Diogenes the Cynic

What eyewitness accounts would those be? Name one.
Really? That's news to historians. Out with it. What's the historical evidence? This is huge. What have you uncovered?
Since the apostles didn't write anything and there is no evidence that any of them ever claimed to witness a literal resurrection then their personal integrity has no probative value. Furthermore, even if they had left any testimony (which they did not) there is no reason whatever to believe that they could not have been lying or insane. It happens all the time.
And neither of those things has been remotely established.
You mean we can infer it not "imply" it. (Sorry. Pet peeve. People confuse those terms all the time).
So what? Why is Jesus' naive 1st century understanding of his culture's sacred literature any more valuable than anyone else's? You're presuming your own conclusions with this argument and it's just a little circular. You're saying that Jesus said the OT is true and the NT says Jesus was God, there for the OT is true. In other words, the Bible is true because the Bible says so. Not exactly convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe the conclusion.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but regardless of what Jesus believed, the Hebrew Bible is not a true record of history. Almost nothing in it can be proven to have occurred and much can be proven not to have occurred.
Huh? When did he say that? None of the authors of the gospels was even aware that there would be a "New Testament."

Rick Sumner

The rules of reason are, in essence, that which isn't fallacious. It's not an appeal to authority if the sources you cite are genuinely authorities in the field.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

We might reasonably suggest that virtually nobody in the Western world approaches this topic without bias.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

I doubt this. I think there are academics who are sufficiently post-Christian that they have no need to prove Jesus existed in order to shore up their faith, and also have no need to prove that Jesus did not exist in order to tear down Christianity or whatever would be accomplished by proving Jesus did not exist. I think that Richard Carrier, for example, has no particular bias here - he started off thinking that there was a HJ, but gave a favorable review to Doherty's book.

But I think that the topic is too much of a hot potato for most neutral scholars to want to get involved, especially in the US.

Rick Sumner

You put me in a difficult position, given Carrier's (sporadic) participation on this board, as 1) Speculating on motives of other is against board rules and 2) I've a great deal of respect for (despite disagreeing with him on several points), and see no reason to risk offending, Carrier.

Probably a poor choice for an example, as it leaves me little opportunity for candid response.

But that's neither here nor there, ultimately, because your response is a non-sequitor. What I said is "virtually nobody," not "absolutely nobody," so even allowing you to have found an exception to the rule, you've provided no reason for me to join you in "doubting this."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I would suggest that you not simply believe this of the scholar. I would suggest that you consider the merits of his argument. I have read some the Christian scholars and sources that are most often put forth by True Believers such as yourself. They seem to me to too often prefer minority interpretations or even unique interpretations and consistently give the benefit of the doubt to tradition. I have also read Christian scholars who make a conscious effort to follow the evidence without regard to tradition. In addition, I've read non-Christian scholars who seem just as eager to ignore evidence that seems consistent with tradition and just as eager to embrace unique interpretations contrary to tradition. You have to take these apparent biases into account whenever you read anyone's interpretation of the evidence. This is especially true in the case of studying the history and development of Christianity because the evidence is such a complete mess which makes it remarkably easy to read a broad variety of "truths" into it.

That said, it seems clear from your posts that you have obtained most of your understanding from the first group of scholars and sources I mentioned above. It is only from sources like that where one concludes, with such certainty, that everything in the Christian Bible has been confirmed.

Good arguments can be made for the historicity of certain specific biblical claims but you are not likely to obtain those good arguments from such sources. Not necessarily because they don't have them but because you won't be able to tell the difference between conclusions based on the evidence and conclusions that rely more on the faith of the scholar.

Toto

Speaking as a moderator, I don't think that the rules would absolutely prohibit you from discussing any biases you think Carrier has in regard to his review of Doherty, especially if you have something substantive to say and are not using it as a debate tactic with Carrier himself.

I used Richard Carrier as an example, but I think that there are many other young historians who would come to the same conclusion if they took the time and effort to work through the issues the way that he did. You can tell from his extensive writings on this site that he has a point of view, but is scrupulous in following the historical method. But he had no prior commitment to the existence or non-existence of a historical Jesus.

For a scholar of Buddhist, Jewish, or post-Christian secular beliefs, the existence of a historical Jesus is just not a big deal.

diana

Of course it is.

Appealing to authorities when one personally does not understand the issues is a shortcut that is, in many cases (like you mentioned) quite natural and understandable. However, the person who appeals to them must realize his the limitations of his own "reasoning." We can appeal to an authority in any given discussion so long as we both agree to accept that authority's conclusion. If we disagree, we must sift through the evidence ourselves. If I'm willing to and you aren't, relying instead upon trusting that "X is an authority in the field," then you are appealing to authority in order to support your position.

d

Diogenes the Cynic

Let's not undersell the motive of curiosity either. Some scholars are driven by an agenda no more sinister than to find out what the truth is. Personally, I have no emotional investment in whether there was or was not an HJ, I'm just insanely curious about it. I want to know what actually happened, I have no wish to promote any a priori bias about it. I have none. I would be just as satisfied to find out that Jesus was literally the Son of God who came back from the dead as I would to find out that he was a peripatetic rabbi, or a charismatic mystic or a complete fiction. The goal for me is to know for sure. Any personal bias or expectation or subconscious resentments, hopes, etc. is an obstacle to that goal, as far as I'm concerned. Sure, I have opinions, hypotheses, impressions, hunches, etc. about HJ but I would be just as gratified to find out for sure I was wrong about something as right because it would mean I had acquired some kind of knowledge and I'll take knowledge over a pet theory any day.

I would also like to think that at least some recognized scholars are just as curious as I am and actually want to know things and believe that getting at the truth is its own reward.

Mr. Aardvark

Amaleq, I can't tell from your post which variety of "true believer" you believe me to be. My hunch is that you believe me to be a Christian true believer of some sort:

If so, then I suppose I should say that I don't consider myself a Christian of any variety at all. I used to be one, many, many years ago. I suppose my love for questions about Biblical criticism are a carryover from those days. But besides that fascination, there is nothing about the Christian religion that I think about except when they, in my opinion, try to foist their antiquated notions onto political problems.

I just think that excluding someone’s arguments a priori because they have a vested interest in them—whether they are Christian, Muslim, atheist, Sumerian or whatever—is just an illogical and unnecessary way to proceed in critiquing someone’s arguments. My concerns are methodological, not religious.