Toto

Do they not all start with the assumption that there probably was a historical Jesus? And yet they still cannot agree on who he was. Deranged lunatic or saintly pacifist community organizer - or the son of god?

And nothing in any ancient source confirms that.

Is it your contention that these 7 rather cryptic sayings define a historical Jesus who must have been crucified under Pilate? What is the basis of that?

There are people who do some very creative work. But from what I've read, there is no consensus of who Jesus was that is at all comparable to the scientific consensus over evolution, or even the consensus on most historical issues. The idea that there are layers of tradition that can be discovered by thinking hard is highly speculative, and often seems to be based on assumptions about who Jesus was. There is disagreement among credentialed scholars over the existence of Q.

If the mythicist hypothesis is correct, these sayings cannot be dated to the time before 70 CE. You have no documentary evidence that would contradict that.

Rick Sumner

Given that you state you're not a mythicist, it should stand to reason that you haven't found a mythicist who meets your standards of capability either. If you had, they'd have convinced you. You may have met mythicists who have convinced you that historicism is not necessarily true, but that doesn't mean they've made their case, just that they punched holes in someone else'.

That's the kind of rhetorical and semantic device that leads Chaucer to his later charge that you're some kind of closet mythicist. Judging by results, you should be issuing the charge two ways, but you only issue it one.

Not that I'm saying you're a closet anything. Just that to a newer member, who hasn't seen your posting as much, it's easy to see why he thinks you're sympathies lay in that direction.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

This charge has always peeved me, no matter how many times I see it repeated.

How, exactly, do you propose to know if they assumed it or not? It is assumed at the start of their work, to be sure. That does not mean that none of the scholars he names has ever investigated it, or that they just assumed it without conducting any sort of investigation.

By way of analogy, John Kloppenborg offers but one argument for the existence of Q in his "Excavating Q." In fact, outside of his review of Mark Goodacre's book, I'm not aware of any detailed look at evidence for Q published by Kloppenborg anywhere. In all of his work, he starts with the assumption that Q exists.

I would not be so bold as to assume that Kloppenborg simply assumed Q existed without inquiry because of that.

Chaucer's argument is, of course, still silly, since none of the scholars he cites argue for the case he wants them to be an authority on, but saying 2+2 isn't 5 because it's 6 doesn't make you right, it makes you both wrong.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

Are you implying that these eminent scholars investigated the existence of Jesus, and were privately convinced, but decided to never mention the evidence?

I recall Crossan writing that the existence of a historical Jesus couldn't be proven, since all the evidence could have been forged. I recall lots of apologists here claiming that the matter had been definitively settled, but not giving a source for that definitive study. I have been referred to the work of Shirley Case and R. France, who start by assuming that the gospels contain some element of history. Steve Mason spends pages analysing the TF and decides it may not be reliable, but luckily feels that he can fall back on the shorter mention of James the brother of Jesus called Christ to confirm the existence of a historical Jesus.

If there is not an assumption here that Jesus existed, what is there?

Surely, if this had been investigated, someone would have mentioned it - and R. Joseph Hoffman would not have had to convene the Jesus Project to do the first ever investigation of the historicity of Jesus

One argument is one argument more than we usually get for the historical Jesus.

What have I said that is remotely analogous to 2+2=6?

spin

Correct.

One doesn't need mythicists to ask someone purporting to do history to manifest their case. Where should a reasonable person sit regarding King Arthur? You'll have historicists and mythicists, but if you look at it yourself, not seeking the pundits views, isn't your job to cut the bias and go with the evidence? Now, here's the rub: what happens if you decide from your wighing of the evidence that you cannot decide one way or another? Must you force yourself into error?

I've already proposed that there are more positions than the two. I feel no reason to charge mythicists on a skeptics' forum with not having done their job, though I have at times done so.

That seems to be you saying that ignorance is a justification for indirectly calling someone dishonest.


spin

Rick Sumner

Could be. Could be that they never saw a need to cite the evidence. And I'm not saying all of them have. I'm saying that we can't assume they haven't.

Going back to the Kloppenborg example, I'd venture that if he were to rewrite Excavating Q today, he'd include a chapter on evidence for Q, in the light of Goodacre's increasing number of supporters. The need didn't exist when he first published, now it does.

Kloppenborg's approach would probably change to reflect the needs of his case, what his audience is going to expect to see argued, and what his audience is most likely to challenge.

In similar fashion, I'd venture that if Earl Doherty or GA Wells were to make more of an academic impact we would see more attention paid to addressing evidence for Jesus in critical studies.

You can't fault academics for not addressing a need that doesn't exist. That you think the need should exist doesn't change the fact that the bulk of their audience is not inclined to agree.

I'd imagine their "source" is simply repeating Rudolf Bultmann. But even if a "definitive study" existed, it's unlikely to be terribly definitive. After all, Streeter was supposed to have "definitively" settled the synoptic problem.

Are these truly the only arguments for historicity you are aware of? Thiessen and Merz included discussion quite recently. Schweitzer addressed it in a later edition of _The Quest_ over a century ago. Kee addressed it in "Jesus in History" 50 years ago. Bock discusses it in _Studying the Historical Jesus_, We could expand, as I'm sure you're aware, because you've seen other citations here the same as I.

The problem isn't that nobody has addressed it, it's that nobody has addressed the specific arguments you have in mind. The problem with your concern is that most of the people you are criticizing don't even know those arguments exist.

Again, you can't fault them for failing to address a need that isn't there in the minds of their audience. This isn't to say that I wouldn't like to see a more rigorous investigation. I'd delight in one. But the fact of the matter is that what I'd like to see is them engage a theory most of them scarcely know exists.

You fault Chaucer for jumping to conclusions, but then jump to conclusions of your own.

The simple fact of the matter is that you do not know if the scholars he cites have assumed it or not, because you have no reason to expect them to address it.

That the need seems obvious to you does not mean it seems obvious to them, and we both know it does not seem obvious to the huge majority of their audience.

Faulting people for failing to address imaginary needs is just as bad as ascribing to them imaginary arguments. Hence Chaucer and you are both wrong in your approach.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure what you're arguing against here. I haven't suggested you need to take one side or the other.

I'm aware that you have. Chaucer isn't.

Nope, just explaining that his reasoning probably isn't as ad hominem as it seems on first blush.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

spin

Just general background for onlookers.

It is eventually irrelevant to his accusation.

Which blush are you up to that makes it look different?


spin

Rick Sumner

Just general background for onlookers.

15. I've actually sat here all day reflecting on it.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

Well, that's the problem. There has been a mythicist challenge for most of the last century or more, but the Christian response has been so inadequate that I would prefer to think that they just assume a historical Jesus.

The same citations that have been deconstructed repeatedly on this board and other places. None of these arguments hold up very well at all.

They're the experts. If they want respect for their authority, should they not be up on their field?

I have faulted Chaucer for a great deal more. He has constructed an evil straw man that he can blame for the decline of the west and the fall of Humanism. He has attacked the motives, the competancy, the morals of all mythicists everywhere.