dog-on

Please tell me that this is a joke.

ApostateAbe

It is not a joke, but neither is it an appeal to the authority of every good student of history. I found the full passage typed out, so you can fully understand the meanings of what Van Voorst thinks of the arguments by Wells.

“On what grounds have New Testament scholars and other historians rejected the nonexistence hypothesis? Here we will summarize the main arguments used against Wells's version of this hypothesis, since his is both contemporary and similar to the others.



* “First, Wells misinterprets Paul's relative silence about some details in the life of Jesus: the exact time of his life, the exact places of his ministry, that Pontius Pilate condemned him, and so forth. As every good student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist. Arguments from silence about ancient times, here about the supposed lack of biblical or extrabiblical references to Jesus, are especially perilous. Moreover, we should not expect to find exact historical references in early Christian literature, which was not written for primarily historical purposes. Almost all readers of Paul assume on good evidence that Paul regards Jesus as a historical figure, not a mythical or mystical one.
* Second, Wells argues that Christians invented the figure of Jesus when they wrote gospels outside Palestine around 100. Not only is this dating far too late for Mark (which was probably written around the year 70), Matthew, and Luke (both of which probably date to the 80s), it cannot explain why the Gospel references to details about Palestine are so plentiful and mostly accurate.
* Third, Wells claims that the development of the Gospel traditions and historical difficulties within them show that Jesus did not exist. However, development does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence. (Some of Wells’ readers may get the impression that if there were no inconsistencies in the Gospels, he would seize on that as evidence of their falsehood!)
* Fourth, Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it.
* Fifth, Wells and his predecessors have been far too skeptical about the value of non-Christian witnesses to Jesus, especially Tacitus and Josephus. They point to well-known text-critical and source-critical problems in these witnesses and argue that these problems rule out the entire value of these passages, ignoring the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy.
* Sixth, Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Freethought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would sound the death knell of Christianity as we know it, but the theory remains unproven.
* Finally, Wells and his predecessors have failed to advance other, credible hypotheses to account for the birth of Christianity and the fashioning of a historical Christ. The hypotheses they have advanced, based on an idiosyncratic understanding of mythology, have little independent corroborative evidence to commend them to others. The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.”

Steven Carr

'Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.”'

Note to Ken Ham. Dawkins says you are wrong. No evidence is needed to back this up.

You want evidence?

OK,how about this?

Look,Mara bar Serapion says Jesus was the wise king of the Jews, on a level with Socrates or Pythagoras. Of course, Mara never mentions Jesus, but who else could have been a wise king, on a level with Socrates or Pythagoras.

What more evidence is needed?

Mara says the wise king was killed by the Jews. Tacitus says Christ was killed by Pilate. All these sources are superb evidence for a Jesus who was killed by the Jews, or by Pilate. Anyway, there definitely was a Jesus who was killed by somebody. All these works confirm it, even if they never mention any 'Jesus'

Toto

Funny thing, RT France dismisses the extra Biblical evidence for Jesus and says that the historical Jesus must be derived from the gospels.

ApostateAbe

I wouldn't say that the evidence from Mara bar Serapion is evidence for the existence of Jesus (the date of the writing is ambiguous and it is a testimony only to the existence of the Christian myth about Jesus) but there is little doubt that the "wise king," who the Jews killed, was a reference to Jesus. If there was another relevant philosophical Jewish "king" that the Jews killed before the diaspora, then there would be significant doubt.

Steven Carr

So the Jews killed Jesus?

And non-Christians then praised his 'laws', , regarded him as the King of the Jews, and compared him to Socrates and Pythagoras?

youngalexander

From the archaeological evidence, mid 3rd C.

dog-on

Of course, such an argument does not deal with the actual issue of silences in Paul.

If the gospel stories are in any way historical, why does Paul completely ignore the ministry of Jesus when making arguments, that would seem to be be easily answered by simply envoking Jesus' earthly ministry?

Why is the best answer not that Paul was simply unaware of any earthly ministry of Jesus?

What is the "good evidence that Paul regards Jesus as a historical figure, not a mythical or mystical one", upon which "almost all readers of Paul" make an assumption?

Doesn't Paul claim to have received his gospel via revelation and through the scriptures and not from any man, or by any man?

Is the best argument one that assumes that Jesus actually appeared to Paul in an apparition? Really?

Quote:

* Second, Wells argues that Christians invented the figure of Jesus when they wrote gospels outside Palestine around 100. Not only is this dating far too late for Mark (which was probably written around the year 70), Matthew, and Luke (both of which probably date to the 80s), it cannot explain why the Gospel references to details about Palestine are so plentiful and mostly accurate.

Probably?

Is probably not, therefore also possible?

Are we sure that the only explanation for gospel references to details about Palestine being so plentiful and "mostly accurate" are that they must have been written before 100AD? Really?

Quote:

* Third, Wells claims that the development of the Gospel traditions and historical difficulties within them show that Jesus did not exist. However, development does not necessarily mean wholesale invention, and difficulties do not prove nonexistence. (Some of Wells’ readers may get the impression that if there were no inconsistencies in the Gospels, he would seize on that as evidence of their falsehood!)

This does not prove nonexistence, but it really doesn't do much for existence either.

Quote:

* Fourth, Wells cannot explain to the satisfaction of historians why, if Christians invented the historical Jesus around the year 100, no pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it.

How many pagan and Jews questioned the existence of any gods around the year 100?

Quote:

* Fifth, Wells and his predecessors have been far too skeptical about the value of non-Christian witnesses to Jesus, especially Tacitus and Josephus. They point to well-known text-critical and source-critical problems in these witnesses and argue that these problems rule out the entire value of these passages, ignoring the strong consensus that most of these passages are basically trustworthy.

Huh?????

Quote:

* Sixth, Wells and others seem to have advanced the nonhistoricity hypothesis not for objective reasons, but for highly tendentious, anti-religious purposes. It has been a weapon of those who oppose the Christian faith in almost any form, from radical Deists, to Freethought advocates, to radical secular humanists and activist atheists like Madalyn Murray O'Hair. They have correctly assumed that to prove this hypothesis would sound the death knell of Christianity as we know it, but the theory remains unproven.

Ad Hom...

Quote:

* Finally, Wells and his predecessors have failed to advance other, credible hypotheses to account for the birth of Christianity and the fashioning of a historical Christ. The hypotheses they have advanced, based on an idiosyncratic understanding of mythology, have little independent corroborative evidence to commend them to others. The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. Moreover, it has also consistently failed to convince many who for reasons of religious skepticism might have been expected to entertain it, from Voltaire to Bertrand Russell. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.”

Appeals to both authority and incredulity. Where is the proverbial meat...

The elephant in the room is that, despite van Voorst's conclusion, the magically appearing Christ is simply fantastical on it's face. One must discount almost the entire corpus of writings about this phantom in order to come up with a barely plausible story and still be left without actually knowing who the main character actually was.

On the other hand, the mythicist position can easily accept the writings at face value.The mythicist knows exactly who the main character was. No editing required.

dog-on

GakuseiDon

Can you point to any posts in this forum where Layman tried to convert people to Christianity? I don't remember reading one post where he did. Do you have any evidence for this?

I agree. Evidence has to be primary. If there is no evidence, then it is natural to ask about motives.