Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

Status
Not open for further replies.
davefoc said:
...So in short there are improbabilities in his letters, they are clearly written with the agenda of pushing a religion, we have no corroborating evidence for them. So what are the odds that they weren't forged and if they weren't forged what are the odds that they contain correct information? I don't know, but the situation doesn't fill me with confidence about the reliability of what is attributed to Paul.
Click to expand...

Have you seen this article, davefoc?
http://vridar.org/2013/10/10/making-of-a-mythicist-act-4-scene-4-the-crumbling-evidence-for-paul/

Despite the title, the article raises some interesting points.
 
davefoc said:
Josephus has been debated endlessly in these threads. The arguments are complicated. After reviewing the arguments many times I have come to believe I just don't know whether there is any writing by Josephus about Jesus. I think the mention of James the lord's brother is not a reference to the HJ however. I also think that Josephus who could not have been an eyewitness to an HJ even if some part of his writings are truly his and truly about the HJ is not a source of proof that the HJ existed. However, Josephus writings might be evidence that at a fairly early date there were people with Christian beliefs if he really wrote something of what was attributed to him about Jesus.
Click to expand...

Josephus is a grown man in Jerusalem, a contemporary of James when Ananus has James stoned in Jerusalem, as described in Ants. 20. It seems very forced to suppose that Josephus is talking about some other brother pair who just happen to also be called James and Jesus and who were also the subject of gossip when Josephus was a living contemporary in Jerusalem. The notion (that I've heard from some) that Josephus might be confused is also silly for the same reason: Josephus was a contemporary of James living in the same city when/where James is stoned. The notion that Josephus wouldn't know whom he's referencing is extremely odd.

As if all that isn't enough, we have Origen referencing Josephus pondering why the destruction of Jerusal. happened and bringing up James and that Origen reference being made before a point at which any officious Christian scribe could get his hands on any Josephus material, before Christianity has been "mainstreamed" in any way.

Stone
 
pakeha said:
Opinions of Byron's I've read at Ratskep.
Apparently the HJ as apocalyptic preacher is the preferred model.
I could be wrong, of course.
Click to expand...

I've read those same posts. I confess, though, that I don't see the apparent results of textual stratification and an apocalyptic preacher as mutually exclusive. I don't see why they would be. They might even complement each other.

If you peruse the sayings I cull in my linked postings at the bottom of p.32, you can even see that those sayings, though they are few, are all over the map, thematically. Moreover, the other sayings that bear some linguistic resemblances to the ones I cull have two salient characteristics: They are uniquely shared by GMatt./GLuke, and they range all over the map, thematically, as well. I don't think that Byron ever makes the claim that the Jesus sayings have to be exclusively apocalyptic, merely largely so. Well, that about fits what we see in the parallel GMatt./GLuke sayings, sometimes dubbed "Q".

Stone
 
Stone said:
-- Or maybe denying the legitimacy of anything connected with academia? Or maybe against both religion and academia on the part of separate groups that have somehow come together?

I can tell you there is an extraordinarily hostile attitude in the popular culture of the U.S. against higher learning. I also find it in creationists and I find it in mythers. It may be that that anti-academe attitude has come together with a stung response to 9/11 to produce a new toxic brew. That would certainly be ironic, because suspicion of higher learning is generally associated with those who are extremely credulous of all things religious, while suspicion of religion is generally associated with those who have had some exposure to -- and sympathy with -- higher education.

I do plead guilty to finding the coming together of an anti-religionists attitude with an anti-academics attitude deeply alarming. If religionists continue to drop in their numbers and if economic pressures continue to deny the next generation proper access to higher learning, that could lead to a "brave new world" in which the irrational suspicions generated by combined anti-religionists and anti-academics might make the Spanish Inquisition seem like a walk in the park.

Stone
Click to expand...

I think you are being a bit gloomy, aren't you? I suppose if the economy crashes again, there might be an anti-intellectual movement in various countries, a sort of dark age.

A lot of this hostility to historical method and textual analysis is internet froth, isn't it? I mean, it has always existed, but the internet has provided it with increased means of expression.

It often seems to be a fixed and inflexible position, seemingly based on dogma. I suppose historically, you could relate it to the 'trahison des clercs' which goes back to the time of Socrates.

But there are plenty of clercs not carrying out a trahison!
 
The Norseman said:
Earlier this year? I'm following three threads currently; there were at least two other ones that have since dropped off that I read and commented on earlier this year, IIRC. Please do not expect me to remember precisely what you, out of all the dozen or more posters, had argued maybe as far back as nine months ago, ok?
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you anything. I pointed out that IF you had read those other threads, you wouldn't make this accusation about me.
 
The Norseman said:
It'd be child's play to post all of this evidence then, as many times as asked. In fact, Piggy had said he'd collate all of this mountain of evidence and present it in one of these threads to thoroughly destroy any other position except for the HJ. To my knowledge he has not done that. I can understand if he was sick and tired of the HJ debate. Since you still are posting, how about walking us through the steps using the historical method that pretty well nearly proves that there is "a HJ". With your background knowledge, I think it'd be informative.
Click to expand...

My opinion is that Piggy went about it the wrong way, and got lost in his train of thought somewhere near the beginning. In addition, he neglected to correct a misunderstanding between him and his opposition that led to much aggravation.
 
Belz:
I don't recall the exact post, but it was discussing how the cultural motive toward strong religious criticism began to receive its zeitgeist as a result of 9/11's ties to religious fanaticism.
 
zugzwang said:
I think you are being a bit gloomy, aren't you? I suppose if the economy crashes again, there might be an anti-intellectual movement in various countries, a sort of dark age.

A lot of this hostility to historical method and textual analysis is internet froth, isn't it? I mean, it has always existed, but the internet has provided it with increased means of expression.

It often seems to be a fixed and inflexible position, seemingly based on dogma. I suppose historically, you could relate it to the 'trahison des clercs' which goes back to the time of Socrates.

But there are plenty of clercs not carrying out a trahison!
Click to expand...

I for one am not hostile to the historical method. I have been asking several posters to demonstrate how it works in relation to a HJ. I am answered with contempt and rebukes to 'read more'
.




Belz... said:
I didn't ask you anything. I pointed out that IF you had read those other threads, you wouldn't make this accusation about me.
Click to expand...
Okay. I'm not sure why this petty nitpicking is so vital to successful communication. I figured you'd understand my point and simply respond to that.
 
Belz... said:
My opinion is that Piggy went about it the wrong way, and got lost in his train of thought somewhere near the beginning. In addition, he neglected to correct a misunderstanding between him and his opposition that led to much aggravation.
Click to expand...

Yes, you might be right about that. I am not meaning to disparage him; I will let that drop so I don't cause further confusion.
 
The Norseman said:
I for one am not hostile to the historical method. I have been asking several posters to demonstrate how it works in relation to a HJ. I am answered with contempt and rebukes to 'read more'
.
Click to expand...

Can you please specify how/why the posts I link to at the bottom of p. 32 are insufficient for what you're looking for?

Thank you,

Stone
 
Brainache said:
Arrived at by sifting the layers of tradition.

The posts you mention concern this:



Not entire layers of sayings.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find you missed the entire thought, there.
"Crossan identified certain non-apocalyptic sayings as authentic strata. I don't agree with his conclusions, and neither did the academy. His theories are pretty much dead these days. "
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-34380.html#p1847373

In any case, I've asked for further explanation on why the strata paradigm is 'pretty much dead these days'.
 
Last edited:
Stone said:
I've read those same posts. I confess, though, that I don't see the apparent results of textual stratification and an apocalyptic preacher as mutually exclusive. I don't see why they would be. They might even complement each other.

If you peruse the sayings I cull in my linked postings at the bottom of p.32, you can even see that those sayings, though they are few, are all over the map, thematically. Moreover, the other sayings that bear some linguistic resemblances to the ones I cull have two salient characteristics: They are uniquely shared by GMatt./GLuke, and they range all over the map, thematically, as well. I don't think that Byron ever makes the claim that the Jesus sayings have to be exclusively apocalyptic, merely largely so. Well, that about fits what we see in the parallel GMatt./GLuke sayings, sometimes dubbed "Q".

Stone
Click to expand...

I've perused them several times, Stone, thanks for the suggestion.
What seems to be called into question is the now out-moded vision of an HJ as a counter-culture philosopher, but rather just another 'The End is Coming' preacher, a 1st century Camping, as it were.

ETA
Here's another post of Byron on the subject
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-29480.html#p1455127

ETA
and another
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-10140.html#p787593
and a spirited exchange between academicians
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/nov/06/who-was-jesus-an-exchange/

ETA
And here's another ususal subject on the subject
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-8220.html#p717871
 
Last edited:
pakeha said:
I think you'll find you missed the entire thought, there.
"Crossan identified certain non-apocalyptic sayings as authentic strata. I don't agree with his conclusions, and neither did the academy. His theories are pretty much dead these days. "
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-34380.html#p1847373

In any case, I've asked for further explanation on why the strata paradigm is 'pretty much dead these days'.
Click to expand...

Honestly, Pakeha, all that is "dead" is only Crossan's conclusions as to certain non-apocalyptic sayings. The use of philological/linguistic/stylistic analysis to tease out various strata is decidedly not "dead" at all, and nothing in Byron's post suggests otherwise. Byron is talking about Crossan's outdated conclusions in using stratification, not about stratification itself as a method at all. The latter is still used by every professional scholar in this field to this day!

Stone
 
Stone said:
Honestly, Pakeha, all that is "dead" is only Crossan's conclusions as to certain non-apocalyptic sayings. The use of philological/linguistic/stylistic analysis to tease out various strata is decidedly not "dead" at all, and nothing in Byron's post suggests otherwise. Byron is talking about Crossan's outdated conclusions in using stratification, not about stratification itself as a method at all. The latter is still used by every professional scholar in this field to this day!

Stone
Click to expand...

OK!
Thanks for clearing that up, Stone.
ETA
Even so, Sanders doesn't seem too keen on the stratification method and it doesn't seen he's alone
"My “refusal to use source-analysis” may be an insider’s joke. I have written extensively about the sources of the gospels, but I reject Crossan’s opinion that the Gospel of Thomas is very ancient and that the layers of a hypothetical (and, in my view, fictional) document, Q, can be reconstructed. These dubious hypotheses lie at the heart of his “source-analysis.” I am joined by most scholars in the first rejection and by a good number in the second."
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
Re the highlight, you don't have to spend any of your time replying then.

And indeed, neither you nor anyone else on the HJ side here should be replying any more unless and until they can produce at least some scintilla of genuine reliable independent evidence of a living human Jesus ... which so far they have completely and entirely failed to do (despite claiming that thousands of expert scholars have surely published it all).

All these many thousands of posts and the best anyone can offer as evidence is the proven unreliable, incredible, mess in the bible of 1st century ignorant superstitious religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
I have responded to this as many thousands of times. You refuse to discuss or even read the relevant material. My current attempt is at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9710693&postcount=2136. Now, do you wish to examine the ideas mentioned there or not? If not, then please say so and stop vainly repeating this stuff.
 
pakeha said:
I've perused them several times, Stone, thanks for the suggestion.
What seems to be called into question is the now out-moded vision of an HJ as a counter-culture philosopher, but rather just another 'The End is Coming' preacher, a 1st century Camping, as it were.

ETA
Here's another post of Byron on the subject
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-29480.html#p1455127

ETA
and another
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-10140.html#p787593
and a spirited exchange between academicians
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/nov/06/who-was-jesus-an-exchange/

ETA
And here's another ususal subject on the subject
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/christianity/historical-jesus-t219-8220.html#p717871
Click to expand...

Hi --

I should heed my own lesson and look at the overall picture of a data set before getting exercised over one data point.

While these further postings from Byron also fail to imply anything about stratification as a method at all, your cite from nybooks -- which doesn't involve Byron at all -- is another matter --

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2003/nov/06/who-was-jesus-an-exchange/

Here, at the tail end, E.P. Sanders writes --

"My “refusal to use source-analysis” may be an insider’s joke. I have written extensively about the sources of the gospels, but I reject Crossan’s opinion that the Gospel of Thomas is very ancient and that the layers of a hypothetical (and, in my view, fictional) document, Q, can be reconstructed. These dubious hypotheses lie at the heart of his “source-analysis.” I am joined by most scholars in the first rejection and by a good number in the second."

Undeniably, the "second" that Sanders references here is the hypothetical layering of the Q sayings (the parallel sayings in GMatt./GLuke). While Sanders is careful to specify that only _some_ scholars are dubious about layering, while it is "most scholars" who are dubious about GThomas being really early, the fact remains that Sanders makes explicit references to a "number" of professional scholars being dubious as to certain layerings of Q sayings.

The scholar who took layering to the most elaborate lengths is arguably Kloppenborg (sp.?). I can tell you why not all scholars accept his work -- and as strictly a layman, I can say that I have problems with him too. Kloppenborg essentially (this is simplifying it a bit, but it's the general gist) allows himself to prioritize thematic motifs equally with philological/linguistic/stylistic analysis. That is a perilous road, since one can use such thematic stratification methods to bring off certain discrete layers that segregate off certain themes one may personally find uncongenial. Philological/linguistic/stylistic analysis, on the other hand, is less susceptible to personal biases. It depends more on external textual characteristics that are harder to tweak in subjective ways.

I have to wonder if Sanders is going after the most visible "layerer" of Q at the time (2003), who was Kloppenborg, or if he is criticizing layering (stratification) generally. The external philological/linguistic/stylistic characteristics of all the Q sayings as a whole already bear certain distinct characteristics that clearly set them off from surrounding material in the Synoptic Gospels. Those characteristics were already teased out well before Kloppenborg came along, and they had already set these Q sayings off from the surrounding (largely narrative) material in the minds of most scholars before Crossan or Sanders or Reed had come along.

Frankly, if Sanders here is referencing stratification generally, then he is clearly referencing some scholars who have apparently developed some doubts about philological/linguistic/stylistic analysis. That is important and does throw the consensus I describe in my linked posts at the bottom of p. 32 of this thread in some doubt. But if Sanders is referencing strictly the most conspicuous layerer of that time, Kloppenborg, then he may only be referencing the kind of thematic layering typical of Kloppenborg and not referencing any scholars' doubts about philological/linguistic/stylistic analysis at all. It's hard to tell here which he's referencing.

Regrets,

Stone
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom