Book Review: The Myth of Nazareth

[Digit]

Otherwise, its the same old story. Religious writings are claimed to be factual by believers who murder anyone who dares disagree.

That's true! But can that be taken as proof that they did not exist?
Isn't it rather easier to consider on balance that somewhere in there was a real man?

Roy.

[Minimalist]

but we take the Arthurian writings to find out if there was a man behind them.

We do so at our peril. There are Roman records of a Lucius Artorius Castus, too. Coincidence? Maybe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Artorius_Castus


As far as Alfred goes we have far more recent examples of legends of specific deeds growing up about actual people. Within 20 years of his death the nonsense about George Washington never telling a lie or throwing a silver dollar across the Potomac had already grown up.

[Minimalist]

Isn't it rather easier to consider on balance that somewhere in there was a real man?

Does that matter, though?


Was there a Yeshua bar Yosef in first century Palestine? There were probably 100 of them. These were both common names. Is it the name they worship or the deeds? Odds are that at least one Yeshua bar Yosef was a camel-jockey on the Arabian caravan routes. So what? Was there one who was a rebel? We never hear about him. Was there one who was a teacher or philosopher? Philo of Alexandria mentions no such person. Was one executed by Praefect Pontius Pilate? Again, our only sources are those with a vested interest in telling the story. A praefect did have the power to execute but crucifixion was normally reserved for rebellious slaves. The gospels do not claim that Jesus was a slave. They do not claim he was a "rebel." Under normal circumstances mere criminals were punished in the arena. Yet....we are told differently and it is more "special pleading" if you want my opinion.

I can only assume that the name "Mohammad" (or its 7th century equivalent) was equally common. Mohammad is a slightly different case. Edgar Cayce-like he falls asleep and dreams that "god" talks to him. He does not claim to be god and his followers do not worship him as god. What can one make of this story? God is shy? He doesn't like crowds? The most effective way this omnipotent being can think of to get his word out is to tell one asshole about it in his dreams?

I picked a fight with a couple of muslims over on one of my atheism boards a while back. In essence, I asked them why they weren't Mormons? After all, they had no trouble accepting that c 630 BC 'god' had decided to issue new instructions so why couldn't he have issued a product update to Joseph Smith in 1830? Call it God Ver. 1.4. They started with the 'death to those who insult Islam' shit and promptly got banned.

Touchy bastards.

[Digit]

Touchy bastards.

Tch! Tch!
Before we get lost in the minutiae my point is in no way religious.
It's this.
Do you only accept that a person existed if corroborative evidence has survived the passage of time?
As regards GW that is my point from earlier. You cannot discount a person's existence just 'cos some nut wrote fanciful stories about them. In the case of GW you have to look past the BS to find the man.
That is ALL I am saying about Jesus.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

You see, Dig, it depends on the writing. Rhett Butler is a character in Gone With The Wind but no amount of studying or parsing words is going to turn him into a real person instead of a fictional character.

Here's another example:

http://www.bible-history.com/black-obel ... syria.html



Shalmaneser of Assyria tangles with a coalition of Canaanite states in which he specifically mentions Ahab the Israelite. He claims Ahab has 10,000 soldiers and 2,000 chariots! These numbers are patently absurd to the point where knocking off the last zero might be reasonable. Nonetheless, in spite of the inflation of his adversary's army (always a good way to glorify yourself!) it is reasonable to conclude that Ahab was an actual king of Israel and a member of that coalition.

This is not an "either/or" situation. Shalmaneser (or Caesar) would have every incentive to overstate the strength of his opponent but why lie about the name which presumably everyone in both armies knew?

[Digit]

The Rhett Butler scenario Min starts from the understanding that the character is fictitious, so ipso facto there can be no evidence of existence. Let us instead assume that he was a real person and that you refuse to believe it, then without independent evidence your argument runs that he did not exist.
A bit like assuming that Pilate was a myth so no amount of reading can change what is a fact.
Not logical I'm afraid my friend.
I actually started from the belief that Jesus was a myth.

Roy.

[Minimalist]

The Rhett Butler scenario Min starts from the understanding that the character is fictitious

And the Jesus was real scenario starts from the understanding that he was real. In the case of Gone With The Wind we know that it is a novel. Butler may have been a composite character developed from the deeds of several blockade runners but it still does not make HIM real. Religion asks us to assume that its texts are "factual." I simply can't do that without compelling evidence.

The problem comes in to how far down are you willing to cut the tree? Which parts are unbelievable? I've already agreed that there would have been many people bearing that name. It isn't the name that matters. Do you accept resurrection? Virgin birth? Water to wine? Turn the other cheek? Do unto others? There is nothing new in any of that? Other gods had been pulling the same tricks. Greek philosophy covered many of the same ideas. Why should we believe that any of what the christians claim is true?

[Digit]

Religion asks us to assume that its texts are "factual."

I'm not though Min. My argument has nothing to do with religion, simply is the availability of independent evidence a pre-requisite for a person's existence.
The answer has logically to be no.
Your view would have said some years ago that Pilate was fictional. Then in 1961 solid evidence was found. That altered not one iota whether he had lived or not, he either did or he didn't.
If Jesus existed and nothing what so ever was heard of him he would still have existed! Writing rubbish about him cannot cause him to disappear if he had lived.
Did the Moslems take out a contract or will they simply leave it to Allah. You're doomed!!!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Then in 1961 solid evidence was found.

Josephus and Philo both wrote of Pilate. They pre-date 1961.

[Digit]

Josephus and Philo both wrote of Pilate. They pre-date 1961.

And then of course critics only accept those part of their writings that they wish to.
Most scholars consider Josephus at least to be somwhat questionable.
And that dodged my question!!!!
Frankly I don't especially care whether he lived or not, I simply think that to deny his possible existance on the basis of writings that were in many cases edited is not logical. I can see GW going the same way in a couple of thousand years!
If you manage to talk to some of these Moslems without upsetting them ask them why an all seeing omnipitent being requires human agents to wreak his vengeance.
These terrorists keep getting caught, so either Allah is not on their side or he is not omnipitent. Then you'll probably get another death threat!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

Your view would have said some years ago that Pilate was fictional.

The problem with that is that at the time before Josephus and Philo were translated and widely known in the West it would have merited a heretic's fire to have maintained that Pilate was fictional.

I see this whole issue as no different than Atlantis. An ancient writer invents something and people today assume, with almost religious fervor, that it must be true. It doesn't. Plato wrote dialogues to make his points. Were those people real or characters? Ancient historians invented "speeches" to put in the mouths of their characters. Were the speeches real? We can't even be sure that the people who gave them were real.

I used to get this from Arch all the time. "You believe every word of Caesar, why not Jesus," and its a strawman argument because Caesar wrote political documents designed to make himself look good to the Roman masses. No one in their right mind would accept Caesar's accounts as a totally factual telling of what happened in Gaul or the Civil War.

[Minimalist]

Did the Moslems take out a contract or will they simply leave it to Allah. You're doomed!!!

I'm not sure. They were gone and a mod told me they were banned for threatening other members. My guess is that there will be a fatwa out against Minimalist. C'est la vie!

[Minimalist]

I can see I'm going to have to do this differently. Getting too weird.

And then of course critics only accept those part of their writings that they wish to.

Believers do that to. They will shout from the rooftops that homosexuals should be killed and then ignore the parts of their bible that also require violators of the sabbath and disobedient children to be killed also. Human nature, there.

Most scholars consider Josephus at least to be somwhat questionable.

Including me...although when Josephus is not praising his patrons or covering up his own awful conduct we have seen that archaeology does support at least the grand design of his tale. Can we rely upon the details? Certainly not....but that is true of every ancient historian.

And that dodged my question!!!!
Frankly I don't especially care whether he lived or not, I simply think that to deny his possible existance on the basis of writings that were in many cases edited is not logical. I can see GW going the same way in a couple of thousand years!

I didn't mean to dodge it. But religious writings are a different genre. They serve a different purpose. They were designed for a different audience. Again, we come back to if Christian writings can be used to sustain a historical Jesus why can't Greek writings sustain a historical Zeus? The Christians would be the first to object to that line of reasoning because their boy is "different."

If you manage to talk to some of these Moslems without upsetting them ask them why an all seeing omnipitent being requires human agents to wreak his vengeance.
These terrorists keep getting caught, so either Allah is not on their side or he is not omnipitent. Then you'll probably get another death threat!

Roy.

I suppose for the same reason the good Christians shoot abortion doctors. They convince themselves that they are god's chosen instrument. Sounds like mental illness to me but it does seem pervasive in the Muslim world.

[Digit]

Min, you keep coming back to religion. Forget it!Forget Jesus.
Person X, he lives, works, raises a family, he dies.
Fifty years later somebody writes that he could could fly, walk under water and a killed a Dragon.
Your argument seems to run that that writing proves he never existed.
I find that illogical. Sorry!

Roy.

[Minimalist]

But, Roy, the only data we have is that "somebody writes that he could could fly, walk under water and a killed a Dragon."


The supposition that there is a real person under the myth is simply that, a supposition. Would it be noteworthy if all a person did was "he lives, works, raises a family, he dies." I doubt it. Most of the humans who ever walked the earth fall into that category.

When you get into a situation where you base a religion on such a person and then use it to kill millions of people throughout the years I submit that it becomes a slightly different thing.

For the 3d time, I've agreed that there could easily have been 100 people bearing that name. So what? It isn't the name that is important it is the deeds (miracles) and those deeds are unattested anywhere except in the writings of proponents of the doctrine.

The phrase "one lies and the other swears to it" thus rises, uncalled upon, to my consciousness.... but then again, I am a cynic!