LogicandReason

But let's not focus on Galileo, his personality and showmanship are too easy to attack (never mind he was correct). My posit to the opening comment was that HJ/MJ was not debated before the Enlightenment due to church domination.

Using our best methods of inquiry and analysis this question is still unanswered. Why not discuss it here on BCH as the extant documents we reference (NT) are the only references to HJ. When anyone can create HJ from history or the letters written before Mark then the controversy is over. But in the spirit of Strauss, I suggest we continue to look behind the curtains here to see who is pulling the levers and pressing the buttons. Bryan

Jeffrey Gibson

I believe that the real reason lies in a long established pre-RC and universal (in the East as well) approach to, and understanding of, scripture rather than any alleged political domination of things by "the Church".

On this, see What Have They Done to the Bible: A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation (or via: amazon.co.uk) by John Sandys-Wunsch, A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient Period (or via: amazon.co.uk) & A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Medieval Through the Reformation Periods (or via: amazon.co.uk), A. J. Hauser & D. F. Watson, editors) and R.M. Grant and David Tracey's A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Have you read any of these?


I think you mean Reimarus.

Ah, another conspiracy theory advocate!

Can you tell me what you have read on the history of the interpretation of the Bible? Which of the reputable histories of, and monographs and studies on, this history informs your claim that there has been someone or some entity "pulling the levers and pressing the buttons"?

Jeffrey

Doug Shaver

And for no other reason? Why do you think that? What fact, in your opinion, would have led any pre-Enlightenment intellectual to suspect that Jesus never existed?

LogicandReason

I'm soon to post an opinion on this but in summary:

1. Paul and other epistle writers don't know or reference HJ, his ministry, his miracles,

2. Josephus and Philo never write about him (anyone who has READ Josephus knows that 18.3.3 does not fit),

3. Jewish writings don't mention him until the 3rd or 4th century CE and then mimic Christian legend,

4. The Gospel stories cannot be harmonized,

5. He is missing from secular history (Tacitus references 'Christ' the origin of the Christians...not a Jesus....kind of like calling Buddha the founder of Buddhism versus Siddhartha Gautama.....again parroting Christians of the early 2nd century and not an official record, and

6. The dying/rising savior is a Hellenistic theme...not Hebrew and certainly not a Jewish Messiah.

Prior to the Reformation, people were killed for blasphemy. I'm not a conspiracy theorist....I'm also not credulous.

When anyone can create an earthly Jesus without the later written Gospels and Acts, then I might be convinced he was more than some historicized legend, an exegesis of extant scriptures.

Roger Pearse

Friend, when you repeat the theories of someone like Earl Doherty uncritically, it's probably best to make clear that you are doing so. You don't know enough history to make the above statements yourself.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

LogicandReason

Thanks Roger for your criticism. You know that I have read Doherty as we discussed that on Harris. I've also read the Germans from the 19th century, Mack, Pagles, Ehrman, Barker, Carrier, Hume, Spinoza, Russell, to name a few others. I also have read plenty of the current Christian apologist out there and the story has nothing new to offer. Your post pseudo-history on your captive web pages makes you no more a historian than I and no less an amateur. If you wish to refute opinions then be specific.

Doug Shaver

I'm not defending his historicity. I'm questioning your apparent supposition that his nonhistoricity would have been obvious to pre-Enlightenment intellectuals. I have seen no defense yet of that supposition.

LogicandReason

You are correct Doug...I think his historicity was never in question. But do you think we would have known about dissenters, if there were any, as that blasphemy was deadly?

The polemicist who wrote the Gospels placed HJ in the midst of some very known anchors such as Herod, John-the-Baptizer and Pontius Pilate. It is easy to see how burying a myth in other historical evidence might defy detection if the meme's promoters can kill those who would present opposing evidence.

I think the larger issue is the dominance of the church after the 4th century. We read about early disagreements and 'heretics' in the 2nd and 3rd centuries CE. There are essentially none after Constantine lends the power of Rome to the Church.

The great thinkers of France, Germany and England enjoyed enough freedom to ask these questions. Doesn't that say more about politics than truth claims?

Jeffrey Gibson

Really? Do the names Pelagius, Nestorius, Lucilem, Eutyches, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Vigilantians:and John Cassian mean anything to you? How about the terms Homoians and Monophysitism?

Jeffrey

LogicandReason

Excellent point...let me rephrase...none were allowed to fester once the church had the power to make them disappear.