Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?

[outhouse]

There is a great book called Nailed which goes through a few of the myths of Jesus and provides a very convincing case that Jesus is also just a myth. Has anyone read it and considered the arguments presented?

Fitzgerald did not have the knowledge to undertake a book like this, and it shows.

It does not stand up under scrutiny of modern scholarships

 

[VocoInDubium]

Self-published, no peer review, atheist activist. None of that disproves his arguments, but they also do not make for a promising start.

Fitzgerald's arguments take the form of ten "myths" that he "debunks." Flatly, the specific "myths" he provide, and the counterarguments he offers, could be used to teach a class in logical fallacies--but only as a bad example. His arguments are frequently ludicrous, occasionally outright dishonest, and always presented as "fact."

This is an interesting point of view to me. Could you provide some examples of outright dishonest arguments? I would love some ammunition but as stated it seems very convincing that Jesus the man who performed miracles no one wrote about until half a century after he was gone but decided to write about all kinds of other odd subjects to be a very convincing argument.

 

[Quagmire]

This is an interesting point of view to me. Could you provide some examples of outright dishonest arguments?

Here's one:

There were plenty writers, both Roman and Jewish, who had great interest in and much to say about (Jesus') region and its happenings .... We still have many of their writings today: volumes and volumes from scores of writers detailing humdrum events and lesser exploits of much more mundane figures in Roman Palestine, including several failed Messiahs. (Fitzgerald, p. 22)

The fact is, we have a grand total of one writer (Josephus) who said anything at all about any "failed Messiahs" in first Century Judea.

I would love some ammunition but as stated it seems very convincing that Jesus the man who performed miracles no one wrote about until half a century after he was gone but decided to write about all kinds of other odd subjects to be a very convincing argument.

All kinds of other odd subjects such as . . . ?

 

[technomage]

This is an interesting point of view of me. Could you provide some examples of outright dishonest arguments? I would love some ammunition but as stated it seems very convincing that Jesus the man who performed miracles no one wrote about until half a century after he was gone but decided to write about all kinds of other odd subjects to be a very convincing argument.

One terrific example, in his very first myth: "It’s true enough that the majority of Biblical historians do not question the historicity of Jesus but then again, the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers, so what else could we expect them to say?"

This completely ignores several leading Biblical historical scholars, including:
* Atheists: Jacques Berlinerblau, Maurice Casey, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen and Gerd Ludemann.
* Jews: David Flusser, Hyam Maccoby, Mark Nanos, Jacob Neusner, Alan Segal, Geza Vermes.

These are not unknowns, especially folks like Berlinerblau, Flusser, or Ehrman: these are some of the most famous names in Biblical scholarship today.

Fitzgerald is not ignorant of these people. To assert that "the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers" and ignore these (or worse, to try to hand-wave it away, as he has on some internet posts) is nothing short of dishonesty.

 

[VocoInDubium]

Here's one:
The fact is, we have a grand total of one writer (Josephus) who said anything at all about any "failed Messiahs" in first Century Judea.

So I understand your argument you are saying we only have one writing of failed messiahs that you know of?

The author is stating we have lots of historical documents about what was going on then but really nothing about walking on water and ressurecting the dead or meeting all the saints that were raised and came back to chat with the residents at that time. To focus though you are saying we have just one writing of failed messiahs in first century judea? I'm not an expert but are you stating there is just one recorded? (Judas? Even maybe Jesus? I could research this but I am remembering two without referencing the footnotes)

All kinds of other odd subjects such as . . . ?

Odd subjects? Anything and everything. The point the author is making is we have documents from that era but they talk about everything but Jesus. It is not until many, many years after Jesus died that writings begin to emerge and considering his influence and deeds you might expect some preserved writings.

The disagreements and additions to the new testament are also very interesting. (So much so I started to read the new testament again to see if I can come up with some contradictions)

 

[VocoInDubium]

One terrific example, in his very first myth: "It’s true enough that the majority of Biblical historians do not question the historicity of Jesus but then again, the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers, so what else could we expect them to say?"

This completely ignores several leading Biblical historical scholars, including:
* Atheists: Jacques Berlinerblau, Maurice Casey, Bart Ehrman, Paula Fredriksen and Gerd Ludemann.
* Jews: David Flusser, Hyam Maccoby, Mark Nanos, Jacob Neusner, Alan Segal, Geza Vermes.

These are not unknowns, especially folks like Berlinerblau, Flusser, or Ehrman: these are some of the most famous names in Biblical scholarship today.

Fitzgerald is not ignorant of these people. To assert that "the majority of Biblical historians have always been Christian preachers" and ignore these (or worse, to try to hand-wave it away, as he has on some internet posts) is nothing short of dishonesty.

It seems like you are saying the majority of Biblical historians have not always been Christian preachers but then you mention a minority that are not?

 

[Quagmire]

So I understand your argument you are saying we only have one writing of failed messiahs that you know of?

Or, apparently, that anyone else has ever heard of.

The author is stating we have lots of historical documents about what was going on then but really nothing about walking on water and ressurecting the dead or meeting all the saints that were raised and came back to chat with the residents at time.

Which is just one more fallacy: like almost all mythists, he's confusing the historical Jesus with the mythical Jesus. In his case, the confusion is pretty obviously intentional.

To focus though you are saying we have just one writing of failed messiahs in first century judea?

Yes. :yes:

I'm not an expert but are you stating there is just one recorded? (Judas? Even maybe Jesus? I could research this but I am remembering two without referencing the footnotes)

What I'm saying is that there was one author/historian, and a grand total of two works by him.

Not "volumes and volumes from scores of writers", as Fitzgerald claims.

Odd subjects? Anything and everything.

So in other words you haven't actually read any of the material, you're just taking someone elses word all this.

The point the author is making is we have documents from that era but they talk about everything but Jesus. It is not until many, many years after Jesus died that writings begin to emerge and considering his influence and deeds you might expect some preserved writings.

Sounds like you're still talking about the mythical Jesus.

The disagreements and additions to the new testament are also very interesting. (So much so I started to read the new testament again to see if I can come up with some contradictions)

How so? We have a total of two accounts about Hannibal and his march on Rome, and those accounts contradict each other on almost every point.

Should we disregard both and consider Hannibal a mythological character?

 

[outhouse]

It seems like you are saying the majority of Biblical historians have not always been Christian preachers but then you mention a minority that are not?

There is a big difference between apologist, and modern scholarships.

Apologist are not creating history in any sense.


Crossan
Sanders
Borg
Schiffman
Moss
Meyers
Ehrman
Reed
Strange

Are a few of many examples of unbiased modern scholarships.

And one can be a ex priest and even a priest, and still do great unbiased work.

 

[outhouse]

It is not until many, many years after Jesus died that writings begin to emerge and considering his influence and deeds you might expect some preserved writings.

Just the opposite.

We see a martyred man at Passover and mythology developing in theology within a few decades after his death.

His fame came after his death, his last week is what is remembered by Hellenist more then anything.

While alive he was a traveling peasant teacher, teaching in illiterate villages for the most part, dealing with the poor and lower classes of life.

 

[technomage]

So I understand your argument you are saying we only have one writing of failed messiahs that you know of?

More accurately--despite Fitzgerald's claim of "scores of writers"--we only have one author who had any real interest in the religious aspects of Judea province during that time.

The author is stating we have lots of historical documents about what was going on then but really nothing about walking on water and ressurecting the dead or meeting all the saints that were raised and came back to chat with the residents at time.

This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the "Christ Myth" school. They read the Bible hyper-literally, and critique it hyper-literally, and then assume that because the hyper-literal Bible cannot withstand scrutiny, then the entire thing is fiction, or myth, or what have you.

The Christ-Mythers fail to realize that most scholars already acknowledge that most of the Gospel narratives are later legends that accreted to a historical individual. With the exception of those who have religious "skin in the game," we already know Jesus didn't walk on water, or raise Lazarus from the dead, or rise from the dead himself. But there are some genuine elements in the Gospels. Jesus was from Galilee, he preached in Jerusalem, and he was executed by crucifixion. We _probably_ have some authentic (though translated by oral history, and therefore to be analyzed with caution) sayings of Jesus, though in my opinion the genuine sayings are in the minority as compared to the later doctrinal additions.

But the Christ-Mythers want all or nothing, because that's the only way their arguments work. If they attempt to attack the detailed, nuanced, modern scholarship about the historical Jesus, their arguments fail, miserably. It's so much easier to attack a hyper-literalist position, because then their false dichotomies actually "function" ... at least well enough to persuade them, and the suckers who buy their books.

The disagreements and additions to the new testament are also very interesting. (So much so I started to read the new testament again to see if I can come up with some contradictions)

You'd do far better delving into what's called historico-critical analysis. Start with Bart Ehrman.

 

[VocoInDubium]

Or, apparently, that anyone else has ever heard of.

Which is just one more fallacy: like almost all mythists, he's confusing the historical Jesus with the mythical Jesus. In his case, the confusion is pretty obviously intentional.

Yes. :yes:

What I'm saying is that there was one author/historian, and a grand total of two works by him.

Not "volumes and volumes from scores of writers", as Fitzgerald claims.


So in other words you haven't actually read any of the material, you're just taking someone elses word all this.

Sounds like you're still talking about the mythical Jesus.

How so? We have a total of two accounts about Hannibal and his march on Rome, and those accounts contradict each other on almost every point.

Should we disregard both and consider Hannibal a mythological character?

I think I sourced your argument. (armariummagnus.blogspot.com) for anyone interested)

You present an interesting spin but I think you are speaking as an authority on a subject you are not qualified to speak about. (Sorry I know you are staff here) To be clear I have never presented myself as an authority but you present no arguments. I can tell you this conversation has been discussed to death and you can reference: forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=269572

I personally found the arguments in Nailed very convincing and have found your arguments lacking.

 

[technomage]

You present an interesting spin but I think you are speaking as an authority on a subject you are not qualified to speak about.

Argumentum ad hominem. Here on RF, it is customary to address the arguments, not the person (including the qualifications of the person).

 

[VocoInDubium]

Argumentum ad hominem. Here on RF, it is customary to address the arguments, not the person (including the qualifications of the person).

I believe I did? Let me go back and re-read your post.

 

[Quagmire]

I think I sourced your argument. (armariummagnus.blogspot.com) for anyone interested)

No actually. Most of what I know about any of this I learned by actually reading what other people in here had to say about it and then doing my own research to cross-check their facts.

You present an interesting spin but I think you are speaking as an authority on a subject you are not qualified to speak about.

Which means, of course that, 1. I'm not telling you what you want to hear and so, 2. you're not going to bother to do any of your own research to see if there's any truth in what I'm saying.

(Sorry I know you are staff here)

That's neither here nor there.

To be clear I have never presented myself as an authority but you present no arguments.

Up til now all of I've been doing is showing you the flaws in your own arguments.

Or I should say, trying to show you. So far you're doing an excellent job of side-stepping everything I've said.

I can tell you this conversation has been discussed to death and you can reference: forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=269572

And?

I personally found the arguments in Nailed very convincing and have found your arguments lacking.

You personally found the arguments in Nailed comforting and re-assuring. That's usually all it takes to convince most people.

And the only thing you find lacking in my arguments is confirmation for your own biases.

I'm not going to waste anymore of my time trying to show you anything until you agree to open at least one eye, just a little bit.

 

[VocoInDubium]

More accurately--despite Fitzgerald's claim of "scores of writers"--we only have one author who had any real interest in the religious aspects of Judea province during that time.

Other than the blog I cited I would like to know why you feel this way.

This is one of the biggest weaknesses of the "Christ Myth" school. They read the Bible hyper-literally, and critique it hyper-literally, and then assume that because the hyper-literal Bible cannot withstand scrutiny, then the entire thing is fiction, or myth, or what have you.

The Christ-Mythers fail to realize that most scholars already acknowledge that most of the Gospel narratives are later legends that accreted to a historical individual. With the exception of those who have religious "skin in the game," we already know Jesus didn't walk on water, or raise Lazarus from the dead, or rise from the dead himself. But there are some genuine elements in the Gospels. Jesus was from Galilee, he preached in Jerusalem, and he was executed by crucifixion. We _probably_ have some authentic (though translated by oral history, and therefore to be analyzed with caution) sayings of Jesus, though in my opinion the genuine sayings are in the minority as compared to the later doctrinal additions.

But the Christ-Mythers want all or nothing, because that's the only way their arguments work. If they attempt to attack the detailed, nuanced, modern scholarship about the historical Jesus, their arguments fail, miserably. It's so much easier to attack a hyper-literalist position, because then their false dichotomies actually "function" ... at least well enough to persuade them, and the suckers who buy their books.

You'd do far better delving into what's called historico-critical analysis. Start with Bart Ehrman.

I want to inquire more about this but I get caught up in the if someone told me that someone was able to bring the dead back to life and could also walk on water and turn that same water to wine you would be ok with relying on the say so of people who said so decades after the person who could do this has passed and no other person since then has been able to duplicate.

Have you read the new testament? All the saints came back to life from the dead and travelled to speak with whomever. Did they die again? What did they say about being dead?

 

[VocoInDubium]

No actually. Most of what I know about any of this I learned by actually reading what other people in here had to say about it and then doing my own research to cross-check their facts.
Which means, of course that, 1. I'm not telling you what you want to hear and so, 2. you're not going to bother to do any of your own research to see if there's any truth in what I'm saying.

Yessum. Sorry I spoke up. (Why would I read or research on my own without your guidance?)

Up til now all of I've been doing is showing you the flaws in your own arguments.

Clearly. Your arguments are unflawwed and mine flawwed.

Or I should say, trying to show you. So far you're doing an excellent job of side-stepping everything I've said.

I guess. Not sure why they post my replies at all until you are atleast allowed to validate them.

I'm not going to waste anymore of my time trying to show you anything until you agree to open at least one eye, just a little bit.

Your time is quite valuable.

 

[Quagmire]

Yessum. Sorry I spoke up. (Why would I read or research on my own without your guidance?)



Clearly. Your arguments are unflawwed and mine flawwed.



I guess. Not sure why they post my replies at all until you are atleast allowed to validate them.



Your time is quite valuable.

Come on now: just one eye, just a little. . .

 

[outhouse]

I can tell you this conversation has been discussed to death and you can reference: forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=269572

.

I have debated with all of these, people including shutting down the OP here several times with his nonsense. [I like Don]


Do you think known mythicist who have been kicked out of most forums for poor methodology gives any credibility to Fitgerald.

next thing you will do is bring in more pseudo scholars like Salm, AchyraS, and whats that other greasy characters name, I know you know him.

 

[VocoInDubium]

Come on now: just one eye, just a little. . .

PM me what to say. I don't want to further anger you.

 

[technomage]

Other than the blog I cited I would like to know why you feel this way.

Because I've spent about fifteen years immersed in the texts from that area. I've read Josephus and Philo. I've read Tacitus, Ovid, and Suetonius, among several dozen others. I've read most of the non-canonicals. With the one exception of Josephus, they treated the eastern provinces as a collection of cow-towns in a hick province, when they mentioned it _at all_.

And because I've also kept up on the scholarship regarding that area. You fundamentally have two schools of thought regarding first century ANE history: the "devotional" writers, who have religious "skin in the game," and the (now I'm going to let my bias show) real historians, who follow the evidence.

The "devotional" authors will at least mention the Christ-Mythers, because for them it's an easy debating win. Hey, they can show how effective their apologetics are by defeating these half-bakes Mythers! The real historians? Voco, for the most part, they don't even bother giving Christ Myth writings the time of day. The Christ Myth hypothesis is so far out in left field that most scholars don't even consider them in the ball park.

I want to inquire more about this but I get caught up in the if someone told me that someone was able to bring the dead back to life and could also walk on water and turn that same water to wine you would be ok with relying on the say so of people who said so decades after the person who could do this has passed and no other person since then has been able to duplicate.

Again, Voco, you're getting caught up in literalism. Of course Jesus didn't walk on water. Of curse he didn't bring anybody back from the dead. Those legends got added in after Paul stopped writing, but before the Gospels got written--they developed as part of the oral tradition. Miracle-working teachers and messianic claimants were reputed to be as common as cow-pats in Galilee (not nearly so common in Judea proper), so the stories about miracles got attached to the teachings of a failed apocalyptic preacher.

Have you read the new testament?

Both in Greek (haltingly--my Greek was never that good) and in English. Guess what, Voco--it doesn't make a difference. The stories about the "saints rising up from their graves" still didn't happen in history. Again, this was a story that got added in under the oral tradition, and the unknown author of GoMatthew thought it made for a good theological argument.

One big reason the Gospels were so successful is by the time they were written, all (or at least most) the eyewitnesses were dead.