spamandham

Objectivity is essential to scholarly work. That doesn't mean biased individuals can not be scholars or produce scholarly work, but they must intend to set those biases aside. If the question of the very existence of a historical Jesus is dismissed out of hand before going off and spending a lot of effort trying to figure out who he was, it's hard to see the intent of objectiveness.

mrunicycler

So, you're saying that the opinion of someone who believed in Tolkien's hobbits should be given just as much credence as someone who believed, correctly, that Tolkien's books were fantasy?

The crux of the definition of scholar is in the words 'learned or erudite [characterized by great knowledge]' person.

I would not say that someone who believes in hobbits is learned or erudite. They may have 'profound knowledge' of the subject, but their lack of knowledge of what is real--their inability to differentiate what is real from what is not--removes them the label 'learned and erudite'. And they should not get the same credit as those who have studied, and who are not suffering from a psychotic break.

In the same way, biblical 'scholars' (and please note that I do mean two different things when I say biblical 'scholars' and biblical scholars) have removed themselves from what is real. They spend their lives learning about hobbits, and believe in them, for no reason other than they cannot seperate what is real from what is not.

If you call them scholars, one of two things will happen. 1) the work of actual scholars will be cheapened. Laypeople will not be able to differentiate between those 'scholars' who want to spread their fictional agenda, and those scholars who want to study in great depth some aspect of life. 2) the work of 'scholars' will be given more credence than it deserves. Again, laypeople will not know the difference between the actual scholars and the poeple who hope to make money by spreading the fear of the bible. Without some differentiation between the two, the masses will be given another reason to go believing and tithing and spreading the word, and they'll feel alright doing it because they have the authority of 'scholars' to back them up.

A Stable Flux

As it's been said, to judge the conclusions of scholars' work is not scholarly and unintelligent. Don't expect me to argue why all the Jesus Seminar fellows aren't 'kooks', I'm not claiming that all the work of a large association of people is 'kooky'.
If you want some actual interaction with the work of the scholars you're condemning I'd recommends Thomas Sheehan's lectures on Itunes. Go to the Istore, then "Itunes U" then Stanford (where one of these 'kooks' teaches) then "Historical Jesus". Or you could go through the webpage http://itunes.stanford.edu/. The whole semester is available for download. I've listened to them all and Prof. Sheehan manages to be very informative whilst communicating casually. If you're more demanding the lecture titled "Peeling" the Onion (which Sheehan admits at the beginning is an inadequate metaphor) is probably the most focused on the existence of Jesus.

mrunicycler

If you choose not to judge people for their thoughts and actions, that's certainly your perogative.

However, every time a scholarly work goes up for peer review, it is in fact being judged.

Not everything a person who is knowledgable about a subject does is worth believing simply on the grounds that they call themselves a scholar. And for anyone to assume, with no proof, in the historocity of the biblical jesus is not scholarly at all.

Nor did I claim that all jesus seminar fellows are kooks. If I did, I apologize, for I overgeneralized.

Rather, I am saying that anyone who believes in fantasy is a kook, and they should not be allowed to propagate their myths under the title of scholar.

This isn't to say they have nothing to contribute to society, but that what they're selling should be inspected closely before being bought.

So, you might have a teacher who believes in the historocity of jesus teaching you how to take a derivative, and that's fine and dandy. However, when he tells you that the math works because god is great, you should probably hold his opinion suspect.

In the same way, if he wants to say, "I believe the bible teaches morals, and it helps me live a moral life," that's fine. But, when he says, "The bible is an accurate account of history, no matter what the rest of the evidence in the world tells me, and everyone should live according to its laws,"--or any variation thereof-- his opinion should be held suspect. (or on anything else that breaks from what all the evidence says...so, if a physicist says, 'i don't believe in relativity,' or 'quantum physics', or, 'hey rocky, watch me make fusion in this cold glass of water,' he'd better be offering some evidence to support his claim, or he shouldn't be given any credence. Our hypothetical physicist may indeed have spent his life studying physics, but that doesn't mean that his work is scholarly and should be made into a textbook.)

I've read enough apologists in my time to not feel a need to read or listen to more.

There hasn't been anything new to come out of that camp in several hundred years. They keep rehashing the same old arguments--using new terminology of the era, certainly, but still using the same old arguments.

Doug Shaver

You don't find it convincing. That doesn't mean there isn't any.

Or are you conflating evidence with proof?

aa5874

I agree.

The theory that Jesus existed as human only has not been supported by evidence or credible information.

The authors of the NT and early church writers claimed the resurrection and ascension of Jesus are TRUE and WITNESSED. Even"Paul" claimed Jesus was resurrected and is in heaven.

mrunicycler

I realize that the two are separate things, but if I say, "there's no evidence to support the historocity of a biblical jesus," it is just as valid as saying, "there is not proof to support the historocity of a biblical jesus."

There is neither evidence, nor proof, to be found outside the bible that a biblical jesus existed.

And, of course, using the bible to support biblical claims is reasoning that is invalidated by its circuity.

mrunicycler

That they claim that this miracle was true and witnessed neither means it was true, nor witnessed. Note that I'm not making the claim that 'jesus didn't live as a human only'. I'm making the claim that the biblical jesus, miraculous resurrection and all, did not exist.

Scholars seek knowledge in a field. Biblical 'scholars' do not. They have their minds made up as to how history played out, and they look for ways to fit evidence into their preconcieved notions. (I realize that bias plays a part in all human endeavors, but biblical 'scholars' don't even apologize for their obvious and flagrant biases. Indeed, they wear it on their sleeve like a badge of honor).

So, a scholar, wanting to know more about a certain historical figure, would look for all the evidence there is in the world to garner information from.

When they look for information about jesus, they find the bible, and sources that reference the bible, and that's it.

So, we do not come to the conclusion that all our other evidence must be wrong.

We come to the conclusion that the authors of the bible had some motive in mind other than the spreading of truth.

Does this mean the bible is completely worthless? Not necessarily.

Does it mean that we should not teach that the bible is a true and accurate account of history? Yes, it does.

Does it mean that people who claim that the biblical jesus existed, regardless of what all the other evidence (aside from the bible) tells us, should not be considered scholars in their field? Yes, it does. That they would throw their judgment out the window in lieu of their faith says much about their character, and one of those things is that their scholarship in the field of history should be questioned.

Toto

I don't like to download audio files.

Thomas Sheehan wrote The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity, in 1986. Richard Carrier felt it was worth digitizing and adding to the II Library.

Carrier's views have evolved since then.

I think the problem is that you might think the historical Jesus is clearly a myth, but there are a lot of reasonable people who think that there was a historical Jesus (although very different from the Christ of faith.) I suspect that these people, being reasonable, would not overstate the case for the existence of Jesus, but still either assume a historical Jesus or think the meager evidence tips in that direction. If you write all of these people off as kooks, you remove yourself from the community of scholars and come across as overly dogmatic.

Change comes slowly.

aa5874

Literalism and fundamentalism are as old as Christianity, and it was the early Christian writers who rejected Jesus as only human since the 2nd century.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies wrote that Cerinthus and Carpocrates claimed Jesus was just human, but this doctrine was rejected as heresy.

One would expect reasonable people to produce credible sources or information to support their position. It may be reasonable to claim Jesus was only human, but being reasonable has no evidentiary value.

Thomas Sheenan is probably a reasonable person but he wrote this in "The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God became Christianity"

Thomas Sheenan could not be serious or reasonable.

People who doubt that Jesus was human are very serious.