diana

If they're only mentioned in stories with obviously mythical elements written by anonymous "believers" who weren't even there and obviously had an agenda, then yes...I'll doubt them just as much.

This is rarely the case, though.

Good point.

That makes me wonder (again)*, though: how many historical figures can you name that it matters now whether they existed or not? I could write off Alexander the Great as a myth (I wouldn't--there's far too much corroboration for his existence), but what difference would it make to me now (other than the occasional person finding out and thinking I was a loony, I mean)? How many historical figures can you think of, that if you found out today that they never existed, would it change your life in any way?

The only ones I can think of that would matter to me now are founders of religions. This is why I've looked so deeply into the Jesus question but not, say, the Judas question or the John The Baptist question or the question of Alexander's legendary generals.

* This question occurs to me every time this subject comes up. Perhaps it's time I asked it.

d

Mr. Aardvark

I think the caution about the mainstream scholars begs an important question. Perhaps they take the oath precisely because they believe in the historical Jesus. If so, they have the same kind of bias as those who deny his historicity: sincere belief.

Nothing obviates the necessity examining the claims and evidence scholars make about the issue, mainstream or not.

Vorkosigan

No problem, then. Just demonstrate that there are many among them, raised atheist, who came to believe J was historical, then became Xian and took the oath.

The underlying issue is that historicity is built into the fabric of Xtianity, and the majority of scholars, vast or sizable, are Xtians. They engage in all sorts of Xtian habits whose purpose is to shape and control thought -- prayer, oath-taking, church attendence, etc. It's hard for me to credit that this doesn't shape the debate.

Vorkosigan

aChristian

Hi,
The Bible has eyewitness accounts of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. The eyewitnesses died for their story. I believe the evidence is incontrovertible that Jesus is who he claimed to be, the God who created the world and then came and died for the sins of his rebellious sons and daughters. He loves us.

Rick Sumner

My point seems to have gotten lost somewhere, as it had nothing to do with whether we should use "vast" or "sizable." They're adjectives, not numbers, which is used is irrelevant.

Your earlier post suggested that the mainstream consensus (historicity) cannot be trusted because the mainstream are predominantly Christian. The problem with this reasoning is that, even dropping the Christian scholars, historicity is still solidly the consensus.


Regards,
Rick Sumner

aChristian

Delete

Rick Sumner

Vast and sizable are adjectives, not exact numbers. Of course both can be true. Not that it matters, of course, because we're not quantifying the same thing. He's talking about the ratio of Christian scholars to all scholars. I'm talking about the ratio of non-Christian scholars who accept historicity to non-Christian scholars who don't.

I'm aware of that.

This isn't quite accurate, actually. When dealing with laymen, popularity is meritless--an answer isn't right because it's popular. When dealing with experts, however, an argument stops being "right because it's popular," and starts being "popular because it's right." The average individual is perfectly justified in accepting the historicity of Jesus based on consensus alone.

To use an example, every time you pick up an English translation of the Bible you are relying on expert consensus, unless you read Greek and Hebrew. One can't be expert in all topics, and thus we frequently have no choice but to rely on the consensus of those who are. That isn't to say that we shouldn't dig deeper on this forum, as interested parties are rather obligated to do so. But those who aren't interested in digging deeper are well within rules of reason to simply accept the consensus.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vorkosigan

Ah, now I understand. We run into the problem of circularity, though. Price and Wells (for example) definitely use mainstream techniques and ideas, especially Wells, who is basically wedded to almost all mainstream views. So why aren't Price and Wells in the mainstream? Their position on the Gospels and Jesus, of course.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

This forum is for serious discussions of the Bible. Claims such as these need to be substantiated. As far as scholars know, the Bible contains no eyewitness accounts of Jesus' death, none of the writers of those stories were executed (the writers are all unknown), and many believe that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of god.

Toto

How many experts have actually critically addressed the idea of historicity? I can think of a handful, and I don't think there is a consensus.

And, unlike a technical field where expertise is required to evaluate a large mass of evidence, historical Jesus studies has very little evidence, and most of it is accessible to amateurs like us.

But I don't think this is a Christian conspiracy. The historical Jesus was a construct of the Enlightenment, of Deists like Thomas Jefferson who wanted to reject the supernatural aspects of Christianity while holding on to something from their cultural heritage. Most of them believed that history was the product of superior men, so they assumed that a great man was at the origins of Christianity. Ironically, Christians are now relying on their work to try to keep Christianity from being dismissed as just a supernaturalist fantasy.