Toto

This is your own fantasy. I have given you a lot of reasons why scholars don't interact with mythicists who are outside of their guild. Why do you keep repeating these pointless questions?

Carrier did a review. He is one of the few with the professional qualifications whose review would be meaningful.

You seem to want to frame mythicism as a church like structure, with a belief system and a hierarchy that must be obeyed or challenged. This is such a bizarre idea I don't know how to react to it.

You also seem to think that this is a hot issue, so that everyone should drop what they are doing and try to clarify early Christian origins. But it's not. Peter Kirby has changed his focus to biochemistry. Richard Carrier has finished his PhD thesis on the history of science in the Roman Empire.

For most of us, the idea that Christianity started based on a mythical spirit rather than the Jewish leader reflected (darkly) in the gospel stories is an interesting idea, worth considering, but not earth shattering. I'm content to wait for the Jesus Project to advance the field, even if it's just a bit. And from reading Ludemann's latest essay, I don't think that historicists will find much vindication for their beliefs.

No Robots

One of the most truly pleasurable experiences I have ever had has been watching the GOP disintegrate into a Christianist cabal. I would hate to see a reciprocal movement on the left, a descent into an anti-Christian mythicist phantasmagoria. That is one big reason I publicly oppose mythicism. It is the reverse side of William F. Buckley's dictum: "You know, I’ve spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks." I think that the only reason Obama is winning is because their isn't a visible reciprocal for Palinism... yet.

GakuseiDon

No, it isn't a fantasy. You only have to read Doherty (and other mythicists for that matter) to see that this is true. Doherty certainly suggests that conclusions reached by scholars are colored out of fears of mythicist/non-historicist interpretations. That's the "phantom war" that I'm referring to. IIRC Kevin Rosero posted on this a while ago.

Heh? I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. No, my criticism is that internet mythicists make the assumption that Doherty (and other published mythicists) are right. Mythicists don't review Doherty, with Carrier being an obvious exception.

That's fine. There are lots of interesting ideas. Hopefully some will become more fully developed as time goes on, and will be taken up to academia.

aa5874

You appear then not to have regard any for evidence but to have some agenda to have only what you imagine to be propagated.

Mythicism is not a religion, it simply means that there is no evidence to support an historical Jesus.

There is no evidence for Jesus, it logically follows I can claim and maintain forever that Jesus was a myth.

I tested negative for the HIV virus, it logically follows that I can claim forever or until there is a positive test that I do not have the HIV virus, even though no test is 100% foolproof.

Toto

Doherty thinks that many historicists' conclusions are colored by their confessional interests. Do you disagree?

I don't think you have any evidence for that. You just pop in here periodically and complain that no one criticizes Doherty.

teamonger

There's no point in presenting the NT evidence again, you're not predisposed to accept it as such. We are just talking past each other.
t

aa5874

You need to provide corroborative information or evidence to support the NT. I do not accept assumptions from the NT as evidence to support the very same book.

Why are you predisposed to think that a book filled with erroneous information and blatant implausibilities presented as the truth must be believed?

teamonger

Galatians is a different case than Corinthians. In Galations, circumcision was the central dispute, and in this dispute Paul had a different view than other apostles. He had to appeal to his revealed Jesus on this topic; he had no other way to argue.

The issues with the Corinthians, on the other hand, had nothing to do with arguments with other apostles, thus he can appeal to agreement with those apostles to bolster his case.

We'll have to agree to disagree then, both on the value of criteria and the usefulness of economy of explanation. You haven't shown any good reasons to remove a historical Jesus from the picture.

Agreed... I don't "know" either, all we can argue about are probabilities.

Seems to me Paul is picking his arguments for the occasion. 1 Cor 15 is his statement that the apostles are all one big team, so the Corinthians should heed them. There is nothing incompatible with Galatians, just a different cirumstance. Remember, Paul tries to "become all things to all men".

The twelve are separate from other apostles. What's the problem? There was a core group, and there were latecomers. The 500 may be ludicrous, but it appears he's just repeating here what he "received" from his predecessors. Could be the number itself was copied wrong somewhere.

The Jerusalem group was a Jesus-based group, that much is clear. If they believed in Jesus as the soon-to-return Messiah, that much agrees with Paul. If they didn't agree on anything substantial, why even try to be on the same team? Paul's notions differed on the subject of non-circumsized Gentiles, and I agree the Jerusalem group were more Torah-observant. But certainly, there was background knowledge upon which both camps agreed.

Paul doesn't write very much about what he got from them, but this shouldn't be surprising, as much would be common knowledge to his readers which didn't need repeating.

But I think Paul "received" from others what he also "delivered", the basic doctrine of "first importance" in 1 Cor 15:3, and describes in what follows. I also think that when Paul writes of something received "from the Lord", that's often his code for "Jesus said this to the apostles". That makes sense where he quotes the prohibition of divorce (1 Cor 7:10-11), where he quotes Jesus words at the last supper (1 Cor 11:23-25), and where he appears to quote a version of the second coming (1 Thess 4:15-18) ("we declared" by the word of the Lord)... admittedly rather modified from the Jesus sayings, perhaps to deal with the new circumstances.

That's E. P. Sanders' perspective, and I find it persuasive. Notice that for each of the above items, a fairly close Jesus parallel exists in the gospels.
t

teamonger

Much depends on what we are asking of the sources. If we're asking for evidence of a virgin birth and a resurrection, yes the sources are wholly inadequate witnesses for such extraordinary claims. But when a bunch of diverse sources agree about something very ordinary (existence of a cult leader and his followers), I see no reason not to grant their existence.

As for Josephus, I'm sure you know that most scholars consider the TF a corruption of an original neutral or negative statement (accounting for Origen's knowledge the Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ".

The other short passage identifying Jesus as brother of James was known to Origen, so is almost certainly authentic. Not being in power yet, Christians would hardly be in a position to interpolate so early.
t

teamonger

Gal 4:4
"But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,"

The implication seems to be, the time had fully come recently. Open to debate of course.
t