Evolution? How?

thunder_runner32 wrote:

Ok......except the bible is one of the most historically accurate books in the world. My enire first quater of world history was practically taught straight from the bible....I go to a public school. (emphasis added)

That's a hell of a piss-poor public school then. I would consider that statement i've highlighted above to be an outright lie, were it not for the pathetic circumstance that you likely believe that to be the truth. There is, however, no historiographically valid basis for such a statement--further, it ignores the extent to which so much of the OT was shamelessly ripped off from other sources by the Hebrews.

If you want to down this road again, Rex, we can do so. I recall that about a year and a half ago, maybe two years ago, there was a thread in which you sneered at me, asking: "So are we now to believe that you are an expert in interpolations?" I resonded with four or five posts which contained many links to discussions of interpolations. You not only did not respond to that thread again, this is the first time i've seen you since then.

The mere fact that there are biblical references to people who existed historically is no evidence that the Bobble is an historically accurate document.

I am not responsible for what you may allege to have been described as fairy tales about Belshazzar.

There are any number of loony conspiracy theories which allude to the assassination of John Kennedy. Kennedy, Oswald and Ruby were all people who once existed, which can be historically verified. Do you contend that on so slim a basis one is obliged to accept any crackpot conspiracy theory on Kennedy's assassination which moves the perfervid imagination of some segment of the populace?

You don't make a convincing case.

Rex, to single out just one of your points, archeology eliminates the Biblical story of Joshua's conquests - the timelines just don't work, aqpart from the fact certain of the placenames appear to be unrelated to any known place, either through external contemporaneous record or current archeologic study.

Rex, the only "debate" exists in the minds of the Bible Literalists - mainstream archeology discloses there was no "city" at the site of Jerico hundreds of years to either side of the timewindow in which Joshua's exploits would have to have occurred.

To Rex, the merely ordinarily squirrelly:

It is of course, not to be inferred from anything which i've written that i'm trying to establish intellectual dominance over you.

The mere ability to construct a grammatically coherent sentence is not evidence that you have a point, or have correctly described anything or anyone.

The only reason i recall the thread to which i have referred is because after such a long hiatus, i saw your goofy screen name and goofy avatar picture again and it clicked that the last time i had seen that combination was in another religion thread, when you threw out a bunch of acid comments and then fled.

I don't bookmark anything--i learned historiography in the days when computers occupied entire large rooms, and no one had a personal computer; one was therefore obliged to develop one's memory effectively and know how to use a card catalogue.

Having successfully mastered both, as is the case with all of those who successfully study historiography, i've learned to keep salient information in my memory, and to know how to find what i need.

As for whether or not posting links is evidence of understanding historiographic evidence, no it isn't.

However, i could not have found them in a few moments, which the record would show i did were one to investigate the matter, unless i already knew who Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonius, Pliny, etc., were and which passages were in question as regards the issue of interpolation.

Your assumption that i have a chip on my should is certainly useful for preening your ego, but isn't warranted from the evidence here.

Those with even a little conversational sophistication, by the way, are aware that one cannot assert that one is witty, that the judgment of what constitutes successful wit comes from others.

I have no doubt that you consider yourself a wit, but there's no evidence of it in what you write.

John Jake's novels about the American Civil War have an historical setting--and that is both the beginning and the ending of any historical content in his novels. Your assertions are no evidence of the bobble being a valid historical source.

They can't even get the names right, as for example referring to Tiglath-Pileser (the last great Assyrian conqueror) as Pul.

Such references are useful to historians who might wish to place the bobble stories in time, but provide no reliable historical evidence which is not available elsewhere, and in greater detail from more reliable sources.

Contemporary "biblical" scholars crow about Belshazzar because a single, rather ill-informed historian at the beginning of the 19th century denied that any such king ever existed. One swallow does not a summer make--but i am unsurprised that you leap on something about which bobble study sites obsess.

By the by, the bobble study sites continually refer to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was in fact the son of Nabonidus--a fact well known to historians for longer than the bobble scholar canard about him has existed.

That such an individual existed, however, in no way makes the silly hand-writing on the wall story historically accurate.

Which is a fine example of why the bobble is a silly source for history--it can't go two pages together without invoking supernatural nonsense.

Adding your "faith" in your imaginary friend superstition to the mix not only does nothing to validate the text as history, it simply adds more reason to be sceptical and to deny your unsupported conention that it is "a form of history."

If you showed up at my residence, there would be absolutely no reason for me to associate you with that little bit of idiocy two years ago.

As i've already mentioned, it was the concatenation of the goofy name and the goofy picture which brought it all to mind.

As far as pie goes, making pie crust happens to be one of my specialties--and as any competent home baker knows, that's the secret of a good pie, since the pie fillings work just as well for a bad baker as they do for a good baker.

So far, all you've ever demonstrated in this forum is a propensity for snotty sarcasm--you have yet to present credible scholarship on the topic about which you wax so nasty with others.

... Apart from internal reference derived wholly and exclusively from the Abrahamic Mythopaeia itself, what evidence have you for these claims? To my knowledge, no independent, direct historical reference to anything you've mentioned there exists. I submit there is no forensically, academically, scientifically valid evidence for the existence either of the Biblical Jesus nor the Biblical Moses.


Leaving Moses for later discussion, let's examine the actual historicity of the Biblical Jesus. Those who've followed earlier discussions of mine pertaining to this particular point may experience a deja vu moment; indeed I previously have written just about exactly what follows. Feel free to ship over it if you've seen it before

Those arguing for the historicity of Jesus point frequently to Tacitus: Annals 15:44, which translates, " ... "derived their name and origin from Christ, who, in the reign of Tiberius, had suffered death by the sentence of the Procurator Pontius Pilate". More on Tacitus' reference in a bit, but first, there are a few other nearly contemporary references from other writers cited as historical proof, as well. Apologists for the Historicity of Jesus make much of the little on which they have to draw.

Frequently mentioned in similar vein to the Tacitus "proof" is Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, from Antiquities of the Jews 18:63-64, which translates, " ... About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared." Frequent mention also is made of Josephus, Antiquities 20:9.1, which translates " ... so he ("he" in the passage referring to one Ananus, eldest son of High Priest Ananus ... timber) assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before him the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others and when he had formed an accusation against them, he delivered them to be stoned."

Of the two Josephus references, the second, often termed the "Jamesian Passage" is accorded by historians somewhat more provenance than the first, or Testimonium Flavianum passage, which generally is accepted to be if not a whole later addition, at the very least a later-edited expansion by a 3rd Century transcriber of Christian agenda. However, neither passage is universally accepted as original, at least as currently known, to Josephus' Antiquities. There are questions arising both from contextual positioning - word usage and phrasing - and apparent internal contradictions arising from considering the passages with the overall Antiquities. It is known that Origen, a renowned 3rd Century Christian scholar and a key figure in the early evolution of Christianity, referenced the Testimonium Flavianum. It is known too that the style and word usage of the Testimonium Flavianum, while not particularly characteristic of Josephus' practice, is wholly consistent with Origen's style and usage.

Highlighted here in blue are the phrases which give scholars difficulty: " ... About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and as a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared." Particularly of note is the "Messiah" reference; numerous times throughout Antiquities and his other writings, Josephus specifically and unambiguously bestows the title "Messiah" on his own patron, the Emperor Trajan. Perplexing as well is that Josephus wrote much more expansively of John The Baptist and of other zealots and cult figures among the Jews ... writings all devoid of any Jesus, Christ, or Christian reference. A last eyebrow raiser lies in the reverent tone with which Christ is described - not at all fitting either with Josephus' style or general contemporary sentiment.

None of that by itself is damning evidence, but neither is there unambiguous provenance. While it is entirely plausible Josephus wrote of Jesus, it cannot be proven that he did, and there is plentiful credible argument he did not.

Turning to Tacitus, the sole relevant passage in Annals does nothing more than confirm that at the time Tacitus was writing, there was a cult styled as "Christians", the members of which professed a belief that their self-purported central cult figure, "Christ", had died a martyr at the hands of Pilate, "Procurator of Judea" during the reign of Tiberius. That alone raises serious question as to any provenance derived thereby. While the Tacitus text suffers from none of the provenance difficulties afflicting the Josephus examples, in no way is it independent evidence of anything other than that a cult known as Christians had a tradition involving the death of their putative namesake. The key point of difficulty historians have with the oft-cited Tacitus passage is that he terms Pilate "Procurator", whereas the actual office held by Pilate was Prefect - a terminology distinction error very unlike, in fact otherwise unevidenced in, anything else ever written by Tacitus. It is, however, an error echoed in the Gospels, though nowhere else. Too, he refers to Jesus by the Graeco-Christian religious title "Christos", an honorific, as opposed to the almost universally observed contemporary Roman practice of referring to personages other than nobility or signal military accomplishment (which itself generally conveyed nobility) by given names further delineated by patronymics or regional identifiers; Abraham son of Judah, for instance, or Simon of Gaza. One must strongly consider the possibility Tacitus was working not from Roman records in this instance, but rather recounting what he had been told by or heard of Christians.

Other 1st Century writers, Suetonius, Thalus, and Pliny the Younger, also are thought by some to offer independent historical evidence of Jesus.

A passage from Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars, specifically Claudius 5.25.4, translates, "Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (the contextual reference is to action taken in 49 CE by Claudius, then Emperor ... timber) expelled them from Rome." Several things stand out here. First, and perhaps least troubling, is that "Chrestus" actually is a common latinization of a known Greek proper name wholly unrelated to the messianic religious title "Christ", or "Christos". Second, there is no reference to "Christians", but rather those being discussed are given the appellation "Jews", and finally, the events described took place in 49 AD, disturbances instigated in Rome by one Chrestus, an individual apparently present both temporally and locationally regarding the disturbances - nearly 2 decades after the accepted date of Jesus' death. The only connection to Jesus or to Christians is the similarity of spelling between the name "Chrestus" and the title or honorific "Christos". Most interesting is that Pliny the Elder, writing much closer to the times in which the incidents reportedly took place, mentions Christians and/or Christ not at all.

With Thalus, we delve even deeper into ambiguity; no first person text survives, and the earliest reference to Thalus describing the crucifixion as having been accompanied by "earthquake and darkness", echoing Gospel accounts, is to be found in the 3rd Century writings of Julius Africanus, a Christian writer and leader. No contemporary record of any such occurrence in or near Judea/Palestine during the 1st Century exists ... a surprising circumstance had there been in fact unexplained mid-day darkness coincident with earthquake. That sorta thing tends to get noticed, and written about, big time. That it might have been left unremarked by any other than the Gospelers and possibly Thalus beggars the imagination.

Turning to Pliny the Younger, his voluminous correspondences with the Emperor Trajan bear frequent mention of Christians in Asia Minor, their beliefs and their practices in context of dissent against and resistance to Roman authority, and amount to discussions of how best to deal with the bother and disturbance fostered by the Christian cult. There is no mention whatsoever of Jesus, and the only reference to "Christ" is to be found in the term "Christians".

In short, history tells us nothing about the historicity of Jesus beyond that there was an offshoot cult of Judaism known as Christians, they had traditions, beliefs and practices, and that Roman Authority thought none too highly of them.

. . . They can't even get the names right, as for example referring to Tiglath-Pileser (the last great Assyrian conqueror) as Pul. . .

Well, like I said, if you'd like to post a link to the interpolation discussion go right ahead.