewish
histories. But although he spoke respectfully of Jesus, even regarding him as a wise man--it is highly unlikely that he believed Jesus to be the messiah or a divine being."

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JOSEPHUS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JOSEPHUS.TXT</a>

or Section I, Chapter V of

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

p.s. Many of GA Wells positions on what is lacking in the hisorical record on Jesus is summarized in

Section II, Chapter 12 or

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT</a>

-- Sojourner

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Vorkosigan · 07-05-2002, 06:18 PM

It's not that simple. The early Christian fathers knew a different text of Josephus, one which attributed the fall of Jersualem to the execution of James. The passage above is not cited until the 4th century. You'd think somebody would have used it....the whole thing is probably a Christian interpolation.

Additionally, the Slavonic Josephus apparently mentions Jesus, but in an entirely different way (and John the Baptist too).

A good way to spend a couple of hours is to bop over to Kirby's <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">www.earlychristianwritings.com</a> and read all the arguments on his page on the Test. Flav. one after another. My personal opinion is that the current passage is an interpolation in its entirety, and the "mainstream" opinion is a political compromise designed to find a position everyone can agree to.

Here is the passage from Slavonic Josephus:

"At the time there appeared a man, if it is permissible to call him a man. His nature and form were human, but his appearance was something more than that of a man; notwithstanding his works were divine. He worked miracles wonderful and mighty. Therefore it is impossible for me to call him a man; but again, if I look at the nature which he shared with all, I will not call him an angel. And everything whatsoever he wrought through an invisible power, he wrought by word and command. Some said of him: 'Our first law-giver is risen from the dead and has performed many healings and arts', while others thought he was sent from God. Nevertheless in many things he disobeyed the Law and kept not the Sabbath according to the customs of our fathers. Yet on the other hand he did nothing shameful; nor did he do anything with aid of hands, but by words alone did he provide everything.
"And many of the multitude followed after him and hearkened to his teachings; and many souls were in commotion thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes might free themselves from Roman hands. Now it was his custom in general to sojourn over against the city upon the Mount of Olives, and there too he bestowed his healings upon the people.

"And there assembled around him one hundred and fifty ministers and a multitude of the people. Now when they saw his power, that he accomplished whatever he wanted by words, and when they had made known to him their will, that he should enter into the city and cut down the Roman troops and Pilate and rule over us, he did not disdain us.

"And when knowledge of this came to the Jewish leaders they assembled together with the high priest and said: 'We are powerless and too weak to stand against the Romans. Seeing moreover that the bow is bent, we will go and communicate to Pilate what we have heard and we shall be clear of trouble, otherwise he may hear it from others and we may be robbed of our substance and slaughtered and our children scattered. And they went and told Pilate. And he sent and had many of the multitude slain. And he had that Wonder-worker brought up, and after instituting an inquiry concerning him, he pronounced judgement: 'He is a benefactor not a malefactor, nor a rebel, nor covetous of Kingship.' And he let him go, for he had healed his dying wife.

"And he went to his accustomed place and did his usual works. And when more people again assembled round him, he glorified himself through his actions more than all. The doctors of the Law were overcome with envy, and gave thirty talents to Pilate in order that he should put him to death. And he took it and gave them liberty to execute their will themselves. And they laid their hands on him and crucified him contrary to the law of their fathers."

Assuming this is about Jesus, since his name isn't here. Did somebody borrow this story, in garbled form to write a gospel, or was this too overwritten? How can we know? Note the "thirty talents" sounding like the thirty pieces of silver Judas got. This sounds like a first pass at the myth. Later Judas would become a sort of symbol-turned-human representing the actual events, assuming that Josephus is giving us an actual event....the passage is next to one about the distubrances in the temple that gave Pilate so many headaches.

The Slavonic Josephus also locates JtB several decades earlier than our current one. You figure it out.

Vorkosigan

Ragnarok · 07-05-2002, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Lost Number:
Your "reasons" have all been debunked. They all betray one great flaw: you automatically associate the Christian Jesus with the historical Jesus. It shouldn't be too difficult to understand that they were two very different people.

I have to go with IntenSity. I would base this on an "evolutionary" argument. In evolution we often conclude that one thing evolved from another based on morphological changes over time. Specimen A is later than specimen B. Specimen A is like B but different in subtle ways.

From what I've read the early epistles of Paul and other early writings speak of an ethereal Christ. This sort of Christ would seem similar to Mithrais, Hercules and other mythical god-men. Thus I would tend to think the Christ concept evolved from those ideas and not a real person. If there had been a real person at the heart of it one would have expected there to be lots of stories and anecdotes about this person's actions even very early in the mythology. As it happens, the early mythos seems to be about a sort of ethereal being whose "real life details" are only filled in later. This is not what you see when a real historical person becomes mythologized/deified.

Toto · 07-05-2002, 07:20 PM

Why are we discussing the Slavonic Josephus as evidence? I thought that the prevailing view even among Christians was that the passage in it relating to Jesus was a Christian forgery dating from the 10-11th century, although I am unable to put my finger on a definitive cite.

Vorkosigan · 07-05-2002, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
Why are we discussing the Slavonic Josephus as evidence? I thought that the prevailing view even among Christians was that the passage in it relating to Jesus was a Christian forgery dating from the 10-11th century, although I am unable to put my finger on a definitive cite.

It's a rather strange forgery. If it were a Christian forgery, why does it cast Jesus in the light of a nationalist leader bent on tossing out the Romans?

You are correct in that the prevailing view is that it is a late forgery. I'd like to see why it is considered a late forgery.

Vorkosigan

Toto · 07-05-2002, 08:18 PM

I tried to do a little research on the web. I suspect it is labeled a medieval forgery based on an assumption that the forgery dates to the translation.

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html" target="_blank">Peter Kirby</a> quotes John Meier:

Quote:

The clearly unauthentic text is a long interpolation found only in the Old Russian (popularly known as the "Slavonic") version of The Jewish War, surviving in Russian and Rumanian manuscripts. This pasage is a wildly garbled condensation of various Gospel events, seasoned with the sort of bizarre legendary expansions found in apocryphal gospels and acts of the 2d and 3d centuries. Despite the spirited and ingenious attempts of Robert Eisler to defend the authenticity of much of the Jesus material in the Slavonic Jewish War, almost all critics today discount this theory. In more recent decades, G. A. Williamson stood in a hopeless minority when he tried to maintain the authenticity of this and similar interpolations, which obviously come from a Christian hand (though not necessarily an orthodox one). (p. 57)

Eisler's case is summarized <a href="http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/post-biblicaljohn.html" target="_blank">here</a>:

Quote:

Slavonic Josephus, according to Dr. Robert Eisler, was translated from Greek into Slavonic in Lithuania between 1250 and 1260 C.E. by a Judaizing heretic priest of the Russian Church, who obtained copies of Josephus's first rough Greek version of the original Aramaic before it was rewritten in the form in which it has come down to us.

This might explain why Jesus is bent on tossing out the Romans, since the Eastern Orthodox had split from the Western Roman Catholics a few centuries before.

Sojourner553 · 07-05-2002, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:
It's not that simple...
Vorkosigan

Thanks for the great site reference!! BTW, one of the links it gave was at:

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/historical_jesus_2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/intheword1/historical_jesus_2.htm</a>

an excerpt:

" My readers may do well to remember that Josephus does mention Jesus in book 20 Chapter 9 in "Antiquities of the Jews" where it is stated:

"Festus was now dead, and Albinius was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some other, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned"

It is here in this passage that we are on solid ground. According to Dr. Yamauchi, "I know of no scholar who has successfully disputed this passage." So here you have a reference to the brother of Jesus who had apparently been converted by the appearance of the risen Christ, if you compare John 7:5 and 1 Corithians 15:7 and corroboration of the fact that some people considered Jesus to be the Christ, which means "the Anointed one or Messiah."8 Dr. Yamauchi asserts that "from time to time some people have tried to deny the existence of Jesus, but this is really a lost cause...There is over whelming evidence that Jesus did exist, and these hypothetical questions are really very vacuous and fallacious9." The account of Josephus’ work the Jewish War have proved to be very accurate; for example, they’ve been corroborated through archaeological excavations at Masada as well as by historians like Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120). He is considered to be a pretty reliable historian, and his mentioning of Jesus is considered extremely important.

Professor Edwin Yamauchi asserts that we have more and better historical documentation for Jesus than for any other religious founder (e.g., Zoroaster, Buddha, or Mohammed)..."

My point is --

Isn't it more important to FOCUS on whether Jesus was a god or not since it cannot be ABSOLUTELY 100% proven that Jesus is not historical...

Again, this becomes a distraction of the main and real issue -- ie is Christianity based on truth or superstition?

I think the historicity of Jesus is not relevent -- Even if you "could" prove this Mike, believers would just shift to a theme that Jesus was all spirit (the gnostic version of Jesus) -- with the central important question (truth vs superstition) still begging for a resolution.

Sojourner

07-05-2002, 03:47 PM	#14
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	Hi Intensity, A concern of mine re: your position is that it should be "enough" to merely prove Jesus was not a God. That, by lowering the bar-- you risk a debater illogically arguing that if s/he can only prove Jesus "existed" this somehow translates into "proof" Jesus "must" also be God.... Here is the analysis that convinced me that Jesus was probably a historical person (but definitely NOT a God.) Josephus "ANTIQUITIES was written around the year 93 C.E., and includes a section on Jesus and the early Christian movement. Unfortunately there appears to be evidence that his text had been "revised", probably by some later Christian copyist(s). I have included the whole text, while highlighting those areas that were probably later additions to the original. (Note this analysis borrows heavily from James H. Charlesworth, JESUS WITHIN JUDAISM--NEW LIGHT FROM EXCITING ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES): At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man, IF INDEED ONE MIGHT CALL HIM A MAN. For he was one who accomplished surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He won over many of the Jews and many of the Greeks. HE WAS THE MESSIAH. When Pilate, upon an indictment brought by the principal men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, FOR THE HOLY PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THIS AND MYRIADS OF OTHER MARVELS CONCERNING HIM. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has to this day still not disappeared. Josephus was a Jew living in Rome, who was writing his great histories primarily for a Roman pagan audience. He would have had to have been a Christian himself to make such statements as "He was the Messiah" and so forth. Yet, as we have already seen in his JEWISH WARS, he harshly speaks out against Jewish "[i]mposters and demagogues, [who] under the guise of divine inspiration, provoked revolutionary actions and impelled the masses to act like madmen." (See Chapter 3). Also, after he surrendered to the Romans, he proclaimed the Roman general Vespasian (later named Roman emperor after his popular victory in Palestine) as the expected Jewish messiah. Later, Josephus moved to Rome, and under the patronage of Vespasian wrote his Jewish histories. There is other evidence that Josephus did not believe Jesus was the Messiah, Origen, the third century C.E. Christian leader wrote on his astonishment in reading Josephus' works--how Josephus spoke so highly of James (the brother of Jesus), while disbelieving Jesus was the Messiah. Various scholars have shown that if certain "pro-Christian" passages are removed, then the text reads more like a detached formal reporting of the situation. If this analysis is correct, here is an example of what might have approximated Josephus' original text: "At about this time lived Jesus, a wise man...He performed astonishing feats and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties. He attracted many Jews and many of the Greeks...Upon an indictment brought by leading members of our society, Pilate sentenced him to the cross, but those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him... On the third day he appeared to them restored to life... The brotherhood of the Christians, named after him, is still in existence." Notice how certain phrases are really unflattering when examined carefully. For example, the text states that Jesus was a "teacher" for such people who are "eager for novelties." Also, the last sentence "The brotherhood of the Christians, named after him, is still in existence", would appear to be more appropriately written by someone who believed that this sect would NOT be in existence for a long time. Another reference to Josephus' passage on Jesus has been discovered in an Arabic work, called the BOOK OF THE TITLE. The author Agapius was a tenth century Christian Arab and bishop in Asia Minor, who read Josephus' work and translated his early source into Arabic. The translation of his work from Arabic to English, has Josephus say: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive, accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." Notice that although it does NOT have the controversial phrases "if indeed one might call him a man", "He was the Messiah", etc. This version also talks third person (ie "They reported") on Jesus resurrection, and he was "perhaps the Messiah". However it is obvious that any alteration here was MINOR in comparison to the Greek version that is more famous. (Of course, it is possible that there was NO deliberate alteration in this case, and any minor differences were due to the process of translating the text from Greek into Arabic!) In cross-referencing these two translations, we see that it is highly probable that Josephus had included an account of Jesus in his Jewish histories. But although he spoke respectfully of Jesus, even regarding him as a wise man--it is highly unlikely that he believed Jesus to be the messiah or a divine being." <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JOSEPHUS.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/JOSEPHUS.TXT</a> or Section I, Chapter V of <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a> p.s. Many of GA Wells positions on what is lacking in the hisorical record on Jesus is summarized in Section II, Chapter 12 or <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/NATURE2.TXT</a> -- Sojourner [ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

07-05-2002, 06:18 PM	#15
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	It's not that simple. The early Christian fathers knew a different text of Josephus, one which attributed the fall of Jersualem to the execution of James. The passage above is not cited until the 4th century. You'd think somebody would have used it....the whole thing is probably a Christian interpolation. Additionally, the Slavonic Josephus apparently mentions Jesus, but in an entirely different way (and John the Baptist too). A good way to spend a couple of hours is to bop over to Kirby's <a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com" target="_blank">www.earlychristianwritings.com</a> and read all the arguments on his page on the Test. Flav. one after another. My personal opinion is that the current passage is an interpolation in its entirety, and the "mainstream" opinion is a political compromise designed to find a position everyone can agree to. Here is the passage from Slavonic Josephus: "At the time there appeared a man, if it is permissible to call him a man. His nature and form were human, but his appearance was something more than that of a man; notwithstanding his works were divine. He worked miracles wonderful and mighty. Therefore it is impossible for me to call him a man; but again, if I look at the nature which he shared with all, I will not call him an angel. And everything whatsoever he wrought through an invisible power, he wrought by word and command. Some said of him: 'Our first law-giver is risen from the dead and has performed many healings and arts', while others thought he was sent from God. Nevertheless in many things he disobeyed the Law and kept not the Sabbath according to the customs of our fathers. Yet on the other hand he did nothing shameful; nor did he do anything with aid of hands, but by words alone did he provide everything. "And many of the multitude followed after him and hearkened to his teachings; and many souls were in commotion thinking that thereby the Jewish tribes might free themselves from Roman hands. Now it was his custom in general to sojourn over against the city upon the Mount of Olives, and there too he bestowed his healings upon the people. "And there assembled around him one hundred and fifty ministers and a multitude of the people. Now when they saw his power, that he accomplished whatever he wanted by words, and when they had made known to him their will, that he should enter into the city and cut down the Roman troops and Pilate and rule over us, he did not disdain us. "And when knowledge of this came to the Jewish leaders they assembled together with the high priest and said: 'We are powerless and too weak to stand against the Romans. Seeing moreover that the bow is bent, we will go and communicate to Pilate what we have heard and we shall be clear of trouble, otherwise he may hear it from others and we may be robbed of our substance and slaughtered and our children scattered. And they went and told Pilate. And he sent and had many of the multitude slain. And he had that Wonder-worker brought up, and after instituting an inquiry concerning him, he pronounced judgement: 'He is a benefactor not a malefactor, nor a rebel, nor covetous of Kingship.' And he let him go, for he had healed his dying wife. "And he went to his accustomed place and did his usual works. And when more people again assembled round him, he glorified himself through his actions more than all. The doctors of the Law were overcome with envy, and gave thirty talents to Pilate in order that he should put him to death. And he took it and gave them liberty to execute their will themselves. And they laid their hands on him and crucified him contrary to the law of their fathers." Assuming this is about Jesus, since his name isn't here. Did somebody borrow this story, in garbled form to write a gospel, or was this too overwritten? How can we know? Note the "thirty talents" sounding like the thirty pieces of silver Judas got. This sounds like a first pass at the myth. Later Judas would become a sort of symbol-turned-human representing the actual events, assuming that Josephus is giving us an actual event....the passage is next to one about the distubrances in the temple that gave Pilate so many headaches. The Slavonic Josephus also locates JtB several decades earlier than our current one. You figure it out. Vorkosigan

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

07-05-2002, 09:16 AM	#11
RyanS2 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Louisiana Posts: 216	Concerning the embarrasment criteria, as I posted in another thread, a scholar named Lammens was doing works on the hadiths, (traditions), which were written somewhere between 140 to 300 years and further after Muhammad's death. He wanted to find the historical kernal of Muhammad's existence, and at the time, it was assumed the more embarrasing a presentation of Muhammad was, the more likely it was to be true. However, Lammens showed that even if a source is unflattering by modern day standards, or even by contemporary standards, it all depended upon the mind-set of the person who was recording it, so that what might strike us as a major flaw in the character of Muhammad would be perfectly appeasing to a pious Muslim recording what he thinks Muhammad was really like. Here, we are assuming we know the mindset of what the author of the Gospels was telling. As an example, the Gospel of Mark has the worst portrayal of the other disciples than any other book of the Bible. By the embarrasment criteria, this would seem to be truthful. Who would try to say that a religion was preached to 12 bumbling disciples, and considering how bad Mark's Greek knowledge is, we can assume he wasn't well educated either. However, it was worse than formal education, they didn't understand basic parables, the actual teachings of Jesus were admittedly misunderstood by the disciples unless Jesus spelled them out for them. Isn't that embarrasing for a new religion? As a question, does this establish the authenticity of that being true, or does it tell us that Mark didn't like the other disciples, or that it was just part of an imitation of Homer's play and the ineptness of Oddyseus companions?

07-05-2002, 09:56 AM	#12
Radcliffe Emerson Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: the dark side of Mars Posts: 1,309	Hi Intensity. The reasons you cited, plus studies of when the New Testament was written, the history of Palestine during that period, and details about why the gospel accounts don't agree with each other also convinced me it is myth. I was a bible-totin believer through and through, almost to the point of fundamentalism. Studying the histories of all these subjects however made it painfully clear to me the stories are myths.

07-05-2002, 03:05 PM	#13
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I already did, but I'll do it in more detail here: The Gospel version of John the Baptist's baptism is one for the remission of sins. The Gospel version of Jesus is of a perfect, flawless being i.e. one who never sinned in any way. He therefore would not be baptized. This is the usual argument. But of course, it fails because we do not know what Mark thought of the Baptism. We only know what was later said about it -- you're reading later Christology back into Mark. But (the real) Jesus was of course not anything near a perfect being. He was a normal human, probably devoutely religious, which means he could easily have had himself baptized (and apparently did). Maybe. But Josephus says explicitly that John was not baptizing for remission of sins..... The Gospel authors and others of their time were well aware of this very relevant this fact. Which one? That Jesus was human or that he was baptized? A biography of Jesus would be more authentic the more closely it followed what people "knew" about Jesus, including his baptism. Further, an excuse was needed as for why a being without sin would do something that was supposed to take away sin, hence the excuse/s of the Gospel ("to fulfill all righteousness", or some such jibberish). Unfortunately, this does not do what I asked: demonstrate that Mark thought it embarrassing. Can you come up with an argument that does that? We have one prima facie evidence that Mark did not think it at all embarrassing: he included it in his story of Jesus. Vorkosigan

07-05-2002, 07:20 PM	#17
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Why are we discussing the Slavonic Josephus as evidence? I thought that the prevailing view even among Christians was that the passage in it relating to Jesus was a Christian forgery dating from the 10-11th century, although I am unable to put my finger on a definitive cite.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.