|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
 Posted - 09/12/2002 : 04:02:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
Even if Constantine didn't originate Christianity he changed it so much that the resulting religion would be hardly recognizable to followers of the original. It may have had the same label but there was different stuff in the bottle when he was through.
I cannot escape the feeling that you give Constantine far too much credit. While a formidible politician and tactitian, there is nothing to suggest that that he was much of a theoretician or philosopher. He certainly does not appear the type of intellect to have fashioned, or refashioned, Christology.
On the contrary, everything I've read suggests that he kept pushing the early Christians to take responsibility for resolving their internal squabbling - hence the Synods and Councils. This is not to suggest that he never took sides. As the Synods show, he expected the Church to deal with the Donatists. But this is hardly the same as being the architect of a religious movement.
Finally, the "stuff in the bottle" seems to have been transitioning for some time. This is particularly true if you give any credance to Paul, etc. I'd be interested in knowing your views on these works, as well as on the later Marcionite heresy. Is there any reason to suggest that these are 4th century fictions?
Thanks - RD
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 09/12/2002 05:03:29 |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 07:39:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Tokyodreamer wrote:
But doesn't it seem improbable that none of the many historians at the time made no mention of him, if such a man had acquired so much attention from the Roman government?
Improbable based on 'gut feeling' or improbable based on analysis/comparison? So, for example, we find in Messianic Claimants:- John the Baptist (28 CE)
- The Samaritan Prophet (36 CE)
- Theudas (45 CE)
- The Egyptian (52-58 CE)
- The Unnamed Prophet (59 CE)
- Menahem (66 CE)
- John of Gischala (67-70 CE)
- Jonathan the Weaver (73 CE)
If the information provided at this site is accurate, one thing that all of these claimants seem to have in common is that they are known to us solely through the works of Josephus and, in a couple of cases, the Bible. One could just as easily ask: "doesn't it seem improbable that none of the many historians at the time made no mention of [them]"?
It also seems to me that the argument from absence cuts both ways. If, in fact, the Stoics and other Pagans were engaged in a tense and on-going polemic against nascent Christianity, where are the claims that Jesus is a fraud? Those that are typically offered as evidence, such as Trypho, seem very weak, while the claim that "the evidence was destroyed" is more rationalization than rational argument.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 09/12/2002 07:41:44 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 09:14:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I cannot escape the feeling that you give Constantine far too much credit. While a formidible politician and tactitian, there is nothing to suggest that that he was much of a theoretician or philosopher. He certainly does not appear the type of intellect to have fashioned, or refashioned, Christology.
A good politician and tactitical genius would find a way to get attain the power held by the existing religions. Creating a new one out of nothing and making it illegal to worship anything else would be sort of like the Republican decapitating permanantly the Democrats. A sort of total power consolidation. There's not much philosophy there.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 10:19:24 [Permalink]
|
I cannot escape the feeling that you give Constantine far too much credit.
If you want to get back into the Constantine topic I am willing to do so on the following conditions. This is only a speculation, only an intellectual exercise --keep it light.
While a formidible politician and tactitian, there is nothing to suggest that that he was much of a theoretician or philosopher.
He was also supremely ambitious, completely ruthless, and very well educated.
He knew that when the Greeks of Alexandria were having a great deal of trouble with the Egyptians whose country they were occupying they successfully managed the situation by melding disparate gods. In that case Osiris and Apis were combined to make Serapis, which did the trick. Oddly enough Serapis looks like a heavier smiling Jesus with his hand always raised in the classic JC pose.
Constantine found himself suddenly (at the death of his father) in charge of both the legions of Gaul and those of Britain. A force large enough to conquer the opposing Emperors with if he can get this combination of eastern (mostly Persian, mostly Mithrain) and local (Romanized Gauls and Tuscans, mostly Dionysian) troops to act as a unit.
At this point Christian legend (written by his biographer Eusebius who became one of the richest Christians) has it that a magic burning Chi Ro appears in the sky and the disembodied voice of Jesus the war god tells them to go out and kick some ass.
I think that we can discount that as being actual history, but representing Constantine uniting his troops under Jesus.
Then you have to ask yourself why would Mithrains and Dionysians unite under a third god? Well, they were all Hellenistic and would have been open to new gods, and this god appears to combine both Mithra and Dionysus while coming from a country that no longer exists so as not to spur any regionalist animosities. Jesus would have been a kind of team mascot at this point.
He certainly does not appear the type of intellect to have fashioned, or refashioned, Christology.
No, he doesn't. What he was though was a General and an Emperor. He would have known, generally, what he wanted and ordered his people to make it happen.
On the contrary, everything I've read suggests that he kept pushing the early Christians to take responsibility for resolving their internal squabbling - hence the Synods and Councils.
Which is exactly what you would expect.
C was able to conquer all the other Emperors by using Jesus the war god. But once he was sole Emperor he needed to change that to Jesus the god of civil obedience and servitude.
Have you ever been to a marketing meeting? What happens is you have one client, say a huge corporation, they want to sell their product and project a certain message. Then you will have any number of ad agencies competing for the single account. They all present ideas that are based on the clients outline, but all with their own unique spins. One agency will get the account and become rich, the rest will fade away. Competition for big accounts can get really cut throat.
This seems to me to be a pretty good analogy of what was going on in Constantinople in the 320's. There were tons of different would-be Christianities all competing for the government contract.
"You're gonna love my "Thomas"! See Jesus is like that Buddha guy. Everybody loves Buddha and he's very big on suffering without revolting."
"No, no. Take a look at my Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The ladies love it. Your own mother picks this one."
"No, no. John is the way to go. Jesus floats in the air and he looks different to everyone who sees him. He's all things to all people, ain't that cool?"
"Mr. Thegreat sir! In our version the Jews are the one's who kill Jesus. Judas; Jew Dis, get it? It's a Latin pun, funny huh? And when Jesus says to give unto to Rome the things that are Rome's he's talking about money. Yeah! And if a Roman slugs him, get this, he turns his head to get slugged again in a fresh spot! Now that's prime subservience for you."
All that was missing from the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea was the Powerpoint presentation and the demo reel.
This is not to suggest that he never took sides. As the Synods show, he expected the Church to deal with the Donatists. But this is hardly the same as being the architect of a religious movement.
But it is exactly the same as being the client and having the agencies tailor the campaign to suit his needs while he kept the final decisions for himself.
Finally, the "stuff in the bottle" seems to have been transitioning for some time. This is particularly true if you give any credance to Paul, etc. I'd be interested in knowing your views on these works, as well as on the later Marcionite heresy. Is there any reason to suggest that these are 4th century fictions?
Again the problem comes from lack of original materials. We know what the wining agency, HRC&A (Holy Roman Catholic & Apostolic), has to say about the competing agencies. What is a heresy after all? Simply a loosing campaign from a fired agency.
We also know that the Holy Roman church had a mandate from the Emperor and a department that rewrote their history. This is not to suggest some sort of "conspiracy." Just unbridled arrogance. Much like the Stalin era Russians rewrote history not to trick people but to actually change history.
Without original documents there is no way of telling if HRC&A made accurate copies, altered copies or made them up on the spot. They were quite capable of anything. Remember they considered themselves the source of truth. One of the main doctrines of Catholicism is that Jesus told Pope Peter that whatever they decreed on Earth so shall it be in Heaven. Modern day Catholics take that to mean that the church can declare arbitrary things, like eating meat on Friday, to be sins. The church of the Emperor would have had a much more inclusive view of this mandate. If they said something was true then god said it was true. They could say what truth itself was.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 10:57:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
If you want to get back into the Constantine topic I am willing to do so on the following conditions. This is only a speculation, only an intellectual exercise --keep it light.
That is exactly correct. Hence my agnosticism with regards to historicity. (Anybody see tergiversant?)
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 12:40:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Have you ever been to a marketing meeting? What happens is you have one client, say a huge corporation, they want to sell their product and project a certain message. Then you will have any number of ad agencies competing for the single account. They all present ideas that are based on the clients outline, but all with their own unique spins. One agency will get the account and become rich, the rest will fade away. Competition for big accounts can get really cut throat.
This seems to me to be a pretty good analogy of what was going on in Constantinople in the 320's. There were tons of different would-be Christianities all competing for the government contract.
"You're gonna love my "Thomas"! See Jesus is like that Buddha guy. Everybody loves Buddha and he's very big on suffering without revolting."
"No, no. Take a look at my Gospel of Mary Magdalene. The ladies love it. Your own mother picks this one."
"No, no. John is the way to go. Jesus floats in the
As usual Slater,nice theory if only you had some FACTS to support it. quote:
Fifty years ago a position[ similar to Slater's] could claim the support of the best contemporary scholarship...More recent academic study of the New Testament has DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS CONCEPTION OF BASIC CHRISTIANITY IS A FIGMENT OF THE IMAGINATION[emp.mine].Christianity began as a proclamation, an announcement by certain men in Palestine about A.D.30 that a particular event[i.e. the resurrection],or rather a series of events,which had recently transpired...But surely.the man in the street objects,the author of Acts is already writing from the standpoint of a somewhat latter age,when the original religion of Jesus had been transformed into a religion about him.Such an objection however can no longer stand the scrutiny of scholarship.To begin with, scholars have speeches in the early part of Acts(St. Peter's sermon at Pentecost,and even more strikingly the speech in Chapter 3)are clearly Greek translations of an Aramaic original,that is to say of the language actually spoken by the earliest Christians at Jerusalem.Thus they can hardly be dismissed as the free compositions of latter Greek-speaking Christians[or some Latin-speaking Emperor 325A.D.]:the author must have derived them from some primitive source.
(G.Ernst Wright & Reginald H. Fuller,The Book of the Acts God CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARSHIP INTERPRETS THE BIBLE,A DOUBELDAY ANCHOR BOOK,1960,pp's256,257).
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 13:37:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
[ ... poorly formatted quote from some obscure text ... ]
G.Ernst Wright & Reginald H. Fuller,The Book of the Acts God CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARSHIP INTERPRETS THE BIBLE,A DOUBELDAY ANCHOR BOOK,1960,pp's256,257).
I can find absolutely nothing about this text on the internet. Certainly the section as quoted suggests it to be little more than baseless Christian apologetics. At the same time, Robert M. Grant, Professor of New Testament at the University of Chicago, writes:quote:
Here we enter the realm of textual history and can note that there are significant disagreements in other parts of Luke and, above all, in Acts, where Codex Bezae gives us practically a different edition of the book from the one found in other manuscripts. In Luke itself we find such divergences as (1) the ascription of the Magnificat (1:46-55) to Elizabeth rather than to Mary (Irenaeus in the second century, Niceta of Remesiana in the fourth; some Old Latin manuscripts); (2) the appearance of an angel to Jesus in Gethsemane (22:43-4); found in Codex Bezac but omitted in Alexandrian and Caesarean manuscripts); (3) ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing' (23:34 [cf. Acts 7:60], omitted by many Alexandrian and Caesarean manuscripts, perhaps in opposition to the Jews; contrast Matt. 27:25); (4) ‘He is not here but has been raised' (24:6; omitted in Codex Bezae and the Old Latin, but found in the parallel, Mark 16:6); (5) Luke 24:12, apparently based on John 20:8-10 and omitted by Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, and Marcion; and (6) the statement about the ascension in Luke 24:51, omitted by the same witnesses and in one Syriac version.
What does this evidence prove? It proves only that the text of Luke has been subject to a good deal of modification -- in various directions. ...
< ... >
Similarly the many speeches in Acts are largely in Luke's style (the speech of Stephen in Acts 7 is a partial exception) and reflect his ideas (or does he reflect theirs?). The tendency towards uniformity in these speeches has been explained as due to the common practice of ancient historians who invented speeches suited to the occasions they were describing. ...
- see The Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 09/12/2002 13:38:03 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2002 : 14:16:26 [Permalink]
|
Empty bluster Darwin.
CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARSHIP INTERPRETS THE BIBLE was published forty-two years ago and does not reflect contemporary scholarship. But then you must have known that or you wouldn't resort to trying to pass off such an out dated book.
What facts do you claim I am lacking?
All the books I mentioned were presented at Nicaea for acceptance into cannon. Constantine spoke Greek as every patrician did. Can you possibly be so poorly educated about the period that you didn't know this?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2002 : 08:12:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"So the variations,when they occur,tend to be minor rather than substantive?" "Yes,yes,that's correct,and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning."..."How many doctrines of the church are in jeopardy because of variants?" "I don't know of any doctrine that is in jeopardy,"he responded confidently. "None?" "None,"he repeated.(A conversation between Bruce Metzger and Lee Strobel in Strobel's book THE CASE FOR CHRIST,A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus ,Zondervan Publishing House,1998,p.65)
quote:
At the same time, Robert M. Grant, Professor of New Testament at the University of Chicago, writes:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here we enter the realm of textual history and can note that there are significant disagreements in other parts of Luke and, above all, in Acts, where Codex Bezae gives us practically a different edition of the book from the one found in other manuscripts. In Luke itself we find such divergences as (1) the ascription of the Magnificat (1:46-55) to Elizabeth rather than to Mary (Irenaeus in the second century, Niceta of Remesiana in the fourth; some Old Latin manuscripts); (2) the appearance of an angel to Jesus in Gethsemane (22:43-4); found in Codex Bezac but omitted in Alexandrian and Caesarean manuscripts); (3) ‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing' (23:34 [cf. Acts 7:60], omitted by many Alexandrian and Caesarean manuscripts, perhaps in opposition to the Jews; contrast Matt. 27:25); (4) ‘He is not here but has been raised' (24:6; omitted in Codex Bezae and the Old Latin, but found in the parallel, Mark 16:6); (5) Luke 24:12, apparently based on John 20:8-10 and omitted by Codex Bezae, the Old Latin, and Marcion; and (6) the statement about the ascension in Luke 24:51, omitted by the same witnesses and in one Syriac version.
What does this evidence prove? It proves only that the text of Luke has been subject to a good deal of modification -- in various directions. ...
Yes,yes and if you had read Metzger's book and the quote I supplied above you would have known that the reason we have that problem is because we have thousands of manuscripts,thus variants.Thats like a die hard surfer upon hearing of huge storm generated waves complaining"but there so big and so many of them." 
Edited by - darwin alogos on 09/14/2002 08:17:07 |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2002 : 10:23:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
darwin alogos wrote:
... the reason we have that problem is because we have thousands of manuscripts,thus variants.Thats like a die hard surfer upon hearing of huge storm generated waves complaining "but there so big and so many of them."
I would love to know how old you are. I simply refuse to believe that you say these things solely out stupidity.
As for the topic at hand, while having a large number of variants is certainly a matter of excitement for analysts, it can only be disconcerting for Christian fundamentalism because it proves that Christian 'evidence' has been corrupted, reducing its probative value to zero. Even where two manuscripts, or two classes of manuscript, are identical, there are more than enough examples to suggest harmonization as at least one of the reasons.
So, did Jesus really exist? The fact is that you don't know. The tragedy is that you don't know that you don't know, and you certainly have not displayed the intelligence necessary to understand why you don't know.
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2002 : 10:49:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
By "not ... improbable" do you mean to imply 'probable'?
No.quote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
By "might be mucking about" do you mean to assert 'was active'?
No.
I am saying that it is entirely possible that a Jewish sage named Jesus was indeed active in first century Palestine. Perhaps the proof is a bit shaky (a few recorded sayings and many myths), but certainly the historical evidence does not militate against the possibility.
As to whether this possibility is probable, I am uncertain. I would give it one in three, myself.
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2002 : 10:50:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Slater wrote:
The Christian world says [that Jesus was interesting to the Romans].
The part of the story is none too plausible, do you not agree? For one thing, the ruthless Pilate is portrayed as pro-Jesus. Not bloody likely.quote:
Slater wrote:
Besides the gospels show a pretty pro-Roman guy not a Jewish rebel.
Of course the gospels portray Jesus as pro-Roman, considering they were written around the time the Romans were seriously cracking down on the Jews and the Christians were consciously differentiated themselves from their Hebrew roots. In the sayings of Jesus which are least controversially considered authentic, however, one may see hints of his anti-government sentiments.quote:
Slater wrote:
But the point is that he wasn't recorded in history.
If the parables of Mark and the sayings of Q are genuine, then some of Jesus' actual sayings were indeed recorded, though not by professional historians. ;)
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2002 : 13:54:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
tergiversant wrote:
I am saying that it is entirely possible that a Jewish sage named Jesus was indeed active in first century Palestine.
So? Let's rephrase your observation:quote:
It has not been proven false that a Jewish sage named Jesus was indeed active in first century Palestine.
It may be an interesting observation, but it is also a fallacious argument (argumentum ad ignorantiam). There are many "entirely possible" constructs that may or may not be true.
quote:
tergiversant wrote:
If the parables of Mark and the sayings of Q are genuine, then some of Jesus' actual sayings were indeed recorded, ...
In other words, 'if the history is genuine, then there is genuine history'. Here we fail to even reach the threshhold of 'interesting observation'.
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 09/17/2002 13:59:36 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2002 : 17:42:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
tergiversant wrote:
It has not been proven false that a Jewish sage named Jesus was indeed active in first century Palestine.
quote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
It may be an interesting observation, but it is also a fallacious argument (argumentum ad ignorantiam).
It would be an argument from ignorance if one were to conclude from that premise alone, "It is true that a Jewish sage named Jesus was indeed active in first century Palestine." Thus far I have not seen anyone do this.
quote:
ReasonableDoubt wrote:
In other words, 'if the history is genuine, then there is genuine history'. Here we fail to even reach the threshhold of 'interesting observation'.
I myself find the claim that Jesus was not recorded by history and its logical implication that both the Q sayings and the Markan parables are spurious quite interesting. More specifically, I am interested in knowing why one ought to believe this assessment of the textual evidence.
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2002 : 20:50:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I myself find the claim that Jesus was not recorded by history and its logical implication that both the Q sayings and the Markan parables are spurious quite interesting. More specifically, I am interested in knowing why one ought to believe this assessment of the textual evidence.
Because A) there is no Q document. The one time existence of Quelle is a speculation, not a fact.
and B) you are already counting all the many so-called Gnostic gospels (which contradict Mark) as spurious. Why do you discount the gospels that say that Jesus was an entirely supernatural entity as fact, and then except the ones that say he was a 50/50 mix (some say 100/100 mix) of natural and super?
The bible is not " textual evidence." It is only a list of claims.
There is no evidence to base these claims on.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
