Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Question re "Jesus, Man or Myth"
15 Answers
Did you accept "Jesus, Man or Myth" by Carsten Peter Thiede at face value or did you check its claims against other sources?
During many years of (amateur) study of the origins of Christianity I have read a great many books on the subject, and own quite a few. But I have never read a book so full of misrepresenation and wild invention as this one.
I'm sorry that, not able to your address, I cannot give you a chapter-by-chapter account of the number of errors and fabrications in it, and to do so here would test the patience of ABers. So I'll content myself with a summary:
First of all he ignores the few facts that we have: that there are no contemporaneous reports of Jesus; nothing was written about him during his supposed lifetime; Jewish and Roman records of the time do not mention him; neither do the only historians writing at that time; that the gospels were written anonymously, giving us no idea who the authors were; that there is not one eyewitness acount of anything in the story; and that Josephus was a late-in-the-day historian, never mentioned by early Christians, who wrote one paragraph about Jesus to which Bishop Eusebius made additions (e.g "He was the Messiah") in the the 4th century AD.
Thiede replaces these facts with his own unsupported assertions. He assumes that the "Luke" and "John" of the gospels were the apostles of that name (which they were not), thereby gaining himself two convenient eyewitnesses. In fact "eyewitnesses" is one of his most frequently used words despite there being none. He promotes Josephus (with whom he seems to have an obsession) into some sort of expert on Jesus, even claiming that he interviewed eyewitnesses of the crucifixion, something which neither Josephus nor anyone else has ever claimed. (CONT'D)
During many years of (amateur) study of the origins of Christianity I have read a great many books on the subject, and own quite a few. But I have never read a book so full of misrepresenation and wild invention as this one.
I'm sorry that, not able to your address, I cannot give you a chapter-by-chapter account of the number of errors and fabrications in it, and to do so here would test the patience of ABers. So I'll content myself with a summary:
First of all he ignores the few facts that we have: that there are no contemporaneous reports of Jesus; nothing was written about him during his supposed lifetime; Jewish and Roman records of the time do not mention him; neither do the only historians writing at that time; that the gospels were written anonymously, giving us no idea who the authors were; that there is not one eyewitness acount of anything in the story; and that Josephus was a late-in-the-day historian, never mentioned by early Christians, who wrote one paragraph about Jesus to which Bishop Eusebius made additions (e.g "He was the Messiah") in the the 4th century AD.
Thiede replaces these facts with his own unsupported assertions. He assumes that the "Luke" and "John" of the gospels were the apostles of that name (which they were not), thereby gaining himself two convenient eyewitnesses. In fact "eyewitnesses" is one of his most frequently used words despite there being none. He promotes Josephus (with whom he seems to have an obsession) into some sort of expert on Jesus, even claiming that he interviewed eyewitnesses of the crucifixion, something which neither Josephus nor anyone else has ever claimed. (CONT'D)
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
(CONT'D) To illustrate the depths of silliness to which he is prepared to sink, he states with absolute authority that Jesus died at 3 pm on April 7th AD30 and that �Luke� had interviewed Mary!
With breathtaking cheek he castigates Dan Brown of �DaVinci Code� fame for making assertions about Jesus based on no evidence, a crime that Thiede himself commits at least a hundred times in his 158 pages.
As I say, I wish I could give you more detail. But I can offer you a piece of advice: when you find your copy of the book, chuck in the recycling bin. That way it will do at least some good.
With breathtaking cheek he castigates Dan Brown of �DaVinci Code� fame for making assertions about Jesus based on no evidence, a crime that Thiede himself commits at least a hundred times in his 158 pages.
As I say, I wish I could give you more detail. But I can offer you a piece of advice: when you find your copy of the book, chuck in the recycling bin. That way it will do at least some good.
Where did the thread go chakka?
Anyway, please allow me to refute at least one allegation that there is no historical reference to Jesus.
There is at least one piece of physical evidence of His existance,
Part of the cross has survived, discovered by Helena, mother of emperor Constantine discovered it buried under a Roman Temple in Jerusalem which was built on the spot Jesus was crucified. The titular which was hung on the crossbeam has the inscription " Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews" written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, admittedly only a fragment has survived, but this has been carbon dated to the time and place of Jesus.
Have you read 'The Quest for thr True Cross' by the same author as 'Jesus, Man or Myth' ISBN 0-75381-082-4
Apologies for nor reding your question earlier chakka, however I have been having problems with my broadband supplier, but it looks like I'm up and running again
Anyway, please allow me to refute at least one allegation that there is no historical reference to Jesus.
There is at least one piece of physical evidence of His existance,
Part of the cross has survived, discovered by Helena, mother of emperor Constantine discovered it buried under a Roman Temple in Jerusalem which was built on the spot Jesus was crucified. The titular which was hung on the crossbeam has the inscription " Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews" written in Hebrew, Greek and Latin, admittedly only a fragment has survived, but this has been carbon dated to the time and place of Jesus.
Have you read 'The Quest for thr True Cross' by the same author as 'Jesus, Man or Myth' ISBN 0-75381-082-4
Apologies for nor reding your question earlier chakka, however I have been having problems with my broadband supplier, but it looks like I'm up and running again
I would second 4G's suggestion in reading ''The Quest for the True Cross.' Also, the great seminary author Kennith Kirk (Some thoughts on Moral theology), provides fascinating historical reference points relating to this thread. I'll have to dig through many dusty boxes to find one of the books, but I'll see if I can find it. (it has been a looong time!)
Excellent discussion thought!
Fr Bill
Excellent discussion thought!
Fr Bill
I'm sorry I don't think so
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/religion/mysterious -relics.asp
Even though linguistic experts have stated that the inscriptions are very convincing, a recent carbon dating of the wooden relic has given a date of somewhere closer to the11th century AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Crucis
In 2002, the University of Arizona conducted carbon dating tests on the artifact, and it was shown to be made between 980 and 1146 AD. The Titulus Crucis recovered from the residence of Helena is therefore most likely a mediaeval artifact; some have proposed that it is a copy of the now-lost original. The carbon dating results were published in the peer-reviewed journal "Radiocarbon". (see link quoted below).
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/religion/mysterious -relics.asp
Even though linguistic experts have stated that the inscriptions are very convincing, a recent carbon dating of the wooden relic has given a date of somewhere closer to the11th century AD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titulus_Crucis
In 2002, the University of Arizona conducted carbon dating tests on the artifact, and it was shown to be made between 980 and 1146 AD. The Titulus Crucis recovered from the residence of Helena is therefore most likely a mediaeval artifact; some have proposed that it is a copy of the now-lost original. The carbon dating results were published in the peer-reviewed journal "Radiocarbon". (see link quoted below).
From the life in Italy link:
However, there is documentation of pilgrims visiting the Basilica to see the relics of the Passion before the Titulus Crucis was supposedly made. It is entirely possible that the original relic was lost or destroyed during the various sackings of Rome and that a medieval replacement was made to continue the Basilica's title of a Pilgrim Church.
And your wikipedia link states that:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
So I guess we'll never know
However, there is documentation of pilgrims visiting the Basilica to see the relics of the Passion before the Titulus Crucis was supposedly made. It is entirely possible that the original relic was lost or destroyed during the various sackings of Rome and that a medieval replacement was made to continue the Basilica's title of a Pilgrim Church.
And your wikipedia link states that:
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved.
So I guess we'll never know
Hello again, 4GS. Thanks, jake-the-peg, for saving me a lot of explanation.
And yes, The Quest for the True Cross has been on my shelf for some years.
4GS, how can you make a claim like "scientific testing has proved it to be the genuine article"? What genuine article? Even if that piece of wood were proved to be roughly of the right date, what are the criteria for proving it "genuine"? What did the original cross (if it existed) look like? Tell me what was being tested for.
Dear Empress Helena was determined to find something significant in Jerusalem when she went there in the 4th century. She even "found" Jesus's tomb, now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. All pious invention.
The piece of wood you talk about bears the words
NAZARETH K
to which believers have arbitrarily added
JESUS OF ING OF THE JEWS
Is this the sort of stuff you regard as historical evidence? If I were to find a Victorian door-plate under the pavements of Baker Street saying LMES 22 would you take that as proof that Sherlock Holmes once lived at 221B Baker Street?
Be more rigorous, 4GS. As I said, check other sources before believing the inventions and vaporisings of the likes of Thiede.
And yes, The Quest for the True Cross has been on my shelf for some years.
4GS, how can you make a claim like "scientific testing has proved it to be the genuine article"? What genuine article? Even if that piece of wood were proved to be roughly of the right date, what are the criteria for proving it "genuine"? What did the original cross (if it existed) look like? Tell me what was being tested for.
Dear Empress Helena was determined to find something significant in Jerusalem when she went there in the 4th century. She even "found" Jesus's tomb, now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. All pious invention.
The piece of wood you talk about bears the words
NAZARETH K
to which believers have arbitrarily added
JESUS OF ING OF THE JEWS
Is this the sort of stuff you regard as historical evidence? If I were to find a Victorian door-plate under the pavements of Baker Street saying LMES 22 would you take that as proof that Sherlock Holmes once lived at 221B Baker Street?
Be more rigorous, 4GS. As I said, check other sources before believing the inventions and vaporisings of the likes of Thiede.
chakka35
One of the great things about sites like Answerbank is that people can express their views and either agree, or disagree.
I have to hold my hands up here and say that apart from spending two weeks in Israel two years ago on a Holyland tour, a few books on Christianity/Isam/Judaeism (sp)? my knowledge of Biblical History is limited and (with tongue stuck firmly in cheek) slightly one sided.
I understand that Helena may have had her own agenda for claiming that the titular was a relic, then again, she may have actually discovered a genuine relic.
From what I do know though, Jesus (or anyone else who was crucified) wouldn't have carriede the complete cross, aparently, they only carried the horizontal part, the vertical post was a permanant feature in Roman execution
One of the great things about sites like Answerbank is that people can express their views and either agree, or disagree.
I have to hold my hands up here and say that apart from spending two weeks in Israel two years ago on a Holyland tour, a few books on Christianity/Isam/Judaeism (sp)? my knowledge of Biblical History is limited and (with tongue stuck firmly in cheek) slightly one sided.
I understand that Helena may have had her own agenda for claiming that the titular was a relic, then again, she may have actually discovered a genuine relic.
From what I do know though, Jesus (or anyone else who was crucified) wouldn't have carriede the complete cross, aparently, they only carried the horizontal part, the vertical post was a permanant feature in Roman execution
The neutrality has been disputed not the facts.
The fact is that the plate you refer to was dated to the 11th Century.
Here is the report
http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/radioca rbon/GetFileServlet?file=file:///data1/pdf/Rad iocarbon/Volume44/Number3/azu_radiocarbon_v44_ n3_685_689_v.pdf&type=application/pdf
We will know, we do know - it's a fake
The fact is that the plate you refer to was dated to the 11th Century.
Here is the report
http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/radioca rbon/GetFileServlet?file=file:///data1/pdf/Rad iocarbon/Volume44/Number3/azu_radiocarbon_v44_ n3_685_689_v.pdf&type=application/pdf
We will know, we do know - it's a fake
Not disputing the carbon dating jake, however in your 'lifeinitaly' link, it clearly says
" However, there is documentation of pilgrims visiting the Basilica to see the relics of the Passion before the Titulus Crucis was supposedly made. It is entirely possible that the original relic was lost or destroyed during the various sackings of Rome and that a medieval replacement was made to continue the Basilica's title of a Pilgrim Church"
As I said, we'll never know for sure
" However, there is documentation of pilgrims visiting the Basilica to see the relics of the Passion before the Titulus Crucis was supposedly made. It is entirely possible that the original relic was lost or destroyed during the various sackings of Rome and that a medieval replacement was made to continue the Basilica's title of a Pilgrim Church"
As I said, we'll never know for sure
4GS, you are right to say that AB is for debate but you must surely make a distinction between the swapping of opinions, and the giving of facts.
You may have as many opinions as you like in this matter but when you quote an author who blatantly misinforms his readers you must expect others to correct him.
You are right about the method of crucifixion. The pious pictures we see of Jesus dragging a huge cross through the streets and then nailed on that cross high on a hill are absurd. As you say, the vertical posts, not much more than 5-foot high were permanent fixtures in the local rubbish dump so all that the Roman soldiers had to do was lift the cross-beam to which the victim was nailed or tied onto this post and shove in a locking pin. The idea that they would go to the trouble of lifting up a huge cross into the sky is ludicrous. Crucifixion was a routine penalty for the lowest of the low. The Romans made it as simple as possible.
You may have as many opinions as you like in this matter but when you quote an author who blatantly misinforms his readers you must expect others to correct him.
You are right about the method of crucifixion. The pious pictures we see of Jesus dragging a huge cross through the streets and then nailed on that cross high on a hill are absurd. As you say, the vertical posts, not much more than 5-foot high were permanent fixtures in the local rubbish dump so all that the Roman soldiers had to do was lift the cross-beam to which the victim was nailed or tied onto this post and shove in a locking pin. The idea that they would go to the trouble of lifting up a huge cross into the sky is ludicrous. Crucifixion was a routine penalty for the lowest of the low. The Romans made it as simple as possible.
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.