Why is the "Jesus Myth" theory universally disregarded?

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Close reading of the primary source documents can provide some evidence. For example there is the matter of James, brother of Jesus.

Furthermore, there are an abundance of awkward things Jesus appears to say and do, things that need to be explained away. You would not expect such problems with a wholly mythologized being. The core one is having the main character arrested by the Roman state for disturbing the peace: that isn't a good way to attract followers, at least at the time. But there are plenty of sayings that rubbed the mainstream the wrong way, including the lauding of Samaratans (enemies of the Jerusalem) and eunichs (widely vilified at the time), the prohibition on divorce (absolute in Mark, softened in Matthew), and sayings that are just plain weird (the bit about sand and salt).

We'd expect a purely fictional character to have a more consistent and cohesive narrative.

If this mythological creation came from just one source I might concede your point, but if this were a compilation of various mythologies from various sources from various times then such an awkward mish-mash is all but guaranteed.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

If this mythological creation came from just one source I might concede your point, but if this were a compilation of various mythologies from various sources from various times then such an awkward mish-mash is all but guaranteed.

Agreed, which is why close reading of the primary source documentation as well as the construction of theories that can be evaluated with evidence is necessary.

If it's a mish-mash, there will be multiple traceable antecedents.

That said, I wouldn't expect a mish-mash to have a lot of things that are unflattering to the prophet or that need to be explained away. Hercules doesn't have a myth where he lost to a 90 pound weakling-- but that was because Zeus demanded it. Zeus didn't deliver thunderbolts -- which of course wouldn't work on alternate Tuesdays. What they have are various strong man stories glomming on to Hercules and a Pantheon made up of lots of local gods.

----

Incidentally, Diogenes the Cynic was agnostic with regards to the mythicist position and I no longer find it risible. That said, I have found myself unpersuaded by the limited evidence that I've seen on this board.

[TonySinclair]

IMO the strongest evidence that Jesus actually lived are the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. They are completely different, and they contradict each other, as well as secular history and common sense, so they were obviously fabricated by the authors, independently.

And yet, they both have the same purpose, namely to explain why the Messiah is called "Jesus of Nazareth," rather than "Jesus of Bethlehem."

They would have no reason to do that if there hadn't been a man called "Jesus of Nazareth."

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

That said, I wouldn't expect a mish-mash to have a lot of things that are unflattering to the prophet or that need to be explained away. Hercules doesn't have a myth where he lost to a 90 pound weakling-- but that was because Zeus demanded it. Zeus didn't deliver thunderbolts -- which of course wouldn't work on alternate Tuesdays. What they have are various strong man stories glomming on to Hercules and a Pantheon made up of lots of local gods.

There are 'two' Hercules in ancient narratives, IIRC. That said, Hercules was said to have murdered his own children, which isn't very glamorous. I think that could fit in with the criteria of dissimilarity. I don't find that criteria very convincing.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Incidentally, Diogenes the Cynic was agnostic with regards to the mythicist position and I no longer find it risible. That said, I have found myself unpersuaded by the limited evidence that I've seen on this board.

I'm sort of this way myself. I do not find the historical evidence for Jesus particularly strong and I find many Christian claims towards historicity WAY overblown. That said, I do not find the mythicists arguments very compelling. It's possible, sure, but I think that it's more likely that there was a historical figure - it seems the easier explanation.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

IMO the strongest evidence that Jesus actually lived are the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. They are completely different, and they contradict each other, as well as secular history and common sense, so they were obviously fabricated by the authors, independently.

Really? I'm not sure how to take that. Both those narratives seem completely made up (well, based on the OT) to force fit a Davidic line.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

And yet, they both have the same purpose, namely to explain why the Messiah is called "Jesus of Nazareth," rather than "Jesus of Bethlehem."

They would have no reason to do that if there hadn't been a man called "Jesus of Nazareth."

Initially I was going to say something different with regard to this, but looking back, that does seem an interesting point. Initially I had thought it was simply to fulfill prophecy. I looked the term up in wikipedia and that doesn't seem to be the case (at least not clearly anyway).

That said, there does seem to be some precedent for it, so the early church could have seen something in the term. I'd say, over all, it would point, weakly, towards a historical Jesus. I'd have to see what the mythicists arguments would be.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Close reading of the primary source documents can provide some evidence. For example there is the matter of James, brother of Jesus.

I agree that there is some evidence, but I think that a historian would like to see a little corroboration that Paul was thinking of a biological relationship when he called the James in Galatians 1:19 "the brother of the lord." Luke/Acts doesn't identify this James as Jesus' brother and it drops Mark's reference to Jesus having a sibling named James. At the points a biological brother named James is mentioned, i.e., Matthew, Mark, and Josephus, there is nothing to indicate he ever became the leader of the Christians in Jerusalem. “James” was a pretty common name at the time and I think we would want a little more evidence to be confident that the same person is being referenced in Mark 6 and Galatians 1.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Furthermore, there are an abundance of awkward things Jesus appears to say and do, things that need to be explained away. You would not expect such problems with a wholly mythologized being. The core one is having the main character arrested by the Roman state for disturbing the peace: that isn't a good way to attract followers, at least at the time. But there are plenty of sayings that rubbed the mainstream the wrong way, including the lauding of Samaratans (enemies of the Jerusalem) and eunichs (widely vilified at the time), the prohibition on divorce (absolute in Mark, softened in Matthew), and sayings that are just plain weird (the bit about sand and salt).

We'd expect a purely fictional character to have a more consistent and cohesive narrative.

Given the success that Christianity enjoyed among the poor and disenfranchised of the day, I would say that these elements in the story were in fact excellent ways to attract followers. Rubbing the mainstream the wrong way seems to have been a large part of the new religion’s appeal. What looks like a bug to us may in fact have been a feature.

I would also add that many 19th century Protestants were rubbed the wrong way by idea that additional books of scriptures were buried in the ground in western New York state for centuries. Nevertheless, there are nearly 14 million Mormons in the world today and I don’t see that as any reason to believe in the historicity of the Golden Plates and the Angel Moroni.

Originally Posted by TonySinclair

IMO the strongest evidence that Jesus actually lived are the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke. They are completely different, and they contradict each other, as well as secular history and common sense, so they were obviously fabricated by the authors, independently.

And yet, they both have the same purpose, namely to explain why the Messiah is called "Jesus of Nazareth," rather than "Jesus of Bethlehem."

They would have no reason to do that if there hadn't been a man called "Jesus of Nazareth."

I actually agree that the fact that the Messiah was thought to be from a one horse town like Nazareth is one of the stronger bits of evidence pointing towards a historical Jesus. I just don’t think that it quite tips the scales. Just as one might have Jesus hang out with nobodies in order to make the character appealing, one might have him come from an insignificant place. I don’t think that we can eliminate the possibility that a story element was invented just because we don’t fully appreciate the author’s thinking.

[septimus]

Parts of the Gospel that make little sense as fiction, suggesting they're intended as truthful history. The vague allusions to Jesus' lover(s) qualify, as does Mark Chapter 10, verse 46:

And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.

Why mention a visit to Jericho, but say nothing about it? (The verse reads differently in an alleged older version of Mark, on the validity of which I have no opinion.)

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by septimus

Parts of the Gospel that make little sense as fiction, suggesting they're intended as truthful history. The vague allusions to Jesus' lover(s) qualify, as does Mark Chapter 10, verse 46:


Why mention a visit to Jericho, but say nothing about it? (The verse reads differently in an alleged older version of Mark, on the validity of which I have no opinion.)

Why is it any more likely that such a detail would have been remembered as history? I think we have to allow for the possibility that anything we find in the gospels was told and retold multiple times in the oral tradition for purposes of propagating faith in the risen Christ. I don't think that there can be any doubt that lots of historical details would have been dropped from stories if they didn't help to make any theological point. I think that this is the Catch 22 for this type of argument. If a detail is preserved in the gospels, that is in itself some evidence that it served some theological point which in turn could have provided a motive for the author to have invented it even if we might not fully see what theological significance it had for him.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by VinnyJH

If a detail is preserved in the gospels, that is in itself some evidence that it served some theological point ...

Aren't you assuming what you're trying to prove here?

Were the stories in David McCullough's Truman all chosen to give us a one-sided view of that great President? Maybe so -- I've wondered about this myself .

Still, I cite clues the biographer (Gospel-writer) was honest and you start with the assumption he avoids telling the whole truth.

(Of course we all ignore the Nativity fictions, which were mostly grafted on later.)

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by septimus

Aren't you assuming what you're trying to prove here?

Were the stories in David McCullough's Truman all chosen to give us a one-sided view of that great President? Maybe so -- I've wondered about this myself .

Still, I cite clues the biographer (Gospel-writer) was honest and you start with the assumption he avoids telling the whole truth.

(Of course we all ignore the Nativity fictions, which were mostly grafted on later.)

If everything we knew about Truman came from McCullough's book, we might have a very difficult time determining whether he is presenting the evidence fairly or not. Luckily we have access to his sources as well as other biographies of Truman written from other perspectives. We might also use McCullough's other books to get some idea of his general reliability.

With the Gospel of Mark, we just don't have much to work with and the fact that we don't see why a particular element was included doesn't seem to me to be a very strong reason to conclude that it must reflect some historical event. It's possible of course, but I don't think that we don't know nearly enough about the author or the context in which he was writing to do much more than speculate.

[Reno Nevada]

Originally Posted by VinnyJH

I actually agree that the fact that the Messiah was thought to be from a one horse town like Nazareth is one of the stronger bits of evidence pointing towards a historical Jesus. I just don’t think that it quite tips the scales. Just as one might have Jesus hang out with nobodies in order to make the character appealing, one might have him come from an insignificant place. I don’t think that we can eliminate the possibility that a story element was invented just because we don’t fully appreciate the author’s thinking.

TonySinclair's point, which seems to me a good one, is that if you were making up a story about a Messiah from scratch, you would EITHER have him born in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling the prophecies about the Messiah coming from the House of David, or you would have him coming from the Boondocks, to show that this was not the expected Messiah. Having him come from Nazareth but be born in Bethlehem via some insanely contrived circumstances suggests that the authors had something they felt they needed to explain away.

The interactions between Jesus and John the Baptist are similar evidence for a real Yeshua ha Nazareth. If you were making the story up you would not necessarily have your Messiah be recognized by another, well-known Messianic figure who had his own followers.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Reno Nevada

TonySinclair's point, which seems to me a good one, is that if you were making up a story about a Messiah from scratch, you would EITHER have him born in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling the prophecies about the Messiah coming from the House of David, or you would have him coming from the Boondocks, to show that this was not the expected Messiah. Having him come from Nazareth but be born in Bethlehem via some insanely contrived circumstances suggests that the authors had something they felt they needed to explain away.

The interactions between Jesus and John the Baptist are similar evidence for a real Yeshua ha Nazareth. If you were making the story up you would not necessarily have your Messiah be recognized by another, well-known Messianic figure who had his own followers.

Have you noticed that none of the gospels are consistent as to the birth, they also get major facts wrong or are incompatible, exactly like the story had been made up. E.G. people having to travel to the home of their long dead relatives.

John the Baptist makes complete sense if you were looking to seed your cult with their followers.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by Reno Nevada

TonySinclair's point, which seems to me a good one, is that if you were making up a story about a Messiah from scratch, you would EITHER have him born in Bethlehem, thus fulfilling the prophecies about the Messiah coming from the House of David, or you would have him coming from the Boondocks, to show that this was not the expected Messiah. Having him come from Nazareth but be born in Bethlehem via some insanely contrived circumstances suggests that the authors had something they felt they needed to explain away.

The interactions between Jesus and John the Baptist are similar evidence for a real Yeshua ha Nazareth. If you were making the story up you would not necessarily have your Messiah be recognized by another, well-known Messianic figure who had his own followers.

If I were making up a story about a Messiah from scratch knowing what I know, I would probably do a lot of things differently. No doubt, however, there would be people who would second guess me in the same way that Matthew and Luke second guessed Mark's decisions to make Nazareth Jesus' home. However, if my story had already caught on, the second guessers might have to resort to some insane contrivance in order to get in the elements they liked.

The big problem I see is in reading our perspective back into the circumstances in which Mark was writing. Mark may not have seen the Bethlehem prophecy as important. He may have thought that having John the Baptist recognize Jesus made some theological point. What we think important could be much different from what Mark thought important.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by VinnyJH

Given the success that Christianity enjoyed among the poor and disenfranchised of the day, I would say that these elements in the story were in fact excellent ways to attract followers. Rubbing the mainstream the wrong way seems to have been a large part of the new religion’s appeal. What looks like a bug to us may in fact have been a feature.

I say we need to do some careful historical investigation at this point. My understanding is that early Christians were disproportionately represented from the upperwardly mobile classes, and not the riff-raff. (Cite: PBS: From Jesus to Christ). Frankly in a 19th- 21st century context, fighting the man looks like a real crowd-pleaser. But consider the backflips that Luke goes through to show that Jesus' teachings were in fact compatible with being a good Roman citizen.

Meatros: I'd like to see a detailed study of such luminaries as John Frum and Philip Nolan, fictional men who were believed to have existed within the past 200 years. That might permit us to contrast some of the characteristics of mythical humans vs. historical ones. The Jesus mythicists have some more work to do.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Have you noticed that none of the gospels are consistent as to the birth, they also get major facts wrong or are incompatible, exactly like the story had been made up.

I've read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on "eyewitness testimony.") One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I'm a poor Googler, but did turn up a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments.)

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by septimus

I've read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on "eyewitness testimony.") One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I'm a poor Googler, but did turn up a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments.)

They lost me when they referenced a fictional christian conversion by Lincoln, if they can not get 150 year old history correct I have a hard time believing their arguments on Jesus, he died an Agnostic.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

They lost me when they referenced a fictional christian conversion by Lincoln, if they can not get 150 year old history correct I have a hard time believing their arguments on Jesus, he died an Agnostic.

Just to clarify: I was NOT citing that URL as a good source. It was simply the only usable Google hit that turned up for me containing quotes by reputable scholars like Sherwin-White.

(Color me old-fashioned ... or perhaps just old ... but most of my limited knowledge comes from printed books!)

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I say we need to do some careful historical investigation at this point. My understanding is that early Christians were disproportionately represented from the upperwardly mobile classes, and not the riff-raff. (Cite: PBS: From Jesus to Christ). Frankly in a 19th- 21st century context, fighting the man looks like a real crowd-pleaser. But consider the backflips that Luke goes through to show that Jesus' teachings were in fact compatible with being a good Roman citizen.

What do you mean by the 'early christians'? This notion goes against what I've read, that the first hundred + years Christianity appealed to women and the poor, which is cataloged in Carrier's "Not the impossible faith".

IMO, what we see with early Christianity is that it was initially preached to the Jews, who rejected it and then as a reaction to that the gospels (and further writings) sought to appeal to the gentiles.

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

Meatros: I'd like to see a detailed study of such luminaries as John Frum and Philip Nolan, fictional men who were believed to have existed within the past 200 years. That might permit us to contrast some of the characteristics of mythical humans vs. historical ones. The Jesus mythicists have some more work to do.

I would say that I think John Frum is a fictional person - but I do think there was a historical kernal behind the person, maybe an incident or something. That said, I completely agree with you with regard to what the Jesus mythicists have to do.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by septimus

I've read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on "eyewitness testimony.") One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I'm a poor Googler, but did turn up a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments.)

That doesn't really even make sense. An incident might have slight variety, but when you compare the earliest gospels, you get resurrection appearances in some and not in others (ie, the ending of Mark). You get virgin birth sin some and not in others. This isn't simply mistaking the number of people there.

Further, the gospels are not eye witness accounts.

Finally, on what basis could you say that it was inauthentic?

[Latro]

Originally Posted by septimus

I've read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on "eyewitness testimony.") One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I'm a poor Googler, but did turn up a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments.)

Be careful, any bible study group will call itself "scholars".
That will not say if they are actually academic bible-historians nor if they are really knowledgeable about ancient History.

Especially apologists will call anybody that supports their theistic views with bible quotes a "scholar".

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Meatros

Finally, on what basis could you say that it was inauthentic?

Exactly. When inconsistencies are pointed out experts are brought forth to show that inconsistencies are evidence for authenticity. When consistencies are brought forth experts are brought forth to show that consistencies are also evidence for authenticity. What does it take to falsify this baby?

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Meatros

That doesn't really even make sense. An incident might have slight variety, but when you compare the earliest gospels, you get resurrection appearances in some and not in others (ie, the ending of Mark). You get virgin birth sin some and not in others. This isn't simply mistaking the number of people there.

Further, the gospels are not eye witness accounts.

As I said above John is a eye witness. How much of his Gospel is his own writing is debatable.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Latro

Be careful, any bible study group will call itself "scholars".
That will not say if they are actually academic bible-historians nor if they are really knowledgeable about ancient History.

Especially apologists will call anybody that supports their theistic views with bible quotes a "scholar".

We have had the same thing here where anyone who runs a bible doubting atheists web-blog is called a scholar.

[Latro]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

We have had the same thing here where anyone who runs a bible doubting atheists web-blog is called a scholar.

ooh, touchy!

I assume you are trying a dig at Diogenes the cynic.

But, no, usually they are just known as 'knowledgeable'.
"Scholar" is mostly used as an attempt at argument from authority.

Alas, having read the bible back to front twenty odd times and knowing several quote numbers by heart does not make you an authority on the history of the bible.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

As I said above John is a eye witness. How much of his Gospel is his own writing is debatable.

Not according to most scholars, as I pointed out in post 86:

In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process.[29] The final composition's comparatively late date, and its insistence upon Jesus as a divine being walking the earth in human form, renders it highly problematical to scholars who attempt to evaluate Jesus' life in terms of literal historical truth.

+

While a large number of 20th century biblical critics argue that the teaching found in John does not go back to the historical Jesus, they usually agree that gospel is not entirely without historical value.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by Latro

ooh, touchy!

I assume you are trying a dig at Diogenes the cynic.

But, no, usually they are just known as 'knowledgeable'.
"Scholar" is mostly used as an attempt at argument from authority.

Alas, having read the bible back to front twenty odd times and knowing several quote numbers by heart does not make you an authority on the history of the bible.

I have no idea who DrDeth was referring to, I don't think that DtC runs a blog. By scholar, I mean academics who research the Bible. I think there are good arguments for the various dates, authors, etc of the NT, one of which I mentioned earlier, so I'm not entirely appealing to authority in my posts either.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by septimus

I've read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on "eyewitness testimony.") One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I'm a poor Googler, but did turn up a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments.)

I guess I should have written part of that post in a larger font and have made amends in this repost. To cite a page that quotes reputable scholars means I condone all the "scholars" quoted on that page? Good to know for future debates.

Originally Posted by Meatros

You get virgin birth sin some and not in others.

Uhh... Parts of the Gospels especially the weird Nativity add-ons occuring in only one or two Gospels are fictional? Do we have to repeat this obvious fact in every post here? If George W. didn't really chop down a cherry tree does that mean he didn't exist either?

Originally Posted by Latro

Be careful, any bible study group will call itself "scholars".

Be careful, some scholars expert in reviewing historical narratives, really are experts. Does anyone here claim as much expertise as Nicholas Sherwin-White or C.S. Lewis?

I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that none of them is like this. Of this text there are only two possible views. Either this is reportage - though it may no doubt contain errors - pretty close to the facts; nearly as close as Boswell. Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative. If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind. The reader who doesn't see this simply has not learned to read. [C. S. Lewis]

Nicholas Sherwin-White commented on the authenticity of the historical statements of the Gospel writers in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament::

... it can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolical and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material.

I fully expect someone to point out that C. S. Lewis was (gasp!) a Christian! ... who wrote (gasp!) fiction! Go ahead, I'll not post further.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by septimus

Uhh... Parts of the Gospels especially the weird Nativity add-ons occuring in only one or two Gospels are fictional? Do we have to repeat this obvious fact in every post here? If George W. didn't really chop down a cherry tree does that mean he didn't exist either?

I'm not arguing that he didn't exist - I'm arguing that your criteria does seem to fit - or if it does fit, it's so vague that nothing can be made of it.

But just like the cherry tree - we can accept that as fictional, how about the resurrection narratives?

Originally Posted by septimus

I fully expect someone to point out that C. S. Lewis was (gasp!) a Christian! ... who wrote (gasp!) fiction! Go ahead, I'll not post further.

I disagree with CS Lewis. I think it reads like ancient miracle tales. The miracles of vespasian, among others. Is there a historical core? I would and have said yes, but I do not think the evidence is overwhelming as some Christians try to maintain. I just think it's convincing.

As to White's claim:

... it can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolical and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material.

So what are we to make of the books that are not Canon? How about the other sects of Christians that floated around during the first few centuries?

[TonySinclair]

Originally Posted by septimus

I fully expect someone to point out that C. S. Lewis was (gasp!) a Christian! ... who wrote (gasp!) fiction! Go ahead, I'll not post further.

I don't care if he's a Whirling Dervish; his logic sucks. To say that the alternatives he gave are the only two possibilities for the gospels, when it's known that they were just four of many candidates that ran the gamut from tepid collections of sayings to extravagant fantasies, IMO makes all his conclusions suspect.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by Measure for Measure

I say we need to do some careful historical investigation at this point. My understanding is that early Christians were disproportionately represented from the upperwardly mobile classes, and not the riff-raff. (Cite: PBS: From Jesus to Christ). Frankly in a 19th- 21st century context, fighting the man looks like a real crowd-pleaser. But consider the backflips that Luke goes through to show that Jesus' teachings were in fact compatible with being a good Roman citizen.

Meatros: I'd like to see a detailed study of such luminaries as John Frum and Philip Nolan, fictional men who were believed to have existed within the past 200 years. That might permit us to contrast some of the characteristics of mythical humans vs. historical ones. The Jesus mythicists have some more work to do.

It is my impression that the consensus of scholars still favors the idea that Christianity first spread among the lower classes. I think the fact that the evidence isn't sufficient to resolve questions like this indicates just how difficult it is to draw any firm conclusions about the origins of Christianity, including what parts of the gospel stories are rooted in history.

I agree that the mythicists have a lot of work to do and I think that the sources are just as problematic for them as they are for the historicists.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by septimus

I've read that scholars of ancient history make exactly the opposite point, that the very inconsistencies between Gospels point to their authenticity ! (Read up on "eyewitness testimony.") One of these scholars was Adrian Nicholas Sherwin-White. (I'm a poor Googler, but did turn up a page which quotes Sherwin-White and other scholars who make similar arguments.)

The quote from A.N. Sherwin-White is as follows: "[i]t can be maintained that those who had a passionate interest in the story of Christ, even if their interest in events was parabolical and didactic rather than historical, would not be led by that very fact to pervert and utterly destroy the historical kernel of their material." That hardly sounds like a ringing endorsement of the authenticity of the gospels. At best he seems to be saying that there might be some historical information in there somewhere.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

As I said above John is a eye witness. How much of his Gospel is his own writing is debatable.

Somebody other than the author of the bulk of the gospel seems to have added a note saying that the author had been an eyewitness. I don't know that this constitutes persuasive evidence.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally Posted by Meatros

What do you mean by the 'early christians'? This notion goes against what I've read, that the first hundred + years Christianity appealed to women and the poor, which is cataloged in Carrier's "Not the impossible faith".

Originally Posted by VinnyJH

It is my impression that the consensus of scholars still favors the idea that Christianity first spread among the lower classes.

I haven't done a lot of reading on this topic, so please don't consider that claim to be in any way authoritative. FWIW though, here is a cite from the PBS webpage, Paul's Congregations: Often portrayed as appealing only to lower classes, Paul's Christian communities actually attracted people who were "upwardly mobile." Professor Wayne A. Meeks:

The traditional view of the composition of the early Christian communities -- and the ones we know anything about are the Pauline communities -- is that are from the proletariat. ...

But if you actually look at the Book of Acts, and you look at Paul, and you begin to collect the people who are named...

So you begin to get the impression that you have quite a variety of different social levels represented in these early Christian communities. Not people at the absolutely top level; you have, with the exception possibly of Erastus, no one from the aristocratic orders - no one who would be a member of the city council. You have no agricultural slaves, are at the bottom of the hierarchy. But, in the rest of the social pyramid, everything in between, you seem to have representatives in these early Christian groups.

[Sampiro]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If that interests you, read Gore Vidal's historical novel Creation. Cyrus Spitama, grandson of the prophet Zoroaster/Zarathushtra, living in the Persian Empire during the reigns of Darius and Xerxes (some theories place Zoroaster centuries earlier than that, but never mind)

I was half surprised Vidal didn't sue the historians who wrote the papers claiming Zoroaster lived much earlier just for inconveniencing them. Instead, when questioned about it he just made some bitchicism about quasi historical characters being well suited subjects for quasi historians or some such.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Meatros

Not according to most scholars, as I pointed out in post 86:



+

Indeed, as said before your own cite and post makes my point.

"In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process." Unless you don't know that by "evangelist" they are referring to John aka John the Evangelist.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Indeed, as said before your own cite and post makes my point.

"In view of this complex and multi-layered history it is meaningless to speak of a single "author" of John, but the title perhaps belongs best to the evangelist who came at the end of this process." Unless you don't know that by "evangelist" they are referring to John aka John the Evangelist.

You are confused. The quote is saying that the authorship of the document should go to the person who put together the final text - as opposed to the source various authors of the source material. The 'title' refers to authorship, it doesn't have anything to do with being an 'evangelist'.


As pointed out further in that post, most scholars do not believe that the Gospels go back to a historical Jesus.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Meatros

You are confused. The quote is saying that the authorship of the document should go to the person who put together the final text - as opposed to the source various authors of the source material. The 'title' refers to authorship, it doesn't have anything to do with being an 'evangelist'.


As pointed out further in that post, most scholars do not believe that the Gospels go back to a historical Jesus.

sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine_works
"Raymond E. Brown, among others, posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave final form to the work.[56] In particular, Chapter 21 is very stylistically different from the main body of the Gospel, and is thought to be a later addition (known as the appendix). Among many Christian scholars the view has evolved that there were multiple stages of development involving the disciples as well as the apostle; R.E. Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: traditions connected directly with the apostle, partial editing by his disciples, synthesis by the apostle, and additions by a final editor. At the very least, it seems clear that in chapter 21 someone else speaks in the third person plural ("we"), ostensibly as the voice of a community that believes the testimony of this other person called the "beloved disciple" to be true." italics mine

By "the apostle", RE Brown is speaking of The Apostle John. If you read Brown directly, which I have, this is very clear.

So, both wiki cites use Brown as the major source. Brown sez that John was the source of the original material, John possibly added a later synthesis, but other sources (likely John's disciples) edited the material and added materials after the death of John. Thus, indeed there is material added to the Gospel after the death of John, there is little doubt of that. And, true, this later editing and additions do make it unclear what words come from John and what words do not. But, Brown- and most other scholars- say that the original source (in some way shape or form) was the Apostle. How much of Johns actual words remain is debatable and unknown.

if you want a source other than Brown:

"The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan's Vie de Jésus ("Life of Jesus," 1863)."

Again- the source of the original material was the Apostle. Again- not all the Gospel is in Johns words. No serious scholar claims the Gospel is entirely in Johns words. But in general, the consensus is that the final writers started with Johns memories.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

sigh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors...ohannine_works
"Raymond E. Brown, among others, posit a community of writers rather than a single individual that gave final form to the work.[56] In particular, Chapter 21 is very stylistically different from the main body of the Gospel, and is thought to be a later addition (known as the appendix). Among many Christian scholars the view has evolved that there were multiple stages of development involving the disciples as well as the apostle; R.E. Brown (1970) distinguishes four stages of development: traditions connected directly with the apostle, partial editing by his disciples, synthesis by the apostle, and additions by a final editor. At the very least, it seems clear that in chapter 21 someone else speaks in the third person plural ("we"), ostensibly as the voice of a community that believes the testimony of this other person called the "beloved disciple" to be true." italics mine

Two things:

1. Raymond Brown was not the source of the quote you are responding to. Lindars is, and in the notes, it's made clear. So you can 'sigh' all you want, but your initial inference was incorrect.

"It is the evangelist who comes at the end of the process who is the real author of the Fourth Gospel"

2. Raymond Brown is not the end word on scholarship. The majority view holds that it comes from a Johannine community and not by any eye witnesses.

Further your source says that, at most, it's the traditions connected with the early apostle that were passed down - not anything like eyewitness testimony.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

By "the apostle", RE Brown is speaking of The Apostle John. If you read Brown directly, which I have, this is very clear.

Yeah, no, this seems a strained reading of the text, just like you strained Lindars work to try to support your contention that 'Evangelist' was the same as saying 'John'.

But let's suppose that this mangling does mean that John collected and edited the text (something that both our sources go out of their way to deny). All I can say is good for the minority view held by Brown if this is what he actually means (which seems unlikely given the context). This is not what the majority believes and for good reason - some of which I've put forth in this thread.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

So, both wiki cites use Brown as the major source. Brown sez that John was the source of the original material, John possibly added a later synthesis, but other sources (likely John's disciples) edited the material and added materials after the death of John. Thus, indeed there is material added to the Gospel after the death of John, there is little doubt of that. And, true, this later editing and additions do make it unclear what words come from John and what words do not. But, Brown- and most other scholars- say that the original source (in some way shape or form) was the Apostle. How much of Johns actual words remain is debatable and unknown.

Now you are waffling. You admit that we don't know how much, if any, of the words are johns. Further, Both places list a Johnnanine community, not John himself. Neither place support your initial contention that the Gospel was dictated by John.

One thing is clear though, no eye witness wrote/dictated it and it grew in the telling.

Let's remember your initial claim:

There's also a consensus that John was the originator of the Gospel by that name. Mind you, if so it was likely dictated to a scribe and almost doubtless was edited after John's death by John's own disciples.

Followed up by:

"That sez that steps 1&2 were done by John, as I said "Originated" by that Apostle."

(Steps 1&2 are: An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources)

This is not what your sources OR mine are saying. Both are saying that the Gospel had it's origins in the traditions of a community. Mine in particular, which the majority of scholarship hold to, deny that there was any eye witness testimony involved.

My initial claim was that:

The consensus is that John is dated between 90-120AD and that it was not written by John or dictated by him:

You are now essentially admitting this - even going so far as admitting that we don't know how much, if any, of gJohn is original with John.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

if you want a source other than Brown:

Frankly I'd like a source that actually supports your initial claim.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

"The resulting revolution in Johannine scholarship was termed the new look by John A. T. Robinson, who coined the phrase in 1957 at Oxford. According to Robinson, this new information rendered the question of authorship a relative one. He considered a group of disciples around the aging John the Apostle who wrote down his memories, mixing them with theological speculation, a model that had been proposed as far back as Renan's Vie de Jésus ("Life of Jesus," 1863)."

And his reasons for this, assertion?

Also, if we accept this, then we have to reject your Brown quotes AND your early position in this post that "And, true, this later editing and additions do make it unclear what words come from John and what words do not. But, Brown- and most other scholars- say that the original source (in some way shape or form) was the Apostle. How much of Johns actual words remain is debatable and unknown". You are simply trying to find any scholar who agrees with any smallest bit of your proposition and then throwing it out there to see what sticks.

How about we just go with the consensus of scholarship, shall we? gJohn wasn't dictated by John.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

Again- the source of the original material was the Apostle. Again- not all the Gospel is in Johns words. No serious scholar claims the Gospel is entirely in Johns words. But in general, the consensus is that the final writers started with Johns memories.

"Again", this is not what you initially said, as I showed. The 'source' of the material could be said to have been Jesus, that doesn't mean squat as far as what the material actually is - which is not an eye witness account.

No serious scholar claims that it *is* Johns word. I can't find many scholars at all that suppose that it started with Johns "memories" and certainly not the majority of scholars and certainly not Raymond Brown - who you have had to discard in order to favor Robinson. There is good reason for this and I'm sure you are going to drop these claims like you did your earlier claims about what we should expect from ancient skeptics.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by septimus

Be careful, some scholars expert in reviewing historical narratives, really are experts. Does anyone here claim as much expertise as Nicholas Sherwin-White or C.S. Lewis?

I don't claim to have as much expertise as Sherwin-White, but I can claim that I actually read the book that apologists love to quote mine so much and it's pretty clear to me that you haven't.

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Meatros

Two things:

1. Raymond Brown was not the source of the quote you are responding to. Lindars is, and in the notes, it's made clear. So you can 'sigh' all you want, but your initial inference was incorrect.

"It is the evangelist who comes at the end of the process who is the real author of the Fourth Gospel"

2. Raymond Brown is not the end word on scholarship. The majority view holds that it comes from a Johannine community and not by any eye witnesses.

Further your source says that, at most, it's the traditions connected with the early apostle that were passed down - not anything like eyewitness testimony.



Yeah, no, this seems a strained reading of the text, just like you strained Lindars work to try to support your contention that 'Evangelist' was the same as saying 'John'.

.

1. Lindars was writing about Brown. My original quote, taken from your cite was :

"The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[26] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[27]
An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[28"

italics mine.

Brown may not be the final authority but he's widely regarded but Lindars uses Brown and I then quoted John A. T. Robinson.

2. You keep saying that but I keep quoting paragraphs that say the opposite.

When you are i talking about the Apostle John the Evangelist, in that context when you use "the Apostle" or "the Evangelist" you are talking about the Apostle John the Evangelist. Just like here in this thread, when we use the term Jesus, we're not talking about Jesus Garcia.

More later.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

1. Lindars was writing about Brown. My original quote, taken from your cite was :

"The Gospel of John developed over a period of time in various stages,[26] summarized by Raymond E. Brown as follows:[27]
An initial version based on personal experience of Jesus;
A structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources;
The final harmony that presently exists in the New Testament canon, around 85-90 AD.[28"
italics mine.

Brown may not be the final authority but he's widely regarded but Lindars uses Brown and I then quoted John A. T. Robinson.

Okay? That still doesn't clear up what you actually confused:

"but your initial inference was incorrect.

"It is the evangelist who comes at the end of the process who is the real author of the Fourth Gospel""

The passage was not saying that John was that evangelist. The passage was saying that the final editor/writer should be said to be the author.

You specifically said:"Unless you don't know that by "evangelist" they are referring to John aka John the Evangelist"

Which is mistaken.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

You keep saying that but I keep quoting paragraphs that say the opposite.

Where have you done so? I've quoted places that say that the majority doesn't believe that John was either written or dictated by John. You have been making mistakes in reading what your sources are writing.

From here:

the majority do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it

You keep confusing a Johnnanine community with John either writing it or dictating it.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

When you are i talking about the Apostle John the Evangelist, in that context when you use "the Apostle" or "the Evangelist" you are talking about the Apostle John the Evangelist. Just like here in this thread, when we use the term Jesus, we're not talking about Jesus Garcia.

This, of course, is nonsense as I cleared up: Evangelist, in context, was simply referring to the Christian who produced the 'final product'. Ie, in the notes of the wiki:

""It is the evangelist who comes at the end of the process who is the real author of the Fourth Gospel""


Your initial assertions have been refuted, by both me, and your later post where you grasped for any other scholar to hold to your view and came up with the paradoxical (to your initial position) Robinson.

[VegasReno]

A few things... Paul while he doesn't talk about Jesus directly as much as the Gospels, which are more an account of his life - rather then a theological narrative that Paul does... He paraphrases the Old Testament like mad such as Micah, Isaiah 40, etc - in pointing to who Jesus is... which is God/Messiah.

This is important to understand because we forget the apostles were not as fixated on writing down everything immediately after Jesus's life, but it only occurs slightly before and after the Jewish Temple - They are actively using the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) to claim Jesus as Messiah. We forget there was no New Testament in their time. It wasn't like the Galatians were busy also reading the letter to the Romans. That by all accounts happens at the earliest around 80-100 years after Jesus's death.

A great book to read is called Jesus and the eyewitnesses. One of the best points this makes is for example how preposterous it would have been for Jew's to write that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection if this was a completely fabricated story. We see this from a 21st century lens and think no big deal. This was a time period where 99% of the world considered women slightly above an OX in terms of pecking order. They were not allowed to testify in a court of law, etc. They were legally considered property in most of the known world. Why would you write apostles loyal for 3 years... all bailed but one... if it didn't happen. Why would the eventual writers be so clear how pathetic they were when the rubber met the road? If it wasn't actually true.

Another point is Paul's letters, the Gospels, etc cite minor players by their FULL names. So for example... yeah you might had read Mark's Gospel 30 years after the death of Christ... but the people named or at least the family members of those people named were still alive. So you want to hear about Lazarus? Well even if he wasn't still alive... someone who knew him would have been. Go to that cities small Christian community, someone should be there. Paul's writing everyone he can in the known world? Well he mentions tons of people he personally knows by name as well. They would be still in those churches or their direct descendants. Completely available to people. You never hear Jews write such a counter text for example. Which compare that to lets say Mormon's where you have libraries full of text written immediately after or shortly after the claims of Joseph Smith... Heck the internet itself is teeming with it. The LDS don't even know how to handle the problem this readily available church history creates. Why did Jews never provide the rebuttal?

Another quick point... Still today there is a cult in Syria (and surrounding areas) who believes John the Baptist was the actual Messiah (wikipedia it). There are 100's of thousands of followers of this religion (too lazy to get the name). So John the Baptist is a pretty important hombre... actually the Bible itself basically states he was the best of men ever born. His legacy is still so strong enough people worldwide the size of a city like Reno or Spokane today believe he was actually the messiah. If the apostles are busy linking Jesus and John the Baptist... why didn't this cult, or John the Baptist followers of that day shut it down? Heck you can read in scripture that it's plausible John had a bigger following than Jesus did in their respective lifetimes.

My point is this... to argue Jesus wasn't even a historical figure is pathetic when compared to the certainty we have that Caeser, Cleopatra, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Ramses, etc were alive. Respectively there are far more text snip its of the early New Testament (about 6000 pieces if I recall) that don't show edits and don't contradict each other (even if they are just small fragments - that compared to some of the people I listed above... Jesus has a wealth of writing... Most of the people above don't even have a 100 text snip its to their name. But there is no doubt of them actually having graced this planet.

The second something is history and in the past... it has to be taken by faith... no matter if you're talking about Lee and Grant fighting in some civil war none of us were alive to see or Jesus.

Now if you want to argue that shakesphere didn't really write most or many of his plays... now that's a better argument all together.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by VegasReno

A few things... Paul while he doesn't talk about Jesus directly as much as the Gospels, which are more an account of his life - rather then a theological narrative that Paul does... He paraphrases the Old Testament like mad such as Micah, Isaiah 40, etc - in pointing to who Jesus is... which is God/Messiah.

Paul is our earliest source and the only sources he cites for his knowledge are revelation and scripture and he never indicates that anyone else had any other source for their knowledge of Jesus.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

A great book to read is called Jesus and the eyewitnesses. One of the best points this makes is for example how preposterous it would have been for Jew's to write that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection if this was a completely fabricated story. We see this from a 21st century lens and think no big deal. This was a time period where 99% of the world considered women slightly above an OX in terms of pecking order. They were not allowed to testify in a court of law, etc. They were legally considered property in most of the known world.

(1) Mark’s gospel was written for a Christian community in which women enjoyed a much higher status than they did under Jewish law.
(2) Mark’s gospel is filled with incidents in which Jesus upsets the social conventions of Jewish society. Must we believe that all of them really happened?
(3) The women who find the empty tomb in Mark are not testifying to the fact in court. In fact, they run away without telling anyone. Mark expects his readers to believe the story based on the authority of his revelation, not based on the credibility of the women.
(3) Women’s status was not that bad everywhere. Under Roman law, women could own property and testify in court.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Why would you write apostles loyal for 3 years... all bailed but one... if it didn't happen. Why would the eventual writers be so clear how pathetic they were when the rubber met the road? If it wasn't actually true.

You would write it that way in order to emphasize the transformative power of the resurrection. You have to make the apostles look bad so they can become good. In fact, throughout the gospel of Mark the apostles are portrayed as being confused about Jesus.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Another point is Paul's letters, the Gospels, etc cite minor players by their FULL names. So for example... yeah you might had read Mark's Gospel 30 years after the death of Christ... but the people named or at least the family members of those people named were still alive. So you want to hear about Lazarus? Well even if he wasn't still alive... someone who knew him would have been. Go to that cities small Christian community, someone should be there. Paul's writing everyone he can in the known world? Well he mentions tons of people he personally knows by name as well. They would be still in those churches or their direct descendants. Completely available to people. You never hear Jews write such a counter text for example. Which compare that to lets say Mormon's where you have libraries full of text written immediately after or shortly after the claims of Joseph Smith... Heck the internet itself is teeming with it. The LDS don't even know how to handle the problem this readily available church history creates. Why did Jews never provide the rebuttal?

How do you know that no one provided a rebuttal? The fact that Christians didn’t preserve them doesn’t mean that none were provided. More importantly, there was no shortage of people who sought to debunk the claims of Joseph Smith in his day, but there are still 14 million Mormons in the world today. There is no reason to think that early Christians would have been any more deterred by counter evidence than early Mormons were. Some might have fallen away, as some early Mormons did, but those who remained would have only been more fanatic in their beliefs.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

My point is this... to argue Jesus wasn't even a historical figure is pathetic when compared to the certainty we have that Caeser, Cleopatra, Plato, Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Ramses, etc were alive. Respectively there are far more text snip its of the early New Testament (about 6000 pieces if I recall) that don't show edits and don't contradict each other (even if they are just small fragments - that compared to some of the people I listed above... Jesus has a wealth of writing... Most of the people above don't even have a 100 text snip its to their name. But there is no doubt of them actually having graced this planet.

Every one of those people is remembered because the things that they did during their lives had an impact on the prominent and literate people of there day. Had it not been for a belief in his supernatural postmortem accomplishments, Jesus of Narazeth might well have come and gone without leaving a trace in the historical record.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by VinnyJH

(3) The women who find the empty tomb in Mark are not testifying to the fact in court. In fact, they run away without telling anyone. Mark expects his readers to believe the story based on the authority of his revelation, not based on the credibility of the women.
(3) Women’s status was not that bad everywhere. Under Roman law, women could own property and testify in court.

I also want to say that it's my belief that Mark is using the women as a scapegoat as to why the readers/hearers hadn't heard the empty tomb story before. In the original version of Mark there is no post resurrection appearances. The story stops at the empty tomb and the women run off and say nothing. I think he did this because the people at the time hadn't heard of the empty tomb and Mark is attempting to explain why.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by VinnyJH

How do you know that no one provided a rebuttal? The fact that Christians didn’t preserve them doesn’t mean that none were provided. More importantly, there was no shortage of people who sought to debunk the claims of Joseph Smith in his day, but there are still 14 million Mormons in the world today. There is no reason to think that early Christians would have been any more deterred by counter evidence than early Mormons were. Some might have fallen away, as some early Mormons did, but those who remained would have only been more fanatic in their beliefs.

Also, what the Jews were concerned with was the Jewishness (for lack of a better term) of Jesus, not with his existence. So, in the dialogue with Trypho, Trypho is attacking Jesus based on the claims about the OT. He points out that the prophecy about the virgin had already been fulfilled, for instance. He also criticizes Christianity because of it's vulger similarities with Roman religions.

The Jews had no truck with miracle claims - they didn't go around debunking every minor cult that came along. The problem they had with Jesus is that he didn't fulfill OT prophecies even though the Christians were saying he did.

People like to think that the ancient people carried on modern day skepticism, but this is impractical and simply not true. So when people like Craig say 'why didn't the jews just go into the tomb and produce the body' this is misguided on several levels. For one, the disciples kept silent for 40 days, so even presupposing there was a tomb and that it's location was known, the Jews would have simply pulled out a skeleton - which the Christians could have said was planted or what have you. For two, it's unlikely that it would have come up on Jewish radar on day 41. More likely it came on their radar after the cult started growing and by then, where the tomb was, the conditions of it, and any potential body would have been thoroughly dessicated. Further, the tomb was Joseph's tomb - not Jesus's, so why would Joseph have allowed Jesus' body to have been kept there for so long? It was supposed to be a temporary solution, get Jesus' body into the ground over the weekend.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by Meatros

I also want to say that it's my belief that Mark is using the women as a scapegoat as to why the readers/hearers hadn't heard the empty tomb story before. In the original version of Mark there is no post resurrection appearances. The story stops at the empty tomb and the women run off and say nothing. I think he did this because the people at the time hadn't heard of the empty tomb and Mark is attempting to explain why.

Sure. Those silly unreliable women ran off without telling anybody. What looks like a bug is really a feature.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by Meatros

People like to think that the ancient people carried on modern day skepticism, but this is impractical and simply not true. So when people like Craig say 'why didn't the jews just go into the tomb and produce the body' this is misguided on several levels. For one, the disciples kept silent for 40 days, so even presupposing there was a tomb and that it's location was known, the Jews would have simply pulled out a skeleton - which the Christians could have said was planted or what have you. For two, it's unlikely that it would have come up on Jewish radar on day 41. More likely it came on their radar after the cult started growing and by then, where the tomb was, the conditions of it, and any potential body would have been thoroughly dessicated. Further, the tomb was Joseph's tomb - not Jesus's, so why would Joseph have allowed Jesus' body to have been kept there for so long? It was supposed to be a temporary solution, get Jesus' body into the ground over the weekend.

Even more misguided is when apologists ask why the Romans didn't produce the body. The Roman practice when dealing with troublesome religious sects wasn't to persuade them with evidence that their beliefs were unfounded. The Roman practice was to round as many as necessary and nail them to crosses. For that matter, there is little indication that prior to his conversion Paul was trying to persuade the Christians of the error of their ways using logic and evidence.

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by VinnyJH

Even more misguided is when apologists ask why the Romans didn't produce the body. The Roman practice when dealing with troublesome religious sects wasn't to persuade them with evidence that their beliefs were unfounded. The Roman practice was to round as many as necessary and nail them to crosses. For that matter, there is little indication that prior to his conversion Paul was trying to persuade the Christians of the error of their ways using logic and evidence.

Two good points.

By the time Christianity was bothersome to the Romans it would have been far too late to even do any sort of investigation - even if they were inclined to do so.

[VegasReno]

Originally Posted by VinnyJH

Paul is our earliest source and the only sources he cites for his knowledge are revelation and scripture and he never indicates that anyone else had any other source for their knowledge of Jesus.



(1) Mark’s gospel was written for a Christian community in which women enjoyed a much higher status than they did under Jewish law.
(2) Mark’s gospel is filled with incidents in which Jesus upsets the social conventions of Jewish society. Must we believe that all of them really happened?
(3) The women who find the empty tomb in Mark are not testifying to the fact in court. In fact, they run away without telling anyone. Mark expects his readers to believe the story based on the authority of his revelation, not based on the credibility of the women.
(3) Women’s status was not that bad everywhere. Under Roman law, women could own property and testify in court.


You would write it that way in order to emphasize the transformative power of the resurrection. You have to make the apostles look bad so they can become good. In fact, throughout the gospel of Mark the apostles are portrayed as being confused about Jesus.




How do you know that no one provided a rebuttal? The fact that Christians didn’t preserve them doesn’t mean that none were provided. More importantly, there was no shortage of people who sought to debunk the claims of Joseph Smith in his day, but there are still 14 million Mormons in the world today. There is no reason to think that early Christians would have been any more deterred by counter evidence than early Mormons were. Some might have fallen away, as some early Mormons did, but those who remained would have only been more fanatic in their beliefs.





Every one of those people is remembered because the things that they did during their lives had an impact on the prominent and literate people of there day. Had it not been for a belief in his supernatural postmortem accomplishments, Jesus of Narazeth might well have come and gone without leaving a trace in the historical record.

Vinny I actually forget the name of the atheist movie that makes that same claim you did about Paul... I remember at the end he goes into a church and basically makes a big denial of the spirit claim... however you need to brush up on your scripture if you are going to go around stating Paul never mentioned literal witnesses and literal resurrection. There are SEVERAL occurrences...

The easiest refutal of this modern wives tale is 1 Corinthians 15, but it is not the only one:

The Resurrection of Christ

1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importancea: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,b and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. 11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

The Resurrection of the Dead

12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

20But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27For he “has put everything under his feet.”c Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

29Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? 30And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? 31I die every day—I mean that, brothers—just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,

“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”d
33Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” 34Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame.

The Resurrection Body

35But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”e; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall wef bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”g

55“Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”h
56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

Your Mark points women are not relevant.
Christians yes... placed a higher value upon women because well... Christ paid respect towards women. Jewish authority however DID NOT. It was a time of Pharisee-ism. That is the relevant point. Jews would have given their account it no value, weight, or creedence.

Your other quick point that the women weren't testifying in a court is missing the trees in-spite of the forest in front of you. My point is that, is immediately people hearing this story would say, "well that makes it a load of crap". Remember we live in a world where women weren't allowed to run the Boston Marathon until the 70's... for example... You live with your modern lens and are looking at that point with your modern lens. In that day... that would have been a point in time where people cried "Bullshitunga's"

As for you second point of not believing the totality of accounts in the Bible of Jesus upsetting the Jewish authority during his life... if you don't believe those... then why would he ever be put on a cross... obviously he frustrated people if he received the harshest penalty that could be dished out on this planet at the time. But that has no bearing... the argument here is myth vs historical figure... not believing every story... oh okay... well if you don't believe every account... that's up to you.. However if he is a historical figure, he died on a cross by the all the accounts within the first 120-240 years of his life (ignoring later "revelation" like in the Koran that has Jesus skipping out on the cross, Da Vincci code ideas which stem from that, etc.

Your point on Mormonism also doesn't apply. My point is the counter argument exists... and it existed quickly. It's not that those arguments snuffed out Mormon's, or Scientologists, or JW's, etc... It's that the counter texts are quick and immediate. Heck Islam if you want to go back, has counter theological text around as well. From both Jews... and Christians.

Lastly... if you don't believe Jesus is a historical figure... you might as well extend that... because we know at least 10 of the Apostles died for proclaiming this "Myth". They died scattered around the known world. Or did the local Christian churches for each of them fabricate their deaths as well? Or were they also myth, or willing to die for a myth not one of them abandoned in their lifetime?

To give you perspective... Go to the first witness accounts in Mormonism... the 3 supposed witnesses to the plates (in spiritual revelation)... see that they eventually all part ways with the Joseph Smith's church and go about doing something else by the end of their lives. Not one of 12 did something similar? 10 we know for certainty went to their death... another one the last writings of which (John), we know come from a Prison........

and again there are more text fragments still alive accounting these things then most historical figures that side of the printing press.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Vinny I actually forget the name of the atheist movie that makes that same claim you did about Paul... I remember at the end he goes into a church and basically makes a big denial of the spirit claim... however you need to brush up on your scripture if you are going to go around stating Paul never mentioned literal witnesses and literal resurrection. There are SEVERAL occurrences...

The easiest refutal of this modern wives tale is 1 Corinthians 15, but it is not the only one:

I never said that Paul never mentions literal witnesses or a literal resurrection. I said that he only cites revelation and scripture as the source of his knowledge and I would include the appearance he claims to have witnessed as revelation. He does indicate that other people had these encounters as well.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Your Mark points women are not relevant.
Christians yes... placed a higher value upon women because well... Christ paid respect towards women. Jewish authority however DID NOT. It was a time of Pharisee-ism. That is the relevant point. Jews would have given their account it no value, weight, or creedence.

Your other quick point that the women weren't testifying in a court is missing the trees in-spite of the forest in front of you. My point is that, is immediately people hearing this story would say, "well that makes it a load of crap". Remember we live in a world where women weren't allowed to run the Boston Marathon until the 70's... for example... You live with your modern lens and are looking at that point with your modern lens. In that day... that would have been a point in time where people cried "Bullshitunga's"

Mark was writing to pagan converts to Christianity. Why would he or they have cared what status women had under Jewish law? Moreover, nothing in Mark's story depends upon the reliability of women as witnesses since they run off without telling anyone what they saw. Why would anyone not have believed that? The fact of the matter is that we know that people did believe the story.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Your point on Mormonism also doesn't apply. My point is the counter argument exists... and it existed quickly. It's not that those arguments snuffed out Mormon's, or Scientologists, or JW's, etc... It's that the counter texts are quick and immediate. Heck Islam if you want to go back, has counter theological text around as well. From both Jews... and Christians.

We have counter texts for those religions that began in an age of widespread literacy. The fact that we don't have any for early Christianity proves nothing.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Lastly... if you don't believe Jesus is a historical figure... you might as well extend that... because we know at least 10 of the Apostles died for proclaiming this "Myth". They died scattered around the known world. Or did the local Christian churches for each of them fabricate their deaths as well? Or were they also myth, or willing to die for a myth not one of them abandoned in their lifetime?

We don't know anything of the kind. The martyrdom traditions are very poorly attested. Often the sources are apocryphal works that the church dismissed as unreliable. Attributing heroic deaths to one's heroes is as common as can be. Think of Pat Tillman.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

To give you perspective... Go to the first witness accounts in Mormonism... the 3 supposed witnesses to the plates (in spiritual revelation)... see that they eventually all part ways with the Joseph Smith's church and go about doing something else by the end of their lives. Not one of 12 did something similar? 10 we know for certainty went to their death... another one the last writings of which (John), we know come from a Prison........

Once again, we know nothing of the kind. Some of the martyrdom stories date from centuries after the fact.

It sounds to me like the witnesses to the Golden Plates had ample motive and opportunity to recant.

[Meatros]

Hope you don't mind if I respond to a few things:

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Vinny I actually forget the name of the atheist movie that makes that same claim you did about Paul...

I believe you are referring to Brian Flemming.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Your other quick point that the women weren't testifying in a court is missing the trees in-spite of the forest in front of you. My point is that, is immediately people hearing this story would say, "well that makes it a load of crap". Remember we live in a world where women weren't allowed to run the Boston Marathon until the 70's... for example... You live with your modern lens and are looking at that point with your modern lens. In that day... that would have been a point in time where people cried "Bullshitunga's"

I'm not sure how this actually challenges anything Vinny said - the women didn't claim to write the Gospel of Mark. Further, you are are completely dismissing women in a way that I'm not sure the ancient Jews would have - what do you make of the book of Ruth, for instance?

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Your point on Mormonism also doesn't apply. My point is the counter argument exists... and it existed quickly. It's not that those arguments snuffed out Mormon's, or Scientologists, or JW's, etc... It's that the counter texts are quick and immediate. Heck Islam if you want to go back, has counter theological text around as well. From both Jews... and Christians.

There are counter arguments to Christianity fairly early on - but not in the sense of denying he existed (why would they)? I've pointed to Justin Martyr's dialogue with Trypho several times in this thread. Further the invention of the guards at the tomb is likely the result of Jewish polemic against Christianity.

What the Jews attacked the Christians on was based on their view of the OT, not based on their skepticism of the events that supposedly transpired.

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Lastly... if you don't believe Jesus is a historical figure... you might as well extend that... because we know at least 10 of the Apostles died for proclaiming this "Myth". They died scattered around the known world. Or did the local Christian churches for each of them fabricate their deaths as well? Or were they also myth, or willing to die for a myth not one of them abandoned in their lifetime?

I do think that the evidence slightly tips in the favor of Jesus being historical - but this argument is not a good one in favor of it:
1. The apostles dieing for their belief is largely tradition - we have no actual verifiable documentation of it. It's largely church tradition.
2. Let's say they were having their feet held to the fire - there's no reason to suppose that recanting would have alleviated their deaths.

Let's remember that there were many, many, varieties of Christianity around in the early days - many false gospels and many false letters and so on. All of these recorded 100 + years after the incident (not talking about the 4 canonical gospels, fyi). Why assume that the disciples actually died for their beliefs?

Do you believe that Paul was beheaded, milk spurted out, and he walked around after the incident? Because that's what some Christians believed because of the acts of Paul.

Then Paul stood with his face to the east and lifted up his hands unto heaven and prayed a long time, and in his prayer he conversed in the Hebrew tongue with the fathers, and then stretched forth his neck without speaking. And when the executioner (speculator) struck off his head, milk spurted upon the cloak of the soldier. And the soldier and all that were there present when they saw it marvelled and glorified God which had given such glory unto Paul: and they went and told Caesar what was done.

VI. And when he heard it, while he marvelled long and was in perplexity, Paul came about the niuth hour, when many philosophers and the centurion were standing with Caesar, and stood before them all and said: Caesar, behold, I, Paul, the soldier of God, am not dead, but live in my God. But unto thee shall many evils befall and great punishment, thou wretched man, because thou hast shed unjustly the blood of the righteous, not many days hence. And having so said Paul departed from him. But Nero hearing it and being greatly troubled commanded the prisoners to be loosed, and Patroclus also and Barsabas and them that were with him.

Why was it considered heretical? Because of the fantastic claims?
No, because it encouraged women to preach and be baptized.