Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kapyong · 11-05-2011, 05:04 AM

Gday all,

Following on from the post about the alleged un-evidenced assumptions of the Jesus Myth Theory, (in which we saw no examples of such) here is the companion thread.

For comparison I'd like to list the
un-evidenced assumptions of the Historical Jesus Theory
1. That Jesus existed historically.

Earl Doherty has frequently made this point, quite correctly, and now I see Neil has made a post about Bart Ehrman, among others, making this assumption himself :
http://vridar.wordpress.com/2011/11/...sm/#more-22326

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vridar

In Jesus Interrupted Bart Ehrman describes his first encounter with people who believed Jesus never existed.
...
So having begun with the question of historicity I was looking forward to Ehrman’s discussion of that very point. But he didn’t. There is a conceptual disconnect between the theme he introduces in his opening two paragraphs and the rest of the chapter.
...
After introducing the question of whether or not Jesus existed, and expressing his own sense of shock that such a question could even be asked, and even embracing his predominantly American audience as being like-minded on this question, he proceeds to explain (by way of a responding answer to this bizarre question), how anyone can know anything about what Jesus historically said.
...
And notice what is missing. Bart Ehrman skips entirely the very question facing his Swedish interrogators. They are not asking how we can know what the historical Jesus said. They are suggesting there was no historical Jesus at all.

And this is pretty much the way just about every study of the historical Jesus goes. That there was a Jesus is assumed at the outset.

Twentieth-century scholarship, with its faith in history, assumed a historical Jesus as its starting point. It shared Schweitzer’s personal dilemma: a choice between a Jesus who fits modern visions of Christianity and Mark’s failed prophet. But they always assumed there was a historical Jesus to describe. (p. 7, The Messiah Myth (2005) by Thomas L. Thompson)

It's the Historical Jesus theory that is based on assumptions - not the Jesus Myth Theory.

Occam's Razor supports the Mythical Jesus - HJ is just an un-needed extra entity.

K.

Vorkosigan · 11-05-2011, 06:15 AM

Farmer makes that assumption explicit in his old paper on the topic. The whole HJ framework is built on un-evidenced assumptions, none of which are demonstrated very well.

1. Historical existence: Jesus actually existed, and is not a myth.
2. Sanity of Jesus: historical studies assume Jesus was a sane individual.
3. Integrity of Jesus: Jesus did not intentionally deceive his followers.
4. individuals in the primitive Church remembered Jesus: Of this Farmer writes:

That Jesus was remembered in the Church by those who had known him is intrinsically probable from virtually every point of view, but since it has never been demonstrated it needs to be listed as something assumed in any investigation of the "aims of Jesus."(p61-2)

5. late date of gospels : written at least a generation after Jesus
6. within the tradition preserved in the gospels, the memory of Jesus is preserved
7. It is possible to distinguish between what was remembered about Jesus and what has been added.

Farmer, William. 1998. Reflections Upon "The Historical Perimeters For Understanding the Aims of Jesus." In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 59-81.
It used to be online here: http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/histjesus.htm but I think the link is dead.

andrewcriddle · 11-05-2011, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

...........................................
Farmer, William. 1998. Reflections Upon "The Historical Perimeters For Understanding the Aims of Jesus." In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 59-81.
It used to be online here: http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/histjesus.htm but I think the link is dead.

Try historical jesus
or historical jesus

NB 1 Since Wayback upgraded there can be problems getting external embedded links to work. If you have problems try clicking on Impatient?

NB 2 I am not necessarily agreeing (or disagreeing) with the contents of the article.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan · 11-05-2011, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

...........................................
Farmer, William. 1998. Reflections Upon "The Historical Perimeters For Understanding the Aims of Jesus." In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 59-81.
It used to be online here: http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/histjesus.htm but I think the link is dead.

Try historical jesus
or historical jesus

NB 1 Since Wayback upgraded there can be problems getting external embedded links to work. If you have problems try clicking on Impatient?

NB 2 I am not necessarily agreeing (or disagreeing) with the contents of the article.

Andrew Criddle

Ah thanks a lot. Wayback was giving me trouble. The web version is different from the original article, BTW.

No need for the disclaimer. We know you don't agree

aa5874 · 11-05-2011, 04:28 PM

The "historical Jesus" must be PRESUMED since the sources for the character called Jesus, the Canonised NT, either claimed he was the Child of a Ghost, God, the Creator or that he WALKED on sea-water.

Until HJers can present credible coroborative sources of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth then HJ will FOREVER be an un-evidenced PRESUMPTION.

Horatio Parker · 11-05-2011, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Farmer makes that assumption explicit in his old paper on the topic. The whole HJ framework is built on un-evidenced assumptions, none of which are demonstrated very well.

This reminds me of urban legends wherein the storyteller is always at least one person removed from a witness; there are no first hand accounts because it never happened.

mountainman · 11-06-2011, 04:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kapyong

Gday all,

Following on from the post about the alleged un-evidenced assumptions of the Jesus Myth Theory, (in which we saw no examples of such) here is the companion thread.

G'day K,

I see two example assumptions stated at the end of post # 73 in that locked thread.

Quote:

It's the Historical Jesus theory that is based on assumptions - not the Jesus Myth Theory.

They are both based on assumptions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-05-2011, 06:15 AM	#2
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Farmer makes that assumption explicit in his old paper on the topic. The whole HJ framework is built on un-evidenced assumptions, none of which are demonstrated very well. 1. Historical existence: Jesus actually existed, and is not a myth. 2. Sanity of Jesus: historical studies assume Jesus was a sane individual. 3. Integrity of Jesus: Jesus did not intentionally deceive his followers. 4. individuals in the primitive Church remembered Jesus: Of this Farmer writes: That Jesus was remembered in the Church by those who had known him is intrinsically probable from virtually every point of view, but since it has never been demonstrated it needs to be listed as something assumed in any investigation of the "aims of Jesus."(p61-2) 5. late date of gospels : written at least a generation after Jesus 6. within the tradition preserved in the gospels, the memory of Jesus is preserved 7. It is possible to distinguish between what was remembered about Jesus and what has been added. Farmer, William. 1998. Reflections Upon "The Historical Perimeters For Understanding the Aims of Jesus." In B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998) p. 59-81. It used to be online here: http://www.colby.edu/rel/2gh/histjesus.htm but I think the link is dead.

11-05-2011, 04:28 PM	#5
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The "historical Jesus" must be PRESUMED since the sources for the character called Jesus, the Canonised NT, either claimed he was the Child of a Ghost, God, the Creator or that he WALKED on sea-water. Until HJers can present credible coroborative sources of antiquity for HJ of Nazareth then HJ will FOREVER be an un-evidenced PRESUMPTION.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.