Chris Weimer

Thanks for using the correct terminology. Proof is impossible in anything but logic. You can't "prove" anything with historical science.

Now then, since I've corrected this egregious error of yours, let's review the conversation

Me: "But this evidence will conveniently not include Christian testimony in any form. How presumptuous of you."

You: "There is no contemporary Christian testimony to exlude."

First of all, not all evidence has to be contemporary. Did you read the articles I mentioned here? These are anthropologists dealing with non-Levantine, non-Christian cultures. It's standard practice to evaluate oral tradition.

Finally, I didn't say that Paul witnessed an historical Jesus, nor did you ask for that.

I'm sorry, but you've exposed your prejudice here - you automatically place the Bible in a different category without explaining anything.

Do you automatically think that the events described in Homer aren't true? Finally, if the Bible mentions historical people, who are you to say that Jesus isn't one of them? How do you know this?

You've done no evaluating, you've listened to no reason.

Lying, lied to, stoned, fiction...none of those accurately explains the gospels. Does that mean that supernatural events in Tacitus and Josephus mean that they, on the whole, shouldn't be trusted? Is all of Livy untrustworthy? Some holocaust survivors have attributed their survival to miracles - do all their testimony become untrustworthy?

You're lumping all the gospels into one lump some? That's another problem - if you read the fourth article I listed, you'd understand that you're committing another egregious error - taking all of one tradition as a whole. That's fallacious, wrong-headed, and results will be skewed. The same author who wrote Matthew didn't write Luke, and Mark didn't even mention the birth of Jesus - what does that say about the Jesus story? Nothing. The improbability of the birth narratives have zero influence on whether Jesus existed, precisely because they're much later added narratives.

Odd - there is a consensus on Jesus. Most of academia has come to the conclusion that there is a true historical figure behind the Christian Jesus. Is there one about Arthur? I don't know enough to say so, but until he can be proved to be a legend, he's not either real or legendary. He's unexamined. People aren't mythical unless they're proven real - that's illogical. Do you know the CEOs whom you work for? Probably not. At least I don't know my CEOs. But that doesn't mean that until I see them, or until I see someone who says they met them, that they're automatically mythical.

3DJay

What the hell kind of definitions, are you using?

Prove: 1. To establish the truth or validity of by presentation of argument or evidence.

Prove: 1. transitive verb establish truth of something: to establish the truth or existence of something by providing evidence or argument

Prove: verb (past part. proved or proven /proov’n or prov’n/) 1 demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth or existence of.

Prove: 3 a : to establish the existence, truth, or validity of (as by evidence or logic) <prove a theorem> <the charges were never proved in court>

I asked for "proof"...

Proof: 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

Proof: 1 evidence establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.

Proof: 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact

...for your assertion that Paul's writing counts as "contemporary testimony".
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source
Main Entry: proof
Function: noun
Etymology: alteration of Middle English preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove
1 : the effect of evidence sufficient to persuade a reasonable person that a particular fact exists —see also EVIDENCE
2 : the establishment or persuasion by evidence that a particular fact exists —see also BURDEN OF PROOF

It doesn't matter what word I used. You've yet to provide any evidence/proof, that Paul witnessed anything about Jesus, which he could give testimony about. And, you've yet to provide any evidence/proof, of contemporary writings, by Paul. You've yet to provide any evidence, to even try and persuade me.

What are you relying on? Simply the assertion that there was some oral tradition, we don't know about?
My statement was about "contemporary Christian testimony", and you offered up Paul. Is his writing, or isn't his writing, "contemporary Christian testimony"?
I haven't read them in particular. But, I have read quite a lot of Celtic material, whos "history" relies almost solely on oral tradition. Oral tradition is not necessarily evidence of anything, or anyone, real. If something can be supported, with some other evidence, then that's great. But, on its own, it isn't reliable.
We were talking about "testimony", as evidence.

testimony
1382, "the Ten Commandments," from L.L. testimonium (Vulgate), along with Gk. to martyrion (Septuagint), translations of Heb. 'eduth "attestation, testimony" (of the Decalogue), from 'ed "witness." Meaning "evidence, statement of a witness" first recorded 1432, from O.Fr. testimonie (11c.), from L. testimonium "evidence, proof, testimony," from testis "witness" (see testament) + -monium, suffix signifying "action, state, condition."

Testimony: 2 a : firsthand authentication of a fact : EVIDENCE

Testimony: 1. evidence given in court: evidence that a witness gives to a court of law. It may take the form of a written or oral statement detailing what the witness has seen or knows about a case. 2. proof: something that supports a fact or a claim

Testimony: 1a. A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body. b. All such declarations, spoken or written, offered in a legal case or deliberative hearing. 2. Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.

Testimony: 1. Law. the statement or declaration of a witness under oath or affirmation, usually in court. 2. evidence in support of a fact or statement; proof.

Testimony: 2. Open attestation; profession. 3. Witness; evidence; proof of some fact.

What kind of "testimony" are we talking about, if we're not talking about that of a "witness", or that which offers "proof" of anything?
A different category? I put it in the exact same category as other books mostly about Gods, demi-Gods, supernatural events, and such like. YOU are the one who wants to put it in a different category than it belongs, IMO, and need to show why it should be put in the category with historical chronicles, instead of with mythology books.
Which events in Homer? The part about jealous Aphrodite, Achilles the son of a God, a horse big enough to fit a decent sized fighting force in, ... ? Doubtful. That maybe there was a war? Maybe. I wouldn't count Homer's account as evidence of historical people and happenings, all on its own. Would you?

If something mentioned in it is shown to be historical, using other methods, great. But, the reverse, believing everything, and everyone, is historical, until shown not to be, seems like a ridiculous concept.
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I haven't once stated that Jesus is not historical. I've stated there's no evidence. Simple as that. You want me to believe a supernatural story should count as evidence of a historical person, all on its own. That's ridiculous. I might as well believe Heracles, Beowulf, Finn MacCool, and countless others, are truly historical people, until there's evidence showing they aren't.
Bullshit. You're not even listening to me, at all. You're even making up things, you think I said, which I haven't. I can step out, and let you debate yourself, if you want to do it that way.
You've discounted all the supernatural, yourself. Why don't you consider their "testimony" evidence of miracles and the supernatural?

Titus? Every mention of "god", in the entire Volume I, of Tacitus' Histories:
Sounds like a historian describing religious practices, or statements.

Josephus? Depends. Do I believe his early accounts which parallel the OT, are mainly historical? No. Do I believe his accounts as they get closer to his own time? More so.

Paul? Sounds like sermon after sermon, about a son of God, who he never met. He is not a historian. And, he is not attempting to document historical events. He is attempting to convert people to his beliefs. YOU need to show why sermons, and stories about Gods, and sons of Gods, deserve a place with historians' writings, instead of other books of Mythology, even if there may be a tidbit of history, here or there.
Oh, for crying out loud. The book is too big for us to go through, author, by author, page by page, looking for some historical tidbit. If you want to put forth a passage you think provides some historical evidence of Jesus, be my guest. In general, and for the larger part, the NT is a supernatural story, full of miracles, OT quotes, sermons, and contains very little in the way of historical evidence, of anyone.
"hope he can be shown to have been a true historical figure someday, but, until there is some concensus, he's just a legend...a mythical figure"

Odd - doesn't sound like I was talking about a concensus of assertions. Sounds, to me anyway, like I was talking about a concensus on visible evidence. Should I define "shown"?
Legend: 1 a : a story coming down from the past; especially : one popularly regarded as historical although not verifiable b : a body of such stories <a place in the legend of the frontier> c : a popular myth of recent origin d : a person or thing that inspires legends e : the subject of a legend <its violence was legend even in its own time -- William Broyles Jr.>

Myth: 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

Sorry, but they are Myths and Legends, until evidence shows otherwise. It's the default.


Peace

spamandham

You can choose to ignore me or not, that's up to you. I've been mostly ignoring you since about post 48 anyway.

Chris Weimer

Nuanced ones - ones you should be familiar with when you enter this kind of field. Sometimes some words are better used than others.

Back a long time ago, when I was first a moderator of EoG, I wrote up the essential definitions of what it meant to be an atheist. You can still find it today here, with an addition by Barefoot Bree.

Likewise, myth, legend, evidence, and proof are all used in various ways. A dictionary, after all, is an appeal to common usage. Sometimes, the appeal is a good one, but sometimes when you're working within a certain subsection of society, in this case history and anthropology, some words acquire special limited usage. Proof and evidence are a couple of those words, as are myth and legend. Articles have been written to try to clarify exactly what we mean when we speak of something as legends, myths, or folklore.

So please understand that proof isn't a word thrown around lightly in historical sciences. If you type "prove" in the JSTOR search, the first fifty results are almost exclusively used in mathematical articles, with one about "do it yourself science experiments", a couple from law journals, and one in a poem.

Nothing in historical sciences. Whenever someone finds an old manuscript that shows conclusive evidence that such and such was an old reading, the author doesn't say, "I have proved that it is so."

To reiterate, proofs are for logical sciences.

What exactly are you asking for? Did Paul meet Jesus? Of course he didn't, and I never claimed he did. However, Paul does claim to have met the founders of Christianity, whom Jesus met.

Parse your sentence. It's not grammatical.

What are you talking about?

Contemporary with Jesus? Yes - they both lived in the same time period.

In all cases it isn't reliable? How do you know what is and what isn't reliable? What sort of method have you deduced which shows that oral tradition is not reliable, and how do you explain your disagreement with mainstream anthropologists?

One that offers evidence? Not every piece of evidence is conclusive, you know.

First, you need to show why you even have the categories. You can't just assume that you have different categories. Where do you draw the lines?

Who's counting on it all on its own? Have you even bothered to read my actual posts?

Did I say that everything and everyone is historical until shown? No. You, on the other hand, claimed that it was ahistorical (read: myth, legend, etc...) unless it can be shown to be historical. Why are we excluding the middle?

By the same logic, gravity didn't exist until it was discovered.

You said they're myth - do you understand what that means? Do you understand the nuanced concept of myth? If you truly don't, then I've mistaken your words - you used a word that has a different meaning in this part of town, and round here, dem fightin words. But if you claim ignorance, which you seem to do above, then there is no more dispute.

I already explained why I discount the supernatural - because supernatural accounts need extraordinary evidence for it for me to take it as true.

Miracles aren't something "historical", happened only once. They're not "events". They're things that can affect the natural world, present and past. If there's no evidence for miracles now, why should we believe there were then, especially when there's no extraordinary evidence for them. It's not plausible, while Jesus reconstructed by the context group is indeed plausible. Whether it's probable is being debated here, but it's certainly plausible. Miracles aren't so.

You look in one volume of one work of Tacitus and declare him free of supernatural? Wow. That's bad.

81. In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feet the print of a Caesar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacies were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition, might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Caesar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

Tacitus, Histories, iv.81

Yeah, sure thing.

So when Josephus says that an old oracle predicted the power of Vespasian, you believe him? When he said that seven portents and a Jewish prophet foretold the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, you believe him? You believe him that there were supernatural events going on?

But you don't care to look at the tidbit of history, instead relegating it whole to the myth garbage bin?

It may be too big for you. Sorry, but this won't fly.

Haven't we been trying? It's been going on quite a while now.

There's plenty of evidence. You just don't know how to deal with it. Your questions earlier make that clear.

Can you prove that you're not a myth? How so? What's the criteria?

And once again, we're back at the "nuanced definition" thing that you seem to be unaware of. Whatever - it's your ignorance, not mine. I've thrown in my time.

Chris Weimer

To make it fair, you're officially on ignore now.

3DJay

Hehe, don't get me started, on those definitions.
How do I tell the difference between a myth, a legend, and / or a folktale?
Start with William Bascom's definitions. In his article, "The Forms of Folklore: Prose Narratives," William Bascom gives the following definitions of folktale, myth and legend:

* "Folktales are prose narratives which are regarded as fiction."

* "Myths are prose narratives which, in the society in which they are told, are considered to be truthful accounts of what happened in the remote past."

* "Legends are prose narratives which, like myths, are regarded as true by the narrator and his audience, but they are set in a period considerably less remote, when the world was much as it is today."

The only technicality, between Myth and Legend, is that from today's perspective, they could all be called Myths, because they're all so old. However, at the time of the writings, they could have been considered Legends.

Historicity: historical authenticity: the state or fact of being historically authentic

Historicity: historical authenticity.

Historicity: historical actuality

Historicity: 1. of an event, the fact of having occurred in history; historical authenticity.

Historicity: Historical authenticity; fact.

Historicity: historical authenticity.

Historicity: 1) the quality or state of being historic esp. as opposed to fictitious or legendary 2) a condition of being placed in the stream of history; also: a result of such placement

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,090 from links.jstor.org for historicity jstor. (0.31 seconds)

authentic • adjective of undisputed origin; genuine.
"As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message."
Oh my! How embarrassing.
You were dodging my questions, with semantics, and only implied some oral tradition. What am I supposed to assume?
Do you have evidence, proof, or whatever you want to call it, to support that assertion?
Nice of you to drop the "on its own". On its own, oral tradition is just hearsay.
Anthropologists wouldn't care if a king, described in a story, was truly historical, or not. As long as they can glean something about the society's social makeup, cultural habits, living conditions, etc. from the story. In that sense, oral tradition would provide anthropologists more information, than a historical account of events would. As, historical accounts deal more with politics (often foreign relations), events, specific people, etc.

Sure, I could learn a lot, about Celtic society, from reading Celtic tales. Are they reliable evidence as to the historicity of individuals? How Myths Are Made
Offer me some evidence, anything.
Oh, please. There are highly supernatural tales, totally about gods...about earthly demi-gods...about human heroes. With increasing likelihood of historicity. Then there are real attempts to accurately relate historical events. You can't seriously believe that historians consider them all equal?
Yes.

There you go...making up opinions, for me.
Here's what you state my opinion is...

ahistorical: unconcerned with or unrelated to history or to historical development or to tradition

..while the definitions of "myth" and "legend", I personally provided, use "not verifiable" or "unverifiable"

unverifiable: (of e.g. evidence) not objective or easily verified

Something is either verifiable, or unverifiable...what freakin middle ground are you referring to?

Is this the middle ground... "I have partially verified that Jesus may, or may not, have lived, as evidenced by the oral tradition, that may, or may not, be exhibited in the writings, of Paul, who may, or may not, have written, at about the same time, when said Jesus, may, or may not have lived."
What's your "nuanced" concept of "myth"? I provided the definition, of a respected anthropologist, above.

Plausible: 1. seeming to be truthful or reasonable; credible.



"Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood."

Shall we do Paul now? Will he be stating that he heard it from others who did the actual asserting, or will he be one of those people doing the asserting ... that Jesus is the son of God, that God did rise him up from the dead, that he (Paul) personally cured blindness, caused blindness, healed the cripple, cast out evil spirits, prayed for an earthquake, cured the sick people, raised the dead?

Paul is like one of those guys attesting to Tacitus, not Tacitus himself. Don't know how you can't tell the difference between the two. Wow. That's bad.
"Do I believe his accounts as they get closer to his own time? More so."

More so, from not at all, doesn't equate to total belief.
There is soooo much that's "implausible", in it, that it relegates itself to unreliability, unless it can be supported by outside evidence. Yes. If I write 10 pages of BS, except for 1 paragraph of truth, would you consider my writing to be unreliable, or not? Your mom taught you the story about the boy who cried wolf, or no? How could you trust any of my paragraphs, without some other reliable source, to back it up?
I said it's too big to go through, here, passage by passage.
You've been trying to post a passage, you think provides some historical evidence of Jesus...and...its been going on quite a while now...because...I give up...why haven't you posted a passage you think provides evidence of a historical Jesus?
I keep asking you for freakin evidence! You haven't provided any to deal with, yet.

Why are you wasting my time? All I asked for was evidence that Paul witnessed a historical Jesus, which he could give testimony about. And, evidence that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. "You can do it!"


Peace

Chris Weimer

So Jesus isn't a myth - we got that, right?

Ah, I hope you read the whole thing, no?

No, not quite. If you think that, then you only skimmed the article to find what you were looking for. Did you read about the accounts of legends? Did you look at footnote 7?

As far as your historicity and authenticity definitions, I see we're moving farther away from the progress we just made about legends, and back towards the common usage.

Yes. First of all, Paul says he met the founders of Christianity, who met Jesus. He also says he met the brother of Jesus (spin's objection is anticipated). Acts also places Paul as a contemporary of Jesus. In Galatians, Paul said he persecuted Christians. At what time would the Jews have the authority to persecute Christians?

When would you date Paul?

I did not drop it. I thought it was still implied. Is all oral tradition, on its own, always unreliable? How do you know?

Says who?

What? Where did you get that idea from?

What do you think the gospels are?

I didn't say that. I'm wondering where you draw the line. Are all works without the supernatural considered historical? How do you know when someone is trying to relate something historical but embellishes it with the supernatural? What about the saints, who were said to have performed miracles? Do they exist? Are they legend, or is the miraculous around them legendary?

What are you talking about?

No, I don't know the difference between

"Paul is like one of those guys attesting to Tacitus."
and
"Paul is like one of those guys attesting to Tacitus himself."

Parlez-vous anglais?

So how do you distinguish what is history and what is not history?

No, my mom didn't teach me the story. She's died.

And yes, historians all the time look through 10 pages of BS to find one page of truth. Better yet, 100 pages of BS for one page of truth. It's called historical inquiry. Familiarize yourself with it.

So what? There are more venues to go to than this silly little place.

Doug Shaver

Here are some -- only some -- of my reasons for so characterizing it.

Walker begins:
What could be amazing about that? Maybe, just maybe, it is amazing that secular scholars rarely question Jesus' historicity, but why in the world should anyone be amazed that believers don't doubt it?

Perhaps outrageousness is in the eye of the beholder, but as long the subject is Jesus' historicity, I haven't seen all that many outrageous claims being presented by Christian apologists.

Hmm . . . "the evidence . . . cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence . . . ."? That kind of logical slop ought to send anyone's mind into Red Alert.

And, at this point, we have looked at just the first paragraph of a 13,000-word article. Not a good sign.

It doesn't get any better, and I'm not about to offer a sentence-by-sentence commentary in this forum, but I'll offer up a few more samples, picked almost at random.

But first, lest I seem to be attacking a straw man, I will note my awareness that Walker is not, strictly speaking, arguing against historicity. He does state in his conclusion that "a historical Jesus may have existed [his emphasis]." But if his point is not that Jesus never lived, it is not quite obvious just what other conclusion he is trying to establish. In the OP, Johnny says it is "that there is no credible evidence that a historical Jesus existed," and that seems to be as good a guess as any. Well, I think most of us here suppose that if there is no good reason to believe something, then it should not be believed, and that as a generality, if there is no credible evidence for something, then there is no good reason to believe it. I will try to frame my comments accordingly.

From the first section, "All claims of Jesus derive from hearsay accounts":

Courts of law have good reasons for usually disallowing hearsay, and equally good reasons for the exceptions they make. But the primary purpose of the legal system is not fact-finding. Its primary purpose is the resolution of disputes, which is often concerned only incidentally with the establishing of facts.

Although modern scholars are, to their credit, more skeptical of hearsay than their predecessors, it is not a fact that they don't use it. And, Walker's insinuation that those who do use it are dishonest is as objectionable as the common evangelical apologetic aspersions against scholars who don't assume scriptural inerrancy.

Hearsay can provide good evidence. Whether it does or not in a particular case depends on many factors. The application of those factors to the evidence for Jesus' historicity needs to be argued, not assumed.

From the next section, on the gospels:

Nonsense. It does not describe the first written gospel. It is the first written gospel. What it describes is the ministry and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

If we had no other Christian documents from the first century, the gospels would suffice to establish a prima facie claim that a charismatic rabbi named Jesus lived in Galilee, gathered a few disciples, preached a few sermons, and was crucified by Pontius Pilate. It really doesn't matter that much whether we know who wrote them. Of course we could not rule out the possibility that they were fiction, but we would need some kind of evidence for that to assert that they were probably fiction.

He does claim that some of that "earlier material" originated as eyewitness accounts. Of course it would be have been nice if he had identified some of those eyewitnesses, but his failure to do so does not by itself create a high probability that there were none.

From "Other New Testament Writings":

Most of this entire section is irrelevant. The epistles of disputed authenticity are not being offered by anybody, save a few inerrantists, as evidence of Jesus' historicity.

Nobody is claiming otherwise, but it is scarcely unlikely that Paul had access to reliable information about Jesus. Some of the men he claims to have known were supposed to have been some of Jesus' disciples.

There are indeed problems with the assumption that Paul provides evidence of Jesus' historicity, but Walker does not address a single one of those problems. The only problem he can see is that Paul only gives us hearsay, and that is not, in itself, a significant problem for historicity.

Neither does any other document from that time. We have no autograph copies of any work of any ancient historian. With exceptions too few to matter, every extant document that tells us anything about the ancient world was produced no earlier than sometime during the Medieval era.

Skipping a few sections, we come to:

Right. Christians are gullible, therefore nothing Christians believe, or have ever believed, is credible.

Walker goes on to comment on the Shroud of Turin, the James ossuary, and the letters of Pontius Pilate. OK, they're all fakes, and Christians who still insist otherwise aren't doing their cause any favor. But that has zero relevance to whether the gospels should be afforded some credibility as containing some core of factual information.

Walker has a chance to redeem himself in the next section, "What About Writings During the Life of Jesus?" but he blows it.

OK, the gospels say he was very famous. But, he obviously was not. Well, that does not make his existence doubtful. This is an argument against inerrancy, not against historicity. It is conceded by everyone except inerrantists that the gospel authors didn't always get their facts straight. That doesn't mean they never got anything right.

And, nobody but the gospel authors seem to have noticed. This is another good argument against inerrancy, but nothing more.

Yes, but Walker does not even hint at why it is extraordinary. Earl Doherty addresses it, and walker mentions Doherty in another section, but not in this context. He is simply missing the point. In a debate on Jesus' historicity, inerrancy is just a straw man.

Whether the silence of contemporary historians is inexplicable depends on how famous Jesus really was. If he was not famous enough to be noticed, then he was not as famous as the gospel authors say he was, but that has no implications about the probability of his having existed.

Skipping a few more sections . . . .

I'm hardly an expert on ancient history, but I have done much research on the origins of Christianity. I recall no references to first-century Jews prophesying about a messiah. What I recall are many references to first-century Jews who believed that their scriptures, written many centuries before their time, contained prophecies about a messiah.

If that had happened in this case, then a real messiah would have come. A fulfilled prophecy is one that actually comes true. The only point of claiming self-fulfillment is to note that the prophecy itself caused the prophesied event to happen, and therefore the prophet did not need foreknowledge in order to foretell the event.

That Christians did not invent the idea of a messiah does not imply that they must have invented the man to whom they applied it.

None of that has a thing to do with the likelihood of Jesus' historical existence.

If I were Doherty, I would be wishing that Walker had not even mentioned my name. For one thing, if Doherty is a "biblical scholar" at all, he is an amateur biblical scholar. He says on his Web site: "I have a degree in ancient history and classical languages (Greek and Latin) . . . . When I came to undertake New Testament studies, it was entirely a private affair."

Walker's summary of Doherty argument is reasonably accurate as far as it goes, but does not go nearly far enough. What we seem to be getting here is little more than a poor excuse for an argument from authority: "Doherty is a biblical scholar, and he agrees with me, so I must be right."

In the next section, Walker more explicitly tries to draft authorities to his side, but now he is engaging in pure quote-mining. It is not unlike creationists quoting Gould in their efforts to prove that the theory of evolution is in deep trouble. Indeed, he commits practically every mistake that evangelical apologists like Josh McDowell routinely make when they attempt to prove that the scholarly community supports their dogma.

By my count, Walker gives us 32 names altogether, quoting some of them more than once. Some are familiar to me, most are not. There is only one, Doherty, whom I know to be a mythicist. There are a couple I know to be historicists. I am not certain about any of the others, but I strongly suspect that practically all are historicists, and if I'm right, then Walker is being disingenuous in using them to imply that lots of experts are on his side.

Especially considering that in many cases, either they are clearly not experts or Walker fails to provide any reason for the reader to think they are experts.

Prime example:

Now, maybe I really ought to know who James Dunn is. And maybe I could easily find out by googling his name. But it's Walker argument, not mine, and it's up to him to explain to me why I should give a fig about James Dunn's opinion about the Sermon on the Mount.

At this point I remind the reader that Walker has made a big deal of how all the evidence for Jesus is just hearsay, and how he has strongly implied that hearsay is worthless as evidence for anything. I then invite the reader to scroll down to where Walker gives us 10 quotations from one Jeffery L. Sheler. I knew nothing at all about Sheler until a few minutes ago, but Walker identifies him as the author of two articles published in the Dec. 10, 1990 issue of U.S. News & World Report. That is not scholarly publication. Of course the venue of an article is not crucially relevant, but I immediately suspected that Sheler is not a scholar but a journalist. And, sure enough, so says Google.

So, what firsthand information about scholarly opinion do we get from Sheler? None. If he is not himself a scholar, anything he says about scholars is hearsay. For me, that is not a problem. I've already said I'm OK with some hearsay evidence. But for Walker, this is the rankest hypocrisy. We could perhaps have cut Walker some slack if we knew something about Sheler's sources, but the quotations don't include that information. In the material Walker gives us, Sheler identifies exactly one authority for one assertion, and that is Martin Luther commenting on the epistle of James. Everything else is attributed to "some scholars," "modern scholars," "many experts," and the like -- if to anyone at all. Here is the entirety of one of Walker's arguments from authority:

Zeichman

And I'd be willing to bet anyone here five dollars that Dunn isn't saying what Walker implies he is. I'm pretty sure he's only talking about the composite nature of the Matthean Sermon, not about the total inauthenticity of its contents. It's not surprising that Walker provides no citation, let alone the name of the book/essay/article/webpage/whatever for this quote.

3DJay

Lol. How do you figure?
site:links.jstor.org "christian mythology"
site:links.jstor.org "Christian myth"
site:links.jstor.org "Christian myths"
site:links.jstor.org "christ myth"
site:links.jstor.org "Jesus myth"
site:links.jstor.org "biblical myth"
site:links.jstor.org "biblical myths"
site:links.jstor.org "biblical mythology"
site:links.jstor.org "new testament mythology"
site:links.jstor.org "new testament myth"
site:links.jstor.org "new testament myths"
site:links.jstor.org "Christian legend"
site:links.jstor.org "Christian legends"
site:links.jstor.org "biblical legend"
site:links.jstor.org "biblical legends"


"christian mythology"
"christian myth"
"christian myths"
"christ myth"
"jesus myth"
"biblical myth"
"biblical myths"
"biblical mythology"
"new testament mythology"
"new testament myth"
"new testament myths"
"christian legend"
"christian legends"
"biblical legend"
"biblical legends"


site:.edu "christian mythology"
site:.edu "christian myth"
site:.edu "christian myths"
site:.edu "christ myth"
site:.edu "jesus myth"
site:.edu "biblical myth"
site:.edu "biblical myths"
site:.edu "biblical mythology"
site:.edu "new testament mythology"
site:.edu "new testament myth"
site:.edu "new testament myths"
site:.edu "christian legend"
site:.edu "christian legends"
site:.edu "biblical legend"
site:.edu "biblical legends"


Chapter IV - Of The Bases Of Christianity ~ Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason
From the Editor's Desk ~ Rev. David Schultenover, S.J.
Christian myth and legend

Pull out your wagging finger, and go lecture all of those people, for their improper use of terminology. I'm tired of your uninformative criticism.

There's no implication that a myth isn't true, if the word is used properly, so I don't know why you call them "fighting words", or any such thing. Common Errors in English: Legend/Myth

Offer up what you believe are the proper definitions, if you want to keep going, on the topic. Enlighten me, and get it over with. :notworthy:
Paul, and Christians, are being persecuted by Jews, after Jesus' death, according to the author. So, Paul's own persecution of Christians, could also have been after Jesus' death. Does Paul state, outright, that he was active, during the time of a living Jesus?

Besides, Acts isn't said to be written by Paul, is it? I thought you claimed Paul was a case of "contemporary Christian testimony", that could be used as "credible evidence that a historical Jesus existed".

Paul met the founders, and... "those men added nothing to my message" ...so, where does Paul give an account of a living Jesus, as told to him by those founders? Could you please, please, provide some passage, you think is evidence?
I'm not fully convinced that "Paul", the character in the story, is the true author. Sure, 7 epistles (out of 13 cannonized, 23 total) seem to be written by an author who claims to be Paul, But what evidence is there that they, too, weren't simply written by someone else, who was claiming to be Paul?

Paul, the character, is apparently active, after Jesus' death.
Someone writes down the oral tradition of their society. It gets handed to you. Do you automatically accept the history, within, as true? If you don't trust the account, on its own (without any corroborating evidence), then you count it as unreliable (need the definition?). If you do trust the account, on its own (without any corroborating evidence), then I'll have to ask what you mean by "historical inquiry", below.
"Wouldn't care" may be a little strong, but the historicity of an individual, is of less value to an anthropologist, than the cultural aspects described in the story.
Seriously? Could you learn more about American culture from watching its entertainment channels, or from watching C-SPAN?
An uncorroborated story. What do you think they are?
"First, you need to show why you even have the categories. You can't just assume that you have different categories." ~ You
"You can't seriously believe that historians consider them all equal?" ~ Me
"I didn't say that." ~ You

Why do I, personally, need to show why I have categories ... don't consider them all equal ... if you agree that historians have categories? Do you disagree with historians, for not treating them all equal?
All the accounts of saints, are different. Which are you refering to? Old ones, like St. Christopher? Or, more modern ones?
I'm talking about Tacitus writing down a supernatural account, as told to him by others. I consider Tacitus' witnesses, of that account, unreliable.

Paul is akin to one of those witnesses, telling supernatural accounts of God, Jesus, as well as himself. I consider Paul, unreliable.

Where'd my "not" go to? You're dropping my words, yet again.

"Paul is like one of those guys attesting to Tacitus, not Tacitus himself."
"Paul is like one of those guys attesting to Tacitus"
"Paul is ..., not (like) Tacitus himself."
I'll have to wait, until you give me the proper definition of "historical inquiry".

Sorry to hear that. It'd be rough to lose your mom, as a kid.
Historical inquiry amounts to reading through a story and claiming a passage is an historical account, without any corroborating evidence supporting such an assertion? Hrrrmmm, you better give me the proper definition of "historical inquiry". I seem to be using a different one, than what you describe.
Sorry, thought we were discussing this here. Here, I'm not going to post every single Pauline passage, and go throught it with you, looking for evidence. Here, I'm not going to post every single Pauline passage, I don't think contains evidence of an historical Jesus. If you think there's evidence, in some passage, then pick one, and post it. Why are you having a problem with that?


Peace