Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 11-05-2002, 09:05 PM

The nonexistence of outside contemporary reports of Jesus Christ's (alleged) career is indeed understandable if he had been an obscure prophet whose importance had later been exaggerated by his followers.

But the Gospels themselves describe him as being a big celebrity, so for that reason, he ought to have attracted outside attention.

But the closest outside historians to him make only short comments -- comments about the size of this message.

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]

Ion · 11-06-2002, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

...
But the Gospels themselves describe him as being a big celebrity, so for that reason, he ought to have attracted outside attention.
...

True, considering his ground breaking miracles.

Matt 24:30 states Jesus prophecy of resurrection, to be witnessed during that lifetime by "...all the tribes on the earth...".
It didn't happen.

There are no historical traces of Jesus, because in his lifetime he didn't attract "...outside attention." in contradiction with extraordinary claims.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

Butters · 11-06-2002, 01:42 PM

Posted by Ion,

Quote:

I posted this October 23, regarding the lack of historical proofs on Biblical Jesus:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ion:

In US, William Dever, professor of Near Eastern archaeology and anthropology at the University of Arizona, Bryant Wood, director of the Associates for Biblical Research in Maryland, Carol Meyers a professor specializing in Biblical studies and archaeology at Duke University, Joseph Fitzmayer professor emeritus of New Testament studies at Catholic University in Washington, which I already mentioned in my earlier post here about this question.
Their methods are, like I mentioned before, internal inconsistencies in the Bible, possible bias by who wrote the Bible (in the case of the New Testament, these are the unknown writers after the time of the 'apostles') and external inconsistencies with independent texts like Egyptian manuscripts, with medicine, archaeology like excavations in Kadesh Barnea in the east Sinai desert, and physics.

These US historians -establishing the US position with regards to history- like I wrote earlier follow the same scientific standards that are being used by historians across the world, no matter the credulity in reminiscent ancient beliefs by the masses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I add to the list of US historians I read about, Ron Hendel, a professor of Hebrew Bible at UC Berkley.
He wrote: "...some of the story's features are mythic motifs found in other Near Eastern legends.".
"Scholars have known these things for a long time, but we've broken the news very gently." is stated by William Dever

One of the underlying questions here seems to be, "What is the opinion of mainstream historians on the existance of a historical (human) Jesus"

Historians that subscribe to both sides of the issue have been trotted out. My question is.

Can this simple question be answered to the satisfaction of all? Is there a "US position" on this matter? Should historical sociaties be asked this question? Should heads of universities be asked? Does anyone have the authority to make a statement on this, and if so who?

Note, I'm not even getting into if it's true or not, I would just like to know what the "mainstream" historians think, and why.

leonarde · 11-06-2002, 02:06 PM

FM,
Hi! In my last post I was of course generalizing
a bit: historians DO study religions (especially)
the big ones and tell as much as they can about
the beliefs, origins, practices, creeds etc. of such.

Ion on this thread and a previous thread kept on
harping on and demanding a historian and/or history book who/which depicts a MIRACLE as an historical event. Besides the GENERAL methodological problem there's the one(s) specific
to such a venture:

1)By their nature "miracles" are at least a two
(perhaps even three) element event:

a)something (remarkable) happened.

b)the something is being attributed, either directly or indirectly, to some supernatural/unseen being.

c)the identification of the being(s)and the "mechanism" by which it occurs ("mechanism" here would be things like prayer, fasting, juxtaposition with a sacrament etc.)

The historian could very well do a) in very rough
terms (though even here it MIGHT be difficult to
pinpoint exactly WHAT happened: was it a MERE optical illusion/sleight of hand/hallucination?
Or something more substantial?)

However, if the historian commented on b) he would
already be encroaching on the theologians' domain (which is why the Jesus Seminar, which votes not only on the SAYINGS of Jesus but on his alleged WORKS as well, is composed of theologians).
C) also would be squarely in the theologians' domain.

In addition, historians tend to accept the standards of their colleagues who are of disparate
opinion regarding religion and other things. Historians DO praise "objectivity" (to the extent
it can be achieved) and perhaps this high regard for it is what prompted Ion to classify historians
as "scientists".

I DO think that one can INFER certain things from
narratives concerning events----both natural and
allegedly supernatural-----connected with religion(s)but such inferences are (for the HISTORIAN) naturally "pushing the envelope" in regards to a) b) and c) and can only be attempted with the greatest of tentativeness and circumspection.

Cheers!

Ion · 11-06-2002, 02:45 PM

Leonarde,
about your a), b) and c) in the post above, I disagree that they cannot be validated by common sense non religious ordinary observation and by scientific observation, if miracles happen even once.
No need to make ridiculous religious rituals (Leonarde's "...prayer, fasting, juxtaposition with a sacrament...", or idiotic animal, human sacrifices disrespecting life's rights, woodoo, chants like the ones from Africa during the 2002 World Cup in soccer, religious superstitions) in order to have miracles: religious rituals would encourage religious indoctrination, against reason.

After all, Matt 24:30 states that Jesus prophesized his resurrection to be witnessed by "...all the tribes on the earth...".
This didn't happen, so Matthew and Jesus are disqualified from being true.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]

Ion · 11-06-2002, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Butters:

...
One of the underlying questions here seems to be, "What is the opinion of mainstream historians on the existance of a historical (human) Jesus"
...

Archaology journals in US, have an official position about historical events.

Newspapers, follow them.
From the San Diego Union Tribune of Saturday November 2, 2002, I print once more this:
"The limestone box, which is scheduled to go on display Nov. 16, is inscribed in Aramaic with the words "Ya'akov (James), son of Yosef (Joseph), brother of Yeshua (Jesus)". If, as some scholars maintain, the box and the inscription are authentic, it is the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus."

Focusing on "If, as some scholars maintain, the box and the inscription are authentic, it is the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus.", means there are no artifacts from the first century related to Jesus, yet.

Focusing on the part "If, as some scholars maintain, the box and the inscription are authentic, ...", the latest news tell that the inscription "...brother of Yeshua (Jesus)..." is a late inscription, an obvious fake.

So much for "...the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus.":
it doesn't exist.

However, Biblical Jesus involved in miracles, is not to be confused with any ordinary Yeshua living in that area at that time, since Yeshua used to be a common name.

Family Man · 11-06-2002, 03:59 PM

Leonarde --

In other words, you think supernatural events can not be considered historical, which is what I've been saying all along. I'm scratching my head over your earlier resistance to that idea, but I'm not going to look at a gift horse in the mouth either.

BTW: when Jesus Seminar scholars ask: Did Jesus say that? or Did Jesus do that? they are asking historical questions. They are not doing theology, which involves discussing the significance of such events. I know of no rule that theologians can't do history. I would certainly hope that they were trained in historical methods. It doesn't mean that their interpretations are right, but they are doing history.

Family Man · 11-06-2002, 04:10 PM

Quote:

I DO think that one can INFER certain things from
narratives concerning events----both natural and
allegedly supernatural-----connected with religion(s)but such inferences are (for the HISTORIAN) naturally "pushing the envelope" in regards to a) b) and c) and can only be attempted with the greatest of tentativeness and circumspection

I do agree with you, but I think that the inferences always go in the opposite direction of where you'd like them to go. I also have harped on the inability of Christians like yourself you demonstrate a single supernatural event in a ancient text outside that is generally considered true. Even more telling, I don't think you'll find an instance where they are even seriously discussed as possibly being true. In my experience, the inference is always that supernatural events never happened. While it is true that non-historical means we can't be certain it happened -- not that it didn't happen -- in practice, supernatural events are always dismissed as made-up stories. I've never seen an instance in my own reading, and no theist has ever even attempted to counter this generality with an example. The only reason the Christian supernatural stories are treated with kid gloves is that it is the popular religion in our society. It is possible that the resurrection occured? Yes. It is likely? In my opinion, not even close.

As I said before, I can not live with the inconsistency of judging all supernatural events as being false but allowing those that happen to be from the religion I was raised in. But if you wish to believe it, it's all right with me.

leonarde · 11-07-2002, 04:39 AM

Partial post by FM:

Quote:

As I said before, I can not live with the inconsistency of judging all supernatural events as being false but allowing those that happen to be from the religion[...]

As I tried to point out pages ago-----in connection with BIBLICAL extraordinary events recounted, though the point could/would apply in regards to non-Biblically based religions as well-----to me these things are NOT true/"false"
questions: I tried, at that time, to break it down into a number(4 or 5?)of subcategories: the purely mythic/legendary; natural events (earthquakes,
eclipses, floods, plagues)explained in supernatural terms due to the LACK of natural ones
at the time; illnesses which were inexplicable
at the time without recourse to supernatural agents; etc.
For you MOST of such sub-categories are merely labelled "false". Fine. I have no quarrel with that as long as one realizes that important HISTORICAL distinctions are being glossed over (ie
an eclipse, though it MIGHT be a false SUPERNATUR-
AL event, is nevertheless a true HISTORICAL one---
----and here again a true historian would be interested in whether the eclipse really happened or not).
Another area in which we disagree is whether supernatural events CAN occur. But then we both
knew that.....

Cheers!

leonarde · 11-07-2002, 05:16 AM

Posted by Family Man:

Quote:

Leonarde --
In other words, you think supernatural events can not be considered historical, which is what I've
been saying all along. I'm scratching my head over your earlier resistance to that idea, but I'm
not going to look at a gift horse in the mouth either.

Rather than delve into 5 or 8 or 12 dictionary
definitions of the word "historical" I'll use my
own, I hope not arbitrary, parsing of the word:

1)"historical", meaning "actually occurring in human history": in THAT sense I think that SOME
such events HAVE occurred; but I realize that these are among the most controversial of events
(or at least their INTERPRETATION is controversial).

2)"historical", meaning "subject to the investigations of historical inquiry" whether by
degreed, professional historians or people in other fields (or even persistent amateurs): this
CAN in my opinion ALSO be done (but again with great tentativeness and circumspection; conclusions along these lines are apt to bring howls of protest/scepticism/reproach).

3)"historical" meaning "the very marrow of the
ordinary, run-of-the-mill historian's area of interest": no, historians don't NORMALLY and TYPICALLY parse "miracles", "religious visions",
"divine inspiration" etc. in the course of their
work: the problems of methodology and encroachment
on the work of theologians and others (problems I
previously posted about)preclude MOST such activity.

Cheers!

11-05-2002, 09:05 PM	#221
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	The nonexistence of outside contemporary reports of Jesus Christ's (alleged) career is indeed understandable if he had been an obscure prophet whose importance had later been exaggerated by his followers. But the Gospels themselves describe him as being a big celebrity, so for that reason, he ought to have attracted outside attention. But the closest outside historians to him make only short comments -- comments about the size of this message. [ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

11-06-2002, 02:45 PM	#225
Ion Banned Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, California Posts: 2,817	Leonarde, about your a), b) and c) in the post above, I disagree that they cannot be validated by common sense non religious ordinary observation and by scientific observation, if miracles happen even once. No need to make ridiculous religious rituals (Leonarde's "...prayer, fasting, juxtaposition with a sacrament...", or idiotic animal, human sacrifices disrespecting life's rights, woodoo, chants like the ones from Africa during the 2002 World Cup in soccer, religious superstitions) in order to have miracles: religious rituals would encourage religious indoctrination, against reason. After all, Matt 24:30 states that Jesus prophesized his resurrection to be witnessed by "...all the tribes on the earth...". This didn't happen, so Matthew and Jesus are disqualified from being true. [ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: Ion ]</p>

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

11-06-2002, 02:06 PM	#224
leonarde Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: North America Posts: 1,603	FM, Hi! In my last post I was of course generalizing a bit: historians DO study religions (especially) the big ones and tell as much as they can about the beliefs, origins, practices, creeds etc. of such. Ion on this thread and a previous thread kept on harping on and demanding a historian and/or history book who/which depicts a MIRACLE as an historical event. Besides the GENERAL methodological problem there's the one(s) specific to such a venture: 1)By their nature "miracles" are at least a two (perhaps even three) element event: a)something (remarkable) happened. b)the something is being attributed, either directly or indirectly, to some supernatural/unseen being. c)the identification of the being(s)and the "mechanism" by which it occurs ("mechanism" here would be things like prayer, fasting, juxtaposition with a sacrament etc.) The historian could very well do a) in very rough terms (though even here it MIGHT be difficult to pinpoint exactly WHAT happened: was it a MERE optical illusion/sleight of hand/hallucination? Or something more substantial?) However, if the historian commented on b) he would already be encroaching on the theologians' domain (which is why the Jesus Seminar, which votes not only on the SAYINGS of Jesus but on his alleged WORKS as well, is composed of theologians). C) also would be squarely in the theologians' domain. In addition, historians tend to accept the standards of their colleagues who are of disparate opinion regarding religion and other things. Historians DO praise "objectivity" (to the extent it can be achieved) and perhaps this high regard for it is what prompted Ion to classify historians as "scientists". I DO think that one can INFER certain things from narratives concerning events----both natural and allegedly supernatural-----connected with religion(s)but such inferences are (for the HISTORIAN) naturally "pushing the envelope" in regards to a) b) and c) and can only be attempted with the greatest of tentativeness and circumspection. Cheers!

11-06-2002, 03:59 PM	#227
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Leonarde -- In other words, you think supernatural events can not be considered historical, which is what I've been saying all along. I'm scratching my head over your earlier resistance to that idea, but I'm not going to look at a gift horse in the mouth either. BTW: when Jesus Seminar scholars ask: Did Jesus say that? or Did Jesus do that? they are asking historical questions. They are not doing theology, which involves discussing the significance of such events. I know of no rule that theologians can't do history. I would certainly hope that they were trained in historical methods. It doesn't mean that their interpretations are right, but they are doing history.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.