No Robots

That, of course, is an utter distortion of the position that Jewish scholars have actually taken on this subject. Jewish scholars do not endorse the Chrisitian religion's views on the New Testament and its central figure, nor do they endorse mythicism.

GakuseiDon

I think Juststeve is pointing out that just floating some theory doesn't make it "just as likely". There is "argument by counter-argument", or what I call "Ned Ludding", which basically boils down to "my low probability option is equal to or even trumps your higher probability option, until you can show my low probability option is wrong". But just introducing an alternative doesn't do anything where we are not talking about certainties. The few examples of Ned Ludd, William Tell and Ebion just means we can't say we "know for sure" that there was a historical Jesus. But that's par for the course in historical studies.

The best explanation for why we have the Gospels and the letters of Paul is that there was a historical Jesus at the core of it, a person from Galilee who was crucified in the first half of the First Century.

I was going to comment on this before earlier in this thread, but I think Doug (unconsciously) highlighted a common mythicist approach when he wrote (my emphasis):

"Jesus of Nazareth was based on a real person, and we know this because ______. Furthermore, his name was probably Jesus and he said a lot of stuff similar to what is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, and we know this because ______. He also got killed by the Romans like Jesus of Nazareth, and we know this because ______."

But I think the historicist position is:

"Jesus of Nazareth was based on a real person, and this is the best explanation from the evidence we have because ______. Furthermore, his name was probably Jesus and he said a lot of stuff similar to what is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the gospels, and this is the best explanation from the evidence we have because ______. He also got killed by the Romans like Jesus of Nazareth, and this is the best explanation from the evidence we have because ______."

Toto

I see your problem. The explanation of the documents is not that there was a son of God who was crucified etc. but that Christians developed a story about a son of God who was crucified and rose from the dead.

The best explanation of these documents, some of which only contain a brief reference to Jesus or Christ, does not require that all of them contain all of the data.

Not true. There is an explanation of how the story arose, and how it was propagated. Propagation of a story may result in the addition or subtraction of details.

Your logic has failed you.

spin

This is cheating, Gak. What you call Ned Ludding is an effort to show that the playing field is falsely biased and needs to be leveled. One needs to start out with no preconceived ideas, but that is very hard when we have been indoctrinated for the last 1700 years. The playing field must be leveled, otherwise what seems to one a "best explanation" is merely what they are used to.

I have listened to some of the stupidest arguments for historicity of Jesus and they seem the best explanation for people lacking the logic and the knowledge of the times they are trying to deal with.

The playing field must be level otherwise you end with no meaningful result.

This is a good example of what one is used to. The order given--"the Gospels and the letters of Paul"--just shows that it is not a historical approach at all. It gives priority to the gospels, which is natural for you. The "best explanation" is safe.

The only way that one can come to the best explanation is without the burden of those 1700 years of indoctrination or at least making a great effort to nullify it. It doesn't allow you to look at all options, let alone look at them with judiciousness.

This doesn't make mythicism equal to historicism or any other approach. But you can't make meaningful comparisons between these approaches without pruning back the overgrowth.

Toto

The historicist position originally was that a human founder was necessary to explain the gospels and/or the rise of Christianity. The examples of Ned Ludd and William Tell show that a historical Jesus is not necessary. So your fall back position is that a historical Jesus is a much better explanation - but how do you measure the probability? Richard Carrier has gone through the exercise using Baysian statistics, and says the historical Jesus is not probable. Do you know of a historicist who has actually estimated the probability?

Or have you just decided that your preferred explanation must be the most probable because it is your explanation and you like it?

The point of this exercise was for a historicist to fill in the blanks. Why is the HJ the best explanation?

mountainman

Ehrman apparently wrote the bolded bit. He appears to say that it is a historical fact that some of Jesus's followers so believed that Jesus has risen from the dead. I dont think that is in fact an historical fact.

The followers of Gandalf the Grey, according to the story of Gandalf, also came to believe that Gandalf rose from the "Pit of Moria" as Gandalf the White. Is it therefore also "an historical fact" that Gandalf rose from the dead?

GakuseiDon

Let's wait for the book by Carrier. Isn't that what you always say? Or has Carrier got something out now that shows the historical Jesus is not probable?

How many examples do we have of people where, taking into account the level of evidence similar to that for a HJ, the idea that there was a historical person probably at the core is generally accepted? Now, how many examples like Ned Ludd do we have?

Unless I am wrong, my feeling is that the number of Ned Ludd examples are quite small, so it is a lower probability option.

Gospels and how they were treated by near contemporaries; Paul's letters and how they were interpreted later on. Simple. (ETA) Throw in Tacitus and Josephus as well.

Toto

I can't think of any.

The closest would be Socrates, but there is a small amount of external corroboration for him; and no one feels to need to prove that Socrates existed or get upset with those who think he didn't.

blastula

Your question is a bad analogy to the Ehrman quote. It's a good question otherwise, but you're acting like Ehrman was saying the same thing.

Argue against what he said, not a strawman. (Show it's not historical that any alleged followers believed that.)

GakuseiDon

Fair enough.