spin

Michael asks Quentin:
---------------------
If the Jesus myth is a second-century product, why do Tacitus, and Pliny reproduce it so early in the century?
---------------------

Pliny the Younger, writing during the reign of Hadrian, is not an attestation for Jesus but of christians who believed in Jesus.

I think that Tacitus is not a witness of anything in this case. I think the text has been fiddled with (as Josephus was). No-one mentions Tacitus's testimony for Christ or Christians until a century or so ago. Not a single person in antiquity evinced knowledge of what is used by moderns as historical evidence. No ancient attestation of Tacitus by christians points to no testimony in Tacitus.

Vorkosigan

Really? I wasn't aware of this. But Gibbon mentions it....so surely you mean "until more recent times."

I am not claiming that Pliny attests to Jesus. What I am claiming is that Pliny attests to the outline of the Jesus legend quite early, to early for Quentin's thesis that it is a second century invention, although that in itself does not rule out a second century date for the gospels.

Bracketing the question of when the gospels were written; what evidence rules out a second century date for MMLJ?

Michael

Michael

Iasion

So,
you fail to address the points I raised,
you fail to present any arguments for your case,
you stoop to personal attack again...

You really don't seem to have a case Alexis - you argue for something for which there is NO evidence, and ignore any evidence against - and you cloud the issue with irrelevant invective.

As for reading Greek - why? are you claiming YOU have found something that proves your case in Greek, but not in English? Are you claiming there ARE references to Jesus in Greek but not English? If not, why make this self-serving non-sequitur?

I do my best to read as much as possible, and to check the Greek for tricky bits - your crude personal attack is nothing more than an argument to your own authority - but from what I have seen of your inability to address the issues, and your tendency to stoop to ad hominem attacks, you have little authority at all.

To suggest I need to read mainstream scholarly textbooks is pure bigotry - you wrongly assume I MUST agree with you if only I read the books YOU agree with - close-mindedness of the worst sort.

Furthermore, my claims are only 'radical' to the faithful, or those who won't face the evidence head-on - there are many authors, past and present, who argue for a non-historical Jesus.

Perhaps its YOU that needs to do some reading - e.g. Higgins, Bauer, Strauss, G.A. Wells, Robert Taylor, Massey, J.M. Robertson, Dennis MacDonald

Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Greetings Michael,

They don't.

Pliny refers to Christians who worship a Christ as a God - this has nothing specific to say about a historical Jesus, it could just as easily be a Gnostic conception of the inner Christ, or early talk about the just-forming Jesus myth.

Tacitus at best repeats the Christian talk of the day, in the very period when the Jesus myth is forming - early 2nd century. At worst, Tacitus is a later invention - we have no early manuscripts and no citation till over a millenium later.

The idea of a historical crucifixion was an early stratum, based on Paul's reference to the crucifixion (a spiritual conception with no historical time, place, setting etc.) Even if Tacitus is authentic, all it shows is that early 2nd century Christians were talking about a crucifixion - which fits my thesis of Gospels starting to be written in early 2nd century.

Quentin David Jones

Iasion

Josephus?

Josephus was a Jew, his book goes on about many minor figures who led the Jews astray, he specifically avoids calling any of them the Messiah, he spends pages on minor criminals -

Then the Testamonium suddenly breaks into the flow with a tiny hagiographic paragraph about the Messiah, written in obviously Christian terms.

Origen specifally noted early 3rd century that Josephus did NOT call Jesus the Messiah, and no other early writer noticed the Testamonium

The earliest references or cites of the T.F. come from Eusebius centuries after it was suposedly written, and it took several more centuries to be copied into other manuscripts.

Few non-Christian scholars believe the T.F. is authentic - perhaps you could present your arguments for claiming it IS authentic?

Quentin David Jones

hinduwoman

Sotzo,
The story of resurrection is not unique. A god dies and is raised up from the dead. If Christ is the Son of God/God then obviously it is old wine in new bottle. Also, in Hindu mythology, dead men --- men -- are raised up by the gods.

Why do you assume that the story of the body not in the grave was a fact?

The early church grew only among the slaves and the lower classes to whom it held out hopes of a better life after death. It really took off under Constantine.

spin

I'm trying to make Alexis Comnenus's task as easy as possible here:

Alexis Comnenus,

Here is most of what Paul says about crucifixion:

• Ro 6:6 the old man crucified with him (Christ)
• 1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you?
• 1Co 1:17 lest the cross of Christ should be made void
• 1Co 1:18 1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God.
• 1Co 1:23 Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock
• 1Co 2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified
• 1Co 2:8 which none of the rulers of this {1} world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory
• 2Co 13:4 (The Christ you have to deal with is not a weak person outside you, but a tremendous power inside you.) for he was crucified through weakness
• Ga 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ
• Ga 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?
• Ga 5:11 But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away.
• Ga 5:24 And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh
• Ga 6:12 they compel you to be circumcised; only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ.
• Ga 6:14 But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world.

I supply this as a pointer. (There are also references to the cross in Eph 2:16, Php 2:8, and Col 1:20, but the first and the last I don't accept as Pauline and of the second only part is Pauline, of which the reference isn't part.) Feel free to use whatever version you like which is respectable. Would you now like to make a case for this material being a testimony from Paul, who admittedly never met his Jesus, of a historical event which equates to that portrayed in the gospels? Perhaps you might like to make a case for what Paul means by "crucified", especially in all the Galatians examples and say how that idea relates to real-world events giving historical indications.

As to Josephus, it's too bad that the interpolaters made their actions a little too unbelievable. It might have been as good as Tacitus's "testimony", but unfortunately you can't honestly hope to get away with using blatantly tainted evidence.

Please do your job.

(If you want to make a case for those letters I have excluded, please feel free. If you want me to make a case, I might have to dig around as I haven't dealt with this area in many years, but eventually I can do it.)

Skeptical

I would submit that this "compelling evidence" is not what convinced you. What convinced you was a strong desire to believe these stories to be true. You did enough research to convince yourself that you could believe them, but trust me, the reasoning you present would not convince someone who did not already have a propensity to believe it.


I find this to be a pretty weak argument. You base part of your belief in an extraordinarily supernatural story on the idea that it is different from other supernatural stories? I don't see how this really means much. The jews already took pains to try and separate themselves from other ethnic groups and in any case, while I am not a mythology expert, I suspect the claim that the "not recognizing the hero" element is not all that unique.

It has been argued that this very tendency is what makes the stories likely to be simplified aplications of mystery religion elements to Jewish ideas. This is hardly the sort of thing that would convince someone not wanting to believe.


I think you need to define "grew rapidly" first. I haven't seen any information that shows concrete evidence for how many Christians there were prior to Constantine. I think it's also a very strong statement to say "no good reason" for its growth without a resurrection. Even granting a rapid growth, I don't see how this really proves one thing one way or another.

Not even the most devout Christian apologist has claimed that the reason for the growth was because all of the converted "saw" Christ as Paul reportedly did or that they went to the supposed tomb location and did a thorough investigation. They converted because of a story they were told. That story could have been true or untrue. If many converted because they believed the story was true, that lends no credence whatsoever to the story itself being true, only that it was believed. Belief is not evidence of truth, it is evidence of belief.

By way of comparison, Scientology has "grown rapidly" in the 15 years of so since the death of L Ron Hubbard (no, I'm not a scientologist and no, I don't know how many members they have but it's certainly in the hundreds of thousands). Modern Scientologists tell stories about their religion and people believe them. I think you would grant that this doesn't mean the stories are true.

I don't have a hard time understanding why Jews living in a time of subjugation, when stories of a promised messiah were continually in the air, would find the stories of Jesus filled with hope and choose to follow the presbyters such as Paul. After all, if the choice was between traditional Judaism which said the messiah still had not arrived, the Roman state religion or something new that promised more, which would the peasantry most likely pick?

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.

Wow, that's quite a few fallacies to pack into one paragraph. First, you state that Jesus was either in a tomb or he was not, (obviously) and then you immediately assume that he was. You then say either the tomb was empty or it was not (again, obviously, granting there was a tomb to begin with), and then you assume it was empty. Based on these assumptions you say there is no natural explanation for this "data".

Well, there is no natural explanation because there is no "data". You are assuming the answer. The only "data" we have are anecdotal stories from 2,000 years ago. 4 of the stories rely on 1 other, which means we have only 2 sources for the resurection story right out of the gate. The earliest of these stories is from no more recently than 40 years after the supposed events. Paul, the earliest Christian writer makes no mention of the details of the resurection. We don't even know where the supposed tomb is located with any degree of accuracy. I utterly fail to see how you can consider this "data" that needs an "explanation".

You also don't seem to understand the skeptical mindset. The point is not that out senses define all "truth", it is that in the absense of extraordinary evidence, extraordinary claims cannot be taken at face value. The more extraordinary a claim is, the more it is outside of everyday experience, the more evidence required for it to be believed. Perhaps Jesus _did_ rise from the dead, but if the only evidence for this is 2 stories written 2,000 years ago, of which none is earlier than nearly a half century after the supposed fact, how can you expect a skeptic to take these stories more seriously than the many other stories of similar events in the past few thousands of years?

I submit to you again that you do not believe in Christianity for these reasons. You believe because of what you were taught and because it makes you feel good, no different from any other follower of the worlds other religions.

madmax2976

<strong> Since you don't have any "data", this point is irrelevant. "Data" are demonstrable facts that can be verified - you have virtually none.

What you do have are second/third hand anonymous religious writings from 1st & 2nd century Palestine - which constitutes your "data". Your interpretation and uncritical acceptance of that minimal data is something different, and not something naturalism is under any obligation to "account" for.

Furthermore, you haven't "accounted" for anything yourself. You've offered a hypothesis and have completely failed to demonstrate your hypothesis is true or at all probable.

However, lets look at your so-called "data" anyway.

"Unique Genre". This is not "data". This is an attempt at explaining away potential criticism and it appears to be quite wrong. Beginning with the letters of Paul, going on to the gospel of Mark, then going on to Matthew, Luke and finally John we can certainly spot legendary development. Whether it qualifies as actual "myth-making" is irrelevant.

"The rise of the early church". There's no "data" here. You've presented no population figures, estimates or poll data. Even if you could, it would mean nothing. Any religion could present such an empty claim as though it meant something as they all gained in popularity at one time or another. Please pick up a book such as the "Barbarian Conversion" by Fletcher to understand how Christianity actually grew.

"The empty tomb". This is the worst of all. Nothing confirms the existence of any tomb or that Jesus was even buried in such a thing. Even if he were, it would prove nothing as there are other much more plausible scenarios to explain a missing body rather than actual resurrection.

Is this pitiful evidence the best that you can do to show that someone actually rose from the dead? Hec, I can take you to a David Blane magic show where you'll see some feats that would amaze you, but even so I'd doubt you believe Blane was peforming real "magic".

If several of my best friends living today swore to me that they'd seen someone alive after they'd been dead and buried I still wouldn't believe the person had resurrected from the dead. History is far to repleat with con artists, tricksters, mistaken identity, delusion, mass hysteria, and cognitive dissonance to buy such fanciful tales. The weight of the evidence against such things is tremendous.

<strong> This is rubbish. Naturalistic explanations have proven demonstrably superior to supernaturalistic ones - each and every time a mystery has actually been solved. No supernatural hypothesis has ever been demostrated to be actually true which provides tremendous evidence in favor of naturalistic explanations over supernaturalistic ones.

In other words, the "cards" have repeatably and consistently fallen away from the supernatural and this gives us more than ample reason to conclude they will continue to do so.

<strong> Nonsense. All your arguing here is that the supernatural is "possible", but that is a straw man and is hardly interesting. A great many things are merely possible.

You need to demonstrate that the existence of supernatural entities and forces is probable, which is something supernaturalists have continually failed to do.

Our "experiences" serve as the basis of our knowledge. Not only is there a lack of "experience" for resurrections and a lack of evidence for any particular resurrection, there is an extremely large weight of evidence against the probability of resurrection.

If you want to hang your beliefs on the possibility they might still happen since it can't be positively proven that they don't, thats fine, but don't expect anyone else to consider it reasonable to do so.

Iasion

Greetings all,

I see spin has posted about Paul - thanks spin

And I agree with him - I challenge Alex to make a case for how Paul refers to a historical crucifixion from what Paul actually wrote.

As far as I can see there is nothing in what Paul actually wrote to suggest anything about a historical crucifixion - this conclusion can only be drawn if one has the pre-conception that he refers to it.

Alex seem to be arguing that the mere fact that Paul uses the word 'crucified' means he refers to a historical crucifixion. On the contrary, from the way Paul uses the word, it simply cannot be taken to mean a historical event (unless one ignores most of his references and applies un-natural interpretations of his words)

Historical means specific, concrete, physical - names, dates, places, settings...
Paul has NONE of that - his use of the word 'crucified' is anything but.


No Time
Paul gives no details of a time for a historical crucifixion - and he often wrote in ways which leave NO room for a recent historical crucifixion:
...the mystery which was kept secret for long ages, now disclosed and made known through the prophetic writings
i.e. revealed through Paul's interpretation of the scriptures, leaving NO ROOM for any Jesus.

No place
Paul gives no place of the crucifixion or any events - no mention of Calvary, nor Golgotha, nor even Gethsemane, nor Mt Olives etc, etc...

No events
Paul says not one jot or tittle about the events associated with the crucifixion (or any of the Life of Jesus) - no trial, no carrying the cross, no last words, no 2 thieves, no spear thrust, no dice-throwing, nothing about the body.

No actors
Paul never mentions the actors in the crucifixion story - No Pilate, no Judas, no 2 thieves, no Mary Magdalene (or any Mary), no Joseph Arimathea, no Roman centurion...

No context
Paul says nothing to establish the context of the crucifixion - no build-up, no reason, no aftermath, no consequences, no explanation at all.


allegoric or spiritual or symbolic usages
Paul repeatedly uses allegory or symbolism or spiritual conceptions of 'crucified' :
I have been crucified with Christ..
Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.
...the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
...that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with,


Explain how these fit a historical crucifixion?


If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised...

i.e. Christ being raised is a matter of faith - not history - if Christ HAD been literally raised, how could Paul write this?


Furthermore, as Earl Doherty has shown - there are a large number of places where Paul should be expected to mention Jesus or his teachings or the Gospel events, but never does so - the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that Paul had never even heard of a historical Jesus.

e.g. Paul expounds at length on the significance of Baptism and its meaning - yet never once mentions the baptism of Jesus!

This pattern is repeated at least 200 times according to Earl's count - how do you explain this overwhelming silence Alex?

Consider -
Rulers hold no terrors to those who do right. . . If you wish not to fear the authorities, then do what is good and you will have their approval, for they are God’s agents working for your good.

How could Paul possibly write this if he knew of Jesus being crucified?


In the face of all this - just HOW do you draw the conclusion that Paul describes a historical crucifixion of Jesus?


Quentin David Jones