Analyst

The problem is that there is no safe, valid evidence for anything relating to any 'Jesus' of that time. We're all poking about in dinosaur crap trying to figure out what crapped it, but with no skeleton to guide us.

ercatli

I'm really sorry about your sticky fingers, but the historians seem to be having a cleaner time of it. : ) Check out my quotes on page 1 of this thread, which show that scholars believe we have good evidence, by the standards of that time, for knowing about Jesus. Or these quotes, which show one reason why the historians are reasonably sanguine:

Paula Fredriksen, Boston University: "As chronological gaps in the ancient record go (centuries, for example, yawn betwee the lifetime of Alexander the Great and the document speaking about him) forty to seventy years is not bad at all."

Helmut Koester: "Classical authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek... The only surviving manuscripts of classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors."

John A.T. Robinson: "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it [the NT] by far the best attested text of any ancient writing in the world."

Better get with the strength, clean up your hands, and believe the experts. : )

Toto

Was Jesus legalistically Jewish or anti-Jewish? The views on that seem to have changed. That seems to be a significant issue.

Why should I care? I have nothing invested in the existence or non-existence of Jesus.

I think that your idea of scholars who start off with assumptions that determine their outcome is applicable to Christian apologists more than skeptics. Skeptics have no dogma to uphold, and their worldview would not collapse if Jesus existed or didn't exist - unlike Christians. I wonder who exactly you are thinking of when you speak so lowly of skeptics?

And who exactly is your idea of a neutral scholar besides Michael Grant?

Apologists like to pretend that there is a guild of neutral historians who support their view of things. Many of the scholars in this field have definite biases one way or another, but most often are Christian, and there are a number of conservative evangelicals who work in the field that I would consider anything but neutral.

And I do not ignore the established work of neutral scholars. I have read a lot of it, and I know that most of them think that Jesus existed, but are honest enough to admit that the quality of the evidence is not very good.

You can check out the work of Vernon Robbins. He has invented a new approach to NT studies that he calls "socio-rhetorical interpretation." Socio-rhetorical means, as far as I can tell, that he analyses the texts in their historical context as texts, without worrying about any historical validity.

Or Dwight MacDonald Mimesis and Intertextuality (or via: amazon.co.uk), and other works.

These are scholars that I have read. I am aware of other books that tend to view the gospels as literary creations and trace their composition to the LXX or Greco-Roman themes. I have not read of any recent books that try to extract history from the gospels other than Bauckham's attempt to find eyewitnesses in the gospels (there are threads on that book here.) I would not call Bauckham a neutral scholar in any case.

Who have you read who is currently working in this field and publishing history, other than Christian apologists?

Toto

Please stop throwing in quotes without a full source - what book or article claims this? It is hard to believe that Paula Fredricksen could be so out of touch. There were contemporaneous writings about Alexander by people who knew him, which are lost, but were the sources for works that are in existence. There were no comtemporaneous accounts of Jesus.

This is all about textual criticism, not deriving history from these documents.

Best attested writing does not translate into accurate history.

Strength? Your case is pathetically weak. You don't even know how to evaluate expertise.

dog-on

I simply asked you to present them, if you wanted specifics, from me.

Please, show me the evidence you think any of these authors present that does not, simply, assume that Mark intended to write history. As a matter of fact, please show me where any of these authors show that Mark has, indeed, intended to write history.

Additionally, please point out, exactly who these authors point to as being the "Historical Jesus" and how they do this without assuming that he actually existed, in the first place.

Once again, show me how any of these "experts" arrive at the conclusion of a Historical Jesus, without assuming that he existed, in the first place.

rlogan

Department of Religion. Duh.

Professor in divinity school. Duh.

Bishop. Duh.

Not one historian among them.


You give the same creedence to all of the professors of Mormonism and of Islam and every other superstition on earth?

Eh?

Edited to add: I guess you are just too much of a weenie to discuss evidence yourself.

This board generally likes to discuss evidence, not appeals to pseudo-authority

ph2ter

Elevation of some contemporary person to the level of God without using any of the ideas expressed by that person looks highly suspicious to me.
Paul took the right to speak about Jesus without knowing anything about him. He does not show knowledge of any of his deeds, preachings, ideas or anything from his life except crucifixion. Even the Last Supper wording Paul claimed to receive directly from God. His only source for Jesus are his visions and OT. Paul is not interested in what Jesus said about himself and his mission, but only what OT speaks about him. Paul's Jesus is a mere object, not a subject.
I think that the best explanation for that anomaly is a nonhistorical Jesus, but I am really curious to see some reasonable explanation from the HJ camp.

corey

rlogan...

Hello, I don't take any thing stated here, yet, in a negative light.

I am an x-born again, so I doubt I will be finding any Jesus anytime soon.

I find reading history to be left to each individuals view.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=


ercartl....

history is written by those who have the power to create it.

I have no "wishes" to not know the truth, and I know the "truth" written by man, is usually a lie.

wordy

Toto, I have only read the first 25 posts.

Does you or anybody comment on Jeff? He have a been a poster here when IIDB was new? What did he comment on that text by him. when did he say it and has he changed opinion since then. What is his best understanding. How did he arrive at that conclusion?

Richard Dawkins seems to think Jesus existed too?

Yes I know argument from Authority.

but don't we atheists claim that we are so good at doing reasoning and logic and these two are supposed to be well known atheists. Why do they fall for those old myths then to be historical?

Just me curious. I am among the mythicists, I think the myth is made out of many such rebellious figures. Most like Judah the Makabee. Jesus Bar Abbas if he existed.

dog-on

Maybe they just don't want to be immediately dismissed as kooks.