|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 10:22:28 [Permalink]
|
He has also, in my opinion, been tiresome and pointless. While I cannot speak for Slater, my question to tergiversant was an honest one.
Yawn! And your point is AIRHEAD?
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 10:41:53 [Permalink]
|
I'd rather everyone stopped with the short insult posts with no content.
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 11:00:54 [Permalink]
|
terg: Is not ancient history littered with such mythical accretions? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
I await an answer to the above query. Surely you can't expect replies to rhetorical questions.
Mythical stories about historical characters do indeed have magic as a central plot element. All the more so when the historical character was a "faith healer" to begin with. And they are also about non-historical characters, I might add, predominantly so. You can tell the difference because historic characters-those who have been recorded by history-have left some evidence of their having lived. This is something impossible for purely fictional personages to do.
Assuming that nothing in the gospels is a record of actual history, this is clearly so. I thought that was the question at hand. This is the point where it would be up to you to present anything actually historic from the NT. What the gospels present is a retelling of previously existing mythology. The jot or two of history is much less than would be acceptable to readers of present day historic fiction.
This does not imply that we have no actual quotations, merely that we cannot know whether any of the sayings we do have are authentic. And yet you present quotations whose originator you cannot authenticate as proof of the authenticity of a specific originator. The same books that credit these sayings to Jesus of Nazareth are the books that credit him with the deeds of mythological Hellenistic gods. Not a strong recommendation of their accuracy.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it so hard for you to remain cordial? Because I perceive you as arrogant, insolent and illogical. My lack of cordiality is in response to the impression you have made.
What might (Christians) have found that they did not? Secular biographies free of any embellishment? Did other Jewish rabbis have those? Human beings who go through this world without leaving evidence are not, by that very fact, remembered by history. We therefore can make no claims about what they did in their lives. Historical figures leave behind evidence. How do you figure that Jesus was a Rabbi when his behavior in the gospels is so non (and in some cases anti) Jewish?
Slater: Since we do not know if they depict, even vaguely, historic events then we cannot claim that they do. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have already admitted that they do depict several actual historical personages, so the above claim appears to be false. Not at all. The young George Washington was an actual person. The young George Washington who chopped down the cherry tree was fiction. It is no trouble at all for writers to include historic figures in their cast of characters. In the comic book FDR shakes Superman's hand and tells him the country owns him a debt of gratitude. In history FDR shines out, but there is no Superman.
The famed Greek myth of the wandering Jewish rabbi/cynic/sage with Messianic pretensions, complete with real Roman and Judean characters! I remember that one. :D
Earlier we went through one of the myths that had had the actual dialogue and not just the plot lifted. Shall we go through the Jesus story and see how Jewish it is? Okay, off the top of my head and without the benefit of coffee.
Mother impregnated by god Dionysian/Pan Hellenistic
Virgin birth, attended by angels and shepherds, sign in the stars, Magi looking for "king" in stable, child placed in manger, gold, frankincense & mer, on winter solstice Mirthraism
Enemy king who kills all infants Jewish/Egyptian/Persian/Hindu
Circumcision Jewish
Child savant Dionysian/Pan Hellenistic/ Jewish
Water god "John", baptism Canaanite/Mithraian
Temptations of this world presented by demon Buddhism
Water changed into wine Dionysian
12 apostles, sermon on mount, loaves and fish, good shepherd, hell, sword of truth, halos Mithraian
Called "Rabbi" Jewish
Calming storm, walking on water, demons into swine, preaching from boats to crowds Dionysian
Healing blind by spitting in mud, healing lame, lepers, raising the dead, fish symbol Apollonius of Tyana
The three Marys Galatian/Celtic
Must be born again, wine is blood Dionysian
Occasional quotes from OT Jewish
Riot in temple with whip just one of many anti Semitic pro Roman political parts
Last Supper Jewish/Mithraian
Easter Pan-Hellenistic
Crucifixion Mithraian/ Hellenism
Crucifixion, with darkness covering the land and earthquakes The stage play "Prometheus Bound"
Veil of temple rent, tomb with rolling rock for door Jewish
Decent into Tartarus, rescue of spirits Pan Hellenistic
Resurrection, second coming to judge the living and the dead, judging of the souls of the dead Mithraism
Road to Damascus, Father/Son/Holy Ghost Dionysian
And thus the sayings found therein must have been originally composed in Greek? I fail to see the sequitur here. The oldest versions are in Greek. If you want to say that they are all translations from the Aramaic then you would need something to base that assumption on.
One might rightly claim that all of the oldest extant OT manuscripts (LXX) are in Greek, without exception. Does it follow that it was originally composed in that language? I have heard no biblical scholars claim otherwise. First translation that is recorded was by St Jerome. Have you any grounds to think they were not written in Greek?
The hypothetical quelle was not my ridiculous idea, but I appreciate the gesture. As you may recall, I was asking whether the sayings themselves appear spurious in some way, e.g. poor knowledge of first century Palestinian geography/culture, obvious predecessors in Greek thought, etc. Again, you cannot expect me to critique a book that simply doesn't exist.
Slater: There isn't any Nazareth. The town called Nazareth today is named after the place in the bible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you give me a reference on that, or shall I simply take your word for it? It might be friendly, but none too skeptical, for me to choose the latter option. You should be more concerned about your lack of education on the subject than about my credibility. This isn't esoteric knowledge. Do a web search, the last time I did I found three different archeologists in three different archeological sites each hoping that their pile of rock and mud was the legendary biblical Nazareth. And while you're at it look up Mount Sinai too. The one with the ancient monastery on it. That's not the one in the bible either. No one has a clue where the real Mount Sinai is.
terg: Were Cæsar or other ancient figures of renown reputed to have magical abilities? ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes or no? Julius Caesar? No. He was made a god after he died, much the same way Mother Teresa is being made a saint. Like the apocryphal cherry tree story the magic Caesar, the magic Teresa and the Superman befriending FDR are fictitious inventions of imagination. However the flesh and bones Washington, et al, left ample evidence behind of what they actually did. If the only evidence we had of FDR was the comic book we could not claim that he was an historic person.
All we have from Jesus is the fiction, we |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 12:59:37 [Permalink]
|
quote: Do an old man a favor and stop trying to lead me around in some sort of dance.
I get the impression Tergiversant is not trying to prove any point, he is merely asking for more information regarding your arguments. I did not realize this could be considered tiresome.
He started this particular thread with an honest question: What criteria would be acceptible for an historic Jesus? If we found evidence of someone named Jesus who existed around that time who wandered about for a year or so, then was crucified, would that suffice? If not, what else would it take? A certain number of gospel actions?
-me. |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 13:32:29 [Permalink]
|
quote: Boron10 wrote:
quote: Do an old man a favor and stop trying to lead me around in some sort of dance.
I get the impression Tergiversant is not trying to prove any point, he is merely asking for more information regarding your arguments. I did not realize this could be considered tiresome. ...
Just to note that you quoted Slater, while I am the one who employed the term "tiresome".
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 14:02:14 [Permalink]
|
He started this particular thread with an honest question: What criteria would be acceptible for an historic Jesus? If we found evidence of someone named Jesus who existed around that time who wandered about for a year or so, then was crucified, would that suffice? There is a presupposition being made here. Oddly enough it is one that is generally used by fundamentalists. The historic Jesus isn't being given a fair shake. He is not accepted because of a perverse "disbelief" in him. While Jesus the Christ would require quite extraordinary proof Jesus of Nazareth does not. This Jesus needs nothing more that any of the varied proofs that are used to prove any historic personage. But Jesus of Nazareth has none of these. Jesus the Christ is easy enough to deconstruct as a work of fiction. With Jesus of Nazareth there is nothing to deconstruct. To declare that he was a wandering itinerant Cynic/Rabbi is a baseless, and completely modern claim. I could just as easily declare that Jesus the Christ was based on Pontius Pilates pet poodle "Jesus" that he picked up in Gaul. I have exactly the same amount of evidence for Jesus the puppy as we have for Jesus the Rabbi--none whatsoever. Now although it is brought up that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' it never stays there. Absence of evidence becomes perverted into the assumption of evidence. A non-existent "Q" and non-existent pre Greek gospels are drug out to point towards historic Jesus. A certain number of gospel actions? The gospels are the claims and are not the proofs. And one must keep in mind the large number of other gospels there once were with adventures for Jesus & Co that have little to do with the present set of gospels. This is indicative of a literary creation and not history. When Jesus the Christ is deconstructed we find no relation to any historic person. It is exactly the same when we deconstruct any of the other gods and demi-gods of the period. In fact with the discovery of the labyrinth of King Minos on Crete we have more evidence to point towards an historic Minotaur than we do for Rabbi Jesus. It wouldn't take much evidence to prove a historic Jesus. The Augusta, St Helena, knew that when she visited Jerusalem. She found no proofs, but was soon supplied with all she could hope for by an angel of the lord. So started 1700 years of fraud. We are left, in these more skeptical times, with nothing. Nothing but a long history trickery.
------- I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them. -Bruce Clark There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled
Edited by - slater on 10/24/2002 14:11:25 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 14:21:20 [Permalink]
|
quote: Slater: This is the point where it would be up to you to present anything actually historic from the NT.
Do you mean events, people, or places? I think we have already gone over some of the actually historic elements from the latter two categories. Is this correct? quote: Slater: What the gospels present is a retelling of previously existing mythology.
Rebellious armed Jews being crucified by Romans is more history than mythology, so far as I am aware. quote: Slater: The jot or two of history is much less than would be acceptable to readers of present day historic fiction.
Probably the oldest bit of every narrative is the so-called passion narrative. This looks to me like a fairly commonplace historical event in most aspects. quote: Slater: And yet you present quotations whose originator you cannot authenticate as proof of the authenticity of a specific originator.
I do not "present" them, I ask merely why we should consider them spurious. Their presence in a mythic tale is not enough for me, since actual quotations from actual Jewish rabbis may be readily conflated with myths, especially in the cultural setting under consideration. quote: Slater: The same books that credit these sayings to Jesus of Nazareth are the books that credit him with the deeds of mythological Hellenistic gods. Not a strong recommendation of their accuracy.
Certainly not with respect to the mythical deeds, but these may well be the dirty bathwater around an actual baby Jesus. ;)
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org "Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 14:22:05 [Permalink]
|
quote: Slater wrote: It wouldn't take much evidence to prove a historic Jesus. The Augusta, St Helena, knew that when she visited Jerusalem. She found no proofs, but was soon supplied with all she could hope for by an angel of the lord. So started 1700 years of fraud. We are left, in these more skeptical times, with nothing.
But, perhaps not. In fact, the presumed role of Helena may be a result of legend rather than a cause:quote: Her greatest fame Helena acquired by an act for which she was probably not responsible, i.e. the finding of the True Cross. Her presence in Jerusalem and the description Eusebius presented of her stay in the Holy Land led ultimately to connecting Helena with the discovery of the Cross. Remains of the Cross were already venerated in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem at the end of the 340s as is clear from sermons of Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (Cat. 4.10, 10.19, 13.4 PG 33, 467ff, 685-687, 777). After 7 May 351, Cyril wrote the Emperor Constantius II that the Cross was discovered during the reign of Constantine I; the bishop gives no indication who discovered the rel ic (Ep. ad Const., 3 PG 33, 1168B). The Emperor Julian believed in the discovery of the relic; he rebukes Christians for worshipping the object (Contra Gal. 194C).
The legend of Helena's discovery of the Cross originated in Jerusalem in the second half of the fourth century and rapidly spread over the whole empire. Three versions of the legend came into existence in Late Antiquity: the Helena legend, the Protonike legend and the Judas Kyriakos legend.
[ see Helena Augusta (248/249-328/329 A.D.) -- emphasis added]
Edited by - ReasonableDoubt on 10/24/2002 14:23:39 |
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 14:22:57 [Permalink]
|
quote: Slater: Human beings who go through this world without leaving evidence are not, by that very fact, remembered by history. We therefore can make no claims about what they did in their lives.
I agree! My question was whether the seemingly authentic sayings should be considered as historical evidence for an historical rabbi. quote: Slater: How do you figure that Jesus was a Rabbi when his behavior in the gospels is so non-Jewish?
If mythmaking can make an empty rock tomb out of an anonymous lime pit, then certainly it has the redactive power to make a pro-Roman out of an anti-Roman Jewish zealot, especially given the pro-Roman bias in the Jesus movement that had arisen by the time the gospels were being composed. quote: Slater: I perceive you as arrogant, insolent and illogical.
Ouch! Why is that? Can you give an example of such behavior, that I may understand what I have been doing to create this impression? TD is correct in his claim that I am trying to be polite. I am also trying to learn. More to come soon...
-- tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.org "Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 14:34:33 [Permalink]
|
quote: tergiversant wrote: My question was whether the seemingly authentic sayings should be considered as historical evidence for an historical rabbi.
Is this not begging the question? On what basis do you defend them as "seemingly authentic sayings" of a single individual named Yeshua?
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 15:58:44 [Permalink]
|
Do you mean events, people, or places? I think we have already gone over some of the actually historic elements from the latter two categories. Is this correct? If you want to claim that Caiphas and Pilate were historic personages and Jerusalem a real place you will get no argument from me. But there isn't any way to extend the historicity to any of the other characters in the story by association.
Rebellious armed Jews being crucified by Romans is more history than mythology, so far as I am aware. Just what you would expect from a book written by Romans, that portrays the Jews as the killers of god himself.
Probably the oldest bit of every narrative is the so-called passion narrative. This looks to me like a fairly commonplace historical event in most aspects. The demi-god dying on the tree (cross) only to be resurrected is a fairly commonplace mythical event.
Anyway Jesus doesn't under go a real Roman crucifixion if you follow the narrative. There's no rope around his chest, his legs weren't broken and he wasn't left hanging until the birds had eaten his rotten corpse. He wasn't left hanging very long at all. In fact there's no real reason that a healthy young man would actually die from what the NT describes.
I do not "present" them, I ask merely why we should consider them spurious. Because we don't know their author and what we do know about NT origins would not lead one to trust it's claim about this.
Their presence in a mythic tale is not enough for me, since actual quotations from actual Jewish rabbis may be readily conflated with myths, especially in the cultural setting under consideration. But you don't know that they are from Jewish Rabbis. And as Jesus points out he is over turning Jewish law (even the Sabbath) you have no reason to assume that he was a Rabbi, let alone the Rabbi who is quoted. The NT is a historical novel, the characters lines really come from the author not the imaginary hero. My question was whether the seemingly authentic sayings should be considered as historical evidence for an historical rabbi. Since the point of Jesus is that he is bringing in a new era his speech does not match that which you could expect from a Rabbi of the time. In fact the story has the Rabbis murdering him because of his speech. So how do you go about authenticating it?
If mythmaking can make an empty rock tomb out of an anonymous lime pit, then certainly it has the redactive power to make a pro-Roman out of an anti-Roman Jewish zealot, especially given the pro-Roman bias in the Jesus movement that had arisen by the time the gospels were being composed. But at least you have the lime pit. You don't have the anti-Roman historical Jewish zealot. You couldn't simply say the tomb were a lime pit if you didn't have the pit. Mythmaking also has the power and ability to create people, places and events out of thin air-or in this case, older myths.
------- I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them. -Bruce Clark There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 15:58:55 [Permalink]
|
I have just received my copy of the much anticipated Biblical Archaeology Review. What a waste. There is zero substance beyond what is readily available on the news. In brief, it appears to be an interesting artifact of little or no probative value.
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 16:05:52 [Permalink]
|
Sort of like that stone at Tintagel that kind-a of had the name like Arthur scratched on it.
------- I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them. -Bruce Clark There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 17:57:52 [Permalink]
|
quote: darwin alogos attempted:
And your point is AIRHEAD?
You continue to prove yourself incapable of producing a proper sentence. How sad.
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2002 : 18:47:56 [Permalink]
|
From the State of Israel, The Ministry of National Infrastructures Geological Survey as found in the current issue of BAR: quote: ... All chalks in the Jerusalem belong to the Menuha Formation of Mount Scopus Group Sequence of the Senonian period. Generally the lower part of the Menuha Formation was exploited around Jerusalem during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and several chalk stone quarries were discovered from that period in the Jerusalem area. The studied ossuary is made of this chalk.
Note the part about "exploited ... during the 1st and 2nd centuries CE". The time base has more than doubled ... along with my new-found cynicism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|