Peter Kirby

Oh. Yawn.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

neilgodfrey

Okay, here 'tis: "Ancient Epistolary Fictions" (Patricia Rosenmeyer) "review" . . .

neilgodfrey

One thing seems to have been avoided here till now: the "evidence" we do have asserts that a divine voice spoke to our Jesus in the absence of any third party witness, that Jesus walked on water, turns a single $2 packet of crisps into 4 or 5 thousand loaves of bread, climbs mountains where he is seen talking to Moses and Elijah and having God himself chat to witnesses, kills off a fig tree with a single word, stops the entire Temple police force from doing their job, that his being hung up on a cross caused a solar eclipse at the time of the full moon, and a temple veil to ripped from the top down, and who then himself gets up and walks away after being killed stone dead.

And WE are the ones who, in the absence of any balancing noncontroverrsial and non-sectarian evidence, have to assume the burden of proof for the existence of such a person? Yeh, right!

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

Peter Kirby

I don't understand the issue of "the burden of proof." Who has proven that this burden even exists, to be shifted upon anyone?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

neilgodfrey

For logical consistency the burden of proof is on the one asserting the most extraordinary or 'unnatural' of claims -- that a person existed who was so 'unnaturally' extraordinary that .... etc etc etc.

I know, this is not the "scholarly" approach according to the conventional wisdom that allows those defending the status quo all the defaults in their favour. Without going into detail, I see no movement away from circular reasoning, the lack of any interest in taking on board the tried and true methods of secular literary and historical studies, and am therefore persuaded that the Richard Dawkins approach is really the best after all. Approaching the spurious "methodologies" of the biblical/theological "scholars" with any sense of seriousness is only serving to do them an unjustified and even an 'unscholarly' favour. Maybe it's about time their silly assumptions and circular reasoning are met with the ridicule they would deserve in any other serious scholarly discipline.

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

Peter Kirby

You did not address yourself to the question as I meant to pose it. Is there a burden--termed 'the burden of proof'--that applies in these discussions? What makes you think that there is a burden of proof, and that it is the, singular burden?

The alternatives being either no burden or many burdens. You seem to be a mono-burden-ist. I am a burden agnostic until someone explains the concept well enough for me to decide how many burdens there are.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

krosero

I can be sympathetic when any attempt is made to take two conflicting parties and to show them that their differences are not so large as they think. But that does not mean overlooking or minimizing real differences.

There may be versions of mythicism which are in reality little different from historicism such as you find in the Jesus Seminar. Robert Price seems to be that kind of mythicist, someone who just believes that very little if any of the NT narrative can be seen as true.

But if you mean Doherty's version of mythicism, there are a lot of differences with historicism. Doherty proposes that the earliest Christian sects believed in a heavenly Christ -- and he bases this on various positive claims about Middle Platonism that are also controversial.

Furthermore his methodology about silences leads to his conclusion that various Christian sects of the second century called themselves Christian but did not worship Christ in any form. It entails his claim that these Christians actually did not belong to sects where they have previously been imagined and were actually disdainful of the sects we know about, including what became orthodox Christianity (Doherty's example being Minucius Felix).

Those are positive and controversial claims that make Doherty's mythicism (the best form currently around, IMO) and historicism -- even a skeptical form of historicism like the Jesus Seminar -- much more than "slightly different versions of each other."

Turn to other popular mythicists like Acharya, with all of their positive and controversial claims, and then I think it becomes even harder to propose that historicism really has no substantial difference with mythicism.

So I'm glad that your post, Rlogan, prompted Peter to start a poll in which the mythicist option was at last described. This current thread (mostly) seems to be restricted to the idea that if doubt can be successfully cast upon historicism, "then Jesus did not exist." But the missing step before such a conclusion can be made is that a viable mythicist alternative of Christian history can be set up. If that step is NOT successful, then the best attitude for someone who does not accept the traditional narrative, in my opinion, is agnosticism about whether "Jesus did not exist."

Rlogan, which form of mythicism do you accept?

Kevin Rosero

neilgodfrey

I realize I addressed an issue raised in your question from another perspective, and not your question directly. (My original burden of proof comment was casually/conversationally taken from what I saw so often expressed in various biblical studies lists some years ago.) I'm quite happy to leave it to others to explore the philosophical underpinnings of the burden/s of proof question. Not that I wouldn't be interested in their discussions, but sadly my brain (and increasingly my patience also) are limited in the number of areas they can simultaneously focus on in any depth.

Neil Godfrey
http://vridar.wordpress.com

Peter Kirby

Fair enough. Should I start a new thread for anyone who wants to take up the gauntlet?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Johann_Kaspar

This is a kind of a stupid game. Guess work.

1. Josephus did mention Yeshua
2. Josephus did not mention he was the Messiah
3. Josephus was xianly edited

Pfff, we, you have nothing, but guess work.

Would be better to let Jesus to the xians, and forget to think like a xian.

If you want something new go hunting for "lost" manuscripts...