sweetpea7

I do not know percentages, but I do not see how that is relevant. I am simply trying to understand why those non-Christian scholars who reject the MJ do so. Even for those scholars who are Christians, what are their stated reasons for rejecting a MJ? Even Bart Ehrman, who is not a Christian, and is certainly not shy of boldly rejecting many of the claims of Christianity, rejects the MJ. What are his reasons for doing so? If he wanted to be even more sensationalistic, I would think that arguing for the MJ would cause more publicity than denying it. Does he count as a scholar worthy of discussing the issue?

Why have they done that? Psychology, medicine, all are fields that change course frequently about approaches when experts in those fields have reasons for doing so.

I'm not sure I agree with that statement. How are other figures from antiquity studied? Ancient figures often did not leave physical evidence or their own writings. History cannot utilize the same tools as other sciences because actual historical events and people are inaccessible to us, unlike the physical world around us. The best one can hope for re: any historical person, especially one from antiquity, is a reconstruction using deductive reasoning and possible theories.

Good questions. I would also add if there have not been any done, or none done for a long period of time, then why is that?

Thank you, spin, for engaging my question rather than getting sucked into a MJ/HJ debate.

mountainman

I am claiming that Biblical Historians are educated in the field of Biblical History and that Ancient Historians are educated in the field of Ancient History, and that these are two different fields.

I am interested in the fields of study, not the personal beliefs of those in either of the fields.


I made no assumption.

Biblical historians are not Ancient Historians. They are working in an entirely different theory space. In one sense Biblical history is a subset of ancient history, and ancient history is a superset of Biblical history.

mountainman

It may appear to be ridiculous, but when you think about it, the position is being defined by means of an implied conformance to current mainstream dogma, doctrine, paradigm - call it what you will. Can you envisage an academic mythicist being employed in this position? I cant.

It is not at all so equivalent. If you think it is, you need to think it through again slowly and carefully.


They accept some variety of an historical jesus. They do not assume some variety of a non historical jesus. This is the traditional paradigm, and one which is slowly failing.


Because most people are very much aware that there is nothing exceptional about the "truths" in the Christian bible - they were "borrowed" from the culture and the wisdom milieu of the age in which they were assembled in the Greek language. The bias of Biblical Historians is in their unsanctioned deployment of the HJ hypothesis, as if there was evidence for it, when in fact the evidence actually points to the Mythical Jesus hypothesis.

mountainman

It is not at all necessary for Ancient historians to even consider the historial jesus unless they are actively involved in the epoch surronding "Christian Origins". Employment of ancient historians does not relate to their belief - ot otherwise - in the historial or mythical jesus.


The bias is in the field of Biblical History, not ancient history. The bias in the Biblical History is the bias in conforming in some manner to the HJ postulate. Biblical History is not served by the Mythical Jesus hypothesis (or any consequent theories) and in fact it is threated by such postulates.

The writing has been on the wall for some time. The Bible is bankrupt. Biblical historians do not have the credibility they once had. As Lenny Bruce once quipped .... "Every day people are straying away from the church and going back to God."

sweetpea7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_myth_theory

Why is this?

judge

Hi Sweetpea...the answer I believe is obvious really.

The non christian scholars, who reject the JM theory dont care whether jesus existed or not. Because they dont care they are able to coolly examine the evidence and find it satisfactory.
Or alternatively they examine theories like Dohertys and find it not to be reasonable. And bear in mind Dohertys theory might be the best of a bad bunch, but it is still absurd.
His theory goes something like this.
Originally the christian cult was very different, but all trace of these particular nuances vanished and the texts we have such as Pauls letters mean the opposite of what they appear to mean or alternatively have been changed to make them say something else, without leaving a trace (execpt to the super sleuth Mthers who have decoded it all for us).
In some instances Doherty is not quite sure whether the text was changed (to make it say something else) or whether the text just means the opposite of what it appears to.
Of cousre this nonsense is going to be rejected.

jgoodguy

My comments were directed at Biblical History folks not any other ones. IMHO the HJers lost a lot of credibility when they wrote a plethora of books each with a different HJ.

Toto

The stated reasons are often along the lines of, that question was settled a long time ago, and we all now believe that Jesus existed. It all seems to go back to Bultmann, who stated at one point that anyone who thought there was no historical Jesus was insane. His prestige (and probably other factors) led most other scholars to fall in line.

Ehrman will let us know. Up to know, he has referred to a few Bible verses as if they were obviously historical.

The was a conservative revolution of sorts in Biblical studies. Evangelical scholars became predominant, displacing earlier Deists and rationalists. Robert Price describes it here (you can tell that he was left out in the cold.)

Dr. Craig would have us believe that the extreme skepticism that once held biblical scholarship hostage to (what he calls) the naturalistic presuppositions of Deism has more recently given way to a general return to confidence in the substantial historical accuracy of the gospels, and especially in the historicity of the empty tomb and the physical resurrection of Jesus. ... though Craig indulges in a bit of wishful thinking, playing taps for various critical approaches still quite far from death's door, he may well be correct that New Testament scholarship is more conservative than it once was. This has more than he admits to do with which denominations can afford to train the most students, hire more faculty, and send more members to the Society of Biblical Literature. But basically, it should surprise no one that the great mainstream of biblical scholars hold views friendly to traditional Christianity, for the simple reason that most biblical scholars are and always have been believing Christians, even if not fundamentalists. ...

But is this trend to neo-conservatism an enlightenment? Rather, I regard it as a prime example of what H.P. Lovecraft bemoaned as the modern failure of nerve in the face of scientific discovery: "someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

Real historians are willing to concede that apparently historical figures might be myths, and to just state it as a possibility, without feeling forced to reach a conclusion where the evidence is lacking.

There was an attempt to do just that under the heading of the Jesus Project, led by R. Joseph Hoffmann. The Project produced one book before it fell apart due to lack of money (it was sponsored by the Center for Inquiry, which was hard hit by the recession.) The Project was very unpopular with most of the scholars, as if the subject matter were slightly disreputable, or the possibility of deciding that Jesus didn't exist was too weird. The website for the project is still here and there are some articles and blog posts linked here.

aa5874

Think about it.

If there were real good reasons then HJers would have known long ago.

It is obvious that it cannot be explained why people would adopt such a weak position.

I hope you realize this is the THIRD QUEST for the historical Jesus.

I think this is the last quest since the HJ theory has a track record of FAILURE for the last 200 years.

"Fooled once shame on you, fooled twice shame on me". American Proverb

Once it is exposed that this is the THIRD quest for the historical Jesus then people will begin to understand that the HJ theory was a KNOWN FAILURE for about 200 years.

hjalti

As always* spin is correct. Just consider this: N.T. Wright was in charge of the section for historical Jesus studies at the SBL. N. T. Wright :vomit:

*except in the few instances where I disagree with him