patrick.net

An interesting note on the TF: there is a 10th century Arabic version and a 12th century Syriac version that reads more like something a Jew (that didn't convert to Christianity) would have likely written.

leoj707 says

Well, it is not that the sources are not "authentic" it is just that they come from long enough after Jesus' life that they they may have been written based on the myth not based on actual events.

Well let me be specific. Are you suggesting that Tacitus (who didn't like the Christian movement) would have accepted phoney Christian stories? If Tacitus wanted to stop the Christian movement, he should have pointed out that no man named Jesus was ever crucified under Pontius Pilate, one of Tacitus' fellow Roman officials.

leoj707 says

It is kind of like having the proof a prophecy coming true like this:
Day 1: Prophet makes supposed prediction that X event will happen on Day 2.
Day 2: X event happens.
Day 3: Prophet writes down his prediction.
Day 4: Prophet convinces followers that he predicted X event accurately and points to his writings as proof.

Neither Tacitus or Josephus claim that they fullfilled any kind of prophesy. How are their accounts at all similar to the sequence you outline above? Both Tacitus and Josephus were non-Christian. They didn't believe the supernatural claims of Jesus. But they did apparently believe he was a real historical person crucified under a real Roman governor, Pontius Pilate.

That's the case I'm trying to make: that Jesus was a real historical person. I'm not trying to make the case that anyone should convert to Christianity.

wthrfrk80 says

Are you suggesting that Tacitus (who didn't like the Christian movement) would have accepted phoney Christian stories?

I don't know enough about Tacitus the man to say why, but how could he have known that the stories were phoney? Did he call the myths of any other group phoney? I think that the christians were the ones who brought the whole "your god(s) is a fake" into the mainstream.

wthrfrk80 says

If Tacitus wanted to stop the Christian movement, he should have pointed out that no man named Jesus was ever crucified under Pontius Pilate, one of Tacitus' fellow Roman officials.

He probably did not know. Is there a mention in Tacitus' writings that says, "When I was reading my buddy Pilate's records I saw a mention of this Jesus guy"? I doubt Tacitus had any record of Pilate killing Jesus and I don't think that Pilate kept records of everyone who was crucified.

Who know though. The record of Jesus' execution may have been in an archive somewhere, but that was long before search engines or even the dewey decimal system.

leoj707 says

There are plenty of stories, rituals and memes (yes they existed before the internet) that clearly existed in B.C. and were common at the time time christianity began. There are such striking similarities between christianity and other beliefs (e.g. Osiris, etc.) it is a little silly to think that christianity did not "borrow" ideas.

I'm afraid that you will find, if you look at the facts that (a) these claims about pagan parallels are all more or less fraudulent and produced by manipulation, selection and omission of data; and (b) that 100% of the evidence about the origins of the Christian movement tells a different story.

Better do the research, before presuming that others who are disagreeing with the hearsay you repeat know nothing about the subject.

Roger Pearse says

It's not a scientific principle, at any rate.

Once again I suggest you brush up on your basic scientific knowledge.

I'm sorry for your mistake here. You see, I'm afraid that some of us, young man, possess rather more in the way of qualifications on this than "basic" scientific knowledge.

I'm afraid that, since you seem to like asserting, with the utmost certainty, rather patronising comments on subjects, about which you show no evidence of knowledge, that I don't think I can help you further. It's generally best not to repeat hearsay in such a fashion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

leoj707 says

I don't know enough about Tacitus the man to say why, but how could he have known that the stories were phoney?

At testimony or written account from Pontius Pilate would have been sufficient, right? Pontius Pilate should have written something like "I never ordered any guy named 'Jesus of Nazereth' to be crucified...in fact I've never even heard of such a person. That's just some b.s. that these idiot 'Christians' are teaching."

wthrfrk80 says

That's the case I'm trying to make: that Jesus was a real historical person. I'm not trying to make the case that anyone should convert to Christianity.

Right, I understand that and I am only trying to explain why I am not convinced that Jesus was a real historical person.

wthrfrk80 says

Neither Tacitus or Josephus claim that they fullfilled any kind of prophesy.

Sure, but they were both recording events that happened a generation or two earlier.

If you have any interest in Vikings/Scandinavian history you may want to look into the writings of Ahmad ibn Fadlan (FYI, the book 'Eaters of the Dead' by Michael Crichton is based on his writings). It is a good example of how historians view an ancient text that is not so controversial.

If you dig around for a bit you will find that there are some questions on if ibn Fadlan was actually a real person (there is no original manuscript found and all things that reference it were written years later), and no one gets their panties in a bunch over it. Also, because it is kind of the only writings of its kind (there is some archeological evidence to backup some of it) what is said is sometimes taken with a grain of salt.

wthrfrk80 says

At testimony or written account from Pontius Pilate would have been sufficient, right? Pontius Pilate should have written something like "I never ordered any guy named 'Jesus of Nazereth' to be crucified...in fact I've never even heard of such a person. That's just some b.s. that these idiot 'Christians' are teaching."

Well... you are trying to prove that Jesus was real right? So the quote from Pilate should be,"I just had Jesus "King of the Jews"of Nazereth put to death... yada... yada...yada"

Yes, something of that nature would make me think that Jesus was probably a real historical person.

Roger Pearse says

I'm sorry for your mistake here. You see, I'm afraid that some of us, young man, possess rather more in the way of qualifications on this than "basic" scientific knowledge.

People with scientific "quaifications" generally do not use logical fallacies to make their point.

Roger Pearse says

I'm afraid that you will find, if you look at the facts that (a) these claims about pagan parallels are all more or less fraudulent and produced by manipulation, selection and omission of data; and (b) that 100% of the evidence about the origins of the Christian movement tells a different story.

Thank you for your well thought out response -- that was clearly not just hearsay -- and supporting data for your claims. You have clearly demonstrated a vast and in depth knowledge on the subject that invalidates all claims otherwise.

I can help you no further.

thunderlips11 says

Roger, I have asked HJ'ers to tell me what the consensus is on Jesus' birth, life, and death, and have never gotten an adequate answer, other than a vague idea that he existed. (etc)

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never feel the slightest urge to write about something which is not a question as between Christian and non-Christian; but is instead a disagreement between almost everyone on earth, Christian or non-Christian, including 100% of the professional scholars, versus a handful of mostly poorly educated people with an unconcealed grudge against Christianity. Why should I argue for what no sensible person doubts, against those whose opposition is personal rather than logical? It's a waste of valuable drinking time.

If I ever knew anyone whom I believed to be half-way genuinely in doubt (present company excepted), I would refer them to some university-educated person of their own faith, and tell them to go and ask. I would take the religious aspect out of it entirely, in other words.

I suspect that at least some of those who advocate this silly idea do so in the full knowledge that it is convenient rather than true; and, repeating it endlessly, convince themselves of something that they started out knowing was rubbish. I'd rather not hold a religious position that requires me to make myself stupid in order to uphold it; but there's no accounting for taste.

The rest of us, tho, can deal with the real questions, such as whether Christianity is true, or -- the only real alternative -- whether we should just live by the societal values of our times, and pretend that death will never happen to us. But that particular debate is for others to carry out.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse says

but is instead a disagreement between almost everyone on earth, Christian or non-Christian, including 100% of the professional scholars, versus a handful of mostly poorly educated people with an unconcealed grudge against Christianity.

This is an argument from majority, and an appeal to authority in the form of The Consensus(tm).

However, Bible Scholars do not work on scientific principles, they work on literary criticism. After all, who bothers to learn Hebrew or Aramaic except Bible Scholars? And why do people become Bible Scholars to begin with?

If you go into a Marxist Studies program, how many capitalist, socialist, anarchist, or liberal professors are you going to run into? How many Marxist Professors will you find in the Finance Department? How many atheist faculty are employed in the Theology Department of even a secular, public institution?

Bible Scholars and Theologians are not like Biologists or Chemists, or even broad applied disciplines like Anthroplogy or Economics.

Even the ultra liberal Jesus Seminar agreed upon very little. They formed a consensus about some of the sayings of Jesus, agreed on very little about his life, and let it be. The facts they agree to on Jesus's life are based wholly on the content of the Gospels. More heterogenuous scholarly groupings agree on even less.

Again, there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus, none. We are reading into things ~1500 years of hegemony and tradition.

I have not seen any compelling argument for an historical Jesus. Referring to scholarly authority is no argument, especially when these scholars themselves can not agree on Jesus' life.

The non-Christian authors like Tacitus or Suetonius writing almost a century later never have the applicable, Christ-referencing passages quoted by the Early Church Fathers. The TF is not referenced either, as mentioned above. We don't have early copies for Tacitus or Suetonius like we do for some of the Epistles and Gospels, mostly because of environmental conditions. Pious Frauds are known and agreed to. Subsequent copies of gospels and epistles don't match and have interpolations and ommissions, many of them substantial. References to Christ can simply be any Millenarian Messiah, not Jesus himself. Pilate himself likely killed a great many Jewish Millenarians.

I don't think it's a stretch to say that Jesus is closer to Paul Bunyon than Mohammed. We see what happens within just a few years of a British Magazine reporting on a Ned Ludd what happens, and that was in a highly literate culture with the printing press, neither of which was present in the Eastern Roman Empire.

thunderlips11 says

I have not seen any compelling argument for an historical Jesus.

You don't consider non-Christian references to Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate as compelling? Tacitus had every motive to discredit Christianity and yet he admits that there was a real Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate.

thunderlips11 says

The non-Christian authors like Tacitus or Suetonius writing almost a century later never have the applicable, Christ-referencing passages quoted by the Early Church Fathers.

Could you elaborate on that point? If the secular sources DID have the passages quoted by the early chruch fathers, wouldn't you just dismiss those secular sources as pious frauds?

You seem to be arguing "I can't accept evidence X because it's too far from the teachings of the church" AND at other times arguing "I can't accept evidence X because it's too close to the teachings of the church." I must say, I'm confused.

Could you explain further?

Roger Pearse says

I would refer them to some university-educated person of their own faith, and tell them to go and ask.

Of course you would because you are clearly unqualified to answer the question with supporting evidence. However, what you fail to realize that that all the "experts" also have failed to adequately answer the question.

As pointed out by wthrfrk there -- as with the start of every cult -- christianity was probably started with one guy. Was that guy "Jesus" and did he do everything attributed to him mundane or supernatural? Did even a mundane Jesus exist? We probably never will for sure. Someday we might know when/if additional evidence is found. Who knows someday Pontius Pilate's private journal may be discovered.

You see Rodger that is how science works.

Scientist offers proof without certainty, and religion offers certainty without proof.

Currently the idea that Jesus was an actual historical person lacks enough proof for me to buy into it.

Roger Pearse says

I'd rather not hold a religious position that requires me to make myself stupid in order to uphold it

Oh, come now Rodger don't be hard on yourself.

If you apply yourself I am sure that you are capable of recognizing logical fallacy from critical thought; and learning how to amass evidence to support an idea.

Perhaps my previous book suggestion was a little to much. Maybe I can help you with this a little bit more...

I know this is not easy -- lots of work and time -- but if you stick with it the rewards will be huge. There is a simple teaching tool that can help you through this process. I don’t know if you have ever heard of the show 'Blue's Clues', but I think you are going to love it. It will teach you how to gather evidence (or “clues” as the show puts it), and then think about the “clues” (i.e. - evidence) before coming to a conclusion.

I hope this info helps you out buddy!

Don't you think the Pontius Pilate story a little comical, really? Wouldn't it be convenient that we had a reluctant, wise ROMAN authority, who only acquiesced due to a mob of blood-thirsty, angry Jews?

It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Romans killed you if you acted a little hinky back then?

Imagine a Roman getting a hold of a book that made the empire out to be evil? Which, coincidentally, is why 666 is the number of the emperor(s). They would have been taxed or killed if they referred to the Emperor as a Beast.

wthrfrk80 says

You don't consider non-Christian references to Jesus crucified under Pontius Pilate as compelling? Tacitus had every motive to discredit Christianity and yet he admits that there was a real Jesus crucified by Pontius Pilate.

Tacitus has many problems.

A. He's not a contemporary, born after decades after Jesus's crucifixion and probably writing the annals around 100AD, ~70 years later the crucifixion, or about 2-3 average ancient lifespans.
B. He mentions only a Christ, which is merely the Greek translation of Messiah. Pilate crucified many Messiahs, Zealots, and Prophets, as did other Roman authorities in Judea, a very troublesome province. The idea of Jewish Millenials was well-known in Rome, having caused many disturbances not only in Judea, but also Alexandria and later, Rome itself.
C. We don't have any pre-Christian era copies of Tacitus. The earliest copy is from the 1000s AD, the time of the Vikings, almost a millenia after the original is written.
C2. This copy is "Smudged" and seems to refer to a "Chrestus". A Chrestus is also mentioned in Seutonius, in a slightly different context (Reign of Nero vs. Reign of Claudius).
C3. Chrestus is a popular name, especially for slaves, meaning "Handy" or "Useful".
C4. Many historians believe that the passage has been interpolated, because of the flow of the text in the Latin. Tacitus seems to be closing a thought, and then resumes the narrative.
C5. Only two groups of people in Dark Ages Europe copied books and contained significant numbers of literate individuals - Christian Clerics and Jews. The earliest copy was found in a monastery.
C6. At the time, Nero had just imposed a head tax on Jews to pay for his massive building projects. It's easy to guess that Jewish Zealots or Millenials in Rome would have instigated a riot or even arson in protest. What better way to protest the tax than burn down the buildings the taxes paid for?
D. None of the early Christian Fathers mention the relevant passages from Tacitus.
D2. The first mention of Tacitus' passage comes 400 years after Christianity is already the official religion, in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a martyrologist who was famous in his own lifetime for his ability to imitate the writing style of Early Roman Empire authors. We have nothing to compare it to.
E. Oddly gets the title of Pilate wrong. Pilate was Prefect, not Procurator (we have Pilate's celebratory inscription, physical evidence). Tacitus, having gone through the cursus honorum himself, was unlikely to have made this mistake. Nor is it likely he is changing the title to account for the reforms of Claudius.

thunderlips11 says

Tacitus has many problems.

All of them, unfortunately, invented by people who aren't scholars. No classical scholar would have anything to do with this stuff.

A. He's not a contemporary, born after decades after Jesus's crucifixion and probably writing the annals around 100AD, ~70 years later the crucifixion, or about 2-3 average ancient lifespans.

The demand that an ancient source can be ignored if not writing "contemporary" (during Jesus life?!) is curious. Tacitus is our best source for all first century history, and the reign of Tiberius in particular. This is not how ancient history is done.

Note, by the way, that it is a pretext to ignore data. No argument that relies on finding reasons to suppress testimony is sound.

B. He mentions only a Christ, which is merely the Greek translation of Messiah.

Tacitus wrote in Latin, and Roman authors always call Jesus "Christ". That, by the way, is why you're addressing "Christians", not "Jesusites". There is, to the best of my knowledge, no Roman use of "Christus" to mean "Messiah".

C. We don't have any pre-Christian era copies of Tacitus. The earliest copy is from the 1000s AD, the time of the Vikings, almost a millenia after the original is written.

The same is true of nearly all ancient literature. If this means anything, it means that we have no classical literature; if we have classical literature, we have Tacitus.

Note again how all these demands reflect someone -- I don't mean you -- who is utterly ignorant of how ancient history is done, what kind of sources you *normally* have, and how texts are transmitted.

How confident do you feel, knowing that your source is ignorant but willing to make up "criteria" and pronounce confidently stuff that is obscurantist? This is the trouble with these people ... it's really about ignoring facts, and any excuse will do.

C2. This copy is "Smudged" and seems to refer to a "Chrestus". A Chrestus is also mentioned in Seutonius, in a slightly different context (Reign of Nero vs. Reign of Claudius).

The manuscript is not smudged. The text read Chrestus and was corrected to Christus. But Tacitus may well have written "Chrestus"; Tertullian tells us that pagans were often confused as to whether the name that they hated sounded as "Chrestian" or "Christian". The Tacitus passage makes plain who is meant.

The Suetonius passage is less clear. The only "Chrestus" causing trouble at that period in Rome that we know of is Jesus; so if it isn't him, then the passage becomes inscrutable. But the passage itself rather suggests that "Chrestus" was in Rome. I always treat it as interesting, but not certainly a reference to Jesus.

You might like to ask what the oldest copy of Suetonius is... :)

C3. Chrestus is a popular name, especially for slaves, meaning "Handy" or "Useful".

Indeed. Unfortunately the Tacitus passage specifies precisely who is meant.

C4. Many historians believe that the passage has been interpolated, because of the flow of the text in the Latin. Tacitus seems to be closing a thought, and then resumes the narrative.

Only cranks hold this view. Sorry!

C5. Only two groups of people in Dark Ages Europe copied books and contained significant numbers of literate individuals - Christian Clerics and Jews. The earliest copy was found in a monastery.

So...?

C6. At the time, Nero had just imposed a head tax on Jews to pay for his massive building projects. It's easy to guess that Jewish Zealots or Millenials in Rome would have instigated a riot or even arson in protest. What better way to protest the tax than burn down the buildings the taxes paid for?

This speculation seems to have nothing to do with the concrete statement of Tacitus.

D. None of the early Christian Fathers mention the relevant passages from Tacitus.

This is an argument that no passage in any ancient text is authentic unless someone else mentions it. That's terrible logic! 99% of all ancient literature is lost. And most passages in most books are not quoted; some books are not even referenced.

Tertullian does mention Tacitus Histories, against the Jews, and calls him a liar. Robin Birley has suggested that Tertullian's Apologeticum is, to some degree, a reference to the passage in Annals.

D2. The first mention of Tacitus' passage comes 400 years after Christianity is already the official religion, in the writings of Sulpicius Severus, a martyrologist who was famous in his own lifetime for his ability to imitate the writing style of Early Roman Empire authors. We have nothing to compare it to.

Erm, where does this claim about Sulpicius writing silver-age Latin come from? I never heard it. And ... martyologist? Which martyrologies, specifically?

But notice, again, how the author doesn't state his argument, but insinuates it. He's insinuating forgery. (It's never a good sign when people insinuate rather than argue.) But the reverse is the case ... SS had access to Annals when it was complete, and his work is the source for some fragments of the lost books.

E. Oddly gets the title of Pilate wrong. Pilate was Prefect, not Procurator (we have Pilate's celebratory inscription, physical evidence). Tacitus, having gone through the cursus honorum himself, was unlikely to have made this mistake. Nor is it likely he is changing the title to account for the reforms of Claudius.

It doesn't seem unreasonable that Tacitus would use the contemporary title rather than an archaic one. But who knows? The fact is that he did write procurator. And ... it is not quite certain that Pilate was not both.

Now just step back a moment. Just look at that massive long list of excuses. Look at what it consists of ... a long, long series of excuses to ignore a piece of primary data.

But surely any valid piece of ancient history BASES itself on data, not on attempts to manufacture a silence and then argue from an absence?

There's nothing wrong with Tacitus. He said what he said. Beware the obscurantists. The person you're relying on here knew damn all about ancient history, and cared less. He merely hated the Christians. Haters make very bad sources of factual information.

All the ebst,

Roger Pearse

Which Biblical characters or events were historical, and which were eponyms, allegory or symbolism?

Was there an Adam/Eve? A Noah? A Moses? Were Cain and Abel real, or characters or an ancient John Henry tale?

Did Exodus happen? Did the Jews escape slavery in such a tremendous, fantastical miracle? Where is the Egyptian recording for it?

Was it luck that they wandered the desert for 40 years and 40 was a symbolic number? Was it luck that there were 12 apostles?

Were the Apostles real people?

Why or why not?

thunderlips11 says

but is instead a disagreement between almost everyone on earth, Christian or non-Christian, including 100% of the professional scholars, versus a handful of mostly poorly educated people with an unconcealed grudge against Christianity.

This is an argument from majority, and an appeal to authority in the form of The Consensus(tm).

Sorry, but I think there is misunderstanding here about the point being made. (And, by the way, are stereotypes a good way to read what people say?)

The point was not "everyone disagrees with you, so you are wrong". It is "Every normal person, whatever their religion, thinks your wrong. Only a handful of people, all evidently crazed haters, agree with you." The point is that this is not a disagreement between Christian and non-Christian. As such, I felt no need to argue it.

However, Bible Scholars do not work on scientific principles...(etc)

Not sure what this is about, or what it has to do with my comment. It looks like some reason to ignore professional scholars. How it relates to the fact that all historians think this -- not bible scholars -- and indeed almost everyone else, whether atheist or not ... well, I don't know.

Again, there is no contemporary evidence of Jesus, none.

Apart from a bunch of documents written by people who were alive when he was, and a bunch of literature written by people who knew him or their friends, all generally known as the New Testament.

Now we may feel that we can disregard this data, on one pretext or another (although why should we? why do we want to?). But that doesn't mean there IS no evidence... only that we reject the evidence.

Nor is this "contemporary" stuff relevant.

I have not seen any compelling argument for an historical Jesus.

The question to ask, however, is whether you know what the valid argument for any ancient personage is. Most people don't. They just make up some kind of criteria as they go along.

The non-Christian authors like Tacitus or Suetonius writing almost a century later never have the applicable, Christ-referencing passages quoted by the Early Church Fathers.

I am not sure that I understand this sentence. Could you say it in different words?

The TF is not referenced either...

Arguments from silence are always precarious, and arguing that a book did not exist because we have no reference to it is scarily daft. Only two extant authors reference any portion of Antiquities books 11-20, you know.

We don't have early copies for Tacitus or Suetonius like we do for some of the Epistles and Gospels, mostly because of environmental conditions.

So ... throw all classical literature in the bin, then? Because the same is true of that too. These arguments are all obscurantist.

Pious Frauds are known and agreed to. (snip more wild claims)

This is very vague, and whatever the argument is, it is insinuated. The US dollar gets forged. Do we believe all US dollars are forgeries, on that ground?

Never accept any argument that involves suppressing data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse says

But surely any valid piece of ancient history BASES itself on data, not on attempts to manufacture a silence and then argue from an absence?

Well that and not having, superstition based, conclusions all figured out regardless of what current and future data indicates.

Roger Pearse says

Now just step back a moment. Just look at that massive long list of excuses. Look at what it consists of ... a long, long series of excuses to ignore a piece of primary data.

Rodger... Rodger... Rodger... what you -- and probably most people who are trying to use a historical document to prove their preconceived notions on religion -- fail to realize is that any ancient text, when going beyond cursory study, has a similarly long list of "excuses" surrounding the work. The problem is that you don't care to look into any ancient writing that does not hold the hope to confirm your particular belief system.

As I mentioned before if you look into the writings of Ahmad ibn Fadlan you will find questions similar to the ones presented by thunderlips -- all legitimate questions for nonreligious text, but some people get their panties in a bunch when the same standard is applied to something they want to hold sacred.

wthrfrk80 says

Could you elaborate on that point? If the secular sources DID have the passages quoted by the early chruch fathers, wouldn't you just dismiss those secular sources as pious frauds?

You seem to be arguing "I can't accept evidence X because it's too far from the teachings of the church" AND at other times arguing "I can't accept evidence X because it's too close to the teachings of the church." I must say, I'm confused.

Could you explain further?

Happy to.

With the gospels and epistles, we can compare copies from Syria, Egypt, the Sinai, etc. from ~150AD, 500AD, 1000AD, and 1400AD. From Coptic Monasteries, to copies apparently read by hermits in long lost caves. The desert and the remote location of hermitages and monasteries aid the survival of the texts.

However, with the secular history texts we don't have much in the way of early, Pagan-era Copies to compare to. Most of the complete texts are from the Middle Ages, almost 1000 years after they're written. Our oldest (fragment of) Josephus is from the 4th Century, when Christianity became the dominant religion.

The First Mention of the TF by a Christian author comes from Eusebius in the 300s, about two centuries after Josephus' writes his very popular and well known Histories.

However, among the Early Christian Fathers we know that Origen knew Josephus. He not only refers to Josephus' writings but mentions twice that he is a Jew who is not a Christian, probably to say "Here's a nonbeliever who backs up (some of) the Christian ideas". Origen marshals Josephus' report of a James, the Brother of Jesus, who is mentioned in Josephus. He also counters Josephus' claims that the temple was destroyed because Jews followed religious fanatics; Origen says Josephus is wrong, God destroyed the Temple because of Jesus' promises.

So Origen has obviously read Josephus, knows of several passages that back up Christian ideas, but doesn't use the Testamonium Flavianum? None of the early Christian Fathers do - until Christianity becomes the dominant religion; then the relevant passages begin to be cited.

So, short version ;)

We have many early Christian writings from the Late Roman Empire. We have relatively far fewer secular history text copies from that point. We can't compare the earlier secular texts with what came later like we can with the NT.

We don't have the same "Chain of Custody". We can detect omissions, interpolations, mistakes, etc. across the NT in a way we can't with Secular history texts. Therefore we don't know how or when (I doubt "IF" is a factor, queue the Billy Joel Song) these texts were changed and by whom. Therefore, knowing what I know about early NT texts, the secular texts could have been changed for the Glory* as well - in fact, the odds are they probably were.

* Glory subject to terms and conditions. Offer may vary depending on sect.

Dan8267 says

Come to think about it, agnostics really aren't that agnostics about gods. Certainly not gods like Thor, Zeus, Shiva, Flidais, Shango, or Quetzalcoatl.

Fair enough. Yes, I think that each of these have about as much chance as being true as the Holy Trinity. As an added bonus, these 'Gods' are less intrusive on my life and thus less irritating. But I'm still going with agnostic for argument's sake :).

I do have a question for dan, leo, and thunderlips... How did you get as knowledgeable about religion as you have? I couldn't get past page 8 of the bible the couple of times I tried to read it.

Roger Pearse says

This is very vague, and whatever the argument is, it is insinuated. The US dollar gets forged. Do we believe all US dollars are forgeries, on that ground?

No, but can we assume that some are forged and do we get to examine some dollars for indication of forgery?

Or would the idea of examination be suppressing all the non-forged dollars?

leoj707 says

Roger Pearse says

This is very vague, and whatever the argument is, it is insinuated. The US dollar gets forged. Do we believe all US dollars are forgeries, on that ground?

No, but can we assume that some are forged and do we get to examine some dollars for indication of forgery?

Or would the idea of examination be suppressing all the non-forged dollars?

Right on, Leo.

We do know that the Treasury department takes steps to prevent forgeries and changes the anti-forgery methods from time to time, which infers that forgery happens frequently. We also know that in the 21st Century, retailers and banks employ UV lights, special pens, etc. to detect forgeries and distribute them to points where cash is handled. More evidence that forgeries happen. Hell, both public and private entities of size have anti-counterfeiting departments. With Checks, Credit Cards and Wires too being of interest.

The fact that the Bible itself mentions "adding or taking away" and cautions against false revelations also infers the ancient writers knew of pious fraud themselves.

It wasn't just a problem for sacred texts, either. Galen wrote about how to tell his books from fraudulent titles sporting his name.

Many non-canonical texts out there...
Infancy Gospel, Shepard of Hermas, Secret Mark, etc. etc.

Roger Pearse says

It is "Every normal person, whatever their religion, thinks your wrong. Only a handful of people, all evidently crazed haters, agree with you." The point is that this is not a disagreement between Christian and non-Christian. As such, I felt no need to argue it.

I got it the first time. It's still a logical fallacy of appeal to numbers. There is no argument here, no evidence presented.

Roger Pearse says

Not sure what this is about, or what it has to do with my comment. It looks like some reason to ignore professional scholars.

Yes, and I gave my reasons. Bible Scholars are not scientists, and not really dealing with evidence. They're dealing with ancient assertions made in written form by members of a religious group. They do not deal with physical evidence (there is none for Jesus), and all the near-contemporary sources are neither eyewitnesses (except Paul, but he only had a Vision of Jesus, did not meet the HJ physically) nor do we know of them from other texts they wrote, so we have no way of determining their veracity.

Again, if there was an historical Jesus, there must be a set of agreed upon facts. Anything that exists and can be shown to exist possesses at least one or more facts.

Surely, if I'm off my rocker and the Consensus(TM) is so strong, you could certainly point out where there is this widespread agreement about the facts of an historical Jesus.
Roger Pearse says

How it relates to the fact that all historians think this -- not bible scholars -- and indeed almost everyone else, whether atheist or not ... well, I don't know.

Evidence for this assertion? I've heard individual historians say that an historical Jesus is possible, but I've never been aware of any non-ideological, professional association of Historians endorse a position that the HJ is a fact.

Roger Pearse says

Apart from a bunch of documents written by people who were alive when he was, and a bunch of literature written by people who knew him or their friends, all generally known as the New Testament.

Now we may feel that we can disregard this data, on one pretext or another (although why should we? why do we want to?). But that doesn't mean there IS no evidence... only that we reject the evidence.

Now Roger, if you're asserting that the Epistles and Gospels are written between 30-40AD, that's news to me. What is your source for this?

Funny, I didn't know that Mark, Luke, John, or Matthew were Jesus' apostles. Nor did any of the gospel authors claimed to be his apostles. I hope you don't believe that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew.Roger Pearse says

I am not sure that I understand this sentence. Could you say it in different words?

I think my earlier post clears this up.Roger Pearse says

Roger Pearse says

Arguments from silence are always precarious, and arguing that a book did not exist because we have no reference to it is scarily daft. Only two extant authors reference any portion of Antiquities books 11-20, you know.

But again, when you have Origen who is familiar with a well-known historical narrative author (Josephus), and Origen is citing relatively obscure passages from this author in favor of his argument, but skips the "Slam Dunk", "Cincher" one where the esteemed author he references mentions the Messiah by name and says he did miracles, that's mighty odd.

This is very vague, and whatever the argument is, it is insinuated. The US dollar gets forged. Do we believe all US dollars are forgeries, on that ground?

But we know that many dollars DO get forged, hence, anti-counterfeiting is a major big deal, and retailers and bankers arm their employees with special pens, uv lights, etc.

How about Jerome and the Pericope Adulterae, as discussed earlier in the thread?
Roger Pearse says

So ... throw all classical literature in the bin, then? Because the same is true of that too. These arguments are all obscurantist.

I'll try again. The only whole copies of Tacitus' Annals date back to the 11th Century. We only have bits and pieces from before that time for most historical, secular texts. We don't know what the original text of Tacitus' Annals looked like. Nor Josephus, nor Seutonius.

Our existing copies aren't minor variations of spellings, if they're like other texts that we DO have evidence for, chances are they have a great deal of ommitted and interpolated bits.

And yes, I do realize that I post way too many pictures of shirtless men on this site.

thunderlips11 says

We only have bits and pieces from before that time for most historical, secular texts. We don't know what the original text of Tacitus' Annals looked like. Nor Josephus, nor Seutonius.

But the same is true for most ancient texts, right? How then can we know anything about the classical world from textual sources?

We can compare them to archeological evidence, compare texts dealing with the same subject, and compare copies of the same texts found in different times and places.

About 1/5 of all existent ancient Greco-Roman texts are the works of Galen, probably because his medical 'knowledge' was the most useful to the most folks across times and cultures. That's also why, in his lifetime (and afterwards) people loved to create imitiations. His books were the most in demand because of the subject matter.

wthrfrk80 says

But the same is true for most ancient texts, right? How then can we know anything about the classical world from textual sources?

Yes, the same is true.

We know a lot, but there is much more that we don't know that we do know. The thing is that -- unless of course we believe in particular god(s) -- we don't take ancient sources as "gospel" truth. Ancient writings are used as a guide; then when corroborated with physical evidence or when in sync with other ancient sources we start to get a picture of what life was like and what people thought at the time.

Think of it this way:

Lets say you land on another planet and dig up all their old ruins. You find some old magazines, pamphlets, books, accounting ledgers (basically most ancient writing is accounting -- Joseph Smith once translated an old Egyptian text saying that is was the "book of Abraham", post Rosetta Stone it turned out to be an old accounting ledger), etc.

Would you assume that the knowledge you gained from the reading was all true and accurate? What if only one source talked about a magic guy and you needed to worship him. All other sources that mention him were written a generation or two after his death. Would you drop to your knees and start worshiping him?

YesYNot says

I do have a question for dan, leo, and thunderlips... How did you get as knowledgeable about religion as you have? I couldn't get past page 8 of the bible the couple of times I tried to read it.

Well... getting pas page 8 of the bible :)

Growing up in a very religious household made, from childhood, religion an integral part of my live. Beyond that basically a lot of reading and discussion about religion. I have read the bible cover-to-cover on two occasions and the book of mormon once. Unless another text intrigues me I doubt I will spend the time reading another religious text cover-to-cover, but I do a lot of spot reading today of religious text.

There are two reasons why I think that reading the bible is important:

1. Many of our cultural references concern bible stories. It is nice to have this common knowledge and background with others.

2. As I am sure you know so many people in our lives -- mine at least -- would love for us to be christian. It is nice to have a frame of reference to explain to them why I don't believe that the bible is a good source of knowledge about our physical world and is not a good moral guide.

3. Reading the bible with an open mind is a great critical thinking exercise and a great way of realizing how absurd it is to take it as literal "truth".

I know it can be very boring and dry, here are a couple of sources that can make learning about the bible more fun:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/book-of-genesis-illustrated-by-r-crumb-r-crumb/1100872006

http://thebrickbible.com/

leoj707 says

Would you drop to your knees and start worshiping him?

Well I'm not trying to make the case that Jesus was anything more than an ancient historical figure. For example, I believe Mohammed was a real historical figure, even though I don't believe he was the Final Prophet of Allah (tm).

There seems to be this worry that if a person believes in a historical Jesus, they must also accept him as "Lord and Savior" as the Christians do.

wthrfrk80 says

For example, I believe Mohammed was a real historical figure, even though I don't believe he was the Final Prophet of Allah (tm).

Well, we know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus. I do believe that there were others writing about him within a year so of his death.

wthrfrk80 says

There seems to be this worry that if a person believes in a historical Jesus, they must also accept him as "Lord and Savior" as the Christians do.

Fair enough my wording choice was poor. I don't think that anyone is saying this. Certainly we have a ton of evidence that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard were real historical people, but we don't think -- well, maybe some people in this forum do -- that they held the keys to "truth".

Jesus might have been a historical figure but from my perspective we just don't have enough evidence to say for sure.

YesYNot says

I do have a question for dan, leo, and thunderlips... How did you get as knowledgeable about religion as you have? I couldn't get past page 8 of the bible the couple of times I tried to read it.

Hi YesYNot,

I got into it because a friend was really into the Bible and begged me to read it. I've always loved Ancient Rome and Greece. I had read the OT, but never read the NT prior to my 20s, so I gave it a whirl. Then, I started to wonder what evidence was behind it all, how it all tied in. So I began to get books on the subject.

One of the best, though a little dated, is Issac Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Unlike Bible Scholars who work mostly within the text, Asimov corresponded with Archeologists and Historians, and breaks the Bible down into manageable sections and discusses the evidence for each section.

Also, The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein is a great place to start. I also recommend Ehrman's Lost Christianities, which gives an overview of the battle of the various early church sects (no unity from the beginning), and his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which shows how the earliest fragments and papyri were steadily but slowly altered to reflect emerging Orthodox viewpoints over the centuries.

leoj707 says

Jesus might have been a historical figure but from my perspective we just don't have enough evidence to say for sure.

Exactly.

The historical inaccuracies, the miracles, and the conflicting narrative across the Gospels -- most Bible Scholars are willing to admit those are embellishments, inventions, oral tales distorted over time, etc. But then, they automatically assume a real person and some grain of historicity for him behind it all.

We do not do that with Hercules, even though we have stories about him that mention real places, including populated cities that did indeed exist, and while the stories conflict in places they have broad agreement generally, etc.

But if you say Jesus may not have existed, the Bible Scholars get all bent out of shape in a way that nobody does if you doubt the existence of Hercules.

I agree, The existence of a real Jesus is possible, and even plausible. But, the evidence is not a slam-dunk by a long shot.

The vitriol spouted by even the more liberal scholars is out of place; nobody gets as worked up over Cybele or Hercules. Nor does a huge complex exist for "Cybele" studies. This is because of the hegemony of tradition.

thunderlips11 says

I got it the first time. It's still a logical fallacy ... (reiteration snipped)

I looked through your post, but it appeared to be either reiteration (as here) or else introducing demands of various further sorts, all designed to ignore inconvenient data.

But, on all that you wrote, you will excuse me if I refer you to what I wrote last time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

wthrfrk80 says

There seems to be this worry that if a person believes in a historical Jesus, they must also accept him as "Lord and Savior" as the Christians do.

I don't think that is anyone's intention. I like Jesus. "His" sayings and teachings are good. I find his message inspiring, especially if he is a man and not a man/god.

Logically, we just don't have any evidence that he existed. thunderlips11 says

This is because of the hegemony of tradition.

Well said.

YesYNot says

I do have a question for dan, leo, and thunderlips... How did you get as knowledgeable about religion as you have?

No matter one's beliefs, kudos are in order. Smart and well-read fellers!! (I assume Fellers?)

wthrfrk80 says

But the same is true for most ancient texts, right? How then can we know anything about the classical world from textual sources?

Just so. But those making the argument do so selectively. They do not, of course, assert that all the works of Galen, similarly poorly preserved as these are, are equally unreliable.

This is all special pleading, in other words, by people who don't know much history.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

CL says

don't think that is anyone's intention. I like Jesus. "His" sayings and teachings are good. I find his message inspiring, especially if he is a man and not a man/god.

Does that include his teachings about he himself judging you (and every other person) on the Day of Judgement? Or do you use the formula "I don't like teaching X, therefore Jesus didn't really say X" when reading the gospels?

thunderlips11 says

The vitriol spouted by even the more liberal scholars is out of place

I wasn't aware that more liberal scholars spouted vitriol about the idea that Jesus never existed. I thought they would be mostly in agreement with you. Which scholars are you referring to?

wthrfrk80 says

Does that include his teachings about he himself judging you (and every other person) on the Day of Judgement? Or do you use the formula "I don't like teaching X, therefore Jesus didn't really say X" when reading the gospels?

Yeah, that is my big problem with Jesus' teachings and bible morality in general. While there are some "good" lessons to be learned there also many things that I find abhorrent.

Fortunately the bible and Jesus does not have exclusive rights to ethical and moral behavior.