Jayhawker Soule

Chopped liver. Speaking of fallacy, what is the compelling evidence for the resurrection?

sotzo

However, nobody else seems to have noticed those marvelous goings-on. A mysterious darkening for a couple hours in the daytime would have been very noticeable, but nobody else seems to have noticed.

Which of the available surviving texts from the first century would you expect to contain this information?

Also, the Bible does not have a monopoly on accounts of miraculous cures, or miracles in general. Do the cures attributed to the Greek god Asklepios mean that that being is a real one and ought to be worshipped?

Perhaps. I've not investigated the claims of Asklepios. However, if Jesus' claims about himself are correct that automatically relegates Asklepios to "unworthy of worship" status.

Richard Carrier discusses these sorts of questions in Why I Don't Buy the Resurrection Story and Review of "In Defense of Miracles", and he has some very interesting arguments.

I agree.

But if supernatural hypotheses are untestable, that makes them meaningless.

I'm not going to comment here because I'm not sure I understand you correctly. So, rather than presume what you mean I will ask a question - what do you mean by "untestable"? (ie, are you referring to the scientific method?)

But I do think that some tests have been made. Consider the task of protecting buildings from lightning. Lightning rods have proved much more successful at that task than such supernatural-based techniques as ringing church bells. Especially bells baptized for that task. Now why might that be the case?

Because the people who thought they could control lightening using church bells were wrong.

No, it's simple extrapolation. See Richard Carrier's Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire for a good discussion. Some people were willing to be skeptical, but many. Also, many people show critical sense in some areas but gaping-mindedness in others.

It remains an extrapolation that commits the genetic fallacy (ie, to simply propose the dismissal of any religious claim on the basis that the people in which the claimed event transpired are ignorant and lacking critical thinking skills).

Which does not keep their arguments from being full of holes. I wonder what sotzo thinks about apologists for religions other than his, and the arguments that they present.

No it doesn't by default keep their arguments from being full of holes. What it does do is provide evidence against the view that theism is promulgated and believed by people who cannot think rationally (ie, lack common sense), which is one of the claims in this thread that keeps popping up.

lpetrich

Lots of them, especially if this darkening was planetwide. If it was only over Jerusalem, then there would have fewer possible witnesses, but even then, it would have been memorable.

Or else what his followers described him as saying; they could always have put their words into JC's mouth.

Also, what's so special about claiming exclusive truth?

And dismissing other religions so quickly seems like excessive skepticism, especially when they contain things that one is willing to believe when they are in the religion one believes in. Thus, what is the difference between Romulus and Remus being the sons of a god and a virgin and Jesus Christ being the son of a god and a virgin?

If such hypotheses are untestable, then what's to distinguish them from fantasy worlds?

Meaning that a naturalistic approach (lightning rods) beat a supernaturalistic approach (bells).

That's not the genetic fallacy at all. It's an application of the old rule of evidence, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, "false in one thing, false in all".

So what? Selective critical sense seems to be very common.

[ April 16, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Skeptical

Pliny for one. He was at pains to record every other natural phenomena of the era, even those that were only reported to him 2nd hand and that he was skeptical of. He records nothing about the event described in the NT. This doesn't mean it positively didn't happen, but the evidence is certainly lacking where one would expect to find it.

You originally asked for skeptical references. As others have pointed out, in general the skeptics opinion is that when extraordinary claims are made, the burden of proof is on the claimant, not the skeptic.

However, there are some notable works that directly assess the claims of the NT and Christian apologists. Right now I am reading "The case for Christ" by Lee Strobel alongside "Challenging the verdict" by Earl Doherty. (the latter is a rebuttal to the former) Doherty is a Christ Mythicist, so some of his arguments tend toward that view point, but many of his ideas and arguments are, IMO, very valid.

I would also recommend "Why I don't buy the resurrection story" by Richard Carrier. It's on this site in the library under Modern Documents.

Having spent some time studying these issues, I have come across common themes running through Christian apologists works. IMO, the problem with a large number of Christian apologists is that they:

1) Ignore contrary evidence, ie count the hits and ignore the misses, sometimes to the point of absurdity
2) Make extravagant claims that are easily shown to be false (such as claiming that the resurrection is as historically reliable as Ceasars crossing of the rubicon)
3) Continually show marked credulity with regard to the NT stories, yet show marked skepticism with regard to other, non NT stories of the same type within the same historical timeframe

The other thing I continually see, something you yourself have done, is to try and compare NT stories to other stories which we regard as "historically true". For example, stories about Alexander the Great or Ceasar. (you didn't use these examples, but you did make references to doubting ancient history altogether)

The problem with these comparisons is that entire world views are not built on the truth or falsehood of belief in the life and times of Alexander the Great or other similar figures. Everything we know about them _could_ prove to be false, but so what? Other than historical scholars, I don't think many peoples lives would change if it were found out that Alexander the Great never even existed.

On top of this, no one, so far as I know, claims or believes that Alexander had supernatural powers. There may be legends about him, but these are seen for what they are, fanciful tales spun about a (probable) historical figure by credulous people during credulous times.

It is disingenous to make comparisons between Jesus and other historical figures and then claim that "see, the stories of Jesus are as close to the events as those of other figures" since the problem that skeptics have (generally) is not whether Jesus lived or not, but all of the dubious claims about his life. If the stories of Alexanders life had claims to his raising the dead, I think it is safe to say that no modern historian would take those stories seriously and even Christians would regard those stories as just myths.

I will willingly grant that Jesus lived and was a real historical figure if you will willingly grant that there is no good reason for believing any of the stories of his supernatural powers or his divinity. (this is essentially the position of many modern biblical scholars such as Crossan) On such extravagant claims as those made in the NT, no anecdotal stories are sufficient to count as evidence, nor would any reasonable person expect someone to believe based on such stories.

I cannot see how any even partially objective observer could examine the "evidence" for Jesus' divinity and become convinced it was literally true unless they had a very strong desire to believe in it.

Iasion

Who should have noticed?

Contemporaries of Jesus should have - they did not :

early 1st C.
Philo Judaeus
he wrote about the Jews and their beliefs and history in the very time and place of Jesus - he shows no knowledge of Jesus or the Gospels events.

early 1st C.
Justus of Tiberias
he wrote in the very time and place of Jesus - but he said nothing about Jesus or the Gospel events (according to a later reviewer).

early 1st C.
Apollonius of Tyana
a rather similar character to Jesus, who taught in the very time and places that Jesus did (we only have his companion Damis' account from the time of Philostratus) - he apparently knew nothing of Jesus or the Gospel events.


Philosophers and historians should have heard of Jesus and the Gospel events, and a new teaching spreading - they did not :

mid 1st C.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca
he wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome - he shows no knowledge of Jesus or his teachings.

mid 1st C.
C. Musonius Rufus
he wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome - he shows no knowledge of Jesus or his followers or teachings.

mid-late 1st C.
Plutarch of Chaeronea
wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia - he shows no knowledge of Jesus or his teachings or the Gospel events.

mid-late 1st C.
Dio Chrysostom
he was the dominant Roman Orator of the times and wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres - he said nothing about Jesus or the Gospel events.

mid-late 1st C.
Pliny the Elder
he wrote a large Natural History in Rome - he says nothing about the Gospel events.


There are several other writers from the 1st century (some on unrelated subjects) who COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus or the Gospel events in passing - all did not :

Quintus Curtius Rufus
Marcus/Lucius Annaeus Seneca
Pomponius Mela
Marcus Annaeus Lucanus
Aulus Persius Flaccus
Petronius Arbiter
Hero(n) of Alexandria
Geminus Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
Cleomedes
Dioscorides
Marcus Fabius Quintilianus
Publius Papinius Statius
Dio of Prusa
Silius Italicus
Sextus Julius Frontinus


In short :
the actual contemporaries who certainly SHOULD have mentioned something - did not,
the 1st century writers who followed shortly after and probably should have mentioned something - did not,
the 1st century writers who COULD have mentioned something - did not.


The first century was actually fairly well recorded, but Jesus is NOT in those records anywhere (just like the Gospels, which are totally unknown until 2nd century).

Quentin David Jones

Alexis Comnenus

Iasion,

Actually, I would not expect any of those people to mention Jesus except maybe Justus.

By 100AD according to Keith Hopkins and Robin Lane Fox, there were about 10,000 Christians in the Empire of whom about 200 were in the literate classes. The Empire had 50-60 million inhabitants so Christians were 0.02% of the population - mainly in the lower or slave classes. Most literate Romans would never have even heard of Christianity at this point let alone met one or known about its founder. Consequently, when we look at the context of the times the silence on Jesus by (invariably upper class) historians and philosophers is of no surprise at all.

Philo was dead by 45AD even before Paul got going and the number of Christians then would have been in the low hundreds. To expect him to bother with something so obscure is bad history.

Justus is lost although that reviewer points out he was considered unreliable and polemical. I don't know why he didn't mention Jesus but it is most likely because he didn't bother with every peasant preacher who was stomping around the countryside - and there seem to have been a lot of them.

Your problem Iasion, is that because Jesus is famous and well known now, you can't get your mind around the idea that no one gave a toss about him then. This is called anachronism and is a common problem for amateur (and professional) historians.

A common objection (not one you made) is that if Jesus was working all those wonders why did no one take any notice? Of course, the historian doesn't accept Jesus was doing miracles (although he might have had such a reputation among the tiny number of people who took any notice of him like a fakir in India today). The same applies to the darkness/earthquake/massacre of innocents etc but as these things are not part of the 'historical' Jesus we are not investigating them.

Regards

Alex

Jayhawker Soule

Conversely, given this exclusivity, if the claims of Asklepios prove no less viable that 2nd-hand or 3rd-hand accounts of purported claims by Jesus, one might reasonably conclude that

• best case, the Jesus testimony is fatally flawed, or
• worst case, Jesus was delusional.

Speaking of delusion, what is the compelling evidence for the resurrection?

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

spin

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
Actually, I would not expect any of those people to mention Jesus except maybe Justus.
----------------

This is convenient for you, but shows you that you can't do history with the Jesus material, but that won't enter your head, because you are not prepared to test the foundational assumption that there was a Jesus.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
By 100AD according to Keith Hopkins and Robin Lane Fox, there were about 10,000 Christians in the Empire of whom about 200 were in the literate classes. The Empire had 50-60 million inhabitants so Christians were 0.02% of the population - mainly in the lower or slave classes. Most literate Romans would never have even heard of Christianity at this point let alone met one or known about its founder. Consequently, when we look at the context of the times the silence on Jesus by (invariably upper class) historians and philosophers is of no surprise at all.
----------------

Again, can't you see the problem with assuming a historical Jesus. If no witness has heard of such an entity before the first testable accounts of a Jesus then there are no trustworthy witnesses. Case closed.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
Philo was dead by 45AD even before Paul got going and the number of Christians then would have been in the low hundreds. To expect him to bother with something so obscure is bad history.----------------

The good thing about Philo is that he supplied an idea that would be very useful to an evolving christianity, ie the Word, combining the Platonic idea with the Hebrew wisdom tradition.

Alexis Comnenus:
----------------
Your problem Iasion, is that because Jesus is famous and well known now, you can't get your mind around the idea that no one gave a toss about him then. This is called anachronism and is a common problem for amateur (and professional) historians.
----------------

Your problem, Alexis, is that you assume what you need to prove and in not doing so become liable to speaking outright logorrhea.

You can see that there are no securely contemporary witnesses to a Jesus. Without them, you (and that species of funny farm called the Historical Jesus Movement) cannot talk of a historical Jesus. You have been asked a number of times to come up with historical evidence for a Jesus and all you have done is nonchalantly avoided your responsibilities.

I don't think you can provide historical evidence for a Jesus. While Pliny the Younger can have problems with Christians, that is no way indicative of an existent Christ.

So, Alexis Comnenus, if you continue to avoid such a basic problem, you must be aware that there is no evidence for a Jesus and your insistence that such a requirement be not necessary (because of the abundant evidence which you cannot supply) is merely a ploy to abnegate your responsibilities.

Iasion

Greetings Alexis,

Pardon?
Philo and Apollonius (and Justus) are EXACTLY the sort of people who would have written about a Jewish reformer preaching new teachings in the region (even if we allow the miracles etc. are not real)

Philo wrote about the Jews and the religion and spent time in Jerusalem during the very lifetime of Jesus - if Jesus had actually existed and taught as the Gospels allege, Philo would almost certainly have mentioned Jesus and his teachings (a point you conveniently avoided). The fact he does not argues against a historical Jesus.

Apollonius travelled the region teaching and debating with philosophers and teachers on religious matters in ways very similar to Jesus - if Jesus had really existed and taught as the Gospels allege, he would almost certainly have come to the notice of Apollonius, and such an event would certainly have been noted by early Christians. The fact that Apollonius (apparently) did not, argues against a historical Jesus.

So you posit a Jesus for whom there is NO evidence at all? and one who is nothing like the Gospels, the ONLY real source there is? a Jesus who is based purely on speculation - if he is nothing like the Gospel Jesus, and has no basis in history - why bother to call him Jesus?

No,
the fact that Justus did not mention Jesus in his history - written in the very region and time of the ministry of Jesus - argues fairly strongly against there being a historical Jesus at all.

In sum, these 3 authors make for a strong case that no-one like Jesus existed.


Many of the main Christian actors allegedly moved to Rome in the mid-late 2nd century and founded the church - with some being martyred - if this had really happened, then we would certainly expect some of these MANY writers to notice Peter or Paul, or argue about Christianity - the fact that NOT a SINGLE one shows any knowledge of Jesus or Peter or Paul or Christianity at all argues that 1st century Christianity is essentially mythical.

By contrast, in the 2nd century, Roman writers DO notice Christianity - even though they were not a big group yet, and high-class Roman writers DID mention low-class Christianity when it came to there attention.

If 2nd century Romans noticed Christians, even in small numbers, or across class divides, then so would 1st century writers.

No,
the fact that NO-ONE in the 1st century shows the slightest knowledge of Jesus or the Gospels or their contents - about 3 DOZEN writings if we count Christian and pagan - argues strongly for there being NO historical Jesus.


The evolutionary process that led to the Jesus story and the Gospels can be traced backwards fairly clearly :

c.185 4 Gospels, Life of Jesus, Evangelists known
c.172 4 Gospels, Life of Jesus known
c.150 Gospels, Life of Jesus known
c.142 1 Gospel, most of Life of Jesus known
c.130 proto-Gospels, some of Life of Jesus known
c.110 a little of Life of Jesus known
pre-100 Gospels and Life of Jesus UNKNOWN

This timeline suggests the Gospels were written early 2nd century - otherwise why on earth would these documents (CRUCIAL to and MUCH-quoted by Christians once they actually appeared) have been unknown to all the early Christians?


An ad hominem red herring -
I never said (nor believed) he had to be famous - even those who SHOULD specifically have known of a minor figure the likes of Jesus did NOT. We have records of many minor figures from the time, but NONE of Jesus - the argument that only famous people were recorded does not hold water.

Furthermore, your argument that Jesus was just a minor preacher, means he is nothing like the Gospel Jesus - in other words your Jesus has no evidence for his existence at all, not even in the ONLY source documents we have -
you may as well believe in Mithras

Quentin David Jones

Alexis Comnenus

I went to bed last night meaning to take the bate and write something on how we know Jesus existed. However, after reading spin's diatribes and Iasion's misunderstanding here and elsewhere I can see it would be a complete waste of time.

Spin, a word of advice. If you want a discussion it's best not to rant like a child when anyone disagrees with you, accuse them of confessional interests when you don't know anything about them or give the impression all you want to do is score points.

Iasion, learn Greek. Then read and read and read from mainstream scholarly textbooks. Then read ALL the sources (preferably in Greek). Only then will you be able to make such radical claims with confidence and expect to be listening to. Yes, it's years of hard slog but we are talking about a field that generates thousands of papers and books a year. An outsider can't just come in and expect to see the big picture.

Regards

Alex