Doug Shaver

Yes. They all assume that there was a historical Jesus in addition to a mythical Jesus, and then they try to figure out which passages refer to which of those two.

Chaucer

It is not a non sequitur. I am showing you how impossible it is to prove that anyone existed in the ancient world who is a thinker -- like Hillel or Jesus -- rather than a maker and shaker of nations like Caesar, Alexander or Constantine. One cannot prove that any ancient philosopher or thinker, be it Socrates, Hillel, Democritus, Leukippos, Anaxagoras, or whoever, existed to the standard one can prove that a Caesar, or whoever, existed, because for philosophers and such all one has are texts and that is the sum total of the evidence. And textual evidence can only help gauge possibilities and probabilities, not certainties. All these great thinkers are memorialized in texts only, and once one gauges texts as no way to cinch the existence of anybody at all, one cannot prove the existence of anybody for whom the sole evidence is textual. One can only measure degrees of likelihood. Based on the high level of certainty needed to convince any Jesus mythicist, many more philosophers and thinkers than just Jesus would be discarded as mythical. There is only one possible type of Jesus mythicist who could be regarded as logical rather than arbitrary: that would be some rigorous historical analyst who would produce a whole list of famous thinkers of the ancient world who probably never existed according to CONSISTENT canons of evidence. These canons of evidence would need to show not only why the human Jesus of Nazareth falls short, but also why a plethora of other thinkers of the ancient world fall short as well -- and name them. SKAIK, that has not been done yet. But if it has been done after all, I'd respect that more. In the mean time, Jesus mythicism is purely arbitrary.

Chaucer

Toto

You mean that you can't prove the existence of a character in a narrative in ancient history.

It is generally accepted that Plato existed, because he wrote things down under his name.

It is somewhat probable, although not certain, that Socrates existed because there are references to him in other ancient works.

Do you think that just because there is difficulty in proving the historicity of other ancient figures, that this somehow increases the probability that Jesus existed? What sort of logic is that?

Chaucer

As there also are for Jesus of Nazareth, and Gautama (Buddha), Brhaspati (the first _extant_ atheist philosopher), Confucius (modern scholars no longer take certain Confucian texts as really from his pen) and Jesus.

No, I am not saying that at all, and I am amazed that you should really think that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that if one is going to gauge the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth as being insufficient, then one is guilty of inconsistency if one doesn't suggest that a whole range of similar ancient thinkers aren't similarly suspect. It's odd to me that Jesus documentation should be singled out by itself without reference to other similarly "nebulous" figures. Most modern scholars take it that there is a basic level of probability -- though not certainty -- respecting all such figures, and that Jesus _most likely_ existed, alongside all these other figures, like Socrates/Confucius et al, who also _most likely_ existed.

Chaucer

Chaucer

If you mean that a majority of atheists assume that the historical existence of the human Jesus of Nazareth remains probable, if not certain, then you're dead right.

Because it left-handedly purveys a misleading set of notions re modern historical research in a high-handed way somewhat reminiscent of the misleading notions that creationism purveys on modern scientific research. The level of education in my country is appalling enough as it is. And I think I should do whatever little I can, alongside other skeptics, in challenging such misleading charlatans who reflect this basic paranoia aimed at any and all "elite" professions that are -- for now -- ultimately beyond easy understanding by the resentful many whose education has been outrageously neglected by our culture.

Chaucer

Toto

The quality of all of this evidence needs to be evaluated, and that for "Jesus of Nazareth" does not stand up. Note also that some modern scholars do not think that Confucius existed, and Buddhists don't seem to care one way or another if Gautama really existed as a royal prince.

This is another scare tactic that Christian apologists come up with. If Jesus didn't exist, then you might have to give up your Socrates! Oh noes!

I think you will find that modern historians apply the same degree of skepticism to all nebulous historical figures. Socrates might have existed, but historians entertain the idea that he was a fictional creation of Plato without worrying about the demise of Humanism. Confucius probably did not exist.

The case for whether there was a historical Jesus at the origin of Christianity is open to debate, which the Jesus Project was set up to do.

Toto

I don't recognize anyone I know in this mischaracterization. Perhaps instead of "mythicists" you should pick one particular writer and explain what is wrong with his or her approach.

Chaucer

I already did: Wells in my OP.

Chaucer

Chaucer

Ah, so you do call it evidence! And you therefore acknowledge that evidence need not be proof! And that there are varying levels of evidence! Thank you!

Ironically, Gautama, unlike these other figures, is sometimes viewed as being the original author of a few of the extant sermons in the earliest collections, subsequently tweaked (it's supposed by a few) with small narrative intros and smaller demonstrably boiler-plate postludes, such as those in the Digha-Nikaya et al. Not all subscribe to that notion of occasional original Gautama authorship (and I've only heard such a notion voiced in one or two lectures), and I'm not sure that I do either. I merely cite that suggestion from a few to underscore that the historical record for Gautama seems a bit closer, ironically, to preserving a personal voice than is the case for the historical record behind Confucius, Socrates et al.

Actually, I'd be especially disappointed if Democritus -- whose paper trail is poorer than that for Socrates -- would have to be jettisoned from the historical record. Democritus was the Atomist who took up where Leukippos left off and fashioned a whole ethic and naturalistic outlook which was one of the first (of those extant) to dispense with deities altogether. Yes, I plead guilty to being very sorry if he would have to go. Leukippos' "presence" in the historical record is even less documented than Democritus's. Yet he anticipated -- correctly -- the concept of atoms and -- some of -- their properties. How come some of these speculations turned out correctly and were only confirmed 2,500 years later? It would be odd if prescient speculations were initiated by some figment of chroniclers' imaginations.

But many Jesus mythicists implicitly do not -- if/when they even bother to view these other figures.

-- and of Xenophon? -- and of Aristophanes? Which one invented first? Was it really Plato?

Now this I'm genuinely curious about. You say "was" set up to do: has it been scuttled? I know that feathers flew at first because some of its publicity cited some scholars who had not in fact signed on. But I thought this had been clarified and resolved satisfactorily. There was also some dismay because of April DeConick(sp.?)'s eventual decision not to sign on. But I didn't see that any of this contributed to scuttling the whole thing.

Please, has it been?

Thanks.

Chaucer

spin

No, I mean you are being just plain hypocritical, complaining about people taking things on faith, when you have apparently been basing most of your analyses on apologetic sources, ie on faith.

(I gather you're one of those dullard righthanders.)

I usually don't pay much attention to mythers, but you sure have it out for them. And you have the gall to think that they are the only ones in this field that have purveyed "a misleading set of notions re modern historical research in a high-handed way somewhat reminiscent of the misleading notions that creationism purveys on modern scientific research."

Do any of the mainstream biblical scholars know anything about historiography? They're pretending to be dealing with history, but what do they know about the subject? Text analysis is not per se history.

(The previous generation always complains about the education of the next generation.)

OK, who exactly is a charlatan? Why do you think they are? Are you a charlatan? (This is a trick question in that it requires you to think before you answer.) If not, what are you doing that makes you different?

It seems to me that you seem to think you haven't got anything better to do with your time than whinge about "mythicists", when you probably have a lot to learn in the field of history of early christianity and that learning would be more useful than bleeting about others. Wouldn't you agree?


spin