Vorkosigan

Or ~135 AD, the second great roman-jewish war. Case simply ignores other possibilities to focus on the one he likes.

Vorkosigan

ApostateAbe

EDIT: Never mind, I think I misunderstood.

Vorkosigan

Yes, it is still tragically weak, unsupported by evidence and sound methodology, and dependent on assumptions about the text that are necessary to keep the HJ idea alive.

ApostateAbe

I have tried a bunch of different terms. Most recently, it has been "Jesus-minimalism," which I think it sufficiently inclusive and doesn't come off as insulting as the other terms. I used the term "hyperskepticism" regularly last year, and I just recently saw that same term (with a hyphen) in the writing of Shirley Jackson Case. Like I said, the two sides of the debate have not changed so much in 100 years.

"Hyper-skepticism," as I see it, is a mentality that manifests as an extreme form of skepticism. That is: strong doubt or disbelief of historical conclusions. Not just historical conclusions that are unreasonable, mind you, but historical conclusions in general, especially conclusions seemingly aligned with Christianity, or whatever else they scorn.

The "hyper-skeptics" typically call themselves "skeptics," and they think they belong among everyone else who accepts the label. But, whereas other self-described skeptics may think of skepticism as merely a reflection of their beliefs, differing from traditional authority and arrived at through a search for the probable truth using a method of decision-making otherwise unrelated to skepticism, the hyper-skeptics tend to treat skepticism as THE primary method, and they tend to have no methodology of positive belief. They don't even think so much in terms of probabilities for positive conclusions, though they may give the principle of probability their acclaim, but they very much think strictly in terms of skepticism.

Such disbelief is limited only by how far a hyper-skeptic is willing to take it before it looks too obviously ridiculous. If such a person has little awareness of what looks ridiculous, then it can be taken especially far. The most extreme cases are present in this forum. How would you describe the way of thinking of mountainman and aa5874, if not "hyper-skeptical"? Others who I consider "hyper-skeptics" do not go as far as they do, but they have about the same fundamental way of thinking, only more moderated.

ApostateAbe

OK. What is your conception of "sound methodology"? What methodology do you most prefer?

mountainman

The methodology is that of a 21st century scientifically disposed ancient historian reviewing the field of ancient history. The methodology is simply to follow the evidence and the similar patterns of evidence wheresoever these may lead, excluding nothing from consideration, and assembling a narrative of historical events which best provides an explaination of all the evidence.

ApostateAbe

mountainman, be specific. I take you to be among the most pure representations of a "hyper-skeptic" or a "Jesus-minimalist," and one of my assertions about them is that they do not have positive methodologies, so prove me wrong. What do you mean by "follow the evidence" or "best provides an explaination"? A lot of historical thinkers have specific methods in mind. For example, see this page: historical_method

aa5874

Again, it is not logical or reasonable to assume that a story of unknown authorship with KNOWN fiction where the very author makes NO claim that he wrote about historical events is still a book of history.

One MUST FIRST find a credible corroborative source for gMark in order to show that it does indeed support historicism.

But, gMark is Canonised and MUST be compatible with the teachings of those who COMPILED the Canon itself.

In the NT Canon, Jesus Christ was God Incarnate, the Creator and born of the Holy Ghost without a human father.

aa5874

I CONSIDER that you are ENGAGED in Propaganda and "Chinese Whispers".

You are the HYPER-SKEPTIC. You have RE-WRITTEN the Jesus story as you REJECT the Jesus of the Gospels.

You are the one who has DISCREDITED the authors of the Gospels and made them to be LIARS or PROVIDED ERRONEOUS information in the Gospels.

You are "HYPER-SKEPTICAL" of the NT Jesus. You DENOUNCE the NT Jesus as a LIE or as an EMBELLISHMENT.

You are HYPER-SKEPTICAL of gMatthew's, gMark's, gLuke's and gJohn versions of the conception, temptation, transfiguration, the "spit and touch miracles", resurrection and ascension of Jesus and have actually RE-WRITTEN the Jesus story based on YOUR OWN HYPER-SKEPTICISM.

You are EXTREMELY HYPER-SKEPTICAL of the Jesus of FAITH.

The Gospels are about the Jesus of Faith.

Steven Carr

They placed more trust in 'oral accounts'?

And here was I thinking that 'Luke' used Mark and Matthew/Q.

And Mark used the LXX.

And when Paul wants to write about events in the life of Jesus, he either uses revelations from the Lord, or quotes scripture. Anything except oral accounts , except possibly when talking about oral accounts of other people seeing dead Jesus's.

I guess there were no oral accounts or else they would have been used by 'Luke' in preference to written accounts that it seems even Christians regarded as non-authoritative.