leonarde

Historical means "referring to history". History
is not an undifferentiated past. It has units: years, centuries, millenia etc. If you really want to figure out whether a historical person X existed the very first thing one must try to figure out is when
and where this person may have existed. Hercules
is unplaceable chronologically. Ergo, probably
not historical.

Cheers!

Toto

I started this thread because on another thread you sneered at me for thinking there was more historical evidence for Alexander the Great than for Jesus. I notice that you have been avoiding that point.

At this point I am not sure what you are trying to prove. I thought that you or leonarde tried to argue that Paul must have learned about the human Jesus because he spent time with Peter. I argued that there is no indication that he learned anything from the Jerusalem church, much less that he learned about the human Jesus or his life or teaching.

You cited 1 Cor. 15:3-8 as an example of a creedal form, which you regard as proof that Paul is passing on something he learned from earlier Christians. I think that you are reading more into this than is in the text, for the previous reasons listed - the language is as compatible with Paul passing on something he received from God as much as it is with passing on some tradition that he learned from other humans.

So I do not see it as "obvious" that Paul learned something of the Christian message from other men (something he denied in Galatians), nor is it obvious what he might have learned even if he did learn "something", that would help your argument on the historical nature of Jesus.

(I am reading E.P.Sanders. So far I am not impressed that he has some viable methodology to solve the problem of separating fact from myth in the Gospels.)

Benjamin Franklin

I don't understand how this saves the contradiction between Luke and Matthew. Because even if this translation is correct, there could not have been a census in Judaea before 6 A.D., since the province had not entered direct Roman control before then, as pointed out by Richard Carrier


Catholic Scholars Raymond E Brown and Fitzmyer think that Luke is wrong.

BF

lpetrich

Then what are the "major criteria", O Metacrock?

As to reading between the lines, the virgin-birth story could have been invented to cover up an awkward pregnancy.

However, Paul does not mention Mary's name. And he was closer in time than the Gospel writers.

Also, Luke does NOT claim that his genealogy was for Mary, but for Joseph. And both Matthew and Luke agree that Joseph was really JC's stepfather, that it was God what had made Mary pregnant.

As opposed to Gospel-writing propaganda people?

That's beside the point, and you know it, O Metacrock. Think of it this way. Heroic founder figures tend to have lots of myths created about them -- and Jesus Christ had been a heroic founder figure, meaning that it is not surprising that he has been the subject of many myths. If there was a "historical Jesus" at all.

However, Julius Caesar was not exactly a subject of hero-worship in his lifetime.

And if Jesus Christ had been God, he had therefore been omnipotent, meaning that he could have appeared unambiguously to everybody who had ever existed, past, present, and future.

However, Paul never came back with any biographical details, like who his (step)parents had been, what miracles he had worked, etc.

However, Metacrock's expressed viewpoint has been identical to Gospel literalism -- he ought to describe in detail what he considers literally false about the Gospels.

Except for:

The Gospels were composed some decades after he had allegedly lived, thus ensuring that anyone who had remembered him was either old or dead, and most likely the latter.

The Jewish War of 66-70 CE dispersed much of the population, meaning that it would have been difficult to track down those who might have remembered JC.

Investigative reporting had not been very common back then, and by the time that JC had gotten well-known enough to attract the attention of skeptics like Lucian of Samosata, it was over a century later.

Bede

Joedad,

The existance of Jesus does not rest on heresay but on the writings of the religion he gave rise to as well as independent references in Josephus. To compare this to mythical beasties or declare everything myth is simply a typical case of atheist blanket statement and proves doing history is not your strong point.

If I was wanting to deny Alex I could, using your methods, simply declare that all the words written about him were myth and hagiography and that would be the end of it. As a historian, of course, I can no more do that than I can with the documents about Jesus. Toto is right to say that the Jesus a historian can be sure about is mere shadow of the risen savior of Christianity (nice to see him preparing a fall back position). No critical Christian historian denies this (read Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus for an attack on trying to claim history can prove faith), although even this shadow Jesus seems to be so frightening to atheists they have to throw historical method out the window and deny everything about him.

Toto,

You said: "We are pretty sure GJohn was written well after Jesus' presumed death, and it does not quote a prior written document by name, and we do not have physical evidence of the existence of that document."

Bede replies: GJohn was written within a century of Jesus's death. Arrian and Curtius wrote over three centuries after the death of Alex, so John wins here. Yes, Arrian and Curtius name their sources but why we should hence assume they are true, I have no idea. We also have no physical evidence of the existence of the early accounts except reputed claims that they are being quoted. You believe that but do not believe GJohn, or the synoptics quoting the words of Jesus? Why not? Because you have double standards.

And yes, I do tend to address Vork as you usually just parrot other peoples' ideas. Best to go to the horse's mouth, so to speak. I am sorry you find EP Sanders unconvincing, but I've rarely heard of a creationist being convinced by Dawkins, so I can't really expect better from you.

Yours

Bede

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

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>

joedad

Thanks for getting back, Bede.

Why do you use the "atheist" label? To do this undermines your credibility. I feel it has no place in this discussion.

The heresay I refer to is indeed Josephus. The "Writings of a religion" you mention certainly prove that christianity has a place in actual history, but that is not the present issue. The present issue is the historicity of one GJ. The entire christian corpus is only of secondary interest in such a discussion of this one issue. As an historian you should not confuse the historicity of christianity with the historicity of a GJ.

I understand what you are saying. Perhaps the difference is that neither you nor I carry the baggage of having to defend Alexander as a god. Do you think that's an important distinction? The question of motivation is a legitimate one.

That "atheist" label again.

To be accurate, my interests as an atheist and your interests as a christian amount to a wash. What we are left with is Josephus's heresay, via Eusebius, about an historical founder, and nothing else substantial outside of liturgical documents.

I think history explains religion, and not the other way around. Perhaps that is our main difference on the issue of GJ's place therein.

Thanks again.

joe

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: joedad ]</p>

Toto

</strong>

Bede - as a historian, you would need to reject a lot of myth that was written about Alexander. But you still have evidence of Macedonian conquests, his father's grave, etc., so you can be reasonably sure that there was such a person. (You also have more historical details about Alexander, including his appearance and the sort of random details about people that real history tends to contain.) The same criteria that you use to dismiss the historical fiction and mythology about Alexander does not leave you with any firm evidence that Jesus actually existed.

My point about the wimply historical Jesus was not a fallback position. I remain an agnostic on the question. You distort my point to say that this Jesus is a mere shadow of the risen savior - this Jesus is not compatible with a risen savior. The historical Jesus is a product of the Enlightenment and Deism, and is barely compatible with Christianity.

The Historical Jesus is no threat to atheists, and some atheist strategists I know avoid the Jesus Myth hypothesis because it is not necessary for atheism; I think the JM hypothesis is more popular with neo-gnostics.

I have outlined my reasons above, but I see this is degenerating into insults. When you get desparate you have to compare the JM to young earth creationists, even though the HJ camp does not have a list of facts and methodology comparable to talkorigins, that answers all of the mythicists' criticisms.

I have emailed Richard Carrier about Layman's Greek translations, but have yet to hear from him. (I think he actually has a life.)

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Radorth

And hopefully many details and events which inventors would have hidden. Those are always the best evidence.

Radorth

Layman

I've learned not to just your characterization of things. I don't think I'm one of those whose claimed that there is more evidence for Jesus than for any other person in ancient history. Or for Alexander the Great. I do think that the nhilistic approach many of you guys take would end our historical knowledge if applied to other figures.

Actually, the argument got more sophisticated than that. You couldn't keep up.

Actually, its not. Elsehwere Paul does say he got things directly from God. Here he uses a traditional rabbinic formula that is used for passing along established, preexisting traditions -- not for passing along direct revelation from God.

It's actually quite absurd to claim that Paul intentionally sought Peter out. Peter invited Paul to live with him for more than two weeks. And then claim you have no reason to believe they ever talked about Christainity.

It's also absurd to ignore the fact that Paul admits to the Galations that he "layed" his Gospel at the feet of the Jerusalem Church leaders to seek their approval.

As usual Toto, you can't handle the discussion when it gets too involved.

I would probably be more worried if you found him persuasive.

Layman

For Carrier's argument to carry the day, he must demonstrate that no such Roman control would have conceivably been exercised. However, there is evidence that the Romans would have ordered or expected their appointed Ruler to conduct a census or registration. In fact, there is evidence of a Roman census in a client-kingdom that was closely related to Herod.

Cornelius Tacitus' Ann. 6.41 reads:

According to Tacitus, we know of a Roman-style census being enforced by Roman troops in a client kingdom. Notably, this Roman census took place in a client-kingdom governed by Archelaus the Younger of Cappadocia, who had family ties to Herod. Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, at 99.

Also, there is additional evidence of Rome's willingness to impose its census requirements on provinces that it did not directly rule. August initiated a Roman census in Egypt in 9/10 CE. Although not a state set up exactly like Judea, Egypt was given a greater-than-normal measure of local control and had their own court systems.

So it seems that it is not unthinkable or impossible that the Romans would have expected or required a local ruler to conduct a census. Nor even would it have been odd for the Romans to intervene directly to make sure it was carried out properly.

But in addition to the evidence showig the possibility of such a census or registration, there is actually indirect evidence that there was such a census under King Herod. An article by Brook W. R. Pearson provides this evidence in detail. Here is his summation:

"The Lucan censuses, revisited", The Catholic Biblical Quarterly; Washington; Apr 1999.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I and others disagree with them and believe-- at least -- their judgment is premature.

[ October 07, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>