Zeichman

Dozens? How many of them are worthy of response? GDon's absolutely was, and I wish the dialogue between Doherty and him had continued, as it was pretty informative. I wish Carrier had taken Doherty to task more, but it was still a useful discussion. Generally, they're short things written up by amateurs less experienced than an undergraduate theology minor, and summing less than a few pages long in content. Am I missing these articles, because I probably found less than six ones worth reading when I was googling around working on mine.

Also, I'm certain Sanders has received more reviews than Doherty ever will.

Malachi151

I don't think that the MJ/HJ vs creationism/evolution debate, or the "cold fusion" debate, have anything in common with each other, other than consensus vs. non-consensus.

Yes of course there is an HJ consensus, however it is not a justified consensus. There has been an HJ consensus for 1,600 years. So what?

First of all, there is very little true "HJ scholarship". There are many Biblical scholars who believe that Jesus existed, but very few of these scholars engage in critical investigation of that postulate.

Biblical scholars who believe that Jesus existed includes a vast range of people, most of whom have completely nonsensical views of the Bible and Jesus. MOST PEOPLE, including scholars, who believe that Jesus really existed, also take many other aspects of Christianity on faith, and hold viewes with can in no way be justified. This constitutes 90 to 98% of the "Bible scholars" who assert that Jesus existed.

The percentage of Bible scholars who are actually critical, and whose views on this issue actually matter, is extremely small. When you get down to your Burton Macks, Bart Erhmans yeah, you have a handful of critical scholars whose voices I would say actually matter.

But when you line things up, you have let's say 1,000,000 "scholars" on the side of HJ and let's say 10 guys on the side of MJ, with a few people in the middle.

The problem here is that 98% of that 1 million is worthless. Those people's opinions aren't worth shit. The fact that the Pope affirms that Jesus existed is absolutely meaningless.

There is a difference, however is someone's views on HJ/MJ vs. their scholarship in specific matters.

This is just like naturalists prior to Darwin and the theory of evolution.

Darwin studied natural history and biology at a seminary. They taught him that all organisms show pattern and design, and therefore were designed and created separately by God. They were wrong on that point. Nevertheless, he also learned the classification systems, anatomy, names of organisms, details about their behaviors, their ranges, how to tell the sex of different types of organisms, the basics of how reproduction works, etc., which is to say that in terms of specific details, you don't have to be right about the big picture in order to be right and very knowledgeable about the details.

Is the Pope, or any high level Catholic scholar, more knowledgeable about the Bible than me or Doherty or G.A. Wells, or Arther Drews, or even Robert M. Price and Bart Ehrman? Yes, they are leagues ahead of me, and probably know more than any of these other guys too.

For that matter, there are people at the local Evangelical churches that know the Bible far better than I do. I can probably go down to any Evangelical church and find someone who can quote all kinds of passages, who may also know how to read Hebrew and or Greek, etc.

There are Catholic scholars who have dedicated 50+ years to studying the Bible in its original languages, who can tell you the differences between the Vulgate and Textus Receptus , etc., etc.

But guess what, when you ask these guys questions like "Did John the Baptist really baptize Jesus, and how do we know that?" They say "Yes, we know because the Bible says so," and they don't even have to say or believe that it is true because the Bible is the world of God, they may fully acknowledge that that explanation is not good enough, but they view the Bible as a viable historical document, without any real critical examination of that position.

The overwhelming majority of Bible scholars today are like naturalists before evolution. Sure they conducted a verity of useful studies, cataloged useful information, and were correct about a variety of specific issues, but they failed to grasp the big picture, and, indeed, as I said before, for hundreds of years before Darwin philosophers, like Hume, who had no relevant study or experience in the field of biology of natural history, were proposing evolutionary models and ideas about natural selection. Those same philosophers were lambasted by the orthodoxy and their books were typically banned.

Today, the house of biology and evolution is generally in order, but the house of Biblical studies is not.

I've seen too many clear specific examples in Biblical studies of the consensus clearly being wrong on specific issues, using poor methods and reasoning to support assertions, etc.

Here are a few examples:

1) Extra-Biblical support for the existence of Jesus. The consensus seems to be that we have several items that support the existence of Jesus, though there are a minority of scholars who admit that we really only have 1 or 2 at best. Most Bible scholars, from what I have seen, still trot out Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, and Seutonius, as well as perhaps a few others, in addition to Josephus, as "proof that Jesus existed".

In reality, only the Josephus passages are possible contenders for this claim. None of the other passages are even potentially useful in establishing this figure's existence, yet, most supports of HJ still tout them as "evidence".

2) When discussing the Josephus "Jesus, brother of James" passage, every single supporter of this passage that I have seen as touted Origen's passage realted to this as "evidence that this passage existed early on, before it could have reasonably been interpolated", yet in fact, a close look at what he wrote turns everything on it's head, and shows that Origen was probably in fact the source of the confusion and the one that caused this passage to come into existence when he misquoted Hegesippus, which is quite clear.

Again, the "scholarly consensus" fails to impress me one bit.

3) When discussing the TF the defenders of the TF are all over the place, and desperately grasping at straws. Their arguments are irrational and inconclusive. All of the main defenders make proposals that have no evidentiary support whatsoever. They propose various "versions" of the passage that Josephus "could have" written, though there is nothing to support any of these assertions. The ones who propose that the TF was written by Josephus basically as we have it today always fail, as far as I have seen, to make the next logical conclusion based on that assertion, which is that if Josephus did write what we see today, then his source was certainly the Christian story itself, and so all we have is Josephus reporting on the Christian claims. We already know that people really and truly believed that Jesus existed by 95 CE, so this is nothing new nor would it provide proof of anything, other than Josephus uncritically jotting down Christian hearsay.

4) I've seen very poor arguments against various interpolations in the letters of Paul or about what these passages are, for example 1 Corinthians 15:3-11, the resurrection visions of Paul. To me this has clear examples of interpolations, as Robert M. Price suggests, especially the use of "the Twelve" in this passage, since this is not used any other Pauline writings. "The Twelve" appears to be a clear example of a post-Gospel addition to the text, but most scholars I have seen address this passage claim that this passage is an example of an early tradition, that comes from directly after the death of Jesus, etc.

This is total nonsense, and you don't even have to believe the MJ position to acknowledge that "the Twelve" is probably a Gospel invention, and that there really was no "Twelve" in the first place. These so-called scholars can't seem to get the Gospels out of their head. They all treat the Gospels like facts, and view what the Gospels say as a legitimate record of PRE-PAULINE Christianity, when in fact it is clearly the opposite, and it is impossible to argue otherwise. They were written AFTER, the writings of Paul, not before, and it again shows their biases and prejudices.

5) Claiming specific events as historical. I've already given some examples, but to restate them, the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. The scholarly consensus is that "this really happened". Garbage. An objective look at the information makes this highly unlikely even if Jesus did exist. Clearly again, we have traditional biases coming into the equation. We have the author of Mark, who doesn't even appear to have ever been in the region of Galilee or Judea, using a figure in an allegorical role, using direct passage from the OT that refer to Elijah to describe this figure, his role, and the events. On top of that we have no extra-Gospel mention of this. There is every reason in the world to view the baptism of Jesus as a Markian invention, given the obvious significance of this event to the story.

But you see, the scholars are all backwards, to them, the significance of this event IS WHAT MAKES IT HISTORY. This is what I have no respect for the scholarly position. Their approach, even some of the better ones, is essentially backwards. They are still buying the propaganda. Yes, the baptism of Jesus is a central element to the story, which is all the more reason to view it as unlikely.

The temple scene, again, which I have already gone over. The objection have been raised, that basically I haven't fully laid out this parallel in Greek using the oldest manuscripts, showing various levels of redactions, etc., etc., essentially a bunch of crap to muddy the waters. For all I know someone has already written about this parallel in depth, I haven't even looked, but I wouldn't doubt it.

And what do these parallels mean. When the author of Mark uses the OT as his source material, and when he is making literary allusions to the OT, how does that affect our interpretation of those events?

I go at least as far as Robert M. Price on this, who says that this indicates that the writer did not have any eyewitness account to go on for those scenes.

But look at some other clear specific examples. The casting of lots for clothing in the crucifixion scene.

Every single Gospel includes this element. Are you going to tell me that this "really happened"?

Here is my view of it. This was an invention on the part of "Mark" when he used Psalm 22 for the basis of the passion narrative that HE invented.

All the other writers, coping from him either directly or indirectly, included this element as well. But look at what this tells us about the reliability of the Gospels as a whole, about consistency among the Gospels, about the basis for the story elements.

I think that people can reasonably agree that the casting of lots for the clothing is an invented detail, but look at how consistently that invented detail was included in the Gospels. The fact that a detail is included in all the Gospels is nowhere near enough to conclude that "it really happened", even if its not supernatural.

The whole approach of the JS and most scholars on this issue is total crap. If you take a JS type of approach it's totally invalid. Treating the miracles differently from the non miracles is totally nonsense.

Take the walking on water scene. A critical scholar might say that the walking on water scene was an invention, and therefore throw it out as real history. But the walking on water scene is in every Gospel!

They will then take something that is non-miraculous, such as the baptism, or the temple scene, or even a certain saying, and then based on the fact that it is in every Gospel, conclude that IT REALLY HAPPENED!

WTF? Why the two different standards? How can we throw out miracles that are in every Gospel just because they are miracles, yet include non-miracles just because they are mentioned in every Gospel? Obviously, the fact that something in mentioned in every Gospel IS NOT ENOUGH TO CONCLUDE THAT IT IS HISTORY.

Yet, most Biblical scholars will disagree, though the faults of their ways can easily be shown.

I could go on and on and on, but I think it's obvious that "Biblical scholarship" is a farce and does not deserve the same respect that is given to the real sciences.

And again, what is the standard for identifying WHICH Biblical scholars matter in the first place?

The Pope is a Biblical scholar. Does the fact that he refutes MJ discredit MJ?

Dr. James Tabor is a Biblical scholar. He thinks that Jesus had a secret child, and that he found his family tomb, and has written books about the "Jesus Dynasty" and presented the genealogies of the Gospels as legitimate on national television. Does the the fact that he refutes MJ discredit MJ?

Dr. Ben Witherington is a Biblical scholar and Christian apologist. Does the fact that he refutes MJ discredit MJ?

J.P. Holding refutes MJ. Does the fact that he refutes MJ discredit MJ?

My grandma refutes MJ. Does the fact that she refutes MJ discredit MJ?

What scholars are you talking about?

Malachi151

Okay, what you have said is a very good reason to suspect that this may not have really happened. I have no problem with that.

However, Antiquity and Mark are not on equal footing. The Gospel of Mark is not the same type of writing as Antiquity of the Jews, and the use of parallels is not the same, neither with scope nor intention.

The author of Mark intentionally used parallels to craft a story and give a subtextual meaning to it. The most obvious example is John the Baptist and Elijah.

When we see that John the Baptist is described as wearing a belt and a garment of hair, the text of which exactly matches a description of Elijah, we have overwhelmingly good reason to conclude that the basis for this claim is the passage in Kings, not real world observation.

Without me knowing more about Josephus and his use of materials, I can't say that we can make the same conclusions about his works. Maybe we can, which is fine with me.

squiz

Which brings me back to the question that I have already asked of how well respected as a scholar Robert Price is. He is a fellow of the Jesus Seminar, but has come out as being (tentatively) agnostic as to the existence of Jesus. Why do you say that these Catholic scholars are more knowledgeable than he is? What are his qualifications?

squiz

Perhaps this is not the best of examples. Josephus also tells of being a disciple to a similar character. I can't remember off hand if he dressed like Elijah, but he certainly shared other attributes. It could well be that such characters were really copying Elijah and not just the writer.

GakuseiDon

I think that the analogy is true, but superficial. Simply positing bias to a group of scholars is as about as superficial as you can get. That is the similarity between creationists and some MJers. Can anyone deny this?

ANY analogy breaks at a certain point. Analogies have explanatory powers but they are proof of nothing.

Fair enough to point out where the analogy breaks.

AND that is where the similarities with creationism exist.

You know, your description above certainly fits SOME mythicists. Have you ever argued with Acharya S? I have. It was an interesting experience. As one atheist wrote, atheists who push such absurd positions don't even have the excuse that "god told them it was true".

I'm sure creationists beg to differ. Or at least, the ID ones do. Does this sound familiar? (my emphasis):
http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork...._Feb_12_07.pdf

Unfortunately, many Institutions of Science and government employ unyielding preconceptions that favor certain explanations of origins over others and thereby take sides in this important controversy. The establishment of an “orthodox” explanation of origins impairs good Science, restricts freedom, disturbs peace and offends laws requiring government to be religiously Neutral...

Origins Science is also controversial because scientific descriptions of origins seek to explain the cause of a series of singular unobserved events that occurred in the remote past that are often not reproducible under laboratory conditions or susceptible to direct observation. Explanations often amount to subjective historical narratives constructed from circumstantial evidence and analysis using inference, imagination, unproved assumptions, and information that is not Intersubjectively Accessible...

All Institutions should seek to avoid job, academic, funding, publication or other forms of discrimination against scientists due to their professional or personal viewpoints regarding origins. In particular, scientific journals not openly devoted to a particular origins perspective should not adopt explicit or implicit policies embracing a materialistic or Teleological bias that frustrates genuine scientific competition between the two perspectives.

"Unyielding preconceptions", claims of bias, threats to livelihood -- no wonder evolutionists are worried about bucking the "status quo"! If only they looked at the evidence which is plainly before their eyes! :devil1: Of course, we can see through the propaganda here. Smearing the beliefs of a group of scholars without evidence to support it should be criticized regardless of one's personal beliefs. Reread the quotes I gave earlier from mythicists, and you won't see much difference, at least in terms of attitudes towards prevailing scholarship.

And sorry to tell you that the Saints won today.

Ben C Smith

That is interesting news. What I just did with Theudas I can do with countless accounts from antiquity. By the time I finish, history would be reduced to Alexander of Macedon, Julius Caesar, and Augustus sitting around playing Greco-Roman drinking games.

How do you know?

You admitted that Josephus was not your strong suit, and you seem not to have known about the possible parallels between Theudas and the OT, so how can you possibly know that Mark trumps Josephus in scope of parallelism?

As for intention, what special access do you have to the mind of Mark except through the text he has left us? And what special access would you have to the mind of Josephus except through his texts? So, if you are weak on Josephus, as you admit, how would you know whether or not Mark trumps Josephus in depth of intention?

I agree. Maybe Josephus did too. Maybe Plutarch, Lucian, and Polybius all did the same. How would you know at this stage?

2 Kings 1.8 says that Elijah was a hairy or thick man with a leather belt. Mark 1.6 says that John wore camel hair with a leather belt. The part that exactly matches, as you put it, is the leather belt. The hairy part is not exact, and is reflected also in Zechariah 13.4, which mentions prophets (in general) dressing in hairy leather.

John P. Meier writes in footnote 21 on page 389 of his JBL article John the Baptist in Matthew's Gospel (JBL 99/3 1980):

That the clothing of camel's hair signifies a prophet is generally accepted; but Becker, among others, rejects any direct reference to Elijah....

I myself think that an allusion to Elijah is probable in Mark. However, that means nothing (yet) either for or against historicity.

I mean, are you saying that it is not possible that John the baptist himself wanted to look like one of the prophets of old? Why is John by the Jordan? Is that because Mark invented this detail based on the conquest of Canaan? Or is that because John the baptist himself saw symbolic significance in the Jordan?

How do you distinguish between the participants in the account performing symbolic actions and the author of the account writing a purely symbolic story?

Mark will later have Jesus ride into Jerusalem on a donkey. Shades of Zechariah 9.9, right? But how can you tell whether this is Mark inventing the story wholesale based on the OT or Jesus himself using the OT as a model? (I ask this genuinely; I myself am undecided.)

Ben.

Malachi151

Here is another example of great scholarship for you. That anyone would not conclude that this is a reference to Elijah is beyond belief, since later in the story "Jesus" explicitly equated John the Baptist with Elijah, and since the very first quote in the story is from Malachi, which goes on to talk about the coming of Elijah as a messenger.

With scholars like this, it's no wonder that interpretation of the Gospels is all over the map.

Ben C Smith

Okay, so you agree with me (and also add venom).

Now, how does this affect historicity?

Ben.

jgibson000

Have you read Becker to see what his argument actually is, let alone whether it's any good?

JG