Iasion

Greetings

I agree with Julian.
It's crap.

Vague nonsense and faithful preaching.

Iasion

Iasion

Greetings,

Are you SERIOUS?


Iasion

freigeister

As I indicated above, I see that Case (1912) published before Brunner (1921). And now I see that Conybeare did, too. Still, any list of early opponents to the Jesus-is-a-myth is incomplete if it doesn't mention Brunner.

Mountain Man

That's close to what I've been trying to say. Most of the pro jesus people (I can't rightly call them scholars) keep arguing about who said what when it doesn't matter since it's all heresay and anecdotes. They all build on what the others said. Even the authors of the NT are basically unknown. Isn't the most important one a guy they don't know and just call "Q"? How reliable can that be? You can't convince them as they are already convinced. A whole lot of confirmation bias is at work here. They only rely on what confirms their a priori assumption that jesus existed. Me, I'm asking for proof yet they haven't come up with any.

copernicus

Hold on. YOU were the one who suggested that we accept the alleged consensus of scholars without examining their reasoning. You have not bothered to say what arguments they use or evidence they present, and you have not even given us a reliable estimate of the percentage of scholars that believe in Christ's historicity. Your entire case rests on the assumption that we should accept the claims of experts. Some of us have given you good reason to go beyond those claims and actually evaluate the evidence. Like Julian, I don't care whether Christ existed, but I would like to see something other than appeal to authority.

Gandy and Freke cited a ton of references, unlike Josephus, but I would put them in the same class as Josephus--the class of historical polemicists, not bona fide scholars. The methodological radicalism in defense of the historicity of Jesus is thoroughly understandable in a society that takes the existence of Jesus for granted. The same motivation would not contaminate the "entire historical process". Christians tend to put their thumb on the scale when it comes to weighing the evidence of Christ's historicity. That means that we have even less reason to take their conclusions for granted than we would normally.

youngalexander

OP: Jesus historical?

Regrettably I am late to the feast, but, having just read the entire thread, I am yet to see;
1. Comprehensive evidence in favor of the proposition that there was an HJ.
2. Logical argument using such evidence in support of the proposition.

It is always encumbent upon those putting forward a proposition to argue positively for it. The OP does not ask 'Jesus mythical?'.

Now, the question has been asked - Jesus historical?
My answer is, that on the balance of probabilities, given the evidence - No!

I wish to see the case for the affirmative. Of course it should be clearly understood that 'balance of probabilities' is where it is at. There is no question of definitive 'proof' or any such nonsense.

Those who propose that there was an HJ, present the evidence and argue your case.

We are not interested in the 'majority of scholars' or other appeals to authority. Just argue the case. Could be a useful exercise 'don't ya think'.

RPS

If you think I argued that point I suggest you read the thread again.

I have simply asked for current peer-reviewed academic literature making the Jesus-myth claim. Apparently there is none. Zip. Zero. Nada.

It does not. The Jesus-myth case was made a century or so ago and rejected by academia. Since then, academia has ignored the idea, despite many internet conspiracy theories. My question, which no one has come close to answering in a satisfactory way, is why, if the Jesus-myth idea has a remotely decent basis, no academic has taken it up in recent times.

A vague censorship claim has been made. But if Christianity really controlled academia, creationism would rule the day. Unanimous bias has been suggested. But given the existence of prominent, non-Christian scholars who accept the historical Jesus, that claim doesn't make sense. Anything else to add?

And some of us have been down that road enough times to recognize that dogma rather than evidence typically controls the decision-making on all sides.

You're joking, right? Please tell me you're writing satire.

No, people who don't like conclusions that scholars reach claim bias without evidence on that sole basis. Does "evil and biased atheist scientists arguing for evolution even though it's only a theory and a poor one at that" ring a bell?

RPS

1. The form of a question doesn't control the formal burden of proof.

2. Basing an alleged victory upon the opponent failing to meet his/her burden rarely, if ever, actually convinces anyone.

3. The unanimous view of scholars could be wrong. But as a practical matter, if lay people want to claim that academia is flat-out wrong, they have got to make a very strong case. You claim that the academics are wrong. That's your right. But you haven't offered any reasons why that might be so. If you wish to make that case rather than just assert it, be my guest.

Of course you do. It's much easier to pick at someone else's argument than to construct one yourself. But I suggest that if you want to take on the status quo you have the guts to make your case.

EarlDoherty

I have posted a comment on this discussion on a new thread, entitled

Jesus Seminar Magazine Fourth R Refuses $5000 Offer to Debate the Jesus Myth Theory.

Earl Doherty

Vorkosigan

Freigeister, I have no idea why you take him seriously. Comments like:

....are simply subjective crap. In order to establish historicity, you first have to establish a methodology for determining it. That is why historical Jesus books typically spend some time engaged in determining what the right methodology for examining the gospels is. Since Brunner does not establish how he makes claims, they are simply his subjective feelings on the matter, poetic, but not especially interesting.

I have a simple test to determine who knows things and who doesn't, and Brunner flunked completely. It's here:

• Did they intend, with their portrayal of the disturbed relationship between Christ and Mary, to set forth an example of filial behaviour; or would they, with their own moral awareness, have forgiven the adulteress as she was forgiven by Christ? Adultery, the adultery of this adulteress, was to be spared punishment: no one but Christ could conceive of such a thing! Which of these men, what man at all could think of forgiving sinners their sins and of forgiving the sin of blasphemy?

Comically, Brunner thinks that the pericope adultera comes from Jesus. He seems to be unaware that the tale is a later interpolation into the text. When your level of textual and methodological skill is that low, there is no need to take you seriously.

Also, you have posted this at least twice before, and twice before we have told you how immortally stupid it truly is. Brunner. Doesn't. Know. Anything.

You really want to learn something about early Christianity? Try a modern scholar with a proven record -- Crossan, Brown, Theissen, Ludemann, Sanders, Meier, etc. Brunner is useless as a response to mythicism.

Vorkosigan