Did Jesus Die?

[Pauliesonne]

Never mind the question....

I was watching a documentary last night which had people like Elaine Pagels, Peter Stanford and John Dominic Crossan and others come to the conclusion that the gospels ( including the ressurection ) were written by the church for " political " and " pyschological " tools.

It made pretty good sense to me but the show is something like three years old.

Which leaves me wondering if the people or a percentage of the people here agree with that?

[Bikewer]

In Lost Christianities, the author Ehrman, discusses the 120+ known "gospels", and how that number (and a similarly large number of Jesus-cults) were winnowed down to what became orthodoxy some 400 years later.

None of the gospels were written by first-person witnesses to the events, and none appeared in written form till somewhere around 50 years after Jesus at the earliest. Some, like the much-discussed recent Gospel of Judas, did not appear until some 300 years later.

Until the Council of Nicea, there was no organized "church" as such, just a loose group of competing sects with a wide variety of beliefs about Jesus, his nature and purpose, and so on. Some wanted the nascent Christianity to be a Jewish sect, others wanted to move away from Judaism. The Gnostics had different ideas entirely.

There is plenty of scholarship on the various gospels, it's unlikely that there was any conspiracy to manufacture them.

[I'll_buy_that]

Yes, eventually

[UndercoverElephant]

Never mind the question....

I was watching a documentary last night which had people like Elaine Pagels, Peter Stanford and John Dominic Crossan and others come to the conclusion that the gospels ( including the ressurection ) were written by the church for " political " and " pyschological " tools.

It made pretty good sense to me but the show is something like three years old.

Which leaves me wondering if the people or a percentage of the people here agree with that?

If you accept that Jesus of Nazareth is not an entirely fictional character (which I do) then I think the hypothesis that he survived crucifixion and lived out the rest of his life in Kashmir is highly reasonable. Such a chronology would fit quite nicely with various other factors such as the abscence of any references to a teenage Jesus and the fact that somebody sounding suspiciously like a Buddhist turns up in 1st-century Palestine. There are other cases of people surviving crucifixion.

IMO, it is quite believable that not only did he exist but he is buried here:

http://www.tombofjesus.com/home.htm

Yep, seriously. All you need is permission to dig up the bones, do a bit of carbon dating, check out the damage to the metatarsals and we're away. Somehow I don't think it's going to happen though. ;)

[Trantor]

Yes, he died. And then he was probably thrown in the common burial pit, along with other executed criminals. This was the Roman custom for dealing with Enemies of the State and all threats to Roman Rule.

[CFLarsen]

The question is: Did Jesus live?

Before we answer that question, it is futile to ask yours.

[Pauliesonne]

Elaine Pagels said, " The gospels are written as if they are historical biographies so people assume they are but they are not. They are written to teach the meaning and importance of Jesus and his teaching. "

How many people here agree with that?

[CFLarsen]

Me.

The gospels, yea, the Bible, should only be taken as a metaphor.

Taking the Bible literally will only result in the utter destruction of your own credibility.

[Pauliesonne]

I like Jesus alot more that way.

[jjramsey]

Elaine Pagels said, " The gospels are written as if they are historical biographies so people assume they are but they are not. They are written to teach the meaning and importance of Jesus and his teaching. "

How many people here agree with that?

Not I. This is where I part company with many liberal Christians. Taking the Gospels allegorically strikes me as arbitrary. If they are written as if they were historical biographies, then the most parsimonious explanation is that this is what they were. Peter Kirby had an article called "Did the gospels have any 'historical' intent? (http://www.christianorigins.com/2006/04/did-gospels-have-any-historical-intent.html)" which discusses this in more detail. Of course, just because they are biographies doesn't mean that they are good biographies, and indeed they are wrong in probably more places than they are right. Actually, that is probably why many liberal Christians would rather treat the Gospels as allegories than as histories, because if they were allegories, that would mean that their frequent lack of correspondence to the facts couldn't be held against them. If one treats them as histories, then one has to face the implications that their authors were credulous, deceitful, or possibly both, and this is embarassing.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Every Jesus dies. Not every Jesus truly lives.

[Piscivore]

"The gospels are written as if they are historical biographies so people assume they are but they are not. They are written to take advantage of the credulous and to create, extend and reinforce influence over a population via the pretext of a fictional (or at best fictionalised) "Jesus" and his "teaching"."

That's what I agree with.

JJ, If I wrote a biography of Lord Nelson in which the Admiral summoned armies of shark-men and used his magical fire breath to destroy the Spanish Armada, would "historical biography" be the most parsimonious explanation for you as well?

[SPQR]

The gospels, yea, the Bible, should only be taken as a metaphor.

If the gospels, i.e. the Bible, must be "taken" at all.

IMO, the Bible is not very useful as a metaphor either.

[Pauliesonne]

"The gospels are written as if they are historical biographies so people assume they are but they are not. They are written to take advantage of the credulous and to create, extend and reinforce influence over a population via the pretext of a fictional (or at best fictionalised) "Jesus" and his "teaching"."



The bottom line is that Jesus taught some wonderful lessons that would probably be useful to a lot of people.

[Pauliesonne]

If one treats them as histories, then one has to face the implications that their authors were credulous, deceitful, or possibly both, and this is embarassing.

Your kind of theory is the result of complete lack of background knowledge about the intellectual and cultural environment in which the writing took place. Infact, its rather silly and superficial--I think the New Testament writers are just what (Liberal) scholars say they are.

[jjramsey]

JJ, If I wrote a biography of Lord Nelson in which the Admiral summoned armies of shark-men and used his magical fire breath to destroy the Spanish Armada, would "historical biography" be the most parsimonious explanation for you as well?

Depends. If you lived in an environment where people believed that such things were possible, and you were writing to an audience that did likewise, it might very well be.

As I pointed out in the SkepticWiki article on the Gerasene demoniac, Origen is trying to explain away the geographical problem by writing,

In the matter of proper names the Greek copies are often incorrect, and in the Gospels one might be misled by their authority. The transaction about the swine, which were driven down a steep place by the demons and drowned in the sea, is said to have taken place in the country of the Gerasenes. Now, Gerasa is a town of Arabia, and has near it neither sea nor lake. And the Evangelists would not have made a statement so obviously and demonstrably false; for they were men who informed themselves carefully of all matters connected with Judaea. But in a few copies we have found, "into the country of the Gadarenes;" and, on this reading, it is to be stated that Gadara is a town of Judaea, in the neighbourhood of which are the well-known hot springs, and that there is no lake there with overhanging banks, nor any sea. But Gergesa, from which the name Gergesenes is taken, is an old town in the neighbourhood of the lake now called Tiberias, and on the edge of it there is a steep place abutting on the lake, from which it is pointed out that the swine were cast down by the demons.

From http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john6.html

If the story of the Gerasene demoniac were not taken literally, the geographical problem would be a non-issue. Yet Origen, who is rather fond of allegorical exegesis, takes the trouble of rationalizing away the problem. Notice that it is a miracle story that is taken literally.

[CFLarsen]

If the gospels, i.e. the Bible, must be "taken" at all.

IMO, the Bible is not very useful as a metaphor either.

Some parts are, e.g., the "Thou shall not kill". But as for most of the rest...

[Piscivore]

Depends. If you lived in an environment where people believed that such things were possible, and you were writing to an audience that did likewise, it might very well be.

That's disingenuous; the test of historical validity is not if the authors could have really believed it to be true, or what delusions were common in the period. By that standard the Book of Mormon, the Mahabharata, and the Pali Canon all become historical biographies.

If the story of the Gerasene demoniac were not taken literally, the geographical problem would be a non-issue. Yet Origen, who is rather fond of allegorical exegesis, takes the trouble of rationalizing away the problem. Notice that it is a miracle story that is taken literally.

So? Just a month or so ago I heard about some academic that invested a lot of time postulating that ice may have formed on the body of water Jesus supposedly walked on. This lends not a shred of validity to the existance of the event, or the man.

It has been amply demonstrated that oral histories become exaggerated, people make errors in perception and transcription, people are not above lying to advance a cause or their own self interest, and that lying in writing is common and universal, and probably at least as old as the first Sumerian scribe that cooked the books to take a little something extra home to the wife.

Even if there were some indigent bastard preacher doing the David Koresh thing around ancient Judea at that time, even if his name was Jesus or Yeshua or Jimmy-Jammy Shabadoo or whatever, the stories contained in the Gospels are clearly fictions.

The existance of Abraham Lincoln, Socrates, and Ghengis Khan does not make "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" a historical biography. And we cannot use that work to support anything about their lives. In the case of Jesus, unfortunately, our best source is about as reliable.

[UndercoverElephant]

Even if there were some indigent bastard preacher doing the David Koresh thing around ancient Judea at that time, even if his name was Jesus or Yeshua or Jimmy-Jammy Shabadoo or whatever, the stories contained in the Gospels are clearly fictions.
.

That is very different to claiming that the person himself was fictional. I don't understand the wild polarities on this issue. We have one bunch of people who believe that Jesus existed and that the gospels are gospel truth and another bunch who seem to think the only reasonable stance is to claim Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all. Why? It seems far more likely to me that early Christianity did indeed have a founder, and that some of what was written about him was true, whilst most of it was an elaborate story. Indeed, the "Q" theories seems to support such a claim. I get this rather extreme attitude from US atheists in particular. Christianity does have roots. It didn't just appear out of nowhere. Just because the gospels are not the literal truth, it does not follow that there was no kernel of truth around which was later greatly embellished. There was an input from Judaism, an input from either egyptian or indian mysticism and an input from some sort of pacifist spritual founder whose teachings are revealed by "Q". To make sense of the first 300 years of Christian history I think all three factors are required.

[cyborg]

If Joeseph Smith can found Mormonism with magic decoder rings then I think just about anything is possible with regards to how a religion can get started.

[Lothian]

I am not sure. I haven’t heard anything much about him since he released “International bright young thing” although I think he was always struggling to reach the heights of “Info freako”

[UndercoverElephant]

I am not sure. I haven’t heard anything much about him since he released “International bright young thing” although I think he was always struggling to reach the heights of “Info freako”

I watched "Jesus Jones" go from second support act at the Bull & Gate all the way to their brief spell in the sunshine and their two chartbusters you mention. Indeed I even have a signed scarf they threw into the crowd at the end of one of their gigs. Whoopie!

What has this got to do with the historical roots of Christianity?

[Lothian]

I watched "Jesus Jones" go from second support act at the Bull & Gate all the way to their brief spell in the sunshine and their two chartbusters you mention. Indeed I even have a signed scarf they threw into the crowd at the end of one of their gigs. Whoopie!

What has this got to do with the historical roots of Christianity?Sorry I just read the thread title. Did I get the wrong Jesus ? Ho Hum.

[Trantor]

The real story of Jesus is probably a simple one, that has been repeated over and over again.

A common man searching for life's answers has a religious experience after a baptism by another holy man(John the Baptist) that Jesus believes in.

After the death of John the Baptist, Jesus feels that God has called on him to continue teaching God's message.
Jesus gets a few followers and begins spreading his version of God's message.

The established religious authorities and Roman rulers have a problem with any new religious upstarts on a mission from God, and want to rid themselves of any possible trouble or competion.
At the first sign of trouble, Jesus is arrested as an Enemy of the State and is executed along with other trouble makers to Roman rule.

The few remaining followers fled at first, but then decided to continued the teaching that Jesus started; and retold the story of Jesus's great sacrifice in a light that was favorable to their start-up church. More and more amazing stuff was added to the story over time so that after a while the whole story became a work of fiction.

In this particular case, the story and message of Jesus was greatly changed by a nutcase who also had his own religious experience based on Jesus and decided to go on his very own "Mission from God" - This was Paul, the man who really started all the nonsense.

This is all a very common human experience. Happens over and over again - even today it continues.

[pgwenthold]

The bottom line is that Jesus taught some wonderful lessons that would probably be useful to a lot of people.

If you agree with those lessons. If you don't, then you can ignore them.

That's the beauty of calling it metaphor.

I agree with jjramsey on that part. If you think it is metaphor, then it becomes completely arbitrary the parts you want to follow.

That being said, that is pretty much the approach taken by most christians.

[jjramsey]

JJ, If I wrote a biography of Lord Nelson in which the Admiral summoned armies of shark-men and used his magical fire breath to destroy the Spanish Armada, would "historical biography" be the most parsimonious explanation for you as well?Depends. If you lived in an environment where people believed that such things were possible, and you were writing to an audience that did likewise, it might very well be.That's disingenuous; the test of historical validity is not if the authors could have really believed it to be true, or what delusions were common in the period. By that standard the Book of Mormon, the Mahabharata, and the Pali Canon all become historical biographies.

But we weren't talking about historical validity, which has to to with the correctness of a purported historical work, but whether a work is a "historical biography," which is about what the work is meant to do, regardless of whether it does it well or at all. It is perfectly possible to say both that the Book of Mormon is historical narrative and that the Book of Mormon is grossly false. If both are true, that just makes the Book of Mormon bad history. It's the same with the Gospels. Bad facts in the Gospels do not mean that the Gospels have no historical intent; they just mean that the Gospels don't do a good job of making real that intent.

To put it more bluntly: Being wrong doesn't make one an allegory.

[Trantor]

Originally Posted by Pauliesonne :
The bottom line is that Jesus taught some wonderful lessons that would probably be useful to a lot of people.


Based on some of the known early Nazarene teachings, Jesus taught some good principles to live life by. These teachings were continued by James, Jesus's brother, who was the leader of the Early Christian Sect before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.

I don't think they taught anything new. Just a blend of different schools of thought that were known back in the time of Jesus.

[Piscivore]

...another bunch who seem to think the only reasonable stance is to claim Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all.

If you read carefully, that's not my stance, JG. there may or may not have been a man named Jesus, he may or may not have started a little cult in the right time and place. The "Jesus" in the bible may or may not have been based of this person's life. We can not know from just the bible, because the "Jesus" in the bible is fictional.

Unless you have some other evidence that one upon a time demons were real, the dead walked, prayer worked, angels talked to people, Roman administrators conducted irrational and inefficient censuses that no one ever talked about, and four different versions of the same event could all be true at the same time.

But we weren't talking about historical validity, which has to to with the correctness of a purported historical work, but whether a work is a "historical biography," which is about what the work is meant to do, regardless of whether it does it well or at all.

I see, and you somehow know the intent of the authors how? Are you claiming that people back then never had the impulse to write down things they knew to be false? That no one ever tried to deceive? Or to mock? That no one ever had a tongue to place firmly in their cheek? How do you know that the author of oh, say "Mark" was not someone charged with learning this new cult's beliefs and transcribing them for some official to peruse? How do you know the gospel authors were not early Trey Parkers and Matt Stones, grinning and smirking, "This is What Christians Really Believe".

What are some other biographies of the time, and how do the gospels compare?

It is perfectly possible to say both that the Book of Mormon is historical narrative and that the Book of Mormon is grossly false. If both are true, that just makes the Book of Mormon bad history. It's the same with the Gospels. Bad facts in the Gospels do not mean that the Gospels have no historical intent; they just mean that the Gospels don't do a good job of making real that intent.

Again you are assuming intent. What was the intent of the scribes that took down the Mahabharata- did they think they were recording history?

Aside from that, it is also perfectly possible to say that the Book of Mormon is fiction from beginning to end, concocted and concieved with the intent to defraud. Indeed, in this case, this seems to be the "most parsimonious" explanation.

Given the tone and content of Paul's letters, wherein we can clearly read the efforts of a man building a faith-based empire with himself at its helm, one can easily make the same inference about the Gospels. On top of this, the Gospels are not written like a history, but are instead writen like a story.

To put it more bluntly: Being wrong doesn't make one an allegory.

To put it even more bluntly, "History" and "allegory" are not the only two options.

[Beerina]

Yep, seriously. All you need is permission to dig up the bones, do a bit of carbon dating, check out the damage to the metatarsals and we're away. Somehow I don't think it's going to happen though. ;)

Well, that would narrow it down to one of thousands, perhaps many more, who were crucified about that time.

Any time someone finds a tomb, hey, it's the tomb of Jesus! At least this would be an improvement from what "might be a tomb someone might have used at some point about 2000 years ago", which covers millions of people, to perhaps one in merely tens of thousands.

And, of course, even if you proved you found every single body of every single person crucified 2000 +/- 200 years ago, that still wouldn't mean anything to Christians since, duh, obviously Jesus isn't among them because he was resurrected.

[UndercoverElephant]

Well, that would narrow it down to one of thousands, perhaps many more, who were crucified about that time.

Any time someone finds a tomb, hey, it's the tomb of Jesus! At least this would be an improvement from what "might be a tomb someone might have used at some point about 2000 years ago", which covers millions of people, to perhaps one in merely tens of thousands.

And, of course, even if you proved you found every single body of every single person crucified 2000 +/- 200 years ago, that still wouldn't mean anything to Christians since, duh, obviously Jesus isn't among them because he was resurrected.

This is (purportedly) the body of a person who survived crucifixion and died at the age of 80. There's not ten's of thousands of those. If they were to carry out the above tests, and concluded the bones were of the correct age and belonged to an old man who had survived crucifixion as a young man, I would be convinced. At the moment there is mere circumstantial evidence. The scientific backup would be the cherry on the cake. But, paradoxically, as you say.....it would actually drive a coach and horses through most forms of Christianity if it turned out to be true.

[Piscivore]

This is (purportedly) the body of a person who survived crucifixion and died at the age of 80. There's not ten's of thousands of those. If they were to carry out the above tests, and concluded the bones were of the correct age and belonged to an old man who had survived crucifixion as a young man, I would be convinced. At the moment there is mere circumstantial evidence. The scientific backup would be the cherry on the cake. But, paradoxically, as you say.....it would actually drive a coach and horses through most forms of Christianity if it turned out to be true.

Just picking a nit, but IIRC in crucifixion the nails were not driven through the hands, but the wrists, as the soft fleshy hands would not support the weight of the body.

But even if the damage to the bones were present, it wouldn't prove it was the Jesus of the bible, it would at best suggest the person whose remains those are had suffered puncture wounds at some time and survived.

[UndercoverElephant]

Just picking a nit, but IIRC in crucifixion the nails were not driven through the hands, but the wrists, as the soft fleshy hands would not support the weight of the body.


Metatarsals are foot bones. As every England supporter is very much aware, since Wayne Rooney just broke two of them thus ruining England's best chance of winning the world cup since 1966. Currently everyone is praying for a divine healing of the divine broken metatarsals.....

On top of the tomb is a carving of two feet, with scars on both of them but in different places. The positioning of the scars on the pictures is consistent with one nail being driven through both feet as on a classic crucifix.


But even if the damage to the bones were present, it wouldn't prove it was the Jesus of the bible, it would at best suggest the person whose remains those are had suffered puncture wounds at some time and survived.

Given the quite considerable circumstantial evidence, this would be more than enough. Kashmir is an inaccessible place with a very unique spiritual history of its own - which is partly why India and Pakistan both claim it as their own. According to local legend, the person buried in that tomb was brought to kashmir as a child, educated as a Buddhist "lama", returned to his homeland of palestine, survived crucifixion, and returned. His name was "Yusasaf".

[UndercoverElephant]

Piscivore

I am quite willing to believe that at some time in the past 2000 years somebody faked the tomb of Jesus in Kashmir. But where does one obtain the corpse of an 80-year-old man with the evidence in his feet that he was cruxified as a young man and whose date of death was approx. 30 AD? You can't. This is no turin shroud. If the evidence beneath the tomb meets the required criteria, I would accept it as real. Why wouldn't you?

[Piscivore]

Metatarsals are foot bones. As every England supporter is very much aware, since Wayne Rooney just broke two of them thus ruining England's best chance of winning the world cup since 1966. Currently everyone is praying for a divine healing of the divine broken metatarsals.....

So they are, my bad. I was reading metatarsals yet thinking metacarpals.

On top of the tomb is a carving of two feet, with scars on both of them but in different places. The positioning of the scars on the pictures is consistent with one nail being driven through both feet as on a classic crucifix.

Still, the indications of such injuries would not prove crucifixion, and even if it was reasonably certain that the person in question had been crucified, it wouldn't conclusively follow that it was Jesus.

Given the quite considerable circumstantial evidence, this would be more than enough.

Not nearly enough, I'm afraid.

Kashmir is an inaccessible place
No, it isn't, or Pakistanis and Indians would not be able to go there to fight over it. Geographically, it's the Colorado of Asia.
with a very unique spiritual history of its own
Again, no, whatever "spiritual history" (whatever that means) comes from the Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims that live there.

- which is partly why India and Pakistan both claim it as their own.

I thought it was because its valleys had some pretty decent farmland and there were strategic considerations as well...

According to local legend, the person buried in that tomb was brought to kashmir as a child, educated as a Buddhist "lama", returned to his homeland of palestine, survived crucifixion, and returned. His name was "Yusasaf".

All of which must be true, of course, because people cannot possibly lie to attract rupee- and dollar-laden tourists to their shrine. Or to discredit a competing theology. Or to enhance the reputation of the local area. Or... etc, et. al.

[UndercoverElephant]

All of which must be true, of course, because people cannot possibly lie to attract rupee- and dollar-laden tourists to their shrine. Or to discredit a competing theology. Or to enhance the reputation of the local area. Or... etc, et. al.

You can make up the story easy enough. My point is that it is less easy to concoct human remains capable of fooling 21st century science that they are the bones of such a human being. I simply do not believe there are many people whose bones could be dated to that decade, and who had injuries consistent with surviving crucifixion. That sort of evidence cannot be faked.

[Piscivore]

Piscivore

I am quite willing to believe that at some time in the past 2000 years somebody faked the tomb of Jesus in Kashmir. But where does one obtain the corpse of an 80-year-old man with the evidence in his feet that he was cruxified as a young man and whose date of death was approx. 30 AD? You can't. This is no turin shroud. If the evidence beneath the tomb meets the required criteria, I would accept it as real. Why wouldn't you?

That big "If" in your post. I'm not going to gush "Jeeeesus" as long as the corpse in question remains hypothetical. And your criteria are not nearly rigorous enough.

Puncture damage to metatarsals can happen lots of ways, not just crucifixion.
It would need to be proved the damage was not post-mortem.
The person's metatarsals would have stopped growing in his early twenties, so assuming you can prove the damage occurred pre-mortem, how are you going to determine the damage happened when he was in his early thirties and not his forties or fifties?
Crucifixion could happen anywhere.
Hundreds of thousands of people died around 30AD

[Piscivore]

You can make up the story easy enough. My point is that it is less easy to concoct human remains capable of fooling 21st century science that they are the bones of such a human being. I simply do not believe there are many people whose bones could be dated to that decade, and who had injuries consistent with surviving crucifixion. That sort of evidence cannot be faked.

I do not think even our "21st century science" could date any bones that old to a specific decade. So we are talking about thirty years worth of dead people. At least.

You watch too much CSI.

[UndercoverElephant]

That big "If" in your post. I'm not going to gush "Jeeeesus" as long as the corpse in question remains hypothetical. And your criteria are not nearly rigorous enough.

Puncture damage to metatarsals can happen lots of ways, not just crucifixion.
It would need to be proved the damage was not post-mortem.
The person's metatarsals would have stopped growing in his early twenties, so assuming you can prove the damage occurred pre-mortem, how are you going to determine the damage happened when he was in his early thirties and not his forties or fifties?
Crucifixion could happen anywhere.
Hundreds of thousands of people died around 30AD

Sounds like you're pretty attached to the idea of a totally non-existent Jesus of Nazareth. ;)

Of course it is a big "if". I am entirely neutral on the issue. I have no idea what is beneath that sarcophagus. And I would not be bothered if the evidence were positive or negative. I'd love to know, though.

[UndercoverElephant]

I do not think even our "21st century science" could date any bones that old to a specific decade. So we are talking about thirty years worth of dead people. At least.

You watch too much CSI.

Carbon dating of human remains is accurate to within 30 years at that sort of a distance. And there can't have been many people who survived being crucified at any point in Roman history. It must always have been a rare event.

[Piscivore]

Sounds like you're pretty attached to the idea of a totally non-existent Jesus of Nazareth. ;)

No, I just have a much higher threshold of evidence required to convince me that that box (if it contains anything at all) holds the bones of Jesus.

As I'll say yet again, the Jesus in the bible is clearly fiction; whether the character is based on some actual dude is pretty irrelevant to me.

Of course it is a big "if". I am entirely neutral on the issue. I have no idea what is beneath that sarcophagus. And I would not be bothered if the evidence were positive or negative. I'd love to know, though.

Sure, so would I. But the point is, I don't think we'll ever know. The proprieters of that shrine are certainly never going to allow the forensic research necessary, and all the data we could reasonably expect to collect would fall short of being conclusive anyway. Unless they buried Jesus' secret diary or something with him, I guess.

[Piscivore]

Carbon dating of human remains is accurate to within 30 years at that sort of a distance. And there can't have been many people who survived being crucified at any point in Roman history. It must always have been a rare event.

"Can't have been"-"Must have been" are not forms of evidence. They are speculations. Do you have any documentation to say that no one was ever rescued from a crucifixion? They certainly wouldn't report back to the authorities that cousin Cletius took them down, would they? Or how about pardons? Do you have any sources to even estimate how many people Rome might have crucified throught the empire in thirty years? Actually, you probably need to expand that, because we could only guess at the age of the person's remains when they died, so we may even be looking at a half-century or more of crosses to account for. And that is just Rome- any idea how widespread the practice was in Persia? India?

And this is still assuming that there is incontravertable evidence of crucifixion. There's torture, there's accident, there's disease- all of them could cause damage to feet bones.

[UndercoverElephant]

Piscivore

Perhaps I look at it differently. I am also convinced by the "Q" theories which suggest there was indeed a real person whose pacifist teachings made it into the bible. If so, the entire Biblical contribution of Jesus of Nazareth, possibly buried in Kashmir, is contained on this webpage:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q-synopsis-young.html

[UndercoverElephant]

"Can't have been"-"Must have been" are not forms of evidence. They are speculations. Do you have any documentation to say that no one was ever rescued from a crucifixion?


There are recorded cases of people being rescued from crucifixion.


They certainly wouldn't report back to the authorities that cousin Cletius took them down, would they?


In the recorded case, "the authorities" were riding past and one of their deputies noticed three of his friends on crosses. All three were brought down. Two died, one survived.


Or how about pardons? Do you have any sources to even estimate how many people Rome might have crucified throught the empire in thirty years?


Crucifixion was generally reserved for slaves, and then only for slaves who had seriously p*ss*d off the romans.


Actually, you probably need to expand that, because we could only guess at the age of the person's remains when they died, so we may even be looking at a half-century or more of crosses to account for. And that is just Rome- any idea how widespread the practice was in Persia? India?

And this is still assuming that there is incontravertable evidence of crucifixion. There's torture, there's accident, there's disease- all of them could cause damage to feet bones.

Again, there is also lots of circumstantial evidence. We are arguing about nothing anyway because nobody is ever going to open that tomb.

[ruach1]

Piscivore;
"The gospels are written as if they are historical biographies so people assume they are but they are not. They are written to take advantage of the credulous and to create, extend and reinforce influence over a population via the pretext of a fictional (or at best fictionalised) "Jesus" and his "teaching"."

The gospels were written to proclaim what many first century residents of the Roman province of Judea thought to be an act of God. This act of God is what is named by Christians as the "Gospel" or Good News. The Good News, in general, is that God has shown through the Christ that God as Spiritual BEING is LOVE and through Love and mercy has given freely a type of life through Christ that leads to everlasting life--despite what "evidence" one can produce from the Bible to claim otherwise.

The word for this is Kerygma--Greek for proclaim. The Gospels were written to proclaim--that is the purpose. How one interprets the content, well, that is a never ending story in and of itself.

[Piscivore]

Again, there is also lots of circumstantial evidence. We are arguing about nothing anyway because nobody is ever going to open that tomb.

I'm not arguing anything except the difficulties you don't seem to have considered in authenicating those bones.

[jjramsey]

Are you claiming that people back then never had the impulse to write down things they knew to be false? That no one ever tried to deceive?

Note what I wrote earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1613498&postcount=10): "If one treats them as histories, then one has to face the implications that their authors were credulous, deceitful, or possibly both, and this is embarassing." Obviously deception is on the table.

Or to mock? That no one ever had a tongue to place firmly in their cheek? How do you know that the author of oh, say "Mark" was not someone charged with learning this new cult's beliefs and transcribing them for some official to peruse? How do you know the gospel authors were not early Trey Parkers and Matt Stones, grinning and smirking, "This is What Christians Really Believe".

If the Gospellers were attempting to mock, they were far too subtle.

Aside from that, it is also perfectly possible to say that the Book of Mormon is fiction from beginning to end, concocted and concieved with the intent to defraud. Indeed, in this case, this seems to be the "most parsimonious" explanation.

I had thought of that but included the idea of "fradulent history" under the umbrella of "bad history." I take your point, however, that there is a big difference between a historical narrative that is an outright fraud and a historical narrative that is written by a True Believer (http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html) who for the most part believes what he's writing but is not above lying in order to convince others of The Truth(TM).

[Piscivore]

Note what I wrote earlier (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1613498&postcount=10): "If one treats them as histories, then one has to face the implications that their authors were credulous, deceitful, or possibly both, and this is embarassing." Obviously deception is on the table.

And narratives written to deceive are not histories, they are fictions. Narratives written with overwhelmingly incorrect information, no matter how innocently, are fictions. In the case of my Nelson biography, my intentions do not enter into it; it would contain obviously incorrect information and could not be regarded as history- there may be mistakes less obvious, and the rest of the text would have to be suspect.

Sometimes it takes awhile to find out which is which, sure. And sometimes, even the obvious frauds are hard to shake- the Protocols of the Elders of Zion come to mind.

If the Gospellers were attempting to mock, they were far too subtle.
Well, it is certainly not the best hypothesis.

I had thought of that but included the idea of "fradulent history" under the umbrella of "bad history."
As above, both are fiction. Whether the author or the reader is aware of it at the time is irrelevant.

I take your point, however, that there is a big difference between a historical narrative that is an outright fraud and a historical narrative that is written by a True Believer (http://skepdic.com/truebeliever.html) who for the most part believes what he's writing but is not above lying in order to convince others of The Truth(TM).

That's my point? The only difference I see is that the latter is lying to one more person than the former. My point was that intention does not make a text history. The Gospels are rife with events that could not have happened. They cannot therefore be histories. And the characters they describe, no matter how closely they do or do not adhere to actual persons, are not those people. And we cannot know anything about those actual people from the text.

[Piscivore]

The gospels were written to proclaim what many first century residents of the Roman province of Judea thought to be an act of God. This act of God is what is named by Christians as the "Gospel" or Good News.

Maybe. Could be that the gospels were written to proclaim what some few first century residents of the Roman province of Judea told people was an act of God. This act of God is what was hawked by Christians as the "Gospel" or Good News. Here's the sale pitch they used:

The Good News, in general, is that God has shown through the Christ that God as Spiritual BEING is LOVE and through Love and mercy has given freely a type of life through Christ that leads to everlasting life

It doesn't matter how much you suffer here, part of you will never die and it's all going to be better in the next world. And since this one doesn't matter, can we have 10% of your stuff?

The word for this is Kerygma--Greek for proclaim. The Gospels were written to proclaim--that is the purpose.

This seems a non-sequitor to me, can you elaborate on the signifigance of the Greek?

[jjramsey]

That's my point?

I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

My point was that intention does not make a text history.

Then you grossly misunderstood my point. The problem is that "history" in the sense of "what actually happened in the past" with "history" in the sense of "genre of literature that purports to describe what happened in the past." A work can fail to be history in the former sense (either by accident or design) while being "history" in the latter sense. To take your example,

In the case of my Nelson biography, my intentions do not enter into it; it would contain obviously incorrect information and could not be regarded as history

It could not be regarded as history in the sense of being a reasonable depiction of what actually happened in the past. It would still fall into the genre of historical narrative, and be regarded as poor instance of the genre.

there may be mistakes less obvious, and the rest of the text would have to be suspect.

Of course. No disagreement from me here. Where we may disagree is that I would hold out the possibility of recovering scraps of historical fact from careful analysis of the suspect text.

[Piscivore]

Then you grossly misunderstood my point.
My turn to apologise.

The problem is that "history" in the sense of "what actually happened in the past" with "history" in the sense of "genre of literature that purports to describe what happened in the past." A work can fail to be history in the former sense (either by accident or design) while being "history" in the latter sense.
Right, but in the latter sense we call it "historical fiction." I guess what escapes me is why the bible is so often deemed to be the former and not the latter.

To take your example, It could not be regarded as history in the sense of being a reasonable depiction of what actually happened in the past. It would still fall into the genre of historical narrative, and be regarded as poor instance of the genre.
Calling it a "historical narrative" though, is coming close to equivocation, though, isn't it?

Of course. No disagreement from me here. Where we may disagree is that I would hold out the possibility of recovering scraps of historical fact from careful analysis of the suspect text.
Let's say the three main points I make in my biography are that
A) Nelson was a British Admiral of some renown
B) He had a torrid love affair with a cabin boy
C) He summoned shark-men and breathed fire
We know from many other sources that "A" has a very high probability of being correct.
We can be pretty certain given our understanding of human physiology and evolutionary biology that "C" has very little possibility of being correct.
So how do we evaluate "B", if no other source mentions it? We can speculate and theorise all the live long day, but a single text can ony provide so much evidence. Given that I did not know Nelson personally, where did the information come from? If I claim it was a long oral tradition passed down by generations of sailors (that has since died out since I wrote it down) that someone saw them smootching on the poop deck - is that reliable? What happens if there is evidence in the text I have a pro-homosexual agenda- might not the suspicion be raised I'm trying to posthumously enlist the Admiral for my own political ends?

This is the area where I see the bible resting. Yes, it may be "historical" in that it purports to portray events, but that's a confusing word to use. And even if one could cobble together and prop up a first century Jerusalem street preacher-cult leader and call him "Jesus," it wouldn't prove any of the fictional elements of the gospels. Which are the parts most people want to be fact.

[jjramsey]

Right, but in the latter sense we call it "historical fiction."

That's probably not the best term to use, since "historical fiction" is usually used to describe stories that aren't meant to be taken as fact by the reader but are in a historical setting.

Calling it a "historical narrative" though, is coming close to equivocation, though, isn't it?

Depends. I could certainly make an apologetic argument that used a fallacy exploiting the ambiguity in the term "historical narrative."

Let's say the three main points I make in my biography are that
A) Nelson was a British Admiral of some renown
B) He had a torrid love affair with a cabin boy
C) He summoned shark-men and breathed fire
We know from many other sources that "A" has a very high probability of being correct.
We can be pretty certain given our understanding of human physiology and evolutionary biology that "C" has very little possibility of being correct.
So how do we evaluate "B", if no other source mentions it?

It depends. If the biography presented Nelson in a very bad light, and the torrid love affair was portrayed as something sordid and over the top, one might conclude that the author was trying to slander Nelson and that the story of the affair should be taken with a huge grain of salt. If both Nelson and the relationship are portrayed in a good light, it might be tougher or even impossible to tell. Usually, it's the direct claims that go with the author's bias that are the most suspect.

[Piscivore]

That's probably not the best term to use, since "historical fiction" is usually used to describe stories that aren't meant to be taken as fact by the reader but are in a historical setting.

Again, your distinction hinges on the author's intent. We cannot know that, can we? and even so- are the Loose Changers writing "history"? Are the JFK mob? Was Erich von Daniken?

Depends. I could certainly make an apologetic argument that used a fallacy exploiting the ambiguity in the term "historical narrative."

Forgive me, but is seems like you've done so already attempting to establish the historicity of Jesus. I haven't read all of your posts, so if this impression is mistaken, I apolgise. Yet You seem to prefer to use the term "historical" often in places where I would not:
If they are written as if they were historical biographies, then the most parsimonious explanation is that this is what they were.
I cannot read the Gospels and find a biography there- it is a story. There is plot, there is foreshadowing, there is quoted speech, there is a structure to the narrative there that biographies lack. They are not factual- in fact a good portion of them is likely impossible. They are written with an obvious bias. Why cloud the issue by using "historical" in almost every case- especially since you claim you only mean it in the sense that it "purports to describe what happened in the past." By that definition almost all the fiction section of the library is "historical."


Usually, it's the direct claims that go with the author's bias that are the most suspect.
And that does not include the bulk of the Gospels... why?

[jjramsey]

Again, your distinction hinges on the author's intent. We cannot know that, can we?

It depends. The author usually implies his/her intentions by how he/she writes, unless attempting to completely fool the reader.

are the Loose Changers writing "history"? Are the JFK mob? Was Erich von Daniken?

In the sense of writing stuff in the genre of "historical narrative," yes. Obviously, the factual content of their narratives is very poor, but they are in the genre.

Forgive me, but is seems like you've done so already attempting to establish the historicity of Jesus.

Not on this particular thread, though I certainly have on others. Here, I was trying to point out that the gospels are probably not allegory, and that the attempt to treat them as allegories probably stems more from an attempt to avoid the negative implications of them having historical intent.

I haven't read all of your posts, so if this impression is mistaken, I apolgise. Yet You seem to prefer to use the term "historical" often in places where I would not:
If they are written as if they were historical biographies, then the most parsimonious explanation is that this is what they were.

And note that I followed that up by, "If one treats them as histories, then one has to face the implications that their authors were credulous, deceitful, or possibly both, and this is embarassing [for many liberal Christians]."

Why cloud the issue by using "historical" in almost every case- especially since you claim you only mean it in the sense that it "purports to describe what happened in the past."

I would figure that the context in which I was using "historical," not to mention pointing to a link to Peter Kirby's essay "Did the gospels have any 'historical' intent? (http://www.christianorigins.com/2006/04/did-gospels-have-any-historical-intent.html)", would have made my meaning clear.

By that definition almost all the fiction section of the library is "historical."

Except that almost all the fiction section of the library doesn't purport to describe what happened in the past, since the reader is expected to understand that the contents of the books aren't real.

Usually, it's the direct claims that go with the author's bias that are the most suspect.And that does not include the bulk of the Gospels... why?

Actually, it does include the bulk of the Gospels. If you look at lists of things that are reasonably certain about Jesus (http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/minimum.htm), they are pretty short.

[Piscivore]

It depends. The author usually implies his/her intentions by how he/she writes, unless attempting to completely fool the reader.

In which case the intent of the author in unknown. Plus, as I've said before, an author can intend one thing- writing a historical document- and end up with something else- an error filled collection of fanciful tales and wishful thinking.

In the sense of writing stuff in the genre of "historical narrative," yes. Obviously, the factual content of their narratives is very poor, but they are in the genre.

So how do you distinguish this "genre" from "complete bulls[rule8]"?

Not on this particular thread, though I certainly have on others. Here, I was trying to point out that the gospels are probably not allegory, and that the attempt to treat them as allegories probably stems more from an attempt to avoid the negative implications of them having historical intent.

And I was trying to point out that "historical intent" and "allegory" are not the only two reasons people write stories.

And note that I followed that up by, "If one treats them as histories, then one has to face the implications that their authors were credulous, deceitful, or possibly both, and this is embarassing [for many liberal Christians]."

That's an argument against allegory. I'm not calling them allegories.

I would figure that the context in which I was using "historical," not to mention pointing to a link to Peter Kirby's essay "Did the gospels have any 'historical' intent? (http://www.christianorigins.com/2006/04/did-gospels-have-any-historical-intent.html)", would have made my meaning clear.

That article was naive at best. His primary reason for calling the Gospels "histories" is, "They said they were." I suppose he'll be headed to Brainerd soon to dig up that suitcase Steve Buscemi buried.

Except that almost all the fiction section of the library doesn't purport to describe what happened in the past, since the reader is expected to understand that the contents of the books aren't real.

"Author intent", "What the reader is expected to understand". This is a pretty thick fog of potential subjectivity. How do you cut through it?

Actually, it does include the bulk of the Gospels. If you look at lists of things that are reasonably certain about Jesus (http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/minimum.htm), they are pretty short.

These are all just proverbs and parables, and a few political statements. Raw philosophy, no history- or even "history"- at all. What evidence puts them in the mouth of anyone named "Jesus", instead of from the pen of one or more Joseph Smiths?

The Tao must have an author; does it follow that author had to be Lao Tsu?

[jjramsey]

So how do you distinguish this "genre" from "complete bulls[rule8]"?

Case by case. Some historical narrative is accurate. Some is not. If a work is in the genre of historical narrative, then it makes sense to ask the question of whether it is telling the truth or not about events in the past. It makes sense to ask whether Tacitus is telling the truth about events in the past. It makes sense to ask whether the Book of Mormon is telling the truth about events in the past. It does not make sense to ask whether Moby Dick is telling the truth about events in the past.

I would figure that the context in which I was using "historical," not to mention pointing to a link to Peter Kirby's essay "Did the gospels have any 'historical' intent? (http://www.christianorigins.com/2006/04/did-gospels-have-any-historical-intent.html)", would have made my meaning clear.

That article was naive at best. His primary reason for calling the Gospels "histories" is, "They said they were." I suppose he'll be headed to Brainerd soon to dig up that suitcase Steve Buscemi buried.

I've read the article, and what you describe isn't even a good summary of it.

Actually, it does include the bulk of the Gospels. If you look at lists of things that are reasonably certain about Jesus (http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/minimum.htm), they are pretty short.These are all just proverbs and parables, and a few political statements.

Scroll down to the bits from E.P. Sanders. He gets more into the history.

[psy kick]

Well, theres no body.
Also, I read the fact that blood and water came out of his side proved He was already dead when taken off the cross, something they may have not known about back then, medicine being not as advanced as know, to put it mildly.

[Piscivore]

Case by case. Some historical narrative is accurate. Some is not. If a work is in the genre of historical narrative, then it makes sense to ask the question of whether it is telling the truth or not about events in the past. It makes sense to ask whether Tacitus is telling the truth about events in the past. It makes sense to ask whether the Book of Mormon is telling the truth about events in the past. It does not make sense to ask whether Moby Dick is telling the truth about events in the past.

But actually, one can learn a lot about whaling and New England lifestyles of the time from that book, so that's not entirely true. But that does not make it any less fiction, the characters any more real, and it does not make it history.


I've read the article, and what you describe isn't even a good summary of it.
If you like, I can split it off to a different thread and dissect it for you.

Scroll down to the bits from E.P. Sanders. He gets more into the history.

That's really strange; when I pulled that site up yesterday it did not load anything below the note about Perrin's book.

By what evidence is Sanders so certain?

[jjramsey]

But actually, one can learn a lot about whaling and New England lifestyles of the time from that book, so that's not entirely true. But that does not make it any less fiction, the characters any more real, and it does not make it history.

Put it this way. Hermann Melville isn't "on the hook" for being right the way Tacitus is. If he is inaccurate with respect details of whaling, it might be considered poor style, but his inaccuracies could not be said to have been deceptive to the reader, either by accident or design.

If you like, I can split it off to a different thread and dissect it for you.

Go ahead.

By what evidence is Sanders so certain?

To be honest, I'm not sure of Sanders' own reasons. I've skimmed his books but never quite got around to reading them in full, so I can only recall bits and pieces. My point, though, was that when scholars do turn to the task of reconstructing a historical Jesus, they throw away a lot of the Gospel material as unreliable. If you are interested, a more general look at the approaches scholars take on finding a historical Jesus is here: http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/intro.htm

[Piscivore]

Put it this way. Hermann Melville isn't "on the hook" for being right the way Tacitus is. If he is inaccurate with respect details of whaling, it might be considered poor style, but his inaccuracies could not be said to have been deceptive to the reader, either by accident or design.
Can they not? Fiction can be used as propaganda as well- look at "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.

James Frey wrote fiction and passed it off as history, why are the gospel writers exempted from the same possibility?

Go ahead.
Working on it. It might take a few days.

To be honest, I'm not sure of Sanders' own reasons. I've skimmed his books but never quite got around to reading them in full, so I can only recall bits and pieces.

Well, I'll forego comment then. Without knowing the evidence he has for making these claims, it's just his claims.

My point, though, was that when scholars do turn to the task of reconstructing a historical Jesus, they throw away a lot of the Gospel material as unreliable.

One would hope. In any case, looking at it without such academic editing-as most Christians surely do- the character of Jesus as portrayed in the whole of the gospels cannot be seen as anything but a fiction, can it?

If you are interested, a more general look at the approaches scholars take on finding a historical Jesus is here: http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/intro.htm

Thanks.

[Beerina]

Piscivore

I am quite willing to believe that at some time in the past 2000 years somebody faked the tomb of Jesus in Kashmir. But where does one obtain the corpse of an 80-year-old man with the evidence in his feet that he was cruxified as a young man and whose date of death was approx. 30 AD? You can't. This is no turin shroud. If the evidence beneath the tomb meets the required criteria, I would accept it as real. Why wouldn't you?

Again, this would merely narrow it down to one in tens of thousands. Who knows what percentage survived? Some must have been rescued at night, others just let off thinking they were dead, still others let go because, who knows, maybe the guard was a softie, or was bribed, or they had a system that if you survived 48 hours you were released (upon which you'd probably still die anyway), etc.

And, of course, the Christian would claim it cannot be Jesus since Jesus was resurrected!. He did go on to live on Earth briefly, then went to heaven. He didn't continue aging, ultimately dying a normal death.

[UndercoverElephant]

Beerina,

My only comment is that I believe your comments indicate a certain amount of bias, and a certain amount of missing the point. I don't care whether most Christians will claim "it cannot be Jesus of Nazareth because Jesus ascended to heaven." We both know their sole reason for believing such a thing is based solely on a literal interpretation of the gospels. I'm interested in history itself, not in fighting on either side of a 21st-century war between literalist christians and atheists whose only interest is trying to trash Christianity in whatever way possible.

I repeat: you cannot fake that sort of evidence, there were not thousands of people who survived crucifixion around 30AD and died 50 years later in Kashmir. Sorry, but there just weren't. :(

Geoff

[cyborg]

I don't see the evidence for one doing so.

[Piscivore]

I repeat: you cannot fake that sort of evidence, there were not thousands of people who survived crucifixion around 30AD and died 50 years later in Kashmir.
*sigh*

But none of that "evidence" is real, it is all hypothetical.

You have no way of knowing how many people may have survived crucifixion, whether it was 10k, 1k, 100, or even just one. No way at all. You have no foundation whatsoever- beyond wishful thinking- to claim "there were not thousands of people who survived crucifixion around 30AD and died 50 years later in Kashmir"

You do not know what the damage to foot bones from crucifixion would look like. It is conceivable that there would be none at all, if the nails only hit soft tissue that rotted away. It is conceivable that at best there would only be scrapes on the bones, that could have been caused by many other things, pre- or post- mortem. And a few minutes with a wood rasp could easily "fake" that.

Just because bones are stored in a box in Kashmir does not mean the person involved died there, or even lived one single day there.

It is impossible to pinpoint via any physical evidence from the bones themselves where the individual lived at all. At best- AT BEST- a rough idea as to the possible ethnicity might be guessed at, but there isn't, I understand, going to be a great deal of skeletal difference between a Kashmiri and an Israelite.

The question isn't whether the "evidence" could be faked- and it could, anything can be faked- it is whether it exists at all, or is even plausible. In your scenario, the physical evidence you want these bones to possess in order to prove your desired conclusion isn't possible, let alone plausible.

[UndercoverElephant]

*sigh*

But none of that "evidence" is real, it is all hypothetical.


Of course it is! I never said it was real evidence. I was making a claim about what it would be legitimate to infer should the tomb be opened and contain what it is claimed to contain, rather than just some set of bones which could be ruled out.


You have no way of knowing how many people may have survived crucifixion, whether it was 10k, 1k, 100, or even just one. No way at all.


Oh get real. :(

Not that many people were crucified. It was relatively rare punishment. Of those crucified, not many survived - else it would have been fairly useless as the worst punishment available to the Romans. Of those tiny number who survived roman crucifixion we are now talking about someone whose age and date of death needs to be accurate within a decade or so. And you are seriously telling me that TEN THOUSAND people could have fitted this bill?

Have you totally lost your mind? :con2:


. In your scenario, the physical evidence you want these bones to possess in order to prove your desired conclusion isn't possible, let alone plausible.

I do not "want" anything. I have no stake in this. I am not a Christian. I have no wish to prove or disprove the existence of an historical Jesus, or to prove or disprove the manner of his death. It is you and Beerina who seem to have a bias towards what you want the evidence to show, not me.

[UndercoverElephant]

I don't see the evidence for one doing so.

Do you ever bother to read threads before you post in them? :(

[jjramsey]

Put it this way. Hermann Melville isn't "on the hook" for being right the way Tacitus is. If he is inaccurate with respect details of whaling, it might be considered poor style, but his inaccuracies could not be said to have been deceptive to the reader, either by accident or design.Can they not? Fiction can be used as propaganda as well- look at "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.

But in this case, we are talking about a work where the author is conveying that although his storyline is meant to be understood as fictional, the setting is realistic enough to be taken as factual. Sinclair, then, is off the hook for the most part for what his characters do, but on the hook for his representations of meat packing, etc. Contrast this with a book which is in a historical setting, but is meant for entertainment or to be a character drama. Here, having accurate historical detail may be nice, but the reader should be aware that historical accuracy may take a backseat to drama.

James Frey wrote fiction and passed it off as history, why are the gospel writers exempted from the same possibility?

A priori, they aren't exempted from that possibility.

In any case, looking at it without such academic editing-as most Christians surely do- the character of Jesus as portrayed in the whole of the gospels cannot be seen as anything but a fiction, can it?

If you mean "fiction" in the sense of "not true," then yes, you're right.

[ruach1]

Maybe. Could be that the gospels were written to proclaim what some few first century residents of the Roman province of Judea told people was an act of God. This act of God is what was hawked by Christians as the "Gospel" or Good News. Here's the sale pitch they used:

It doesn't matter how much you suffer here, part of you will never die and it's all going to be better in the next world. And since this one doesn't matter, can we have 10% of your stuff?

This seems a non-sequitor to me, can you elaborate on the signifigance of the Greek?

Piscivore you sound a little jaded. Believe it or not, sometimes "the scam" is not the substance or the goal of a group or individual. IMO, if Judeo-Christianity was just a scam, it wouldn't exist today that's my oppinion--not a claim. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels

The significance of "kerygma" is the "why" of the Gospels and the determining factor in the constitution therein. The Gospels were not histories, biographies, or socio-politico commentary to induce patronage to a Jewish sect. Rather, the Gospels were written to proclaim the Good News, and in the proclamation we are to expect the modes of proclamation of First Century individuals and not the modes of commentary for other genres.

But as JJRamsey keeps pointing out, the Gospels are unique because they actually turn the mode of proclamation on its ear by incorporating elements of the Jesus story which are not normally used by followers to tell the story of an all-powerful, world-changing God. Such elements are the humble birth stories, the trial, flagellation, and the crucifixion and death of the Christ. These among others are all things pointing to the fact that there is more than a scam, or a tall-tale, or a self-serving, interest group history surrounding Jesus of Nazareth and his followers.

[Piscivore]

Of course it is! I never said it was real evidence. I was making a claim about what it would be legitimate to infer should the tomb be opened and contain what it is claimed to contain, rather than just some set of bones which could be ruled out.

But doing so is just raw speculation. It would be legitimate to infer, should the titan probe data be analyzed and found to contain evidence of Stilton, that Saturn's largest moon is made of green cheese. But what is the point?

Oh get real. :(

Not that many people were crucified.
how many? I don't know, do you? Did the Romans keep a list?

It was relatively rare punishment.
Evidence? (heh)

Of those crucified, not many survived - else it would have been fairly useless as the worst punishment available to the Romans.
By what authority do you claim it was intended as "the worst punishment available"?

Of those tiny number who survived roman crucifixion we are now talking about someone whose age and date of death needs to be accurate within a decade or so. And you are seriously telling me that TEN THOUSAND people could have fitted this bill?

I don't know. I don't think you do either, so I take exception to your declaring what the number couldn't be.

Have you totally lost your mind? :con2:
Probably. I'm not even sure I had one to begin with, lately.

I do not "want" anything. I have no stake in this. I am not a Christian. I have no wish to prove or disprove the existence of an historical Jesus, or to prove or disprove the manner of his death. It is you and Beerina who seem to have a bias towards what you want the evidence to show, not me.

You are the one speculating what the evidence will show. I'm the one that doubts there is any evidence at all.

[cyborg]

Do you ever bother to read threads before you post in them? :(

Yes Geoff. I just happen to not agree with you.

I know you find that a hard concept but please have some pity on your intellectual inferiors for being too slow to see the perfection of your arguments.

There's about as much evidence for Spiderman as there is that a man rose from the dead - i.e. stories. No men rising from the dead around here, no webslingers in my city. I'm going to have to conclude it's pretty unlikely either are real.

[UndercoverElephant]

But doing so is just raw speculation. It would be legitimate to infer, should the titan probe data be analyzed and found to contain evidence of Stilton, that Saturn's largest moon is made of green cheese. But what is the point?


Not the same situation at all. In your example, there is no reason for anyone to believe that Titan is made of cheese. But there is a good reason to believe that there might be something interesting buried in that tomb.


how many? I don't know, do you? Did the Romans keep a list?


Roman history is relatively well documented. It is a well accepted part of that history that crucifixion was reserved for the worst offenders and even then only for slaves and non-Romans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion


Archeological evidence for ancient crucifixion

Despite the fact that the ancient Jewish historian Josephus, as well as other sources, refer to the crucifixion of thousands of people by the Romans, there is only a single archeological discovery of a crucified body dating back to the Roman Empire around the time of Jesus (discovered, incidentally, in Jerusalem). It is not surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular crucified criminal a customary burial.


So we have a grand total of one recorded case of a crucified corpse of the correct age, and this was a person who died of being crucified.

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes Geoff. I just happen to not agree with you.

I know you find that a hard concept but please have some pity on your intellectual inferiors for being too slow to see the perfection of your arguments.

There's about as much evidence for Spiderman as there is that a man rose from the dead - i.e. stories. No men rising from the dead around here, no webslingers in my city. I'm going to have to conclude it's pretty unlikely either are real.

As I thought, you didn't read the thread and do not know what I am talking about. I am not claiming anybody rose from the dead. I am claiming it is possible he didn't die in the first place.

So it is not that you disagree with me, but that you haven't bothered to find out what I am talking about before you conclude that you disagree with me. I do not believe that people miraculously arise from the dead, any more than I believe that minds miraculously arise from matter.

[Piscivore]

Piscivore you sound a little jaded.
Heh, I guess I'm in "House" mode. People lie.

Believe it or not, sometimes "the scam" is not the substance or the goal of a group or individual.
I'm sure the average Mormon church group is not a deliberately fraud-perpetrating syndicate, the average Mormon on the street is surely quite sincere. That does not exonerate Joseph Smith, or make the things he wrote any more true.

IMO, if Judeo-Christianity was just a scam, it wouldn't exist today that's my oppinion--not a claim. :)

Well, my opinion is that opinon is not a very good one. ;)
And I'm not claiming that the whole of Christianity is a "scam", just that the possibility that it was begun as such is very much open for consideration, yet is seemingly often overlooked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospels

The significance of "kerygma" is the "why" of the Gospels and the determining factor in the constitution therein.

From your source:
The expression "gospel" was used by Paul before the literary Gospels of the New Testament canon had been produced, when he reminded the men of the church at Corinth "of the gospel I preached to you" (1 Corinthians 15.1) through which, Paul averred, they were being saved, and he characterized it in the simplest terms, emphasizing Christ's appearances after the Resurrection (15.3 – 8):

Please note that Paul is the #1 suspect for the "Joseph Smith" role in the fraud scenario. In which case we would expect him to claim exactly this. If true (dude, it is Wikipedia), this is also evidence that the gospels were produced or at least altered to fit the agenda of the "salesmen."

The Gospels were not histories, biographies, or socio-politico commentary to induce patronage to a Jewish sect.

That's not what jjramsey is saying. At least as far as the first two go.

Rather, the Gospels were written to proclaim the Good News,
That's what Paul says they are written to do. People lie.

and in the proclamation we are to expect the modes of proclamation of First Century individuals and not the modes of commentary for other genres.

But as JJRamsey keeps pointing out, the Gospels are unique because they actually turn the mode of proclamation on its ear
Maybe they look like a "unique" form of "proclamation" because they are not, it fact, a proclamation. And proclamations are not by default factual.

by incorporating elements of the Jesus story which are not normally used by followers to tell the story of an all-powerful, world-changing God. Such elements are the humble birth stories, the trial, flagellation, and the crucifixion and death of the Christ.
But the point of the story, the crux of the sales pitch, is that this god is not some distant, capricious, uncaring and inhuman tyrant, but instead a kind, loving, caring diety of the people.
Just because Paul was selling a different god than the rest of the market does not make his god real. It may help explain his success, but does not stand as evidence he was "proclaiming" fact.

These among others are all things pointing to the fact that there is more than a scam, or a tall-tale, or a self-serving, interest group history surrounding Jesus of Nazareth and his followers.

No, I'm afraid it does not.



Edited to fix tag

[cyborg]

As I thought, you didn't read the thread and do not know what I am talking about. I am not claiming anybody rose from the dead. I am claiming it is possible he didn't die in the first place.

Actually I did but then misinterpreted when I re-read the second time. **** happens. Still if there's one thing that sounds more ludicrous it's surviving crucifixion - AND living a long life.

[Piscivore]

But in this case, we are talking about a work where the author is conveying that although his storyline is meant to be understood as fictional, the setting is realistic enough to be taken as factual. Sinclair, then, is off the hook for the most part for what his characters do, but on the hook for his representations of meat packing, etc.

Interesting that you say that. His intended goal was to illustrate the inhuman treatment of his fictional workers, not the unhygenic conditions of the meat industry. In this case, he was quite openly attempting to persuade using an emotional appeal, rather than relating "history".

Why do you put Upton "on the hook" for his setting's historical accuracy, but let Herman off? On what basis do you make these subjective judgements?

Contrast this with a book which is in a historical setting, but is meant for entertainment or to be a character drama. Here, having accurate historical detail may be nice, but the reader should be aware that historical accuracy may take a backseat to drama.
Indeed. Or to propaganda. Or to philosophy. Or to a perverse facination with the whaling industry. Or to backhanded gossip. Or to titillation. Or to deception. Or to commerce.

Fiction is fiction. There are not some forms of fiction that are "more equal" than others.

If you mean "fiction" in the sense of "not true," then yes, you're right.
Is there another you'd like me to consider?

[Piscivore]

Not the same situation at all. In your example, there is no reason for anyone to believe that Titan is made of cheese. But there is a good reason to believe that there might be something interesting buried in that tomb.

I'm afraid that's not what you said:
All you need is permission to dig up the bones, do a bit of carbon dating, check out the damage to the metatarsals and we're away.

There might indeed be something interesting buried in that tomb. But that's pretty f[rule 8] far from what you said. It is through just this sort of leaping that gets people to thinking that aliens exist or that they won't really die if they kiss the ass of a storybook carpenter.

Roman history is relatively well documented. It is a well accepted part of that history that crucifixion was reserved for the worst offenders and even then only for slaves and non-Romans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

So we have a grand total of one recorded case of a crucified corpse of the correct age, and this was a person who died of being crucified.
No, we have a grand total of one case for which we've found archaeological evidence. That's not the same thing as "recorded".

From your source:
It is not surprising that there is only one such discovery, because a crucified body was usually left to decay on the cross and therefore would not be preserved. The only reason these archeological remains were preserved was because family members gave this particular crucified criminal a customary burial.

Your source also goes on to say that the Romans crucified people by the thousands, and that the Greeks, Persians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Carthaginians, Macedonians- pretty much the whole of the region- participated in the practice. That's not "rare".

So no, we cannot know how many were crucified. Or how many might have survived, been rescued or pardoned.

[jjramsey]

Interesting that you say that. His intended goal was to illustrate the inhuman treatment of his fictional workers, not the unhygenic conditions of the meat industry. In this case, he was quite openly attempting to persuade using an emotional appeal, rather than relating "history".

Hmm, shows what I know about Sinclair's work.

Why do you put Upton "on the hook" for his setting's historical accuracy, but let Herman off? On what basis do you make these subjective judgements?

It's a matter of what the author is indicating that he/she is intending to convey. If the author conveys, either directly or through other channels, that the background information in the book is accurate, then he/she is on the hook for that.

If you mean "fiction" in the sense of "not true," then yes, you're right.Is there another you'd like me to consider?

I was trying to avoid ambiguity. "Fiction" is used to refer to stories that aren't meant to be understood as factual, but it is also used to refer to lies and falsehoods in general.

[ruach1]

Piscivore,
I've been reading this thread for a few days now, and I have just one question for you: Why so negative?

Not about what so negative

but Why? :confused:

Look at your posts dude:

No, no, not, no, no, no etc.

(pardons if too personal)

[Piscivore]

Piscivore,
I've been reading this thread for a few days now, and I have just one question for you: Why so negative?

Not about what so negative

but Why? :confused:

Look at your posts dude:

No, no, not, no, no, no etc.

(pardons if too personal)
No (heh) worries, there's very little you could say that I'll take personally. I've got very thick skin.

Well, the reason I'm being so negative in this thread is because I'm taking a position counter to a bunch of positive assertions. :)

[Piscivore]

I was trying to avoid ambiguity. "Fiction" is used to refer to stories that aren't meant to be understood as factual, but it is also used to refer to lies and falsehoods in general.

When it comes to trying to determine actual history from a text, especially one in which the authorship and provenance is unknown, one that contains much that is clearly not factual, is there a practical difference between the two definitions?

[jjramsey]

I was trying to avoid ambiguity. "Fiction" is used to refer to stories that aren't meant to be understood as factual, but it is also used to refer to lies and falsehoods in general.

When it comes to trying to determine actual history from a text, especially one in which the authorship and provenance is unknown, one that contains much that is clearly not factual, is there a practical difference between the two definitions?

Yes, definitely. If we are talking about a work that is fiction in the sense that it is a story that isn't meant to be understood as factual, and one that takes place in a historical setting, then we expect the backdrop to stand a chance of being roughly historical, and possibly to give some ideas about the cultural backdrop of its authors and original audience, but we do not necessarily expect the main characters to have been real people. If we are talking about a work that purports to be history, but contains much that is clearly not factual, then while there is no guarantee that the main characters in this work are necessarily historical, the possibility that the main characters are historical is a live one, since we know that non-factual content has accrued about people who definitely are historical. From this point, it is a matter of looking at the text and other related documents to see if the characters are likely to be historical.

[Piscivore]

Yes, definitely. If we are talking about a work that is fiction in the sense that it is a story that isn't meant to be understood as factual, and one that takes place in a historical setting, then we expect the backdrop to stand a chance of being roughly historical, and possibly to give some ideas about the cultural backdrop of its authors and original audience, but we do not necessarily expect the main characters to have been real people. If we are talking about a work that purports to be history, but contains much that is clearly not factual, then while there is no guarantee that the main characters in this work are necessarily historical, the possibility that the main characters are historical is a live one, since we know that non-factual content has accrued about people who definitely are historical. From this point, it is a matter of looking at the text and other related documents to see if the characters are likely to be historical.

You forgot about roman à clef novels, which purport to be fictional but are actually disguised history. There are also historical characters used fictionally, such as Plato's "Socrates."

In the case of the gospels, we have a text in which the backdrop is ahistorical and counter to what we know about how the world works- it is populated by demons and angels, astronomical events are linked to terrestrial human events, the dead walk, and magic works. Our main character performs six impossible things before breakfast each day, so to speak. The other characters are poorly developed and serve only to fawn over the protagonist, as foils to illustrate points of philosophy (very much as is done in Plato), or to provide the modicum of conflict necessary to drive the plot. For most of the book, the narrative is abandoned in favour of long speeches in which a philosophical position is advocated and/or contemporary politics and customs are criticised. The events described in the text are not supported by other accounts of the time.

On top of all that, there is a large body of associated correspondence which clearly details the efforts of an organistation- contemporaneous with the authoring of the texts- using the story to create and expand a power base for themselves.

Given all this, how can you decide that a dispassionate, disinterested recording of a "historical biography" is the "most parsimonious explanation" for the gospels?

[ruach1]

No (heh) worries, there's very little you could say that I'll take personally. I've got very thick skin.

Well, the reason I'm being so negative in this thread is because I'm taking a position counter to a bunch of positive assertions. :)
understood

thanks r1 :)

[jj]

Can we first attempt to establish that "Jesus" lived in the first place, please?

[jjramsey]

Given all this, how can you decide that a dispassionate, disinterested recording of a "historical biography" is the "most parsimonious explanation" for the gospels?

I don't, and I'm surprised that you think I would after the posts I've made.

In the case of the gospels, we have a text in which the backdrop is ahistorical

"Ahistorical (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=ahistorical)" would imply that the backdrop would be hard to date other than being somewhere in the misty past. This is obviously not true for the Gospels.

[Piscivore]

I don't, and I'm surprised that you think I would after the posts I've made.

That was the comment you made that I took exception to. If that is not your position, I apologise.

"Ahistorical (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=ahistorical)" would imply that the backdrop would be hard to date other than being somewhere in the misty past. This is obviously not true for the Gospels.

"not concerned with or related to history."
At what period exactly did demons roam the earth? What year was the "census" Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for?

[UndercoverElephant]

Can we first attempt to establish that "Jesus" lived in the first place, please?

And you think that finding his corpse wouldn't help establish this?