Easter and The Resurrection of Christ

GioClark wrote:

I'm still confused.

Are you saying that most historians agree that the events that the Bible record are authentic? Are you saying that most historians agree on when the Bible was written? (its pedigree, if you will) Or are you saying that most historians agree on what historical events took place because of what the Bible says or represents? (Meaning, is it important to note when telling the stories of human history?)

I'm asking this in the context of comparisons being made to other historically relevant/important (but not historically accurate) works, such as The Iliad.

I'm with you on this one. It appears that he is saying that the historical community agrees that everything in the bible is accepted as historical fact. I would find this particularly difficult to accept considering I never once encountered a historian during my undergraduate education in history that ever espoused that.

If he is saying that the bible contains fact, I don't think anyone would dispute that. But that hardly makes it inerrant any more than Prince Valiant would be an authoritative study of the Middle Ages.

souldaddy wrote:

Homer was writing mythology, and there is evidence that he (or they) didn't believe in the gods he wrote about

I hate to introduce another tangent to this thread, but I have to ask what evidence you're referring to here, souldaddy. I've studied Homer in quite some detail, but am unaware of even slight evidence pointing to his personal views on the existence of the gods.

Does anyone have the same doubts about the writings of Plato, Tacitus, Homer, or Caeser?

This is far more complicated than you imply.

First, there are serious doubts as to whether "Homer" was actually a person. That aside, the works of Plato, Tacitus and Julius Caesar, along with many others, come to us (when they do) via the institution of the Scriptorium. Scriptoria were used to maintain ancient writings deemed important by the monks, and we can look at different versions to compare accuracy in the same way that we do with biblical writings. Their goal of accuracy was the same no matter what they were copying, but often they did not copy works they deemed unimportant, so we have lost a lot.

If you wish to use the distance in time of the first Scriptoria copy of "De Bellum Gallicum" to question the existence of Gaius Julius Caesar, you are up against several problems. First, we have inscriptions in stone, statues and other contemporaneous physical records that he existed. Second, we have other unrelated documents that refer in passing to his writings, and are seperated in time and space from the actual documents. Third, the nature of the Scriptoria, while not perfect, lent itself to accuracy in copying.

This leads to a sort of boomerang on your line of thought. What you end up with is the knowledge that your Biblical texts have been copied relatively accurately, since they can be compared to the Hebrew and Greek originals in some cases. This means that it's very likely that other ancient texts have the same level of accuracy. So the whole idea that non-Christian manuscripts copied in Scriptoria are *less* accurate won't fly.

However, none of this tells us anything about the accuracy of the original writings. As I noted, it's the gap between the events and the original writings that is important. By that measure, Gallic Wars is an eyewitness document, however self-serving (in fact, we have so many records that we can actually see where he's whitewashing things).

We have no such documentation related to Jesus that is regarded as free of suspicion (Flavius Josephus, I'm looking at you!). Nor do we have contemporary inscriptions or the other accoutrements that supplement other famous ancient people's existance.

So again, the manuscript quantity and "distance from the original" are special-cased, because of the unique nature and function of the Scriptorium, ironically verified by their accuracy compared against original sources and other Scriptoria and the like. The accuracy of transmission does not tell us about the accuracy of the source document, and the distance from the initial events of the oldest copies is highly affected by the quality of the copying. We can be more certain of the events in "The Gallic Wars" than we can of the events of Jesus' life.

What we can be certain is that the Latin and Greek copies produced by the Scriptoria are reasonably good copies of the original. Yes, the books are old. We knew that, though.

And anyone who has ever actually READ Caesar's accounts of the Gallic Wars knows it's as sickeningly self congratulatory as Henry Kissinger's White House Years.

Edit: The practice of history relies on questioning the accuracy of sources. We strongly suspect, for instance, that Marco Polo's fantastic accounts of China were largely gleaned from traders he encountered far short of China. Though it was accepted as fact that he made it to Beijing in the past, modern historians are largely in agreement that he probably never made it to China at all. How do we know this? Well, for one, he never once mentions the Great Wall, which, considering his penchant for reporting on obscure minutae, would probably not have just slipped his mind.

It's also misleading to count manuscripts, since the purpose of the primary source of our copies was to reproduce Christian documents in preference to non-Christian ones. That's why we have detailled copies of the routine letters of 5th century bishops, but are missing entire plays by fantastically popular Greek and Roman writers.

Most historians have no problem with the historicity of the Bible.

But not as regards Jesus life, which is the topic under question. Instead, it's accuracy (and some inaccuracies) are in the areas of cities and peoples that existed. The actual existence of Jesus, however, is not archaeologically supported in the same way that the existence of Babylon and other cities, and some of their ancient leaders, are.

Paleocon wrote:

And anyone who has ever actually READ Caesar's accounts of the Gallic Wars knows it's as sickeningly self congratulatory as Henry Kissinger's White House Years.

It's a propaganda piece, no doubt about it, but it is also a marvel for its literary style, and a valuable source of insight into Roman war and logistics, policy and procedure, attitudes and concerns, as well as for the ethnography of Gaul, and the general state of affairs of the barbarian territories in the 50s. And these benefits are not accidental to Caesar's purpose; insofar as documenting these things was his interest, he did a better job than most, and without him our knowledge of that period would be greatly impoverished. While we must of course proceed with caution, particularly with regard to passages relating to Caesar's motives, the book is useful to us for many things beyond simply establishing the fact that Caesar was not a good person. Not sure I could say the same for Kissinger's, but then again, I haven't read it.

(I've both read De Bello Gallico and translated large portions of it myself.)

Lobo wrote:

(I've both read De Bello Gallico and translated large portions of it myself.)

And yet somehow neglected to translate the title.

And this surprises you? Seen the title of my article category lately?

I've both read De Bello Gallico and translated large portions of it myself.

Hmmm...so I thought it was "bellicus bellica bellicum" and "Gallicus Gallica Gallicum", hence "De Bellum Gallicum", "About the Gaulish War". ?

About all I really remember is an intro course I took once..."Agricola, Agricolum, Agricolorum" sticks horribly in my mind.

edit - Paleo informs me my memory of 7th grade is extremely poor.

Lobo wrote:

And this surprises you? Seen the title of my article category lately? ;-)

Dang the way I read it you were making fun of Lincoln.

Lobo wrote:

It's a propaganda piece, no doubt about it, but it is also a marvel for its literary style, and a valuable source of insight into Roman war and logistics, policy and procedure, attitudes and concerns, as well as for the ethnography of Gaul, and the general state of affairs of the barbarian territories in the 50s. And these benefits are not accidental to Caesar's purpose; insofar as documenting these things was his interest, he did a better job than most, and without him our knowledge of that period would be greatly impoverished. While we must of course proceed with caution, particularly with regard to passages relating to Caesar's motives, the book is useful to us for many things beyond simply establishing the fact that Caesar was not a good person. Not sure I could say the same for Kissinger's, but then again, I haven't read it.

(I've both read De Bello Gallico and translated large portions of it myself.)

And Kissinger's work is pretty much an authoritative piece on the inside of the Nixon White House during the height of his accellerating insanity. Though it doesn't stop him from saying stuff that reads like "but of course this was no fault of Caesar's...um... I mean Kissinger's".

Paleocon wrote:

If, as many modern Christians assert, the singular most important event in Christian history is the resurrection, one would expect the historical accounts to at least be consistent.

So what? I don't have a problem with contradictions between books in the Bible. That doesn't prove anything wrong.

Lobo wrote:

I have to ask what evidence you're referring to here, souldaddy. I've studied Homer in quite some detail, but am unaware of even slight evidence pointing to his personal views on the existence of the gods.

Don't have any, sorry I heard it from a teacher in college, and seem to remember the analysis being rather petty. However, it is enough for me to suggest that academia can find doubts in most anything 2000 years old.

Lobo wrote:

(De Bello Gallico) is also a marvel for its literary style, and a valuable source of insight into Roman war and logistics, policy and procedure, attitudes and concerns, as well as for the ethnography of Gaul, and the general state of affairs of the barbarian territories in the 50s. And these benefits are not accidental to Caesar's purpose; insofar as documenting these things was his interest, he did a better job than most, and without him our knowledge of that period would be greatly impoverished.

For these very reasons you list above, perhaps you can understand why I have no problem at all ignoring the historical accuracy of the accounts of Jesus' death. Maybe not ignoring them, but forgiving them definitely. I'm gonna defend Nomad now and say that, for all the history bashing we have given the Bible hear, it proves nothing. I tend to look at the Bible in the following ways:

a) as a religious philosophy
b) as a system of ethics
c) as a historical comparison of human behavior. The people who tested and challenged Jesus are *identical* to human beings today, in their arguments, their complaints, their logic. Human behavior has not evolved in the last 2000 years, it seems.
d) as a story of the human Jesus. Many have no problem with the New Testament as long as they define Jesus as a human being. Islam goes as far as praising him greatly. Ok, fine, what made him a great person?
e) as a puzzle. Why on earth would people come to the conclusions they have, given this evidence?
f) all of the above, plus some

Specifically, e) will help you greatly in your discussions with Christians. Think of it as a mental exercise, or an act of empathy. As a man, I have no idea about female perspective on life, but I can still talk about it with my sister, and give her advice. What is so hard about doing the same for Christianity? Do you think you will become brainwashed? Suspend your disbelief.

souldaddy wrote:

So what? I don't have a problem with contradictions between books in the Bible. That doesn't prove anything wrong.

Well, it sorta does. It appeared that Nomad was stating that the "uncontested historicity" of the Bible was evidence that its content in its entirety is literally true. Contradictory testimony requires one story to be right and the others wrong -- thus throwing a wrench in the whole "inerrancy" argument.

I understand that errancy in the Bible doesn't bother you and that your belief is based on faith. Furthermore, I actually find that viewpoint a lot more understandable than those who insist that the Bible is literally true.

Robear wrote:

Hmmm...so I thought it was "bellicus bellica bellicum" and "Gallicus Gallica Gallicum", hence "De Bellum Gallicum", "About the Gaulish War". ?

The preposition "de" always takes the ablative case, so that would be "de bello gallico". If you wanted to express the title without the "de", it would be the nominative "bellum gallicum".

de bello gallico = "on the Gallic war"
bellum gallicum = "the Gallic war"

The given title, as it appears on the first page of the first book, is a bit more unwieldy than either of the above: C. IVLI CAESARIS COMMENTARIORVM DE BELLO GALLICO LIBER PRIMVS, or "Book One of the Commentaries of Gaius Julius Caesar on the Gallic War". For obvious reasons, this is usually shortened. Either of the above abbreviations is appropriate, so long as you don't mix the "de" with the nominatives.

The form "bellicus" is actually an adjective, meaning bellicose (of course), and it declines in the manner you suspected. But "bello" and "bellum" come from the noun bellum, belli, which is second-declension neuter.

Hope that helps.

Paleocon wrote:

I understand that errancy in the Bible doesn't bother you and that your belief is based on faith.

Woah, I am not a Christian.

Paleocon wrote:

If, as many modern Christians assert, the singular most important event in Christian history is the resurrection, one would expect the historical accounts to at least be consistent. Even the accounts in the Christian Canon are contradictory regarding the circumstances in which it was discovered.

John 20:1 "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre."

Matthew 28:1 "In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."

Mark 16:1 "And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him."

Luke 24:10 "It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles."

I really don't see any discrepancy here. I checked out this entry at the site you linked and found it listed under the question "How many women came to the sepulchre?" One verse lists one, another two, another three, and the last refers to several women. This is not a discrepancy, but simply an omission, if you will, of a complete list.

Consider this example. I go to the movies with three friends (friends A, B, & C) with whom I have different mutual friends with each (mutual friends A1, B1, & C1, respectively). I tell A1 that I went to the movies with friend A, B1 that I went with B, and C1 that I went with C. I tell my wife that I went with all three. None of my accounts would be false, simply edited for relevance to the individual to whom I am speaking.

The differences in my four accounts do not make any of them less true, simply different. The same is true with the verses of Scripture you referenced.

oldmanscene24 wrote:

The differences in my four accounts do not make any of them less true, simply different. The same is true with the verses of Scripture you referenced.

It is hard to imagine that a description of the single most important event in Christian history could simply omit the mention of witnesses to it. But even if we are to take your explanation at face value, how do you then deal with the discrepancies in the telling of what the witnesses did after their discovery?

According to:

Matthew 28:8
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Luke 24:8-9
And they remembered his words, And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

But according to:

Mark 16:8
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

So, either they immediately ran joyously to the male disciples to tell them or they fled and trembled and said nothing to any man for they were afraid. Unless it is possible to do both at once (and I can't see how), at least one of the tellings is clearly false.

Lobo wrote:

The preposition "de" always takes the ablative case, so that would be "de bello gallico". If you wanted to express the title without the "de", it would be the nominative "bellum gallicum".

de bello gallico = "on the Gallic war"
bellum gallicum = "the Gallic war"

The given title, as it appears on the first page of the first book, is a bit more unwieldy than either of the above: C. IVLI CAESARIS COMMENTARIORVM DE BELLO GALLICO LIBER PRIMVS, or "Book One of the Commentaries of Gaius Julius Caesar on the Gallic War". For obvious reasons, this is usually shortened. Either of the above abbreviations is appropriate, so long as you don't mix the "de" with the nominatives.

The form "bellicus" is actually an adjective, meaning bellicose (of course), and it declines in the manner you suspected. But "bello" and "bellum" come from the noun bellum, belli, which is second-declension neuter.

Hope that helps.

Lobo: What is this then? Romanes eunt domus, "People called Romanes they go the house"?
Robear: It-it says, "Romans, go home"!
Lobo: No, it doesn't! What's Latin for "Roman"? [grabs Robear's ear] Come on, come on!
Robear: Romanus!
Lobo: Goes like?
Robear: Annus!
Lobo: Vocative plural of annus is...?
Robear: Anni?
Lobo: [writes] Romani. And eunt? What is eunt?
Robear: "Go"! Let-
Lobo: Conjugate the verb "to go".
Robear: Ire; eo, is, it, imus, itis, eunt!
Lobo: So eunt is...?
Robear: Third person plural, present indicative. "They go!"
Lobo: But "Romans, go home" is an order, so you must use the...?
Robear: The... imperative!
Lobo: Which is...?
Robear: I!
Lobo: [twisting Robear's ear] How many Romans?
Robear: [yelling] I.. Plural, plural! Ite, ite!
Lobo: [writing] Ite. Domus? Nominative? But "go home", it is motion towards, isn't it, boy?
Robear: Dative, sir!
[Lobo promptly draws his swords and presses it against Robear's throat. Robear yells:]
No, not dative! Not the dative, sir! No! The... accusative, accusative! Domum, sir, ad domum!
Lobo: Except that domus takes the...?
Robear: The locative, sir!
Lobo: Which is?
Robear: Domum!
Lobo: [writing] Domum... -um [sheathing his sword] Understand?
[Robear nods eagerly]
Now, write it out a hundred times!
Robear: Yes, sir, thank you, sir! Hail Caesar!
Lobo: Hail Caesar. If it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off!
Robear: Oh, thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar and everything, sir!

Paleocon wrote:
oldmanscene24 wrote:

The differences in my four accounts do not make any of them less true, simply different. The same is true with the verses of Scripture you referenced.

It is hard to imagine that a description of the single most important event in Christian history could simply omit the mention of witnesses to it. But even if we are to take your explanation at face value, how do you then deal with the discrepancies in the telling of what the witnesses did after their discovery?

According to:

Matthew 28:8
And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

Luke 24:8-9
And they remembered his words, And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

But according to:

Mark 16:8
And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

So, either they immediately ran joyously to the male disciples to tell them or they fled and trembled and said nothing to any man for they were afraid. Unless it is possible to do both at once (and I can't see how), at least one of the tellings is clearly false.

I'm not sure I see a discrepancy. After all, there's no indication of time here. Therefore, the women could have gone out from the sepulchre and been initially afraid, not telling anyone (Myself, I'd be terrified if I saw a zombie Jesus). But then eventually, once they calmed down, went to the disciples with great joy and told them what they'd seen.

Of the many discrepancies and contradictions in the Bible, differing accounts of the Ressurection don't seem to be the strongest ones to focus on. For the most part, it seems that these stories coincide or mesh relatively neatly, if they don't actually overlap.

Also? Conjugating dead languages is hot.

Paleocon, I was pretty much going to say what Kat said. The Mark 16:8 could describe what happened initially, not ultimately.

I would like to thank you for posting the link to the skeptic site. I look forward to exploring the discrepancies he describes. You know, with me being something of a Scripture Policeman.

oldmanscene24 wrote:

Paleocon, I was pretty much going to say what Kat said. The Mark 16:8 could describe what happened initially, not ultimately.

I would like to thank you for posting the link to the skeptic site. I look forward to exploring the discrepancies he describes. You know, with me being something of a Scripture Policeman. ;)

No prob. I think you'll find the entries on the Koran and Book of Mormon equally interesting.

What's wrong with the explanation that different people wrote their personal accounts and couldn't agree with all the details? Simple human nature.

What's wrong with the explanation that different people wrote their personal accounts and couldn't agree with all the details? Simple human nature.

Nothing. It's the claim that all those accounts are inerrant that is the problem, for those of us unsatisfied with the nature of faith as an system for dealing with the world.

Well, I know that it's easier to pass a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to change a christian's mind, but let me toss my thirty peices of silver into the ring:

The resurrection of Jesus is not unique to christianity, almost all the older religions have a version of the resurrection myth that predates Jesus, along with most of the mystery cults that were contemporaneous with early christianity. In fact, there are at least five in egyptian mythology alone (five that I can recall off the top of my head- there are probably more). The idea of a redeeming martyr was not new when Iosias (Jesus) supposedly walked the earth, in fact, by that time is was the standard, almost cliche.
While I'm on the subject I may as well point out that there is nothing new or unique about christianity, every single tenet, every line in the bible, is either an imitation of or a direct re-iteration of myths from previous mythologies, primarily pre-council Judaic, Sumarian, and Egyptian. Even Jesus' Parables, which are generally considered to be the J-man in top form, are lifted whole-cloth from the religious writings of the Pharisees, which is odd, because according to the new testament Jesus and the Pharisees didn't get along to well.
I suggest that all christians study the bible as a historical text, rather than a religious text. Doing so quickly brings to light many of the glaring errors and contradictions that are generally overlooked by the average christian (what? there are four different accounts of the crucifixion and they all contradict each other both in manner of execution and jesus' dying words? Oh my!). You would also be advised to study the changes that Emperor Constantine (the most influential figure in christianity-and he wasn't even a christian) and the Nicean council made to the bible in the third century.
I could go on and on but I know none of you care and I'm probably already labeled a satanist.

But before I go, a question:
Jesus lived in an area of the world with the most per-capita scholars and historians in his time, and yet, among the thousands of historical texts recovered from that time, the only place jesus is mentioned is in the new testament. Why is that? Wasn't some guy who walked around healing the sick and coming back from the dead worth writing about? Could it be that... (drumroll) Jesus was a fictional character?

I believe there are Roman records of a Yeshuach bin Yusef, but, as you state above, they are not the fantastic accounts one would expect from a bona fide folk phenomenon. And yes, messiahs were so commonplace during that period that folks pretty much stopped recording them. Crucifixion was also fairly commonplace as well. Approximately 5000 Roman slaves were crucified on a single day after the destruction of Spartacus' army in 71BCE.

I am with you in that it is probably most likely that the modern Jesus myth is probably a composite of a number of different messiah myths that gained currency during that period. That, however, shouldn't stop anyone from practicing the religion if it brings them comfort.

ruhk wrote:

While I'm on the subject I may as well point out that there is nothing new or unique about christianity, every single tenet, every line in the bible, is either an imitation of or a direct re-iteration of myths from previous mythologies, primarily pre-council Judaic, Sumarian, and Egyptian. Even Jesus' Parables, which are generally considered to be the J-man in top form, are lifted whole-cloth from the religious writings of the Pharisees, which is odd, because according to the new testament Jesus and the Pharisees didn't get along to well.

I think you bring up a really interesting point here. Most of the Bible--well, at least, the parts I'm most familiar with--does share similarities to stories in other cultures, from the flood story to the Tower of Babil to, as you pointed out, the ressurrected Jesus. Which raises the question: if a given story--like, say, the tale ressurrected messiah--appears in another culture's mythos, does that story gain or lose relevance?

Does the repetition take away from the story's meaning, or does it add to it? What does it say about humanity that we gravitate to repeated tellings of the same basic theme? Is there a greater truth hidden in the story? Is it just coincidence? Is it just a case of one culture ripping off the good stories from a previous one?

I don't know the answer, of course. But those are some fascinating questions, I think. Personally, I think the reason you find the same stories over and over again is because those archetypes contain The Great Truths of Humanity (TM). The literal truth of whether there really was a guy named Moses who walked the earth at such and such time with such and such people doesn't really matter. That's not important. What is important is the story of Moses, the journey he took, the strength he found, and what we can learn from his example.

We humans keep coming up with the same stories because we keep having the same problems, and the stories we come up with provide us the greatest amount of comfort and assurance. Myths are true, in that sense. They provide the spiritual truth that we all need, regardless of their literal truth.

Of course, the great exception is Christianity. Christians, as far as I know, consider Jesus's resurrection not just a metaphorical fact, but a historical one as well. Tell a Christian that Jesus's resurrection is a myth, even if you mean it positively, and they get very offended. I mostly understand where they're coming from: if the whole point of your religion is that someone has died for your sins to save you, only to be later reborn, then, at some point in time, that someone had to have existed and died. That's a critical chronological point, and without it, your religion doesn't make much sense. Christianity needs the historical fact of Jesus to back up its claims.

kat,

I'm not so sure that the retelling of similar stories necessarily points toward "great human truths" as much as compelling stories. Dawkins' exposition on memetics goes into this in greater detail, but suffice it to say that some stories just stick around because they sound good. How many dozen times, for instance, have you heard that naked guy in a tub full of ice missing his kidneys urban myth? What is the "great human truth" in that one? One need only load up the snopes url to see the beginning of modern religions.

Hmm. I wonder if I should start one about a messiah who stood in front of me at the grocery checkout line and told me I looked like his son who died of cancer.....

Oh, and for gods' sakes, NEVER flash your high beams at the messiah!

And kat,

What would you say about a similar challenge to the nature of Judaism? If, for instance, it could be historically/archeologically refuted that the Israelites were ever in Egypt, would you be able to accept that without a violent, visceral reaction? The central message behind Judaism IS the Exodus. Without the history of enslavement, the exodus, and the promise of redemption (and the reality that redemption is possible), Judaism (both as a religion and as a cultural identity) doesn't much make sense either.