Vorkosigan

OK. We'll ask another way. List five Christian scholars, currently or past active in NT studies, who think Jesus is a myth. Now list five atheist scholars, currently or past active in NT studies, who think Jesus is a myth. Why is the first list empty and the second brimming over?

You're replying to the wrong point. The reality is that among scholars who are atheists there is wide disagreement on the historicity of Jesus. It doesn't follow that in a field vastly dominated by Christians there would be respect for this position.

Yes, but in this case there is good reason to take it as vindication because of all the third party aspects of the issue, whereas in Hovind's case there is none at all, because everything is in Hovind's hands.

Nice try though. It's a good smear, but you can't support it.

Unfortunately the evidence contradicts you -- Jim West over at Bib Studies is still suppressing my last post. LOL. But you can carry out your own test. Erect a false identity and start posting as a mythicist to NT studies lists. Watch what happens.

Like I said, Coward. And a goalpost shifter. You claimed that mythicists are creationists. You're the one with the burden of proof here. If NT scholars have valid methodologies, submit them as evidence. Otherwise, shut up. You haven't a leg to stand on.

If you're going to hand out insults, be prepared to back them up. Or else submit an apology.

Demonstrate that he had apocalyptic beliefs. There's no valid methodology for doing so. That's the most relevant fact.

The detailed reading of the future given by Jesus indicates that the author is writing from a time when persecutions had already begun. That is how it is interpreted by most exegetes, which is one reason why this gospel is placed after 70.

Additionally, that reading also functions as a typology for the upcoming trial scenes, yet another indication that it is literary.

Vorkosigan

Ben C Smith

At times, yes. But is a dual application possible here? How can one promise that the same event will happen once, but during two distinct generations?

The problem is that I can and do agree completely that the discourse was intended for the Marcan audience (why else would Mark include it?). However, within the narrative it also and in the first place was intended for the disciples on Olivet (why else would Mark have Jesus address it specifically to them in private?). Mark intends the reader to locate himself in the general timeframe of events (during persecution, during wars and rumors of wars, or what have you), but that reader also knows that the timeline of events began with the original audience, the disciples, in private audience with Jesus, because Mark has told him so.

My reading is both-and. Yours is either-or; unfortunately, I think all attempts to cut out either one aspect or the other are doomed to fail. Both aspects (the original audience and the readership of the epistle) are heavily inscribed into the narrative. And I think that I too have the spirit of reader-response (apologies to 1 Corinthians 7.40 ).

Ben.

Didymus

Could you explain what's "easy" about making the mythicist case?

It's self-evident that if Jesus didn't exist he couldn't have been God and if people didn't think Jesus was God or a close relative, Christianity could bend over and kiss itself goodbye.

But if it were easy to make the MJ case, non-believers would all be attending the Church of Earl Doherty. In fact, as you point out, non-Christian historians of all stripes have historically accepted the HJ position and nearly all still do. In case you hadn't noticed, the same is true of most skeptics who are not historians, including, apparently, yourself. There are myriad reasons for that, of course, and strong evidence is not one of them, but it takes a VERY persuasive argument to overcome two millenia of indoctrination.

Things might be different if we were trying to persuade someone from Mars that Jesus didn't exist. But in THIS real world, "Jesus didn't exist" is a LOT tougher sell than "Jesus existed but he wasn't God."

By the way, unless you mean to demean those who don't agree with you, it's "mythicists" or perhaps "MJ'ers," but not "mythers." At least that's my take on the matter. Thanks.

Didymus

Amaleq13

What indications of an attempt to "convince" others do you see in the text? I think the readers already believed in a crucifixion/resurrection and the author is reinforcing existing beliefs (about Jesus and themselves) by presenting them in a good story.

It doesn't seem at all surprising to me. It is a good story (though the version attributed to Matthew was apparently the most popular) that provides everything Paul's theology lacked and it certainly helped serve the purpose of establishing the appearance of a continuous tradition from Jesus to them. I would think it more surprising if such a story hadn't been accepted and hadn't been eventually offered as factual.

Ben C Smith

Let me set out what I see as more or less direct parallels (so far as reader response is concerned) to Mark 9.1. I refer to Mark 14.18, 30:

Jesus said: Amen, I say to you that one of you will betray me, one who is eating with me.

And Jesus said to him: Amen, I say to you that today, on this night, before a cock crows twice, you yourself will deny me three times.

Compare Mark 9.1:

And Jesus was saying to them: Amen, I say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God having come with power.

Is the reader supposed to learn a lesson from these statements to an audience who lived years before? Of course. Is the reader also supposed to understand that these statements find their primary applications within that audience who lived years before? Of course.

Ben.

Amaleq13

It is my understanding that scholars disagree about what genre best describes the Gospels and some claim none can do so adequately. I tend to think they are unique enough to warrant their own genre.

It is serious as a symbolic representation of the central event of his beliefs (ie the resurrection of Christ) but I doubt that is what you mean. What is it about his clearly fabricated Night of the Living Dead Saints that suggests to you the author takes the empty tomb seriously as "history" in the sense we define it?

The author decided to rewrite the story as a history while informing Theophilus and any other reader what was "most surely believed" by his fellow Christians though he clearly fabricated at least some his additions. He goes on to apparently (based on Paul's version) rewrite the history of the post-resurrection movement to make it appear as though everybody was always on the same page. So it seems a bit bizarre to me for you to be incredulous that I don't take him seriously as some sort of proto-journalist just trying to tell it like it really happened.

Steven Avery

Forty years ago now was the Kennedy assasination and a few years.

Many folks on this forum probably remember the day and events and aftermath reasonably well, and don't consider themselves quite on their last breaths, by the grace of God.

We discussed the age situation recently. My view, and some others, is that elderly living was likely pretty common, with the Simeons and the Annas, with the healthier food and lifestyle. (Walking from Galilee to Jerusalem!). And that many elderly would be sharp and strong, not drugged into a stupor, like many today.

The parts of the 40-year period I find most intersesting are different, such as the Talmud reference to the supernatural/difficult years and of course typology and eschatological considerations. And I see the Gospel writers as simply recording faithfully what Jesus spoke, and the NT written before 70 AD.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Ben C Smith

That might work in the hypothetical for Mark, but Luke is clearly tying his own writing in to existing genre conventions.

It is too easy to assign them to an ad hoc genre and then fill in how we think that genre was supposed to operate. My question was one of methodology: How do you determine how those writings were meant to be taken in their day? By appearances you have removed the most powerful tool, contemporary treatment, from the toolbox. What do you use instead?

Nothing. I was referring to Matthew 28.15, in which Matthew appears to really believe that there was an empty tomb and that the Jews were really wrong to disbelieve it.

...just as all ancient historians worth their salt rewrote their sources....

Ancient historians of all stripes routinely made stuff up, IMHO.

Straw man. You know me better than that.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

That position looks like it ought to be testable in a comparison between modern third-world nations and modern western nations. Does it? (I ask because I am not sure.) Do people in third-world countries who have to walk a lot and eat natural food and lack modern conveniences and medicines enjoy a longer average lifespan than we do in the west?

Ben.

jjramsey

You missed my point, which is that you are wrong in the first place about atheist scholars having such wide disagreement on the historical Jesus. There already is a substantial minority of nontheists in Biblical studies. If what you were saying were true, then a substantial part of this minority would be mythicists, roughly comparable in size to the number of Q-skeptics.

All the third party does is provide a monetary incentive for staging the debate. It does not follow that the refusal of this offer means that the editor of the magazine was afraid of the debate. In this case, the editor explicitly indicated that the debate was not worthwhile, money or no money, since the editor thought that the Jesus-mythers couldn't "be convinced by evidence."

The Bib Studies list is a moderated list. Sorry for another creationist/mythicist comparison, but if on a moderated discussion list on evolution, a creationist's posts were blocked by the moderator, said creationist might well complain of having a post suppressed. I'm sorry, but to put it bluntly, nothing you have written here serves to indicate to me that West was suppressing something of value rather than blocking junk. Calling me a coward doesn't help, either. It actually looks immature.

Try this as a methodology: Find the simplest explanation that explains all the relevant facts. Aspects of this methodology are looking for convergence of evidence and trying to keep speculation to a minimum, trying to stick to readings of the text that the audiences of the time would find the most natural, keeping explanations consistent with how people are likely to behave, and shunning Procrustian beds.

Not all NT scholars follow this consistently, unfortunately, and some seem to delight in bold speculation. E.P. Sanders, though, from the bits and pieces I've read so far, aims for parsimony.