Jesus: Man or legend. (official debate thread.)

hillbillyatheist

This thread will host a debate between Mr_C and romans120.

once they iron out the details and who goes first and all of that that that person may post the first opening statements. (no posts before then)

any post made by anyone other than the debate participants (or me as the moderator) should be places in the peanut gallery thread. link

Enjoy the show!

hillbillyatheist · Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:57 pm Post subject:

Agreed upon rules

Opening statement - Romans
Opening statement - Mr_C
6 Rounds (Romans will go first.)
Q&A - 1 Question post each and one Answer post each, with a maximum of 20 questions per. (Mr_C will go first since romans is going to kick off the 1st round)
Closing Statements - Romans
Closing Statements - Mr_C

(one week time limit per post)

Romans and Mr_C can now make their opening statements.

romans120 · Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject:

Lurkers, AF members and able Moderators. I am confident that you will use your capable intellect and propensity to divide the logical from the illogical, the rational from the irrational and truth from error to confidently judge the evidence put forward in this debate. (ok enough brown nosing - candy bars to everybody who votes for my side of the fence)

I basically want to present three arguments for the historicity of Jesus Christ.

1. The New Testament manuscripts show evidence that the original manuscripts were in wide circulation during the life time of those in the area where Jesus was claimed to have lived and people would have known whether or not He existed.

Evidence:
A. The earliest manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are designated p4 p64 p67.(p - stands for papyrus and the numerals are just manuscript designation used Greek New Testament critical apparatuses)These are dated late second century and are a part of a single codex containing all four gospels. Which means when the text was copied all four gospels were available for the transcriber to copy into one document. It would have taken time for the circulation of these manuscripts to have been collected let alone copied. Perhaps the most important aspect of these transcripts is that they contain chapter and text divisions. The originals certainly did not have this feature and would have taken a considerable amount of time to develop. So the original manuscripts of the gospels would have originated significantly before these were copied. If the originals were being circulated in the relatively limited region of Judea and Asia and the their credibility depended upon a legendary figure it would have been very easy for their enemies to discredit them and the very unlikely that they would have been able to maintain a following.
B. Another and probably the most important manuscripts are known as the Chester Beaty manuscripts designated p45 and p 46. p 46 is significant because it contains 11 new testament books other than the Gospels. It is dated 200 A.D. So not only were the Gospels in wide circulation by this time but so was a majority of the New Testament. Putting the originals well within the life time of those who could verify and write whether Jesus existed or not. Remember these manuscripts were not isolated they went from church to church and town to town in the same areas where Jesus would have lived.
(Technical information taken from The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman)

2. The time Christianity began to be recognized as a religion and the time Jesus was claimed to have lived is to short for a unified religion to have developed around a mythical figure.

Evidence:
The New Testament manuscripts date second century but as mentioned above there is evidence contained in them of earlier manuscripts. However, Clements letters to the Church of Corinth do date to the first century. This puts organized Christianity to within as little as 50 years after Christ would have died. Many references to Christ and Christians can be found dating back to this point however the most compelling is that of "Thallus" who's writings date from 52 A.D. Codified religions during this area simply do not develop from mythical figures over short periods of time. They take time to develop and grow unless you have a central leader who teachings and or actions give a standard or rule by which the religion forms.

3. References from literature.

Evidence:
I realize this is where the argument is usually happens. I do not wish to rehash what is normally put forward so I will limit my evidence to two references

A. Thallus - "Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writing date to circa 52 A.D. and the passage on Jesus was contained in Thallus' work on the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to 52 A.D. Thallus noted that darkness fell on the land at the time of the crucifixion. He wrote that such a phenomenon was caused by an eclipse." (Harry Martin Proving the Historic Jesus 1995)
B. Tacticus - "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberious at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular." (Harry Martin Proving the Historic Jesus 1995)
_________________
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Romans 1:19-20

Check out my weblog at http://romans120.wordpress.com/

Mr_C · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:44 am Post subject:

Well, I was going to try and keep this short and sweet, but it sort of grew on me as I was writing it. There are so many points to cover that I tried to stick with the main ones. Special thanks to Todangst for his work on the topic.

Introduction

It seems that there is more evidence for the Jesus of the Bible of being a mythological character than an actual historical man. While there were plenty of men named Yeshua (Jesus) around the year 0, none would fit the description, characteristics, or alleged actions of the figure called "Jesus Christ", who is the object of the Christian religion.

1) There are no contemporary references to Jesus.
The earliest writings on Jesus, the "gospels", were written many decades after Jesus supposedly died, came back from the dead, and ascended into "Heaven".

In fact, the earliest of these, "The Gospel According to Mark", was written no earlier than 65-75 CE. According to scholars, Jesus would have died around than the year 33 CE. This places the gospel of Mark anywhere between 30 and 50 years after the death of Jesus.

Later references to Jesus include those in the New Testament, as well as the following:
· Flavius Josephus - c90CE
· Suetonius - c120CE
· Tactitus - 110CE
· Pliny - c110CE
· Thallus - cited in c300CE
· Talmud - 200-500CE
· 'Acts of Pilate'

The earliest of these references, the one supposedly written by Josephus, is a celebrated passage in Josephus' writings that names Jesus as "The Christ". Unfortunately for Christian apologists, this is a well-known interpolation dating to the 4th century. Furthermore, Josephus could not even be considered a contemporary of Jesus since he was born at least 4 years after Jesus was supposed to have died.

But why wouldn't people notice the most famous man of the era? Consider what Todangst wrote here:

hillbillyatheist · Posted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:56 am Post subject:

Round 1: romans120:

romans you have until december 15 to make your first rebuttal.

romans120 · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject:

hillbillyatheist · Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject:

Round 1: Mr_C:

Mr_C you have until december 16 to make your first rebuttal.

Mr_C · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 1:57 am Post subject:

Please note that this is in reply to Romans120's opening post. I will reply to his round 1 post, as well as his reply to my round 1 post, as my round 2 post.

romans120 wrote:

I basically want to present three arguments for the historicity of Jesus Christ.

1. The New Testament manuscripts show evidence that the original manuscripts were in wide circulation during the life time of those in the area where Jesus was claimed to have lived and people would have known whether or not He existed.

Evidence:
A. The earliest manuscripts of portions of the New Testament are designated p4 p64 p67.(p - stands for papyrus and the numerals are just manuscript designation used Greek New Testament critical apparatuses)These are dated late second century and are a part of a single codex containing all four gospels.

Firstly, I would like to point out that whether p4 is from the same codex as p64 and/or p67 is hotly debated by those who study the subject.
Secondly, these fragments contain bits of Luke and Matthew - a far cry from "containing all four gospels".
However, for the points that follow, I will assume (but not concede) that these papyri did indeed come from the same codex, and I will assume that this codex contained the four canonical gospels.

Quote:

Which means when the text was copied all four gospels were available for the transcriber to copy into one document. It would have taken time for the circulation of these manuscripts to have been collected let alone copied.

This is the real meat of your argument - "It would have taken time". How much time? A year? Six months? Two hundred years? A day? A week? It would be fallacious of you to attempt to shoe-horn in a historical date based on speculation alone.
The gospels are dated mid-late first century. The codex in question would be dated right at the year 200 - which agrees with your statement that "it would have taken time". Unfortunately for your case, this is not evidence for "The New Testament manuscripts show evidence that the original manuscripts were in wide circulation during the life time of those in the area where Jesus was claimed to have lived and people would have known whether or not He existed.".

Quote:

Perhaps the most important aspect of these transcripts is that they contain chapter and text divisions. The originals certainly did not have this feature and would have taken a considerable amount of time to develop. So the original manuscripts of the gospels would have originated significantly before these were copied.

Again we find Romans speculating on time. This time - the amount of time it would take to re-write something in an organized manner.
I could personally re-write the 4 canonical gospels (given the time and inclination) with new chapters and verses in less than a month. Is that what we mean by "a considerable amount of time"?
Of course we don't have the originals to substantiate the former claim, "The originals certainly did not have this feature...".

Quote:

If the originals were being circulated in the relatively limited region of Judea and Asia and the their credibility depended upon a legendary figure it would have been very easy for their enemies to discredit them and the very unlikely that they would have been able to maintain a following.

During the first century, Mithraism was spreading just as fast as another mystery cult - Christianity.
From here (Note: This is a great history of religion site for those that are interested):

The spread of both Mithraism and Christianity can be seen at the two extremes of the empire. Doura-Europos, a frontier post on the Euphrates abandoned in about AD 257, has buildings associated with both religions.

Thousands of miles away, in Britain, there is a temple of Mithras in London in the early 4th century. Also in England, and from the same century, a very early depiction of Jesus Christ (young, clean-shaven, with curly fair hair) survives in a mosaic pavement at Hinton St Mary.

There were, of course, other religions at the time, which I'm sure Romans would agree are all false religions, based on legend. Their mere existence, much less their popularity, counters his above claim quicker than I can type Smile

Quote:

B. Another and probably the most important manuscripts are known as the Chester Beaty manuscripts designated p45 and p 46. p 46 is significant because it contains 11 new testament books other than the Gospels. It is dated 200 A.D. So not only were the Gospels in wide circulation by this time but so was a majority of the New Testament. Putting the originals well within the life time of those who could verify and write whether Jesus existed or not. Remember these manuscripts were not isolated they went from church to church and town to town in the same areas where Jesus would have lived.
(Technical information taken from The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman)

I think I've already countered this point, so I'll move on.

Quote:

2. The time Christianity began to be recognized as a religion and the time Jesus was claimed to have lived is to short for a unified religion to have developed around a mythical figure.

If you had said "around a historical figure", I would have given you examples of people drinking cool-aid or burning themselves to death, but since you said "mythical", I'll just use Mithraism as an example of a religion that did develop in a relatively short amount of time around a mythical figure:
source
Like Christianity, Mithraism was "not practiced until the 1st century CE."
Like Christianity, Mithraism became extremely popular by the 3rd century.
Notably, Mithraism is a cult of Zoroastrianism just as Christianity is a cult of Judaism. Additionally, it should be noted that Christianity includes many characteristics that were first used by Mithraism.
From here

The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity.

But I digress...

Quote:

Evidence:
The New Testament manuscripts date second century but as mentioned above there is evidence contained in them of earlier manuscripts. However, Clements letters to the Church of Corinth do date to the first century. This puts organized Christianity to within as little as 50 years after Christ would have died.

50 years. That's the best you can claim when we all know what happens to legends in the span of one year; 10 years; 20 years; 30 years.
The best contemporary example of this is Elvis Presley. Elvis died on August 16, 1977. We have pictures of his corpse. We have eye-witnesses to confirm that he was dead. We have no evidence to even hint that anything other than the only Elvis that we have is (sadly) a dead one.
Yet a mere 30 years later, we have sites like http://www.elvis-is-alive.com/ . The analogy fails on many levels, but one thing remains true: 50 years is about 49.9 years longer than humans need to create a myth.

Quote:

Codified religions during this area simply do not develop from mythical figures over short periods of time. They take time to develop and grow unless you have a central leader who teachings and or actions give a standard or rule by which the religion forms.

Even if this were true, people would only have to believe that this central leader existed in order to have the same effect. They had that chance once the gospels were formed, either by word of mouth or on paper.

Quote:

Many references to Christ and Christians can be found dating back to this point

No they can't.

Quote:

however the most compelling is that of "Thallus" who's writings date from 52 A.D.

Neither the date nor the premise is correct.

From here:

The date:

The Armenian reference places the end of Thallus' "brief compendium" at the 167th Olympiad (which spans 112-109 BC). This would remain uncontested if it were not for a single reference to Thallus regarding an event long after that time: namely, the darkness at the death of Christ. Since this event must have occurred in the 1st century AD, and no doubt sometime between 28 and 38 AD, there are two possibilities: either the Armenian text is referring to a different work, or the date has been corrupted. Virtually every scholar to date has opted for the latter and made efforts to conjecture the original date--the only two plausible (though still unlikely) options are the 207th Olympiad (which spans 49-52 AD) and the 217th Olympiad (which spans 89-92 AD). The latter in fact is the more likely, judging from palaeography. But as I've already noted, it seems far more likely that the Armenian reference is to a different work. It could even be an excerpted epitome of a longer chronology.

This leaves us with no clue as to when Thallus wrote. Since the 1st-century darkness was probably not mentioned in the "brief compendium," there is no reason to suppose that the date of 109 BC is incorrect--there is nothing physically wrong with the text, nor any other reason to suspect an error (although Mosshammer claims otherwise, his reasoning is hard to justify). However, if Thallus did mention the darkness in another work (probably the Histories), he clearly had to have written after 28 AD. Although the guess of 52 AD as the end-date for the compedium is the one most commonly mentioned, if the date is wrong at all then 92 AD is more likely correct. But all these possible dates--109 BC, 52 AD, 92 AD--only give us the "time after which" he had to have written this "brief compendium." These dates do not tell us when he wrote the Histories or whatever work that mentioned the darkness.

It is also supposed that the final date covered by the compendium should be close to the time the compendium was written, but that also does not follow. Eusebius, for instance, wrote a world chronicle that ended some thirty years before he wrote it. Moreover, when an author writes a compendium there is no telling how much history he intends to cover, or how far back he will end it--and a work as short as three books might very well have been so short because it was unfinished. In other words, the "compendium" could have ended in 109 BC even if it was written in 109 AD, and if the compendium's end-date was 52 AD or 92 AD, it could still have been written in 109 AD, or later. So we have to look elsewhere for a "time before which" Thallus wrote. All we have is this: the first time Thallus is ever mentioned is by Theophilus, writing around 180 AD, which leaves us with over a century of grey area: Thallus could have written any time between 28 and 180 AD. And if he did not mention an eclipse occurring in the first century, then he could have written any time between 109 BC and 180 AD, a span of almost three centuries.

This is where proper historical method turns the tables on Christian apologists. The usual argument is that Thallus is the earliest witness to the gospel tradition, proving that the story was circulating, and taken seriously enough by pagans to debunk it, before the 2nd century. But the opposite reasoning applies: since we do not know that Thallus wrote in the 1st century, but know that he could have written in the 2nd, and since no other sources attest to any gospel tradition earlier than the 2nd century, it follows that Thallus most likely wrote in the 2nd century--or at the earliest, the 90's AD, since there is some evidence that Josephus referred to Luke in that decade, although that same evidence just as easily suggests that Luke used Josephus, dating that gospel after 96 AD. Otherwise, since all other sources which mention any gospel tradition appear only in the 2nd century, and Thallus may easily have written in that period, it follows that Thallus most likely wrote in the 2nd century. This conclusion would change if any further data were rescued from the sands of time which made an earlier date more plausible, but odds are, Thallus is not the earliest witness to the gospel tradition. Even at best, there is at present no reason to assume he is.

The premise:

What exactly is Thallus supposed to have said about Jesus? We don't really know. We can only guess, based on an obscure passage passed down to us second-hand which already shows signs of at least one interpolation. George Syncellus, a 9th-century monk, composed a world chronicle, quoting verbatim from numerous previous chroniclers, one of whom being the 3rd-century Christian chronicler Julius Africanus. In one such case, Africanus is quoted regarding "what followed the savior's passion and life-giving resurrection" as follows:

This event followed each of his deeds, and healings of body and soul, and knowledge of hidden things, and his resurrection from the dead, all sufficiently proven to the disciples before us and to his apostles: after the most dreadful darkness fell over the whole world, the rocks were torn apart by an earthquake and much of Judaea and the rest of the land was torn down. Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of his Histories, without reason it seems to me. For....how are we to believe that an eclipse happened when the moon was diametrically opposite the sun?

This is all we get. It isn't clear what Thallus actually said, or whether he even mentioned Jesus at all. Africanus is merely criticising the possibility that the darkness at the death of Christ was a solar eclipse, and thus a natural rather than a supernatural event--an attack addressed in the Apology of Tertullian, and voiced by the Jews in the Gospel of Nicodemus, which may have been written in the time of Africanus. Although this implies that Thallus mentioned the death of Christ in some way, it does not entail it. For Thallus may have simply recorded an eclipse that occurred around the time that Christ was believed to have died, with Africanus connecting the events on his own. We do not have the context of this quote, and we do not know what else Africanus said about this event or about Thallus. Of course, even if Thallus did mention the death of Jesus, we have already shown that he then probably wrote in the 2nd century, when we know this gospel story was already circulating nearly a century after the event. In such a case, Thallus is not an independent witness to the story, but is merely responding to Christian literature. This makes him of practically no use to apologists.

Essentially, your best evidence comes from a 9th century monk, Syncellus, who is apologizing for a reference made by Africanus, who wrote in the 3rd century, who is apologizing for a possible reference to Thallus, who may have referenced a solar eclipse.
The date of the eclipse is unknown. The date that Thallus may or may not have written it is likely 100-200 years after it could have possibly occurred.
Lastly, The passage for which Africanus is apologizing, may have actually come from Phlegon (not Thallus), who wrote in the 140's CE:

Africanus wrote in the early 3rd century. His contemporary, Origen, also cites Phlegon's mention of an earthquake and eclipse but does not repeat the exaggerations. Indeed, he expressly denies one of them in his commentary on Matthew, stating that "Phlegon, who mentioned an eclipse during the reign of Tiberius Ceasar, did not say that it happened during the full moon." This suggests that the exaggerated quote, which would surely have been seized upon as a valuable testimony, did not yet exist, in Africanus or anywhere else. But it appears in Agapius in the 10th century. And by the time of Michael the Syrian, in the 12th century, the Phlegon quote had already gone way over the top, to include the astonishing sentence: "the dead were resurrected, entered Jerusalem and said 'Woe to the Jews!'" Syncellus wrote in the 9th century. So a copier of his work who had also read Agapius probably put two and two together and gullibly added the note, which was eventually pulled into the text as copies continued to be made by other scribes.

hillbillyatheist · Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 2:03 am Post subject:

Round 2: romans120:

romans you have until december 17 to make your second rebuttal.

*edited to change "first" to "second" rebuttal.*

romans120 · Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: