Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-23-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

...

What they "prove" is that the mainstream of scholarly study answers the OP's original questions and is contrary to many of the views expressed here. In most areas of human study, we either agree with the experts or demonstrate our own expertise. I don't have the expertise, so I defer to the experts, in this field as in others. What do you do?

I first of all examine the experts' credentials, especially in a field like history. Then I look at the methods they use to reach their decisions.

In the quest for the historical Jesus, the experts often have a commitment to a version of history that supports some version of the Christian faith, or some other political stance. They generally assume that there was a historical Jesus because somebody must have started Christianity, and they assume that they can extract some history from the gospels. Even then, they can't extract a coherent narrative from the gospels, or explain the basics of who the historical Jesus was.

While the Jesus Project has come to a halt, Richard Carrier will be publishing a book on the historicity of Jesus next year.

ercatli · 11-23-2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Furthermore, despite what you say about the historicity, and the further assertion that "virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that [jesus] did [exist]", I found plenty who do not.

I know this is a quote from someone else, but you presumably endorse it, so I will comment. I wonder can you please list the historians who significantly disagree with the statement that Jesus did exist? I only know one or two, but you may be able to add a few.

On the other side, here is a list of historians I have read (some of them atheists and agnostics) who agree with the statement: Michael Grant, Robin Lane Fox, AN Sherwin-White, JD Crossan, M Borg, E Sanders, J Meier, NT Wright, Geza Vermes, MA Powell, C Evans, LT Johnson, M Bockmuehl, G Stanton, J Charlesworth, C Tucket, J Dickson, J Paget, J Dunn, C Blomberg, JJ Lowder, E Judge, P Fredriksen.

That list includes some of the most eminent names in New Testament history and ancient and Roman history generally (as judged by their peers). Even such sceptical scholars as the Jesus Seminar (which includes a couple of the above) and Bart Ehrman do not, to my knowledge, agree with that statement.

Quote:

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good

No it's not. The evidence for Caesar's existence is good. How can something which does not match up to that be extraordinary?

Who should I believe, you, or all the above?

ercatli · 11-23-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I first of all examine the experts' credentials, especially in a field like history. Then I look at the methods they use to reach their decisions.

In the quest for the historical Jesus, the experts often have a commitment to a version of history that supports some version of the Christian faith, or some other political stance. They generally assume that there was a historical Jesus because somebody must have started Christianity, and they assume that they can extract some history from the gospels. Even then, they can't extract a coherent narrative from the gospels, or explain the basics of who the historical Jesus was.

I wonder where you get those ideas? I suggest you try reading Michael Grant's "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels". Grant is interesting because he was, before he died, (1) a respected secular historian of the Roman Empire, who wrote more than 50 books on this period, and used the same historical methods in studying Jesus as he used in his other works and (2) un-biased, in that he was an open-minded agnostic or atheist (I have read both descriptions). He (like those other eminent ancient historians, Fox & Sherwin-White) complained of the undue scepticism about historical sources which many NT scholars applied to their studies. It is an old book now (updated in 1992 I think) but well worth reading if you want an informed and unbiased view.

Quote:

While the Jesus Project has come to a halt, Richard Carrier will be publishing a book on the historicity of Jesus next year.

After all you've said about other scholars, how is it that you are (apparently) willing to trust Carrier?

TimBowe · 11-23-2009, 06:49 PM

Ercatli, you make dubious use of modern authorities, you constantly quote modern scholars as if somehow thats evidence for your point of view. The reality is just because the majority of New Testament scholars agree on the historical Jesus is not proof that they are right. The majority of New Testament scholars are believers in the New Testament, they're theologically committed to the text.

Quote:

Apart from four short gospels, whose evidence is partly repetitive and partly contradictory, few facts are known about the life of Jesus. There is no historical document which mentions him, and there is no trace of him in Roman literacy sources. He did not even attract major notice from the Jewish writers of the period such as Josephus or Philo.

From Europe A History

You're recounting of scholarly opinion is slanted, it fails to tell the real story.

Solo · 11-23-2009, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

ICraig Evans, Professor of New Testament at Acadia University, Nova Scotia:
" .... the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding"

There is a generic answer to this vow of perpetual intellectual poverty.....one of the greatest lines that I have ever heard in a motion picture. It is a cool answer of one attending physician to another when the latter rejoices over the contents od George III's chamberpot during the king's florid phase of mental illness (The Madness of King George):

...the persistent excellence of his majesty's stool has been one of this disease's most tedious features. Man, when will you get it into your head that one can produce regular, copious, and exquisitely formed evacuation every day of the week and still be a stranger to reason.

Jiri

No Robots · 11-23-2009, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wavy_wonder1

I would also recommend that book by Ehrman. In fact, this is one of the passages he addresses--a later Christian development to explain away the failure of the coming kingdom. So the literal fulfillment was increasingly spiritualized away, hence your Johns and Thomas's.

In my view, Ehrman distorts both the Gospels and Jewish literary history in order to make Christ fit his outlook. The passage in question is in Luke as well as Thomas, but Ehrman simply waves it away. And there are plenty of other passages where the Kingdom of Heaven is presented without any hint of an end to the world.

Toto · 11-23-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Furthermore, despite what you say about the historicity, and the further assertion that "virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that [jesus] did [exist]", I found plenty who do not.

I know this is a quote from someone else, but you presumably endorse it, so I will comment. I wonder can you please list the historians who significantly disagree with the statement that Jesus did exist? I only know one or two, but you may be able to add a few.

There is Richard Carrier, who as far as I know, is the only historian who has actually evaluated the evidence. I think there are some Europeans.

Quote:

On the other side, here is a list of historians I have read (some of them atheists and agnostics) who agree with the statement: Michael Grant, Robin Lane Fox, AN Sherwin-White, JD Crossan, M Borg, E Sanders, J Meier, NT Wright, Geza Vermes, MA Powell, C Evans, LT Johnson, M Bockmuehl, G Stanton, J Charlesworth, C Tucket, J Dickson, J Paget, J Dunn, C Blomberg, JJ Lowder, E Judge, P Fredriksen.

That list includes some of the most eminent names in New Testament history and ancient and Roman history generally (as judged by their peers). Even such sceptical scholars as the Jesus Seminar (which includes a couple of the above) and Bart Ehrman do not, to my knowledge, agree with that statement.

You have jumbled together a list of historians, Christian theologians, and others, most of whom have assumed that there was a historican Jesus without evaluating the evidence. The Jesus Seminar is composed primarily of Christians with degrees from seminaries, almost all of whom make a living on interpreting the historical Jesus.

Quote:

The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good

No it's not. The evidence for Caesar's existence is good. How can something which does not match up to that be extraordinary?

Who should I believe, you, or all the above?

I don't care who you believe. But please learn to evaluate the evidence.

Toto · 11-23-2009, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ercatli

...I suggest you try reading Michael Grant's "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels". ...

Why do you think I haven't read that book? I have. But I gather you did not follow the link to the previous discussion on Grant, so let me reproduce some of it here.

Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

Grant himself, not a New Testament scholar, is prey to the same restricted and simplistic thinking that refuters of the myth theory often themselves betray. He too [p.199] appeals to the idea that “Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of the deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit.” This, of course, ignores the fact that an exclusive form of ‘mainstream’ Judaism that might have had such an attitude was not yet established, especially outside Palestine and in the pre-70 period; this has been acknowledged by critical New Testament scholarship for several decades now. Grant also urges applying the same criteria to the record of Jesus that historians apply to other ancient writings whose authors, like the evangelists, describe events often in differing terms; this ignores the significant and even fundamental differences involved between the two categories. ....

and from here

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

As to the specific question of “historical methods,” Grant seems not to take into account that methods applying to non-religious figures in history are not the same as those we need to apply to religious figures who are witnessed to only by religious writings like the Gospels and not by general historical writings. ...

Grant was writing before the era (since around 1980) when it has been increasingly recognized by critical New Testament scholarship that there is little if anything that is reliably identifiable as historical in the Gospels, that virtually everything can be seen as midrash on Old Testament themes and passages. If he were writing today, he would no doubt realize that the “criteria” used for “other ancient writings containing historical material” (my emphasis) simply doesn’t apply to the Gospels.

Grant himself, in his book, shows that he has the means to recognize the true nature of the Gospels and the so-called history contained in them, but is unable to follow these insights to their logical conclusion.

Quote:

While the Jesus Project has come to a halt, Richard Carrier will be publishing a book on the historicity of Jesus next year.

After all you've said about other scholars, how is it that you are (apparently) willing to trust Carrier?

I know his methodology and his training, and that he approaches the subject without any religious preconceptions.

ercatli · 11-23-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TimBowe

Ercatli, you make dubious use of modern authorities, you constantly quote modern scholars as if somehow thats evidence for your point of view.

G'day Tim. We owe all this discussion to you! :huh:

Actually, if you check out what I have said, you'll notice I've avoided presenting a "point of view" beyond my factual statements of what scholars conclude. This was for 2 reasons:

(1) Your OP mentioned "historical reconstruction" and scholars. I have tried to answer your question - i.e. what the consensus of scholars is. You have inferred my point of view, and I am guessing that many comments here are based more on personal viewpoints than on history.

(2) Until we agree on facts, there's little point in discussing opinions.

But I will ask you a similar question to what I've asked others. If we do not base our facts on the findings of experts, what can we base them on? Unless we are ourselves experts (I am not, and so far no-one else has presented their expertise), our own opinions are, in the words of Solo's elegant quote: "exquisitely formed evacuation".

Can you offer another means of knowing historical facts?

Quote:

The reality is just because the majority of New Testament scholars agree on the historical Jesus is not proof that they are right.

No of course it's not proof - there's very little proof in this life outside of mathematics. But it is the best information we have. Again, can you offer anything better?

Quote:

The majority of New Testament scholars are believers in the New Testament, they're theologically committed to the text.

I wonder if you would like to support tis statement with clear evidence? I know of several for whom that is not true.

And I wonder, secondly, if you would like to establish from evidence that those historians who are believers allow that to affect their historical conclusions? For again, I think I can show that is incorrect.

So let's see your evidence!

Quote:

Apart from four short gospels, whose evidence is partly repetitive and partly contradictory, few facts are known about the life of Jesus. There is no historical document which mentions him, and there is no trace of him in Roman literacy sources. He did not even attract major notice from the Jewish writers of the period such as Josephus or Philo.

No-one contests that. But we are discussing what the experts conclude, and they generally think the evidence for Jesus is better than that for other ancient figures. This is a matter of judgment based on thorough historical knowledge. Again, why should I believe you rather than them?

Quote:

You're recounting of scholarly opinion is slanted, it fails to tell the real story.

So far I have quoted a bunch of scholars, offered to quote more, and listed some of the scholars I have read, from which I have made a selection. That's a heap more references than anyone else has offered. May I respectfully suggest that, until and if you quote some scholars of your own, it is your view that is slanted.

Best wishes.

ercatli · 11-23-2009, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There is a generic answer to this vow of perpetual intellectual poverty.....one of the greatest lines that I have ever heard in a motion picture. It is a cool answer of one attending physician to another when the latter rejoices over the contents od George III's chamberpot during the king's florid phase of mental illness (The Madness of King George):

...the persistent excellence of his majesty's stool has been one of this disease's most tedious features. Man, when will you get it into your head that one can produce regular, copious, and exquisitely formed evacuation every day of the week and still be a stranger to reason.

Jiri

Lol!

Can I infer from this comment that you are not interested in expert opinion on these matters?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.