Vivisector

I'm far from having a bill-paying job as a biblical scholar, but my reaction is that it's not a strong arguement. The basis for Peter's crucifixion at Rome is extremely slim, if memory serves. Additionally, the "continuous succession" was a tool that was very often used to support the orthodox position. *Their* doctrine was traceable to the Big Guy himself, handed directly to Peter, the best known of his disciples (Paul obviously wouldnt' work in this regard), from Peter to Linus, from Linus to Anacletus, etc. So the very best one can do, it seems, is to arrive at a point that is one step removed from Jesus himself.

Personally, I think one of the best pieces of evidence for HJ is Paul's reference to James in Galatians, but that's been done on here before, and I'm not trying to hijack the thread.

Rick Sumner

This is somewhat disingenuous. Even discounting all Christian scholars, there is still a sizable majority in favor of historicity. Unless, of course, you'd suggest that Paula Fredriksen, Geza Vermes or Neil Asher Silberman (for three easy examples) have much interest in the Nicene Creed.

Not saying it's right, just saying it's how it is.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Vivisector

I'm not sure I understand you; would you mind fleshing it out just a little? And would you consider Borg, Crossan, Fredriksen, Ehrman and Koester (just to name a few on my top shelf) among these scholars, or would you consider them non-mainstream?

Thanks in advance,

V.

diana

Probably about the same, if not a few more people voting "myth." Those who are inclined to accept the bible as historical evidence accept it as such for all the characters therein. Many atheist/agnostics vote that there was probably a rabbi upon whom the tales were based because (1) they don't see how the stories/followers could have built so quickly upon nothing, and (2) they're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Josephus.

Doubt it.

When I doubt the historicity of Jesus, I automatically doubt the historicity of any of the other characters for whom we have no first-hand evidence, particularly if they are reported as either fulfilling some important mythological motif or performing some impossibility.

If you were to select an arbitrary Hebrew from that time, call him "Daniel," and claim he existed, I would accuse you of making him up. While there were doubtless hundreds to thousands of extant "Daniels" at the time, unless you have specific (archaelogical or corroborated written) evidence of the existence of your Daniel, I have no reason to believe that specific one is anything more than a figment of your imagination.

They aren't the person we're constantly threatened with.

d

diana

He said "vast majority." (You said "sizeable majority." Both can't be true. I'd be interested in how each of you get your numbers.)

The implication of his remark is that the conclusions of those who swear the oath cannot be taken as unbiased. The opinions of the remainder, who are uninfluenced by any religious need to prove their beliefs true, would be of utmost interest.

"Mainstream" means nothing more than "most scholars believe X," without regards to why they believe X. Saying someone should go with "mainstream" scholarship is only an appeal to argumentum ad populum, and I give it all the attention it deserves, as such.

d

Vivisector

Interesting - I'd have guessed that the "myth" proportion would be lower simply because JTB perhaps isn't viewed as a "threat" (using your term, because it's a good one) as Jesus and consequently hasn't received the same degree of scrutiny.

I doubt it, too. I think the same criteria and methods would also lead us to conclude, for example, that very few of Alexander the Great's generals existed. If this is the case, even in situations involving people who didn't fulfill motifs and perform miracles, then I have to doubt whether the criteria and/or method are appropriate to the task of myth detection. It would certainly be nice if we had analysis tools that would enable us to separate the person from the supernatural deeds and that were precise enough to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, when it comes to questions of historical existence.

Well said, and I agree. Still, I think we are open to justifiable criticism if we're unable to demonstrate that the approach we use to address HJ works equally well when applied to other individuals.

Cheers,

V.

Vorkosigan

I can think of several other scholars too who are not Christians. But the term 'scholars' takes in more than just a couple of dozen top names; it encompasses hundreds of indiviuals at all different levels of scholarly output and influence. Whether that's vast or sizeable is subjective, I am happy to go with sizeable.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

All mainstream and top. See my post to Rick.

Diogenes the Cynic

Borg and Crossan are both still Christians, aren't they?

Jehanne

He says so on NPR:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1805536

I have not listened to his latest appearance, though:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4185799