tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post5144798217999381478..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Jesus - historicity debate continuesStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80963889794453678872008-08-29T11:31:00.000+00:002008-08-29T11:31:00.000+00:00Sam:You seem to be inviting us again to infer Jesu...Sam:<BR/><BR/>You seem to be inviting us again to infer Jesus' existence when we are looking for some evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23495680119206400822008-08-29T10:02:00.000+00:002008-08-29T10:02:00.000+00:00I have put up a new post. I might be less active f...I have put up a new post. I might be less active for a bit as got stuff to do... But v interested in what Sam has to say, of course.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65063618302526528022008-08-29T07:32:00.000+00:002008-08-29T07:32:00.000+00:00Stephen, on the subject of oral tradition, these a...Stephen, on the subject of oral tradition, these are the references in Dunn's 'A new perspective on Jesus' which is my main source for the comment (Bauckham's 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses' goes into it in more depth but I haven't read it yet - tho' it is by my elbow as I type this!)<BR/><BR/>AB Lord - The Singer of Tales<BR/>J Vansina - Oral Tradition as History<BR/>R Finnegan - Oral Literature in Africa<BR/>I Okpewho - African Oral Literature<BR/><BR/><BR/>which led to the work of Kenneth Bailey on the synoptics, which people like Dunn and Bauckham have taken forward.Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43074020638927664132008-08-29T06:45:00.000+00:002008-08-29T06:45:00.000+00:00Timmo:Jamesian fideism boils down to a more sophis...Timmo:<BR/><BR/>Jamesian fideism boils down to a more sophisticated version of Pascal's Wager - which, as I've observed elsewhere, is a rather morally disreputable justification for belief.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19085679501186047102008-08-29T00:53:00.000+00:002008-08-29T00:53:00.000+00:00Three points, that might be vaguely relevant:1 1)...Three points, that might be vaguely relevant:<BR/><BR/>1 <I> 1) The authors of the Gospels are unknown, and cannot confidently be taken to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry.<BR/><BR/>Sam says: actually the consensus is that there is a substantial amount of eyewitness testimony contained in them - along with a lot of other accretions along the way. We can also be pretty sure that Luke's gospel is by Luke (given that Vol 2 is Acts with the first person testimony). </I><BR/><BR/>Fibber. Don't xtians have something about not bearing false witness in their instruction manual? Try reading Bart Ehrman's 'Misquoting Jesus'.<BR/><BR/><BR/>2 The Ebionites (according to some scholarship) were contemporaries of Jesus (and perhaps his original followers), to whom virgin birth, divine paternity, miracles, resurrection, were simply unknown. In later centuries they were condemned as heretics. Point? Whether or not Jesus existed is irrelevant - the Jesus of xtian faith is a character of pure invention.<BR/><BR/>3 PZ Myers' "Courtier's Reply"<BR/><BR/>http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-36251330835457227462008-08-28T23:52:00.000+00:002008-08-28T23:52:00.000+00:00@Sam Norton -"Sam says: actually the consensus [.....@Sam Norton -<BR/>"Sam says: actually the consensus [...] We can also be pretty sure that Luke's gospel is by Luke (given that Vol 2 is Acts with the first person testimony)."<BR/><BR/>Your consensus seems to be different from mine. Even when I was in a thoroughly orthodox bible class in Catholic school they were not saying that Gos. Luke and Acts were by Paul's associate Luke. Nor were they suggesting that much of the Gospel was from eyewitness testimony. Instead we got to learn about oral tradition and how great people's memory were back then. And this has continued to be the story I've heard from most mainstream sources, including the "Understanding the Bible," textbook I have in front of me.Josh H-Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08885079832720694678noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-65241342550193390422008-08-28T20:39:00.000+00:002008-08-28T20:39:00.000+00:00Hi Stephen,Fractious, indeed. :-PI would look int...Hi Stephen,<BR/><BR/>Fractious, indeed. :-P<BR/><BR/><I>I would look into it a bit, first, Timmo, before you suggest its good evidence for anything.</I><BR/><BR/>I definitely will. It's difficult, though, because history inquiry of this kind is beyond my training as a student of natural science. I hesitate to say anything at all simply because I'm not really qualified to say anything. The Montefiore paper looks interesting, but there just has to be work of more recent vintage as well... Maybe you could invite some colleague of yours who has some expertise in these issues.<BR/><BR/>Personally, <A HREF="http://thalesianfools.blogspot.com/2007/03/apology-for-faith.html" REL="nofollow">I</A> am not a Christian because I believe there is definitive evidence that Jesus was the Son of God; I am unapologetically a <A HREF="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fideism/" REL="nofollow">fideist</A> on basically Jamesean grounds. For me, Christian theism is what John Bishop calls a 'doxastic venture.'<BR/><BR/><I>some of you are now attempting to muddy the waters by playing that old stand-by - "ah, well, there's no neutral standpoint from which to assess evidence."<BR/><BR/>This smacks of desperation. I was, quite, genuinely, expecting to be given some actual evidence</I><BR/><BR/>I wouldn't dismiss this possibility so quickly. We can certainly learn something from Quine and Kuhn here. Why can't our historical inquiry be theory-laden in such a way that Christians and non-Christians face a kind of <I>incommensurability </I> here? Just as Kuhn would insist there is no neutral position from which scientists can judge competing paradigms, there may be no neutral positions from which historians can judge Biblical and non-Biblical reports of Jesus. This failure to make contact is a recurrent theme in epistemology and philosophy of science -- I'm not surprised if it should show up in such an intractable matter as this one.Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83983766027901291232008-08-28T19:54:00.000+00:002008-08-28T19:54:00.000+00:00Hi Sam - you say:"As for the reliability of oral k...Hi Sam - you say:<BR/><BR/>"As for the reliability of oral knowledge, that has been the subject of much research over the last couple of decades."<BR/><BR/>I'd be interested to know more about this - have you details?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-42312771416598971322008-08-28T19:48:00.000+00:002008-08-28T19:48:00.000+00:00Nick, I'll pick up on your list:1) The authors of ...Nick, I'll pick up on your list:<BR/><BR/>1) The authors of the Gospels are unknown, and cannot confidently be taken to be eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry.<BR/><BR/>Sam says: actually the consensus is that there is a substantial amount of eyewitness testimony contained in them - along with a lot of other accretions along the way. We can also be pretty sure that Luke's gospel is by Luke (given that Vol 2 is Acts with the first person testimony).<BR/><BR/>2) The dates when the Gospels were written is unknown (but probably between 70 AD and 110 AD - a significant time after Jesus is supposed to have died)<BR/><BR/>Sam says: shift it to 60AD as an earlier borderline and I would agree with you (it is almost certain that Mark's gospel predates the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD). However, that still means that they were written down when the events were in living memory - and, indeed, that what was written down had been circulating as stories within the community for some time.<BR/><BR/>3) The Gospels contain numerous well-documented examples of improbabilities, contradictions, propaganda, obvious fictions, and legendary embellishments.<BR/><BR/>Sam says: Yes, on the whole.<BR/><BR/>4) Some parts of the Gospels (and other parts of the NT) come from dreams, visions etc. - which are not reliable ways of obtaining knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Sam says: yes.<BR/><BR/>5) There is no reference to Jesus in other extra-Biblical documents before 95 AD, and much of that is historically dubious.<BR/><BR/>Sam says: this is an anachronism. There was no 'Bible' at the time these documents were produced. Part of the reason why they were included in the New Testament was because they were perceived as being the most historically reliable.<BR/><BR/>6) We have no record of what happened in the early Christian church from 62 - 95 AD (the First Christian Dark Age), and no evidence that what oral knowledge survived was reliable.<BR/><BR/>Sam says:? You've just said that this was when the gospels were written... As for the reliability of oral knowledge, that has been the subject of much research over the last couple of decades.<BR/><BR/>7) The initial revelations about Jesus (from 20 - 40 AD) detail his incarnation, death, and resurrection to have taken place in heaven, not on Earth.<BR/><BR/>Sam says: eh? where did you get this from? Rennes-le-Chateau?<BR/><BR/>8) The Jesus story bears many striking similarities to known myths, and mythical beings have often been historicized (euhemerization). Jesus scores very highly on the Rank-Raglan scale for mythical heroes (the same as Dionysus, and more than Hercules, Jason (of the Argonauts), Zeus etc.).<BR/><BR/>Sam says: even if true, so what?Sam Charles Nortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04088870675715850624noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-70966300993538120152008-08-28T19:18:00.000+00:002008-08-28T19:18:00.000+00:00Terence,You’re absolutely right. Steelman,Point ta...Terence,<BR/>You’re absolutely right. <BR/><BR/>Steelman,<BR/>Point taken. I would agree that from that perspective it’s a worthy discussion.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52587962069293258062008-08-28T17:50:00.001+00:002008-08-28T17:50:00.001+00:00Andrew Louis said: "Speaking of Joseph Campbell, I...<STRONG>Andrew Louis</STRONG> said: "Speaking of Joseph Campbell, I believe it was him who said that while observing Catholic and Buddhist monks together, there was an understanding that even though they’re respective religions had a different story; they nonetheless spoke the same message. However the common believer from the 2 respective religions would haggle back and forth over objectionable matters and come to no common ground."<BR/><BR/>The Pope recently reiterated the Catholic doctrine that only Catholics will reside in heaven for all eternity. All others, of course, will spend the afterlife in hell. Others certainly include Buddhists and non-catholic Christians.<BR/><BR/>But the Pope isn't a "common believer" is he? He's the highest religious authority (for Catholics, anyway).<BR/><BR/>In addition, even if it were just a question of the common believers' understanding of the divinity of Jesus vs. his message (e.g. sermon on the mount), that's a very large number of people taking action according to their beliefs regarding that asserted divinity.<BR/><BR/>Some of those actions are beneficial to social progress in an open, liberal democratic society, and some aren't. So, the question of Jesus' existence, and what it literally entails, is an important one I think.<BR/><BR/>It would at least make some of my Saturday mornings a little quieter; no more evangelicals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. knocking at my door trying to "save" me with the "truth". Not to mention these groups taking political action on serious social issues primarily based on "WWJD?"Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76410910246984526532008-08-28T17:50:00.000+00:002008-08-28T17:50:00.000+00:00Andrew,Because the message changes when you start ...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>Because the message changes when you start taking the metaphor literally. Christians see Jesus as literally the Son of God, literally the only way to salvation, literally the only way to a very real place called Heaven, where you will have a real afterlife, where sinners and nonbeleivers will burn in a very real Hell, etc. As opposed to seeing it as metaphor telling us how to live a more healthy (physchologically) and happy life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-105226308436407912008-08-28T17:09:00.000+00:002008-08-28T17:09:00.000+00:00Terence/Anticant,Agreed.Again though, I'm curious ...Terence/Anticant,<BR/>Agreed.<BR/><BR/>Again though, I'm curious why some Christians (and I say some) believe that the objective validity of they’re religion is such a necessity. I think we have a handful of rather intelligent folks here, but this conversation is just plain silly.<BR/><BR/>If both atheists and religious folk agreed to the validity of the message (which I think they would in many cases) and put aside objectivity for the time being, we’d be taking a huge step forward in understanding each other; but here we are, arguing over the existence of a man. Even the Biblical Paul states that one should not argue over disputable matters, as of course this queers the message. <BR/><BR/>Speaking of Joseph Campbell, I believe it was him who said that while observing Catholic and Buddhist monks together, there was an understanding that even though they’re respective religions had a different story; they nonetheless spoke the same message. However the common believer from the 2 respective religions would haggle back and forth over objectionable matters and come to no common ground.<BR/><BR/>So is this all an exercise of trying to convince oneself of something, convince another of something, or just time killing? <BR/><BR/>The debate with Sye was just plain fun, but this, I don’t see it going anywhere. No new evidence is going to creep out of the walls to convince the atheist, and nothing new will creep out to discourage the theist. So where’s the common ground?Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16104420052862102502008-08-28T14:49:00.000+00:002008-08-28T14:49:00.000+00:00Andrew:Because the last thing most professedly bel...Andrew:<BR/><BR/>Because the last thing most professedly believing Christians do, or want to do, is to live the message.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74667680820550806242008-08-28T14:45:00.000+00:002008-08-28T14:45:00.000+00:00Andrew,I do think the message of the metaphor of t...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>I do think the message of the metaphor of tolerance, compassion, and forgiveness as a means to personal salvation (from the evils of this world) to be extremely important. But, as Campbell said, when we begin to take our metaphor itself as literally true, all manner of mischief follows. In extreme cases we have people killing over whose metaphor is literally true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48809020885710149612008-08-28T14:19:00.000+00:002008-08-28T14:19:00.000+00:00Aside from the objective validity of Christ, is th...Aside from the objective validity of Christ, is there any objection to the message that’s delivered?<BR/><BR/>In other words, if we found out that Plato and/or Socrates didn't exist, would the philosophy that exists in they're name become irrelevant?<BR/><BR/>To some degree it bothers me that people would wrangle back and forth about such nonsense as whether someone existed or not; it seems ridiculous to me, but perhaps I miss the point? Who cares!?!<BR/><BR/>Isn’t what’s important the content of the message? The meaning? If the Buddha never existed, is there no Buddhism?<BR/><BR/>Of course one could argue that the whole of Christianity is the belief that Christ was a real person and did the things the Bible says; so this is a valid debate. But, I’d say the point is being missed then. I’d be interested in understanding why objective validity is so important to actual Christians, and why in many cases it seems to trump the message.<BR/><BR/>If Christianity hangs gingerly on the truth or falsehood of a man dieing and miraculously coming back to life, then it fails rationally right out of the box. We should discard it immediately. Surely Christianity is more then this?Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-37174892285341974392008-08-28T14:08:00.000+00:002008-08-28T14:08:00.000+00:00"embarassing parts in Gospels,"?Do tell! I seem to..."embarassing parts in Gospels,"?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Do tell! I seem to have missed the scandal...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17109466004103503432008-08-28T13:51:00.000+00:002008-08-28T13:51:00.000+00:00"Hey, if there really was such a person, then it's..."Hey, if there really was such a person, then it's not so mad to suppose that some of what is said about him is true, is it?"<BR/><BR/>Hm.Isn't this just the sort of device used in literature -throwing in names of real people and places to either add dramatic effect (nice scenery) or plausibility. I was struck by a recent TV show about Ian Rankin and his creation the police detective Rebus. He carefully researched police procedure as used at the time of the character's life, checked the geography and made sure that the pubs mentioned in the books were the ones that an off duty policeman would drink in and so on. Real people asked to be mentioned in the books, and some (winners of contests or some such) were written in.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-24352992650165692002008-08-28T13:48:00.000+00:002008-08-28T13:48:00.000+00:00I think the Bert analogy is missing the point, bec...I think the Bert analogy is missing the point, because when we try to investigate of the <EM>historical</EM> Jesus, the first thing we do is to throw away the miracles. There were added later to make the story more interesting/touching/political correct.<BR/>We would not doubt the existence of Julius Caesar, even if Suetonius wrote: <I>"He died ... and was numbered among the gods, not only by a formal decree, but also in the conviction of the common people. For at the first of the games which his heir Augustus gave in honour of his apotheosis, a comet shone for seven successive days, rising about the eleventh hour, and was believed to be the soul of Caesar, who had been taken to heaven; and this is why a star is set upon the crown of his head in his statue."</I><BR/><BR/>One thing in favor of historical Jesus is that there are some embarassing parts in Gospels, that different writers of Gospels try to explain away in the different ways, based on their agenda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34138491827879378392008-08-28T13:32:00.000+00:002008-08-28T13:32:00.000+00:00But I don't think any christian CAN accept Jesus a...But I don't think any christian CAN accept Jesus as a mythic figure only as his really being the Son of God (in fact) is the foundation on which the christian church is built. Without him really existing, he could not have died for our sins, we could not be saved, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40423073098405560542008-08-28T13:30:00.000+00:002008-08-28T13:30:00.000+00:00I concluded that nothing short of actually seeing ...<B>I concluded that nothing short of actually seeing the event with my own eyes would convince me. </B><BR/><BR/>Absolutely. You are also demanding no more than Thomas asked (and was shown) at the end of "John's" gospel.<BR/><BR/>With christians, we are supposedly talking about a relational god, yet they have to resort to "arguments" concerning design, fine tuning and first causes - with plenty of personal incredulity thrown in. <BR/>Why is God so shy?Billyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16602020760483338822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-27604038874869221462008-08-28T13:27:00.000+00:002008-08-28T13:27:00.000+00:00"If Jesus did not exist, he could not be the Son o..."If Jesus did not exist, he could not be the Son of God . "<BR/><BR/>Well OK but only for one of those crude reductive theists. If we accept this story in a mythic sense there isn't a problem is there?<BR/><BR/>Sam seems OK with the idea that at least certain parts of the story are literary embellishments or mythic interpretations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38560401713311870562008-08-28T13:24:00.000+00:002008-08-28T13:24:00.000+00:00Actually, anon, I also think that it's an importan...Actually, anon, I also think that it's an important part of many Christians belief system. That Jesus at least existed and was a real person gives them something firm from which they can build out - possibly accepting the miracles, or possibly not. They can say - well, there's *something* sensible there, at the core, that I can cling to. The credibility of this belief also, in their minds, spreads out to support, somewhat, their other beliefs. "Hey, if there really was such a person, then it's not so mad to suppose that some of what is said about him is true, is it?" [I see the logic working the other way - the nuttiness of what was said about him undermines the credibility of the claim he even existed].<BR/><BR/>Hence they get very upset when this particular claim - that there's at least good evdience he existed - is challenged.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9244659192882160702008-08-28T13:23:00.000+00:002008-08-28T13:23:00.000+00:00Also, I think it's the most pointless thing in the...Also, I think it's the most pointless thing in the world to argue what we should or should not believe based on <I>just</I> the opinions of experts.<BR/><BR/>If they're really experts, they should be experts at making direct arguments for their positions, and we should just examine those arguments directly.<BR/><BR/>The statement, "All (or most) experts believe that yada yada yada..." should be followed by their <I>arguments</I>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-3033808418965550102008-08-28T13:20:00.000+00:002008-08-28T13:20:00.000+00:00I think it's worth mentioning that it's important ...I think it's worth mentioning that it's important to be precise about what we mean by "Jesus".<BR/><BR/>If we were to define "Jesus" as "the person who performed certain miracles attributed to him in the gospels" then the existence of Jesus hinges on whether those miracles were indeed performed.<BR/><BR/>There are two points: The existence and properties of some individual real person can exist as a hypothetical explanation for the gospels, but unless it specifies some definite properties of that person, the hypothesis is vacuous. Just saying "Jesus existed" doesn't say anything without describing "Jesus".Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com