RPS

This in inaccurate how exactly?

Amaleq13

IIUC, the point was that the comment about Marx was unnecessary, irrelevant, and apparently included for no other reason than to poison the well. Just look at how eagerly we've already seen at least one theist has embraced the claim despite the lack of logical relevance.

It is as invalid as a similar effort by atheists to discredit Christianity by appealing to the horrors performed in its name. Both appeal to an emotional reaction rather than a rational examination. Both should be avoided by anyone who wishes to retain any sense of intellectual integrity.

I think a fairly strong case for a prima facie assumption of a historical figure can be made without resorting to irrelevant and logically flawed appeals. OTOH, I tend to agree with Richard Carrier's observation about Doherty's thesis prior to his "conversion" to mythicism. While, at that time, he did not find Doherty's argument convincing enough to accept it, he felt that Doherty clearly showed that "mainstream scholarship" had not made an adequate effort to establish their position on solid ground.

Mountain Man

It seems the opposite is the case here. From what I've seen the best argument the pro jesus people have is the argumentum ad numerum. So far no one here has presented any proof that this jesus ever lived. Not one word from any contemporary source has been brought forward. All they do is bring up sources from long after the alleged time frame. All those authors are doing is building on the works of those before them until they get down to what's left of the NT and heresay. Why is there not one contemporary record or writing? Simple. He didn't exist. Until some contemporary evidence shows up, there is no logical reason to assume he existed..... unless you need to believe so to support your religious beliefs.

RPS

I understand the point but Engels was hardly a nobody, so his interest and support is arguably relevant. More interesting to me is the possible connection between a Marxist's underlying assumptions (Marx's famous "communism begins with atheism") and the willingness to accept supporting claims for less than well-supported and argued reasons.

Again I understand the point, but the thrust of the post was far broader than that. Indeed, it appears that Wiki is now edited to assert, in effect, that the Jesus-myth idea bests any historical Jesus idea. Given the current state of the academic literature, such a claim is disingenous at best. Imagine the outrage if a creationist argued on Wiki that it was the best interpretation of the data.

Doherty is clearly (in my view at least, though I claim no expertise) the most substantive of those arguing the Jesus-myth idea, but works like Ehrman's (linked ealier in the thread), while not engaging the Jesus-myth directly, provide very clear description of the grounding of the scholarship in this area.

RPS

Your claim is readily and easily dismissed by noting the esteemed, non-Christian scholars who accept an historical Jesus.

copernicus

Josephus was born in 37 CE. Do you have an opinion on how old Jesus was when he died? I am not claiming that everything he wrote was false. In fact, he is one of the few sources of information that we have on the subject matter. However, he was an amateur historian compared to Tacitus, and Josephus wrote to please his Roman patrons.

I didn't say that it was all about fear. Childhood indocrination is a powerful inducement to "confirmation bias" (which has already been pointed out to you). Vorkosigan put it best when he said that the historicist position is socially conservative but methodologically radical--an assumption of historicity based on a scarcity of facts that would normally cause scholars to be more cautious about accepting the historicity of Jesus. Mythicists are methodologically conservative in that respect, but socially radical.

But you have barely mentioned the evidence. All you can talk about is how popular the idea is among scholars. Hence, we have been discussing why it might be so popular and still wrong.

Julian

I believe that would be Crossan, important if someone has to search for the name.

I am reading Koester's (that would be Helmut, by the way) Introduction to the New Testament, in two volumes. It is an excellent, but rather dry and boring, overview of everything early christian, including a historical Jesus, which he believes in but everything is based on conjecture. Still a good read, though.
A very sad and unscientific attitude. This is why the MJ theory doesn't have much support in acedemia, because of attitudes like this. A proper scientific approach would be to examine the evidence thoroughly and then decide.
Because no one has seriously looked at it. Also, because most scholars are christians and a mythical Jesus would be personally devastating to them. Most of them are cowards, basically.
Nonsense. Many scientists listened to Behe and then spent considerable time refuting what he said. They didn't just "not listen." They listened and then destroyed his argument, all proper science.

He was taken seriously, was proven wrong and can now be safely ridiculed.

I have been an MJ person for years but have lately begun to doubt that theory and find myself solidly placed in the I-don't-know zone. I will "listen" to all reasonable claims and evaluate the evidence. After that, I might decide to shut my ears, not before. I encourage everybody to do the same.

Julian

Julian

Yet none of these 'esteemed' scholars can present any evidence. Makes you wonder why they are so adamant in their claims, doesn't it?

Julian

freigeister

I would like to hear your comments on this, the only lengthy rebuttal to the "Jesus is a myth" proposition.

RPS

So while Josephus doesn't meet modern standards for historical scholarship, you concede the value and importance of his work to the historical process. That's hardly "he is not regarded by anyone as a reliable historian."

Without evidence of bias impacting outcomes, all you've done is smear historians and their work without basis. Should we ignore the comments of atheist scientists on neo-Darwinism for the same reason? Nonsense, I say.

Moreover, a scholar who rejects Christianity based upon his research into the historical Jesus (Vermes) would have an even more powerful inducement to confirmation bias and to buy into the Jesus-myth, yet does not.

Nonsense. There is great dispute about what Jesus said and did and over who He was because the evidence doesn't support a great deal of definitive interpretation. Doherty provides the Jesus-myth folks with some measure of potential plausibility (which is a major step up from the likes of Frecke and Gandy), but the argument just doesn't come close to holding up in my view. Moreover, I'd consider respecting it more if its advocates suggested that the methodological radicalism they see applies to the entire historical process rather than just to the bits they don't like and that there's no basis to believe much of anything we think we know about history really happened.