Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

Prophet said:

Bunyip has said worse of me and many others and I see no commensurate repudiation of his slander. It is an all too typical philosophy to excuse or not even acknowledge mud slinging from the side of the aisle one identifies with and pretend to stand proudly against it when it flies the other way. It seems to me that this is possibly an attitude you hold.

Click to expand...

And now, instead of admitting fault, you're attempting to cast insinuations about me. You're just digging yourself deeper, here.

Prophet said:

You can reference the other thread if you wish to see the predictable result of addressing Bunyip's points. Just as in the case of source criticism, Bunyip will twist any words he can to "move the goalposts" out of reach. As for the post in question, at very least I address his twisted ideas on what comprises a primary source. Perhaps you think that is a minor point, but what commensurately minor point has he addressed of mine?

Click to expand...

This is all completely irrelevant to you flaming him, which is against forum rules. I'm not interested in your debate - I'm interested in the fact that you made a post containing little other than vitriol, insults and insinuations about another poster. The context doesn't matter.

ImmortalFlame said:

And now, instead of admitting fault, you're attempting to cast insinuations about me. You're just digging yourself deeper, here.

Click to expand...

I believe that if you have been reading this thread and the other Christ Myth Theory thread you're clearly holding me to a higher standard than you hold Bunyip. This is called a "double standard".

This is all completely irrelevant to you flaming him, which is against forum rules. I'm not interested in your debate - I'm interested in the fact that you made a post containing little other than vitriol, insults and insinuations about another poster. The context doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

I won't contest that my post contained vitriol. What I contest is the your glossing over of vitriol that is posited on one side of the issue and thus hypocritical condemnation of vitriol when its on the other (your) side.

I don't believe you honestly have a problem with vitriol. I don't believe the evidence I've seen supports it.

An excerpt from my private messages:

Bunyip said:

You are a dishonest, foul mannered, lying little toad. Face me in debate and I'll tear a witless moronic propogandist like yourself a new orifice.

I gave up expecting you at any point to back up your acusations, but realised that you are as short on honour as you are on wits.

Click to expand...

Prophet said:

I believe that if you have been reading this thread and the other Christ Myth Theory thread you're clearly holding me to a higher standard than you hold Bunyip. This is called a "double standard".

Click to expand...

Since I haven't said anything about Bunyip whatsoever, this is nonsense. My post is exclusively dealing with your post. If you feel he's broken forum rules, by all means say so. But I'm telling YOU that YOU are breaking forum rules, and that YOUR posts - from what I have seen - are nothing but insults, while Bunyip has clearly made an attempt to at least get back on the subject. I don't have the read the entire thread in order to identify a post which I think is breaking forum rules.

Prophet said:

I won't contest that my post contained vitriol. What I contest is the your glossing over of vitriol that is posited on one side of the issue and thus hypocritical condemnation of vitriol when its on the other (your) side.

Click to expand...

And what makes you think I'm on anybody's "side"? This is baseless assertion, and a pathetic attempt to dismiss my objection to your insults.

Prophet said:

I don't believe you honestly have a problem with vitriol. I don't believe the evidence I've seen supports it.

Click to expand...

Then you're demonstrably wrong - because I'm taking exception to your vitriol.

Prophet said:

An excerpt from my private messages:

Click to expand...

Key words: "except" and "private messages". Considering what you've said in this thread, it wouldn't surprise me that you have said far worse things in PM.

Prophet said:

Atheists like being called scientific, so I thought I'd throw them a bone in my wording.

Click to expand...

Cut to the the chase and just tell them that they have huge boners. They like that too.

I am not saying that Christians can't be scientific in their philosophies.

Click to expand...

You must be horribly retarded.

Bunyip said:

I use the standard definition for primary sources, that this excludes all of the evidence you have for Jesus is hardly my fault, or my denialism.

Click to expand...

No, your problem is your rather complete unfamiliarity not simply with historical Jesus studies, but the entirety of historical scholarship of antiquity (including distinctions an upper-level undergraduate student should be capable of) :

"The most important distinction to make is between primary and secondary sources. A primary source has direct knowledge of event of thing under discussion; a secondary source only knows what others have said or written. By this definition, all books written about the ancient world by modern scholars are secondary sources. Technically speaking, for that matter, most ancient books, particularly books of history or biography are secondary sources: few authors wrote, as Caesar did, of affairs in which they participated personally.
Since, however, vast amounts of ancient literature have been lost, we usually treat as primary any source beyond which we cannot go, because its own sources are inaccessible to us. By this definition it often happens that a source that was once secondary is now primary. Livy's history of Rome was entirely derivative; Livy himself was a stay-at-home with no involvement in public affairs, and the information on which he based his own work was culled from books.

Schaps, D. M. (2011). Handbook for Classical Research. Routledge.

The above is taken from a standard upper-level research manual for students of classical history. You could find similar definitions within the same kind of source for NT studies, Near Eastern studies, and other fields that deal with sources from antiquity. This is because historians of the ancient world seek to differentiate authors like Livy, Herodotus, Josephus, Diogenes Laertius, etc., from scholars of e.g., the 21st century. Strictly speaking, the fact that ancient historians and biographers mainly wrote about events (and people) they were unfamiliar with and for which they relied on information from others makes such sources secondary if one is a journalist or applying simplistic definitions from some strains of historical study of the modern world. For any historians of the ancient world, such a dichotomy is less than worthless. It means that Aristotle is a secondary source for Socrates the way that Gregory Vlastos is (or Schleiermacher, for that matter) along with every modern scholar. Except that Aristotle was taught by a dedicated, long-time pupil and friend of Socrates, while modern scholars are separated from Socrates by millennia.

There are many exceptions that make hearsay evidence allowable in court. None of these are relevant to historians or journalists in that both regard evidence as evidence because the goal is to obtain all the evidence and explain it as best as possible rather than to attempt to ensure the innocent are not convicted. Ancient historians, like modern journalists, preferred eyewitness accounts but did, if these weren't available, rely on 2nd-hand information or even literary sources. It is usually important for both if the information is firsthand or from an eyewitness. Historians of antiquity, however, are not in the same position as modern journalists. They can't interview Livy and other historians, biographers, etc., in order question the validity of their accounts, how critically they accepted or rejected information, methods they used or did not, etc. So they count as primary sources that are the proverbial "end of the line". Aristotle is a primary source for Socrates not because he knew firsthand whether or not Plato's theory of forms placed upon Socrates' lips was not an idea from Socrates, but because he was so closely connected with the individual. Richard Carrier uses the ancient biographer Diogenes Laertius as a primary source because even though he wrote of people born hundreds of years before him, his works are the only surviving evidence of the works that he used that are now lost to us.

This is basic to the study of antiquity. The distinctions you make are so foreign to scholars of ancient history and to their research it is small wonder that you have thus far failed to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with historical Jesus research.

ImmortalFlame said:

Since I haven't said anything about Bunyip whatsoever, this is nonsense. My post is exclusively dealing with your post.

Click to expand...

Correct. You haven't said anything about Bunyip in spite of his vitriol being on full display for the better part of two threads. Rather, you defend him as a victim of unjust vitriol.

If you feel he's broken forum rules, by all means say so.

Click to expand...

Feel? It wouldn't be a matter of feeling. I know for a FACT that Bunyip breaks the forum rules nearly every post he makes, certainly in spirit if not in letter, and I really couldn't care less as I am fully capable of repeatedly voiding him argumentatively. Why, in the world, would I want moderators to stop Bunyip from spewing whatever he wants when I am completely confident that his arguments will prove ineffective?

But I'm telling YOU that YOU are breaking forum rules, and that YOUR posts - from what I have seen - are nothing but insults, while Bunyip has clearly made an attempt to at least get back on the subject. I don't have the read the entire thread in order to identify a post which I think is breaking forum rules.

And what makes you think I'm on anybody's "side"? This is baseless assertion, and a pathetic attempt to dismiss my objection to your insults.

Click to expand...

Your characterization of my post being "nothing but insults" demonstrates your bias. Bunyip posited that primary sources in history must be firsthand accounts--a clear twisting of the vernacular of source criticism. Somehow, in the middle of my "nothing but insults" post, that point got made and then apparently got ignored by you.

By contrast, what you characterize as Bunyip making "an attempt to at least get back on subject" is comprised of him twisting whatever meanings he can to believe whatever he wants, shoving loaded questions in our faces, and objecting to our "whinging" with ad hominem when we offer arguments rather than answering his loaded questions--questions crafted with such lacking skill that their intentions are clearly telegraphed every time.

Bunyip wants to twist the meaning of "primary source" to necessarily mean firsthand. Bunyip wants to twist the meaning of "contemporaneous" to alternately mean both simultaneous and firsthand. His motive behind every one of these vocabulary manglings is clear--he is trying to bureaucratically rule out the evidence regarding Jesus for consideration by fallaciously "moving the goalposts". These, again, are tactics you seem to characterize as "getting back on the subject".

Then you're demonstrably wrong - because I'm taking exception to your vitriol.

Click to expand...

I think you're missing my point here. Yes, you take exception to MY vitriol--not vitriol in general as you seem to pretend.

Key words: "except" and "private messages". Considering what you've said in this thread, it wouldn't surprise me that you have said far worse things in PM.

Click to expand...

See what happens when the person positing the vitriol is on your side of the issue? I'm seeing here the benefit of a doubt that I was never granted by you.

Bunyip said:

Prophet said:

Bunyip said:

Prophet said:

Bunyip said:

Prophet said:

maybe start with learning to spell caesar

Click to expand...

You are a dishonest, foul mannered, lying little toad. Face me in debate and I'll tear a witless moronic propogandist like yourself a new orifice.

I gave up expecting you at any point to back up your acusations, but realised that you are as short on honour as you are on wits.

Click to expand...

I own you. I will always own you.

Click to expand...

LOL! Only in your fertile imagination sparky - all I and the other readers see is a rude, brainless little toad.

You would not be the most intelligent organism in the room if you were alone and holding a cheese platter.

To 'own', you need a point - a clue. You have neither.

So yes sparky, if acting like a teenager with personality problems is winning - you get the medal.

Click to expand...

You half corrected your repeated failed spelling of CAESAR.

cAEsAr

Click to expand...

LOL Is this you owning?

Whining like a baby and flinging false accusations?

Click to expand...

Bunyip said:

When you're 'owning' people, can they usually tell the difference from when you are just dribbling **** and whining?

Click to expand...

Now you have it all.

mr.guy said:

Cut to the the chase and just tell them that they have huge boners. They like that too.

You must be horribly retarded.

Click to expand...

Any public repudiation for this guy, ImmortalFlame?

Bunyip said:

Several others have made that claim - but I'm afraid I do not believe you. Without changing the wording of your claim above - could you provide a supporting quote please?

Click to expand...

Here is a whole website of nonsense about Jesus being Horus. None of the claims have any justification at all. Plenty more things like this on the internet, Mithra, Krishna and others. Did you think I meant someone on this site? Thankfully, no.

How can you be sure Hercules never existed? How did you figure that?

Click to expand...

As I already said, one can be sure based on highly reasonable doubt. One does not need to prove a negative. The absence of any real reason to believe is sufficient for doubt.

In the case of Hercules, many stories are told but nowhere do we see efforts to put any of these stories into a historical context. The Greek attitude to religion was more attuned to the concept of a timeless mythic realm that one connects to by the repetition of stories and ritual re-enactments. It is not that the Greeks considered the stories about Hercules to be fictional. They were mythical and thereby real in a very different way from mundane reality. I recommend Armstrong’s A Short History of Myth for an extended discussion of this idea.

In the case of Hercules, the absence of any notion of a historical Hercules in even Hercules cult followers is sufficient to rule out a historic Hercules. Of course there is always the possibility of hard evidence surfacing. The city of Troy was considered mythical … until it was found. But that does not mean that gods and goddesses quarreled with each other over the progress of a war.

As to Jesus, what evidence are you talking about?

Click to expand...

Credible Historical Context

The Gospels describe an environment that existed in Jerusalem and its vicinity somewhere around 30 CE. Pilate is prefect of Judaea. The Second Temple still stands and the Sadducees are in charge. Many Jews make the Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The House of Shammai, with its emphasis on strict observance of rules, is the dominant Pharisee sect.

When the Gospels were written sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem, this world no longer existed. Pilate is gone for decades, the Temple is destroyed, there are no more pilgrimages, the Sadducees and Shammai Pharisees are virtually extinct – wiped out at Jerusalem. The Pharisees in the Gospel writing age are of the House of Hillel, having refused to fight the Romans and leaving Jerusalem before the end.

This aspect of the Gospels – this accurately detailed portrayal of an earlier time – suggests a tradition handed down from that time.

Credible Original Message of Jesus in the Context of the Times

The original concept of death we see in the Jewish scriptures was that it was permanent, the end. But as the people of Israel continued to suffer indignity after indignity at the hands of oppressors, external and internal, the question arose: How can God be just if the righteous suffer while the unrighteous prosper? The concept of a future resurrection and judgment appeared, wherein all who ever lived would be raised from the dead to be rewarded or punished according to how they had lived their lives. The idea of a judgment after death was certainly not new in the word but it was new to Judaism. But a general future resurrection was I believe unique. Paganism had other non-worldly realms in which spirits dwelt for better or worse but to Jews life necessarily meant a body. The only clear reference to an expected future resurrection in canonical Jewish scriptures (Ezekiel 35) has it as definitely physical in nature.

According to the tradition of apocalypticism (in Ehrman’s phrase) God would send a judge to mete out the rewards and punishments. Or maybe being brought back to life in a more perfect world was the reward and the punishment was to stay dead. Opinions varied. There were also varying notions about this person God would send. On the one hand he was a human being descended from David. But Daniel depicts a supernatural (if human-like) being descending from heaven.

At the putative time of Jesus there was much discontent with Roman rule. The Zealots were not going to wait for any Messiah. They were going to throw out the Romans themselves, possibly justifying themselves worthy of God’s assistance. Others chose a less active stance, hoping for God to send someone to save Israel from oppression. Messianic fervor was in the air, in one form or another.

A young man of around thirty years in the time of Pilate (as Luke has it anyway) would have been growing up when Hillel was head of the Sanhedrin. Hillel was more interested in the spirit of the Law than in fine attention to all the plethora of rules and regulations. His successor Shammai was the opposite, concentrating on strict literal adherence to the letter of the Law.

The message that we see the Jesus of the Gospels preaching is that of a return to true righteousness to thereby create the messianic age by justifying Israel in the sight of God as worthy of a Messiah. His quarrel with the Shammai Pharisees is that they were concerned with man-made rituals whereas they should have been concerned with obeying the Laws that God gave directly. And not just the letter of the Law but its spirit. This message is exactly that of the prophets of old such as Isaiah and especially Amos.

We can imagine a young man,
who is inspired to offer a more spiritual answer to the pressing problem of evil, an answer different and more traditional than the violence of the Zealots, an answer that would in turn inspire the oppressed classes. An entirely believable scenario.

too long, continued in next post

Part 2

Paul’s Efforts to Explain the Death of Jesus

It is also a believable scenario that such a person would run afoul of the powers that be and end up nailed to a cross. For those who thought of him as the Messiah or something like that this would have been a disaster. What happened to the Kingdom of God? And what about the Romans?

I see Paul going to great lengths to turn this disaster on its head and make it a victory instead. He grabs bits and pieces from here and there to turn the death of the supposed Messiah into an intentional self-sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus is the blood sacrifice to forgive sins, Jesus is the Passover Lamb sacrifice, Jesus is the first fruits sacrifice.

However:


If Paul were introducing the idea that Jesus was crucified and that this was a sin atonement sacrifice, his audience would have thought he was insane. But if they already knew that Jesus was crucified and were troubled by it, Paul’s explanation would have been welcomed, as improbable as it might sound to anyone else.

If there had not been an unexpected and disastrous crucifixion of a real historic Jesus, why would any explanation at all be needed, and why would such a collection of lame excuses be so taken to heart?

The Empty Tomb

All the Gospels, even individualist John, agree that the tomb in which Jesus was laid was found to be empty and that stranger(s) said that Jesus rose from the dead and went someplace. They all have creatively divergent versions of what happened next, each according to his own agenda. But if the empty tomb were just a story, why such an unimaginative and suspicious sounding one? A risen Jesus would be proof that such a thing is possible and that the apocalyptic expectations of an imminent eschaton were justified. If the story were woven from whole cloth why not a really dramatic resurrection event with lots of witnesses? Later apocryphal accounts do offer such elaborate stories. But those nearest in time to the alleged event do not. When Jesus rising from the dead would take some of the sting out of Jesus getting killed, an empty tomb and a stranger’s strange story would not be all that surprising.

The Evolution of Parousia

Paul, and Jesus followers in general, seem to expect the eschaton to happen any day now. By the time Mark wrote his Gospel sometime after 70 CE, people were worried. If we take the death of Jesus to be about 30 CE and Mark writing not too long after 70 CE, those who heard Jesus would be getting old.
Mark introduces the idea that the appearance of Daniel’s Son of Man and the universal judgment would happen within the lifetime of some of the people who heard the living Jesus speak. He then has the destruction of Jerusalem be the signal that the Son of Man was about to arrive. In this way he revives hope in that fading expectation.

Matthew, writing 80 CE or so, continues Mark’s Olivet Discourse / immediate Son of Man meme but hedges his bet a little by adding that no one knows just when that will be. Luke, writing even after that, also includes the Olivet Discourse but adds his own hedge in the form of the parable of the king who has traveled to a far land and not yet returned. When he returns those who were unfaithful to him are killed, surprisingly bloodthirsty for the usually mild mannered Luke. Luke also introduces an idea not clearly presented in prior Gospels, that of reward or punishment immediately after death as in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

John omits the Olivet Discourse entirely and makes no mention of any immediate expectations. Jesus will return but when? John subtly shifts the emphasis from a horizontal timeline to a vertical viewpoint – Jesus re-joining his Father in heaven from whence he came. John’s Gospel seems to end with chapter 20. Chapter 21 appears to even be presented as additional material. It refers to the previous story as originating from the ‘beloved disciple’ (traditionally called John) who has apparently died. The idea of Jesus returning before his last hearer passed away is turned inside out. It turns out Jesus never said any such thing. It was a misunderstanding!

Luke in Acts, written sometime down the road, has an even cleverer explanation. It is not that Jesus himself will return soon but the Holy Spirit will endow the church with heavenly authority. In Acts this happens on Pentecost a matter of months after Jesus is crucified. Jesus is off the hook timeline-wise and can stay away as long as he wants. That Luke in his own Gospel ties the highly visible return of Jesus in the clouds with angels to the same timeframe expectations as Mark and Matthew does not seem to bother him at all.

John of Patmos, author of Revelation, wants to reinstate the original short timeline belief. But instead of just mentioning it almost in passing, he builds an elaborate and exotic prophesy about the end of the world with the signs of its immediate arrival being veiled references to events that have already happened. His conscious adoption of the style and framework of Daniel, the origin of the Son of Man meme brings immediate apocalyptic expectations back around full circle.

This ongoing evolution of presentation makes sense if it is intended to explain and re-explain the passage of time since what was perceived as a historic event at a certain point in time.



The credible historic context, the credible original message of Jesus in the context of the times, Paul’s efforts to explain the death of Jesus, the empty tomb and the evolution of parousia all suggest to me that a real historic Jesus is more likely than not.

LegionOnomaMoi said:

No, your problem is your rather complete unfamiliarity not simply with historical Jesus studies, but the entirety of historical scholarship of antiquity (including distinctions an upper-level undergraduate student should be capable of) :

"The most important distinction to make is between primary and secondary sources. A primary source has direct knowledge of event of thing under discussion; a secondary source only knows what others have said or written. By this definition, all books written about the ancient world by modern scholars are secondary sources. Technically speaking, for that matter, most ancient books, particularly books of history or biography are secondary sources: few authors wrote, as Caesar did, of affairs in which they participated personally.
Since, however, vast amounts of ancient literature have been lost, we usually treat as primary any source beyond which we cannot go, because its own sources are inaccessible to us. By this definition it often happens that a source that was once secondary is now primary. Livy's history of Rome was entirely derivative; Livy himself was a stay-at-home with no involvement in public affairs, and the information on which he based his own work was culled from books.

Schaps, D. M. (2011). Handbook for Classical Research. Routledge.

The above is taken from a standard upper-level research manual for students of classical history. You could find similar definitions within the same kind of source for NT studies, Near Eastern studies, and other fields that deal with sources from antiquity. This is because historians of the ancient world seek to differentiate authors like Livy, Herodotus, Josephus, Diogenes Laertius, etc., from scholars of e.g., the 21st century. Strictly speaking, the fact that ancient historians and biographers mainly wrote about events (and people) they were unfamiliar with and for which they relied on information from others makes such sources secondary if one is a journalist or applying simplistic definitions from some strains of historical study of the modern world. For any historians of the ancient world, such a dichotomy is less than worthless. It means that Aristotle is a secondary source for Socrates the way that Gregory Vlastos is (or Schleiermacher, for that matter) along with every modern scholar. Except that Aristotle was taught by a dedicated, long-time pupil and friend of Socrates, while modern scholars are separated from Socrates by millennia.

There are many exceptions that make hearsay evidence allowable in court. None of these are relevant to historians or journalists in that both regard evidence as evidence because the goal is to obtain all the evidence and explain it as best as possible rather than to attempt to ensure the innocent are not convicted. Ancient historians, like modern journalists, preferred eyewitness accounts but did, if these weren't available, rely on 2nd-hand information or even literary sources. It is usually important for both if the information is firsthand or from an eyewitness. Historians of antiquity, however, are not in the same position as modern journalists. They can't interview Livy and other historians, biographers, etc., in order question the validity of their accounts, how critically they accepted or rejected information, methods they used or did not, etc. So they count as primary sources that are the proverbial "end of the line". Aristotle is a primary source for Socrates not because he knew firsthand whether or not Plato's theory of forms placed upon Socrates' lips was not an idea from Socrates, but because he was so closely connected with the individual. Richard Carrier uses the ancient biographer Diogenes Laertius as a primary source because even though he wrote of people born hundreds of years before him, his works are the only surviving evidence of the works that he used that are now lost to us.

This is basic to the study of antiquity. The distinctions you make are so foreign to scholars of ancient history and to their research it is small wonder that you have thus far failed to demonstrate even a passing familiarity with historical Jesus research.

Click to expand...

Legion, you have raised all of those gripes 20 times, none of it engages with any claim I have made.

Legion

Please try addressing my claim, or the topic rather than these long winded attacks on my scholarship.

Try addressing the argument rather than the person.

Bunyip said:

Legion

Please try addressing my claim, or the topic rather than these long winded attacks on my scholarship.

Try addressing the argument rather than the person.

Click to expand...

To the extent you've made any arguments or points, one has involved the difference between primary and secondary sources. I had two options:
1) I could tell you given one of my own undergrad majors in classical studies that your distinction is completely and utterly at odds with actual historical research (excepting perhaps the study of the very modern periods)

or

2) I could refer you to a source designed for those who are beginning to learn how historical research of antiquity is conducted.

I chose the latter, because simply asserting something about the practices of historians answers nothing, substantiates nothing, and contributes nothing. You demonstrated this when you dismissed and insulted a member with a doctorate in NT studies. You dismiss Ph.D's in this field as "trolls", and I'm not a specialist here. So I refer you to specialists when you make claims about their opinions, beliefs, practices, etc., that
1) are wrong
2) that you refuse to offer the slightest hint have any basis in reality
3) that are easily shown to be specious and wrong by actually looking at what "serious scholars" actually believe and what methods, criteria, and sources they use.

Once again, you deflect. I give you a source which isn't just one experts opinion but can only be sold based on its ability to generalize to historians of antiquity in general, and you again refuse to offer any indication that there exists any evidence supporting your claims.

LegionOnomaMoi said:

To the extent you've made any arguments or points, one has involved the difference between primary and secondary sources. I had two options:
1) I could tell you given one of my own undergrad majors in classical studies that your distinction is completely and utterly at odds with actual historical research (excepting perhaps the study of the very modern periods)

or

2) I could refer you to a source designed for those who are beginning to learn how historical research of antiquity is conducted.

I chose the latter, because simply asserting something about the practices of historians answers nothing, substantiates nothing, and contributes nothing. You demonstrated this when yoru dismissed and insulted a member with a doctorate in NT studies. You dismiss Ph.D's in this field as "trolls",

Click to expand...

Please don't lie Legion, it doesn't help. As I said forget about all of the attacks on my character - try to engage in the argument ok?

and I'm not a specialist here. So I refer you to specialists when you make claims about their opinions, beliefs, practices, etc., that
1) are wrong
2) that you refuse to offer the slightest hint have any basis in reality
3) that are easily shown to be specious and wrong by actually looking at what "serious scholars" actually believe and what methods, criteria, and sources they use.

Once again, you deflect. I give you a source which isn't just one experts opinion but can only be sold based on its ability to generalize to historians of antiquity in general, and you again refuse to offer any indication that there exists any evidence supporting your claims.

Click to expand...

Did you notice how that response was almost entirely composed of various appeals to authority? Read it carefully - if you remove the attacks on my scholarship and person, and then the bit where you are arguing definitions, which I am not challenging anyway - there is nothing left for me to engage with.

Your accusations are all completely misguided Legion. You are arguing about definitions, not engaging on point.
Under the normal definition of primary sources, there are none for Jesus - but tens of thousands for other contemporary figures.

Under the definition you give which argues that in this circumstance secondary sources do qualify as primary sources, the I agree that such things exist for Jesus. You are yet again attacking a point that I am not challenging buddy.
Same goes with all of your accusations that I misused 'contemporary', if you want to define it as within 50 years of his death or whatever then fine, Josephus was written within that time.
You are only arguing semantics, I concede that under your definition there are primary sources - but that is irrelevant Legion.

As to evidence for my claims - I have mountains of it, but you only let me identify a single example (The Gallic Wars) before launching into a diatribe about how one copy of a book proves nothing. I have thousands of other artifacts for Caeser.

Legion

Let me see if I can establish where we are at in regard to claims and rebuttals so far:

You believe that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and I agree.
You believe that sources on Jesus within a generation or so of the events count as contemporary - sure, I agree to use your definition. Conceded.
You believe that Paul is testimony to James, and that James is likely to be the brother of Jesus - sure, I concede that point also.
You believe that in this context secondary sources count as primary sources - sure, I concede.
You believe that textual analysis of The Gallic Wars does not constitute a strong case for historicity - I agree. It is only one of tens of thousands of sources for that person. I was never going to rely on textual analysis of it, it was just the first example.
You say that I am not citing lots of scholars - I agree, I am not relying on an appeal to authority, I am pointing out a logical fallacy.

Did I miss anything?

(Reminder: The claim that I am disputing is 'that there is more evidence for a historical Jesus than there is for just about any other figure in antiquity'. I am disputing it because I believe it to be unsupportable.)

Alt Thinker said:

Here is a whole website of nonsense about Jesus being Horus. None of the claims have any justification at all. Plenty more things like this on the internet, Mithra, Krishna and others. Did you think I meant someone on this site? Thankfully, no.



As I already said, one can be sure based on highly reasonable doubt. One does not need to prove a negative. The absence of any real reason to believe is sufficient for doubt.

In the case of Hercules, many stories are told but nowhere do we see efforts to put any of these stories into a historical context. The Greek attitude to religion was more attuned to the concept of a timeless mythic realm that one connects to by the repetition of stories and ritual re-enactments. It is not that the Greeks considered the stories about Hercules to be fictional. They were mythical and thereby real in a very different way from mundane reality. I recommend Armstrong’s A Short History of Myth for an extended discussion of this idea.

Click to expand...

I don't see your point - surely believing that we don't know if Hercules lived or not is the better option? Claiming confidence either way would be equally illogical wouldn't it?

In the case of Hercules, the absence of any notion of a historical Hercules in even Hercules cult followers is sufficient to rule out a historic Hercules. Of course there is always the possibility of hard evidence surfacing. The city of Troy was considered mythical … until it was found. But that does not mean that gods and goddesses quarreled with each other over the progress of a war.



Credible Historical Context

The Gospels describe an environment that existed in Jerusalem and its vicinity somewhere around 30 CE. Pilate is prefect of Judaea. The Second Temple still stands and the Sadducees are in charge. Many Jews make the Passover pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The House of Shammai, with its emphasis on strict observance of rules, is the dominant Pharisee sect.

When the Gospels were written sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem, this world no longer existed. Pilate is gone for decades, the Temple is destroyed, there are no more pilgrimages, the Sadducees and Shammai Pharisees are virtually extinct – wiped out at Jerusalem. The Pharisees in the Gospel writing age are of the House of Hillel, having refused to fight the Romans and leaving Jerusalem before the end.

This aspect of the Gospels – this accurately detailed portrayal of an earlier time – suggests a tradition handed down from that time.

Credible Original Message of Jesus in the Context of the Times

The original concept of death we see in the Jewish scriptures was that it was permanent, the end. But as the people of Israel continued to suffer indignity after indignity at the hands of oppressors, external and internal, the question arose: How can God be just if the righteous suffer while the unrighteous prosper? The concept of a future resurrection and judgment appeared, wherein all who ever lived would be raised from the dead to be rewarded or punished according to how they had lived their lives. The idea of a judgment after death was certainly not new in the word but it was new to Judaism. But a general future resurrection was I believe unique. Paganism had other non-worldly realms in which spirits dwelt for better or worse but to Jews life necessarily meant a body. The only clear reference to an expected future resurrection in canonical Jewish scriptures (Ezekiel 35) has it as definitely physical in nature.

According to the tradition of apocalypticism (in Ehrman’s phrase) God would send a judge to mete out the rewards and punishments. Or maybe being brought back to life in a more perfect world was the reward and the punishment was to stay dead. Opinions varied. There were also varying notions about this person God would send. On the one hand he was a human being descended from David. But Daniel depicts a supernatural (if human-like) being descending from heaven.

At the putative time of Jesus there was much discontent with Roman rule. The Zealots were not going to wait for any Messiah. They were going to throw out the Romans themselves, possibly justifying themselves worthy of God’s assistance. Others chose a less active stance, hoping for God to send someone to save Israel from oppression. Messianic fervor was in the air, in one form or another.

A young man of around thirty years in the time of Pilate (as Luke has it anyway) would have been growing up when Hillel was head of the Sanhedrin. Hillel was more interested in the spirit of the Law than in fine attention to all the plethora of rules and regulations. His successor Shammai was the opposite, concentrating on strict literal adherence to the letter of the Law.

The message that we see the Jesus of the Gospels preaching is that of a return to true righteousness to thereby create the messianic age by justifying Israel in the sight of God as worthy of a Messiah. His quarrel with the Shammai Pharisees is that they were concerned with man-made rituals whereas they should have been concerned with obeying the Laws that God gave directly. And not just the letter of the Law but its spirit. This message is exactly that of the prophets of old such as Isaiah and especially Amos.

We can imagine a young man,

influenced by Hillel in his youth,
who has studied the Law and the Prophets and the apocalyptic writings of the age,
upset by the misplaced literalness and resulting hypocrisy of the Pharisees
and the ostentatiousness (and money-grubbing) of the Sadducees,​

who is inspired to offer a more spiritual answer to the pressing problem of evil, an answer different and more traditional than the violence of the Zealots, an answer that would in turn inspire the oppressed classes. An entirely believable scenario.

too long, continued in next post

Click to expand...

Prophet said:

Any public repudiation for this guy...

Click to expand...

That's MR.guy, to you.

Bunyip said:

I don't see your point - surely believing that we don't know if Hercules lived or not is the better option? Claiming confidence either way would be equally illogical wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

If we needed absolute assurance for everything in life, we would never be able to make any decisions. If alleged proof were presented one way or another concerning Hercules, there would still be doubt about the absolute certainty of that proof. That would leave us still not knowing anything.

Knowledge is not the world. It is a cut down abstract representation of the world expressed according to certain standards. If we want absolute accuracy in everything, forget it. It cannot be achieved. But it is perfectly reasonable to say that we know something is not the case when no evidence can be found for it being the case without being required to prove a negative.

Bunyip said:

You believe that in this context secondary sources count as primary sources - sure, I concede.

Click to expand...

No. Not believe. We KNOW and, what's more, we PROVE that we know. Bunyip? He just spent the better part of three pages insulting Legion and me for repeatedly PROVING that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the vocabulary used in source criticism.

This weak half-concession hidden in the stack won't do. Bunyip should unambiguously retract his unsupported, uneducated ideas surrounding what comprises a primary source in the field of source criticism. No one will be holding their breath as he has demonstrated an ability to not retract even one claim in the face of incontrovertible evidence that he's made conflicting claims.

So, back onto track then, shall we go?

Awkward Fingers said:

So, back onto track then, shall we go?

Click to expand...

You are welcome to contribute.