Charlies dodgy influence strikes again

[Flosshilde]

There is no evidence that Prince Charles dresses himself in the morning and yet by lunchtime most days there's plentiful evidence of his being dressed.

I wonder if the Emperor (of New Clothes fame) worked on the homoeopathic principle for his wardrobe - reducing the actual fabric to such an extent that there was none left, but retaining the memory of his suit.

[Pabmusic]

...Most scholars, even atheists, accept that many of the gospel writings fit historical patterns of accurate reporting.

But what does “many of the gospel writings fit historical patterns of accurate reporting” actually mean, Simon? That they are in the style of accurate reports? That wouldn’t tell us that they were true, which I suspect is what is at the back of it all.

The fact is that there is no contemporary account to support any of the Gospel stories, or of any of the Gospel characters, save those whose main role was unconnected with Christianity, such as Herod and Pontius Pilate. There were historians around, most notable of whom was perhaps the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (notable because of a deep interest in Jewish biblical history). He was born well before Jesus and died twenty years after him, but he never made one reference to him in a huge body of work.

The only known references to Jesus from someone who was not a Christian are two short passages from the huge Jewish history written by Josephus Flavius, a Jew from Jerusalem. His wrings date from about 93 CE (AD), but we don’t have the original, only later copies. The trouble is that both passages use language that no 1st-Century Jew would have used but that early Christians did. “Messiah” was a holy name no Jew would have written, “wise man” was a Christian, not Jewish, term for Jesus in the early centuries. Also, the passages were discovered by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 4th Century, who is known to have forged other material about Jesus. The opinion of ‘most scholars’ (outside the fundamentalist churches) is that they are forgeries inserted into Flavius’s writings.

The earliest surviving fragment of the New Testament is a short passage from Stephen that is dated to about 70 CE. The original versions of all four gospels are lost. There is a good case made for an earlier gospel, known as Q, from which the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke originate, but that is lost too. None of the gospels purports to be by an eye-witness (people are often surprised by this, but it is so). Among the many early versions of the Gospels that survive there are known later interpolations.

One example is Mark 16: 9-20. The earliest versions end at verse 8. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome have found the tomb empty. A young man clothed in white says that Jesus is not there, and tells them tell the disciples that he has gone to Galilee and will appear there. But the women run off and tell no-one, because they are afraid. That is where Mark’s Gospel ended. After the 4th Century, someone added the last 12 verses, which tell of Jesus’s appearances. He sends the disciples into the world to teach the Gospel, saying that believers will be saved and unbelievers damned. He says that “in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover”. Then he ascended into heaven.

These appalling verses are responsible each year for the deaths of several fundamentalist pastors from snake bites (if they die, it’s because they didn’t believe strongly enough, not because they were handling venomous snakes). And it’s all based on a later text that doesn’t appear in the very earliest versions.

One that surprises many is that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8: 3-11) is also a 9th Century interpolation. It doesn’t appear in any of the early versions at all.

Then there’s the issue of inconsistencies. When was Jesus born? Matthew tells us that King Herod the Great was alive at the time of Jesus’s birth (the massacre of the innocents and, indeed, the tale of Salome depend on it). The accepted dates for Herod are 74/3 BCE-4BCE (there are good records, both Jewish and Roman), four years earlier than convention has it, but that is allowable. The problem is the second Christmas story, found in Luke 2: 1-5, where we are told that Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was governor of Syria when Caesar Augustus decreed a census that meant Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary had to travel to Bethlehem.

We know that Cyrenius could not have carried out this census before 6 CE, because he didn’t become governor of Syria till then (he held it till 12 CE). Therefore Jesus was born either before Herod died in 6 BCE, or after Cyrenius became governor of Syria ten years later.

Despite all this, Jesus may well have existed, but later writings dating from well after his death cannot provide evidence. And it is very difficult to support the contention that “many of the gospel writings fit historical patterns of accurate reporting”, let alone that "most scholars" support it.

[amateur51]

But what does “many of the gospel writings fit historical patterns of accurate reporting” actually mean, Simon? That they are in the style of accurate reports? That wouldn’t tell us that they were true, which I suspect is what is at the back of it all.

The fact is that there is no contemporary account to support any of the Gospel stories, or of any of the Gospel characters, save those whose main role was unconnected with Christianity, such as Herod and Pontius Pilate. There were historians around, most notable of whom was perhaps the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (notable because of a deep interest in Jewish biblical history). He was born well before Jesus and died twenty years after him, but he never made one reference to him in a huge body of work.

The only known references to Jesus from someone who was not a Christian are two short passages from the huge Jewish history written by Josephus Flavius, a Jew from Jerusalem. His wrings date from about 93 CE (AD), but we don’t have the original, only later copies. The trouble is that both passages use language that no 1st-Century Jew would have used but that early Christians did. “Messiah” was a holy name no Jew would have written, “wise man” was a Christian, not Jewish, term for Jesus in the early centuries. Also, the passages were discovered by Eusebius of Caesarea in the early 4th Century, who is known to have forged other material about Jesus. The opinion of ‘most scholars’ (outside the fundamentalist churches) is that they are forgeries inserted into Flavius’s writings.

The earliest surviving fragment of the New Testament is a short passage from Stephen that is dated to about 70 CE. The original versions of all four gospels are lost. There is a good case made for an earlier gospel, known as Q, from which the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke originate, but that is lost too. None of the gospels purports to be by an eye-witness (people are often surprised by this, but it is so). Among the many early versions of the Gospels that survive there are known later interpolations.

One example is Mark 16: 9-20. The earliest versions end at verse 8. Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome have found the tomb empty. A young man clothed in white says that Jesus is not there, and tells them tell the disciples that he has gone to Galilee and will appear there. But the women run off and tell no-one, because they are afraid. That is where Mark’s Gospel ended. After the 4th Century, someone added the last 12 verses, which tell of Jesus’s appearances. He sends the disciples into the world to teach the Gospel, saying that believers will be saved and unbelievers damned. He says that “in my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover”. Then he ascended into heaven.

These appalling verses are responsible each year for the deaths of several fundamentalist pastors from snake bites (if they die, it’s because they didn’t believe strongly enough, not because they were handling venomous snakes). And it’s all based on a later text that doesn’t appear in the very earliest versions.

One that surprises many is that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8: 3-11) is also a 9th Century interpolation. It doesn’t appear in any of the early versions at all.

Then there’s the issue of inconsistencies. When was Jesus born? Matthew tells us that King Herod the Great was alive at the time of Jesus’s birth (the massacre of the innocents and, indeed, the tale of Salome depend on it). The accepted dates for Herod are 74/3 BCE-4BCE (there are good records, both Jewish and Roman), four years earlier than convention has it, but that is allowable. The problem is the second Christmas story, found in Luke 2: 1-5, where we are told that Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was governor of Syria when Caesar Augustus decreed a census that meant Joseph and his pregnant wife Mary had to travel to Bethlehem.

We know that Cyrenius could not have carried out this census before 6 CE, because he didn’t become governor of Syria till then (he held it till 12 CE). Therefore Jesus was born either before Herod died in 6 BCE, or after Cyrenius became governor of Syria ten years later.

Despite all this, Jesus may well have existed, but later writings dating from well after his death cannot provide evidence. And it is very difficult to support the contention that “many of the gospel writings fit historical patterns of accurate reporting”, let alone that "most scholars" support it.

Bravo Pabs! Full of admiration for your erudition, here. I just hope that you get a worthy reply

[MrGongGong]

waiting a long time for almost nothing to happen may be all very well but it's not what I usually want from a musical experience...

aaah but it's not "waiting" it's "being"

[Flosshilde]

But what does “many of the gospel writings fit historical patterns of accurate reporting” actually mean, Simon? That they are in the style of accurate reports? That wouldn’t tell us that they were true, which I suspect is what is at the back of it all.

...

Despite all this, Jesus may well have existed, but later writings dating from well after his death cannot provide evidence. And it is very difficult to support the contention that “many of the gospel writings fit historical patterns of accurate reporting”, let alone that "most scholars" support it.

I'll echo ams' 'bravo'.

[MrGongGong]

I'll echo ams' 'bravo'.

(but I expect there will be some "logic" that suggests otherwise )

[scottycelt]

Pab, I'm no historian but surely inconsistencies in reporting a story have been with us since time immemorial and do not in themselves cause doubt in the main story ...?.

We may have different stories of what happened to Richard III's body after he was killed but nobody really doubts that he was killed merely because of these inconsistencies? Even the site of the Battle of Bosworth is disputed by some, so would we then conclude the actual battle may never have actually occurred? In an ironic sort of way such inconsistencies are rather reassuring as these tend to disprove any 'conspiracy theory'.

Searching the free and open evidence provided in WIKI seems to be pretty conclusive.

The telling sentence here is ...<Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,^[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted>

That does not prove in itself the complete accuracy or not of any later writings ( the lack of contemporary records may be explained by initial persecution of Christians) but it does surely establish Jesus as a recognised historical figure by 'virtually all modern scholars' and hopefully may allay some of your doubts?

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

Hope this response is even half as worthy as those of Ams & Floss ...

[Pikaia]

On April 30th 1945 Hitler committed suicide. The following day Doenitz announced that Hitler had died the same day, May 1st, fighting the enemy alongside his troops. So when people have an agenda the truth cannot be expected to survive one day, let alone several decades. That is one reason why we should be highly suspicious of the gospels.

[MrGongGong]

and even more of homeopaths

[tony yyy]

The only known references to Jesus from someone who was not a Christian are two short passages from the huge Jewish history written by Josephus Flavius, a Jew from Jerusalem. His wrings date from about 93 CE (AD), but we don’t have the original, only later copies.

Although it doesn't really affect the argument, I think it's only fair to point out that we only have later copies for the vast majority of the ancient texts which have survived. According to Wikipedia, the earliest surviving Greek manuscript of The Antiquities dates from the 11th century and I don't think this is particularly late as manuscripts of ancient texts go. I think we'd only have "the original" if it turned up on papyri from, e.g., the excavated rubbish dumps of Egypt.

Regarding homeopathy, again it doesn't prove or disprove anything but I can't resist sharing this with those who haven't seen it before: http://www.interhomeopathy.org/tritu...ight_of_saturn

[Julien Sorel]

One that surprises many is that the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8: 3-11) is also a 9th Century interpolation. It doesn’t appear in any of the early versions at all.

Very interesting post, thanks . This detail only occurred me because not having your knowledge I had to have recourse to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_a...en_in_adultery (not the first time ); the links are interesting (sadly "The Pericope de Adultera Homepage Site dedicated to proving that the passage is authentic, with links to a wide range of scholarly published material on both sides about all aspects of this text, and dozens of new articles" is a broken link).

There doesn't seem to be much support for this http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult-hills.html - but it would seem a curious text for a 9th century interpolation. I'd not have thought 9th century Christianity was an especially forgiving or non-misogynistic environment (in other words, I wonder why someone would have added that of all narrative details?)

[MrGongGong]

Regarding homeopathy, again it doesn't prove or disprove anything but I can't resist sharing this with those who haven't seen it before: http://www.interhomeopathy.org/tritu...ight_of_saturn

Wonderful stuff

what a great website
I love this one

http://www.interhomeopathy.org/great-lakes-proving-of-tv-emanation

[eighthobstruction]

Wonderful stuff

....it is amazing that a probably intelligent being wrote that Interhomeopathy stuff....reminds me of a freind who bought a kit and instructions off the internet whereby you put water into a bowl and sincerely offered it to various spirits during a ritual(like an Eagle Spirit ) and thereby obtained water with healing properties....

Meanwhile Charlie still gets away with his inflential lobbying....

[Pabmusic]

Pab, I'm no historian but surely inconsistencies in reporting a story have been with us since time immemorial and do not in themselves cause doubt in the main story ...?. Early persecution of Christians can explain lack of contemporary records of particular events.

We may have different stories of what happened to Richard III's body after he was killed but nobody really doubts that he was killed merely because of these inconsistencies? Even the site of the Battle of Bosworth is disputed by some, so would we then conclude the actual battle may never have actually occurred? In an ironic sort of way such inconsistencies are rather reassuring as these tend to disprove any 'conspiracy theory'.

Searching the free and open evidence provided in WIKI seems to be pretty conclusive.

The telling sentence here is ...<Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,^[1][2][3][4] and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted>****

That does not prove in itself the complete accuracy or not of any later writings ( the lack of contemporary records may be explained by initial persecution of Christians) but it does surely establish Jesus as a recognised historical figure by 'virtually all modern scholars' and hopefully may allay some of your doubts?

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

Hope this response is even half as worthy as those of Ams & Floss ...

Your response is fine, Scotty. It remains the case that there is no contemporary account of Jesus's existence, the two sources quoted in the Wiki article are Josephus (who I wrote about in my original post, and who didn't write his account until about 93 CE) and Tacitus, who mentions Jesus's execution during the second century. I mentioned Philo of Alexandria as a possible contemporary source, but there were others. Justus of Tiberius was a Galilean author born at about the time of Jesus's death who might have been expected to mention him, given the nature of many of his writings; he doesn't. Neither does Pliny the Elder, who was a scientist writing on a range of topics, but not the earthquakes following the crucifixion (or indeed the dead walking). But lack of evidence cannot be evidence of non-existence, and I did say that Jesus may well have existed. It's just that there's no contemporary evidence.

You are on very thin ice when you say "surely inconsistencies in reporting a story have been with us since time immemorial and do not in themselves cause doubt in the main story". Yes, true witnesses do have inconsistencies between their statements - it's something that gives them the 'ring of truth' - but there's inconsistencies and inconsistencies. I gave just one of perhaps a thousand or more inconsistencies. How did Judas die? - by hanging himself [Matthew 27: 5] or by falling headlong and bursting asunder so that his bowels spilled out [Acts 1:18]? Was Jesus a descendant of David through Joseph [Matthew] or Mary [Luke]? And if through Joseph, then how? Who found the empty tomb (I won't go through the accounts here, but they are each different in the identity of the finder or finders, the circumstances of the finding and what happened after that)?

These are not insignificant matters that can be glossed over easily. I am not saying that there should be complete agreement, but I do think there are serious problems when accounts are actually in conflict with each other. The Bible is believed by many to be the inspired word of God; it is a pity that an omnipotent being could not have ensured more consistency.

****[Be a little wary of statements like these. Many such scholars (most of the earlier ones) are or were Christians seeking to prove the truth of the biblical accounts. To accept their views uncritically would be as useful as to accept uncritically the writings of an avowed anti-theist seeking to disprove the accounts. Fortunately there are many scholars who act in a disinterested way. Bart Ehrman is one and he seems to believe Jesus existed. Although the fact (if it is that) of Jesus's existence says nothing about whether any of the things attributed to him are true.]

[Flosshilde]

Regarding homeopathy, again it doesn't prove or disprove anything but I can't resist sharing this with those who haven't seen it before: http://www.interhomeopathy.org/tritu...ight_of_saturn

One of the comments sums it up -
Your testing method assumes that the "remedy" has a beneficial effect and you are merely recording the results. This entire "study" is crap scientifically, in that you never run a blind test to determine if a telescope can change the chemical makeup of a substance in the first place. This is just crazy.

Of course, there's no response (it was posted in August 2012 - plenty of time for the author of the article to respond)