Nailed: Ten Christian Myths that show Jesus never existed

[pakeha]

I'm hacking my way through gMark and an endless wilderness of opinions about when Mark was written.
I have found this:
"...But the key point to notice is that Ehrman uses this relative date of Mark (relative to the other gospels) to assert that maybe he wrote around the time of the war with Rome, 70 ce. Ehrman is presenting the standard dating method found in most basic texts that treat the subject. The only grounds that are offered for dating Mark to “around 70 ce” are that it was written before Matthew and Luke.

Again, even the absolute (as opposed to relative) dates are not so certain as appears here, since it has been reasonably argued that the events in Mark’s “Olivet Prophecy/Little Apocalypse” echo more specifically the events of the Bar Kochba war in the early second century. (See an earlier post for details and links.) "
http://vridar.org/2009/05/07/how-the-gospels-are-most-commonly-dated-and-why/

Just what I needed to confuse me more, an argument that gMark might be dated after 135 CE.

ETA
You can read the entire argument here
http://vridar.org/2007/02/10/little-apocalypse-and-the-bar-kochba-revolt/

 

[davefoc]

...

Just what I needed to confuse me more, an argument that gMark might be dated after 135 CE.

...

Humans have confirmation biases for a reason and one of those reasons is to prevent the madness that comes when a completely open mind is applied to a problem without a knowable answer. Your mind can just bash back and forth like a door swinging in the wind. I think you and I might be the guys trying to figure out whether the rock or the spear is better while the lion is eating our family.

ETA: And then I decide to go with the spear, but should I throw it or charge with it? Maybe it would be better to throw the rock and charge with the spear? or vice versa? Wait maybe I should toss the rock to my wife who by this time is really pissed that I'm not doing anything. OK, that's a good idea, but maybe my wife isn't strong enough to be use the rock and she'd be better with the spear? ...

 

[dejudge]

It is virtually impossible to date copies of copies of copies of gMark to 70 CE. Not even those trained in Paleography who have actual recovered manuscripts can date gMark within 5-15 years. Typically there are margin of errors of at least 50 years.

Not even Scientific dating can date ancient material to such accuracy.

Examine the list of recovered NT manuscripts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...i#List_of_all_registered_New_Testament_papyri

Dates are estimated to the nearest 50 year increment.

P 84 and P 86 fragments of gMark are dated to the 4th and 6th century.

It is virtually impossible to date copies of copies of copies of gMark to 70 CE without even a margin of error.

Why is the 50 year margin of error missing?

There must be at least 50 years margin of error.

The Jesus story of Jesus in gMark could have been composed in the 2nd century but some do not want to even entertain such a scenario.

Why?

 

[pakeha]

Humans have confirmation biases for a reason and one of those reasons is to prevent the madness that comes when a completely open mind is applied to a problem without a knowable answer. Your mind can just bash back and forth like a door swinging in the wind. ...

Never mind, davefoc, it's nothing Rioja can't cure.
Anyway, would you be amused to know that the title "Son of God" might well be a later interpolation to Mark?
Apparently it doesn't figure in the earliest copies we have of gMark.

 

[dejudge]

Never mind, davefoc, it's nothing Rioja can't cure.
Anyway, would you be amused to know that the title "Son of God" might well be a later interpolation to Mark?
Apparently it doesn't figure in the earliest copies we have of gMark.

The claim that Jesus was the son of God is in the earliest gMark. See the Sinaiticus Codex

The admittance that gMark is a forgery does not help its historical reliability especially when it is also admitted gMark is not an eyewitness report and is riddled with historical problems, lack of knowledge of Galilee and Jewish traditions.

It is already known that human like characters can be myths like Romulus, Adam and Eve so arguing that Jesus NOT a Son of God is rather irrelevant without external corroboration.

Jesus admitted he was the son of God in the earliest gMark. See Mark 14 in the Codex Sinaiticus.

 

[davefoc]

Never mind, davefoc, it's nothing Rioja can't cure.
Anyway, would you be amused to know that the title "Son of God" might well be a later interpolation to Mark?
Apparently it doesn't figure in the earliest copies we have of gMark.

I don't think I'd ever heard of Rioja before. I think I'll give it a try. I pretty much judge wines by how much I like the label, so if it comes with a cool label I know I'll like it, of course, if it makes me forget the whole HJ issue that would be an added bonus.

As an aside, I've been musing a bit about some of dejudge's claims. In particular, I wonder what is the earliest date that there is very strong existence of Paul's writings and what is the earliest date that there is strong evidence of the existence of Christians.

I came across this on the issue of early evidence for Christians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aakJEflzVdk

Early evidence of Christians or apologist BS? I'm going to make a leap here but I think I can guess what dejudge thinks.

 

[dejudge]

I don't think I'd ever heard of Rioja before. I think I'll give it a try. I pretty much judge wines by how much I like the label, so if it comes with a cool label I know I'll like it, of course, if it makes me forget the whole HJ issue that would be an added bonus.

As an aside, I've been musing a bit about some of dejudge's claims. In particular, I wonder what is the earliest date that there is very strong existence of Paul's writings and what is the earliest date that there is strong evidence of the existence of Christians.

I came across this on the issue of early evidence for Christians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aakJEflzVdk

Early evidence of Christians or apologist BS? I'm going to make a leap here but I think I can guess what dejudge thinks.

It is most amazing that even though you can read that there were Christians who did not believe the Jesus story and that the very NT claims that there would be false Christs that you still assume that Christians must mean those who believe the story of Jesus.

In the NT itself the author of a Epistle wrote that some believe that Jesus did not come in the flesh.

1 John 4:3 KJV

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come ; and even now already is it in the world.

There were Christians who did not believe that Jesus Christ was an actual figure of history.

It is of no real help for the historicity of Jesus to mention Christians without acknowledging Jesus.

 

[pakeha]

I don't think I'd ever heard of Rioja before. I think I'll give it a try. I pretty much judge wines by how much I like the label, so if it comes with a cool label I know I'll like it, of course, if it makes me forget the whole HJ issue that would be an added bonus.

As an aside, I've been musing a bit about some of dejudge's claims. In particular, I wonder what is the earliest date that there is very strong existence of Paul's writings and what is the earliest date that there is strong evidence of the existence of Christians.

I came across this on the issue of early evidence for Christians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aakJEflzVdk

Early evidence of Christians or apologist BS? I'm going to make a leap here but I think I can guess what dejudge thinks.

Rioja is good for dulling the HJ issue, though if you can find a decent Ribera de Duero, it's better yet.
That video had me pouring the Rioja straight down from the bottle. The woman commentator's voice...

 

[pakeha]

More on davefoc's video at this blog
http://ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/christianity-in-pompeii.html
"First, let me warn you: this video was presented by an anonymous amateur Christian apologist who does NOT know that James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici are, well, the flim-flam artists of the archaeological world. (yes, those two, of the Fishy Amphora Jar fame.)*"

"Well it certainly looks like it's evidence for a toehold of Christianity in that small town. But what kind of Christianity??? It appears to have been not yet distinct from Judaism (except to regular Jews); it also appears to be also engaging in some kind of magic; and outsiders may have considered it to be a mind-control cult, perhaps a violent one.

And what conclusion may one draw from this for the development of the NT Canon? Were ANY of the NT books written at that date? And if so, did anyone in Pompeii know about it?"

Now that IS interesting; evidence of some form of Christianity as of 79 CE. Off to read more, as an antidote to the morass of dating gMark.




*Here are the sources for the 'fishy amphora'
http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2012/03/fishy-talpiot-tomb/
http://robertcargill.com/2012/03/13/sins-of-commission-and-omission/
http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/a-possible-handle-on-image-5-of-the-amphora/

 

[Craig B]

I'm hacking my way through gMark and an endless wilderness of opinions about when Mark was written.
...
Again, even the absolute (as opposed to relative) dates are not so certain as appears here, since it has been reasonably argued that the events in Mark’s “Olivet Prophecy/Little Apocalypse” echo more specifically the events of the Bar Kochba war in the early second century. http://vridar.org/2009/05/07/how-the-gospels-are-most-commonly-dated-and-why/

Just what I needed to confuse me more, an argument that gMark might be dated after 135 CE.

ETA
You can read the entire argument here
http://vridar.org/2007/02/10/little-apocalypse-and-the-bar-kochba-revolt/

Please read your source again. It contains this:

He places this chapter in the time of Hadrian and the Bar Kochba war of 135 ce. He does not date the gospel of Mark so late, but sees this chapter as a later redaction.

 

[David Mo]

I don't think I'd ever heard of Rioja before. I think I'll give it a try. I pretty much judge wines by how much I like the label, so if it comes with a cool label I know I'll like it, of course, if it makes me forget the whole HJ issue that would be an added bonus.

The denomination of origin "Rioja" is the best known of the Spanish DO. But there are other equally good wines. Penedès or Rueda for white wines or Ribera del Duero in red wines, are quite ordered. Other people prefer the Galicians (Albariños or Ribero). I really like Somontano, Aragonese. They are a little more rough, as Priorat. But I would not trust the label. Recently a lot of small wineries have born which do very good wines that are not so well known as the bigger ones. They use innovative design labels to be outlined. The fact is that low-range wines tend to imitate both traditional and new labels and it results a label mess.

Spanish wines have a little more graduation than French wines, although I would say for the same price they are just as good if not better than them- it is not chauvinism, mind you. This is an advantage to endure this forum because is enough starting with three or four cups, while if the wine is French you would need a whole bottle. I do not recommend the vodka or brandy. In the begining they can enlighten you but after you will get a headache worse than those this forum usually produces.

Sorry for the excursus. I am a bit tired to go round in circles.

 

[pakeha]

More on davefoc's video at this blog
http://ifpeakoilwerenoobject.blogspot.com.es/2012/04/christianity-in-pompeii.html
"First, let me warn you: this video was presented by an anonymous amateur Christian apologist who does NOT know that James Tabor and Simcha Jacobovici are, well, the flim-flam artists of the archaeological world. (yes, those two, of the Fishy Amphora Jar fame.)*"

"Well it certainly looks like it's evidence for a toehold of Christianity in that small town. But what kind of Christianity??? It appears to have been not yet distinct from Judaism (except to regular Jews); it also appears to be also engaging in some kind of magic; and outsiders may have considered it to be a mind-control cult, perhaps a violent one.

And what conclusion may one draw from this for the development of the NT Canon? Were ANY of the NT books written at that date? And if so, did anyone in Pompeii know about it?"...

Hmm.
Apparently those Christians were more likely Jews, after all.
http://www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back Issues/CCHA1959/Fishwick.htm

"We are left with the probability that the Pompeian examples are Jewish. Large numbers of Jews had, in fact, been settled in Pompeii53 and its neighbourhood in 62 B.C. after Pompey’s campaigns in the East. Their reputation as superstitious charlatans and dabblers in magic had been widespread since the days of Moses,54 and they were notorious for their use of magic talismen, amulets, spells, and riddles.55 Word magic, alphabetic acrostics, and gematria, by which a numerical value was ascribed to the individual letters of a word, played an important part in Jewish exorcism, cosmogonic theories, and the symbolic representation of divine powers.56 Not only were the letters of the alphabet believed to comprehend all knowledge, but the written word, in particular, was held to be charged with magic.57 Hence the efficacy of the palindrome, whose magic could not be destroyed whichever way the spell be read.

A rebus which is typical of this magic genre may well have been inscribed by Latin-speaking Jews, familiar with Hebrew and the Hebraic method of writing. Such a solution would also provide a convincing answer to the difficulties inherent in a Christian origin. "

 

[pakeha]

Please read your source again. It contains this:

He places this chapter in the time of Hadrian and the Bar Kochba war of 135 ce. He does not date the gospel of Mark so late, but sees this chapter as a later redaction.

So it does, Craig B, thanks for doing my work for me.
Alas, the Rioja played me false.
Again.

 

[davefoc]

Hmm.
Apparently those Christians were more likely Jews, after all.
http://www.umanitoba.ca/colleges/st_pauls/ccha/Back%20Issues/CCHA1959/Fishwick.htm

That was a very interesting link. I enjoyed the discussion of the rotas-sator square in particular.

When I saw the name James Tabor associated with the video I was not happy but I decided to just link to it and see what people had to say about it without my preconceptions.

As it is, the documentary substantially cuts in to the already questionable credibility of Tabor. Not because what he claimed was false, but because what he claimed has been known and disputed for a very long time.

The Fishwick article presented a good case that most of what Tabor put forth as evidence of Christianity in Pompeii is more likely evidence of Jews in Pompeii.

The one piece of evidence that Fishwick didn't deal with was the inscription that seemed to include the word Christianos discovered in 1862. I looked for some comments on that issue and didn't find much. An analysis of the inscription was published in 1926 (American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 30, No. 3, Jul. - Sep., 1926).

Tabor's translation of the inscription was:
A strange mind has overtaken "A" who is now being held prisoner among the Christians.

The translation from the 1926 paper was:
A strange mind has driven A, and he has pressed in among the Christians who make a man a prisoner as a laughing-stock [to the people of Pompeii?]

The inscription is only known from two tracings which are not identical with each other and only one of which provides information which fully supports the translation. Still, it is difficult to see how the inscription was a hoax. It was a long time before the idea of the transliterated Aramaic into Latin characters was discovered which supports the current translation. And it would require a very sophisticated hoaxer to write something that would be able to simulate first century Aramaic to specialists.

I'm inclined to believe the inscription was genuine and the translations are at least roughly accurate right now. I take them to mean that for reasons that seem crazy to the author a Jewish man has taken up with the Christians. This provides a bit of support for the notion that Christians might have been in Pompeii prior to 79 CE and perhaps a little more support for the idea that Christians existed prior to 79 CE in general.

dejudge proposed, assuming I understood him, that the term, Christianos, might not refer to a Christian group as we would recognize the term today. This idea, I think, comes from the Christian/Chrestian thing. Chrestian is supposedly a translation of the Egyptian word Osiris, which besides being the name of a God also means something like good and was perhaps some kind of Jewish Egyptian sect. And then there is the fact that somebody named Chrestian really did exist.

So once again, who knows? Maybe Christianos referred to Christians or maybe it referred to a Jewish sect of maybe it was forged.

ETA: And the translation is not a slam dunk either so maybe there's an issue there as well. Still it's interesting. If genuine would this be the earliest archeological evidence of the term, Christian?

 

[pakeha]

I'm glad you enjoyed that linked article, davfoc.
And yes, at the end of the day "So once again, who knows? Maybe Christianos referred to Christians or maybe it referred to a Jewish sect of maybe it was forged."

I'm puzzled by what I see as a lack of references to this inscription, especially in light of the Gallio inscription, which provides much weaker evidence of a Christian presence in the first century yet is much more well known.
The briefest Google search provides pages of articles about it yet there's a relative silence on the Pompeian inscriptions, AFAIK.

 

[davefoc]

I'm glad you enjoyed that linked article, davfoc.
And yes, at the end of the day "So once again, who knows? Maybe Christianos referred to Christians or maybe it referred to a Jewish sect of maybe it was forged."

I'm puzzled by what I see as a lack of references to this inscription, especially in light of the Gallio inscription, which provides much weaker evidence of a Christian presence in the first century yet is much more well known.
The briefest Google search provides pages of articles about it yet there's a relative silence on the Pompeian inscriptions, AFAIK.

Your post inspired me to me to take a harder look at this since what you found is what I found also. My search found only one other significant source on the Christianos grafito. There is a book about it. I found one copy of the book for sale on Amazon for $75 and some reviews of the book (https://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=4288&pc=9). During my search, I also found a reference to a "pax chi rho lamp" that was found near Pompeii that was theorized to be associated with Christianity. Overall the consensus of the few credible sources I found writing about the possibility of Christianity in Pompeii was that there weren't Christians in Pompeii prior to the destruction of the city in 79CE.

I don't know why the evidence from the Christianos graffito has been mostly ignored by people that write about this time and the origins of Christianity but it seems to have been and the most likely explanation is that there is something about the evidence that is so sketchy that it isn't even worth debunking.

 

[pakeha]

75 USD?


In any case, you'd imagine such a finding would've spawned any number of articles in BAR, sermons, wiki entries and blogs.
But there's almost nothing.
Very curious, isn't it?

 

[davefoc]

75 USD?


In any case, you'd imagine such a finding would've spawned any number of articles in BAR, sermons, wiki entries and blogs.
But there's almost nothing.
Very curious, isn't it?

I noticed one thing when I was looking into this. Several of the articles that I read that were debunking the notion of Christians in Pompeii in 79CE took it for granted that Christians existed in Rome by that time. They based that on the Tacitus paragraph or from Acts. So for some of these people whether Christians were in Pompeii in 79 CE or not wasn't very important with regard to their over all view of the spread of Christianity so they may not have been that interested in this particular issue.

As an aside, one of the difficulties that I am having with regard to trying to pin down the first unequivocal evidence of Christianity is that just about every archeologist working in this area seems to release a story that he's found what may be the earliest evidence of Christianity. And for all I know one of these guys might have but everything I have found so far looks to be very much on the equivocal side.

 

[pakeha]

Obviously your search fu is far and away better than mine, davefoc. I've found nothing earlier than the mosaics and decorations of the Dura-Europos church^WP.
It's one the reasons why I'm fascinated by the new techniques permitting the reading of the Herculaneum papyri^WP.

 

[davefoc]

Obviously your search fu is far and away better than mine, davefoc. I've found nothing earlier than the mosaics and decorations of the Dura-Europos church^WP.

This was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. I notice that the article claims that this isn't the earliest Christian Church, just the earliest house church discovered. I wonder where the earlier churches were.

Wikipedia has a list or the earliest churches:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_church_buildings

The Dura-Europos church is the earliest in that list.

I took a look at the on-line pre-view of the book that seems to be the principal source for the Wikipedia article on the Dura-Europos Church. His book is limited to pre-Constantine churches and might be an interesting read.

http://books.google.com/books?id=swtI9Cpyl3kC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

He separated the history of Christianity by three critical points:
1. The origin of the religion and the time of Paul
2. 180 CE
3. Constantine

This is some of what he had to say about the second critical point:

The next critical point comes about 180 CE A Christian faith with a suspended view of culture began to be visible as a new culture. It began to produce symbols and language that could be designated Christian. This is not to say there was no Christian culture prior to 180 CE. It is only to say that the nascent Christian culture either was not yet distinguishable from society in general, or the first Christians lacked sufficient self identity to establish for itself symbols, language, art and architecture. ...

It sounds to me like he is putting a lower limit of about 180 CE for the unequivocal identification of Christian churches or artifacts. Before that he thinks that the religion hasn't differentiated enough to have its stuff be uniquely identifiable. But it also suggests that it isn't possible to prove dejudge wrong with archeological findings. Maybe the reason there isn't any pre 180 CE Christian stuff that has been identified is because there wasn't any.

One Christian religious structure that might be somewhat earlier is St. Peter's tomb. St. Peter's tomb is a site under the St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. I don't think Peter made it to Rome if he existed so I don't think Peter's actually buried there, but there is some reason to believe the site might date to about 160 CE. The first St. Peter's Basilica which was probably built under Constantine seems to have been intentionally built over this earlier site which was probably believed to be the site where Peter was buried when it was built.

It's one of the reasons why I'm fascinated by the new techniques permitting the reading of the Herculaneum papyri^WP.

I read the Wikipedia article, and it was interesting, but the article didn't go into much detail about what was on the scrolls. Was there something there that was of particular interest to you or was it just the technological feat of being able to read them?