The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-13-2009, 04:10 PM
gytalf2000 gytalf2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Joseph of the Bible/Genesis -- Any Historical Evidence?

Is there any historical evidence corroborating the story of Joseph as told in the book of Genesis? A Hebrew sold into Egyptian slavery by his jealous brothers, who then rises to power as the Pharoah's "second-in-command"?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-13-2009, 04:36 PM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,784
Nope.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-13-2009, 07:27 PM
panache45 panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 22,926
Like most things in the Bible . . . including the existence of Jesus . . . there is no historical evidence.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-13-2009, 08:56 PM
dangermom dangermom is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Of course, there's historical evidence for very few people way back then; we just don't have that much, and the vast majority of people lived and died unknown. Even quite important people have disappeared, and there isn't much reason to expect extra-Biblical evidence for a lot of Biblical people and events.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-13-2009, 09:16 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
Like most things in the Bible . . . including the existence of Jesus . . . there is no historical evidence.
The historical existence of Jesus is generally accepted, and there is certainly more evidence for his existence than there is for the great majority of his contemporaries. The claim that "there is no historical evidence" for the existence of Jesus is simply untrue. Simlarly the claim that there is no historical evidence for "most things in the bible" is misleading. There is extra-scriptural corroboration for large number of things in the bible, though there is also a large number of things for which there is no extra-scriptural corroboration.

The only evidence for the existence of Joseph is the text of Genesis itself. Although Genesis doesn't purport to date Joseph, the text is certainly later, by many centuries, than Joseph would have been if he did exist. Plus, so far as I know there is no evidence - again, other than Genesis itself - for the larger story of which Joseph forms a part - the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, and the resulting Exodus. The existence of an individual might certainly go unnoticed, or noticed only once, in the historical record, but a migration like that might be expected to leave rather more traces in history, or indeed archaeology. All of which makes the case for the historical existence of Joseph very weak indeed.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-13-2009, 10:00 PM
panache45 panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 22,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
The claim that "there is no historical evidence" for the existence of Jesus is simply untrue.
Ok then . . . what's the evidence?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-13-2009, 10:07 PM
Claire Beauchamp Claire Beauchamp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
There is also no evidence or mention anywhere at all (other than the Bible) of Moses and the release of the Israelite slaves from bondage in Egypt. Ramses is in the top ten list of Big Bad Pharaohs, yet for his kingdom to lose its slave population in such a spectacular way and not be mentioned in the historical record certainly gives one pause. Sure, the historical record of the time was 99% propaganda, so lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, or perhaps it happened on a much smaller, less dramatic scale. But nothing has been found to back it up AFAIK.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-13-2009, 11:56 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
Ok then . . . what's the evidence?
I'm sure this has been done on the Board before, but in outline . . .

We've got the synoptic gospels, which copy one another, but are generally reckoned to reflect two sources on Jesus.

We've got John, who is independent of the synoptics.

We've got Paul, who predates all the gospels. He doesn't say much about Jesus, buit he is our earlliest source for the bare fact of his existence.

We've got Josephus.

We've got Pliny the Younger.

We've got Tacitus.

Now, none of these are actually contemporary with Jesus. Paul comes closes, but he's probably writing at least twenty years after the crucifixion. But the demand is not for comtemporary evidence of Jesus, but historical evidence. If you are going to deny the existene of a historical figure on the basis that that no comtemporary evidence of his existence survives, then you'll find yourself denying the existence of a very wide range of historical figures. As is often pointed out, the existence of Jesus is much better attested than the existence of Socrates, but nobody seriously questions the existence of Socrates. The "Jesus is a fiction" theory requires an elaborate, wide-ranging and easily debunked conspiracy makign controversial asserstions that nobody at the time ever bothered to debunk. Conspiracy theories are not generally convincing, and neither is this one.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-14-2009, 01:01 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,792
Although there is no evidence at all of a historical Joseph, the Egyptians- especially the "foreign" dynasties, apparently did trust foreigners to positions of high authority. A suggested possibility is the Hyksos Dynasty, who are pictured in Egyptian art as wearing "cloaks of many colors" and may have been a related Semite tribe to the proto-Israelites.

So, the story is not improbable.

Note that Josephus also recounts stories of the Hyksos, which he claims he got from Manetho, a Egyptian historian who lived 300 years before Josephus. Note that the tales also recount a Hyksos "Exodus" very similar to the Biblical one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyskos

As to the Historical evidence of Jesus, we actually have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Pilate. Most Roman records for that period were destroyed. They did find a inscription mentioning Pilate a little while ago.

I like Josephus the best, especially his "offhand" mention of Jesus when Josephus told the story of the execution of James, the brother of Jesus. Rings very true.

Thus, the evidence for a Historical Jesus is very strong, compared to any figure from that period who wasn't a notable King or something.

Indeed, Cecil sez the same-
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...hroud-of-turin
"Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of (heh-heh) whole cloth. (See below.) Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody. "
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-14-2009, 01:03 AM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
I'm sure this has been done on the Board before,
Cecil talked about it : Did Jesus really exist? And what's with the Shroud of Turin?

EDIT : Bah, beaten to it!

Last edited by Der Trihs; 08-14-2009 at 01:04 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-14-2009, 02:17 AM
fuzzypickles fuzzypickles is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The 11th Dimension
Posts: 1,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claire Beauchamp View Post
There is also no evidence or mention anywhere at all (other than the Bible) of Moses and the release of the Israelite slaves from bondage in Egypt. Ramses is in the top ten list of Big Bad Pharaohs, yet for his kingdom to lose its slave population in such a spectacular way and not be mentioned in the historical record certainly gives one pause. Sure, the historical record of the time was 99% propaganda, so lack of evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen, or perhaps it happened on a much smaller, less dramatic scale. But nothing has been found to back it up AFAIK.
What I find striking is that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is never mentioned by name. The Bible does mention other well-known historical figures of the Levant, such as Hammurabi and Cyrus The Great, and events such as the Babylonian Captivity are described in precise detail which can be corroborated by other sources. One would assume, if the Exodus were historical fact, the Pharaoh's name surely would have been remembered -- but no, he's just "Pharaoh". That fact alone, plus the lack of historical evidence outside the Bible, practically confirms that the Exodus story is merely an invented fable.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-14-2009, 05:38 AM
Fake Tales of San Francisco Fake Tales of San Francisco is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzypickles View Post
he's just "Pharaoh". That fact alone, plus the lack of historical evidence outside the Bible, practically confirms that the Exodus story is merely an invented fable.
I don't think you can logically draw that conclusion. There is no reason why there would be evidence outside the Bible. Archaeology isn't a neat and tidy science that can always find evidence for any written account. Especially when it comes down to individuals, it's often a complete fluke that any 'hard' evidence is actually found. They weren't in a habit of writing their names on every pot and pan they owned.

There are many reasons why the Pharoah isn't named. Firstly, the author(s) may have considered it irrelevant and/or common knowledge. Or, it may have been lost during the copyist/oral tradition process. The lack of name is certainly not conclusive proof that the entirety of the Exodus story is made up.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-14-2009, 08:59 AM
TV time TV time is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
I heard about 15 or 20 years ago the coat of many colors (or colours) was in fact merely a mistranslation and it really should have been translated as "long-sleeved coat". Is there any truth to this?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-14-2009, 11:22 AM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Although there is no evidence at all of a historical Joseph, the Egyptians- especially the "foreign" dynasties, apparently did trust foreigners to positions of high authority. A suggested possibility is the Hyksos Dynasty, who are pictured in Egyptian art as wearing "cloaks of many colors" and may have been a related Semite tribe to the proto-Israelites.

So, the story is not improbable.

Note that Josephus also recounts stories of the Hyksos, which he claims he got from Manetho, a Egyptian historian who lived 300 years before Josephus. Note that the tales also recount a Hyksos "Exodus" very similar to the Biblical one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyskos

As to the Historical evidence of Jesus, we actually have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Pilate. Most Roman records for that period were destroyed. They did find a inscription mentioning Pilate a little while ago.

I like Josephus the best, especially his "offhand" mention of Jesus when Josephus told the story of the execution of James, the brother of Jesus. Rings very true.

Thus, the evidence for a Historical Jesus is very strong, compared to any figure from that period who wasn't a notable King or something.

Indeed, Cecil sez the same-
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...hroud-of-turin
"Still, barring an actual conspiracy, 40 years is too short a time for an entirely mythical Christ to have been fabricated out of (heh-heh) whole cloth. (See below.) Certainly the non-Christians who wrote about him in the years following his putative death did not doubt he had once lived. The Roman historian Tacitus, writing in his Annals around 110 AD, mentions one "Christ, whom the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius." The Jewish historian Josephus remarks on the stoning of "James, the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." The Talmud, a collection of Jewish writings, also refers to Christ, although it says he was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier called Panther. Doubts about the historicity of Christ did not surface until the 18th century. In short, whether or not JC was truly the Son of God, he was probably the son of somebody. "
This is a pretty solid post. Note that the Hyksos were not a single dynasty, but a people that invaded and conquered (most of) Egypt after the 12th dynasty, beign defeated and taking their leave as the 18th dynasty started. Some early writers, presumably following Manetho, refer to them as the "Shepherd Kings" -- which matches details in the Joseph and Exodus stories.

That the Jospeh and Exodus stories may have been founded on some sort of vague factual basis -- a Joseph figure rising from servanthood to some minor position under Hyksos kings, and using his authority to succor his family -- and, later, their descendants having suddenly remembered an important appointment in Asia as the resurgent native Egyptians overthrew the Hyksos under whom they had lived comfortably, for example -- does not seem impossible.

The full story as set forth in Genesis and Exodus, though, probably has accretions, elevation of Joseph to a higher position than his historical analog (if any) held, etc. As Tolkien put it, "the tale grew in the telling."

In any question about legendary figures, Biblical or otherwise -- Arthur, Odysseus, Sargon, etc., it's important to distinguish between the possible factual underpinning of the legend and the full-grown legendary story, replete with the supernatural and improbabilities. The same goes for the historical Jesus -- one need not believe in the Virgin Birth, Resurrection, etc., tp accept the idea of a Galilean prophet named Yehoshua whose followers believed him to be the promised Messiah. (But see Albert Schweitzer for problems with trying to investigate the historical Jesus.)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-14-2009, 02:46 PM
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by TV time View Post
I heard about 15 or 20 years ago the coat of many colors (or colours) was in fact merely a mistranslation and it really should have been translated as "long-sleeved coat". Is there any truth to this?
Here's the Wikipedia article on it. Possibly meaning long sleeved.

I remember a "modern English" Bible that came out in the 70s that used the term "coat of many folds" to denote that what was ostentatious about it was that it used a lot of fabric. But people liked the many-colors version so they later switched it back. This also avoided having to change the title of the musical.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-14-2009, 02:52 PM
robardin robardin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Flushing, NY
Posts: 4,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Here's the Wikipedia article on it. Possibly meaning long sleeved.

I remember a "modern English" Bible that came out in the 70s that used the term "coat of many folds" to denote that what was ostentatious about it was that it used a lot of fabric. But people liked the many-colors version so they later switched it back. This also avoided having to change the title of the musical.
But it would fit in syncretically with Buddha's "Eight Fold Path"!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-14-2009, 04:36 PM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 20,099
The tale of Joseph mentions a very protracted famine - is there no record of that?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-14-2009, 05:21 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,162
Quote:
As is often pointed out, the existence of Jesus is much better attested than the existence of Socrates, but nobody seriously questions the existence of Socrates.
Really? I thought it was a not-so-fringe hypothesis that Socrates was nothing more than a rhetorical device created by Plato, or at least that the real historical Socrates (if he existed) bore no particular resemblance to Plato's portrayal of him.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:27 PM
dracoi dracoi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
The tale of Joseph mentions a very protracted famine - is there no record of that?
The problem is that protracted famines in Egypt are like earthquakes in California. It's not a lack of evidence, but a question of "Which one?"

This actually goes for another piece of evidence I've heard mentioned about Joseph: that is, that there was an ancient lake or aquifer named something like "Joseph's lake." Well, even if we're not overreaching on the interpretation of the name, even evidence of someone named Joseph is not exactly a smoking gun for proving this Joseph.

(That said, I'm a believer that the the Biblical story is essentially true. I just don't believe in shoring it up with shoddy evidence.)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:28 PM
dracoi dracoi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Really? I thought it was a not-so-fringe hypothesis that Socrates was nothing more than a rhetorical device created by Plato, or at least that the real historical Socrates (if he existed) bore no particular resemblance to Plato's portrayal of him.
What? Next you'll say he made up that thing about Atlantis too!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:36 PM
bjbrashier bjbrashier is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Really? I thought it was a not-so-fringe hypothesis that Socrates was nothing more than a rhetorical device created by Plato, or at least that the real historical Socrates (if he existed) bore no particular resemblance to Plato's portrayal of him.
What are you talking about? This documentary:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096928/

clearly proves that Socrates really existed! And that Napolean liked ice cream!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-14-2009, 06:48 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Really? I thought it was a not-so-fringe hypothesis that Socrates was nothing more than a rhetorical device created by Plato, or at least that the real historical Socrates (if he existed) bore no particular resemblance to Plato's portrayal of him.
Granted that Socrates-as-depicted-by-Plato is probably 95% Plato and 5% Socrates, there was a figure depicted by Xenophon and lampooned by Aristophanes independently of Plato's creation. So, yes, Socrates can reliably be said to be a real peron. The issue, of course, is how much of our imshr og Socrates is 4really him and how much is Platonic invention. (Just as Jesus, though arguably real (independently of faith), is nearly totally known only from the depictions designed by the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (esch of whom prepared a portrait slanted to make a particular point or set of points).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-14-2009, 07:30 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Here's the Wikipedia article on it. Possibly meaning long sleeved.

I remember a "modern English" Bible that came out in the 70s that used the term "coat of many folds" to denote that what was ostentatious about it was that it used a lot of fabric. But people liked the many-colors version so they later switched it back. This also avoided having to change the title of the musical.
Well, I'd agree but the Hyksos are pictured in Egyptian art as wearing "cloaks of many colors". Interesting, eh?

Thanks Poly, and I agree.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-14-2009, 07:38 PM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Polycarp View Post
Granted that Socrates-as-depicted-by-Plato is probably 95% Plato and 5% Socrates, there was a figure depicted by Xenophon and lampooned by Aristophanes independently of Plato's creation. So, yes, Socrates can reliably be said to be a real person. The issue, of course, is how much of our image of Socrates is really him and how much is Platonic invention. (Just as Jesus, though arguably real (independently of faith), is nearly totally known only from the depictions designed by the authors of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (esch of whom prepared a portrait slanted to make a particular point or set of points).
The above is a corrected version of my post above. I'm not sure what an "imshr og Socrates" is, but I suspect it's the Greek-philosophic equivalent of the "Son og God" post that gave rise to "Og smash!"

Last edited by Polycarp; 08-14-2009 at 07:39 PM.. Reason: So THIS post had typoes too! "I should of stood in bed."
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-15-2009, 11:39 AM
Estilicon Estilicon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Really? I thought it was a not-so-fringe hypothesis that Socrates was nothing more than a rhetorical device created by Plato, or at least that the real historical Socrates (if he existed) bore no particular resemblance to Plato's portrayal of him.
The historicity of Socrates is pretty well documented. In fact, he's life is even better documented than Jesus:
Aristophanes, a contemporary, mentions him in one of his plays "The clouds".
He is also mentioned by another contemporary, Xenophon.
Finally, Artistotles, who was younger also mentions him. While he didn't know him personally he knew Plato and many of his contemporaries.
Obligatory link.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-15-2009, 11:52 AM
monavis monavis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Cecil talked about it : Did Jesus really exist? And what's with the Shroud of Turin?

EDIT : Bah, beaten to it!
If a person was wrapped in a shroud the way the Shroud Of Turin was he would have to be flat like a paper doll, as the top of the head in front, and the back of the head, both of the images touch leaving no room for a head.

Last edited by Colibri; 08-15-2009 at 12:10 PM.. Reason: fixed coding
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-15-2009, 11:41 PM
Jerseyman Jerseyman is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
There is the mummy of an Egyptian 'vizier' called Yuya that some think may be the historical Joseph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuya It is common for Egyptian names to refer to a tutelary god and it's worth remembering that of course nobody was ever called 'Joseph'; the name is 'Yusup' or 'Yusuf'. So it is possible that Yuya meant the first syllables of Yusup-Yahweh.

As to Jesus, well I think there was somebody, but like was said earlier of Socrates, what we have is 95% what writers wanted him to be, and 95% of that is misunderstood in later ages compared to what it meant at the time. I see him as an Arthur figure: even if we found a Historical Arthur, he would not be 'Arthur' since so much of the legend accreted to him is updated from other sources and so much much of what he came to mean has nothing to do with any man's life at the time. In fact I think 'Arthur' may be an attempt to make the Jesus story palatable to a warrior culture who would just see him as one more loser.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-16-2009, 12:08 AM
Exapno Mapcase Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 23,784
Who are the "some" who think this? And what is their evidence?

This sounds like the obsessive but totally ahistoric drive to use the bible as a base then circularly link artifacts back to the bible to prove its truth.

All we know is that Yuya may be foreign born. Nothing connects him to the Hebrews, let alone to Joseph. He's not even the right time period for the supposed events of Joseph.

This devalues history, devalues archaeology, devalues religion, and devalues rational thought. Why bring it up?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-16-2009, 02:46 PM
Markxxx Markxxx is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Chicago,IL
Posts: 14,962
There is direct evidence and indirect evidence. Sometimes when people say there is no evidence what they mean is their is no direct evidence.

For instance if you're in a windowless room and you hear thunder, then you go outside and hour latter and it's sunny but you see a puddle of water on the ground that, along with the thunder you heard, is indrect evidence that it actually rained.

But there is no actual proof the rain 'caused that puddle or even that it rained since you were in a windowless room.

I just finshed a book "The Jesus Myth" and while the author makes some decent arguments Jesus never existed, I don't think they are strong enough to rule out the possiblity all together.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-16-2009, 08:37 PM
scm1001 scm1001 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerseyman View Post
There is the mummy of an Egyptian 'vizier' called Yuya that some think may be the historical Joseph. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuya It is common for Egyptian names to refer to a tutelary god and it's worth remembering that of course nobody was ever called 'Joseph'; the name is 'Yusup' or 'Yusuf'. So it is possible that Yuya meant the first syllables of Yusup-Yahweh.
Of course the bible states that Joseph's bones were carried into Israel with Moses, so that it doesnt quite square.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-17-2009, 06:08 AM
[cc] [cc] is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
The documentary The God Who Wasn't There closely examines the similarities between Jesus and numerous previous mythological entities, deities, and cult figures and goes on to suggest that the alleged Jesus of Nazareth/Christ character was cobbled together deliberately from earlier god legends.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-17-2009, 07:12 AM
monavis monavis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by scm1001 View Post
Of course the bible states that Joseph's bones were carried into Israel with Moses, so that it doesnt quite square.
Wasn't Israel the promised land, and wasn't Moses not able to enter there?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-17-2009, 09:13 AM
The Great Philosopher The Great Philosopher is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
But the demand is not for comtemporary evidence of Jesus, but historical evidence. If you are going to deny the existene of a historical figure on the basis that that no comtemporary evidence of his existence survives, then you'll find yourself denying the existence of a very wide range of historical figures. As is often pointed out, the existence of Jesus is much better attested than the existence of Socrates, but nobody seriously questions the existence of Socrates.
Not really - firstly there's contemporary evidence for Socrates in the form of Aristophanes' plays (the plays ridiculed Socrates, and Plato later implies that they had a role in his being executed by turning popular opinion against Socrates). Secondly it's almost undisputed that Plato and Xenophon, the two other main sources for Socrates' life, both knew Socrates personally, which is not undisputed for the writers of the gospels. Also Plato and Xenophon were writing much closer to the time of Socrates' life than the gospels were for Jesus.

But I agree with your broader point; there is historical evidence for Jesus, most historians agree that a man called Jesus who became a teacher and was crucified by the Romans probably existed, and it's more far-fetched to argue that he was entirely mythical than that he existed to some extent.

But the only historical evidence for Joseph, on the other hand, is the Book of Genesis, and while most of the elements of the story do sound possible, the story was probably written hundreds of years after the events and the Book of Genesis contains lots of stories that are completely implausible. I think the chances of Joseph not being mythical are very low.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-17-2009, 11:01 AM
Polycarp Polycarp is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: A better place to be
Posts: 26,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by [cc] View Post
The documentary The God Who Wasn't There closely examines the similarities between Jesus and numerous previous mythological entities, deities, and cult figures and goes on to suggest that the alleged Jesus of Nazareth/Christ character was cobbled together deliberately from earlier god legends.
This is not to conduct a GD-type religious debate in GQ, but simply to raise a salient point: To many believers, the similarities between the Jesus story and other, earlier deity-on-earth stories were intentionally put there by God as "typological" foreshadowing of The Real Thing. If people are used to believing in a mythical tutelary deity for grains who dies and is buried and then comes back to life, they will then be readier to believe when Jesus actually does it. I've seen this argument raised by serious thinkers, so it's worth pointing out here: Given an omnipotent, omniscient God interested in convincing humans to believe of their own free will, liberally larding history with foreshadowing is at least as good an explanation for the similarities as borrowings from other mythologies.

(I don't expect anyone to necessarily subscribe to this view, but to state for the record that there are those who do.)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-17-2009, 11:28 AM
Malacandra Malacandra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by monavis View Post
Wasn't Israel the promised land, and wasn't Moses not able to enter there?
That's right - but Exodus does state that Joseph's bones went from Egypt along with the Israelites.


Polycarp, something of the sort is mentioned in Mere Christianity, as you doubtless know - and Lewis and a friend observe that it is possible to conclude, not "So much the worse for the Christians", but "So much the better for the pagans" (at least God threw them a hint).

Last edited by Malacandra; 08-17-2009 at 11:30 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-17-2009, 11:29 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 22,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by [cc] View Post
The documentary The God Who Wasn't There closely examines the similarities between Jesus and numerous previous mythological entities, deities, and cult figures and goes on to suggest that the alleged Jesus of Nazareth/Christ character was cobbled together deliberately from earlier god legends.

The problem of the Christ Myth hypothesis is that it takes some later details about the life of Jesus (such as the Christmas Birth) and points to them as examples of common myths such as Adonis, Osiris, and Mithra.

However, the Christmas Birth date was added later- possibly to make the story of Jesus fit earlier myths. This argues against Dec 25th as the birthday, not the existence of a historical Jesus. And it appears that much of Roman Mithraism appeared after Christianity, thereby who copied from who?

Note that the Romans, who did ridicule and persecute early Christians- never raised doubts about the existence of a historical Jesus.

No serious scholar takes this hypothesis seriously. No doubt that myths and traditions were added later, often taken from other cultures- the Christmas tree is a perfect example. Myths and traditions were added later about George Washington(Cherry Tree for example) but that does not mean George was no a real man.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-17-2009, 12:06 PM
MonkeyMensch MonkeyMensch is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Encinitas
Posts: 2,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Great Philosopher View Post
... the Book of Genesis contains lots of stories that are completely implausible. ...
So you're telling me that Balaam was just talking out of his ass?
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.