Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Time Problem With A Mythical Jesus
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 7 of 76 (137785)
08-29-2004 3:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Jasonb
08-27-2004 12:13 PM


We have a fragment of the gospel of John (John Rylands Fragment, p52) that has been dated to circa 125 AD.
The p52 fragment is very small and there is considerable controversy regarding what it is a fragment of. [edit: I was misremembering. The controvery was over the date not the content. It appears the consensus is that it is John]. There are those that wish to use it to establish an early date for John but all I've read they are apologist seeking anything to bolster their position.
The Elvis myth is well underway. I don't think time is that big a problem.
The two problems I see are Paul and Mark. The mythicists have to show that Paul did not know or refer to an earthly Jesus and the Mark was doing a midrash. The debates on these issues involved language and textual analysis.
The historicist appear to have the broadest options. They only need a figure who caught the attention of a few who carried stories after his death, and those stories grew into a myth the way Elvis is becoming a myth.
[editing to add the below quote]
Dating the Rylands Papyrus to 125 (a common preference) or 130 CE is a case in point. No such narrow nicety is possible. As Robert Funk points out (Honest to Jesus, p.94), this fragment has been variously dated from 125 to 160 CE. Dating it closer to 150 would not require anything like a first-century composition for the Gospel of John, and in fact Justin, who writes in the 150s and refers to his memoirs of the Apostles quite frequently (mostly the Gospels subsequently ascribed to Matthew and Luke), seems not to know it. A. N. Wilson sums up the situation (Paul: The Mind of the Apostle, p.251): In spite of claims by journalists and non-papyrologists in recent times, it is difficult if not impossible to date papyrus within a 50-year margin.
We possess other fragments of the canonical Gospels from the end of the second century, and complete Gospels only from the middle of the third. The idea of a canon of four to be regarded as an historical record of Jesus comes not earlier than Irenaeus around 180 CE, and it was during this period that much collecting, weeding, and final redaction of texts was performed in order to arrive at a body of supposedly inspired and foundational literature to support the emerging orthodoxy of a church centered on Rome. (By that time, many many competing Gospels and other writings were in existence, reflecting a great variety of beliefs and presentations of a Jesus figure, both spiritual and historical. Nor, generally speaking, do the canonical ones enjoy an earlier attestation. Those not accepted into the canon became regarded as spurious or even heretical.)
As for recent claims that fragments of Matthew can be dated to the mid first century, or that Mark has been found at Qumran, these have been thoroughly discredited by reliable critical scholars. I don’t know what Internet location you are referring to, but the claims are those of Carston Thiede, who published a book a few years ago called Eyewitness to Jesus. In it, Thiede announced that he had examined fragments of Matthew which had lain in an Oxford College library since 1901, the so-called Magdalen Papyrus, and decided that instead of the late second century dating scholars had previously given them, they were likely from a decade or two after Jesus’ death. This also indicated to Thiede that they were written by an eyewitness. The book, together with Thiede’s press interviews, were seized on by the popular media, but fairly quickly shot down by more responsible scholarly voices.
Earl Doherty
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/rfset5.htm
lfen
This message has been edited by lfen, 08-29-2004 02:15 AM
This message has been edited by lfen, 08-29-2004 02:19 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Jasonb, posted 08-27-2004 12:13 PM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jasonb, posted 08-29-2004 4:46 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 19 of 76 (137896)
08-29-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jasonb
08-29-2004 4:46 PM


the crux of this thread is that 70 years is not enough time for a Jesus myth to start.
Well this is a very nebulous claim. How many years would be neccessary? And how would you falsify your claim? What evidence would show it's false and that 70 years would be enough? And if not 70 would 150?
I find the notion that the Gospels must be true because 70 years wasn't enough to be very hard to establish. First you have to establish a historic person. That seems likely but there is life in the mythicist argument.
There are a lot of differences between Jesus and Elvis, and between the era's. In a modern era with television, news, and science there are still people willing to believe that Elvis lives, or as someone else pointed out that aliens are among us. How much more likely such beliefs would take off in the first century was my point.
I think it's very likely had there been a historic teacher crucified that within weeks if not days rumors would have developed and if not a myth a proto myth would have been underway within the year.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jasonb, posted 08-29-2004 4:46 PM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Jasonb, posted 08-29-2004 5:40 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 24 of 76 (137907)
08-29-2004 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Jasonb
08-29-2004 5:04 PM


Conservative biblical scholars place the epistles of Paul to around 40 or 50 AD.
Paul claimed that his knowledge of Christ came through visions.
They were outrageous claims, which usually are not immediately taken at face value, especially when there are groups teaching something else.
Which claims do you consider outrageous in terms of those times? Resurrections were quite accepted and this is true until as late as Victorian times. Problems with distinguishing death from comas led to people being buried alive and there was great fear of that. I reference here the book, THE ROMEO ERROR. The mystery religions had similar claims also. And Roman emperorers in some cases claimed divinity and descent from Gods. Some of the claims of early christians might have been unacceptable to jews, but there were other divisions in Judaism at that time also, what with Sadducees, Pharisees, and other sects. Seems like there were lots of different things being claimed and argued.
But yet Christianity survived and flourished. The spread of Christianity did not take place in a vacuum. These were real cities with real people and real forces opposing it. Yet it survived.
Lots of sects survived at least until Constantine adopted Christianity and the christians began to stamp out other religions. Rome basically asked Jews and Christians to observe the generally tolerant attitudes of the empire. There refusal to make even the token gestures of the imperial religon brought down a lot of their punishment. I'm not saying pagan Rome was particularly good, but compared to what the christians did when they took power they were an ancient near eastern model of religious tolerance. One would have to look to Ashoka and Buddhist India to find a genuine reliously tolerant society in those times.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Jasonb, posted 08-29-2004 5:04 PM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 9:51 AM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 26 of 76 (137910)
08-29-2004 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jasonb
08-29-2004 4:46 PM


Understand that I don't accept your datings but I will allow that 70 years is more than enough time for the myth to have taken on several forms including the New Testament version.
Relgions can start very fast. Yes, Elvis is fading but he wasn't a relgion either. But what of Mormonism and Bahai? There have been references in other threads here to near contemporary individuals being claimed as the messiah.
I think Constantine saved Christianity by giving it the backing of the Roman Empire.
The idea that the myth couldn't have been developed in 70 years, heck, in 5 years so it must be true is a specious argument along the same lines as those who claim that a person couldn't have written the Torah, or the Koran so that shows that God did. Well, people wrote all those books and religions can have fast starts as the Mormons and Bahais demonstrate.
We need real evidence and not proofs like these.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jasonb, posted 08-29-2004 4:46 PM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 10:07 AM lfen has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 28 of 76 (137912)
08-29-2004 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jasonb
08-29-2004 5:40 PM


These were verifiable claims. He was born in Bethlehem.
If this is an example of a verifiable claim please verify it.
He preached sermons to thousands. He healed people, gave sight to the blind. He was crucified. He was buried. That he was raised from the dead and seen by hundreds of other people.
Even if some people didn’t want to know the truth, others would want them to, namely the Jewish leaders. And they could have proven these claims false if it had only been 70 years.
How? It's obvious to me that Joseph Smith's claim about the Book of Mormon are entirely bogus. And there is very good arguments based on some datable material and official records. How many of the millions of mormons will be persuade to abandon their faith?
I'm sorry, but this argument can't turn these claims into facts. If it could lots of other stuff could be proved as fact also.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jasonb, posted 08-29-2004 5:40 PM Jasonb has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 36 of 76 (138066)
08-30-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Jasonb
08-30-2004 9:51 AM


The p52 fragment tells us that the claims about Jesus were already established by at least 125 AD.
Jason,
If you keep asserting an early p52 to support your claims then you must defend that date.
This tells us that the claims about Jesus were being preached to contemporaries of Jesus. And many believed the claims when the facts could have been checked.
I don't know the life expectancy in those times. I have read but have no source at the moment that literacy was very low. Fact checking remains a challenge today. Even today many believe claims of all sorts of things without checking facts. Witness many threads on this very forum.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 9:51 AM Jasonb has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 44 of 76 (138083)
08-30-2004 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Jasonb
08-30-2004 11:01 AM


Paul, who was a persecutor of the Church, who was a leader in the Jewish community, could have been persuaded that his visions where not real if he had been presented with evidence that what he saw, and what he was told by Peter and James when he met with them, never happened. The claims were verifiable. People would have checked them out.
Jason,
Even today most christian proseltyzing is based on emotional appeal and distortions of facts and few check those facts. Because there are so very few non bibical mentions in support of a historic Jesus you are forced into this argument that basically that because Christianity survived it must be true. Would you make that claim of Islam? You can't check the facts, yet you are asking us to take the Gospels as fact simply because they weren't abandoned as false by early Christians? There is no neccessity here.
It's not yet been established that Paul thought his Christ had lived recently on earth and was crucified in Jerusalem. I think he might have known something but I don't know how important that would have been to him. Visions were counted highly in the OT, and in the lands of the Roman Empire. I wouldn't be at all surprised if people at that time didn't make much distinction between the truth of visions and the truth of rational fact.
Your argument can not establish the accuracy of the gospels. That you are even making such a weak argument is testimony to the weakness of your evidence. Paul's route of a Christ by personal revelation and faith seems to make more sense for you. There is just so very little historically that that is a very dubious foundation.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 11:01 AM Jasonb has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 12:00 PM lfen has replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 48 of 76 (138110)
08-30-2004 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Jasonb
08-30-2004 12:00 PM


What is my evidence that compels me to believe in Christ? Faith, not history.
Well, yes, precisely. And that is true of those who have found a meaningful faith in Krishna, Allah, and on and on.
You are using christian apologetic rhetoric when you say "duped" impling a deliberate attempt to con people and they fell for it. I don't think it worked like that at all.
People want to believe and christians offered salvation, eternal life, etc. powerful emotional incentives to believe. That facts fail to support or contradict their beliefs doesn't mean someone lied. It means someone got something wrong, which is SOP for humanity, nothing unusal in that. There is a lot of psychological studies, theories etc. about how humans use belief, denial, illusions to survive and deal with life.
The problem that apologist face is that the bible is an uneven record written by people who didn't have a modern intention to write history. All the early church documents are arguing for religious beliefs and faith and not attempting accurate history.
I think the probability is that there was a historic Jesus but that is not certain. PaulK thinks a little more than that can be said. He could be right. Earl Doherty with a little less probability could be right that Paul's Christ was entirely mythical. There is just too little evidence at this time for me to determine.
And you can't claim there was at one time enough good evidence or Christianity wouldn't have survived. That is a rhetorical appeal that will work with many naive people but it's not logical.
You are familiar with Jar's posts here? I think he strikes a good balance between science, history, and faith. He doesn't try to change facts to support his faith neither has he lost faith because of facts.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 12:00 PM Jasonb has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 51 of 76 (138195)
08-30-2004 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Jasonb
08-30-2004 11:16 AM


Re:
First of all, in the case of the Jews it was being claimed that they killed the messiah. A messiah they were all waiting for and preaching others to be on the look out for. They did not like the accusations being made.
It was Jews claiming it! Jesus was a jew, Paul, and the circle in Jerusalem were all jews. Christianity is a sect of Judaism although over the centuries both groups have distanced themselves from each other.
And there were different groups of Jews claiming a number of different Messiahs had come, nothing extraordinary about that claim. Lots of Jews believed they were living in the end times, including Paul. Then the end times didn't come. Has that falsified the religion? NO! Religionists by and large don't worry about the factuality or rationality of their claims, it's how their beliefs make them feel that seems to be important.
Paul said in 1 COR 15 that Jesus appeared to 500 people after his death at one time, and some of them are still alive (at the time of his writing).
Paul speaks of that appearance and the appearance of Christ to him in the same terms. It appears he was talking of a visitation perhaps along the lines of the various visions of the Virgin Mary. Those people would attest to the visionary Christ that Paul speaks of and not a physical human being that they knew.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 11:16 AM Jasonb has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 52 of 76 (138197)
08-30-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by jar
08-30-2004 2:48 PM


The lives of the saints as examples of belief in miracles
Jar,
This is a very good argument. Net surfing results in much lower source retention than reading books does and now I can't find where I read this. But the author was talking about the tales of a Saint that were widely believed and the stories were incredible and easily falsifiable, something about killing monsters that attacked. But I can't find it. But you are right the way people accepted often within the lifetime but certainly soon after incredible stories of miracles counters Jason's argument. I don't understand why he believes he can prove something in this way anyhow, it's just not a logical or legitimate argument.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by jar, posted 08-30-2004 2:48 PM jar has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 53 of 76 (138201)
08-30-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jasonb
08-30-2004 11:35 AM


If I did that then I would spend the rest of my time in this thread defending my examples. And I am not really interested in doing that.
Simply take some time and read the Lives of the Saints and you will see example after example of such acts.
I am more interested in the claims made about Jesus and if 70 years is enough time for a legend to form.
Fine Jason. You are interested in repeating what you tell yourself to confirm your faith. You aren't interested in defending your assertions. Jar's example demolishes your claim so you won't condenscend to check it out. Troll away, I've had it with you, bye.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jasonb, posted 08-30-2004 11:35 AM Jasonb has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 70 of 76 (139838)
09-04-2004 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Phat
09-02-2004 2:14 PM


Re: Mythical Jesus Synopsis by Phatboy
Phatboy,
When you don't reply directly to the post, the poster, in this case, myself, doesn't get an email notification of your reply and reading your post I don't know which post of mine you are referring to. Please don't do group replies it's too confusing. Reply to each post you wish to individualy so that
1. the poster gets notification and
2. the poster can easily find the post you are referring to.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Phat, posted 09-02-2004 2:14 PM Phat has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 71 of 76 (139842)
09-04-2004 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Phat
09-02-2004 2:14 PM


Re: Mythical Jesus Synopsis by Phatboy
So why do people like myself believe in this one particular story?
Though not on topic I think that is a very good question. (Perhaps you would like to propose it for a new thread?) To state it in it's general form:
Why does someone like X believe in this one particular story Y?
Where Y could be Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, even Communism, and so on and on and on.
This is a subset of why does some one person X like product Y? Where the product could be Coca Cola, Pepsi Cola, etc, or Ford or Dodge, or this football team, or that.
Is Coca Cola the "Real Thing"? Lots of people like it, buy it, and drink it. But then Pepsi Cola is doing real well also.
It's been decades since I read James' THE VARIETY OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, but I was very impressed with his examination of different personality types and the differing approaches to religion.
I will close this with the observation/assertion that religious and other beliefs are adopted for a wide variety of reasons and the truth of those beliefs, particularly in the case of religious beliefs that can't be proven, has nothing to do with the choice. The choosing will create the "feeling" or belief that the religion is truth. It's a consequence of believing not a cause.
Having said that Iwill also state that I think there are benefits and positive effects to religious beliefs along with the possibilities of drawbacks.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Phat, posted 09-02-2004 2:14 PM Phat has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 72 of 76 (139850)
09-04-2004 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Phat
09-03-2004 10:34 AM


Re: Mythical Jesus Synopsis by Phatboy
Phat,
Have you heard of Bridey Murphy? It was a book that showed the evidence for reincarnation. A young woman had been hypnotized and recalled a previous life in Ireland as a Bridey Murphy. Well an investigator finally explored her background and she grew up knowing an older Irish woman. It wasn't a case of fraud but her knowledge of events didn't show she had lived in Ireland in a previous life time. It showed that there can be a lot of stuff stored in our brains that we no longer have direct access to.
Being born and raised in a culture dominated by european culture then there is lots of exposure to bibical material and also Shakespeare. They have entered into the language and culture. I don't think there is anything supernatural here. It is a rare phenomena as that is what I mean by "miraculous". Most people die of cancer X, but a certain small percentage experience spontaneous remission. That is a non supernatural, in fact, quite natural miracle. If I go down and buy a lottery ticket and win a million dollars that is miraculous as I stood an extremely small chance of winning. But it isn't supernatural because sooner or later someone wins the lottery.
Religions will have greater appeal than psychology to many people. And if it works for you then that's great. It is the effectiveness not the truth of religions that maintain them. It was the effectiveness of the christian religion not it's historical truth that resulted in its continuance. But it is not the only effective religion. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, and so on all are effective.
Hmmm, another interesting thread might be using the theory of evolution to examine the evolution of religions and make parallels.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Phat, posted 09-03-2004 10:34 AM Phat has not replied

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 75 of 76 (140189)
09-05-2004 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Phat
09-05-2004 1:46 PM


Re: Mythical Jesus Synopsis by Phatboy
Phat,
There is in Indian Religion a hierarchical way of looking at these experiences. One aspect of Hinduism is the bhakti or devotion to God which is often an ecstatic path. Hinduism, certainly to westerners, appears to be polytheistic with quite a number of gods, but the multiplicity of appearance is just an appearance. Devotion to a god is only a path in spiritual developement leading to a realization of the One non dual reality. For a Hindu Jesus, or the Holy Spirit are authentic ways of experiencing God and a path to the final knowledge which lies beyond dualism.
From what you've written I think you may see a certain kind of sense in that.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Phat, posted 09-05-2004 1:46 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Phat, posted 09-06-2004 2:59 AM lfen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024