Rick Sumner

Earl was a guest on the board for purposes of his debate with Nomad. He didn't register until years later.

Why? Do you think I should regard Carrier as so authoritative that I'm not entitled to expand on my ideas, or to have my opinions challenged or to challenge those of others until he has spoken.

I'll read his book when it's published. But I don't need to see what he says to continue the debate. I can think he's right or wrong as easily as anyone else.

Perhaps you're ignoring too much of the discussion then? Because he really doesn't pop up all that frequently.

Toto

??

Mine was a short summary. I don't see a significant difference with I guess you can't either. What's wrong with that statement?

Toto

He is, as far as I can see, the only historian who is actually addressing the issue of the historicity of Jesus, something the Jesus Project tried to do.

You are entitled to express your opinions anytime.

There is a long, annoying thread by ercatli where he pops up like the wack-a-mole.

Rick Sumner

Vork's stated aim was to identify elements that cannot be used as historical evidence.

That, in the midst of a discussion on the dangers of labels, you still can't simply call it "scholarship," it's "Christian" scholarship, as though the theology of the author has any relevance to the accuracy of his conclusions.

Rick Sumner

This is more a problem of institutional categorization than actual training. Certainly the Biblical exegete is not without relevant historical training.

By way of analogy, Beck is a Classicist (actually, if we want to take his doctorate as is, he's a Classical Philologist). Would you suggest he is therefore not equipped to discuss the history of Mithraism? To develop the Roman world in which it was born? Would you contend that because his doctorate is not in History?

I'd find that a rather unusual conclusion. He's generally regarded as knowing all there is to know on the subject.

I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm for Carrier. I certainly have no intention of putting the discussion on hold until he has had his say.

Toto

In this case, I was not using the term "Christian" to impugn the accuracy of the scholarship. My comment could indeed be read as indicating that this label is not relevant in this case, since Vork was able to use this scholarship to reach his own conclusions.

I don't think that labels are dangerous. In fact, they can convey useful information, even if they can also be misused.

I think you are reading something into what I write that is not there. I probably need to explain myself better. :huh:

Toto

I disagree there. The Bible exegete is trained in just that.

If you have an example of a Bible exegete who does good history, please provide it.

Rick Sumner

What do you think "just that" is? Does history not fall under exegesis? I can't help but get the impression that you think "exegete" refers to a specific field of study, rather than a specific type of results (or anticipated results).

We'll keep out of the NT, at least for the present.

Niels Peter Lemche, Fredriksen's work on Augustine. Any one of a hundred biographers of Luther.

The question about Beck wasn't rhetorical. You suggest a background specifically in history is demanded here. So let's look and see if this demand is made everywhere, or just specially here.

Toto

The NT is what is at issue here.

ApostateAbe

Yeah, that is sort of an optimistic outlook, that people like us know good evidence when we see it. I don't have the same sort of optimism--I know, or maybe just believe, that intelligent people like me and you can be misled by false theories even when the evidence is strongly against it.

Let me give you an example to illustrate what I am talking about. I am not asking you to accept the New Testament argument; I am only trying to illustrate the psychological principle. It is the evidence from Galatians 1:19, where Paul mentions of meeting James, the Lord's brother, in Jerusalem.

To me, that closes the case that Jesus existed. The Epistle to the Galatians is an authentic letter of Paul, James is listed as one of the four brothers of Jesus in two of the earliest gospels (Mark and Matthew), and James is again mentioned as a brother of Jesus in the writings of Josephus. If Paul thought that James was the brother of Jesus, whom he personally met, then that is conclusive evidence that Jesus existed.

But, to MJ advocates, the case remains open. They claim that "the Lord's brother" could be a metaphorical religious brother, like a religious brotherhood. And they have what they take as solid evidence for their claim: in every other time that Paul writes of a "brother" or "brothers," he is clearly using it in exactly that sense.

Saved! they think. Well, not so fast. The primary rule in determining the meaning of words is the context. "James" was one of the most common names in the time and place. In the synoptic gospels, two of Jesus' twelve-or-so disciples were named James, not including his own brother. Paul seemed to write the phrase "the Lord's brother" after "James" with the intent to specifically identify the man, and the Lord's religious metaphorical brother simply does not do the job. It would leave the reader wondering.

Moreover, if Paul ever needed to use a word for the flesh-and-blood sibling, he would have no choice but to use the same word for brother (ἀδελφός).

But the MJ advocates have their line of evidence to sever the connection to Jesus, and it seems good enough to them, so they stick to it. To them, the evidence of the way Paul uses the word every other time seems to be sufficient to at least instill doubt. How is Abe's reasoning better than theirs? They don't seem to significantly debate the exchange beyond that. They may also claim that gMark and gMatthew were based on Paul's epistles, who misinterpreted "the Lord's brother" as a literal sibling, and they falsely listed "James" as one of the brothers, which spread the myth, which affected Josephus' account. These are a few of many unlikely propositions in dire need of evidence.

When lay people get involved in these sorts of debates, especially about history or Biblical scholarship, one argument can seem as good as another, or a bad argument can seem better than a good one. That is why I respect the secular experts so much, who make a living studying this stuff day-in-and-day-out. They tend to have the experience to know a good argument from a bad one. To them, the context is the primary indicator of the meaning of a word when two or more definitions can apply, and the usage patterns of the author are merely secondary. The rest of us tend to lack a sufficient ability to make a good judgment, even if we do this sort of thing as a hobby. That is how lay people find or create fringe theories in historical scholarship that seem to make so much sense, even if they really don't.