ApostateAbe

OK, I am curious: what is the minimum that you would count as "irrefutable proof" for the existence of a normal human Jesus? Given that proof or better, do you think aa5874 would change his mind or just shut up? What about mountainman? What about Acharya S and her acolytes?

bacht

It's true that the mythicist school reached a high point a century ago and has since receded in the treatments by contemporary Biblical studies. But there's no law that says researchers can't go over the same ground if they think something was missed or ignored.

Doherty is the writer I know best in this area, and he does spend some energy 'debunking' the anti-mythicist arguments commonly used. He may be wrong, but he seems to argue sincerely without any particular religious or atheist agenda up his sleeve.

Even if every mythicist is wrong they still bring new questions to the subject, and may open new areas of investigation.

ApostateAbe

That sounds agreeable, and I really do think that the scholarship needs to pay more attention to mythicism. I learned my lesson from how creationism went pretty much unchallenged until the age of the Internet, but by then they gained and maintained an enormous amount of political ground, though they didn't make a dent in the actual academia. It should be the duty of the qualified experts to fight the fringe theories that threaten to win over a large portion of the lay public. Structural engineers fought the conspiracy theories about the WTC tower collapses, and they seem to have won.

bacht

Mmm, I think there was already a healthy opposition to Creationism before the internet (eg. the Scopes "Monkey Trial"). It does seem like there has been a more vigourous assertion of fundamentalist theories since the 1980s, but I think this reflects a cultural shift rather than new technology.

People are generally unaware of scholarly opinion unless brought forward by "popularizers". And it has to be said that some subjects are more sensitive than others, like religion (who really cares if scientists re-name an obscure plant?)

Toto

Robert Ingersoll challenged creationists in the 19th century. :huh:

In this case, the historical Jesus theory is a "fringe" type theory that has won over much of the lay public, both Christians and atheists. I hope you will support Richard Carrier's efforts to bring some real historical analysis to the area.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, and that's great, but I am talking about the relevant intellectual authorities. Robert Ingersoll was also a strong supporter of the cookie-cutter Christs.
OK, yes, what can I do to help Richard Carrier?

ApostateAbe

Yeah, you are right. I would love to see mythicism being fought against by the qualified scholars in the same places it is being supported. There was a guy named DrFeelGood who registered here, started a thread, posted about 8 posts, talked as though he was an atheist expert of Biblical studies and a forum veteran of this forum, said a few harsh words about the backwardness of the BC&H, and he left! He really should have stuck around.

Steven Carr

No, his use of it reveals him as a pseudo-historian.

It has no relevance at all, outside Van Voort's fantasy world where he can see references to Jesus in documents he cannot see, even when no Jesus is mentioned in a quote of it that does not even give the wording.

This is the sort of junk scholarship that mythicists have to fight against.

All that we ask for is some basic historical standards ie if a document is said to support the historicity of Jesus, there should at least be a quotation from it in existence, its provenance should be narrowed down to at least to the nearest century, and it should mention Jesus.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, I don't have a way of thinking where relevant evidence must be thrown out if it doesn't meet some arbitrary minimum standard. I will prioritize my evidence, and I may dismiss some evidence if there is better evidence available. But, I certainly don't think that evidence probably reflecting earliest criticism should be summarily thrown out under any circumstances. Even so, because of its doubt, I don't take it too seriously, and certainly Van Voorst does not take it as certain evidence for the historical Jesus. His last paragraph on the evidence, on page 23, makes that explicit:

What can be gained from Thallos? Some fog of uncertainty still surrounds Thallos's statement: its extreme brevity, its third-hand citation, and the identity and date of the author. While this fog prevents us from claiming certainty, a tradition about Jesus' death is probably present.

Van Voorst seems to claim considerably little. Nobody claims it is a smoking gun. If you still think he is claiming too much, then you need to come up with a more probable (or at least sufficiently competitive) explanation for the evidence, NOT insist on some new minimum standard.

aa5874

Once most scholars are practicising Jesus believers and worship Jesus then it is almost certain that most scholars who are Jesus worshipers would reject that Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35, Mark 9.2, and Mark 16.6 are the EVIDENCE of a mythical entity.

Robert Van Voorst is a practising Jesus believer who worship Jesus.

He must say that Jesus did exist or else.

Robert Van Voorst most likely believes that if he DENIES the historicity of Jesus that he would be CAST into Hell and be eternally TORMENTED.

Robert Van Voorst most likely have succumbed to the threats of Jesus found in the NT Canon.