h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sorry Colonel S, but re. the 'disciple whom...' bit, it can't be Mary M since the original text refers to a man. The following bit has Jesus telling this disciple to look upon Mary (his mother) as the disciple's mother. And the disciple referred to here is the same disciple referred to in the bit you've quoted, both since the lanaguage refers to a man, and the case ending and adjectival agreement makes it the same disciple from the quote. Sorry for the scholar stuff, but that I'm afraid is a grammatical fact. It can only have been a man. Doesn't have to have been John, but must be a man.

It's not, of course, said that John personally wrote that gospel. It is widely accepted there is more than one hand there. But at the end the author(s) say this has been told them by one source. The original used a plural to describe the authors (again, the English doesn't help you understand here, sorry) - thus answering the point about style - but puts it down to one source, probably dictating. The ending of John also shows the guiding mind behind this gospel was one of the Twelve, since he was at the Last Supper. There is good reason for suspecting John to be that disciple. Not that that's an enormously important point!

Re. the astrologers...no idea why they're there - but if they're condemned by Jews and Xians alike then does this perhaps lend some credence to the story - otherwise they'd not have been included? Although you could argue that maybe they were included to this end! I suppose they bring the global aspect into it - Jesus' birth meaning something to people all over the world? That could well be the reason for a)Their invention b)Their inclusion if they did exist even though the Xians didn't like them. It supports either of those arguments but surely not any one more than the other.

I'll tell you exactly why that astrology bit was included... it was a direct ripoff of the birth story of Mithras, another dying-and-rising god from the first century. There were so many gods rising from the dead that I'm surprised they're not getting underfoot. Dionysis did it, Mithras, Sol Invictus, Osiris, etc. Every detail of the birth of Jesus has been ripped off, mostly from Mithras, who was born in a manger on December 25th to a virgin, and a star overhead lead astrologers bearing gifts to him. It's all straight plagiarism... nothing about Christianity is unique.

You are putting WAY too much faith in that little pronoun "he." Such a small detail would obviously have been changed during the editing, especially as it was an attempt to bring together several accounts and tell them as if they came from a single source. The text reads as follows:

"Near the cross of Jesus there stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. Seeing his mother there with the disciple whom he loved..."

The language of that second sentence clearly indicates that "the disciple whom he loved" is standing right there as well. So why isn't "he" mentioned as standing near the cross? It is my argument that "he" is. So, which of these three or four women (Mary the wife of Clopas may or may not be "his mother's sister") can it be? His mother? I think not. His aunt? Not likely there, either. The woman that Jesus loved more than his disciples, who has her own Gospel in the Nag Hammadi collection, the one Jesus used to "kiss upon the mouth"? That sounds like a winner to me. A reading of the Gnostic Gospels clearly shows that Mary Magdalene was a disciple, and in fact his First Disciple, privy to secrets that the other disciples were denied. "The disciple whom he loved"... no one could fit that description better than Mary Magdalene.

Incidentally, don't you think it fits so much better, telling Magdalene to look to his mother as her own, if they were man and wife? Just food for thought...

What I have obviously not explained clearly enough is that the English will not help you. I am reading it in the *original*. I have been studying ancient languages for many years now. Maybe that's not cool, but who cares. The words used denote a man.

And I notice you ended your quotation before the english which goes, 'and from that hour the disciple took her into *his* home.' So I think that safely establishes a masculine identity.

But here I'm faced with your 'Such a small detail would obviously have been changed during the editing'. Do you have anything to back this up, or are you expounding theories to fit your interpretation, as you accuse Xians of doing?

Re. the ripping off legends. The Bible never says 'Jesus was born on Dec. 25th.' I thought most people knew that date was imposed around the middle ages to act as a counter to the pagan winter solstice. It's an arbitrary date - reasonably, since we've no precise idea when it was. Just coincidence as far as the date is concerned.

Dionysus didn't rise from the dead. He was rescued by Zeus before his mother Semele was obliterated. And sown into Zeus' thigh until he was developed enough. Don't recall that in the Nativity.

Something's just occurred to me - can't remember what. Along this topic. Might support your convictions, maybe not. Think it may have been to do with Osiris...I'm off to look it up. Back in a tick.

Oh well, turned out to be nothing. Possibly the same source you're using for the accusation.

I'll leave you a chance to reply now.

I'm not intimately familiar with the rising and dying version of the Cult of Dionysis, I am only aware that there was one. My point was that gods in that time were rising from the dead all the time, and that Jesus was hardly unique in this.

About the "he" - obviously it would have been edited in the original Greek. I've already established that it was from many sources. I've established that the original church fathers were misogynistic in the extreme. I've already explained how little sense it makes from the reading for there to suddenly be a male disciple standing where none was mentioned. The only tiny flaw in the argument is a simple pronoun. I've built an elaborate, inextricably linked web of logic to support my claim, and all I get in response is "it says 'he.'" If that's the strongest argument against my position, then I consider it unassailable.

The Bible doesn't say anything about Jesus' birth, but tradition does, and places his date and circumstances exactly parallel to those of Mithras. The context of the birth story in Matthew places his time of birth in an April time frame. Just coincidence, you say? Hardly... those kinds of coincidences don't exist. It was done on purpose with the specific intent of combining the worship of Mithras with their new Jesus. Early church fathers did their best to integrate their gods with those of others. This is where the Trinity originated, too, which has never been suitably explained by any Christian, because it is completely at odds with their belief in One True God.

The Osiris myth has much in common with the resurrection scene. Isis annoints him and washes his feet just as Mary Magdalene does (yet another point of their relationship... if they parallel the Egyptian gods, Isis and Osiris were god and wife), the Osiris is torn apart. After three days, he rises from the dead and ascends to heaven.

"But here I'm faced with your 'Such a small detail would obviously have been changed during the editing'. Do you have anything to back this up, or are you expounding theories to fit your interpretation, as you accuse Xians of doing?"

I'd like to thank my local preacher for pointing out the tiny section of Josephus mentioning Jesus... Pretty good evidence that xians have edited at least one other work in order to get some supporting 'evidence'.

And we *do* know there was an editing process - there were big decisions made over exactly which gospels should be included. The big question is, of course,did the editing go further than that, and if it did, was this one of the sections that got a makeover?

(oh, and doesn't the nativity deal with the whole birth thing, not ressurection? You know - donkeys, wise men, plastic dolly? )

Even the Catholic scholarship believes that John's gospel is an amalgamation of several different texts. We also have evidence of editing of Mark from Clement of Alexandria. The question of whether or not editing was taking place is answered with a resounding "Yes!" The evidence couldn't be more conclusive in this matter.

Okay...re. the pronoun 'he'. There is no such thing in the greek original text of 'John's Gospel'. There is however the word for a man. Now this doesn't mean it hasn't been edited, of course. And yes, everyone who's anyone knows and believes that said gospel is an amalgam of texts. But stylistic examination, again of the original greek, shows strong similarities, enough to state that there is one original hand at work, whose text has been edited by more than one person.

Yes, there was a selection process. But I'm sure there is no more reason to believe the Catholic Church on what is real and what isn't, and what should or should not be, than there is to believe your sources. I must say that many of the books I have read on the subject are by people who have made very little research into the matter. So please, read *all* that you come across sceptically. Not just the pro-Xian stuff. There are biases on both sides. Of course there are Xians who will fudge things to promote their side - but there are people who will do the same to promote their anti-Xian views. People who have dictionaries to translate the lanaguages but aren't aware of the metaphorical meanings of some phrases (eg that 'brother' in greek and aramaic means 'cousin' as well as 'male sibling'. Just a little gem for you to validate my studies! )

Tradition only placed Jesus' birth at Dec. to counter the Winter Solstice, as I said earlier. This being done several centuries AFTER the cult of Mithras had died. So this particular similarity is a coincidence.

MyRedDice - there are actually more ancient texts mentioning Jesus than Josephus' 'The Jewish War'. Most modern historians, aware of these, don't doubt at least the historicity of the man.

Cool! Which part would that be, again?

Oh, and additionally: have you ever read a short story called "The Miracle of the Stigmata"? I thought you'd like that one...

[bows respectfully]

--Caledonian

Well, you may challenge my dead language skills, but I will certainly challenge your historical knowledge. The cult of Mithras was VERY widespread at the time of Jesus. Mithras can't have been "dead several centuries before Jesus," because the first cult appeared in Tarsus circa 325 BC.

"there is one original hand at work, whose text has been edited by more than one person" - You have this backwards. It is a common editor to an amalgamation of texts. That editor created the common voice and style. I've done the same sort of thing with a couple of collections I've done on H2G2.

There are exactly three historical documents that mention Jesus that are not religious in nature. They are:

An entire work of Tacitus that has been proven to be a forgery.

An insert into the works of Josephus that has been proven to be a forgery.

A recently discovered Slavonic text of Josephus. This text describes Jesus as a hideous man with a hunched back... which, if true, does give a logical reason as to why Jesus would have died on the cross so soon.

Regardless, Tacitus and Josephus were both born too late to have any first-hand knowledge of him. The Romans were excellent record keepeers, and their silence on Jesus is louder than words.

And to answer your tacit accusation, I read everything I ever get my hands on with a degree of skepticism... a quality which first brought about my conversion. I don't make points in here without personal investigation and corroboration. I don't count on others to interpret passages from the Gnostic Gospels and Dead Sea Scrolls for me... I have copies of the most reliable English translations at my side. The remarks about Tacitus and Josephus are comments that have been made in source after countless source. I would suggest you read your Bible with a bit less credulity...

KC - if there are any reliable references to the existance of Jesus, that you'd like to share - please do. So far I've seen nothing that seems at all plausible, and the last preacher rapidly backtracked from his claim of secular evidence for Jesus, but curiously didn't apologise for lying to me in the first place.

MyRedDice - "like father, like forefather, eh?"

Colonel S - hi. Only got a few secs, more hopefully tomorrow. Re. the 'reading everything carefully': absolutely not an accusation, just got worried for a moment. If I have an accusation to make, you'll know it!

Re. Mithras, didn't mean Mithras cult dead by time Jesus alive. Meant cult dead by time Dec. 25th date ascribed. Sorry if this wasn't clear- thought I'd made it clear. I'm not that bad at ancient history after 10 years' study! (though of course as prone to mistakes as anyone).

Which Tacitus are you referring to - am I right in assuming the letter to Trajan?

Curious to know on what you base your common editor for John bit - harder for a style to show from several sources with one editor than for one source with several editors. However you presumably have reason enough to suggest this? Perhaps we have reached an impasse re. the John bit - it appears to be coming down to 'well I have my sources'? Unless you think otherwise.

Got to go, back tomorrow.

One more iron into the fire...Jesus (which is as you're aware the greek version of Jeshua) doesn't actually mean 'Saviour' in Aramaic, but 'Yahweh, help!'. A call for help rather than a response. Not that that weakens your point, just a technical thing. Hmm, not bad for a rush job.

Which collection of Nag Hammadi do you have?

My reference on the Tacitus thing has been loaned out, so I will have to pass on that particular discussion topic for the time being.

Exactly when was the 25th of December named? I find that sort of coincidence unlikely... how many gods can be born on the exact same day, in the exact same circumstances?

It's not hard to have a common style at all. Consider this: what if the original texts that made up John were not in Greek? The editor of John would have to translate from texts that were possibly in Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, or even Coptic. Translation involves the restatement of what you read into the new language, and will be heavily influenced by your own command of that language.

And I said I've done this sort of thing before. I have two collections, one on Urban Legends, and the Overwhelmingly Huge Guide to H2G2 Clubs. In both cases, I allowed others to contribute directly to the text, but submissions that I found to be sloppy, incomplete, or possibly inappropriate were edited, rewritten, or discarded by myself. You'll find several entries that bear my hand, and others that do not because they conform rather well to it. There are others which stand out as clearly a work of other than myself, but were acceptable as they were. The difference is, if I were intending to make it look like there was a single author to the whole, I would have edited those as well. The whole mess would have conformed to my personal linguistic style, and you would have concluded that it all came from a single author. It is not a difficult effect to achieve.

And I think it is compelling to note that the Catholic scholarship agrees with me in this, that there was a common editor of a pool of source material, rather than agreeing with your point, as my position is more damaging to their own. I would like to hear of any sources that you can quote that support your claim.

I don't see how much bearing this has on the discussion at hand, but my copy of the Gnostic Gospels is "The Nag Hammadi Library" revised edition, copyrighted in 1988.

Unfortunately not much more time than last time. Re. Nag Hammadi - just curious. Presuming you're in the US, wasn't sure how many collations there are.

MyRedDice - non-Christian historical texts mentioning Jesus, here are a few. Colonel Sellars can tell you more about Gnostic texts, eg Valentius, if you don't count them as 'proper' Christians. But aside from those...The Talmud, Maimonides...the former is sacred Jewish 1st Century writing, the latter by a Rabbi.

Non-religious...most famously perhaps Pliny the Younger, Josephus (currently *not* convincingly proven to be forged due to a very old copy - though am not convinced it's real myself, I must say, given the over-flattering tone being written about someone responsible for a group of people the Romans were not fond of), Tacitus' Annals XV (an old fave read - esp. re. Nero the nutter), also not convincingly a forgery though of course only the briefest mention; the Emperor Hadrian, Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian of...somewhere. Begins with an S....most tantalisingly, Thallus, whose work we have only in quotation or reference.

There are more, but these will do. Few historians doubt the historical figure - it's the divine aspect that raises the eyebrows.

Back to the Colonel. Re. Dec. 25...not sure if I've ever heard a date for that. Middle Ages. I may be able to narrow it down to a century or a decade, but I'll have to do a fair bit of digging. Of course you are right to challenge the contention that it's a coincidence.

Re. John - not hard, but harder. Mind you, I do believe we have now almost entirely left the original point, which was...er...oh yes. Do you still believe that 'the one Jesus loved' is more than one person at times in said gospel? Apart from it helping your Mary M. theory, why? Do you have any other instances where you consider it's not John? This is a question, not an accusation!

It is my belief that "the disciple whom he loved" is a metaphor that replaces the various narrators of each part of the picture. In that particular scene, the disciple is Mary, in others it may be others. I've read a source that argued rather convincingly that the said disciple could even be Lazarus. It's very possible that Lazarus was a disciple, since the ceremony when he was "raised from the dead" is an exact copy of the Gnostic ceremony of initiation into the secrets, and represented the spiritual ressurection of the initiate. But now I'm off on another tangent...

In order for a text to be considered historically conclusive, it has to meet some conditions:

1) Report eyewitness experience.

2) be shown to have been generated from an impartial source.

Josephus and Tacitus can only, at best, have second-hand knowledge of the life of Jesus... neither was alive until 20 years after the crucifixion. The Gnostic Gospels and evangelical documents don't count, because they're talking about their god. There are absolutely NO documents that pass these two tests. Emperor Hadrian? He ruled from 117-138 ad. Pliny the Younger lived from 62-113 ad. Lucian: ca. 120-180. Do you really want to cite these people as authorities?

Do you count the Talmud, then? It's religious but Jewish rather than Christian. It mentions Jesus. And it's contemporary (mid 1st AD). It's not an impartial source, being a negative reference, but doesn't this perhaps add to the credibility? It's annoying we don't have the Thallus text, but heigh-ho. C'est la vie.

Had you heard of Pliny etc. then? I only ask since a couple of postings ago you said there were only 3 hist. sources and didn't mention Pliny although he was a close mate of Tacitus whom you mentioned. Not that it matters. Just curious.

Re. 'Disciple whom...'. So does this mean you reckon the bit in question is therefore narrated by Mary M, if it's referring to her? But if so, do you have any evidence for this? And regarding the subsequent line 'he made a place for her in *his* home', if you reckon the 'his' is a later insert, why? Just because it'd help your theory? I think we are agreed that, whoever the narrator(s), the 'disciple whom' bit refers to them...yes?

Actually, isn't there supposed to be some letter from Pontius Pilate of all people to someone - Tiberius, I think? Ring any bells?

Never heard of the Pontius letter.

The narrator of John's Gospel shows quite clearly that he is NOT the same as the "disciple whom he loved." It is abundantly clear from many references that all of the Gospel is second hand knowledge...

"This testimony has been given by an eyewitness, and his testimony is true." - 19:35

"It is this same disciple who is the witness to these things; it is he who wrote them down and his testimony, we know, is true." - 21:24

Mid-1st century is NOT contemporary!! Mid 1st-century is 20 years or so AFTER Jesus died. If he was such a great leader of such a powerful cult, why is he not mentioned? If he were an insurrectionist that caught the attention of the procurator, why not the historians?? Why no missives to Rome on the situation?? Why are there no references to him until 15-20 years after he allegedly died?