Cross Examiner

Family Man,
I really have several objections to your last post but find myself short on time to get to them all. Here's the one that really caught my eye:
Note that Michael Grant is an atheist historian and you say he'd echo or does echo Mageth's proposition that the Gospels be classified as 'myth'? Well, even he doesn't conclude that the Gospels are to be classified as 'myth' or that they 'non historical'. In fact, Grant wrote the following in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels:

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

That from Bede's library. Now, the above is Mike Grant. He's one of yours. You even hand-picked him as support for Mageth. Now, trust me when I say it gets a whole lot worse for the Gospels-as-myth proponent when one queries a hefty, broad-spectrum sample of other respected historians. Regarding that much of late bandied-about proposition that the Gospels are to be classified as 'myth'; for whatever reasons, chapka and Mageth have apparently bowed out of serious, formal contention for their proposition. Family Man, you say that you've been formally educated in the historical discipline. I have not. Nonetheless, I offer you the same chance they had/have: would you like to propose that the Gospels are of the 'myth' genre more formally? It'd be the same deal that I keep offereing. See this post and respond to it if interested.

Regards,
BGic

Family Man

First, BGIC, I have no idea whether or not Grant was an atheist or not. Nor does it matter. Not anymore than the fact that Sanders, Brown, and Meier are Christians. (After all, why latch onto the one person you think you can discredit us with and ignore those that on on your side?) What is important is that they use the proper historical methods I remember being taught.

Second, I do not subscribe to the Christ myth theory. Nor has Mageth been arguing the Christ myth. That basically says that there was no human person upon which the Jesus character was based. I fully believe that there was such a person. However, that doesn't mean that the stories about Jesus aren't mythological in character. And, in fact, nearly all serious, critical scholars -- Christian or not -- will tell you that passages like the birth narratives, the walk on the water, the feeding of the masses, and the embellishments of Jesus's crucifixion did not happen but were rather pious (if sincerely believed) fictions. That's not radical thought -- that's mainstream.

In other words, it is not hard to find statements like this one by E.P. Sanders:

After explaining that the gospels do not offer such a picture, he continues:

In other words, Sanders is telling you that most of what you read in the gospels can not be trusted as history. That's why he has to work with bits and pieces.

Finally, your challenge has been more than adequately answered on this thread. I think it's time that you provide a substansive answer, which I hope would be more credible than a complaint about colored beads.

Family Man

Mageth, you are right in saying that contradictions are evidence of myth-making. But they are not evidence that something didn't happen. Jesus's contradictory sayings on the cross, for example, show that the writers had their own agenda, and weren't above putting their own words in Jesus's mouth. After all, only one of those statements could have been right, unless you accept Gibson's solution that he said all of those things. But it isn't evidence that Jesus wasn't crucified. I have no problem accepting that as historical. Zombies roaming the streets? That's mythology.

Family Man

For the record, BGIC, I am not an expert historian. I studied it in college and have remained a history buff ever since. A professional historian could probably find a few nits to pick. But I don't think he'd find too many.

And Bede and I have discussed historical situations on many occasions. You might want to check with him before you continue with any discussion here. He doesn't usually get involved in discussions about the historical reliability of the gospels, but I'd be surprised if he didn't tell that the historical reliability of the gospels is rather low and that there is considerable mythological development in it.

Mageth

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Note that Michael Grant is an atheist historian..

Umm, so?

...and you say he'd echo or does echo Mageth's proposition that the Gospels be classified as 'myth'? Well, even he doesn't conclude that the Gospels are to be classified as 'myth' or that they 'non historical'. In fact, Grant wrote the following in his book Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels:

"To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

Well, Grant is arguing against the claim that there was no historical Jesus there, not arguing against the classification of the Gospels as myth. They're different subjects.

As Family Man correctly pointed out, I have not argued the "Christ myth" theory, as in the "non historicity of Jesus". So you're barking up the wrong tree here. Attacking a strawman, perhaps?

I think there was probably a real person in history who was the basis for the Gospel accounts. However, those accounts have been "mythologized". What is recorded in the Gospels are legends of Jesus, not literal histories of Jesus, and I've posted support for this position. Bits and pieces may be more or less accurate, but large parts are embellishments. Thus, it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth, but this does not mean that there was no historical Jesus. Exactly who he was, what he said, and what he did are unknowable (at this time, and probably forever).

I think I explained this to you quite well earlier in the thread; Family Man seems to have discerned it rather easily. I know I explained that by "myth" I do not mean untrue, and am pretty sure I explained that parts of the Gospels may be true, and it is even possible that most or all (well, all of the contradictions can't be true) of the accounts in the Gospels may be true, though I obviously think it highly unlikely that they are all true for reasons previously stated. I also commented at least once that I am not attempting to disparage the Gospels by classifying them as myths. That is simply what they are.

Further, and I'm not sure if I've said this yet, even as myths, the Gospels may be "metaphorically true" or include metaphorical truths (as understood by the writers). Indeed, I think this was the understanding and motivation of the writers - that metaphorical truth is what's important, not literal truth. Hence, the midrashing of the Gospels to incorporate metaphorical "truths" from Jewish tradition into the Jesus legend. It did not matter to them if the Gospel stories weren't literally true, as long as they conveyed what they perceived as metaphorical truth.

That from Bede's library. Now, the above is Mike Grant. He's one of yours. You even hand-picked him as support for Mageth. Now, trust me when I say it gets a whole lot worse for the Gospels-as-myth proponent when one queries a hefty, broad-spectrum sample of other respected historians.

But if you're simply addressing this query to the question of the "Jesus myth", it's not relevant as no one here's been arguing that, at least not me. And besides, it's simply an appeal to authority.

I'm curious, do you count any atheists (other than, apparently, Grant) among "respected historians", or only those that agree with your positions (e.g. on the historicity of the Gospels)? The same for theistic historians - do you exclude, say, Spong (not really an historian, but a theologian who's obviously extensively studied the Gosples) from the "respected" category? Do you not consider any of the "historians" et al who participated in the Jesus Seminar to be "respected"?

Further, do you seriously discount the conclusions of some historian just because that historian's conclusions aren't accepted by a "hefty, broad-spectrum sample of other respected historians? Or do you examine that historian's conclusions on your own and make up your own mind?

Please don't take this the wrong way; this isn't intended to be hostile. But you keep bringing up "respected" or otherwise qualified historians, and I'm really curious as to how you so classify historians, which ones you respect and which ones you do not, and why you don't respect the ones you don't respect. Do you use your own method and qualifications, or do you rely on popular opinion among historians?

Regarding that much of late bandied-about proposition that the Gospels are to be classified as 'myth'; for whatever reasons, chapka and Mageth have apparently bowed out of serious, formal contention for their proposition.

I explained the reason for my supposed "bowing out". I posted quite a bit in support of my contention, if I must say so myself, BTW. As far as I can tell, my proposition has been practically unopposed so far, other than the same old appeal to authority you're making here, and the fallacious attempt to submarine my "method".

Nonetheless, I offer you the same chance they had/have: would you like to propose that the Gospels are of the 'myth' genre more formally? It'd be the same deal that I keep offereing.

Many times on this thread, you have been asked to provide some sort of valid argument for why you think it is not correct to classify the Gospels as myth. Appeals to authority are insufficient - you need to back them up with some sort of argument. So your "deal" that you keep offering rings a bit hollow.

Mageth

Agreed 100%, and didn't mean to imply otherwise. Jesus was probably crucified, and probably said something on the cross, but what it was exactly we'll (probably) never know (some ET may show up with an AV recording ). So I too do not say the crucifixion was "ahistorical" simply due to contradictions in the accounts.

There's an awful lot of mythology in there, though. Thus, it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth, even though in doing so I am not saying that all of the events portrayed in the Gospels are not true. Taken as a whole, each Gospel fits the definition of "myth" I posted earlier on this thread perfectly.

Cross Examiner

Mageth, chapka, Family Man,
Frankly, I'm not going use my time to address this unorganized mess of a thread point by point without discussing terms and procedure beforehand. I'm not even sure what I'd be arguing for or against! If you want to have this talk for real, one of you three should have the faith to put his money where his mouth is and respond to my earlier challenge to actually formulize this discussion in a meaningful and concise way. And this is surely reasonable. It's not like I'm asking you to go up against Layman. I sure wouldn't tangle with Peter Kirby. I mean, we're all admittedly non-experts in this subject area. It should be a fair match between myself and one of you.
By the way, Mageth, you seem awfully active in this thread again for someone as busy and in the sort of danger you claimed to be. When I look at your recent posting history, I don't see any reason why you wouldn't have the time to create a formal, concise argument for the classification of the Gospels as 'myth' in BC&H or FD&D. If your case is as strong as you all seem to think, why all this hesitation?

Regards,
BGic

Family Man

I've been up against Layman. He's learned to be more careful about his historical pronouncements. And if you think Mageth was arguing the Christ myth, you weren't paying much attention.

It just so happens I keep an essay on my computer for just these situations. I'll need to adapt it a bit, but I should be able to get it up this evening. Right now, however, my wife wants the computer.

And, btw, Mageth has put up a case for the mythological nature of much of the gospels. It appears to me that you don't have an answer for it.

Mageth

Gee whiz, I just quickly read through this article in Bede's Library. It's pretty damn good, if I must say so myself, though I don't necessarily agree with everything it says.

Mageth

It's Friday evening, BGiC, if you haven't noticed. But thanks for letting me know you're checking up on me. I've already presented my argument sufficiently on this thread.

You seem to have your own reasons for wanting to join in a formal discussion. Guess what? I have my own reasons for why I do not want to (primarily, as stated before, because my work is gettin' busy. I have one patent application to finish and two to write this weekend, and a whole passel of new ones coming my way). So why can't you accept my refusal like a gentleman and leave it at that? There seems to me to be an implicit accusation in your post that I'm "dodging" or lying or something ("that you claimed to be"); that ain't too nice.

BTW, I'm a very fast writer/poster. I can whip off two or three decent-sized posts in a 5 or 10 minute break. A formal discussion would be more time-consuming, I would assume, requiring research, more formalized writing, and the like.