copernicus

Nor does there appear to be much of a literature defending the claim against critics. You still did not address the criticism--failure to state the nature of the evidence that Jesus ever existed and failure to back up your claims about the consensus of scholars. It would be interesting to see a study that substantiated your claim that the majority of historians truly believe in Christ's historicity. It is reasonable to expect that most Christian historians would, but has there ever been a study to substantiate the expectation?

In response to my criticism that your entire case rests on the assumption that we should accept the claims of experts, you:

1) Deny the criticism.
2) Claim that no experts have contradicted the claim in recent times.

I see no reason to accept your denial, since all you can talk about is your opinion of the consensus of experts.

Earl Doherty has given you a concrete example of how the bias works. It is not as vague as you would like it to be. There is simply no stomach for attacking sacred cows.

An interesting admission on your part. You endorse the opinion of one side, yet you attack the judgment of all sides.

No, I'm not joking. I can only conclude that you've never even glanced at the book. The scholarship may seem amateurish, especially to those who are predisposed to dismiss it out of hand, but it is chock full of bibliographical references. Anyone who wants to take potshots at it has lots of targets to aim at.

Yes. It's called a tu quoque fallacy.

Iasion

Greetings,

The key excerpt :

The Christians, then, trace the beginning of their religion from Jesus the Messiah; and he is named the Son of God Most High. And it is said that God came down from heaven, and from a Hebrew virgin assumed and clothed himself with flesh; and the Son of God lived in a daughter of man. This is taught in the gospel, as it is called, which a short time was preached among them; and you also if you will read therein, may perceive the power which belongs to it.This Jesus, then, was born of the race of the Hebrews; and he had twelve disciples in order that the purpose of his incarnation might in time be accomplished. But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven. Thereupon these twelve disciples went forth throughout the known parts of the world, and kept showing his greatness with all modesty and uprightness. And hence also those of the present day who believe that preaching are called Christians, and they are become famous.

(Peter Kirby's has it.)

The dating of Aristides is usually given as 125-138, but it seems it was really 138-161 (some confusion over the formal name of the emperor.)


Iasion

Iasion

Greetings all,

I have updated this list with more details here :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...lyWriters.html

20 historians in Jerusalem is, um, an exaggeration :-)


Iasion

GakuseiDon

Wow! I knew that list had been floating around the Internet for a long time, but still...

Emp-JohnIV

Side effects of using the quote system.


Yup 20 was an overstatment, err actualy at the time I said it I thought it was accurat, but the lack of mention of Jesus is still strange.

youngalexander

Of course it does. How else may we discourse in a rational manner?

I 'alleged' no such victory. I merely asked that you argue your case.

Agreed.
One of the reasons that I have not been at BCH for the last few months is that as a scientist I have been extremely exercised with KvD, on EC.

It seems to me that there is a similarity with your argument and that of the IDC proponents, with whom most of us on this DB have been battling.

IDC proponents claim that the established scientific community is in denial re the scientific validity of IDC. This is clearly contrary to the evidence. The scientific community has examined the claims of IDC and found them wanting.

You are claiming that the established biblical scholarly community is in denial re the validity of a Mythical Jesus position. Perhaps true - BUT they have not examined the claims.

The positions could not be more different!

youngalexander

With some prospect of spreading learning, or is it a forlorn hope (given the difficulty I have had in becoming registered.)
I kid you not, it ain't easy.

An antipodean discussion of Welcome to Jesus - history or myth?
The 'Mythicist' is taking a Wellsian perspective.:angel:

This is the ABC - Australian Broadcasting Commission, semi serious stuff!

RPS

Read the thread again. As has been discussed, the Jesus-myth idea arose a century or so ago and was rejected. There was academic literature at the time refuting the claim (as previously posted). Since that time, I'm aware of no academic, peer-reviewed literature making the Jesus-myth case. Thus there's no literature for scholars to respond to; the matter is settled until someone makes the case for the Jesus-myth anew in an academic setting.

Unless and until someone brings forth evidence otherwise, it's not consensus -- it's unanimous. The apparent academic view that the Jesus-myth idea is nonsense may be all wet, but until an academic case is made by mythologists, I see no reason to take it seriously.

Have you even read the literature? So-called "sacred cows" are attacked all the time. For an orthodox Christian, challenging the divinity of Jesus is not substantively different from denying His existence and it is done all the time. Despite dozens upon dozens of theories about Jesus, many of them wildly unconventional, because your pet theory can't get the time of day from academia you claim conspiracy. You might want to call Oliver Stone -- it could be his new movie.

Your conclusion is wrong; I've read it.

You have the gift of understatement.

Especially second-hand ones.

No. It's called an analogy.

RPS

Normal discourse is not a formal debate. When a question is merely posed, there is no burden of proof.

It's not my case. I've read the Jesus-myth argument in many forms and didn't find it remotely persuasive. Moreover, unless and until an academic case for the Jesus-myth idea is made, I see no reason to take it seriously.

As the thread indicates, the claims have been examined and found wanting. If there were a decent case to be made for the Jesus-myth, I assume it would have been made in a peer-reviewed academic forum or that it can be made in such a forum. Unless and until that happens, it deserves to be ignored.

Well, if you mean that at least ID has real academics making the case for it then I agree.

Didymus

Jesus was not a central figure? Really?

To say that "the myths that form the Jesus story were all current to other religions at the time" is a bit of a stretch. There WERE similarities, but there were also some Christian innovations, like the use of recent historical context. What other religion of the time had a god who was tried and executed by an actual ruler of an actual province?

Not sure what you mean by "legend." Most legends consist of various short tales held together by a central core of characters. That's how the gospels are structured; I don't see the difference.

It's by no means certain that Mark's story was "thrown together" or that it emerged suddenly. There seem to have been two traditions: the Wandering Miracleworker and the Dying/Rising Redeemer. Most scholars agree that Paul was preaching a crucified savior - but NOT a historical Jesus - before 50 CE. Multiple fragments - sayings and logia, as we see in Q - may have been circulating in the "oral tradition" for a century or more before the latter part of the first century, when an anonymous writer (later known as Mark) kludged the traditions into a pseudohistorical narrative. The Gallilean and Jerusalem elements were very disparate; that strongly suggests that Mark's gospel was indeed a synthesis of various tales and traditions, and some of those seem to be unique to Christianity.

By the way, the vast majority of New Testament historians are seminary or religious college-educated Christians. It's not surprising that they believe that Jesus was historical, nor is it surprising that most other, non-specialist historians acquiesce to Jesus' historicity: A. They're apathetic (it's not their specialty); B. Who wants to risk an academic career by swimming against the tide? and C. For historical purposes, it doesn't matter much. The myth is as good as the reality. Most non-specialists give the historical Jesus a quick sentence or two and move on to the impact of Christianity.

In any case, the lack of contemporary academic endorsement of the mythicist position is NOT evidence that Jesus existed.

Didymus