Reflectorites
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 05:52:23 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[continued]
>PR>You have an old book, and someone you think is a Messiah. So when
>you write his life story, you go through the "old book" looking for
>paragraphs which can be made to look like "prophecies".
>SJ>Of course one can always say this, even if it is false (i.e. if Jesus really
>was predicted and fulfilled those predictions). The fact is there are
>*hundreds* of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, some of them quite specific,
>like Mic 5:2.
>PR>No there aren't. Even the dopiest apologists think there are only about
>50 or so.
>SJ>The numbers I have seen range from 191 to 333. But I would be happy to
>start with "50 or so"!
>PR>Actually, it depends. You may be right in the claims. I have seen all
>the genealogies claimed as individual prophecy (McDowell does this
>to an extent in EDTAV)
It is possible that some apologists may get carried away! But the fact
that someone things that there are (say) 333 prophecies, does not mean
that he is not right about 50 (or 191) of them.
>PR>And most of them are equally tortured out of the OT,
>SJ>It is Paul's *assumption* that those prophecies that contain indirect
>allusions to the Messiah are "tortured out of the OT". But the fact is that
>the earliest Christians were Jews and this was the way they understood the
>Messiah was prophesied in the OT.
>PR>Well, actually you have no idea whether that is true or not, Steve.
I have a *very good* idea. The fact is that "the earliest Christians
*were* Jews" and it is self-evident that they would use the prophecies
the way they understood them as Jews; and the way their fellow Jews
understood them also.
PR>All you
>can say is that the earliest Christians would have an expectation that
>the Messiah would be predicted in the OT.
I certainly *can* say that, but that is not "all" I can say. Paul has no
evidence except his deductions from his anti-supernaturalist
philosophy.
>PR>And most of them are equally tortured out of the OT, or just
fulfilled
>in absurd ways (like 2 donkeys) in the Gospels.
>SJ>It is Paul who thinks this is "absurd". Clearly the 1st century
gospel
>writers and their readers didn't think it was.
>PR>You assume that the function of the "reporting" of the Gospels is
not
>theological here ; this I don't believe to be the case : see how
Matthew
>and Luke tweak things to fit their own "theological agendas".
It is one thing to claim that each gospel writer emphasised particular
aspects of Jesus life and teaching to fit their respective theological
themes and target audience. It is quite another to claim they "tortured
out of the OT" and "fulfilled in absurd ways" prophecies of Jesus. If
these were tortured and absurd, their mainly Jewish target audience
would have rejected it.
The way that 1st century Jews think might seem strange to us 20th
century Westerners, but there is no doubt that that is how they *did*
think.
>PR>Of course, you don't always get it right, so people who write later
>versions will amend your work to add corrections and push their own
>theological viewpoint.
>SJ>I am not sure what Paul means here.
>PR>What I mean is that Matthew and Luke took their source materials and
>changed it, or added to it, to "push" their own theological viewpoint.
There is no reason to dispute this. Everyone accepts that each gospel
writer selects, emphasises and interprets the core body of source
material the early Church had on the life and teaching of Jesus.
That's why we have *four* gospels-to give a 3-dimensional (as it were)
picture of Jesus. This a mark of the `warts and all' genuineness of the
gospels. There has been no attempt to present an artificially unified
story, as would be the case if they made it up. The unity in diversity
comes from the fact that they are all telling the truth about the same
core events and teachings.
>PR>Really ? Really ? This is what "Matthew" did Steve.
>SJ>Another assertion without any evidence.
>PR>Oh really, Steve. You have presumably read the NT. Do a side by side
>comparison of Mark and Matthew ;
Since 1991 in my morning devotions I have been working through a
line-by-line study of a harmony of the gospels, focusing on the words
of Jesus. Sometimes it takes me a week to get through one verse! After
8 years I am now starting on John 17! The harmony has all the parallel
verses alongside each other and part of my devotions involves reading
these verses together, and praying over them that God will help make
their teachings real to me so they become part of my life.
So I know *intimately* where "Mark and Matthew" (as well as Luke
and John), agree and where they differ in respect of the actual words of
Jesus. So I can say as authoritatively as anyone, that at least in respect
of the words of Jesus, there is no essential contradiction between all
four gospels-they complement each other beautifully.
PR>see how he has rewritten things changed things he doesn't like.
That each gospel writer selects different aspects of the teachings of
Jesus and events of His life, is granted. Otherwise the four gospels
would all be the same.
That each gospel writer did this because there were "things he doesn't
like" is just Paul's unsubstantiated *assumption* based on his anti-
supernaturalistic philosophy.
In fact what Paul is accusing the gospel writers of is *precisely* what he
and radical liberal critics do themselves-reject, ignore or change the
things they don't like, and accept only the things they do like:
"The Cafeteria-Line Approach is the method by which the writer or
critic simply picks out of the gospel material what suits his tastes.
Again, Cassels commented:
`The amazing thing about all these debunk-Jesus books is that they
accept as much of the recorded gospels as they find convenient,
then ignore or repudiate other parts of the same document which
contradict their notions.' (Cassels, Louis. "Debunkers of Jesus Still
Trying." Detroit News, 23 June 1973, p. 7A)
This approach is especially noticeable in those who hold a
naturalistic view toward the gospel accounts. Liberal theology of
the nineteenth century; for example, tended to accept everything in
the gospel narratives except the supernatural elements and any
statements supporting the deity of Christ. ...if you remove the
supernatural from the gospel accounts, virtually nothing else in the
gospel makes sense. Jesus' teachings on faith, the kingdom of
heaven, and many other subjects become sheer nonsense ...Those
who study form and redaction criticism will also observe the
cafeteria-line approach in operation. The choices made as to what is
"authentic" and what is "unauthentic" in the gospel accounts often
are quite arbitrary, based on a preconceived bias, and supported by
previous arbitrary conclusions. ... Sometimes popular writers and
journalists pick up "scholarly conclusions," which are primarily
opinions supported by cafeteria- line evidence, and they report as
fact those conclusions which suit their own tastes add preconceived
conclusions." (McDowell J. & Wilson B., "He Walked Among Us:
Evidence for the Historical Jesus," 1988, p.322)
>PR>The "Bethlehem" is a classic example of this. Bethlehem is bunged
>in *because* of this reference
>SJ>No. If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the early Christians' Jewish
>opponents would have known this and would pointed it out.
>PR>This isn't true. Firstly, no-one gave a *stuff* about Christianity
>until at least (let's say 100 AD but that's generous) except as some
>unimportant minority sec.
>SJ>This is certainly not true of the Jews, and it is not even true of the
>Romans.
>As I point out in another post, even by AD64 Christianity had made such
>an impact in Rome that Nero blamed its burning on Christians:
>PR>Yes, I do know about Tacitus.
Paul just ignores my point which was, in answer to his claim that "no-
one gave a *stuff* about Christianity until at least (let's say 100 AD
..."; that "by AD64 Christianity had made such an impact in Rome that
Nero blamed its burning on Christians..." Paul's claim therefore is
simply *false*.
>PR>What is interesting about this piece of
>information is that Tacitus, in the next paragraph you haven't quoted,
>needs to explain to his readers what Christianity is. (incorrectly).
>
>[snip Tacitus]
Here is the remainder of my partly botched quote (for which I
apologise):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,109559+2+106456,00.ht
ml
[...]
Tacitus writes in explanation: "The name is derived from Christ, whom
the procurator Pontius Pilate had executed in the reign of Tiberius."
The "temporarily suppressed pernicious superstition" to which Jesus
had given rise in Judaea soon afterward had spread as far as Rome.
Tacitus does not speak of Jesus but, rather, of Christ (originally the
religious title "Messiah," but used very early among Christians outside
Palestine as a proper name for Jesus). The passage only affords proof
of the ignominious end (crucifixion) of Jesus as the founder of a
religious movement and illustrates the common opinion of that
movement in Rome. An enquiry of the governor of Asia Minor, Pliny
the Younger, in his letter to the emperor Trajan (c. AD 111) about
how he should act in regard to the Christians (Epistle 10, 96ff.) comes
from the same period. Christians are again described as adherents of a
crude superstition, who sang hymns to Christ "as to a god." Nothing is
said of his earthly life, and the factual information in the letter
undoubtedly stems from Christians.
[...p
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus is writing a *history*, so it is proper for him to explain for
posterity "what Christianity is". He was not to know in 116AD that
Christianity would continue to grow and by 312AD become the official
religion of the Roman Empire and that it would still be around in
2000AD as the world's largest religion by far!
As to Tacitus "incorrectly" explaining to his readers what Christianity
is, so what if he did? Tacitus was not a Christian, so it is unlikely he
would explain it perfectly correctly. To do that he would have to
understand Christianity's claims perfectly correctly, and f he did that he
would probably *become* a Christian! Besides, if Tacitus gave a
perfectly correct explanation of Christianity, Paul and his ilk would no
doubt claim it was a Christian interpolation. Catch-22!
But in fact nothing that Tacitus writes is "incorrect", from his
perspective. And he affirms that Christ was executed by the procurator
Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius (ie. 4-37AD.
Paul says that he does "know about Tacitus", so he would know in the
full text of his Annals reference to Christianity, Tacitus also said that it
"was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely
in Judaea...but in the capital itself" and that "vast numbers [of
Christians] were convicted" and executed:
"Writing in his Annals circa A-D. 116, Tacitus describes the
response of Emperor Nero to the great fire which swept Rome in
A.D 64. A persistent rumor circulated that Nero himself was behind
the fire and therefore had to take action to dispel the story. Tacitus
speaks of Nero's actions to cut off the rumor:
`So far, the precautions taken were suggested by human prudence:
now means were sought for appeasing deity, and application was
made to the Sibylline books; at the injunction of which public
prayers were offered to Vulcan, Ceres, Proserpine while Juno was
propitiated by the matrons, first in the Capitol then at the nearest
point of the sea shore, where water was drawn for sprinkling the
temple and image of the goddess. Ritual banquets and all night
vigils were celebrated by women in the married state. But neither
human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the modes of
placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the
fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour,
Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost
refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom
the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had
undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of
the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was
checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in
Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all
things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue.
First then, the confessed members of the sect were arrested- next,
on their disclosures, vast numbers were convicted, not so much on
the count of arson as for hatred of the human race. And derision
accompanied their end: they were covered with wild beasts skins
and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on crosses, and
when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by night. Nero
had offered his Gardens for the spectacle, and gave an exhibition in
his Circus, mixing with the crowd in the habit of a charioteer, or
mounted on his car. Hence, in spite of a guilt which had earned the
most exemplary punishment, there arose a sentiment of pity, due to
the impression that they were being sacrificed not for the welfare of
the state but to the ferocity of a single man.' (Tacitus, Annals, Loeb
edition 15.44)."
McDowell J. & Wilson B., 1988, p.48)
>PR>Just like Christians don't refute every wierdo cult claim, Jews didn't
>argue with Christians because they weren't worth it.
>SJ>This is on the face of it implausible.
>
>But the New Testament makes it plain that the Jews did argue with the
>Christians, and in fact persecute them.
>
>Paul will probably dismiss out of hand the NT as evidence. But I would be
>interested in any evidence he has for his claim above.
>PR>This is a request to prove a negative.
I didn't ask Paul to "prove" it. I asked him for "any evidence he has for his
claim" that "Jews didn't argue with Christians because they weren't worth
it".
PR>The main supporting evidence is the
>total paucity of such information in Jewish writings.
I have answered this previously and there is no point repeating myself. But here is
what the non-Christian Jewish scholar, Joseph Klausner summarised about the
historical Jesus according to early rabbis:
"Did the early Jewish rabbis think Jesus was a myth or a legend? Absolutely
not. There is not a hint of a suggestion of this hypothesis, regardless of
what some modern philosophers and theologians may conclude. According
to , the earliest and most historically reliable rabbinic sources give us the
following facts about who they thought Jesus was: "that his name was
Yeshu'a (Yeshu) of Nazareth; that he 'practiced sorcery" (i.e., performed
miracles, as was usual in those days) and beguiled and led Israel astray; that
he mocked at the words of the Wise; that he expounded Scripture in the
same manner as the Pharisees; that he had five disciples; that he said that he
was not come to take aught away from the Law or to add to it; that he was
hanged (crucified) as a false teacher and beguiler on the eve of the
Passover which happened on a Sabbath and that his disciples healed the
sick in his name." (Klausner. J., "Jesus of Nazareth," 1925, p.46, in
(McDowell J. & Wilson B., 1988, p.70)
One of the reasons why there is not so much in earlier Jewish writings critical of
Jesus and Christians, compared to later is mentioned by Klausner:
"Klausner also concludes that the attitude of the earliest and most learned
of the Tannaim toward Jesus and his teachings was not as bitter and hostile
as that of the later rabbis. Though there is much in the rabbinic writings
which speaks negatively of Jesus, the most revealing fact regarding these
sources is that they everywhere confirm the historical existence of an
extraordinary person, Jesus of Nazareth." (McDowell J. & Wilson B.,
1988, p.70)
PR>There are a few
>vaguely dated allusions to Jesus (Ben Pantera ?).
There is more than this. But "Ben Pantera" (and its variations) is actually a
backhanded confirmation of the Virgin Birth, because it is probably derived
from the Greek word parthenos = "virgin";
"This and other passages refer to Jesus as "ben Pantera." Scholars
have debated at length how Jesus came to have this name attached
to his. Strauss thought it was from the Greek word pentheros,
meaning "son-in- law. Klausner and Bruce accept the position that
panthera is a corruption of the Greek parthenos meaning "virgin. "
Klausner says, "The Jews constantly heard that the Christians (the
majority of whom spoke Greek from the earliest times) called Jesus
by the name 'Son of the Virgin,'...and so, in mockery, they called
him Ben ha-Pantera, i.e., 'son of the leopard."' (Klausner J., "Jesus
of Nazareth," 1925, p.23, in McDowell J. & Wilson B., 1988,
p.66).
PR>Christians always claim persecution in my experience :)
Paul claims to "know about Tacitus", so what does he call this, if
not "persecution":
"And derision accompanied their end: they were covered with wild
beasts skins and torn to death by dogs; or they were fastened on
crosses, and when daylight failed were burned to serve as lamps by
night." (Tacitus, Annals, Loeb edition 15.44).
>PR>That's why there
>is virtually no anti-Christian arguments at all, or anything, from around
>that time.
>SJ>Note that Paul says "virtually"! The fact is that there *are*
>"anti-Christian arguments". The NT itself is a reliable source of
>some of these and there are others:
>PR>This has been snipped a bit, but Steve is quoting the EB again here.
>SJ>These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents
>of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed
>for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during
>the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
>PR>I'll let this one go. This might be connected with such doubt being fatal
>of course. We don't actually know this due to the Christian habit of
>burning books they didn't like, fragments of which survive in early
>apolgetics.
It is a unfalsifiable argument Paul has constructed here. He denies what
evidence there is for the truth of Christianity, and relies instead for the truth
of his position on the lack of evidence!
>SJ>Josephus, the Jewish historian at the court of Domitian who has depicted
>the history of his people and the events of the Jewish-Roman war (66-70),
>only incidentally remarks about the stoning in AD 62 of "James, the brother
>of Jesus, who was called Christ . . ." (Antiquities XX, 200). He
>understandably uses the proper name "Jesus" first (for as a Jew he knows
>that "Christ" is a translation of "Messiah"), but he adds, though qualified
>by a derogatory "so-called," the second name that was familiar in Rome.
>(Some scholars have suggested, however, that this reference was a later
>Christian insertion.) Scholars also have questioned the authenticity of a
>second passage in the same work, known as the "Testimony of Flavius"
>(XVIII, 63ff.), which is generally thought to contain at least some
>statements, apparently later insertions, that summarize Christian teaching
>about Jesus.
>PR>Okay. Josephus was born in 37AD, did you know that Steve?
Yes, but not until recently:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0,5716,45021+1+44007,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
[...]
Josephus, Flavius
[...]
b. AD 37/38,, Jerusalem
d. AD 100, Rome
original name JOSEPH BEN MATTHIAS Jewish priest, scholar, and
historian who wrote valuable works on the Jewish revolt of 66-70 and on
earlier Jewish history. His major books are History of the Jewish War (75-
79), The Antiquities of the Jews (93), and Against Apion.
Early life.
Flavius Josephus was born of an aristocratic priestly family in Jerusalem.
According to his own account, he was a precocious youth who by the age
of 14 was consulted by high priests in matters of Jewish law. ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Jesus was executed only 4 years before Josephus was born, and since
Josephus was "a precocious youth" that means when he was 14,
Christianity would have been only 18 years old. As a resident of Jerusalem,
Josephus would have been in a unique position to expose Christianity's
allegedly factually incorrect and mythical claims, but he didn't do so.
The argument that it wasn't important enough for him to do so doesn't
wash because, even if it wasn't early on (which itself is false) Christianity
did become important later on and Josephus by 93AD wrote about the
early Christians, presumably from recollections gained when he was young.
What Josephus wrote about those early Christians was quite respectful,
even favourable, which is hard to credit unless Christianity was indeed a
religion founded by honest men.
Because of this, I personally think there is a distinct possibility that
Josephus at the end of his life became a Christian and his famous statement
about Christ is authentic.
PR>What use
>is this in the "why didn't they refute the claims then ?" argument. If you
>look above, I said no-one took any notice till 100AD or so !
AD64 was before 100AD last time I got my calculator out!
PR>This is kind, to be kind to the TF.
I assume by "TF" Paul means the Testimonium Flavianum? If so why
doesn't he give it in full, since other members of this List would be unlikely
to know it?
PR>Virtually everyone, even Fundamentalists
>don't view it as particularly useful, and the Christian teaching is almost
>entirely covered by the insertions. Most reconstructions delete the
>"proof" often touted.
Well I am different! Personally I think that Josephus could have become a
Christian by the time he wrote his Antiquities in 93AD.
But even if he didn't and the references to Jesus being the Messiah are
interpolations, what remains, which most historians accept, it is still a
factual and respectful portrait of Jesus. If Jesus and/or his disciples were
frauds, then Josephus could easily have said so, and *would* have said so.
It is simply inexplicable that Josephus, a former Pharisee born in Jerusalem
only 4 years after Jesus' death and as a precocious youth in contact with the
religious leaders of his day, and therefore in a position to know first hand if
Christianity was a fraud, never said so. The *only* reasonable explanation
is that there was nothing fraudulent about Christianity's claims.
>SJ>In the Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law, lore, and commentary, only a
>few statements of the rabbis (Jewish religious teachers) of the 1st and 2nd
>centuries come into consideration. Containing mostly polemics or Jewish
>apologetics, they reveal an acquaintance with the Christian tradition but
>include several divergent legendary motifs as well. The picture of Jesus
>offered in these writings may be summarized as follows: born the
>(according to some interpretations, illegitimate) son of a man called
>Panther, Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu) worked magic, ridiculed the wise, seduced
>and stirred up the people, gathered five disciples about him, and was
>hanged (crucified) on the eve of the Passover. The Toledot Yeshu ("Life of
>Jesus"), an embellished collection of such assertions, circulated among
>Jews during the Middle Ages in several versions.
>PR>They are late 1st and 2nd century.
Not necessarily. There is a reference in the Talmud which, according to
McDowell and Wilson (p.65), originated "somewhere between A.D. 70 and
200":
"It has been taught: on the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu,
And an announcer went out, in front of him, for forty days (saying):
"He is going to be stoned, because he practiced sorcery and enticed
and led Israel astray. Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let
him come and plead in his behalf." But, not having found anything
in his favor, they hanged him on the eve of Passover." (Babylonian
Talmud: Sandhedrin 43a, in McDowell J. & Wilson B., 1988, p.64)
But the fact is that the Jews *did* at the latest by "late 1st and 2nd
century" substantially confirm in a backhanded negative way what the
gospels say positively: 1) "born the ... illegitimate) son of a man called
Panther" = born of a virgin; 2) "Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu)" = name was Jesus;
3) "worked magic" = "performed miracles"; 4) "ridiculed the wise" =
disputed with the Jewish religious leaders; 5) "seduced and stirred up the
people" = attracted a large following"; 6) "gathered five disciples about
him" = gathered a core band of disciples; 7) "was hanged (crucified) on the
eve of the Passover" = was crucified on the day the gospels say.
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 16:59:56 EST