The Jesus Myth, and it's failures

[pakeha]

Not completely. Their purity rules did forbid graves closer than IIRC 20-something yards from a house, or viceversa, the graves in Nazareth leave room for a couple of houses in the middle while obeying that rule.

I.e., it wouldn't be much of a village, certainly not to the BS extent that the modern tourist trap mis-represents. And probably not someone's first choice for where to live in more peaceful times. (If nothing else, such a tiny village would offer no mutual protection against bandits and whatnot.) BUT a couple of refugee families could fit there in more, shall we say, interesting times.

Fair enough!
However, the koch-type tombs are the only things excavated in the area from the second half of the first century.
The idea of Temple priests wandering among the tombs with only wooden lean-tos to dwell in won't really fly, though.

An added detail for you- that Caesaria Inscription is written in a Hebrew script used only after the Bar Kochbar revolt.

...After all, Jesus trashed the Temple...

Oh, really?
How do you know that?
I'm also looking forward to seeing your sources that show Nazareth was inhabited in the first half of the first century

 

[Crossbow]

... snipped for relevance ...

Oh, really?
How do you know that?

Jesus trashing the Temple is in the Gospels.

I'm also looking forward to seeing your sources that show Nazareth was inhabited in the first half of the first century

I already provided you with that data.

 

[IanS]

My basis for Jesus trashing the Temple is the data provided in the Gospels.

As far as I know, the Gospels is the only source we have which provides any accounts of Jesus.

I hope that clairifies things for you.

Well it does clarify things. But that particular clarification is in itself a whopping big problem.

Because it requires us to believe that the gospels can be considered a reliable source of factual information concerning what is actually devotional religious writing about belief in a supernatural messiah who was prophesised from at least 500BC in the Hebrew OT.

We are asked to believe that, even though those gospels are known only as the later copying (actually, centuries later in fact) of anonymous Christians who had themselves never seen, heard or met Jesus in any way at all, and who were just reporting what was believed to have once been said by other equally anonymous religious fanatics of the 1st century, who were so unreliable and suspect that they were constantly telling tales of miracles and the supernatural happening all around them.

And that is simply not good enough as a source of reliable evidence of it’s own claims.

 

[pakeha]

Jesus trashing the Temple is in the Gospels.

Yes, it is, indeed.
Are you aware of the size of that Temple courtyard?
Do you really think one person could trash it?

I already provided you with that data.

That was it?
The Nazareth Tourist Board website offering?

 

[Crossbow]

Well it does clarify things. But that particular clarification is in itself a whopping big problem.

Because it requires us to believe that the gospels can be considered a reliable source of factual information concerning what is actually devotional religious writing about belief in a supernatural messiah who was prophesised from at least 500BC in the Hebrew OT.

We are asked to believe that, even though those gospels are known only as the later copying (actually, centuries later in fact) of anonymous Christians who had themselves never seen, heard or met Jesus in any way at all, and who were just reporting what was believed to have once been said by other equally anonymous religious fanatics of the 1st century, who were so unreliable and suspect that they were constantly telling tales of miracles and the supernatural happening all around them.

And that is simply not good enough as a source of reliable evidence of it’s own claims.

I sure hope that you do not think that I have been saying that the Gospels are an accurate recording of history; because if you do, then you are quite mistaken about me.

Instead, I was simply paraphrasing what the Gospels had to say about Jesus trashing the Temple which is hardly the same thing as claiming that the Gospels are a reliable source of factual information.

 

[Crossbow]

Yes, it is, indeed.
Are you aware of the size of that Temple courtyard?
Do you really think one person could trash it?

Yes, I am aware of the size of the Temple and the size of the Courtyard of the Gentiles (where the various money lenders and ceremony vendors would have been working).

And, 'Yes', I do think that one person could trash it.

That was it?
The Nazareth Tourist Board website offering?

There are other sources of data about Nazareth, and that was just one.

However, since you are so very skeptical about the place, the I suggest that:

You visit Nazareth yourself so that you can see that it is a real place,
You talk to the experts who have studied it,
You learn the languages which were spoken there, and
You excavate your own artifacts.

Maybe after you done all of the above, then you will be a tad more receptive to the facts that you have requested and you may be slightly better able to digest the information that you have been provided.

 

[eight bits]

davefoc

It seems plausible to me right now that the Romans could have assisted some kind of ruling bureaucracy that they supported with a problem.

It is interesting (to me at least) that the Gospels, despite their differences on this point, so realisitcally depict a big-fish-in-a-small-pond bureaucrat covering his behind. Pilate may not understand what Jesus is accused of, or why killing him furnishes any learning experience that a good old-fashioned scourging won't provide just as well, but Pilate does make sure that nobody can come back six months later and say "You killed an innocent nebbish."

Pilate diffuses responsibility, most elaborately in Luke, where even Herod Antipas signs off on the hoisting. Pilate gets as many other people as possible on the public record, and performs a realistically memorable "This isn't my idea" public ceremony, the infamous hand washing.

It is difficult to understand the Jewish authorities' behavior as depicted in the Gospels. On the other hand, there is a comic realism to arresting somebody without a clear idea of what you're going to do with him. That eventually it would occur to you that the Romans could really hurt the guy rings true, especially if he is indisputably guilty of Roman-law transgressions (it's Gospel), however minor in the larger scheme of Roman law enforcement concerns.

If Jesus' execution was a political favor, the explanatory problem shifts from why the Romans would be interested in a minor transgressor to why the Jewish authorities would expend political capital to rid themselves of Jesus. Jesus doesn't need to be much of a threat or annoyance for somebody to beat him up, though, or for the thought to occur that the Romans are especially skilled at beating people up. Jesus' objective behavior isn't enough to inspire Roman expenditure to snatch him, but if he falls into their hands... maybe he's toast.

Nobodies can easily be ground up in bureaucratic gears. Ask Eddie Slovik (searchable). What killed him? He was more-or-less objectively guilty of a theoretically capital transgression (for which literally nobody else was executed in generations), which opened the door to a process in which responsibility for shooting him was diffused among many decision makers. He was no threat to anybody, nor was shooting him much of an example. But the gears ground, he had ineffective legal help, few political allies, it was war time, and the machinery swallowed him up.

Ethel Rosenberg would be another example. Apparently, the original law enforcement objective was to get her to roll over on her husband, despite the legal protection of married couples. One thing led to another, and they offed her, too. In that case, it was New York State that did a "political favor" for the feds, who were physically unable to carry out a death penalty. To this day, it is unclear whether Ethel really committed any crime, federal or state, at all.

 

[IanS]

I sure hope that you do not think that I have been saying that the Gospels are an accurate recording of history; because if you do, then you are quite mistaken about me.

Instead, I was simply paraphrasing what the Gospels had to say about Jesus trashing the Temple which is hardly the same thing as claiming that the Gospels are a reliable source of factual information.

Well if you agree that the gospels are not a reliable source of any information about Jesus, then why are you relying on what gospels say about Jesus doing anything to a temple?

 

[davefoc]

davefoc


It is interesting (to me at least) that the Gospels, despite their differences on this point, so realisitcally depict a big-fish-in-a-small-pond bureaucrat covering his behind. Pilate may not understand what Jesus is accused of, or why killing him furnishes any learning experience that a good old-fashioned scourging won't provide just as well, but Pilate does make sure that nobody can come back six months later and say "You killed an innocent nebbish."

Pilate diffuses responsibility, most elaborately in Luke, where even Herod Antipas signs off on the hoisting. Pilate gets as many other people as possible on the public record, and performs a realistically memorable "This isn't my idea" public ceremony, the infamous hand washing.

It is difficult to understand the Jewish authorities' behavior as depicted in the Gospels. On the other hand, there is a comic realism to arresting somebody without a clear idea of what you're going to do with him. That eventually it would occur to you that the Romans could really hurt the guy rings true, especially if he is indisputably guilty of Roman-law transgressions (it's Gospel), however minor in the larger scheme of Roman law enforcement concerns.

If Jesus' execution was a political favor, the explanatory problem shifts from why the Romans would be interested in a minor transgressor to why the Jewish authorities would expend political capital to rid themselves of Jesus. Jesus doesn't need to be much of a threat or annoyance for somebody to beat him up, though, or for the thought to occur that the Romans are especially skilled at beating people up. Jesus' objective behavior isn't enough to inspire Roman expenditure to snatch him, but if he falls into their hands... maybe he's toast.

Nobodies can easily be ground up in bureaucratic gears. Ask Eddie Slovik (searchable). What killed him? He was more-or-less objectively guilty of a theoretically capital transgression (for which literally nobody else was executed in generations), which opened the door to a process in which responsibility for shooting him was diffused among many decision makers. He was no threat to anybody, nor was shooting him much of an example. But the gears ground, he had ineffective legal help, few political allies, it was war time, and the machinery swallowed him up.

Ethel Rosenberg would be another example. Apparently, the original law enforcement objective was to get her to roll over on her husband, despite the legal protection of married couples. One thing led to another, and they offed her, too. In that case, it was New York State that did a "political favor" for the feds, who were physically unable to carry out a death penalty. To this day, it is unclear whether Ethel really committed any crime, federal or state, at all.

I wish I had something intelligent to say about all this. The stories surrounding the crucifixion seem to be fictional. But it is widely believed that within the fiction of crucifixion narratives is the truth that a crucifixion really happened. Paul makes a big deal out of it but he doesn't give any clues as to why Jesus was crucified (I stand to be corrected). So maybe the HJ was crucified. And maybe, like you said, he just got caught up in some sort of bureaucratic thing that led eventually to crucifixion even while most people that did whatever he did weren't crucified and perhaps not even punished. As always, with regards to HJ issues there is no reliable information available to sort out the possibilities.

As an aside I had heard of Eddie Slovik.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, I am aware of the size of the Temple and the size of the Courtyard of the Gentiles (where the various money lenders and ceremony vendors would have been working).

And, 'Yes', I do think that one person could trash it.

Thanks for the reply, Crossbow.
The Courtyard of the Gentiles must have been an awesome sight!
"According to Jewish tradition, it formed a square of 750 feet."
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple02.htm

How do you think one person could trash a place so large during the day without being detained?

There are other sources of data about Nazareth, and that was just one.

However, since you are so very skeptical about the place, the I suggest that:

You visit Nazareth yourself so that you can see that it is a real place,
You talk to the experts who have studied it,
You learn the languages which were spoken there, and
You excavate your own artifacts.

Maybe after you done all of the above, then you will be a tad more receptive to the facts that you have requested and you may be slightly better able to digest the information that you have been provided.

I'm interested in reading those other sources of yours, Crossbow, and of course I'm looking forward to seeing them posted up.

As for your suggestions, well, they're interesting enough.
I expect your first suggestion You visit Nazareth yourself so that you can see that it is a real place was a pleasantry since, as you know from reading my posts, there are no buildings in Nazareth dating from the 1st century.

Your second suggestion You talk to the experts who have studied it is a very good one. Could you give me a list of those experts, ones I haven't already quoted in this thread?

Your third suggestion You learn the languages which were spoken there puzzles me, since there are no written inscriptions from Nazareth. Could your explain what you meant?

Your fourth suggestion You excavate your own artifacts , alas, is impractical without extensive financing.
That financing would have to take into account reimbursing the constructors in the area, too.
Remember those construction sites I posted about earlier?
No, it's not so easy to excavate in Nazareth these days, Crossbow.
That's why we learn about Nazareth's past based on the excavations already made unless we're thwarted as in this case cited below.

...Another example involves the so-called and much touted “House from the time of Jesus” excavated by Israeli archaeologist Yardenna Alexandre in the Fall of 2009. The excavation site was immediately covered over by the construction of a tourist attraction, preventing further digging and verification of Ms. Alexandre’s astonishing claims. Furthermore, the official summary of the excavation, as published by the Israel Antiquities Authority, dated the ceramics found at the site to the second century CE onwards. Not a shred of evidence from the excavation dates the structures Alexandre found to the time of “Jesus.” Finally, no report on that excavation has been published to date. Given all these untoward elements, the much-publicized claim for a house from the time of Jesus at Nazareth is entirely unsubstantiated and, as such, entirely fraudulent.

 

[eight bits]

davefoc

As always, with regards to HJ issues there is no reliable information available to sort out the possibilities.

It is regrettable that the uncertainty will probably never be resolved by evidence. However, there is some value, I think, in enumerating the serious possibilities, and even doing so conditionally (IF such and such is a sincere and informed account, THEN ...).

For example, in the recent Reza Aslan thread, posters discussed how that author promoted a supposed conditional inescapability for his portrait of historical Jesus, if the four-Gospel standard (or some other "historical consensus" standard of similar effect) is accepted. Aslan emphasized the crucifixion and partial text of the titulus, "King of the Jews," as foundational evidence.

As Slovik and Ethel Rosenberg illustrate, knowing only that, and ostensibly for what, they were killed provides almost no information about the quality of the lives they lived. That is so not only because those are too few facts (assuming they are facts, as we can only assume in Jesus' case), but because there is a predictable and timeless mechanism of collective decision making which may well loosen any coupling between real behavior and actual punishment

Paul makes a big deal out of it but he doesn't give any clues as to why Jesus was crucified (I stand to be corrected).

Paul doesn't offer a reason in the sense we're looking for here, charges and specifications.

As an aside I had heard of Eddie Slovik.

I was brief about his story, and some people reading us, especially those outside the United States, wouldn't recognize his name. "Searchable" covered a multitude of sins, mine not yours.

 

[Crossbow]

Well if you agree that the gospels are not a reliable source of any information about Jesus, then why are you relying on what gospels say about Jesus doing anything to a temple?

Sorry, but I think that if you actually need to read my postings on this issue, then you would have your answer.

But just to reiterate the point, since the only data we have about Jesus is the what is in the Gospels, then we have to work with the Gospels; and that is hardly the same thing as saying that the Gospels is a completely reliable source of information.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

 

[Crossbow]

Thanks for the reply, Crossbow.
The Courtyard of the Gentiles must have been an awesome sight!
"According to Jewish tradition, it formed a square of 750 feet."
http://philologos.org/__eb-ttms/temple02.htm

How do you think one person could trash a place so large during the day without being detained?

Well, maybe it escaped your keen eye for detail since this makes the fifth time that I have mentioned it, but Jesus was detained, tried and executed.

While he may have eluded the authorities for a while, they did catch up to him in short order all the same.

I'm interested in reading those other sources of yours, Crossbow, and of course I'm looking forward to seeing them posted up.

As for your suggestions, well, they're interesting enough.
I expect your first suggestion You visit Nazareth yourself so that you can see that it is a real place was a pleasantry since, as you know from reading my posts, there are no buildings in Nazareth dating from the 1st century.

Your second suggestion You talk to the experts who have studied it is a very good one. Could you give me a list of those experts, ones I haven't already quoted in this thread?

Your third suggestion You learn the languages which were spoken there puzzles me, since there are no written inscriptions from Nazareth. Could your explain what you meant?

Your fourth suggestion You excavate your own artifacts , alas, is impractical without extensive financing.
That financing would have to take into account reimbursing the constructors in the area, too.
Remember those construction sites I posted about earlier?
No, it's not so easy to excavate in Nazareth these days, Crossbow.
That's why we learn about Nazareth's past based on the excavations already made unless we're thwarted as in this case cited below.

Sorry, but I doubt that I can help someone with your exception level of intelligence and attention to detail. That is why I made my suggestions, since cannot grasp the simple data that I have been providing to you, then it would be quite pointless for me to provide you with money, the names of experts, or other such data.

 

[IanS]

Sorry, but I think that if you actually need to read my postings on this issue, then you would have your answer.

But just to reiterate the point, since the only data we have about Jesus is the what is in the Gospels, then we have to work with the Gospels; and that is hardly the same thing as saying that the Gospels is a completely reliable source of information.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

But all that clarifies is what you have told us several times now. Namely that you believe you can pick out certain things that the gospels say about Jesus, and conclude those particular things are actually true.

However that very obviously leaves the question of why you believe those particular gospel statements to be true, when so much of the gospels is obviously untrue and the product of devotional religious myth making.

The Gospels (inc. Paul's letters) may indeed be all we have work with, but that does not make any of those books reliable as a source of evidence for a historical Jesus. Eg - if the best source we have for the existence of the Archangel Gabriel is the OT, then that does not mean we should judge the OT to be reliable evidence for the existence of Gabriel (see footnote).



Footnote - by complete coincidence - when I thought to use the angel Gabriel as an example, I decided to make a 5 second check of what Wikipedia says about the Archangel Gabriel, from which we are immediately told that according to the book of Ezekiel (500BC) Gabriel is the angel sent by God to destroy Jerusalem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel

 

[pakeha]

Well, maybe it escaped your keen eye for detail since this makes the fifth time that I have mentioned it, but Jesus was detained, tried and executed.

While he may have eluded the authorities for a while, they did catch up to him in short order all the same.




Sorry, but I doubt that I can help someone with your exception level of intelligence and attention to detail. That is why I made my suggestions, since cannot grasp the simple data that I have been providing to you, then it would be quite pointless for me to provide you with money, the names of experts, or other such data.

Oh, Crossbow, of course I grasped the simple data in that press release you were good enough to link us to.
The fact is, that data isn't backed up by published archeological findings, as far as I know.

Now about the 'trashing' of the Temple.
When did it happen, Crossbow?
Why do you think Jesus' detention was provoked by that incident?

...Footnote - by complete coincidence - when I thought to use the angel Gabriel as an example, I decided to make a 5 second check of what Wikipedia says about the Archangel Gabriel, from which we are immediately told that according to the book of Ezekiel (500BC) Gabriel is the angel sent by God to destroy Jerusalem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel

Did Gabriel sub-contract the job out to the Romans?

 

[Crossbow]

But all that clarifies is what you have told us several times now. Namely that you believe you can pick out certain things that the gospels say about Jesus, and conclude those particular things are actually true.

However that very obviously leaves the question of why you believe those particular gospel statements to be true, when so much of the gospels is obviously untrue and the product of devotional religious myth making.

The Gospels (inc. Paul's letters) may indeed be all we have work with, but that does not make any of those books reliable as a source of evidence for a historical Jesus. Eg - if the best source we have for the existence of the Archangel Gabriel is the OT, then that does not mean we should judge the OT to be reliable evidence for the existence of Gabriel (see footnote).



Footnote - by complete coincidence - when I thought to use the angel Gabriel as an example, I decided to make a 5 second check of what Wikipedia says about the Archangel Gabriel, from which we are immediately told that according to the book of Ezekiel (500BC) Gabriel is the angel sent by God to destroy Jerusalem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel

Well, of course only certain parts of the Gospels are true (Jesus being crucified; Jesus having a small, but devoted, following, and so on), and others are parts of the Gospels are fabrications (such as Jesus being born of a virgin birth; Jesus rising from the dead, and so on).

In ancient texts, one often sees this sort of thing and that is why it is so very important to separate the facts from the fiction. However, in spite of this considerable limitation, such ancient texts can still be of considerable value to history such as when the works of Homer were used to discover the city of Troy.

As for the issue of Gabriel goes, since that is a supernatural being I will even attempt to address that issue since I do not believe in such things.

I hope this answers your point.

 

[Crossbow]

Oh, Crossbow, of course I grasped the simple data in that press release you were good enough to link us to.

No you have not grasped that data. In fact, you have made it quite obvious that you cannot grasp simple data.

The fact is, that data isn't backed up by published archeological findings, as far as I know.

You may be quite correct about that fact, but then again, two thousand years is a rather long time and most people do not live there lives expecting that other people will be concerned about them some two thousand years in the future, so the amount of physical evidence from that time may be quite scant.

In any event, archaeology has shown that Nazareth was a small town in which people lived in for several centuries before the time Jesus and for several centuries after the time of Jesus, therefore it is quite reasonable to suppose that people were living in the town of Nazareth during the time of Jesus.

Now about the 'trashing' of the Temple.
When did it happen, Crossbow?
Why do you think Jesus' detention was provoked by that incident?

You have already been provided with this simple data, therefore I refuse to restate such information to someone who claims to be able grasp such simple data but who is quite incapable of grasping such simple data.

Did Gabriel sub-contract the job out to the Romans?

So what the hell are talking about here?

 

[tsig]

Well, of course only certain parts of the Gospels are true (Jesus being crucified; Jesus having a small, but devoted, following, and so on), and others are parts of the Gospels are fabrications (such as Jesus being born of a virgin birth; Jesus rising from the dead, and so on).

In ancient texts, one often sees this sort of thing and that is why it is so very important to separate the facts from the fiction. However, in spite of this considerable limitation, such ancient texts can still be of considerable value to history such as when the works of Homer were used to discover the city of Troy.

As for the issue of Gabriel goes, since that is a supernatural being I will even attempt to address that issue since I do not believe in such things.

I hope this answers your point.

How do you know which are true and which are fabrications?

 

[IanS]

Well, of course only certain parts of the Gospels are true (Jesus being crucified; Jesus having a small, but devoted, following, and so on), ...

You say the Gospels can be taken as true when they that Jesus was crucified?

OK, so what is the evidence for that?

Or does your belief just boil down to you saying you believe it because it says so in the bible?

 

[pakeha]

...In any event, archaeology has shown that Nazareth was a small town in which people lived in for several centuries before the time Jesus and for several centuries after the time of Jesus, therefore it is quite reasonable to suppose that people were living in the town of Nazareth during the time of Jesus.

It would be reasonable indeed, were it not for the fact there's no published archeological evidence to support such a supposition. In fact, all the archeologists have found in the area of Nazareth for the 1st century are tombs.
No pottery, as would be expected in an inhabited area, nothing.
Except those tombs, dating from after 70 CE.

I've asked several times now for archeological evidence of occupation of Nazareth during the first century.
Don't you think it's time to come up with something, Crossbow?

You have already been provided with this simple data, therefore I refuse to restate such information to someone who claims to be able grasp such simple data but who is quite incapable of grasping such simple data.

Why refuse?
It would be much more interesting to relink your source and explain why it trumps the published findings, don't you think?

...So what the hell are talking about here?

Crossbow, sorry you didn't get the joke.
I'll go over it again for you.

IanS posted

...Footnote - by complete coincidence - when I thought to use the angel Gabriel as an example, I decided to make a 5 second check of what Wikipedia says about the Archangel Gabriel, from which we are immediately told that according to the book of Ezekiel (500BC) Gabriel is the angel sent by God to destroy Jerusalem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel

I replied

...Did Gabriel sub-contract the job out to the Romans?

It's a reference to the Roman razing Jerusalem to the ground in 70 CE, Crossbow.