A "junk DNA" discussion

[tabibito]

Many people have written Sherlock Holmes mysteries. So we can confidently conclude that Holmes was a real person, right?

Is that supposed to be a rational argument? People may have claimed that Holmes was based on a real person, but there was no claim made that he was a real person. Jesus didn't declare that people should believe him because he made claims, but because they could see for themselves the miracles that underpinned those claims. Paul made the same kind of declaration in his own case.

But how good is your examination if you start with the assumption that he's a blind pig? He doesn't do "comments", he does rigorous Bayesian analysis of all of the available material.

Every bit as good as that of someone who starts with the opinion that anything written by a theist is rubbish. And I didn't start with that opinion - I formed that opinion after reading some of his nonsense.

[phank]

Is that supposed to be a rational argument? People may have claimed that Holmes was based on a real person, but there was no claim made that he was a real person. Jesus didn't declare that people should believe him because he made claims, but because they could see for themselves the miracles that underpinned those claims. Paul made the same kind of declaration in his own case.

You are assuming your conclusions as your premise. Nobody knows even IF there was a Jesus, much less what he is said to have said by hearsay many times removed.

Every bit as good as that of someone who starts with the opinion that anything written by a theist is rubbish. And I didn't start with that opinion - I formed that opinion after reading some of his nonsense.

Interesting. I admit I've only read three of his books, so maybe I missed the nonsense. Or maybe I read them with an open mind, not already committed to reject anything uncongenial to my preconvictions. But maybe you can select what you consider nonsense, and we can discuss it?

Please follow the link and read the review in post #160. At the very least, it's entertaining.

[tabibito]

Most proximately, that would depend on whether this event ever happened at all. Since accounts of it were only invented generations after the supposed event, based on sources (if any) relentlessly unspecified, we meet all the requirements for outright fiction.

Much better to select a miracle of recent vintage, where enough forensic evidence exists for an evaluation to be based on more than faith and belief. Except of course we do not HAVE any such recent miracles, since miracles mysteriously dried up concurrently with the practice of investigating them rather than simply swallowing them.

Actually - within the church - miracles had become almost non-existent by AD 300. The churches' claim that the age of miracles ended shortly after the death of the last of the founding apostles' appointed prophets and healers is a matter of record. The reasons advanced as explanations for that non-existence don't have any Biblical support.

Irenaeus (in "Against Heresies" written circa 175-185AD) - mentions the miracle of Jesus’ turning water into wine in an argument about whether the created order is good. (He mentions it in passing, it is not the subject of his writing. The story already was in circulation.
Irenaeus did affirm that in his own time, healing was still being conducted – and declared that the proponents of heresy, for all that they claimed the ability to perform some minor miracles – could not restore sight to the blind.
Eusebius writing circa AD 350 noted that the authority to perform miracles HAD remained in some churches in Irenaeus’ time.

Polycarp (AD 69 -155) refers to the water converted to wine miracle. He knew both John and Irenaeus.

From whom did you get the tale that many generations passed before the story of water being converted to wine was "invented"?
And what approximate date is ascribed to "miracles drying up when they began to be investigated" idea?

[phank]

Actually - within the church - miracles were almost non-existent before AD 300. The churches' claim that the age of miracles ended shortly after the death of the last of the founding apostles' appointed prophets and healers is a matter of record. The reasons advanced as explanations for that non-existence don't have any Biblical support.

Do you personally think there WAS an age of miracles? I mean, "real" miracles, not tall tales.

From whom did you get the tale that many generations passed before the story of water being converted to wine was "invented"?

The story of water into wine is from the Gospel of John. The earliest manuscripts that became part of this gospel appeared around the year 200. However, this story is a reworking of a much early story of Dionysus turning water into wine, dating from about 1500BC.

And what approximate date is ascribed to "miracles drying up when they began to be investigated" idea?

As I understand it, at least for some period one needed to perform an attested miracle to qualify for sainthood. And saints were minted throughout the middle ages, up through the advent of science.

[phank]

While we're at it, here are some more interesting comments:

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress....city-of-jesus/

[tabibito]

Do you personally think there WAS an age of miracles? I mean, "real" miracles, not tall tales.

I'm certain of it, and satisfied that it ended on a progressive basis from place to place as the teaching of the gospel became corrupted.

The story of water into wine is from the Gospel of John. The earliest manuscripts that became part of this gospel appeared around the year 200. However, this story is a reworking of a much early story of Dionysus turning water into wine, dating from about 1500BC.

The earliest possible reference to Dionysus turning water into wine was by Achilles Tatius in the Greek Romance, "The Adventures of Leucippe and Clitophon" which was written in the 2nd century A.D. It mentions a Tyranian myth about Dionysus introducing wine to the world, with Dionysus calling it "the water of summer" and saying "This is the water, this is the spring". It's not clear whether this a real Tyranian myth being mentioned here (in which case it may be pre-Christian) or just something Tatius was inventing for the purposes of this story. Either way, Dionysus is not actually turning water into wine, but simply calling the wine a type of water. And we cannot reliably date this myth to any earlier than the second century A.D.

As I understand it, at least for some period one needed to perform an attested miracle to qualify for sainthood. And saints were minted throughout the middle ages, up through the advent of science.

I believe that is pro-forma. Two accredited miracles after death were required for Mary McKillop, and Mother Teresa has only one so far: so the latter has only been "beatified" and gets the "Blessed" appellation, rather than "Saint". I'm not sure what to make of the Roman saints.

[tabibito]

The link from post 160 is kind of chaotic so I'll take it a chunk at a time:

The article says that Bart Ehrman admits "And how many eyewitness reports of Pilate do we have from his day? None. Not a single one." - and treats this admission as somehow significant. The Pilate Inscription was discovered in 1969 (I think it was) so the lack of eyewitness testimony to the existence of Pilate is demonstrated to be of no significance. Except as a matter of showing that a lack of documentation of historical figures has no significance whatever, that is. They weren't necessarily documented - or perhaps so little documented that records can't be expected to have survived.

The article says that Bart Ehrman admits "The Gospels of the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus." ... I'm not convinced that Bart Ehrman is correct **. Evidence available suggests that the gospels were written either by the persons whose names they bear, or by people who heard what they were saying. In either case, calling it "the Gospel According to (whoever)" would be accurate.

** By way of demonstration:
Bart Ehrman: A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness.
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. - seems to me that the author might be claiming to be a witness. (though it is true that he has not declared who he is)

The article:
To make matters worse for the historical believers, some of the mythicists claim that when Paul reports about James as "brother of the Lord," he is not referring to a biological brother but as a spiritual brother. (see Gal. 1:18-20, 1 Cor. 9:5). In that sense all Christians are brothers or sisters of the Lord. Now I don't know if this is right or not but it certainly seems like a valid hypothesis from my layman's perspective. Ehrman dismisses this by claiming:

Ehrman: "Paul could not be using the term brothers in some kind of loose, spiritual sense. . ." (p. 146). Why? Because, "when he speaks of 'the brothers of the Lord' in 1 Corinthians 9:5, he is differentiating them both from himself and from Cephas. That would make no sense if he meant the term loosely to mean 'believers in Jesus' since he and Cephas too would be in that broader category. And so he means something specific, not something general, about these missionaries."

And at this point, the author of the article loses the plot, declaiming:
That's about as lame an argument as I can imagine. Just because Paul doesn't describe Cephas or himself as brethren of the Lord here doesn't mean that they were not brethren of the Lord.
On this point there is no possibility that the James referred to is not literally the brother of Christ. This is not the only place where James the brother of Christ is singled out. He is not simply being described as "one of the brethren".

[phank]

I'm certain of it, and satisfied that it ended on a progressive basis from place to place as the teaching of the gospel became corrupted.

Ah, I'm always amazed at religious certainty. As (I think) method noted, this certainty is axiomatic, not evidential.

And we cannot reliably date this myth to any earlier than the second century A.D.

The point was the water-to-wine had a long history. The specific instance, of Jesus presumably doing this, can't be earlier than a couple hundred years after Jesus is supposed to have lived. As I said. So we seem to agree here.

I believe that is pro-forma. Two accredited miracles after death were required for Mary McKillop, and Mother Teresa has only one so far: so the latter has only been "beatified" and gets the "Blessed" appellation, rather than "Saint". I'm not sure what to make of the Roman saints.

But if you wish to get literal rather than allegorical, there are no "accredited miracles". There are only stories about them.

One thing scholars of the period note, whether mythicists or historicists, is that there is a documentary black hole between the time of Paul and about the mid second century (years 70-150, roughly). And this is both peculiar and frustrating. Not just lack of church documents, but lack of ANY documents - no letters, no Roman historians, no Jewish historians, nothing. And yet this critical time period is when the Jesus cult formed. And it's known that there were a LOT of competing cults during that period, and you find a verse here and a verse there, devoid of any further context, mentioning them one time. The documentary evidence must once have been extensive, with all the internecine warfare to see whose version become official. Yet ALL of it mysteriously vanished somehow.

On this point there is no possibility that the James referred to is not literally the brother of Christ. This is not the only place where James the brother of Christ is singled out. He is not simply being described as "one of the brethren".

True, he was the leader of his sect. But notice that Paul does not call him "brother of Jesus", but always "brother of the lord". And just as this isn't the only place where James is "brother of the lord", it's also the case that (1) other such references are references to Paul; and (2) Paul refers to others as "brother of the lord" as well.

I'm not convinced that Bart Ehrman is correct **. Evidence available suggests that the gospels were written either by the persons whose names they bear, or by people who heard what they were saying. In either case, calling it "the Gospel According to (whoever)" would be accurate.

Oh my no. I'm not familiar with a single NT historian, whether theological or not, who would agree with that. Nobody knows who wrote those gospels, nobody knows what their sources were (and there is some debate about whether the supposed L, M and Q documents ever existed at all, much less what they might have contained or who wrote them if they existed). Textual analysis strongly indicates that the author of Luke was also the author of Acts, for example. But I don't think any authority argues today that the names conventionally assigned to these texts refer to any identifiable person.

Bottom line: AT BEST we're looking at hearsay twice removed, filtered through the political orientation of the cult that won out. I simply don't see how you might consider the author of John to be a witness to any of this, since John was written at least two centuries after Paul lived.

[tabibito]

Ah, I'm always amazed at religious certainty. As (I think) method noted, this certainty is axiomatic, not evidential.

Not entirely axiomatic. Personal experience does count for something. What is axiomatic: IF the Christian God (or rather, the God spoken of in the Bible) exists, the at least occasional miracle is inevitable.

The point was the water-to-wine had a long history. The specific instance, of Jesus presumably doing this, can't be earlier than a couple hundred years after Jesus is supposed to have lived. As I said. So we seem to agree here.

The gospel of John was written before AD 100.

But if you wish to get literal rather than allegorical, there are no "accredited miracles". There are only stories about them.

Rome declares that they are accredited, and investigates thoroughly any claims of miracles. Of course, investigators can be mistaken, but Rome does say she errs on the side of caution, and to some extent I believe it.

One thing scholars of the period note, whether mythicists or historicists, is that there is a documentary black hole between the time of Paul and about the mid second century (years 70-150, roughly). And this is both peculiar and frustrating. Not just lack of church documents, but lack of ANY documents - no letters, no Roman historians, no Jewish historians, nothing. And yet this critical time period is when the Jesus cult formed. And it's known that there were a LOT of competing cults during that period, and you find a verse here and a verse there, devoid of any further context, mentioning them one time. The documentary evidence must once have been extensive, with all the internecine warfare to see whose version become official. Yet ALL of it mysteriously vanished somehow.

I wasn't aware of that. Can you provide a link to anything - seems like it would be an interesting topic. But if the documentation for that time frame disappeared - how can anyone assert that things didn't pan out in the way that is stated in the Bible? The criticism that there is no independent witness is not only an argument from silence, it's an argument based on a lack of documentation when documentation cannot be expected.

True, he was the leader of his sect. But notice that Paul does not call him "brother of Jesus", but always "brother of the lord". And just as this isn't the only place where James is "brother of the lord", it's also the case that (1) other such references are references to Paul; and (2) Paul refers to others as "brother of the lord" as well.

1/ Paul is referred to as a brother 2/ Paul refers to others as brothers IN (not "of") Christ. There's no mistaking the difference in Koine Greek.
James, brother of the Lord. - Paul is referring to a particular James by cognomen, and one who is known at least by reputation the churches generally ... Which James? James the son of Zebedee? James the son of Alphaeas? James, son of Mary's husband? If he is using "brother" in the sense of "brotherhood", he hasn't identified anyone in particular.
So - "I saw none of the other apostles save James, brother of the Lord" ... Which James did he see?

Oh my no. I'm not familiar with a single NT historian, whether theological or not, who would agree with that. Nobody knows who wrote those gospels, nobody knows what their sources were (and there is some debate about whether the supposed L, M and Q documents ever existed at all, much less what they might have contained or who wrote them if they existed). Textual analysis strongly indicates that the author of Luke was also the author of Acts, for example. But I don't think any authority argues today that the names conventionally assigned to these texts refer to any identifiable person.

I'm guessing that Polycarp (who was born quite some time before John died) must have had some reason for saying that John wrote the Gospel according to John.

Bottom line: AT BEST we're looking at hearsay twice removed, filtered through the political orientation of the cult that won out. I simply don't see how you might consider the author of John to be a witness to any of this, since John was written at least two centuries after Paul lived.

Very nice - Polycarp was born shortly before the temple fell - . He made reference to the Gospel of John being written while John was on some island or other, and to the miracle at Cana ... and some time after writing all that, died circa AD 160 - at least 70 years before the Gospel was written?
Likewise: Ignatius, who died in AD 108, referred to the gospel of John.
Are you sure you don't believe in miracles?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Carrier is one of the best informed and widely respected historians of the period, who has done extensive study.

"Best informed" is certainly debatable, and "widely resepected" is certainly untrue. Carrier has produced some good work, including (in my opinion) the single paper which he has published about early Christianity in a peer-reviewed journal. However, his positions are the fringe-of-the-fringe, in scholarship; he does not teach or do research at a respected university; and he has not been published, at all, in journals of New Testament scholarship.

[sfs1]

One thing scholars of the period note, whether mythicists or historicists, is that there is a documentary black hole between the time of Paul and about the mid second century (years 70-150, roughly). And this is both peculiar and frustrating. Not just lack of church documents, but lack of ANY documents - no letters, no Roman historians, no Jewish historians, nothing. And yet this critical time period is when the Jesus cult formed. And it's known that there were a LOT of competing cults during that period, and you find a verse here and a verse there, devoid of any further context, mentioning them one time. The documentary evidence must once have been extensive, with all the internecine warfare to see whose version become official. Yet ALL of it mysteriously vanished somehow.

What on earth are you talking about? Anyone who isn't a lunatic dates at least three of the gospels, the book of Acts and the Pastoral Epistles to that period. Add to those the first (and only genuine) letter of Clement, all seven letters of Ignatius, the fragmentary remains of Papias and the letter of Polycarp, and quite probably 2 Clement, the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas. Plus the letter from Pliny the Younger about Christians. Who are these scholars who don't know about any of this?

True, he was the leader of his sect. But notice that Paul does not call him "brother of Jesus", but always "brother of the lord". And just as this isn't the only place where James is "brother of the lord", it's also the case that (1) other such references are references to Paul; and (2) Paul refers to others as "brother of the lord" as well.

There are no references to Paul as the "brother of the Lord". Paul refers once to James that way, and once to unnamed individuals (possibly including James) that way. He also frequently refers to Jesus as "the Lord". This line of argument is not simple fiction, like what you wrote above and below, but it's well into crackpot territory.

Bottom line: AT BEST we're looking at hearsay twice removed, filtered through the political orientation of the cult that won out. I simply don't see how you might consider the author of John to be a witness to any of this, since John was written at least two centuries after Paul lived.

As someone else has pointed out, your dating of the gospel of John is absurd. The earliest extant copy of the gospel dates from the early 2nd century.

[phank]

What on earth are you talking about?

Mostly of histories outside of the developing Christian faith, which should be expected to have noticed any of what the Christian documents so lovingly detail.

There are no references to Paul as the "brother of the Lord". Paul refers once to James that way

Yes. And James was the leader of a sect. I never said Paul referred to himself as "brother of the Lord".

and once to unnamed individuals (possibly including James) that way. He also frequently refers to Jesus as "the Lord". This line of argument is not simple fiction, like what you wrote above and below, but it's well into crackpot territory.

But Paul only knew Jesus through revelations, never as a physical person. Even today, Christians are "brothers in Christ" without being siblings of Jesus.

As someone else has pointed out, your dating of the gospel of John is absurd. The earliest extant copy of the gospel dates from the early 2nd century.

I'm trying to summarize what amount to several thousand pages of historical analysis by multiple historians, in any area not intimately familiar to me. I'll keep reading. I've read that the earliest known documents that eventually became part of John dated to early in the 2nd century. It's not like the gospel writers cited their sources.

Of course, I expect that for the True Believer, anyone doubting a historical Jesus is ipso facto a laughingstock well into crackpot territory, no need to read the exposition. I know that argument by weblink is discouraged, but summarizing an entire (and extensive, and well documented) school of thought in a few paragraphs is beyond my capability. Like I say, I'll keep reading.

[sfs1]

Mostly of histories outside of the developing Christian faith, which should be expected to have noticed any of what the Christian documents so lovingly detail.

Which historians should be expected to have noticed anything in the Christian documents? In any case, you described a complete lack of documents for the period 70 - 150, historian or not, Christian or not. Are you retracting that claim, arguing that I misunderstood your claim, or changing the subject?

Yes. And James was the leader of a sect. I never said Paul referred to himself as "brother of the Lord".

Then I don't know what you were saying: "And just as this isn't the only place where James is "brother of the lord", it's also the case that (1) other such references are references to Paul".

But Paul only knew Jesus through revelations, never as a physical person. Even today, Christians are "brothers in Christ" without being siblings of Jesus.

Yes to both -- but Christians are never called "brothers of Christ" in early Christian literature. Paul in particular does not normally use that phrase for Christians -- only for James and some unnamed leaders in the Jerusalem church. Someone named James is clearly identified in somewhat later tradition (perhaps 30 years later) as being a physical brother of Jesus (much to the embarrassment of later orthodox theologians). All of the existing evidence suggests James was Jesus' brother.

Of course, I expect that for the True Believer, anyone doubting a historical Jesus is ipso facto a laughingstock well into crackpot territory, no need to read the exposition. I know that argument by weblink is discouraged, but summarizing an entire (and extensive, and well documented) school of thought in a few paragraphs is beyond my capability. Like I say, I'll keep reading.

Sorry, but it's not the True Believers who think those arguing against a historical Jesus are crackpots; it's the scholars in the relevant fields.

[phank]

Which historians should be expected to have noticed anything in the Christian documents? In any case, you described a complete lack of documents for the period 70 - 150, historian or not, Christian or not. Are you retracting that claim, arguing that I misunderstood your claim, or changing the subject?

I repeated a claim I saw made by a couple of historians, but I may not have understood their context. Their goal was to try to get a handle on the very beginnings of the Christian church,. There's quite a bit of ambiguity there, so there are multiple possibilities. And they lamented the lack of documents that would clarify exactly how all that happened.

Then I don't know what you were saying: "And just as this isn't the only place where James is "brother of the lord", it's also the case that (1) other such references are references to Paul".

Ah, I see the problem. Paul referred to James as "brother of the lord". My understanding is that others also saying James was brother of the lord, were using Paul as their source for saying so. In other words, the claim I read was that Paul was the sole source of all such claims. I should have said "references from Paul."

Yes to both -- but Christians are never called "brothers of Christ" in early Christian literature. Paul in particular does not normally use that phrase for Christians -- only for James and some unnamed leaders in the Jerusalem church. Someone named James is clearly identified in somewhat later tradition (perhaps 30 years later) as being a physical brother of Jesus (much to the embarrassment of later orthodox theologians). All of the existing evidence suggests James was Jesus' brother.

Here, my understanding is that "all the existing evidence" consists of the writings of Paul. Since Paul is the closest anyone can get to the actual existence of Jesus, and Paul only saw Jesus in visions, it's hard to picture much later narratives, written by (or according to) people whose experience of Jesus was even more dubious than Pauls, as accurately describing the appearance, family, or ministry of Jesus. Paul wasn't much concerned with those things.

Sorry, but it's not the True Believers who think those arguing against a historical Jesus are crackpots; it's the scholars in the relevant fields.

Who have been, lets face it, theologians with a historical interest. You would hardly expect a Christian theologian to seriously entertain the notion that the core of his faith might have been a fabricaton. Even Bart Ehrman, raised as a Christian, admits that the evidence for a physical Jesus is dubious at best, yet (unaccountably) continues to insist that he is certain Jesus existed. In his book Did Jesus Exist Ehrman writes:

"There is no hard, physical evidence for Jesus." [p.42]

"No Greek or Roman author from the first century mentions Jesus." [p.43]

"I need to stress that we do not have a single reference to Jesus by anyone---pagan, Jew, or Christian---who was a contemporary eyewitness, who recorded things he said and did." [p.46]

"The Gospels of the New Testament are not eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. Neither are the Gospels outside the New Testament, of which we have over forty, either in whole or in fragments. In fact, we do not have any eyewitness report of any kind about Jesus, written in his own day." [p.49]

"And how many eyewitness reports of Pilate do we have from his day? None. Not a single one. The same is true of Josephus." [p.49]

Now, you would think an author making those statements would entertain doubts. After all, this is Ehrman's summary of the (lack of) evidence. Yet in the same book Ehrman writes:

"Jesus, he certainly did exist"

"that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet"

"Jesus did exist"

"but he did exist"

"there was a Jesus of Nazareth"

"He really existed"

"he certainly lived"

It is interesting to me in reading the book that every one of these claims of the certain historicity of Jesus comes BEFORE Ehrman examines any of the evidence. The earlier quotes are from later in the book, when Ehrman DOES examine the evidence, and finds it pretty thin soup. He finds the accounts of Jesus to be from visions and revelations, without any witnesses, entirely hearsay many times removed, generally without sources cited, all of which has passed through the digestive system of the Christian church.

And yet, after conceding that the evidence is indistinguishable from outright fabrication, Ehrman is no less convinced of the historicity of Jesus! And Ehrman claims to have become an agnostic. The difference between Ehrman and the "scholars in relevant fields" is that while Ehrman can't let go of Jesus, he at least can come out and say that the evidence falls far short of persuasive. The earlier NT scholars, being almost entirely theologians, can't even go that far. They are like that famous cartoon, with the preacher saying "here are the conclusions. Now let's see what facts we can find to support them."

Today, as I read it, more non-Christians are studying the history of that part of the world, learning fluency in the ancient hebrew, aramaic, greek and latin required, studying the milieu of cultures and traditions and myths familiar to people then. And THESE historians and scholars, not committed to any Jesus, are not finding a Jesus any more historical than Moses.

[Omniskeptical]

While it is possible Polycarp was born before the temple fell; he wasn't someone who knew John the Apostle.