angelo wrote:

This argument might work with the highly conservative Christian scholars, but not the rest. And the rest vastly outnumber them.

The numbers fallacy again. Most people on this planet believe in a supreme being/ghost in the sky who looks after them and knows when a sparrow has expired. Does it mean there is a superghost in the sky who knows our every movement?

Doh. No it's not a numbers fallacy. It's an argument about numbers. Earl D was offering an explanation as to why the number of academics supporting him is tiny (1 by his count).

rJD

And I'm afraid that this board isn't treating Mr Doherty very well, either. His supporter Kapyong is already complaining that he has been met with abuse and bluster, and is not receiving a proper nor prompt reply. Indeed, Kapyong has been forced into the undignified position of apologizing to Mr Doherty, as apparently he had told him to expect much better treatment here. I think we should all hang our heads in shame.

So you see, when the whole world's against you, it ain't 'aaf 'ard, mister.

EarlDoherty wrote:

Whoever (I don’t recall) asked what Mythers have to say about 1 Thes. 2:15-16, he should have asked what a great number of mainstream critical scholars have to say about it. What they have to say that it is very likely an interpolation. I mentioned that point in my opening post.

That would be me. Sorry for missing it in your opening post. The reason I asked about it was as follows: those mainstream scholars who regard it as an interpolation do so because they find it at odds with what they regard as genuine pauline ideas. If you reject it because you agree with them, that implies you accept their understanding of what Paul actually thought. But of course you don't. You are offering a complete reinterpretation of Paul on a massive scale. So what you really should do is make no reference to what mainstream scholars think and instead say you believe these verses aren't genuine because they don't agree with your particular interpretation.

EarlDoherty wrote:

My parting shot for today: Byron further said, “Infinitely likelier is that there was a Jewish escatological prophet who was offed by the imperial boss-man and mythologised by Paul of Tarsus (and possibly others), and successors.” Please give me one example in which a human being was mythologized by anyone to the extent that the human being himself was completely lost sight of, never discussed or presented, never placed at an identifiable historical time and place, excluded from the picture of the movement that supposedly was begun by him.

Hmmm. This is an impossible requirement. If the human has been completely lost sight of, then by your definition only the myth is left and there is no way of showing there was an underlying real human. But we do have examples of humans who have been mythologized and therefore partially obscured: Mohammed, Buddha, the saints of the Roman Catholic tradition, Paul himself, possibly King Arthur and Robin Hood.

And of course you say Jesus was 'never discussed or presented, never placed at an identifiable historical time and place, excluded from the picture of the movement that supposedly was begun by him'. But that is precisely where many people disagree with you.

nunnington: You two guys are the new Little and Large comedy duo - you are needed on the stage. Wow, a whole WEEK has gone by, good grief, this thread has only been going for about three years, is it?

Just relax, Kapyong, it's like making love with a beautiful woman, you have to go easy, don't go for the quick fix, be careful about the premature thingy, and you will be OK.

Bollocks.

I’ve written several posts in much less than a week containing a wealth of info and arguments in response to attacks on my work, and Tim hasn’t had time to offer a single scholarly rejoinder to anything I’ve said? He’s had lots of time, it seems, to make his usual condemnations of people who’ve said things he doesn’t agree with, including throwing in the odd actual argument against them. What is he doing? Preparing a dissertation? There has been nothing preventing him from making single counters to anything that strikes his fancy (that's done here all the time), considering that with his vast disdain for mythicism, he must have an extensive catalogue of knowledge and counter arguments to the mythicist case he can pick and choose from at a moment’s notice. Could someone who obviously has such a short fuse when it comes to views he is so hostile to really hold himself back for a WEEK without showing that he has anything to draw on?

If he, or you, kept a beautiful woman waiting that long, she’d long since have stopped panting, closed her legs and gone of to greener pastures where the grass is a lot stiffer. Maybe he needs a shot of Viagra.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty wrote:

If he, or you, kept a beautiful woman waiting that long, she’d long since have stopped panting, closed her legs and gone of to greener pastures where the grass is a lot stiffer. Maybe he needs a shot of Viagra.

Earl Doherty

As a member of the peanut gallery of this thread I have what I feel to be an important and compelling question: are you intimating that you think Tim has a limp dick or are you just disappointed that you haven't gotten fucked yet?

Inquiring minds, etc...

As a member of the peanut gallery of this thread I have what I feel to be an important and compelling question: are you intimating that you think Tim has a limp dick or are you just disappointed that you haven't gotten fucked yet?

Promises, promises....

(The "beautiful" Earl Doherty)

I can't be expected to make promises for anyone other than myself. I merely sought clarification on what I thought to be an important point.

Instead I get a coy evasion. I suppose that is a lady's prerogative.

MS2: Hmmm. This is an impossible requirement. If the human has been completely lost sight of, then by your definition only the myth is left and there is no way of showing there was an underlying real human. But we do have examples of humans who have been mythologized and therefore partially obscured: Mohammed, Buddha, the saints of the Roman Catholic tradition, Paul himself, possibly King Arthur and Robin Hood.

Nothing like the Jesus of the early Christians (pre-Gospel). Details of their lives may be obscured and lost, but the mythologizing takes place on earth. None of the people you list was in the earliest record treated exclusively as a transcendent deity in a spiritual context, with no time and placement on earth, no earthly deeds listed, no identification with an actual historical figure. Show me where any epistle writer equates his Christ Jesus with a recent-living man Jesus of Nazareth with biographical details 'known' to us from the Gospels. (The odd item sounding like that is neutralized by the constant reference to scripture as being the source.) At least Arthur and Robin Hood were placed in England, each in a context familiar from history.

In fact, in that earliest record, there is indeed "no way of showing there was an underlying real human." Such information, fictional mythical or otherwise, is never supplied. The "real human" has been introduced at a later date, within documents that contain no demonstrable history and no external corroboration prior to themselves. And they have simply been imposed upon the earlier record.

Earl Doherty

I can't be expected to make promises for anyone other than myself. I merely sought clarification on what I thought to be an important point.

Instead I get a coy evasion. I suppose that is a lady's prerogative.

You're not serious, of course. "An important point"? Well, you're right. I'm very disappointed. What's a lady to do who gets so worked up by all the swaggering codpieces on this board, and not a single one capable of any 'penetrating' response?

Yes, yes, I know. Something like this has never happened to any of you before.

Earl Doherty

Earl Doherty
I think the overall reason I don't find your position convincing is that it doesn't offer a cogent view of how it all got going within its Jewish first century setting. We all know that it is possible to take texts and interpret them in a number of different ways. Words are very ambiguous things after all. So what is needed is a convincing background against which to read them. Paul, for example, talks about groups of Jewish believers on the scene before him whose view he apparently vehemently opposed and then converted to. He also makes great play of the crucifixion and of difficulties over circumcision and other ritualistic approaches. These are examples of things that make sense on a more traditional reading. You, on the other hand, don't seem to offer a background that does this.

EarlDoherty wrote:

I can't be expected to make promises for anyone other than myself. I merely sought clarification on what I thought to be an important point.

Instead I get a coy evasion. I suppose that is a lady's prerogative.

You're not serious, of course. "An important point"? Well, you're right. I'm very disappointed. What's a lady to do who gets so worked up by all the swaggering codpieces on this board, and not a single one capable of any 'penetrating' response?

Yes, yes, I know. Something like this has never happened to any of you before.

Earl Doherty

Well, perhaps a bit ironical but no more so, I suspect, than the post I originally quoted.

At any rate I do hope that you get an adequate response (if not outright "fucked" as it were). As a member in good standing of the peanut gallery what else would I hope for?

EarlDoherty wrote:

MS2: Hmmm. This is an impossible requirement. If the human has been completely lost sight of, then by your definition only the myth is left and there is no way of showing there was an underlying real human. But we do have examples of humans who have been mythologized and therefore partially obscured: Mohammed, Buddha, the saints of the Roman Catholic tradition, Paul himself, possibly King Arthur and Robin Hood.

Nothing like the Jesus of the early Christians (pre-Gospel). Details of their lives may be obscured and lost, but the mythologizing takes place on earth.

Can you clarify please? I don't understand what you mean by the mythologizing takes place on earth and why this would be different from the case with Jesus.

None of the people you list was in the earliest record treated exclusively as a transcendent deity in a spiritual context,

But nor was Jesus, except on your reading. He certainly is assigned spiritual (I'm wanting to use a neutral term here) characteristics. But I would see him being assigned these because they found such ideas in their scriptures and pinned them onto their man. This doesn't mean they saw him as a transcendent being.

Standing back for a moment, I do want to acknowledge your point that there is a lack of human detail, if you like. But it seems to me you have made to much of this. There are ways it makes sense on the more traditional reading. And as somebody else said a little earlier, there is a similar lack of 'spiritual detail' on your reading. Why, on a spiritual reading, is crucifixion such a big deal?

Got to go now. I'll try to answer the rest of your query in a while.

Wow.. You guys have been very busy...

If I may get back to when I left:

...After citing several "serious" scholars which discredited both Josephus and Tacitus methods, therefore increasing the idea that both citations of Jesus could be mere hearsay plus posterior interpolations, I left with this last phrase:

My point is still the same. Gospels and two citations in Tacitus and Josephus. Thats everything. If the two citations are in question of possible hearsay or interpolation, only the Gospels remains.

Tim answered:

TimONeill wrote:All you have there is some analysis of the biases and personal agendas or perspectives of two historians. That is something we can say about ALL historians, ancient and modern. It's good to get a handle on what the biases or ideological points of view of any historian so we can keep it in mind when assessing their work, but it doesn't mean we throw out everything they say. Or are you just wanting to throw out just this one thing, for some reason?

That doesn't make much sense.

An some pages after he said:

TimONeill wrote: Look back over the last few pages and you’ll find I disagreed just fine with that “junjan” guy and was perfectly civil with him into the bargain. We got to the point where he decided that he not only wasn’t convinced with the evidence for a historical Jesus but also with all the other thousands of ancient people who are similarly lightly-attested. I simply made it pretty clear that I think that’s an absurdly hypersceptical position, but left it at that.

Frankly, I think you've been bested and can't handle it.

Yes, of course you do.

I will try to explain again my position -shared by many others-:

There's only two citations by historians of some guy called Jesus (Josephus) or Chrestus (Tacitus) that can be accounted as mentions of "the biblical Jesus". Both citations are jeopardized by either probable hearsay sources and/or posterior interpolation by Christian scribes. Thats everything. If the two citations are in dispute, the only "reference" that we could have about who was the biblical Jesus is indeed the Bible.
My position on the Bible is that being a text made for proselytism purposes, full of mythical/fictional content, hence a non historical work, we can not believe it. Trying to extract from the Bible what it is "true" or "historical" is IMHO useless. Hence, the biblical Jesus is a myth.

Does it mean that the Jewish sect which originated the Christian religion did not have an originating figure? No, but we do not know if it was one or many, if it was here or there in Judea, and if it was at the arbitrary date mentioned by the Bible or before.

Regarding the issue mentioned by Tim since many "historical characters" will drop to the mythical realm if we apply to them the same criteria, my answer is: So what? What's the problem? Does it change anything? Nope.

MS2: Can you clarify please? I don't understand what you mean by the mythologizing takes place on earth and why this would be different from the case with Jesus.

I don’t mean the act of mythologizing. I mean the content of the mythologizing. There is no sign of the mythical Jesus in the epistles acting on earth. That is never specified, and is conspicuous by its absence. It is simply assumed because we have always read the Gospels into the epistles.

He certainly is assigned spiritual (I'm wanting to use a neutral term here) characteristics. But I would see him being assigned these because they found such ideas in their scriptures and pinned them onto their man. This doesn't mean they saw him as a transcendent being.

But that is exactly what is missing in the non-Gospel record. The scriptures are NOT “pinned onto” any man. They are not spoken of as prophesying the historical activities of a human being. Christ speaks only out of scripture; he seems to reside there. Scripture is the source of the information about the Son, not a prophecy of him. In Romans 1:2, the gospel of the Son in the prophets foretells Paul’s gospel about the Son, not the Son himself acting on earth. Hebrews 9:8-9 has the tent structure at Sinai forecasting the “time of revelation” (i.e., the writer’s own time); 3:5 has the prophet Moses ‘bearing witness’ to what would be said in the writer’s time, not by Jesus in the writer’s recent past. Even God himself in 4:7-8 is said to have spoken of “another day” which is the writer’s day, not that of Jesus.

As for Jesus sounding like a transcendent being, you don’t have to take my word for it. Herman Ridderbos, a respected scholar of the mid-20th century said this:

“No one who examines the Gospels, and then reads the epistles of Paul can escape the impression that he is moving in two entirely different spheres….When Paul writes of Jesus as the Christ, historical and human traits appear to be obscure, and Christ appears to have significance only as a transcendent divine being.” [Paul and Jesus, p.3]

And as somebody else said a little earlier, there is a similar lack of 'spiritual detail' on your reading. Why, on a spiritual reading, is crucifixion such a big deal?

I don’t get your meaning here. If you mean where did Paul and others get the idea that their Jesus was crucified if it was not based on a known historical event, the same source holds true: from scripture. This is stated directly in Romans 16:25-6. Paul (though probably a later editor) says he is proclaiming his gospel “about Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed, and made known through prophetic writings at the command of God…” Once again, scripture prophesies the revealed gospel of apostles like Paul, not Jesus himself. How do you get around this particular passage which directly confirms the mythicist contention?

Such passages as Isaiah 53 (which you all know, I have no doubt, and are quite familiar with), and Zechariah 12:10 “They shall look on…him whom they have pierced…and shall wail over him as over an only child, and shall grieve for him bitterly as for a first-born son.” Or Psalm 22:16 (LXX), “They have pierced my hands and my feet.”

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty wrote:Show me where any epistle writer equates his Christ Jesus with a recent-living man Jesus of Nazareth with biographical details 'known' to us from the Gospels.

Well the first biographical detail is the name Jesus. I guess you see it as just a title. (I asked Kapyong to explain why it was chosen, but he didn't answer.) The difficulty with that view, in addition to where the name came from, is how 'Jesus' is combined with what are definitely titles: Christ, Lord etc. Second, Paul definitely does equate him with a recent-living man by referring to him as the one who died. Third, it is a specific death, a crucifixion: 'even death on a cross'. Fourth, Jesus is clearly linked in to the Jewish people in Paul's thought: 'first to the Jews' etc. Paul seemed to think of him as a Jew.

But I suppose you are asking for more mundane details like specific things he did and said. I honestly think you are mistaken in reconstructing history out this absence. First, and most obviously, whether HJ or MJ is true, Paul never even met Jesus. So he had no first-hand details to pass on. You suggest that if HJ is true he must have got to know some. But it is not immediately obvious why, and if so which ones. And if he did get to know some second hand, it is not obvious why he should happen to have recounted them in the particular writings that have survived from that period.

In your words quoted above, you talk about details 'known' to us from the Gospels. It's worth remembering that there actually are very few such details in the opinion of many HJers (not the conservative Christian ones, admittedly). The vast majority of sayings and deeds were likely added as the myths developed over the years. This means that in the early period, when Paul formed his views, there was little if anything to be known and so little to be passed on in his writings.

(The odd item sounding like that is neutralized by the constant reference to scripture as being the source.)

See my comment above about the function of scripture in how ideas developed: they 'found' that the man they had known was, after all, the one foretold by scripture.

At least Arthur and Robin Hood were placed in England, each in a context familiar from history.

See my comment above about Jesus being placed among the Jews.

[Edit: quotes fixed]
[Second edit for clarity]

Gday,

nunnington wrote:
You two guys are the new Little and Large comedy duo - you are needed on the stage. Wow, a whole WEEK has gone by, good grief, this thread has only been going for about three years, is it?
Just relax, Kapyong, it's like making love with a beautiful woman, you have to go easy, don't go for the quick fix, be careful about the premature thingy, and you will be OK.
Yeah, Gday.

What emotive and silly nonsense.

Tim is the main HJer, has had a week or so, and has posted many many times in that period.

Yet when challenged to actually answer Earl's rebuttals on the facts, we have only heard abuse and hyperbole from Tim.
And 2 excuses (so far) why he won't be answering. It's pretty clear Tim will never answer with anything more than emotive attacks.

But when Earl is challenged on the actual issues, he responds with detailed facts and arguments at length.

And when I was challenged to do my own work, I spent the last 5 days searching the sources for myself to see how they support the sub-lunar incarnation theory, and posted these essays :
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... 14112.html
"The Air Beneath the Moon"

But I've had almost NO replies. (apart from Don of course and klaz, thanks.)
Oh well.


Kapyong

EarlDoherty wrote:

MS2: Can you clarify please? I don't understand what you mean by the mythologizing takes place on earth and why this would be different from the case with Jesus.

I don’t mean the act of mythologizing. I mean the content of the mythologizing. There is no sign of the mythical Jesus in the epistles acting on earth. That is never specified, and is conspicuous by its absence. It is simply assumed because we have always read the Gospels into the epistles.

Ah, thanks. Well that earthly mythologizing took place as time passed and ultimately was recorded in the Gospels. On the HJ view, at the time of the early epistles it had not taken place (or probably was developing but had not gained much currency yet).

He certainly is assigned spiritual (I'm wanting to use a neutral term here) characteristics. But I would see him being assigned these because they found such ideas in their scriptures and pinned them onto their man. This doesn't mean they saw him as a transcendent being.

But that is exactly what is missing in the non-Gospel record. The scriptures are NOT “pinned onto” any man. They are not spoken of as prophesying the historical activities of a human being.

You missed my meaning. I said he was assigned spiritual characteristics, not historical activities. The point is there appears to have been a dynamic whereby their knowledge of the scriptures enabled the beginning of the mythologisation of this man they had known. On the other hand, it is very difficult to see how and why, if there was no such man, they started picking out bits of scripture and said they revealed a spiritual being of some sort that nobody had been speaking about before, a being for some reason given the name Jesus.

Christ speaks only out of scripture; he seems to reside there. Scripture is the source of the information about the Son, not a prophecy of him.

I agree. This fits HJ just as well as MJ.

As for Jesus sounding like a transcendent being, you don’t have to take my word for it. Herman Ridderbos, a respected scholar of the mid-20th century said this:

“No one who examines the Gospels, and then reads the epistles of Paul can escape the impression that he is moving in two entirely different spheres….When Paul writes of Jesus as the Christ, historical and human traits appear to be obscure, and Christ appears to have significance only as a transcendent divine being.” [Paul and Jesus, p.3]

Ridderbos's intention, as far as I recall, was to emphasise Paul's spiritualised view of Jesus. Which is entirely right in my view. But i don't think Ridderbos was supporting the idea that Paul saw him 'exclusively as a transcendent deity' was he? Ridderbos, if I'm not mistaken, would say Paul thought of Jesus as a historical person but overlaid a spiritualised layer as it were.

And as somebody else said a little earlier, there is a similar lack of 'spiritual detail' on your reading. Why, on a spiritual reading, is crucifixion such a big deal?

I don’t get your meaning here.

I'm asking why you think death specifically by means of crucifixion was so important to Paul. There is a clear focus on it throughout his writings.

If you mean where did Paul and others get the idea that their Jesus was crucified if it was not based on a known historical event, the same source holds true: from scripture. This is stated directly in Romans 16:25-6. Paul (though probably a later editor) says he is proclaiming his gospel “about Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed, and made known through prophetic writings at the command of God…” Once again, scripture prophesies the revealed gospel of apostles like Paul, not Jesus himself. How do you get around this particular passage which directly confirms the mythicist contention?

Such passages as Isaiah 53 (which you all know, I have no doubt, and are quite familiar with), and Zechariah 12:10 “They shall look on…him whom they have pierced…and shall wail over him as over an only child, and shall grieve for him bitterly as for a first-born son.” Or Psalm 22:16 (LXX), “They have pierced my hands and my feet.”

I think this needs some serious work. I cannot see how, without already having something like 'a man I knew was crucified' in their head, somebody would go to their scriptures and find that specific manner of death in them.

On Romans 16:25-26, I don't see why this is problematic or why it confirms the mythicist contention. Paul's gospel is that the crucifixion of Jesus brings salvation etc. This means of salvation is a mystery long kept secret, but now made known through the scriptures (the prophetic writings). That interpretation works whether Jesus was crucified on earth or spiritually doesn't it?

EarlDoherty wrote:Byron commented: “The Jesus-myth "theory" is only doing the rounds because some people have a vested interest in discrediting Christianity.” The ultimate dismissal. We don’t have to bother with mythicism because its proponents are basically evil.

I call donning an "evil" hat a radical interpretation of the text.

If the Jesus-myth theory isn't based on a vested interest, show a chain of reasoning whereby it's reached through disinterested scholarship. (Actual scholarship, not "they wouldn't let me in the club, the meanies" scholarship.)

My parting shot for today ...

Duck, & cover!

... Byron further said, “Infinitely likelier is that there was a Jewish escatological prophet who was offed by the imperial boss-man and mythologised by Paul of Tarsus (and possibly others), and successors.” Please give me one example in which a human being was mythologized by anyone to the extent that the human being himself was completely lost sight of, never discussed or presented, never placed at an identifiable historical time and place, excluded from the picture of the movement that supposedly was begun by him. That is the situation we encounter in the record outside the small set of inbred documents that have created the human being that everyone claims was mythologized, created out of not a single identifiable element of history remembered, but only scriptural precedents, enjoying not a single clear corroboration outside themselves datable early enough to not be simply a result of that creation. Yet in the face of such a situation, we get opinions like “infinitely likelier” together with a scornful, even rabid, dismissal of an alternate theory which completely solves that situation.

Eh? We have Jesus' birth down within a few years, and his death tied to a specific place, under a specific Roman governor.

Claims of exclusivity does nothing to discredit historicity, even if they were true. (And they aren't. Apollonius of Tyana is a common example of a figure from antiquity who was mythologized up to the hilt.) You have to come up with a compelling case to overthrow the established consensus. It's it's really compelling, you'll be getting it published in a peer-reviewed journal and making yourself a whole heap of greenbacks. Lucky blighter, I'm going green myself!

angelo wrote:
I never ever claimed Erhman as a myth-er. Just the facts as he sees them that we only have the gospels of the N/T to seek a life of a historical Jesus. This is to point out to historicist who try to prove existence by quoting Tacticus, Josephus etc.

As said above, biographical details, and existence, are separate things. (And we don't have to go on the gospels, there's bare biography in Tacitus and Josephus.)