Rick Sumner

Because the mainstream is defined by the majority, and is defined as much by conclusions as by method. Creation science is increasingly using mainstream techniques to defend themselves. That doesn't mean that Creationism is mainstream.

I'd suggest a greater concern than how many scholars believe in the Nicene Creed (which is a valid point, for the reasons you've already suggested, but fails to be all encompassing enough to serve to negate the general point, and also leaves us the dilemma of intangibility--how do you purport to discern which scholars rule in favor of historicity because of their faith, and which rule in favor because of analysis?), is that the historicity of Jesus has become axiomatic.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Mr. Aardvark

I am a new member and have been very impressed w/ high level of discussion on these boards. I am not a Biblical scholar, so when I raise my questions to many of you I feel like a puppy nipping at the heels of some very large dogs.

Nevertheless, I wonder if it is really considered a legitimate element in the criticism of Biblical scholarship to speculate about the motives of the scholars when they proffer their evidence and claims. I ask because I cannot think of any other intellectual endeavor where such speculation is considered relevant to the arguments that someone makes, unless, that is, the critic wants to run the risk of making a fallacy of the most transparent sort. Surely in Biblical scholarship, as elsewhere in life, an individual could be swimming in vested interest and still be able to make a perfectly good argument that has merit regardless of any oath that scholar might have to recite on a given Sunday morning.

Rick Sumner

It would be fallacious if the argument was being dismissed because it is being put forth by a Christian, but that isn't the case here. The greater problem, as I alluded above, is that the argument isn't being put forth at all. The conclusion is simply recited.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ion

I posted this:
in the forum 'Existence of God', thread '"I am as sure there is no God as I'm sure there is no dragon in my garage'"

So I voted in this thread that Jesus is mythical, first option in the poll.

I would like to ask here, who from that time and location has historicity.

Pointing to myth is the fact that lesser humans than the miraculous Jesus they are documented, but not Jesus.

McD

You are clearly out of your league here, kid. I probably know 100x more about Jesus historicity and bible scholarship than you do, and I am very often out of my league here.

Mr. Aardvark

No Christian scholars make a case for the historicity of Jesus Christ? I am not a Christian, but I have been under the definite impression that such scholarship is a virtual cottage industry these days.

Toto

This is the ideal. But you will notice many areas of human endeavor where subtle pressures and biases influence the outcome of the results. That is why medical science insists on double blind studies. Critics have noted that test results of drug trials funded by pharamceutical giants are positive at about five times the rate of trials funded by the government. (There, I've given you an area where such speculation is considered relevant.)

Rick Sumner

It's a very rare event. Scholarship is devoted largely to reconstruction, not establishing historicity.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

Christian scholars tend to assume the existence of a historical Jesus, and then try to figure out who he was. They come up with a variety of different answers. (What does that tell you?)

Here's an old thread on RT France, who wrote a very slim volume called The Evidence for Jesus, one of the few books by a Christian that addresses the issue of historicity. As I noted there, France ends up rejecting most of what Christians consider evidence and is forced to rely on the gospels, which more modern scholars do not consider historical at all.

Mr. Aardvark

Thanks, but this still doesn't help me over my hurdle. Am I still expected to accept the claim that “X’s arguments should not be taken seriously because X has a vested interest in making them�? is a valid way of critiquing a Biblical scholar? Wouldn’t showing that X has made bad arguments be a better way of disposing of them than speculating about his motives?