GakuseiDon

Chris Price has collected several such statements here:
http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Earl Doherty discusses scholarly responses to the Jesus Myth, starting here:
http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesRefut1.htm

Brother Daniel

If robto is still reading this thread:

I was just now idly reading some of the Doherty stuff in the link just provided by GakuseiDon, and I followed some links therein. I stumbled across a passing parenthetical comment about some Gnostic saviour-figures, and I immediately thought about your challenge to Toto.

Doherty mentions the "Third Illuminator" in The Apocalypse of Adam, and "Derdekeas" in The Paraphrase of Shem.

I don't know anything about these characters. In particular, I don't know whether they fit the description of whatever you were asking Toto about. (I think there was something about resemblance to Jesus in your question, but that raises the question of what kind of resemblance you're looking for. Resemblance with respect to which variables?) Hell, I don't even know if the documents in question are from the 2nd century.

But I thought I'd mention it, FWIW.

Joe Banks

If that was the person (whose name and death) Paul took and added to, then isn't that in fact, "Paul's Jesus?"

Chris Weimer

No. It predated Paul, ergo it didn't come from Paul.

Chris Weimer

Thanks Don for this lovely quote by Richard Carrier:

:wave:

youngalexander

and yet

squiz

Thanks for that. I am a bit shocked at the vehement dogmatic statements of some of these scholars, especially as there is no clear consensus of what sort of person this Jesus is supposed to have been. You would think we were dealing with some sort of reproduceable experiments the way some of them come across.

I think I find the agnosticism of Robert Price much more reasonable at the moment.

GakuseiDon

No problem.

I know! If it can't be reproduced in a laboratory...

Would you then like to list those scholars in the last 30 years who have promoted mythicism? Keep in mind that Richard Carrier has produced a one page review of Doherty's book, as well as the odd post in support of mythicism, that continually gets linked to.

To continue on the Creationist analogy: another claim is that more and more scientists are coming to the conclusion that evolution doesn't work. This link explores how this idea has been around since Darwin.

While this is not equivalent to mythicism at every point (no two analogies ever are), it does parallel similar claims in mythicism about how increasing numbers of historians are questioning the historicity of Jesus.

Wiki has an interesting article on the level of support for evolution here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_o..._for_evolution

It concludes:

"In this controversy, both sides have put substantial and increasing amounts of effort to produce long lists of supporters, or signed statements or collections of resolutions. These fall in the category of "argumentum ad populum", or arguing that the strength of one's position is correct because of the force of numbers supporting it. Of course, as creationist Bert Thompson asserts, "truth never is determined by popular opinion or majority vote".[42]

This is definitely true in science, and the only thing in science that matters is whether the data available match the predictions of a given scientific theory. If they do, then the theory gains support among the scientific community. In this case, the polls do confirm that evolution is the dominantly accepted theory attempting to explain the diversity of the earth's life forms among scientists.

There is never absolute support of all scientists for any theory, however. There are always alternative theories that exist and garner support. It is also important to remember, as Guy Woods writes, "It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world."[133]"

For both creationists and mythicists, the majority of scholars are bound by their preconceptions and paradigms. It's just a matter of stripping them away. Both creationists and mythicists are correct that it is important to do this, though the similarity here is that they tend to apply this to the group that disagrees with them as a whole. However, there are many evolutionists who are theists, and many "Jesus historicists" who are non-Christian.

Again, I stress that the Creationist Analogy doesn't match at every point. Pointing it out where it does match may help to highlight a certain type of thinking in one or more areas, but it doesn't show that such thinking is necessarily wrong.

Toto

In other words, this is a completely useless analogy, or perhaps only useful for picking a fight.

Let me give you a different way of looking at it. Scientific and historical revisionism are a normal part of history. New ideas are first proposed by a maverick, start off by encountering resistance and scoffing from "the establishment," and are dismissed as contrary to common sense, or received wisdom, or the consensus of experts. But gradually, honest people gather new evidence, reexamine old precepts, and eventually, some of those new ideas are accepted, and someone proclaims "paradigm change!" Others of those new ideas are trashed as worthless and forgotten, except perhaps by some crank pseudoscientist who won't let go.

Any parallels between mythicism and Creationism are probably because the Creationists have tried to position themselves as another new idea that is encountering resistance from the establishment, but will eventually prevail. But this is just marketing hype with no basis in reality. Creationism is not new, has no basis in evidence, and has been tested and found wanting.

This process often takes decades or a generation, even when professionals devote themselves full time to the issue and there are no religious forces opposed to the new idea. The only think you can say is that it is too early in the process to declare victory based on the verdict of the scientific consensus.

GakuseiDon

Not completely useless, but unhelpful in pushing the debate.

In other words, today's "crackpot" may become tomorrow's "brave scientist". I agree.

But where are those people who are gathering that new evidence? Carrier seems to be the only one who has committed to trying to advance a case. Everyone else seems more interested in taking potshots at the Gospel Jesus. Those few who are interested in refuting a historical Jesus seem to say both that they don't agree with Doherty 100%, and that scholars should take Doherty seriously and investigate him. But why aren't those people themselves delving into Doherty's case, finding and resolving those problems and thus making that case stronger? In what way are THEY taking Doherty's case seriously? By ignoring the problems they believe his case has?

The parallel that I pointed to earlier is slamming the other side as biased rather than discussing the data itself. We shall see how many comments like that appear in the "Working through the Jesus Puzzle" thread.

Nobody is, nor should, be saying that. But where does the onus sit? On those who support the scientific consensus, or on those who are going against it?