delusional

Two or three sentences hardly allows room for more than a bare statement of their position. The fact remains, Jesus Mythicists are severely lacking when it comes to mainstream academic support.

dog-on

As the vast majority of this "mainstream academic support" is nothing less than the bleating of apologists, I gladly concur.

spin

You shouldn't confuse your lack of knowledge with your lack of desire.

You haven't shown any objectivity in the discussion, so I wouldn't expect you to do so with the above statement. We try to deal with evidence, as that is ultimately all that counts. If you want to get anywhere communicating here, you need to respect the evidence and know what it is, rather than assuming other people can know it for you.

You might check out the names here, besides the fact that it was written by the hack Christopher Price (well, he is a lawyer), Carrier doesn't seem to hold the idea anymore and, besides Stanton, none of the rest are alive, so the list is certainly not a good reflection of current scholarship. Price rehashes old news. You apparently don't know any better. Get clued up, fast.

ETA: Van Voorst is sort of still alive. These are his qualifications to be labeled a historian: "Western Theological Seminary, in Holland, Michigan, and has published scholarly works in early Christian writings and New Testament Greek. He received his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He has served at the Lycoming college (Methodist) and was visiting professor at Westminster College, Oxford, England. He has also served as a supply pastor, and for twelve years as pastor at Rochester Reformed Church, New York." Historian? No way.

And Stanton is not a historian either, but a divinity scholar. Will Durant was not a historian, but a popularist of history. Bultmann was a theologian. Howard Marshall was another divinity man.

You wanna talk about history?


spin

spin

Sorry, I missed where he showed such a thing... Oh, are you referring to seven names listed by Chris Price?? "[M]ost scholars"? Seven names?


spin

matthijs

Don't nitpick, spin. Obviously the list doesn't demonstrate any such thing, conceded. But my focus was his inadvertent disqualification of his own witnesses.

Also, I read my own understanding into the list (accidental). Isn't it the case that most scholars are agreed on the point? Beyond Wells, Carrier, Price and Doherty, my list of MJ supporters runs dry. Who am I missing?

Elske.

spin

It's a subject many historians simply avoid. Same with archaeologists. Unless they are actively religious of a conservative leaning, they generally think that biblical scholars are yokels and avoid anything to do with them. Many scholars will tend to keep their beliefs to themselves. Stating what most believe will be based on guesswork, not evidence, unless you canvass all the historians personally and have some way to get them to express their true beliefs. This line of head counting is frivolous.

More importantly there are other positions than just HJ and MJ. There are people who don't care either way. There are those whose considered position is that the evidence is inconclusive. There are others who think that Jesus was fictional.

Reality is not defined by what most people are said to believe.


spin

matthijs

Mainstream academic support is a litmus test only for itself, it doesn't comment on the data. It's perfectly reasonable to base your opinion on consensus, but it can't self-validate. You can't use consensus to challenge the opinions of others, you can't use it as an argument, it merely discovers its own premises. The only valid currency in debate is data, deduction, and induction.

To return to the original contention: There are very few data to work with, and those data point in no clear direction. This is the very nature of ancient sources, and a certain amount of agnosticism will always be healthy. The wide variance of interpretation is due to the sketchy nature of the evidence. This is something you're going to have to live with.

Elske.

matthijs

I take your point.

I'm tempted to vote "all of the above." But let's be fair, I think all scholars (people in general, actually) have a working model, a particular leaning. And as much as I'll admit to guesswork, I do believe the general leaning is towards a historical Jesus.

Elske.

delusional

Is the argument from silence supposed to be a show of objectivity? Because that is all I hear. And of course, if somebody such as Tacitus does inconveniently mention him, some way has to be found of rubbishing his tesimony (with complete objectivity of course).

spin

This is a statement of your lack of objectivity. What do you know about Tacitus? A historian is supposed to know about the sources used, understanding that every source needs to be validated. So, what do you know a bout Tacitus, or do your just trust that because a text has a useful passage it must be veracious?

I can tell you a lot about Tacitus. I k now that he knew the political status of Judea and that he would never have called Pilate a procurator and I can supply Tacitean evidence for this view. I can also say that he would never have placed the christian testimony where it is found. Wanna know why? He also was regarded as one of the best orators of his time, yet the passage contains one of the worst cases of alliteration that one could imagine.

One needs reasons based on evidence for their views. That helps for objectivity. And yes, objectivity is the standard we should be aiming for. The more objective we are, the more likely we are to communicate with people of differing views. The more dogmatic we are, the less likely.


spin