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

There may be some truth in that (Occam's good old razor - look for the simplest explanation that fits the observed facts).

After all, some of the apochryphal Gospels have Jesus performing miracles even more byzantine than those that make it into the approved text of the Bible. (Who selected four gospels out of dozens? Why were the rest rejected? Who decided? What were the reasons for that decision?) For instance, most kids have imaginary friends - the child Jesus went one better, as He is reputed to have made his own, out of the clay of the Earth and by breathing the spirit of God into it. (takes after Dad there). You wonder if this is a version of the Jewish folk-myth of the Golem, but I digress...

Basic common sense and application of Occam suggest at least some of it must be fictional, although I do lean to the idea that there was an extraordinary human being alive at that time called Jesus, who had some interestingly new ideas about morality and ethics and the way we should live. If this travelling preacher and wise-man called Jesus had the charisma to attract huge crowds to his preaching, and left a mark behind him, later generations might well have embellished the memory with a few exaggerations. In fact, we can see that in the official Bible, where a misanthropic, embittered, follower called Paul constructs a theology that begins with the remembered sayings of Jesus and elevates him to Godhood - Paul of Tarsus borrows heavily from the Roman religion of Mithras, which held that the prophet Mithra died for our sins, was buried, and raised to life again on the third day...

Well, the three hours of darkness didn't go _completely_ unnoticed:

(1)Thallus, a historian writing in AD. 52, wrote to deny any supernatural elements accompanying the Crucifixion . Though his writings are lost to us, we have the quotations of other later writers. The writing of Thallus shows that the facts of Jesus' death were known and discussed in Rome as early as the middle of the first century, to the extent that unbelievers like Thallus thought it necessary to explain the matter of the darkness as something natural. He took the existence of Christ for granted. Neither Jesus, nor the darkness at his death, were ever denied. At the time of his writing, unbelievers had already been explaining the darkness at the time of the Crucifixion as a purely natural phenomenon.

(2) The Crucifixion of Jesus was noted by Cornelius Tacitus who was a Roman historian, born around 52-54 A.D. Tacitus stated that Jesus had been crucified by Pontius Pilate, and that Rome was in darkness during the reign of Tiberius the Caesar in AD.33.

(3) Phlegon of Tralles was a first century secular Greek historian born not long after the Crucifixion. He wrote a historical work called The Olympiades, which can be used to date the darkness at noon on the day of Crucifixion.

Here is the reference from Phlegon of Tralles:

"In the 4th year of the 202nd Olympiad, there was a great eclipse [Greek = EKLEIPSIS] of the Sun, greater than had ever been known before, for at the 6th hour the day was changed into night and the stars were seen in the heavens. An earthquake occurred in Bythinia and overthrew a great part of the city of Nicæa."


The reference may be found in Fragmenta Historicum Græcorum (C. Muller) 1841- 1870, Volume 3, pages 603 - 624, with the portion we are interested in on page 607.

I remember, from fairly early childhood, a day when it went dark around midday (and thundered and rained like you wouldn't believe). Later in life I wondered if I'd dreamt it or mis-remembered - I would only have been around five or six, and adults I spoke to honestly couldn't remember anything unusual happening.

However, the local paper ran an "On This Day..." feature from its archive, and there it was in black and white: in September 1967, so much thundercloud piled up over the area that there was an estimated 40,000 feet deep cloud blocking out the sunlight. No wonder it went black as night so early in the day...

So these things happen and you son't have to postulate earthquake or eclipse or volcanic eruption - just as well for the North Cheshire Plain in between the Flintshire borders and South Manchester, then!

also interesting how something this far out of the ordinary can happen.... and people who experienced it at the time, with one or two exceptions, forgot it had ever happened until the local paper prompted them , thirty or so years on, with a reprint article from its archive.

If memory of such an extraordinary and never-since-repeated event can be this shaky after 30 years, how much more so between 33 AD and the date of first writing of the canonical gospels?

Yes those things proabably did happen Earth quakes and eclipses are well known events. Eclipses can even be predicted with great certaintity while earthquakes can be detected before they are noticeable or reach their peak activity.

As these two things happen regularly but at different frequencies its unusual for them to happen at the same time, but it is just probablity that they happen together at some point in time. The Easter end of the Med is well known for earth quakes is it not?

That these two things happened at the same time does nothing to prove the exisitence of Jesus not his ressurection.

Anymore than Jennifer Aniston speaking made up scietific sounding words in an advert proves the efficacy of the hair conditioner she's been paid to promote.

one love

Hi WG,

So firstly you'd agree that no-one who lived during the eclipse wrote anything about it?

I'd be interested to know how you come to the conclusion that Thallus wrote in 52 AD, given we don't have a single source for when he lived or wrote. I'd be interested to know whether you think Thallus mentions Jesus, or whether Africanus comes to that conclusion himself. I'd be interested to know why you think Thallus' testimony is not based on the Gospel accounts. And finally, I'd be interested in what you think Thallus had to say about the hordes of undead Christians roaming the streets of 1st century Jerusalem. (I wonder if anyone thought to ask those undead Christians what the afterlife is like?)

This might help: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/thallus.html

Phlegon's 'testimony' is an interpolation / forgery.

"Tacitus ... stated ... that Rome was in darkness during the reign of Tiberius the Caesar in AD.33." Yes, well spotted, Tacitus does indeed plainly mention that night fell in Rome. Or are you claiming Tacitus mentions an eclipse associated with Jesus? Or, for that matter, mentions the resurrection at all?

Against that, you might weigh the histories of Philo and Seneca, who lived at that time and recorded no such thing. You might also look at Pliny the Elder. Pliny lived from c. 23 to 79 AD, so right through this alleged darkness. He devoted an entire volume to unusual eclipses, etc (bear in mind the Biblical eclipse is 3 hours; the longest possible natural eclipse is less than 8 minutes). Yet he doesn't seem to have noticed the longest eclipse in history happening during his own lifetime!

Gif

<< The Easter end of the Med >>

Interesting slip of the keyboard here!

Pliny would have been around ten when said darkness occurred. Probably too young to have written about it at the time. It's possible, though, that this led to his later fascination with eclipses.

Hi WG,

So just to be clear, what you are suggesting is that Pliny did see the 3 hour eclipse, and it had a lifechanging effect on him, but when he came to write a book on eclipses, including many from before he was born, he didn't feel it worth mentioning?

Gif

I guess we don't really know, do we. There are some things we can only surmise about.


<>

Are you sure? Why do you say that?

Hi WG, thanks for asking!

I'm reasonably confident, yes.

This is based on the facts that:

1) the direct references to Jesus and the extraordinary length of the eclipse are missing from the earliest quotes of this section of Phlegon,

2) the fact that (according to those who speak Greek, which ain't me)there are basic grammatical errors in this sentence (and only this sentence), and

3) this section survives only as a quote by Africanus, and in that context it completely contradicts Africanus' point. Africanus has just got through saying that Thallus was wrong to say the darkness at the time of Jesus' death was an eclipse, because it took place during a full moon and lasted 3 hours. (Africanus correctly believes that eclipses can only last a few minutes and must take place at new moon.) As quoted, Africanus now totally changes his mind and states that Phlegon is correct to say that the darkness was an eclipse!

In other words, this looks very much like an insertion into Africanus by a later copyist (either an overly zealous and underly honest Christian scribe, or a footnote by a later Christian commentator that was accidentally incorporated into the text).

Gif

It is with some concern that I note the absence of my original response to:

>> (Who selected four gospels out of dozens? Why were the rest rejected? Who decided? What were the reasons for that decision?) <<

No postings have been hidden so mine must have simply disappeared en route. Anyway, the answer to all four questions is The Roman Church.

The reasons were political. And to some extent a result of so many early 'Roman' scholars actually being or at least speaking Greek.

Then the four new testament gospels were so entrenched into what became 'the Holy Bible' that by the time of the Crusades, when Arabic versions of other gospels were 'discovered', these were simply dismissed as heathen and heretical - (along with many other 'Greek' philosophers that had been lost or censored by Rome and extant only in Arabic translations).


~jwf~

This article about the didache is quite interesting:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/texts/didache.shtml

Hi WG,

I've known of the Didache for a while, but never actually bothered to read what it says until now. Thanks for getting me to do that! The text is online at http:\\www.earlychristianwritings.com if you want to have a look yourself.

The emerging consensus date for the Didache seems to be around 100 AD, give or take a decade. (This is early compared to claims that it was a 3rd or 4th century forgery.) It seems to be later than at least one of the Gospels.

At best, it's a mixed blessing for your case. It pointedly doesn't say anything about the life, death or resurrection of Jesus - indeed, it hardly mentions him by name. It is clear that the author regarded Jesus' teachings as important, not his physical existence. Even when Gospel teachings are used (e.g. "the meek shall inherit the earth"), they are not attributed to Jesus.

It does mention the Eucharist. I realise that you've been trying to use the existence of the Eucharist as evidence of the resurrection. Here's the rub, though; the Didache goes on at some length about the Eucharist, and yet *does not* link it to the resurrection or the last supper. Instead, it regards it as metaphorical for something quite different:

"First, concerning the cup: we thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be the glory for ever.

"And concerning the broken bread: we thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever."

So it looks as though the Eucharist developed as a ritual unconnected with the life or death of Jesus. The connection with the Resurrection came only later. If this is correct, doesn't it totally undermines your claim that the Eucharist is evidence of the Resurrection?

Gif

A metaphorical resurrection wouldn't be any different from a ghost, would it? If it were not a physical resurrection, what would be the point of employing the word "resurrection" to describe what happened to Jesus? What the Dickens does it mean?

In the context of Jesus' death and the events surrounding it, when they say "resurrection" I think it's to assume they mean a literal one, especially as there they take no pains to inform us they mean a non-physical. Just as when someone says "Driving to work I had a crash" we assume they mean a literal crash, not a metaphorical one, unless they clearly state, "not an actual physical crash, just a metaphorical one", in which case you'd be justified to say, "What the blazes is that supposed to mean, then?"


But the risen Jesus is clearly physical and not a ghost, considering Luke for example: "They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence."

Hi WG,

"A metaphorical resurrection wouldn't be any different from a ghost, would it? If it were not a physical resurrection, what would be the point of employing the word "resurrection" to describe what happened to Jesus? What the Dickens does it mean?"

All good questions, to which I don't have answers. It was asking questions like these that helped the 'physical resurrection' school of thought to win out over the 'spiritual resurrection' ideas,

There was much debate among early Christians about whether the Resurrection was physical or spiritual (indeed, there was some debate over whether Jesus was ever truly human). I've stressed time and again how the very earliest Christian writings do not refer to the resurrection in any way - the Didache being the most recent example in this thread. The passage in Luke was certainly written by someone who believed in a physical resurrection - as was, for example, the story of Thomas touching Christ's wounds. This may or may not be because the Biblical authors were trying to argue against those who said Jesus was not resurrected bodily. Equally, there are passages in the Gnostic gospels where Jesus is clearly a human filled with the 'spirit of God'.

Christian writers like Origen used arguments rather like yours to argue for a physical resurrection. Their opponents (whose works largely have not survived) seem to have argued that a God cannot die and that therefore either Jesus never truly died, or that the human Jesus died for good 'n' all, but the divine Christ had already left him on the cross (hence "My God, why have you forsaken me?").

This type of argument (called 'Christologies') were a big deal for the early church, until the idea of a Trinity was settled on. It doesn't seem to me that it gives us much information about the reality of the Resurrection, though.

Gif

<>

Just came upon this here:

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

Just for info, the unmentioned author/article/thesis from the above is:

Cavin, Robert Greg. Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence to Establish the Resurrection of Jesus? (1995, 12:3)
Faith and Philosophy 12 (July 1995): 361-379

The website for the journal is http://www.faithandphilosophy.com/index/view/C

BTW, he doesn;t seem to be a skeptic of faith or Jesus, just the resurrection.
Just found his page - http://socialscience.cypresscollege.edu/~philosophy/FACULTY/Cavin.htm

Looks like he is working on some interesting stuff - "I am currently on sabbatical writing two articles on the relationship between the Supernatural and Thermodynamics"

Hi again WG,

Still surfing the fundamentalist web-sites, eh? Do you mind if I ask whether you also look at sceptical or 'liberal / mainstream Christian' sources, or do you prefer only to look at the Biblical-literalist sites?

It's a shame Dr Craig, the author you quote, can't explain any of the arguments that were so convincing, isn't it? If he had, you could have run them past us. As it stands, all he's said is 'trust me, I have some killer arguments that I'm not going to tell you.' The fact he was debating someone who's supporting a reasonably nutty idea like 'Jesus had a twin brother' rather than a mainstream academic doesn't help, either.

It can't have escaped your notice that the article you've cited uses all the same arguments that we've just undermined in this thread. He takes Josephus and Tacitus as confirmation independent of Christian tradition. Let's look at his 'five reasons the Gospels are immune to criticism':

"1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts ... In fact, adding a time gap of two generations to Jesus’s death lands you in the second century, just when the apocryphal gospels begin to appear. "

This is obvious cobblers. For a start, adding a gap of 2 generations (about 2 x 20 years) to the date of Jesus death (taken as 30 AD in the article) gives us 70 AD - smack on the button of when the earliest Gospel is supposed to have been written. The idea that there is a 'set rate' at which legends build up is equally ludicrous. You can't say something is 'too legendary to have appeared in less that a century'. I've already given the example of Elvis Presley - rumours of his survival began quite a lot less than 2 generations after his death, and in a supposedly educated, critical society. 0/5 for this point.

"2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives."

Again, patent nonsense. Urban myths frequently refer to celebrities. Haven't you heard about Richard Gere and the hamster? Or Cher having her rib removed? People believe what they're told and don't tend to check the facts, even in today's society when they should know better. Things can only have been worse in 1st century Palestine. And that's without considering that he's trying to prove Jesus' existence on the grounds that urban myths never refer to real people like Jesus! 0/5.

"3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable."

So how come every written document discovered is different in every manuscript found? How come the section about the Resurrection was added to Mark by a later author? A complete non-stater; 0/5.

"4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision."

Again, in contradiction to the facts. The Gospels were probably written after the Disciples died and hundreds of miles from where they lived. Even if that weren't true, there's no reason to think that the average 1st century Christian was an investigative journalist, tracking down the gospel-writers' sources. Since this is at least plausible, I'll give it 1/5, but there's a big difference between 'could have been checked' and 'was checked'. Again, note the circular argument: we know the gospels are reliable because the apostles supervised them. How do we know the aspotles supervised them? Well, they must have done, otherwise we couldn't rely on them! It seems to have escaped Dr Craig's attention that the early Christians argued vociferously among themselves about points including the Resurrection, and the disciples were in no position to supervise anything.

"5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability."

True on some points, but they also a proven track record of error on other points. As with any historical document, they should be given the benefit of the doubt when we have no reason to disbelieve them (i.e. when not pushing a theological point, making massively unlikely claims, or making claims that contradict other evidence). 3/5.



Your source seems to pluck the idea that Jesus' burial-place must have been public knowledge out of the air. He offers no response to the fact that none of the earliest Christian sources mentions a physical Resurrection, no response to the fact that the Romans didn't return the bodies of the crucified to their families, no response to the fact that the Romans had no interest in 'disproving' Jesus' Resurrection.


For me, the only plausible claim in the whole article is that the author of Acts might have been present for some of the events he describes - I've already referred to this idea. It's interesting (to me) because it's the best evidence I know of for a comparatively early date for the Gospels.


For me, the most interesting point in the article is this:

"This preface [to Luke] is written in classical Greek terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek. But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian."

The more natural conclusion, of course, is that the introduction was written by someone other than the author of the bulk of Luke. Seriously, can you think of any historical text where the opening paragraph is written with better grammar than the remainder? Did Churchill write an ellegent, elegiac introduction to demonstrate the flow and beauty of his pen, den switch ter a really stoopid way of writin' cos 'e couldn't be arsed no more? Every time anyone tells you what a great historian Luke was, just remember that his claim to have consulted earlier sources was added by a different author, presumably decades later and hundreds of miles away.



The fact that Christian apologists have to resort to scrappy (I insert the 's' after much thought!) arguments like this shows desperation and bias, not dispassionate judgement. The question is, are you going to accept this quality of argument? Are you interested in finding the truth, whatever it may be, or only in justifying your existing beliefs?

Anyway, have a good weekend.

Gif

<<"I am currently on sabbatical writing two articles on the relationship between the Supernatural and Thermodynamics">>



So, is he going to end up with a pile of Nobel Prizes, or just a pile of....

And where do I place my bets

Noggin