The Tide Turns

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I also agree that the tide is turning in an historical sense since at least the relaxation of the national and state laws of Blasphemy a century or two ago. Since that time there has been a gradual incoming tide of the freedom of expression in which authors express their opinions on the question of the historical existence of Jesus. The WIKI page entry for "Christ Myth" or "Jesus Myth" reasonably documents in a summary form the historical progress of the turning of this tide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory

Lenny Bruce once quipped about the turning tide as follows ... "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God".

Be well.


LC

Hi all,

An historian named Michael Paulkovich has just written a new book "No Meek Messiah". Here's a review: http://www.examiner.com/article/jesus-d ... historians. It claims that Jesus is (wait for it, drum roll...) a myth.

Now the fun begins.

I am wondering how long the Christian religion can last when rejected by historians as not based on historical facts. My guess is 50 years.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[Leucius Charinus]

It doesn't bother me. Christians have been making nonsensical arguments based on historical illiteracy for thousands of years.

What bothers me is that Christians (and what I mean by that is the historical leaders of, and their "Church Organisation") have also indulged for thousands of years in heresiology, hagiography, forgery, the fabrication of manuscripts and literary sources (including pseudo-historical accounts) in order to advance their claims to run the Christendom Corporation as a "Business as Usual" century after century. The turning of the tide is directly related to the Life Given Right to exercise the mind and intellect upon any given subject.

It is in essence one's freedom to exercise "Socrates critical thinking". But Constantine had been converted to the Christian or - perhaps more likely "Chrestian" religion and employed the CHI-RHO as his preferred symbol. Constantine warned against scepticism as early as the Council of Antioch ... "Socrates critical thinking is ... a menace to the state". Constantine saw to it that high magistrates of the city were tortured after the council for their religious fraud. Nobody was supposed to question anything, scepticism (like pagan social practices) was essentially prohibited.

According to Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, p.666

• "The postscript to his Oration at Antioch was to be rather more robust:
  torture of pagans "in authority in the city" so that they admitted religious fraud.

I see the claim made by experts in their field that we had to wait until the 18th century before human critical thinking became sceptical about the historical existence of Jesus. They make this claim upon a "total" absence of evidence in the literary evidence against their proposition.

I had a reaction to this. I disagreed with this claim. I thought it was a childish claim on the basis that the Greek authors were characterised by their display of scepticism ... the raised eyebrow. Socrates critical questioning.

I think that it is more reasonable to claim that the light of scepticism was always there, but it just got switched off for a while (by the sword, by censorship, by torture, by execution, etc). Finally when the laws of heresy and blasphemy relaxed in the 18th century, this light of scepticism returned.

So the tide turns.

Every 6 hours and 13 minutes :)

Be well



LC

[spin]

Unknown author.
Unknown publisher with only one book on record.
Crap title with over-the-top sub.
Exaggerated claims.
Smacks of self-published tripe.

The Daily Fishwrapper calls him a historian? My cat's also a historian.

You... merely appeal to authority,

Rubbish. You ignored the fact that I was criticizing the o.p. Jay was making mileage from a crap newspaper crediting someone as a historian to make an utterly silly comment: "I am wondering how long the Christian religion can last when rejected by historians as not based on historical facts." Note Jay's use of "historians" in that comment.

To me someone who has an accredited PhD in history from a recognized university has the prerequisite for a newspaper to call her (or him) a historian. The statement about "historians" rejecting christianity as "not based on historical facts" requires a collective of so accredited people to do the rejecting, not the ilk of some unknown self-publisher without qualifications.

Whether that unknown self-publisher has mustered the evidence to support such claims is irrelevant to Jay's o.p.

[Ulan]

Actually, I thought the title claim that the "tide turns" was meant to illustrate the fact that so-called "mythicists" get recognized by mainstream outlets in more than a completely dismissive way. The book this is hinged on is obviously not quite up to task, and any claim of disproving the historicity of Christ has principal methodological problems, but that still leaves us with the debate becoming more open. Although I'd rather have a better book as foundation for such a debate.

[maryhelena]

Actually, I thought the title claim that the "tide turns" was meant to illustrate the fact that so-called "mythicists" get recognized by mainstream outlets in more than a completely dismissive way. The book this is hinged on is obviously not quite up to task, and any claim of disproving the historicity of Christ has principal methodological problems, but that still leaves us with the debate becoming more open. Although I'd rather have a better book as foundation for such a debate.

Yes, that's the point here - it's the media attention the 'no Jesus' question is getting. And that media attention has been quite extraordinary - methinks Richard Carrier would love the attention.....Oh, well, maybe Richard would prefer academic/scholarly attention but whatever gets the topic aired can only be good. Joe Public needs to know there is a big debate going on...The Catholic establishment might have silenced Thomas Brodie but they can't silence this debate.

[MrMacSon]

Actually, I thought the title claim that the "tide turns" was meant to illustrate the fact that so-called "mythicists" get recognized by mainstream outlets in more than a completely dismissive way. The book this is hinged on is obviously not quite up to task, and any claim of disproving the historicity of Christ has principal methodological problems, but that still leaves us with the debate becoming more open. Although I'd rather have a better book as foundation for such a debate.

Also, there is a recent run of books similar. This book addresses on of the methodological problems of discerning a historic Jesus - the lack of contemporary or 1st C mentions of Jesus, but It also overstates that by including a lot of writers of the time who would not be expected to mention Jesus.

[John T]

Hi all,

An historian named Michael Paulkovich has just written a new book "No Meek Messiah". Here's a review: http://www.examiner.com/article/jesus-d ... historians. It claims that Jesus is (wait for it, drum roll...) a myth.

Now the fun begins.

I am wondering how long the Christian religion can last when rejected by historians as not based on historical facts. My guess is 50 years.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The true story of Jesus has been attacked as a hoax/myth from the very beginning and the truth of it still wins out.
I wonder how long the mythicist religion can last when rejected by historians because it ignores historical facts?
Perhaps someone should compare and contrast the New Testament to the mythicists and see which one is more reliable.
Oh wait, it has already been done by Bart D. Ehrhman in, "Did Jesus Exist?"

Never mind.

Warmly,
John T

[Ulan]

Oh wait, it has already been done attempted by Bart D. Ehrhman in, "Did Jesus Exist?", although he miserably failed at that task.

FIFY. The book is a clear example how the author took his task too lightly and then tried to weasel through the whole thing, with not much success. You should also be aware that most people here read it, and there's also a long thread dealing with its contents.

But I guess for someone who is not really interested in the topic and just wants to feed his confirmation bias, it's sufficient.

[bcedaifu]

To me someone who has an accredited PhD in history from a recognized university has the prerequisite for a newspaper to call her (or him) a historian.

what utter nonsense.

As far as I can tell, Paulkovich holds no academic appointment.

How sad, you are better than that, ficino.

At the age of 16, in 1895, Einstein wrote a paper titled: "On the Investigation of the State of the Ether in a Magnetic Field." I have never read it, and so, cannot comment on its quality, but my point in noting this document, is simple:

Absence of formal credentials is irrelevant, to assessing the merits of a written contribution to human enterprise.

"Folgerungen aus den Kapillaritätserscheinungen" was published by Einstein in 1901. He did not receive his Doctorate, until 1905, same year he published his four famous articles in Annalen der Physik.

Δίων Κάσσιος Κοκκηϊανός wrote Ῥωμαϊκὴ Ἱστορία in the third century CE. Do you reject his texts, based on his lack of a "Doctorate"?

"Rubbish". Spin, your definition of "a historian" is utter nonsense. Try again, this time omit, your exaggerated reverence for authority.

I am wondering how long the Christian religion can last when rejected by historians as not based on historical facts.

Thanks, Jay, for linking this interesting paper.

I am a little pessimistic. The world's population seems enamored of superstition and make believe.

As you are an expert on cinema, I will point to China, as an illustration of my pessimism. When I lived there, the university students enrolled in computer science classes routinely watched, before my lectures began, USA cartoons, like bugs bunny, and road runner. They were not watching National Geographic, Discovery, or the outstanding BBC productions on Art, Science, and History. The Chinese audience, taught atheism from birth, are infatuated with the likes of "Looper", and "Iron Man 3", movies that defy physics.

But I think we should state for the record that it might be possible to raise doubts about the historical existence of a man named Jesus, to be 'convinced' that he probably did or didn't exist, but I don't think anyone can definitively say or prove that he didn't exist.

The current historicist position is that minimal that there's no real way to prove that Jesus didn't exist.

...we too look stupid when we seem entrenched in our certainties. In both cases it comes down to personal biases.

Is that also the case for Herakles? Are you certain that it is impossible to write, “definitively” that there was never any human, at any point in time, whose father was Zeus, who performed miracles while alive, and who, upon death, had been resurrected to ascend to Mount Olympus, where he resides today, adjacent to his supernatural father?

What about Jimmy Olsen? Can you write, here, on this forum, that you aren't certain whether or not, he may have existed? How about snow covered mountain peaks in the Florida Everglades, a couple hundred kilometers south of Jay's home? Are you quite unable to write, “definitively”, that there are no such mountain peaks in the Florida everglades? If so, why? If not, why?

The central issue of this thread is whether or not there is an increasing awareness of the “definitive” status of Jesus of Nazareth, as a mythical creature, not a human. It is clear, reading these responses, that even on this forum, where folks are both intelligent, and well educated, there remains a significant quantity of people who remain unsure whether or not the sources available to us, demonstrate unequivocally the mythical character of this fictional person, Jesus of Nazareth.

[Ulan]

The current historicist position is that minimal that there's no real way to prove that Jesus didn't exist.

...we too look stupid when we seem entrenched in our certainties. In both cases it comes down to personal biases.

Is that also the case for Herakles? Are you certain that it is impossible to write, “definitively” that there was never any human, at any point in time, whose father was Zeus, who performed miracles while alive, and who, upon death, had been resurrected to ascend to Mount Olympus, where he resides today, adjacent to his supernatural father?

You overlooked that little word I bolded there for you. Adding that many detail as you do for Herakles, it's easy to reduce the probability of the existence of a historical person of this name to just about zero. You forget that the minimal historical position for Jesus doesn't need any "son of God" or miracles or "sitting next to his supernatural father". For Herakles, this would mean something like a folk hero who performed extraordinary deeds that became bigger with every retelling. However, the Herakles saga lacks the historical anchor the gospels provide, so there's no real impetus to prove the historicity of such a person.