Gooch's dad

Bede, was this just a slip-up on your part, or do you consider the early accounts regarding Jesus (i.e. Paul's letters) to be 'more historical' than the gospels?

While I don't agree with the Jesus mythers, they have a very valid point--Paul's letters contain next to nothing about Jesus as a living man who walked the streets of Jerusalem only a dozen years before.

Yes, the Christian corpus shows an obvious evolution of the myth from Paul's 'vision' of Jesus' spiritual resurrection, through the increasingly hagiographic stories of the gospels. The question is what IS in the earliest stories. In the case of the Jesus stories, the answer is "not much".

Cheers,

-Kelly

Bede

Kelly,

There is indeed not much about Jesus in Paul's letters. The earliest account of his life is Mark's Gospel and the earliest record of his words is embedded in Luke and Matt. It is here that we need to look for the historical Jesus. We do not disregard them just because we have some earlier letters that are silent on the details of Jesus' life. Hence, I am not sure where you think I've slipped up. I said early accounts, I did not say that the only valid documents are the earliest we have, especially when they are written by a man who never knew our subject. OK, neither did Mark etc but that means they are in the same boat as Paul but a lot more helpful on Jesus's life. Remember also, the eye witness accounts for Alex that Toto told us about do not actually exist any more (I am not sure he made that clear enough) except incorporated into later accounts. Same for Jesus.

Yours

Bede

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

Toto

Well no, Bede, they are not. They are sources that we know existed because we have fragments of them, and direct quotations, and we know the authors. 'Q' is a hypothetical source that some but not all scholars consider to be the best explanation of shared material in the synoptics, but we do not know Q's author or real title, we have no direct quotations, and we have no physical fragments.

In any case, Q contains no real historical data about Jesus as a person, only sayings

Good try, Bede, but no cigar. (And please fix your link.) The sources for Alexander coincide with his lifetime, and are far more extensive than those for Jesus. And I did not notice any historian using the "criterion of embarrassment." With the variety of sources available for Alexander, no special methodology is needed.

Unless you have revised your essay since you first posted it, you do not have a methodology for extracting historical data from the legendary gospels. It is as if the only source we had for Alexander was the historical romance written about him. If that were the case, Alexander and Jesus would be on a par, and we would have no more reason to believe in either of them than we have to believe in Romulus and Remus.

Toto

I just had to point out that amazing backpedalling.

Your best source for Jesus' life is Mark, who didn't know him, and shows no evidence of incorporating any earlier writings or accounts into his heroic tale (unlike Alexander's biographers.)

The Jesus Myth hypothesis is that Mark's tale was written as a fictional account, an allegory, or as a symbolic tale, and was later mistakenly assumed to be factual. (Actually, this hypothesis seems to be held by some non-mythers, such as Dennis McDonald.) What can your methodology say to refute that?

MortalWombat

Only for those aspects which are not corroborated by secondary eyewitness accounts.

joedad

The consensus of biblical scholars has been to repeat that there is a bottle and that it indeed contains a genie. But such a "consensus" has been artificially selected for over approximately fifteen centuries of western tradition and government. People only disagreed with such an official "consensus" at the threat of death, or worse. This historical reality easily accounts for the present majority opinion.

joe

aikido7

1. Jesus' publicity machine got a late start.

2. Alexander's last name was "the Great," while
Jesus' last name was merely "Christ."

3. Alexander was probably surrounded by
fawning brown-noses while Jesus' disciples
had a tendency toward mental denseness and
cutting out when the going got rough.

4. Jesus was not unlike other Jewish prophets
(at least before his crucifixion). Because
of his effectiveness at wielding effective
(secular) influence and power in his lifetime,
Alexander distinguished himself right away.

If Toto believes in a too-literal view of much of the New Testament, then it is understandable that he might consign the figure of Jesus to the world of myth and spurious history. Anyone who reportedly walked on water and went around saying "I am the Light of the World" should have made more historic headlines in his little corner of the world than anyone else at that time.

It is also becomes perfectly understandable when one studies the symbols and mythical elements that the Jesus story shares with solar cults and mystery religions. However, reaching for that elusive "original myth" which some scholars claim gave birth to the idea of Jesus and finally to Christianity varies greatly from scholar to scholar.

There is a certain nostalgia embedded in these academic musings for the "primordially mythical" Jesus, but as of now none of these nonhistorical theories have been accepted by the mainstream. They will continue to be the nagging "flat-earthers" without the hard NASA photo contradictions.

That is because it was a long, long time ago. There was no video tape back then and there is preceious little biblical literacy now.

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: aikido7 ]</p>

mfaber

Reliability of the NT??!!! The NT can't even get the year of Jesus's birth straight!

According to Matthew and Luke Jesus was born on or before 4 BCE, during the reign of Herod the Great. BUT Luke also said Joseph and the pregnant Mary had to go to Bethlehem for a census by Quirinius. This is reliably dated to 6 CE. Or ten years after the death of Herod. Luke says that the census occurred during Herod's reign.

Which date is it, Vander? 4 BCE or 6 CE???????

As always when caught in a Biblical contradiction like this one and a most important one it it is, Christians have attempted to save face

• by suggesting that there was an ealier census
• that Quirinius was governor twice

These assertions are not credible for the following reasons:
1). There is absolutely no historical record supporting a Roman census earlier than 6 CE. The census itself is undoubtedly a historical event. Josephus described a Jewish revolt that resulted from this census. The date of the census, like the death of Herod, can also be dated with some precision. Josephus clearly states that the census took place thirty seven years after Caesar defeated Antony at Actium, which was fought on September 2, 31 BCE (another precise dating based on astronomy) based on our present system of reckoning. This means that census under Quirinius took place in the year 6 CE.

2).Quirinius was NOT THE GOVERNRER of Syria during the reign of Herod the Great.The gospels, especially Luke, had presented two events (Herod and the census) as though they were historically simultaneous when they were not. From records of the time, we know that the two Roman governors of Syria during the last years of Herod's reign was C. Sentius Saturninus who held the post from 9 to 6 BCE and P Quintilius Varus was his successor from 6 to 4 BCE. And it was Quintillus Varus who, as the governor, suppressed the uprising that occurred after the death of Herod. The only years in which we have no record as to who the governor of Syria was in 3 to 2 BCE, by the time which Herod was already dead.[You can't shoehorn Quirinius here for no other reason that Herod was already dead...remember that Luke claims that Herod and the census (presided over by Quirinius) were simulaneous events.]

Here is something else to think about. Even if Quirinius had been governor during the reign of Herod AND conducted a census, it (census) could not have included Judea because the place was not under direct Roman control at that time and was not taxed. In all the records of the time, there is no instance of Rome conducting a census of an independent kingdom. For this reason alone, the census Luke describes could only have occurred AFTER the death of Herod because that is when Judea was became part of the Syria, a Roman province (Josephus describes the annexation of Judea to Syria by Rome).

THE ANTIOCH STONES: Proof of a Second Governership?
First, here is no date on the stones themselves. The most reasonable date (inferred from what is written on the stones and their purpose) is between 6 and 1 BCE. What it does say is that Qurinius held a the position of DUUMVIRATE of Antioch. He would have held a Duumvirate there as commander of the forces he led against the Homanadenses, bandits who ravaged the lake regions in south-central Galatia, close to Pisidian Antioch. 'There is no connection between this duumvirate and being governer of Syria and one does not entail or even imply the other." Second this city is far away from the province of Syria (on the other side of the Taurus Mountains, near modern day Egridir Lake in Turkey). The remoteness and distance of this city from the province of Syria alone makes any connection between the duumvirate and the governership impossible. Looks like another case of Christians trying to use an inference, no matter how implausible, to "shoehorn" the scripture into history! <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Antioch" target="_blank"> For what the ANTIOCH STONES really say, click here</a>


HEROD'S DECREE???!
BTW, there is no historical record outside confirms the Biblical story that Herod ever decreed all males to be killed at birth (Matthew 2.16). Now we know from secular sources that Herod was definitely a historical figure. It is also well-known that Herod was loathed during his reign, and many far less evil acts that Herod committed were carefully recorded in several historical sources. It is highly unlikely that an act of the magnitude of mass child murder would have been left out of any account in which Herod was involved. Even Josephus Flavius, who recorded events during that very time in history makes no mention of any such decree by Herod. At the time when Herod's decree was supposedly issued, there was great political unrest in the land. Such a decree would have almost surely sparked a Jewish rebellion. Yet, no account of any such rebellion is to be found (remember, that the Jews rebelled over a head count for tax purposes...just imagine what they would have done over a dead body count! Just a speculation, but think about it!!)

So much for the "reliability of NT account" (NOT!!!)......

Layman

First, it's rather silly to claim that one error renders a historical account "unreliable." It just shows -- at the most -- one mistake.

Second, the purported mistake is alleged against only one author of the New Testament.

Third, it is very possible that there was no mistake. Just a misunderstanding on our part.

If Luke was refering to the 6 CE census under Quirinius, it is strange that Luke use would use the term "first" to describe it, because there is no evidence of any census under Quirinius after 6 CE and it is extremely unlikely that there even could have been more than on census under Quirinius because he was only Legate for less than two years. Additionally, the census under Quirinius was particularly famous. It was made famous by the revolt let by a Jewish revolutionary -- Judas the Galilean.

In fact, Luke seems to be aware of the fact that there was only one famous census and that it took place well after the birth of Jesus (Acts 5:37).

Additionally, the grammar in Luke 2:2 is awkward if it is translated as saying that it was the "first census." In fact, "most commentators agree that Luke's use of the word 'first' is grammatically awkward." Luke, Craig Evans, at 43.

Because most commentators agree that the grammar is awkward and it is clear that there was only one census under Quirinius (the famous one), serious questions are raised about whether Luke 2.2 is properly translated as stating "first." However, this perceived problem is likely solved by a another reasonable translation of Luke 2:2.

As it turns out the Greek word "protus" which is translated "first" in Luke 2:2 by most modern translations can also mean "before" or "former" when it is followed by the genetive case, which it is in this verse. Nigel Turner, a leading Greek scholar from the University of Edinburgh notes that Luke 2:1-3 is more correctly translated, "This census was before the census taken when Quirinius was governor." Turner, Grammatical Insights into the New Testament, at 23-24.
Another leading New Testament scholar agrees. N.T. Wright believes that modern translations get it wrong by translating "protus" as "first" rather than "before." According to Wright, Luke 2:2 should be translated, "This census took place before the time when Quirinius was governor of Syria." Wright, Who Was Jesus, at 89. Other New Testament scholars, such as I. Howard Marshall and Craig Evans, accept the reasonableness of these translations.

This is very reasonable and fits in with Luke's desire to tie his history in with better known Roman and Jewish "historical landmarks." He is therefore avoiding confusion and giving a "historical landmark" by pointing out that the census he is referring to took place "before."

Finally, there are other New Testament examples of the Greek word "protus" being used to mean "before" or "former." John 1:15 is translated to state, "John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before [protus] me" Also, John 15:18 is translated in the New American Standard to state, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you [protus]."

[ October 02, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Toto

This grammatical save is discussed and rejectd in Richard Carrier's essay <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html#Word" target="_blank">The Date of the Nativity in Luke (4th ed., 2001): Did Luke Mean "Before" Quirinius?</a>