aa5874

How in the world could have Ehrman been talking to religous Scholars about the historicity of Jesus and produce such a disaster???

It was expected that Ehrman would have presented an argument for an HJ but it turned out he presented logical fallacies, presumptions, based on unreliable sources found in the Bible.

LegionOnomaMoi

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "take seriously." The scientists who provide books for the public on why creationism is false don't take creationist arguments seriously (from what I've read by scientists who address creationist arguments, the tendency is towards ridicule), but they do take seriously the problems posed by people trying to mislead others into thinking that creationism is scientific or that evolution is not and similar claims. If by "take seriously" you mean "they think the idea has no merit whatsoever but address it because they don't want others to be misled" then that is a different story.


Which is typical. Dunn, for example, in his Jesus Remembered states that "every generation someone reruns the thesis that Jesus never existed". Schweitzer addresses it in a later edition of his work, Weaver does in his The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, Theißen & Merz address many of the claims in their Der historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch, but apart from Price and Carrier most specialists whose area of expertise overlaps with historical Jesus studies (NT scholars, scholars of Judaism, classicists, etc.) tend to view the mythicist stance as untenable and more than adequately addressed. I'm not saying they are correct, or that they have all read (for example) Doherty as opposed to Wells, but while there are those who believe we can know virtually nothing about the historical Jesus, the general view seems to be that at the very least he did and no argument that he didn't has ever been plausible.

stephan huller

But in all fairness don't the mythicists have to present a smoking gun or a piece of evidence which in effects proves that early Christians accepted that Jesus was not human for 'scholarship' to take them seriously? It's like saying Plato loved pie. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. But until we find a reference to the pie-loving Greek philosopher Plato, people aren't going to pay much attention to the notion that Plato liked pies even if it might be true. It won't be enough to merely say that because Plato didn't say he hated pies he must have liked eating it for desert.

I do think that mythicists have laid the stress on the wrong things. The perception - rightly or wrongly - is that mythicists want to disprove the existence of Jesus by pointing to the paucity or lack of evidence for his historical existence. I don't know if any other argument in history has ever succeeded solely relying on the null hypothesis or 'prove it isn't true.'

IMO the only way to proceed if to help define evidence that Christians believed that Jesus was wholly divine. Indeed even arguing over the 'right' interpretation of what Paul wrote or the gospel said is a dead end because the material has been interpreted as assuming the existence of a historical Jesus for centuries. The way to proceed is to reveal a discernible tradition of belief from earliest Christian antiquity which supports a wholly divine Jesus.

spin

There you see it. Look at the crap written theorizing about the probability of Jesus being historical. And look who you cough up after a good rifling. All famous for their tomes on the historicity of Jesus. But seriously....

Ground control to Major LegionOnomaMoi. There's something wrong. Can you hear me Major LegionOnomaMoi?

Toto

Because the historicity of Jesus has never been adequately shown.

Many have been warned that spending any time on the issue is the kiss of death to their careers.

We've had this discussion before. Just try to find academic support for the historicity of Jesus. It is an unexamined assumption for the historical Jesus guild. It may be the general view, but that general view is based on vapors.

aa5874

What rhetoric!!! We have Ehrman's book. The HJ argument is NOT even plausible and that is precisely why Ehrman produced a DISASTER called "Did Jesus Exist?'

Ehrman introduced his Jesus as "Scarcely known" but used sources that claimed Jesus of Nazareth was WELL KNOWN throughout Galilee and Jerusalem with THOUSANDS of followers on a daily basis.

We have Ehrman's book. His Jesus is NOT plausible.

LegionOnomaMoi

I have.

Rifling? Amusing. I wasn't providing a list but asking a question in order to answer yours. You asked I said "specialists" but you said "history specialists." My question was who in your opinion counts as a "history specialist" and why? But you didn't answer (suprise, suprise).

LegionOnomaMoi

Who? And what is your source? Carrier was well-known and published before he had even finished his Phd. Price doesn't seem to be suffering. Wells is well-known only because of his writings on Jesus when his educational background is completely unrelated.

How is it unexamined? Have you read the responses (which go back over 100 years) to various people who have argued Jesus doesn't exist?

spin

Certainly I said "history specialists"--they're supposed to be writing history. And how many of those who publish diatribes on the historical Jesus are history specialists? You merely prove the issue with your tiny clutch of names.

aa5874

In the very first page of the Introduction of Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman claimed his Jesus was "Scarcely known" but BEFORE the book was finished Ehrman claimed that a character called Paul was Preached about Jesus in the Roman Empire.

How in the world could Jesus be "Scarcely known" when perhaps Hundreds of people were PREACHING about Jesus in various places throughout the Roman Empire and in Major Cities like Rome and Corinth.

Ehrman's "Scarcely Known" Jesus is NOT Plausible.

Ehrman's "Scarcely Known" Jesus astonishingly may have had more books and letters written about him than the Emperor Tiberius.