Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 06-18-2010, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Q is a very handy device for extrapolating backwards to the alleged time of JC isn't it?
Really...convenient.

Don't forget that there are scholars who slam Doherty for accepting the existence of Q.

I guess mythicists are always wrong, no matter what they do.

Steven Carr · 06-18-2010, 10:56 AM

VOORST
First, Wells misinterprets Paul's relative silence about some details in the life of Jesus:

TRANSLATION
Wells backs this up by showing the silence in the other Epistles, even when the authors are talking about Job, Moses, Abraham, anybody except the Jesus they had converted to.

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Q is a very handy device for extrapolating backwards to the alleged time of JC isn't it?
Really...convenient.

Maybe that could be a good argument, though I don't think Voorst says anything about extrapolation.

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2010, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think he included Thallos because the theme of his book is "Jesus Outside the New Testament," and Thallos really is, at least arguably, a good inference of the earliest known specific evidence of non-Christian knowledge about Jesus. It is certainly not evidence for the historicity of Jesus that I would use, but that is a consequence of choosing to look only outside the New Testament for his evidence of Jesus, where the evidence is scarcest. He actually cheated with his theme, and he used the Gospel of Q for references to Jesus outside the New Testament, just because Q is sorta kinda not part of the canon.

No,he is a junk scholar peddling pseudo-scholarship if he claims Julius Africanus non-quote of a person who cannot be traced is evidence that this 'darkness' was known before the Novels were written.

I think the way he deals with it is how a historian should be doing history. Yeah, he doesn't simply throw it out as though it has no relevance at all, even if that is the way the superskeptics would prefer history should be practiced. I have a feeling that the mythicists would take it as very relevant, extremely relevant, if it instead reflected an ancient mythicist opinion.

yalla · 06-18-2010, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Q is a very handy device for extrapolating backwards to the alleged time of JC isn't it?
Really...convenient.

Don't forget that there are scholars who slam Doherty for accepting the existence of Q.

I guess mythicists are always wrong, no matter what they do.

Yeah I know Doherty accepts Q.
I'm a bit of a fan of Doherty but I'm much less a fan of the Q hypothesis.

Mythicism, whatever, is hardly a single unified group.

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2010, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Gee dog-on I am forced to agree with you.

Assuming the above 6 points are a reasonable synopsis of the book then such book seems to have clearly failed to refute mythicist criticism and even fails to use its own criteria consistently.

Lets have a look at a few of the points, its a long time since I read Wells so I'll concentrate more on REVV's [Robert E. Van Voorst] comments generally.

Firstly, he misapplies the idea of 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" concept.
"Absence of evidence" when it could be reasonably expected to be present should give pause for thought.
There is virtually no such evidence of any HJ in the first century, a few slight possibilities which can be discussed later.
See Doherty for a detailed discussion of the lack of evidence for an HJ in Paul and other purportedly 1st C writings.

This statment:
"Almost all readers of Paul assume on good evidence that Paul regards Jesus as a historical figure is valueless.
Scholarship is not a popularity contest particularly when a powerful political organization has had centuries to indoctrinate public opinion.
Notice the word 'assume' in that sentence. Presumptions are valueless.
Now if REVV wants to give details of what constitutes "on good evidence", fine, consideration of evidence is the key.
But I see none mentioned here. Perhaps it is in the bulk of the book?
What is the evidence?

Secondly, REVV asserts that dating "Mark" c100CE [and the others later] is "far too late".
Really, on what grounds?
Does he cover these grounds in detail in his book?
Are the reasons for dating "Mark" later than 70CE presented and analysed?
Joe Wallack has given complete threads worth of evidence, both internal and external to g"Mark", for dating "Mark" later than the conventional time [which I note has changed from pre 70 to post 70 in conventional circles recently].
Mere assertion that "Mark" was written c70CE carries no weight at all.

Then there is this assertion:
".....cannot explain why the Gospel references to details about Palestine are so plentiful and mostly accurate".
REVV is making a fundamental mistake here.

I'm an Australian and we have an author here who has written a series of 'private eye' novels set in the city of Sydney a few decades ago starring a character named Cliff Hardy.
In those novels details as to time and place are "plentiful and mostly accurate", well very accurate actually.

But the novels are fiction and Cliff hardy does not exist, and never has.
And are the details in the gospels with regards to what is commonly termed 'local colour', really as accurate as REVV claims?
If you search here at this site you will find threads that throw considerable doubt, much based on reputable Christian scholarship, about such details in the gospels that refer to the geography and culture of Palestine.
Merely asserting such are accurate carries no weight.

Fourthly [I'll skip #3 for now] REVV is here utilising the 'argument for silence', which he earlier dismissed, as a positive.
"As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist."
Inconsistent.
Hoist by his own petard.

Fifthly, the value of Tacitus, Josephus, and I'd consider Pliny [the younger] and Suetonius should be included in such a list of extra NT alleged 'witnesses' is vastly overrated.
Tacitus' alleged [cos there are doubts as to its veracity] value has been debated here. Perhaps REVV should avail himself of some of the material in such threads. But even granting the veracity of T's report it is still only a second hand description which could be mere repeating of material Tacitus has heard from unnamed sources.
Pliny's description is even more overtly second hand, he is no witness to an HJ merely repeating information gained from christians.
No first hand evidence for an HJ in either of these authors, just acknowledgement that christians existed at the time of writing. We knew that.

To cite Joesephus as evidence for an HJ is an act of desperation, the credibility of the Test. Fkav. is minimal.
Here, check out this link which is to an article written by a reputable Christian [I think he is a Christian] scholar who not only presents the evidence for the TF being a forgery but identifies the probable forger.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/4869

This, by REVV :
"ignoring the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy." is an extremely optimistic verdict as to the perceived cedibility of the TF.
Even if REVV's statement " the strong consensus ...basically trustworthy" is accurate, which is unsupported and itself a very doubtful statement, I note that an argument from popularity does not make an argument correct.

Sorry Abe, but is this is the standard of refutation of the mythicist stance, then it falls a long way short of being convincing.

I should have been more afraid that this thread would incite seven different refutations for all seven of Voorst's points. If there is any single point that you would like me to focus on, then I would be willing to do so, but not for all seven of them.

Not that I hold it against you for offering up all of those refutations. We all think that bullshit should not stand unchallenged. But, my main point was that mythicism really is acknowledged in the scholarship, and reasons for their refusal to accept mythicism are given, though you and Doug Shaver may judge their reasons to be not good enough. Doug Shaver should not have claimed that no arguments against mythicism have been brought to the table, and I hope I don't see that misunderstanding being presented again.

I did have a thing of two to say about the apparent hypocrisy about the arguments from silence, and I wrote new a thread here:

The "relative silence" of Paul, when arguments from silence work, and when they don't

aa5874 · 06-18-2010, 11:37 AM

The theory that Jesus Christ did exist only as a man is based ENTIRELY on SILENCE or speculation.

No Church writer, and author of the NT claimed Jesus Christ was a man.

The CONCENSUS from the Church writers and authors of the NT is that Jesus was God on earth, the Creator of everything in heaven and earth, who walked on water, transfigured, was RAISED from the dead and ascended to heaven.

There is NO credible EVIDENCE anywhere that a Jewish man was worshiped as a God during the reign of Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Galba, Ortho, Vitellius and Vespasian.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.....Fourth, Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it...

But this claim is HORRIBLY FALSE.

The Church writers were the ones who VEHEMENTLY denied that Jesus was a man but was born of a Ghost of God and a Virgin without a human father.

Nowhere in the ENTIRE NT and Church writings did Jesus believers EVER claimed Jesus had a human father and NOT ever walk on water like a SPIRIT.

All the explanations supplied by VOORST are horribly weak.

Toto · 06-18-2010, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... But, my main point was that mythicism really is acknowledged in the scholarship, and reasons for their refusal to accept mythicism are given, ...

But the reasons are superficially dismissive, not the product of actually grappling with the idea.

ApostateAbe · 06-18-2010, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

.... But, my main point was that mythicism really is acknowledged in the scholarship, and reasons for their refusal to accept mythicism are given, ...

But the reasons are superficially dismissive, not the product of actually grappling with the idea.

OK, fine.

Maybe that should be the objection.

Huon · 06-18-2010, 01:26 PM

When Van Voorst gives us only one irrefutable proof of the existence of Jesus, instead of moaning against the mythicists, the mythicists will disappear.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-18-2010, 10:56 AM	#12
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	VOORST First, Wells misinterprets Paul's relative silence about some details in the life of Jesus: TRANSLATION Wells backs this up by showing the silence in the other Epistles, even when the authors are talking about Job, Moses, Abraham, anybody except the Jesus they had converted to.

06-18-2010, 01:26 PM	#20
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	When Van Voorst gives us only one irrefutable proof of the existence of Jesus, instead of moaning against the mythicists, the mythicists will disappear.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.