Vorkosigan

BTW, I just want to thank whoever wrote that entry. Every time I feel down or depressed about my own work on Mark, and don't feel like doing anything, I just have to experience the crap that apologists shovel -- like the wholly unethical way they handled that encyclopedia entry, or comments from people like Pearse and Meier that mythicists are only in it for the money. Then I get recharged.....

Ecrasez L'infame

This is all very interesting. I have a lot of sympathy for the MJ position - simply on the grounds if there was a HJ, his life, teaching, adventures and death were so completely different from the Gospel accounts that he effectively is mythical anyway. But AChristian has a devastating couple of points: (1) the overwhelming majority of proper scholars do not agree; and (2) in which case, how is Mythicism different from other wacky ideas like Creationism?

As a part answer to (2), I suggest that the problem with Creationism is that proponents aren't actually interested in biology or geology per se - they aren't trying to solve practical problems in those sciences, like cataloguing plants or curing diseases. Instead, they take ideas from what they do know, and apply it to science. Perhaps a parallel would be if I were a follower of Engels (I'm not particularly), and believed in MJ solely because he did, without knowing the debate about Josephus and so forth. IMO that would be an invalid reason for being Mythicist - and in fact, most Mythicists are not like that, they're Mythicist because they've been convinced by the weight of evidence. So that's a big difference between Mythicism and Creationism.

Another difference is that the Creationists have more money backing them.

Vorkosigan

As I said, the overwhelming majority of proper scholars are religiously invested in the historicist position. I love the assumptive nature of (2), although I thank you for your nice recovery there about evidence.

The reality is that the mythicist position is socially radical but methodologically conservative, while the historicist position is socially conservative but methodologically radical, given the conclusions it makes on very thin evidence.

Vorkosigan

Killer Mike

I would recommend these two authors: John Dominic Crossen and/or Paula Friedrickson. Friedriskson is at Boston University and her book "From Jesus To Christ" has an entire Chapter on the historical Jesus. Crossen is at the University of DePaul in Chicago and is widely regarded at the world's leading bible scholar. He has several books available. If you wish, Helmet Koester is at Harvard so this might be worth checking out.

I would not listen to the "Jesus never existed" ideas. Its not supported by mainstream Bible scholarship. Like Behe when it comes to evolution, there are a few scholars around that argue against the mainstream and suggest Jesus never existed, but they are generally ignored and not taken seriously by 99.99% of scholars from around the world.

Steven Avery

Actually I found the page quite informative and also liked the separate linked page about Bruno Bauer. Interesting history. There are in fact connections between materialistic and atheistic social systems and worldviews with theories that accuse the Gospels of myth and falsity and fabrication, whether Engels or Asimov. Perhaps in some circumstances the "Engels as collaborator of Marx and fan of Bauer" aside would be better as a footnote, however it is relevant historically if Engels was in fact a fairly enthusiastic advocate or proponent of Bauerian theories. If Bauer was more of an afterthought to Engels, that would downgrade the connection. Noting Engels as Mark collaborater is simply common sense in a laymen's encyclopedia.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Yep... this is the irony on the forum here. As one example, when I shared the simplest, clear explanation of how Paul quotes Luke as scripture, the litany of competing and conflicting supposed scholarship claims is the answer, offered with supreme orchestra-conducting hand-waving. Hardly anybody can simply read the verses and at least acknowledge that the simplest explanation is that Paul wrote after Luke and quoted him (as scripture). In that case a barrage of any potential scholarship obfuscation is thrown up simply to avoid even acknowledging the most consistent and likely explanation.

Yet in other cases... "no, we don't care about scholarship.. majority means nothing.. yada". It's like the skeptics here think that any consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

RPS

Your recitation of the history is, shall we say, selective. The Jesus-myth idea was promoted a century or so ago and refuted. There is no current academic scholarship making the Jesus-myth case and thus no scholarship debunking a case no longer made. The internet -- that great home to conspiracy theories -- has provided a place to argue the merits of the Jesus-myth idea, especially for dogmatists opposing Christianity (if Christianity's founder didn't exist the case is easy). But it's not like anyone has provided a basis to take the idea seriously.

You're confusing popular works from academia. I don't see heavy-duty academic works taking on creationism, I assume because it's old news. Similarly, historians don't bother with the Jesus-myth idea because it was refuted long ago. Unless and until a substantive academic case is made to look at the idea again, there's no reason to take it on. This book, however, provides a straightforward description of how and why scholars in this area reach the conclusions they do which, by inference, defeats the Jesus-myth idea.

Given the prominence of non-Christian scholars in this field, I can't take this comment seriously. You're letting your dogma overrule your reason.

RPS

There are times when you need to rely on scholary consensus - when scholars actually have access to more information than you can. But if you always go with the "consensus" you will never make any progress.

In the case of the [evolution], just a little investigation on your own will tell you that the so-called consensus is based on shifting sand and has no foundation.

Sound familiar? Phillip Johnson couldn't have said it better.

Roger Pearse

Is this a reference to me? Just curious.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

RPS

Evidence please.

Indeed.

Which explains the non-Christian scholars working in this field how? And if fear of controversy really put good scholars off, we wouldn't have had people like your namesake and Galileo, and creationism would rule the day.

Indeed. It's why I can't take the Jesus-myth idea seriously.