Hard News: For Good Friday
279 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 8 9 10 11 12 Newer→ Last
-
That doesn't mean we have to accept the Jesus that lived did all the things described in the New Testament.
Which is why people tend to, like, make their own Jesus from available materials? My favourite would be Mikail Bulgakov's Yeshua Ha-Notrsi/Ha-Nozri from The Master and Margarita , tried by the migraine-afflicted Pontius Pilate :
"No, no, Hegemon," the arrested man said, straining all over in his wish to convince, `there's one with a goatskin parchment who follows me, follows me and keeps writing all the time. But once I peeked into this parchment and was horrified. I said decidedly nothing of what's written there. I implored him: "Burn your parchment, I beg you!" But he tore it out of my hands and ran away."
"Who is that?" Pilate asked squeamishly and touched his temple with his hand.
"Matthew Levi," the prisoner explained willingly. "He used to be a tax collector..."
-
We do at least know that he was a Capricorn,
Unlikely. December in Judaea is not a time that you're out in the fields with your sheep, as it's too cold. The christmas feast was placed in December by the early church in an attempt (largely successful) to subsume the pagan Saturnalia. Similar for All Saints/All Souls to "christianise" what became Halloween (a very pagan celebration)
Even Easter is suspiciously close to Passover in timing...
He's mentioned a couple of times by the historian Josephus, a first century Jewish historian who became a Roman citizen.
Josephus was born around AD37, so is not contemporary. He was also notoriously unreliable. As the famous Wikipedia reports:
The following passage appears in the Greek version of Antiquities of the Jews 18.63-64, in the translation of William Whiston:
3.3 Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
As usual with ancient texts, the surviving sources for this passage are Greek manuscripts, all minuscules, the oldest of which dates from the 11th century. It is possible that these all derive from a single exemplar written in uncial, as is the case with most other ancient Greek texts transmitted to the present in medieval copies, and have come down through the hands of the church. The text of Antiquities appears to have been transmitted in two halves — books 1–10 and books 11–20. But other ad hoc copies of this passage also exist.The first to cite this passage of Antiquities was Eusebius, writing in about 324, who quotes the passage in essentially the same form.
The topic of the Testimonium's authenticity has attracted much scholarly discussion. Louis Feldman counts 87 articles published during the period of 1937-1980, "the overwhelming majority of which question its authenticity in whole or in part".
Then there's:
Tacitus, the Roman historian of about the same time, mentions Jesus, as well as the fact that he was killed by Pontius Pilate.
Tacitus was born in 57 AD and never went near Judaea in his life. In the Annals he was writing about the great fire of Rome and the suspicion that Nero had started it.
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians [or Chrestians; see below] by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius 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 Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular
There's some debate about whether this was added later by early Christian scribes, though most scholars accept it, apparently. But there are discrepancies in the passage, and most of the translations we rely on (my Latin being non-existent) we should remember were made by Christian scholars - never overlook the strength of a vested interest.
And Suetonius metions a "Chrestus" in passing when talking about the Jews - which some people have taken as a reference to Jesus. (though Suetonius is unreliable, being mostly interested in imperial tittle-tattle)
Agreed, though I would like to read some of his "lost" books such as Lives of Famous Whores and Physical Defects of Mankind.
Suetonius is one of those writers you look to for colour, rather than accuracy.There are also references in Pliny the Younger and in Lucian.
Pliny was a friend of Tacitus and employed Suetonius, so the three of them may have had access to the same source (maybe Josephus, even). Pliny's reference to christians was in the course of letters to the Emperor Trajan (Book 10) regarding official policy towards the christians, and was probably edited after his death by Suetonius.
And Lucian was a Syrian satirist in the 2nd century, and refers to the christians in the course of The Passing of Peregrinus
So none of these can be seen as authoritative. Indeed, there are more reputable references to Robin Hood, than to an historical Jesus of Nazareth.Also, "Christ" wasn't actually his last name, and it's possible it wouldn't have been used in his lifetime. It's from the Greek Χριστός or Khristós, which means "annointed one" and was a term used to indicate the Messiah. Thus, christians are followers of the Christ, or the Messiah.
The joys of a catholic childhood, and thanks to Wikipedia for simple references ;-)
-
I like the way he helped the autistic man who had such sensory sensitivities he had to live in the cemetery. 'My name is Legion, for we are many.' Mark 5?
-
What a devilish thing to say, Hilary!
-
3410,
We do at least know that he was a Capricorn, he ate organic foods, he believed in love and peace and never wore no shoes.
Unlikely. December in Judaea is not a time that you're out in the fields with your sheep, as it's too cold.
-
a century of scholarship
longer than that, going back to this chap
But on balance it seems more probable than not that Jesus lived.
the problem is, it wasn't an uncommon name. Mark sums up the problems with the oft quoted evidence rather well I think. There is also the problem of the term procurator as applied to Pontius Pilate in Tacitus, as the term wasn't used until well after the supposed date of JC's death (although the Pilate Stone carries the term Prefect, which was contemporary so we know that someone called Pontius Pilate likely existed) This too adds some weight to the idea that Tacitus may have been adjusted a little to suit by interested parties.
The simple fact is, on balance if you will, we really have no idea, once you leave belief driven by faith behind, whether he existed or not.
And I guess we never will.
-
Mark, Simon, I agree that all of the sources have their weaknesses. But Tacitus is generally considered reliable on most topics. I don't see any reason why Christian scholars would have invented a passage that blamed them for the Great Fire.
Like most ancient hstorians whose works have survived, Tacitus relies on unknown sources. Most historians of the Greek and Roman era (with a few famous exceptions, such as Polybius and Herodotus) didn't travel much, and of course their works have to be read with caution. But we should be careful about dismissing these records completely.
I would like to read some of his "lost" books such as Lives of Famous Whores and Physical Defects of Mankind
He is without question the most entertaining historian of the time - the Kitty Kelley of Imperial Rome.
-
The simple fact is, on balance if you will, we really have no idea, once you leave belief driven by faith behind, whether he existed or not.
The point has been made - and not only by committed Christians, although they certainly have done so - that the writings which mention Jesus are no more distant from his time than those of a number of other historical people and events.
Robin Lane Fox touches on this in his The Unauthorised Version a book I recommend to anyone interesting in these questions.
Fox is Professor of Ancient History at one of the Oxford colleges and is an atheist.
The point he leaves implicit is that it is one thing to accept Jesus as a historic personage. Personally I've got no problem with that.
It is when other more supernatural claims get made that I feel the burden of proof shifts up a bit.
The writings in the Bible closest to Jesus's time aren't the gospels at all, of course, but Paul's letters, and - possibly - the Acts of the Apostles. Neither of them claim to be first person accounts of Jesus's life.
-
I don't see any reason why Christian scholars would have invented a passage that blamed them for the Great Fire.
Except that it doesn't really say that, it says that they were persecuted for it, which Suetonius also says and I think there are other sources. This could well be the case, we don't really know but it seems likely and it seems like the sort of imperial information Tacitus may well have and be reliable on. So still playing the devil's advocate here (although only just) there is no reason to take the jump and assume the whole paragraph was inserted rather than just the references to Christus.
Rob mentions Robin Lane Fox and, it's a long time since I read The Unauthorised Version, but the manipulation of the truth by the early Christians (and the not so early Christians) is a fairly central theme of that book.
I agree that Tacitus is mostly reliable but his reliability is mostly with matters that would have been commonly known or recorded parts of the Roman record such as the wars and intrigues of Imperial Rome. He is less likely to be reliable on distant and obscure events from a generation or two earlier, such as the execution of a minor religious figure in Judea.
To be clear, I'm not trying to say that Jesus did or did not exist, just that there is no reliable evidence either way. To read what information or evidence we do have with any sense of conclusion in either direction I would argue is just being reading too much into it.
-
WH,
"I think that's unfair. Isn't it human nature to speculate on the meaning of existence? I think therefore I am and all that. And some of us have had a few decades to do this. It's not to do with being superior or inferior to anyone else. That's what I meant about needing a safe place."
Maybe you have. Maybe some people just like good ideas and loathe bad ones, and come here to discuss ideas freely. Maybe.
You are both completely right, and I'm really sorry for being so carelessly rude. I've been brooding about some experiences from outside Russell's place, and I did not meant to say anything about what's been said here, despite all appearances.
-
WH,
That first paragraph is Hilary's comment.
-
WH
It's the difference between saying 'I completely disagree with you, because of x,y,z' and saying 'You are stupid because you think this' . This site does the former very well, while other sites prefer instant web rage.
I am interested in why people think things even though they are apparently irrational and not supported by best scientific evidence. One example from my own work is the strong belief some parents of kids with autism have that vaccines cause autism. Even though there is no scientific evidence for this and the man who started it all, Andrew Wakefield, has been shown to have misrepresented his evidence, and now makes a good living persuading parents that vaccines are to blame. Meanwhile immunisation rates have dropped and there are outbreaks of measles and other diseases in developed countries.
But telling parents they are stupid for their wrong beliefs, is not going to win any converts. So what does work in persuading people to change their fundamental beliefs?
-
by making good scientific arguments
Steven, I think that approach would only work for people who respect a certain type of fact.
-
'I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart.' - Stephen Colbert
-
Truthiness to the rescue. :)
-
Colbert's problem is going to be how to appear even nuttier than the nut-jobs (see other thread)
-
JC takes it for the sins of Global Capitalism, but makes a special exception for Levi Strauss & Co?
-
We've already discussed "mysterious ways", though I don't know I'd equate RB with JC
-
'I don't trust books. They're all fact, no heart.' - Stephen Colbert
'Books are a load of crap.' - Philip Larkin (poet and librarian)
-
Oook! (Orangutan)
-
Oook! (Orangutan)
Nice Monkey o shit...
-
Ahh, Rincewind. I've been looking for you...
-
But telling parents they are stupid for their wrong beliefs, is not going to win any converts. So what does work in persuading people to change their fundamental beliefs?
Random and tangential musings follow...
Maybe by somehow arguing that there should be no fundamental beliefs that are held as absolute and inflexible? I have no idea how.
It seems characteristic of what I'd...er... characterise as modernism (in the broad sense) to think that absolutist systems of belief lead us into trouble. To say something is empirically true and therefore absolutely true seems sufficient on the face of it, but all evidence has to be weighed and valued and integrated into an overall system of thought in a pragmatic manner.
For example, there may be elements of evidence that, say vaccines correlate with autism (bollocks IMO), but in the absence of certainty, one has to make to with strong certainty that it does not. Someone unable to think in terms of probable or contingent truth and only absolute truth will randomly seize upon whatever element of evidence that seems in isolation to support a position that they have (irrationally perhaps) chosen to take. In the face of contradiction, one retreats into cognitive dissonance - ie., all contrary evidence is fraudulent and maliciously fraudulent. Something is true or it is not - there are no other possible states, and if it is not true, then evidence for a contrary and unwelcome position must therefore be part of a vast conspiracy.
The scientific method has the inbuilt advantage of a self-checking process (peer review, reproducibility), but in the arena of public opinion where this process is naively understood, and where the media, perhaps earnestly and in good faith, practice the principle of fair play, any random or even dishonest interpretation of data is equally weighted, leading to a smorgasbord where old X-Files slogans such as 'I want to believe' become genuine radical acts. Those uneducated in the scientific method will take on pseudo-scientific beliefs as an attempt to counter the perceived elitism of the scientific establishment.
Ironically, 'pseudoscience' gains its legitimacy solely by imitating the form of science while attacking the conventional method.
If the word 'truth' itself is carefully framed by its applicability to various circumstances, frameworks, contexts and 'meaning' itself is subject to an understanding of the system that generates meaning of a proposition, perhaps some more practical means of dealing with these concepts and how we should apply them to discourse and action... er... lost my thread there... It has something to do with my impression that absolute truth is a fine ideal, but next to impossible to achieve in practice which can be comprehended in terms of lived experience.
2+2=4 is truth as Orwell famously pointed out, but he was being naive in his rhetoric. That is empirically true, but if Keats were to say, as he did, that truth is beauty, was he a liar, or is the word 'truth' itself needing of some more nuanced and contingent understanding? I tend to the latter. I love a woman, I love chocolate. Obviously the word 'love' is to be interpreted differently according to use, but in the case of truth, no less deeply in either case while my love of chocolate might be comparatively shallow.
Wearing one of my hats as architectural historian, I'm constantly reminded by the failure of modernist housing (most infamously, Pruitt Igoe, the demolition of which Charles Jencks said marked the death of modernist architecture). 'We got the ergonomics right! What else did they want?' 'Well, quite a lot that you never thought to ask them about, as it happened...'
What I appreciate about the, for want of a better term, 'spiritual' attitude in the context of modern or postmodern thought is its doubt and uncertainty paradoxically mixed with hope. That at least accommodates a comprehension that knowledge is contingent and incomplete. The main criticism of the 'God of the gaps' - that if something can't be explained now, then it never will be and God is responsible for whatever bridge there across the gap - is that science will eventually close those gaps and consequently God will disappear is valid, however, the 'spiritual' or 'animist' view is useful in such circumstances in that it allows a society to deal with the fact that there are gaps and lacunae. The universe will always to some degree be incomprehensible, so therefore a flexible, 'soft' worldview that incorporates mystery and uncertainty with a corollary of cautious action as its foundation may suit the emerging world of the 21st century. By that I mean, if we are uncertain, rather than grasping at a conspirational view of the world (global warming is a hoax, vaccines cause autism etc) where absolute certainty, however flawed is desired, we might withdraw and observe correlates and construct contingent narratives instead.
Now, I don't propose this as a manifesto by any means, but as an observation. In the field of mathematics, Michael Horgan, in the October 1993 (a long time ago, that was!) edition of Scientific American observed that mathematical proofs now required advance (for the time) computer programmes to generate mathematic proofs that were literally incomprehensible to human mathematicians. If anything, this is even more the case now, and the implications of this will become increasingly apparent in other fields of knowledge. We will not comprehend a truth, but have to 'take the computer's word for it' (I use the word, 'comprehend' deliberately - one can at a formal level 'understand' a thing, but comprehension has to do with fully conscious and imaginative appreciation of a concept).
At the moment we think that we choose to place faith in computers without really knowing what that faith means and soon we will have to come to terms with having no choice but to place faith in AIs. I'm not say that that is a good thing, or a pattern to follow, but the kinds of systems of thought that can accommodate a sense of mystery in a world that nonetheless continues to operate without our comprehension may provide a better pattern than the old (naively-interpreted) Humanist or Enlightenment model of the universe and even the subset of our technological world being subject to our understanding.
That's all rather abstract and long-winded, I'm afraid, but not being a Christian, I will still use the time of Easter to speculate as best I can on issues of wider import than the number of buns I can stuff into my face. I have no trouble with Easter being the celebration of a strange conjunction of a number of Christian and pagan myths, because I revere myth itself that has meaning independent of empirical truth, and therefore its own kind of truth.
(Said Queen Victoria of Gladstone, 'He addresses me as if I were a public meeting' - sometimes I can't do anything other than that, goes with the territory and all that, sorry)
-
WH, no need to apologise, although it is gracious of you to do so. As Hilary says, this community is much better at the x y and z than many others.
-
That's all rather abstract and long-winded, I'm afraid, but not being a Christian, I will still use the time of Easter to speculate as best I can on issues of wider import than the number of buns I can stuff into my face. I have no trouble with Easter being the celebration of a strange conjunction of a number of Christian and pagan myths, because I revere myth itself that has meaning independent of empirical truth, and therefore its own kind of truth.
Me, I'm down with the buns and chocolate, but whatever floats your boat, fella.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.