The Ethno-Zionist-Revisionism-Old Testament-Bashing Megathread

[Siege]

I got science, dog. Me knows ballistics.

[CountDeMoney]

I have always found it interesting that Europeans consistently display bigger hang-ups over religion than the America they accuse of having such hang-ups over religion.

[Berkut]

You are mixing tons of different shit here. First of all, the ancient Egyptian period is a completely different animal than Roman period around the times of Spartacus and Jesus - the latter having numerous historians and the concept of history as a field of study. Spartacus' rebellion is well documented by Plutarch and Livius, both of whom were scientific historians. There are no primary sources concerning Jesus (as I already said, the only part of the Bible that is a primary source are the letters in the NT, and Paul never met Jesus - the gospels were all written decades after Jesus's alleged death and they were religious, not history texts).

Uh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians".   They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources.  Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented".  There are no primary sources.  You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period.  For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.

And keep in mind that in modern times up until the 1860s most historians considered Troy to be a pure myth, i.e., that Homer made the whole thing up.  Despite what Marti seems to think, there are still huge holes in our historical knowledge of Classical Greece and Rome (though he is correct in saying that those times are much better documented than prior eras).  Heck, there are events much later then Classical Rome that we have minimal documentation about.

As noted above, Pontius Pilate - a much more significant figure in his own day than Jesus, bering the official in charge of an entire Roman province - has exactly one contemporary non-Biblical bit of evidence for his existence: a stone dedicating an ampetheatre in Israel.

This is a good example of how we evaluate history.

There is little evidence that Pilate existed. Should historians then conclude that he did not, and that biblical accounts of him are false?

I don't think so - there is evidence he existed. The bible says he existed. The bible is a relatively poor source of historical information, but given the lack of *0ther* contradicting sources, and given that there is no reason for the bible to actually make him up, it is rather reasonable to tentatively conclude that there was some guy who was in charge of the relevant province around that time with that name, and he likely was involved in whatever trial and execution the Jesus story was based on. Simply because there isn't much reason to believe that the people who wrote the bible would make it up.

History is about picking the "best" solution, the most likely story out of the available evidence. Sometimes there is no evidence at all, and we cannot say anything. Other times there is poor evidence, or evidence that is not backed up by other sources, so we are forced to make conclusions that we know are not well supported. That is fine, as long as we understand that just because two different stories are considered to be the most likely story, that doesn't mean they are both equally well supported.

[Martinus]

I agree, Berkut. The historical existence of Jesus is irrelevant to the message he is ascribed. It's only fundies who insist that he is a historical figure - which obviously prompts anti-fundies to show that this is not as clear as they say.

[Malthus]

You are mixing tons of different shit here. First of all, the ancient Egyptian period is a completely different animal than Roman period around the times of Spartacus and Jesus - the latter having numerous historians and the concept of history as a field of study. Spartacus' rebellion is well documented by Plutarch and Livius, both of whom were scientific historians. There are no primary sources concerning Jesus (as I already said, the only part of the Bible that is a primary source are the letters in the NT, and Paul never met Jesus - the gospels were all written decades after Jesus's alleged death and they were religious, not history texts).

Uh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians".   They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources.  Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented".  There are no primary sources.  You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period.  For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.

And keep in mind that in modern times up until the 1860s most historians considered Troy to be a pure myth, i.e., that Homer made the whole thing up.  Despite what Marti seems to think, there are still huge holes in our historical knowledge of Classical Greece and Rome (though he is correct in saying that those times are much better documented than prior eras).  Heck, there are events much later then Classical Rome that we have minimal documentation about.

As noted above, Pontius Pilate - a much more significant figure in his own day than Jesus, bering the official in charge of an entire Roman province - has exactly one contemporary non-Biblical bit of evidence for his existence: a stone dedicating an ampetheatre in Israel.

This is a good example of how we evaluate history.

There is little evidence that Pilate existed. Should historians then conclude that he did not, and that biblical accounts of him are false?

I don't think so - there is evidence he existed. The bible says he existed. The bible is a relatively poor source of historical information, but given the lack of *0ther* contradicting sources, and given that there is no reason for the bible to actually make him up, it is rather reasonable to tentatively conclude that there was some guy who was in charge of the relevant province around that time with that name, and he likely was involved in whatever trial and execution the Jesus story was based on. Simply because there isn't much reason to believe that the people who wrote the bible would make it up.

History is about picking the "best" solution, the most likely story out of the available evidence. Sometimes there is no evidence at all, and we cannot say anything. Other times there is poor evidence, or evidence that is not backed up by other sources, so we are forced to make conclusions that we know are not well supported. That is fine, as long as we understand that just because two different stories are considered to be the most likely story, that doesn't mean they are both equally well supported.

True enough - I am of the opinion that the better view is that there was a real "historical Jesus", for a couple of reasons - having a religious reformer raise a ruckus in Jerusalem and be executed for it was hardly unusual for that time and place, and it makes more sense to me that the Biblical account be based on a real person, than made up out of nothing. When you remove the supernatural elements and the obvious myth-making, the basic story is not at all unlikely - religious reformer gathers a group of followers, goes to Jerusalem, makes a scene, gets executed.

That said, the account in the Bible is of course significantly mythologized - with different factions among Early Christians apparently manipulating the account to gain legitimacy for their own contemporary position (this can be seen in the fact that many different gospels were created, and some were expressly rejected from the Christian canon - most notably, the Gospel of Thomas).

Some of the mythology has a very obvious purpose - for example, it would not do to make the Roman authorities out to be villanous, so Pilate has to be more or less forced into having Jesus executed against his inclinations (as if a Roman procounsel ever agonized over executing a trouble-making provincial religious nut.  ). In reality, if there was a historical Jesus, he was apparently not a really big deal - the Romans did not even bother to execute all his followers.

[Berkut]

True enough - I am of the opinion that the better view is that there was a real "historical Jesus", for a couple of reasons - having a religious reformer raise a ruckus in Jerusalem and be executed for it was hardly unusual for that time and place, and it makes more sense to me that the Biblical account be based on a real person, than made up out of nothing. When you remove the supernatural elements and the obvious myth-making, the basic story is not at all unlikely - religious reformer gathers a group of followers, goes to Jerusalem, makes a scene, gets executed.

Indeed - and frankly that is a more likely, a more Occum friendly explanation, for the meta-story...ie, let's answer the question "Why does the bible exist as it does?" rather than the question "Did Jesus exist".

If we want to conclude that Jesus was entirely made up, then...why? Why make up the entire story out of whole cloth? Do we see other examples of where siginficant religious movements are completely made up? We don't...with the notable exception of Scientology, which is really one of those "exceptions that prove the rule" since it was *specifically* made up out of whole cloth almost as an excercise in seeing if it could be done.

Is it possible that there was no Jesus of any kind in any meaningful way? Certainly.

But that doesn't strike me as the most likely explanation for the historical fact of the existence of the bible around the time it was written, and the rise of the largest religious movement in human history.

That said, the account in the Bible is of course significantly mythologized - with different factions among Early Christians apparently manipulating the account to gain legitimacy for their own contemporary position (this can be seen in the fact that many different gospels were created, and some were expressly rejected from the Christian canon - most notably, the Gospel of Thomas).

Indeed.

The better comparison, IMO, is to compare the Jesus story to the Joseph Smith/Mormon story.

There is no question that the man existed. There isn't even any debate about it. Does that mean that since we know he existed, then it is even slightly more reasonable to conclude that he had magic glasses and was visited by an angel? Not at all - the two are entirely separate issues, and the answer to the one has no bearing on the other at all.

Now, what about the historical evidence for the existence of the Nephites, as described in the Book of Mormon? Should we accept that they existed, or how should we evaluate the likelihood that they existed?

Well, we look at our source materials. There is only one - the Book of Mormon. We *know* THAT book was written long after the Nephites supposedly existed, and was written by someone who had no way of knowing *other than* supernatural revelation. This is entirely different in that our only source of "evidence" is both

1) Completely lacking in any kind of historical rigor or credibility, and
2) The historical information we DO have from archeology and such do not support their existence in any way.

Does that mean we can be certainly they did NOT exist? Not really, but their existence has no support, and the single source of information we have is entirely non-credible both from the standpoint of their motivation, but also from the standpoint that we know that the people who wrote it could not possibly have known anything about the time they were writing about.

Those who wrote about Jesus certainly share the credibility problem, in that we know that the biblical writers had an agenda. And they have part of the "knowledge" problem as well, in that they were mostly writing about something that they could not have witnessed. However, they were not so removed from their subject that their information is clearly completely made up - there would be oral accounts, and an already burgeoning Jesus mythology passed on through oral tradition for them to base their own written story on, and it is entirely reasonable for us to presume that is exactly what was happening.

Are we sure? Not at all. If someone invented a perfect way of finding the truth and we found out that the entire story was made up the way the Nephites were made up, that would not come as a stunning revelation to historians, I don't think. The historical existence of Jesus is pretty established, but still just tentatively so, since the data we have to work with is so limited. Any conclusion will necessarily be (relatively) tentative.

Some of the mythology has a very obvious purpose - for example, it would not do to make the Roman authorities out to be villanous, so Pilate has to be more or less forced into having Jesus executed against his inclinations (as if a Roman procounsel ever agonized over executing a trouble-making provincial religious nut.  ). In reality, if there was a historical Jesus, he was apparently not a really big deal - the Romans did not even bother to execute all his followers.

The book by that Muslim guy "Zealot" argues that Jesus existed, but he was simply one of many "messiah" type Jewish rebels. An interesting perspective certainly, and seems as plausible as many explanations.

[Sheilbh]

Uh, no. Plutarch and Livius were not "scientific historians".   They don't exactly have bibliographies and cite their sources.  Nor is what I'm talking about "well documented".  There are no primary sources.  You are also making distinction between religious texts and history that did not exist in the period.  For instance Livy starts out talking about the Trojan war and recounts the mythical beginning of the city including Romulus accession unto heaven.

I think you're mixing things up here though.

There was a difference between a religious and a historical text just like there was a difference between poetry and prose. They're different forms with different approaches and that's something that's always been true. Even a religious author attempting to write a historical text will approach it differently than writing a religious text.

However what was known of the past was often myths rather than recorded facts and what was known of the future certainly was. So historical writers in different periods incorporate religious ideas of the past and the present. That doesn't mean that there's no way of distinguishing between the two or that the ancient or non-Western world was just a giant blancmange of religion, myth and history.

The Gospel writers were, for the most part, not writing historical texts, similarly neither were the Pentateuch writers. Livy and Sima Qian and Plutarch wer writing history. While both of those categories may have lots in common the intention and approach is different and the way we should approach the text is also different.

Rather what IS likely is that Jesus, like David, existed on some fashion or another, and the myth of Jesus was created in order to advance an agenda long after he was gone.

Not that long. From what I've read most estimates have the Gospels all composed by the end of the first century. They probably weren't eye-witness accounts, but they're indicative of a wider oral tradition.

A useful comparison is Buddha who died around 500 years before the first texts that we have which are his discourses. But from what I know it's generally accepted that Buddha existed as a historical figure who preached and founded a monastic order. Again those texts often show similarities even though they're in different languages and different geographical areas which suggests there was a substantial shared oral heritage of Buddha's sayings.

Obviously it's from a profoundly Catholic point of view but I think Pope Benedict's biography of Jesus is really worth reading if you ever get the chance.  He writes quite interestingly on the 'historical' Christ.

I don't find the Jesus thing really very interesting. I think what is known about him, and what is not, is well understood by scholars. It is only the fundy religious who have any problems with the overall consensus about the "historical Jesus".

Surely the fundy atheists, no?

That said, the account in the Bible is of course significantly mythologized - with different factions among Early Christians apparently manipulating the account to gain legitimacy for their own contemporary position (this can be seen in the fact that many different gospels were created, and some were expressly rejected from the Christian canon - most notably, the Gospel of Thomas).

Such as the massacre of the innocents which fulfils prophecy so could well have been added.

[Razgovory]

I do not think the distinction between "religious" and "secular" existed at the time nor was history as written by Romans (or really anyone).  The historical method had yet to be devised.

[Razgovory]

I think Marty inadvertently demonstrated part of the problem I'm talking about when he stated something about "Scientific historians".  History isn't a science.  It's a method inquiry that is distinct from the Scientific method.  "What was Julius Caesar's first word?", is not a valid scientific question.  It's not a question that science can answer.  However, simply because science can't answer this question doesn't mean he didn't have a first word.  The man is recorded as speaking so logically one of his words would have to be first.

History as it is conducted today isn't a science, but that's by choice. You can do scientific history, if you're interested in actually learning something.

Only if you are a Marxist and you like to be wrong  Now history can be augmented by science, for instance with archeology,  but that doesn't make history a science.

[Berkut]

I don't find the Jesus thing really very interesting. I think what is known about him, and what is not, is well understood by scholars. It is only the fundy religious who have any problems with the overall consensus about the "historical Jesus".

Surely the fundy atheists, no?

Not that I've seen - the "fundy atheist" position in regards to a historical Jesus is largely a strawman. I don't actually know any atheists who hold the position that Jesus never existed in the absolute manner the fundies claim.

The position that sparks the entire debate is to note that there isn't much historical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the bible, and noting the shortcomings of the bible in the manner that scholars have and in the manner we have discussed as regards to it's use as a historical source. This inevitably results in the fundies or the anti-atheists to start going off about how atheists don't believe Jesus ever existed at all.

It is an easy shift, but a dishonest one.

[Sheilbh]

I though what sparked this all was Marty's bit about Americans never having heard of historians claiming Jesus never existed. Sure there are those who do, but it's a fringe position. The general consensus is that there was a historical Christ.

[The Brain]

I think Marty inadvertently demonstrated part of the problem I'm talking about when he stated something about "Scientific historians".  History isn't a science.  It's a method inquiry that is distinct from the Scientific method.  "What was Julius Caesar's first word?", is not a valid scientific question.  It's not a question that science can answer.  However, simply because science can't answer this question doesn't mean he didn't have a first word.  The man is recorded as speaking so logically one of his words would have to be first.

History as it is conducted today isn't a science, but that's by choice. You can do scientific history, if you're interested in actually learning something.

Only if you are a Marxist and you like to be wrong  Now history can be augmented by science, for instance with archeology,  but that doesn't make history a science.

Something tells me I know more about science than you do. Contemplate this on the tree of whoa!

[Razgovory]

I don't find the Jesus thing really very interesting. I think what is known about him, and what is not, is well understood by scholars. It is only the fundy religious who have any problems with the overall consensus about the "historical Jesus".

Surely the fundy atheists, no?

Not that I've seen - the "fundy atheist" position in regards to a historical Jesus is largely a strawman. I don't actually know any atheists who hold the position that Jesus never existed in the absolute manner the fundies claim.

The position that sparks the entire debate is to note that there isn't much historical evidence for the existence of Jesus outside the bible, and noting the shortcomings of the bible in the manner that scholars have and in the manner we have discussed as regards to it's use as a historical source. This inevitably results in the fundies or the anti-atheists to start going off about how atheists don't believe Jesus ever existed at all.

It is an easy shift, but a dishonest one.

You do know that Marty is posting in this thread right?  Also I posted a whole list of scholars that claim Jesus was entirely mythical, often from pagan sources.  We only have one Fundie here, and he doesn't believe in Jesus.

[Berkut]

The general consensus amongst historians, I think, is that there was certainly someone alive who inspired the Christ story, but that the details of his life and death are basically unknown almost completely.

This is NOT saying that Jesus did not exist...but it is putting the "historical Jesus" in a context that he becomes largely useless to Christians as a *historical* figure. The range of possibilities is so great as to the details around him that there is no utility to any religious arguments around what he did or did not do in a historical context.

This is pretty damning to fundy Christians who are wont to trot out things like "Lunatic, Liar, or Son of God" as actual arguments with atheists. So atheists point out the actual historical consensus that it is extremely unlikely that any human being that resembles the biblical Jesus existing in the fashion the bible describes. After all, the historical range of possibilities is very large, so the odds that the bible got more than the cursory details right are slim, so in that fashion one can say that the biblical Jesus probably never existed.

That *someone* existed that inspired the Jesus story is rather likely, IMO. That person could have been a married, violent  political radical who paid lip service to religion, for example. That is just as likely as the peaceful biblical Jesus. I think that reflects the historical consensus - not that he was anything in particular, but just that any particular description of the details is almost unknowable.

That is a pretty nuanced viewpoint compared to "Jesus never existed!". But of course that his how the debate is portrayed. Of course, I would also argue that that consensus is, for all practical religious purposes, nearly identical to the claim that he never really existed, since if you accept that view, you cannot give any credence that matters to the fundamentalist views of Christ. Which is, of course, what really pisses them off.

[Razgovory]

I think Marty inadvertently demonstrated part of the problem I'm talking about when he stated something about "Scientific historians".  History isn't a science.  It's a method inquiry that is distinct from the Scientific method.  "What was Julius Caesar's first word?", is not a valid scientific question.  It's not a question that science can answer.  However, simply because science can't answer this question doesn't mean he didn't have a first word.  The man is recorded as speaking so logically one of his words would have to be first.

History as it is conducted today isn't a science, but that's by choice. You can do scientific history, if you're interested in actually learning something.

Only if you are a Marxist and you like to be wrong  Now history can be augmented by science, for instance with archeology,  but that doesn't make history a science.

Something tells me I know more about science than you do. Contemplate this on the tree of whoa!

Well, that seems like a valid scientific question.  Maybe you should go work on it.