Ecrasez L'infame

One of the reasons that I do not accept Creationism is that the overwhelming majority of professional biologists - if not all of them - tell me that the evidence indicates it is wrong. Nevertheless, I DO accept the possibility that there may not have been a historical Jesus, even though here the overwhelming majority of professional biblical scholars - if not all of them - tell me that the evidence indicates there was such a person. In one case I reject a theory because it is fringe, in the other I allow a theory is possible despite it being fringe. This is clearly double-standards, but is it justified?

The problem is inspired by a conversation I had recently. A friend of mine, an accountant, told me he doubted whether evolution was true. I knew he knew little about the subject, so my response was to tell him to get a doctorate in it - about six years full-time work from scratch - and then to see what he thinks. Of course, this is overkill; my friend is intelligent, and needed only to read half a dozen popular and easily available books by professional biologists - he would soon have changed his mind. But it wasn't simply that he was ignorant that made me react so strongly; rather I felt that, as a complete amateur in a scientific field, he isn't even entitled to hold an opinion. Professional biologists spend their lives thinking about these matters - obviously any paltry objection or argument he could come up after five minutes wool-gathering would have been considered and "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rate scholars". In short: if just about every biologist in the world accepts evolution theory as true, my friend had no right to disagree.

Now, suppose my friend had answered that I should be able to convince him, to present the arguments and the facts and to persuade him. It so happens that I know a little about evolution, so I could have tried; but, as I say, my friend is smart, and starts seeing holes in the arguments I make that I'd never thought of, and before I know it he has me on the run. What follows? Do I conclude that I was wrong, he was right, and evolution is untrue? Of course not - what follows is that I decide I don't know the arguments and facts as well as I should; but I have no doubt that one of the aforementioned professional biologists would be able to show both of us where we were wrong, and easily persuade us that evolution is a true theory. In other words, for non-specialists, we can try to follow the arguments and weigh the evidence for ourselves; but because these matters are complex and we have limited time and knowledge, there comes a point where we simply have to trust the experts - we simply have to accept the argument from authority.

Now, I used the above phrase "again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rate scholars" deliberately, of course; it's the usual response by professional biblical scholars to the suggestion that there may not have been a historical Jesus (cited in Grant, I believe, but I can't remember who he got it from). So, my challenge to Mythicists (with whom, as I say, I have sympathy) is: replace all occasions of the word "biologist" in he above story with "biblical scholar", and "evolution" with "HJ". What's the difference? How can I unhesitantly accept the argument from authority in one case, and ignore it in the other?

Thanks

Robert

Chris Weimer

We just discussed this not too long ago in another thread. It's something that we've been trying to point out to MJers, but alas, their special pleading for biblical studies to be an exception drowns out any common reason. According to them, any amateur ought to be able to assess the situation with little or no training, in it's entirety.

Once again, yet another sees through their fallacy.

aa5874

Now, are you an atheist because all theologians claim there are Gods, do we shut down this forum because billions of persons believe in Gods?

If you are into the numbers game, then you should be a Roman Catholic if you live in South America, a Hindu for India and Islam for Saudi Arabia.

In order for me to accept the findings of anyone, the primary criteria is the method used to come that finding. The person, group or body must have a track record of using methods that can be shown to be reliable, that have been tested, through observation, experimentation and falsifiable.

I , in general, reject findings that are primarily faith-based, where belief in some supernatural entity is the core of the finding. It is for this reason that the findings of some biblical scholars may be biased due to their overiding belief in the supernatural and some, although they may not publicly admit, expect this supernatural entity to compensate them in heaven.

Now, if most biblical scholars are followers of the Christ, most biblical scholars, it follows, would claim historicity, today. But, perhaps, one day, everybody will realise that as early as the 2nd century, Jesus the Christ was considered to be mythical, and perhaps the majority. Let us not forget Marcion, Valentinus, Balisides and others whose works may have been burnt or lives destroyed in order to promote the heresy of the historicity of Jesus the Christ.

Anyone who contradicts the Bible tend to be, initially or even worse, eventually, in the minority. Read Galileo's letter to understand the dilemma, especially the first paragraph.

www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/galileo-tuscany.html

Jedi Mind Trick

I reject creationism and ID because they are manifestly NOT science and they are clearly motivated by the religious biases of their promoters.

I have no concrete opinion as to the historicity of Jesus, however. I've heard good arguments on both sides. I tend to believe that there was someone behind it all but I'm not sure about it. The HJ vs MJ controversy is not nearly as cut and dried as the evolution vs creationism controversy, IMO.

Jack the Bodiless

There is one important difference: even though I haven't personally seen more than a tiny fraction of the evidence that exists for evolution, I can at least read what the experts say about that evidence. And, if what they say is true, that evidence is compelling.

Whereas, for the HJ, there just doesn't seem to be much evidence, even according to the testimony of those experts who believe in it. There is a desperate shortage of first-hand, first-century material: and nobody with any credibility is saying otherwise. This, at least, justifies an "agnostic" stance on the HJ issue: a stance which isn't warranted for evolution.

Spanky

I don't think it is at all analogous in the least bit. I mean, first of all, what to you think embodies the MJ "movement," Escrasez L'infame? Doherty? Some other people, scholars, non-scholars?
I consider myself a person who does not believe that Jesus existed. Does that make me part of a movement? A part of the MJ'ers?
From what I've seen I don't take Doherty to seriously. Nor do I care to expend the energy trying to find out if he is on to something or not.
But, I will say, from what I have seen I do not see ample proof that this man existed and frankly Jesus belongs in the MYTH category.
Would it be safe to say that most "scholars" who study the bible and other related things are believers? If so, why should I trust them.
Unlike what Chris W. said, I think it is ok to listen to what everyone has to say about these things, whether they are a "scholar" or not. Scholars in Biblical Studies are not the same nor even cloes to Biologists and what they study. When it comes to studying Jesus we can really only go so far. And the more we seek, the less we can find the man who supposedly was here: Jesus.




www.deveryharpermusic.com

figuer

I find this statement very strange. Why wouldn't he have a right to disagree?

You could say that he was being senseless and foolish, but a person has a "right" to be both.

One shouldn't accept the truth of things because of the number of "experts" claiming their veracity. One should only accept things as true after one has carefully analyzed the evidence and reached a personal conclusion.

I believe in evolution, but I don't believe in the current standard explanation for its mechanism, despite of the many "experts" that support it. I might be completely wrong, but it is my right to err.

Clivedurdle

I noted on another thread that Bultmann was alleged to have been agnostic about the existence of Jesus, and I got the impression had come down on an HJ side out of habit.

Would someone kindly point me to a refutation of this?

Gregg

As an MJer, I have thought long and hard about this question in the past, without any prompting from anyone else, and, as I explained on another thread, I do not find the situations analogous.

The majority of Biblical scholars saying there was "certainly" or even "probably" a historical Jesus is simply not the same as the vast majority of biologists saying that evolution is a certainty. Some basic research and common sense should tell anyone that there is far less evidence for Jesus' historical existence than there is for evolution. An awareness of the many pitfalls of historical research should tell you that what the "majority" of Biblical scholars and historians claim probably happened must be taken with a grain of salt. Studying history is not like studying biology. Unlike people and their writings, fossils and organisms are what they are. They don't lie, fudge, exaggerate, use symbolic language, have dozens of shades of meaning, change themselves (except over long periods of time, and on a species rather than an individual level). They don't have agendas, they aren't involved in power struggles.

In addition, I see no reason to be confident that Biblical scholars and historians as a group are as interested in discovering "the real truth" as biologists are. Large numbers of them have confessional interests. Large numbers of them work for seminaries, and others work in the religious studies departments of universities that depend on alumni largess, which might be withdrawn if too many controversial studies and papers are found to be emanating from those departments. When I read commentaries in various Bibles it's amazing what many of these so-called "scholars" get away with claiming. Doherty gave a good example once, in which a scholar claimed that the line "your descendants shall be as numerous the stars and the grains of sand" meant the Hebrews somehow knew there were many more stars in the universe than are visible to the naked eye.

Someone else pointed out that the theory that Jesus began as a purely mythical figure is a legitimate area of inquiry, well within the boundaries of Biblical and historical scholarship, whereas ID is not even science at all.

I have seen scholars on this forum dismissing Malachi's evidence that "Mark" is constructed out of Old Testament passages as something akin to finding parallels between Lincoln and Kennedy. Even when he identifies four parallels in the same passage, each of which appear in the same order in Mark as they appear in the OT! Even when it's demonstrated that the entire crucifixion scene, including dialogue, can be recreated from OT passages. I mean, come on--at a certain point you do have to start taking "coincidences" like this seriously, especially when we have plenty of evidence for mystics at that time, like Paul, using Scripture in all kinds of creative ways.

But people like Malachi and I are "cranks" on the order of moon landing conspiracy theorists, IDers, and inventors of perpetual motion machines because we're not professional scholars and we disagree with the scholarly consensus, as if there is the same overwhelming evidence for Jesus' historical existence as there is for the moon landing and for evolution, and against perpetual motion physics.

Malachi151

If we start with these basic categories:

What do you consider option 3? Is 3 MJ or HJ?

I think that most people today would consider 3 to be an HJ view. As long as there is any shred of a historical person at all, its "HJ".

Even if the guy who inspired this figure has not a single property described by Paul, was never crucified, and did nothing in the Gospels, but his name was Jesus as he had some teachings about the son of man and a few wisdom sayings, is he still "the Historical Jesus"?

If the Gospels tell us not one single thing about a "the real Jesus", then did "Jesus" exist?

I would say that 1 and 2 are defiantly proved false by the data.

Those are two versions of HJ that cannot be true.

Option 3 is possible in varying degrees from a historical Jesus being slightly reflected in the writings about Jesus Christ, and perhaps him even having been crucified by Pilate, to a historical Jesus that we know not one single thing about other than his name and that he somehow inspired a cult.

Option 3 really is a mix of MJ and HJ, being predominately MJ, but with a tiny HJ fragment.

Option 4 is what I think is most reasonable and fits the data the best, but this is obviously a purely MJ view.

Mainstream scholarship does not address all of the facts. What explanation do mainstream scholars offer for pieces of information that contradict an earthly historical Jesus, such as several of the statements in the letters of Paul?

They typically just ignore those statements or worm around them, or offer some tortured interpretation.

There are so many things in the letters of Paul that simply make no sense at all for someone to say if Jesus had existed and been a historical person some 10-20 years prior to Paul's writings.

There are so many obvious flaws in the historicist claims, such as the claim that the brother of Jesus was James the Just, some early Christian leader, which all of the other 1st century writings speak against.

The theory of evolution provides a cohesive explanation for literally thousands of different observable facts. It is a framework that explains data in a way that no other framework can explain.

There is no such historical Jesus framework.

There is no unified view of historical Jesus. The majority of the details of the views of Jesus held by a majority of people who believe in a historical Jesus can be proven false.

For example, even the Jesus Seminar, arguably a minimalist historical view of Jesus, holds that the cleansing of the Temple by Jesus was a historical event, that the "real Jesus" did, and they conclude this because its not supernatural and it is mentioned in all the canonical Gospels.

Yet, I have shown here that this event comes from a literary allusion in Mark to Hosea 9. If we can see that this scene is part of a literary allusion in Mark, from which the others directly or indirectly copied, is there any reason to put faith in this event as historically true? No.

Why are there no historical details prior to the Gospel of Mark?

Why is there an explosion of historical details after Mark?

Why is it that none of the 2nd century writers who were defending the existence of Jesus appeals to any information other than the Gospels or OT scriptures, other than in a few cases where we can see that their appeals were flawed, such as Origen's mixing up of Josephus and Hegsippus (sp?), or appeals to Phlegon's commentary on a blackout of the sun?

The Gospels were always the main defense of the existence of Jesus from the very start.

We can look at events that were defended by the apologists in the 2nd and 3rd century as historical and see that these events are both contradicted by the historical record and they have a scriptural basis. Blatant examples are the blackout of the sun and the earthquakes and the massacre of the innocents.

These are events that have been defended as historical since the 2nd century, yet today we can say with certainty that they are not.

Look at how that affects the reliability of 2nd and 3rd century testimony, tradition, and beliefs.

We know that the 2nd and 3rd century defenders of a flesh and blood Jesus were also defenders of resurrection of the flesh, and the bulk of their combat against docietic heresies was rooted in defending that theological position, i.e. "Jesus had to have existed in flesh and blood because if he was not a real person, when we have no hope of resurrection, thus we must maintain that he was a real person, in order to support the doctrine of resurrection."

There was theological motivation to uphold a given view of Jesus as a real person, and this theological basis has never gone away.

The big issue really is that when you get done with all of the MJ arguments, all you have to do is ask for the HJ defense of HJ, and ask for believers in an HJ to tell you who HJ was and how we know what he know about him.

When you do this you will a different answer from every single scholar, aside from the fundamentalist literalists who will simply recite the Gospels back to you verbatim.

Biblical studies is not an objective field. Biological studies is.

The comparison of the OP is not valid.