January 7, 2011

• My response to a public tantrum ~The historicity of Jesus

  I’m always surprised by the devotion of these New Atheists. Never has an absence of belief inspired such evangelical zeal. You’d think that they would just relax and enjoy the ride, but for some reason they won’t…. or can’t. 

   

  This Reposted comment was inspired by my recent exchange with one of the most enthusiastic Evangelical atheists I’ve ever encountered, Zerowing 21 (JT). There are many atheists on Xanga but there are few as devoutly religious as JT. I suspect his enthusiasm is fueled by the fact that he claims to have once been a Christian but then converted to Atheism. He certainly has a vested interest in reassuring himself that he made the right decision and the wisdom of that decision can only be confirmed by converting others to the same faith. That’s my theory anyhow. But for whatever reason, there is no doubt that he is unparalleled in his undying devotion to…… “nothing”.  

   

  I’d like to go into a little background, and provide some cautions before I formally respond to my “Public Flogging”. JT seems to be a nice enough fellow when dealing with those who agree with him. I certainly have no ill will towards the man himself. Having said that, I’m not going to be shy about assessing his debating style and the way he comports himself while “debating” his views.  He’s welcome to believe what he’d like but often times his perspective is held up as “fact” as opposed to one view on any given issue; whether it be a materialistic First Cause or, as in his most recent blog, the historicity of Jesus.

   

  As an example of his style, He treats Intelligent Design as if it were a theory held by only a few strange Xangans and not one endorsed by well educated scientists. In this vein, he tries to dismiss any citation as a “lay person” challenging the whole of the scientific community. My points are dismissed as if they’re coming from me and not the scientific articles I’ve linked.  On “The historicity of Jesus” he takes a slightly different tact and admonishes me for NOT appealing to the wisdom of academia with regard to a historical Jesus (a very ironic piece of advice given his own stance). But the weakness of his belief is revealed in how he comports himself and his clumsy attempts to isolate his opponent from legitimate sources of agreement. This is made further puzzling when he “demands” that his opponent use (or not use in this case) certain source material. His recent odd demand that I not use any of those “B.S. sources” reminds me of another Evangelical Atheist I ran into years ago. This E.A. (Evangelical Atheist) refused to “allow” any links to articles supporting Intelligent Design when the very debate was over Darwinian Evolution versus Intelligent Design.  Lol!!! I have no doubt that it’s easier to beat your opponent after he’s slipped on the straight jacket so graciously provided; but what kind of person actually thinks their opponent will do it??? Having said that, I will link whatever source material I deem appropriate. My readers can determine if it’s legitimate and or relevant. Furthermore anyone who uses wikipedia as source material is in no position to set protocol for sourcing standards.

   

  At times, The New Atheists debating style resembles the behavior of a cranky 2 year old. They flail their arms wildly in the air until people walk away from the sheer embarrassment of their behavior. At that point, they claim themselves the victor after having thoroughly “bloodied” their opponent. The truth is, they very rarely land a punch….. a decent argument. They rely heavily on irrational insults to distract from their poor points.

  As I said yesterday, *Invective is the gaudy window dressing on a very poor argument. There’s no doubt that a horrid display commands attention, but it doesn’t add anything positive to the overall picture*. 

  But in the end, I suspect their objective is to make their opponent “go away” not to actually change anyone’s mind on the matter. Above all, their ego, not their argument, MUST stay in tact.  And so it is with JT.  The one formal debate we agreed upon (after much discussion) was quickly dropped by him after I submitted my first argument. The fact that balanced moderators were assigned to oversee the exchange and it was to be hosted on CotIT, a blog which does not allow invective, may have intimidated him. It’s very likely the CotIT moderator’s would have had to dramatically cut a large part of JT’s presentation. In other words, The gaudy window dressing would have been removed. 

   

  It’s for these reasons that I want to warn my readers who are not familiar with JT. This is especially important for those who are sensitive to language and want to view the links I’ve provided to his blog posts.  A casual reading of his responses will confirm the tendency I’ve outlined, but I wanted to provide a caution in advance. Believers need to be encouraged in the historical substance of their faith. Once you peel away the ham handed threats; heroic self descriptors; imperious attitude and excessive insult; the content of his argument is not only weak but most of the points he provides are absent of any balanced review and do not bear up under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Some so much so that they are frankly disingenuous. I’ll point this out when we go over the antiquities of Josephus and the letters of Ignatius. At any rate, I can hardly blame E.A. for their bold and unsupported attempt to remove Jesus from the historical record. It would make their job a lot easier if they could simply remove both the head and foundation of the Christian Faith. 

   

  I’m going to start off with an analysis of his “Elvis” argument. I think this is important because I find the fact that Jesus is mentioned anywhere close to the time of his death to be quite astounding. Given the era; the place; and the limited education of his closest friends; not to mention the lack of durable recording material, it shouldn’t be a matter of curiosity to see few records early on. It was common in that culture to transmit facts through oral history. And this is exactly what happened. The Jews were sticklers for accuracy especially as it related to religious tradition and without a doubt early Christians believed in Jesus “the person” as well as Jesus “the Messiah”. This is exactly what happened until the earliest New Testament manuscripts appeared. These writings originated in 50 AD. Gary R. Habermas discusses the consensus view in his critique of G.A. Wells “The Myth of Jesus”. An interesting side note, G.A. Wells recanted his position that Jesus was not a historical figure, AFTER having published 3 popular books on the subject. As far as I’m concerned, his most recent book “Cutting Jesus down to size” is a hollow monument to his complete irrelevance as a Christian critic. 

   

  • (http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm).* 

   

  In addition to the problems presented by era; access to recording material and the education level of those who were closest to Jesus; we have the length of his ministry. Unlike Mr. Presley, who was known throughout the world, Jesus’s ministry only lasted 3 years. Also, his ministry was limited to a geographical area no larger than 100 sq. miles. The kings exposure was far wider. Virtually everyone knew of Elvis via Media. His career spanned a longer period of time; with written records, audio and video files. As you can see, the “Elvis” comparison is amusing but not in the way JT intended it to be.  In spite of the fact that Jesus had far less exposure during his short ministry, his popularity still manages to outshine such a talented performer as Elvis Presley.

  In other words, The King of Kings trumps ~ the king.  

   

  Next I’ll deal with the “Dropped Arguments” 

   For the record, these arguments were not dropped. As is typical of E.A., JT has a loyal following of 3 or 4 fans who immediately spring to his aid when someone opposes his views. It’s difficult to effectively deal with 4 or 5 separate arguments at the same time (in comment section of a post no less). 

   

  1) Ignatius (and his letters) as a valid historical source for the historicity of Jesus.  

  Here JT claims that all of the letters, save one questionable one, were corrupted by interpolation. Scholars most suspicious of corruption believe it was Eusebius. Catholics suggest an Apollonarist of Egyptian or Syrian origin. Whatever the case the corruptions deal with church positions, sacraments and procedures not the existence of Christ the man.

   JT seems to be believe that there were only 7. There were actually 7 genuine and 6 spurious letters. He seems to have missed this on the wiki link he provided.

  • Here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch

  The genuine letters were made mention of by Irenaeus. As a reliable source, Irenaeus lends credibility to their authenticity.

  • http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/i/ignatius_of_antioch,saint.html 
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus

  The question of corruption had nothing whatsoever to do with the historicity of Jesus. Furthermore JT overstates the number of writings produced by Ignatius thought to be corrupted. The corrupted content in question has to do with Ecclesiastical Stations disputed by the Protestant Reformers. In addition Eusebius would have not only had to cut out of whole cloth ALL of the letters written by Ignatius but would have had to manufacture the man HIMSELF in order to support the notion that Jesus never existed. Ignatius was a student of the Apostle John and lived a life devoted to Christ. He was martyred by the Romans in the Colosseum.

  The desperate argument that Ignatius claimed to have spiritual visions and revelations is not one that gains much purchase with Christians, or historians for that matter. It’s a point that provides little surprise when debating the existence of a person who himself preformed miracles. Nearly all of the disciples claimed the same. This point is, at best, irrelevant to the discussion. 

  • http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

   

  In summary, JT’s challenge to the testimony of Ignatius yields no traction. 

   

  2) Polycarp: It is recorded by Irenaeus, as well as Tertullian, that Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John. JT throws out the Red herring that Polycarp never claimed to have met Jesus. I’m not sure what difference that makes. He then goes on to question whether he was a contemporary of John. He’s certainly welcome to question the consensus view as long as he doesn’t mind standing virtually alone on that point. Polycarp lived between 70 and 155 AD. His life overlapped the Apostle John’s by 30 years. To think that they did NOT meet is an extremely strange position to take. Polycarp was martyred. 

  • http://www.polycarp.net/ 
    
  • http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

   

  In light of the fact that he was a student of John, we can be assured that he would have sought out the company of others who were aware of a man named Jesus of Nazareth. By this point, oral stories, as well as written records, were circulating. In spite of this, there is no written record of contestation. More on that later. The idea that a man willing to go to his martyrdom would not have been the least bit curious about others who witnessed this marvelous man really strains the imagination. It’s recorded that John lived to a good age. There’s little doubt others did as well. Polycarp would have sought out the company of those who were eye witnesses. If there were no one to corroborate John’s claims, he likely would not have been so zealous.  It is beyond unlikely that a man who was a contemporary of The Apostle John would accept a delusion so strong as to dedicate his entire life to a non existent man when it could be so easily confirmed.  

   

   

  3) Josephus: In this case JT is either being disingenuous or perhaps he’s just plain uninformed. I suspect it’s the latter. But here’s his quote. You can decide:

   “Any reliable sourcing would have quickly led you to a few easy conclusions: that historians reject the Ignatian letters as frauds and that the Josephus entry was a forgery.”

   

   At any rate the devil is in the details (pardon the reference), and JT left out quite a few details in his argument against the veracity of the two clauses in Josephus’s “Antiquities”. This link provides a good analysis. 

   

  • http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/josephus.html

  The first and smaller quote makes a reference to James the brother of Jesus. The suspected corruption appears in bold letters:

   Antiquities 20.9.1 But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as law-breakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

  
  

  Please read the above link for further explanation.  But as you can see, the interpolation is less comprehensive and much less sinister than JT implies. 

   

  Up next, the second longer passage: 

   

  Antiquities 18.3.3 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 among 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.

   

  The lines in bold print first came under scrutiny in the 16th century. It’s loudest most vociferous critic was a man named Voltaire….. hmmm. At any rate, skeptics would have people to believe that the whole clause is suspected by everyone. First off, there is not unanimous agreement on the interpolation of either clause. That isn’t surprising, but what I do find disturbing is when the idea of complete corruption is put forward as a valid argument. More on the question of possible interpolation and the doubts surrounding the critical claims here:

  • http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

  JT, once again, dramatically overstates the interpolation argument. Even if the lines in bold were to be excluded, that would do nothing to support his case that Jesus Christ was not a historical figure. 

  In other words, It appears that Josephus spotted “Elvis” leaving the building!   

   

   

   

  4) JT wants to know about the Elvis problem: why did nobody notice?  

   Pssst….they did. (see above)

   

   

  Now we go on to JT’s “New Arguments “

   

  1) The veracity a Tacitus: Here JT gives full credit to Tacitus as a reliable historian and then begins tearing down his use of the word “Christus”. He suggests Tacitus would have used a better word, ‘Jesus Ben Joseph’. He says this opinion is based on the fact that Tacitus was a Roman(?). This argument is more than a stretch and he clearly knows it by his reference to Mr. Presley again. First of all, Christ is a greek word and his followers were widely known as CHRISTians this was well recorded by many. He changes tactics and plows on with his claim that Tacitus probably just asked a Christian what his name was (this provides a great mental picture… “Hey Fella, got a second!!”). Being a cracker jack historian I’m sure he did most of his research this way, right? He then goes on to wonder why he asks questions of Pliny the Younger about Pliny the Elder since he clearly did not rise from the dead (??!!)  WHAT!!!  Oh PUUULLLEEEZ. They were friends!!! If you had infrequent contact with a close friend would you ask about a respected family member or would you blather on about Obama? Below is the undisputed quote as well as a link that completely tears this nonsense apart.   

   

  Jt needs to decide if this was corrupted; if Tacitus was a horrible historian or if Jesus was a genuine historical figure. 

  The Quote:

  “But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.”

   

  • http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html

   

  2) Thallus:

  This is also amusing because JT is nearly apoplectic at this point. According to F.F. Bruce Thallus lived cir. 52. His accounts of the Trojan War through the First Century were lost but not before they were recorded by Julius Africanus (221) who was a contemporary of Origen. From his writings, he seemed to enjoy a good relationship with the Church father.  Here’s the quote:

  “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the 263 third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun. For the Hebrews celebrate the passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the passion of our Savior fails on the day before the passover [see Phlegon]; but an eclipse of the sun takes place only when the moon comes under the sun. And it cannot happen at any other time but in the interval between the first day of the new moon and the last of the old, that is, at their junction: how then should an eclipse be supposed to happen when the moon is almost diametrically opposite the sun?” - Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18.1″

  JT wonders where the historians were who recorded this wonder!!! Well….here’s your answer in part: Thallus was there!! 

  At this point he calls into question the character of Africanus. This he MUST do because of the contemporary nature of Thallus, but he argues too much as this calls into question the veracity of all thallus’s recorded work, which is not a widely held position.

  The only sites I found to have a negative bent on Africanus/Thallus were the infidelians (just made that up. I like the religious connotations). They have several conspiratorial views on the matter. 

  Other than that, his work is cited as valid historical accounts. Most sources say that there is little known about Africanus save that he once was a pagan but became a Christian. It was during this time that he wrote his chronicles and there aren’t any extant, unfortunately. Nevertheless there are copies of his work. At any rate, I understand JT’s desire to tear down the reputation and works of early church historians, but attempting to shoot down multiple attestations with a single arrow from a distance of 2000 years is quixotic to say the least. 

   

  3) Suetonius: On this JT, continues to be vague as to specific quotes and makes this decided claim:  ”The expulsion Suetonius is referring to took place in Rome around 49-50 AD.  So the ‘Chrestos’ in the Suetonius line isn’t Jesus.” He then haggles about spelling once again. On this he has some traction. This point is the subject of heated debate. Here is the actual quote we’re dealing with:

  “(The Emperor) expelled from Rome the Jews because, at the instigation of Chrestus, they were perpetually making trouble” ~Life of Claudius  

  This does not explicitly state that Jesus was ALIVE at the time but rather that the Jews were instigated by him and were always making trouble.  I’ll ignore JT’s tendency to offer commentary without reference to exact quotations or necessary details because I’d like to focus on another aspect of this quote as well as the work of the skeptic Celus etc. etc.

   

  This is my argument from silence. The case for a historical Jesus can be clearly made on the basis silence. Suetonius and many others reference the continuing trouble these followers caused. It’s beyond dispute that the Jews and Roman officials were aware of the faith these people possessed in a man named Jesus. The disciples spoke publicly about the role that the ruling elders had in the death of Jesus Christ and by 60 A.D. written accusations were circulating.* Those they accused had the means and the motive to expose this myth of a man. The Sadducees and the Pharisees were well educated men who took great pride in preserving the truth with regard to their beliefs. In this case, it is acknowledged through biblical and extra biblical sources that they were frustrated (to put it mildly) by the number of converts to Christ. They most certainly would have contended his existence at this time yet there is no record of this. I submit that the utter lack of a written defense on the part of the Jewish and Roman hierarchy suggests that he did, in fact, exist. Not only is there silence from the Jews with regard to Jesus being a fabrication, we have a positive testimony of his existence from their Talmud. 

   

  The Jewish and the Roman leaders did not believe that Jesus was fictitious. We have positive testimony that Jesus was an actual man. And ZERO records that assert his mythology. 

  Finally, the willingness of his followers to be persecuted and martyred over a myth lends significant credence to the existence of Jesus.

   

  “People think we are insane when we name a crucified man as second in rank after the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things, for they do not discern the mystery involved.”  ~ Justin Martyr (100-165) (Apol. 1.13)

   

  More on Celus:

  Celus 2nd century

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsus

  A summary from the link:

  “Celsus and the historical Jesus

  Many scholars believe the Celsus gives us great insight into the Historical Jesus. Celsus’ importance and credibility as an early source lies in the fact that he sums up the “opposition view” to Jesus.

  If his were the only source to survive until today, was authentic and had to be read alone, it would tell us the following:

  1) There was a Jew named Jesus, who followed the all the teachings of his faith.

  2) His “father” was a carpenter.

  3) His mother was accused of conceiving out of wedlock

  4) His true father was a Roman soldier names Pantera & Jesus went to Egypt

  5) Jesus had a number of disciples, who were boat men and tax collectors

  6) Jesus performed miraculous signs, which were perceived by many as sorcery

  7) As Jesus became more widely known he was charged with practicing magic and leading Israel astray

  8) The reports of his resurrection came from a hysterical female and spread.

  9) Jesus and his followers embraced poverty.”

   

   

   

   

  In conclusion:

   

  I don’t have time to go into the veracity of the New Testament; Gnostic books or the apocrypha as valid historical sources. Suffice it to say there is an arsenal of support regarding their soundness as historical proofs. This post was overly long due to the detail required in order to honestly deal with JT’s public objections. One more caution to JT and any other evangelical Atheist before I post this.

   

  A word to  JT:

  You’re continual whining about wasting your time forces me to confront your childish behavior. I realize this continual carping is meant to inflate your own importance while debasing those you’re responding to, but it only reveals your utter lack of self control. Having said that, I’ll address the “time” complaint at it’s face value……  

  YOU are a grown up and responsible for how you choose to spend your time. Do not blame others for the decisions you make. If you begin to display your typical narcissistic behavior towards me or any of my commenters, I will delete your comment! Your argument is welcome; your invective IS NOT.  In other words, leave the gaudy window dressing at home.  

   

  Addendum: This response is not offered with the intention of convincing the confirmed Evangelical Atheist. Their irrational faith in the non existence of a historical person named Jesus is, by their own admission, not supported by evidence at this time. In reality, it is wishful thinking that is nothing short of astounding and only confirms the religious fervor and faith they loudly display!

   

   

  • 9:14 pm
  • 99 Comments