Clivedurdle

You might note from other threads that I think the historical core of Jesus, as well as being fishy is also smelly!

rlogan

I have the utmost confidence that Ben begins with a strawman version of the problem and it simply isn't worth it to me responding to anything he posts.

But for the others here, the matter is very simple.

Do you arrive at a "historical core" by inventing a Jesus who is attested to nowhere at all with a methodology of apologia designed expressly to defeat falsification? By beginning with a myth and removing only those portions that can be proven false beyond any reasonable doubt?

Of course not. It is blindness of the highest order. Thinking that you are using "evidence" to fashion a Jesus when what you are doing is expressly anti-evidence.

The gospels say he was superman and known to every person in Judea. Since that is so obviously untrue, we invent a different Jesus who is not that. Is there any positive evidence for this whatsoever? Zero. So we invent a Jesus for which no evidence exists - one who is not known - and claim that is the "core".

It cannot be falsified because it is specifically constructed so as to defeat falsification. Your story is precicely constructed so as to say, see - in this version of Jesus there would be no contemporary evidence. So that must be Jesus. No - that is your relentless effort to invent a Jesus who cannot be disproven.

And with the testimonium flavianum, for example - they speak of a "historical core" there too. But there isn't one. There is no evidence for it. The actual evidence, which they agree is a forgery, is expressly rejected, and mythical "evidence" put in its place. An assertion that cannot be falsified.

Prove that there is no historical core beneath the forgery? Well, that cannot be done deciseively unless older datable copies of Josephus are unearthed.

Whatever "positive" evidence we have is expressly rejected. Lack of positive evidence (suggestive of myth) is "explained" with a hypothetical existing nowhere but the mind of the apologist.

There is no evidence positively identifying the core, which separates their apologia from other historical personages. Caesar has coins. Busts. Contemporary inscriptions. Archaeological evidence of battles. External references. Positive evidence identifying existence.

You build a core out of positive evidence as opposed to beginning from an absurd mythical representation and removing only that which can be proven false.

It is so obvious to me, but not to the blind apologist because there is only one thing on the mind of such persons: Jesus existed. It is an article of faith, not something that can be demonstrated with positive evidence.

gstafleu

True, but I'd also want to see how Merlin's historical core was established, and if something similar could then be done for Jesus. As a statement of position, I don't hold that it is absolutely impossible for and HJ to have existed. I just haven't seen any (convincing) evidence for it, plus I have seen convincing (to my laypersons perception) arguments for an MJ. However, after reading the "Best HJ Book" thread I have just ordered Theissen and Merz, which was recommended by several people. So who knows... .

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby

Unfortunate, considering that Ben is one of our betters on this forum.

I have confidence that you build a strawman of those who take an HJ hypothesis ("blind apologists"), as well as a dramatically oversimplified rendition of the Testimonium problem, but that won't stop me from replying to you.

Where is your scorn for the numerous anonymous weenies who pepper the forum with posts on their favorite hobby horses? Why do you spend it all on Ben?

--
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon

Yes, and the other way around also, of course. But didn't you say that there was no historical Merlin at the core of the stories? How did you arrive at that conclusion? Perhaps there are lessens there that we can apply to the Jesus story.

Actually, I'm the opposite. I don't think that it is impossible for Christ to have been mythical, but I just haven't seen any convincing evidence for it. The circumstantial evidence seems pretty clear that there was a HJ.

Steve Weiss

Ever wonder what Joseph, Jesus's putative father, was up to while Mary was having someone's child? On Christmas eve the History Channel has a broadcast "Joseph: The Silent Saint." I plan to watch it. Maybe you folks should mention it to all of your collective theistic friends? One commentator in the program indicates that Joseph was probably a fictional character. Could it be the whole story was a fiction? Can any part of a sacred text be fictional? The word of god is fictional?????

Toto

This is a Paulist production, and will not stray from orthodoxy.

mountainman

Its not just the modern historians, the ancient historians
demonstrate a similar attitude.

Take for example, Review of T.D.Barnes' Tertullian by Arnaldo Momigliano

Some classic phrases ....

* Barnes has the historical imagination needed to see the zones of ordinary life which were dangerous for Christians

* Barnes defines Tertullian as a Christian Sophist. This will not do. There is no need to delve deeply into G. W. Bowersock's book on the Second Sophistic ... to be reminded that those whom Philostratus called Sophists did not have to fight Jews, heretics, pagans and weak Christians as Tertullian did.

* Of course there is the old question, of which A. v. Harnack was very aware, how much of Tertullian's theology itself was shaped by rhetorical or juridical thought patterns. ... [...]... But this is not the type of problem in which Barnes seems to be interested.

* And did any Sophist ever worry about simplcitas veritatis (Apol. 23, 7) as much as Tertullian, who apparently transmitted his concern to St. Jerome (T. P. O'Malley, Tertullian and the Bible (1967), 166-172)?

* My favourite quotation from Evans's notes on Tertullian is about Adv. Marc. 2, 10, 3 : ‘That the animals of Gen.2: 18-20 were angels is apparently a fancy of Tertullian's own’. This is the sort of thing we need to know in order to understand Tertullian.

rlogan

Any and all who proceed with the premise that you can begin with what they themselves admit defacto is mythical material, extract only those portions that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be false, and call the remainder "historical" are apologists, not historians or what I would call objective scholars.

If you bring to me one who builds a Historical Jesus out of postitive evidence for that specific Jesus, I will find this most interesting. Such a person is not an apologist for a position.

Josephus has a lot of Jesus personages, for example, as you know. A couple dozen of them. In picking one of them as the "Historical Jesus", a person would be using positive evidence instead of just creating a ficticious one.

If they argue that Josephus never would have mentioned their Jesus because he was not worth mentioning - then they are just begging the question. Assuming what they want to conclude.

This is an example for clarification about methodology, Peter. Not a dissertation on this sole point.


I think it important to specify what the blindness is about, Peter. Because it isn't what you think - and I do understand why you thought so. I do not mean blindly accepting the gospel.

What they are blind to is the bogus process they have chained themselves to. It is interesting to see how difficult it is to get this point across in biblical research because in my field this would be appalling.

You do not find the "Historical Bugs Bunny" by removing what is obviously false from the cartoons. If one cannot see this, then they are blind.

I am happy to call this blindness to the methodology something else so that it is not mistaken for what is normally meant by "blind apologist".

What they are apologists for is what they have assumed, and not something they have demonstrated. So I see in two ways my wording there is poor.

"Blind" to the methodological bankrupcy. "Apologists" for a position born out of assumption. There must be a Jesus.


Was my post a dissertation on the TF, or was it instead merely a reference to illustrate the methodological problem?

I generally do not exchange with morons on this page. Or at least try not to.

When I've had someone who is not a complete moron demonstrate consistent distortion of my posts, refusal to acknowledge points, or whatever - then I find it worthless exchanging with them.

When they are not a moron it means they know exactly what they are doing in being so disengenuous. Hence the contempt.

Cheers.

spin

I'm sure no-one needs to think about testing the historical core of the Ebion tradition which I have mentioned frequently on the forum, for there is no historical core, despite the fact that church fathers believed that Ebion was real. However, if we had had more information about the Ebionite movement, how might we have gone about testing the historical core of the Ebion tradition?

I'm also sure, though, that if we consider a few other traditions that of Lycurgus, that marvel of a politician who singlehandedly revolutionized Spartan society, and that of William Tell, the archer whose testing so well represented the straights the Swiss were in, how does one test the historicity of either?

I haven't seen that this thread has got very far with the topic it was supposed to deal with. At the same time, we should recognize that although a person or event might be wanting regarding the testability of their historical cores, it doesn't necessarily negate their one-time existence.

Now I don't want to disqualify anyone's attempts to test the historical core of any historical figure, but I wish we would get on with the testing. There seems too much meta-discussion here. So, can someone start the ball rolling, if they want to test the historical core of someone please, be my guest.

If we are dealing with Jesus, I'd guess to start off with, of course, you'd have to date your sources, then start on their validation as providing something we can test...


spin