storytime

Then lets make it interesting. I enjoy hearing why people believe what they believe. Whether or not one believes in a historical Jesus, the content of the story is a surety in its development within Jewish culture. Jesus was and remained a devout Jew. His ministry purpose did not expand beyond his people Israel. How then did Gentile people come to believe Jesus was sent to them? How did Jesus become Lord and God of Gentiles who were not a people of God? The intricate elements of the story are hardly mentioned or studied if ever among Christians who say they believe in and follow Jesus the Jew. Is their faith in vain, with no hope? How can they be sure that what they believe is not based on lies and distortions? By reasonable admonition from the bible itself, Christians should be able to answer these things. However, they cannot, due to never being encouraged to examine the story in its jewish theme.

ercatli

Hi Toto!

I think with your admissions here, we can close our conversation.

Last generation is such a put down, and totally inaccurate! When you don't like the scholars' conclusions, find some new ones you do like? Its good for Richard Dawkins that we haven't done that to him! : )

New approach or not, your statement that no-one before examined "the issue of whether Jesus was a historcal figure using the best modern historical methods" was not correct. The aim has always been there, even if methods change. If the "new" methods are valid, they'll be adopted, until then, they remain speculation.

Again unfortunately incorrect. My comment was about the third and current quest (read it again to verify that). Earlier quests looked at that question and it is now, unless further facts come to light, regarded as settled, I understand.

I think this is a good and useful question, for it is illustrative. Let's ask the reverse question: Is there something wrong with the christian end of scholarship??

Imagine if I started quoting Lee Strobel and the scholars he interviews. You would probably reply that they are hand-picked and make their comments from their christian assumptions. (At least, that's how I've seen other people respond to Strobel, when others have mentioned him.) And you'd be correct. However useful such scholars may be to those who've already made up their minds, they are of limited use to those who are discussing based on evidence alone. That's why I don't quote them.

But sauce for the goose and all that - if that is true for scholars who start from christian assumptions, it is surely just as true for scholars who start from sceptical assumptions. Consistency demands it, and I'd be interested to hear you defend any other course of action.

Now the Jesus project appears to be in that category. The biggest name there is JD Crossan, who is well respected, but recognised widely as making speculative and sceptical assumptions beyond what his peers can accept. The Jesus Seminar, which he was previously involved in, did some useful work but received similar criticism from the "guild" of scholars.

The only honest and safe place is to follow the consensus. For sure, Crossan and co should try new ideas, and if they are correct, they will be adopted. But until they are accepted by the consensus of scholars, they remain speculation. And my reading suggests the consensus is moving in the opposite direction. For example, take this comment from The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) published (obviously) by Cambridge University and featuring some of the top UK scholars, including J Paget from Cambridge who wrote of: "a growing conviction amongst many scholars that the gospels tell us more about Jesus and his aims than we had previously thought."

In the circumstances, I think further discussion would be fruitless. You seem quite willing to pick and choose among scholars to find those who support your already established viewpoint, rather than let the facts determine your views. I wouldn't be willing to do that, and if I did I would be lambasted for putting faith above evidence and being delusional. So I'll leave you to it, wish you well, and thank you for a courteous discussion.

PS I dunno who Brown is, so obviously I did not get anything from him. That is not the first time in this small discussion that people have assumed things about me that were in fact wrong. I don't mind, but it doesn't suggest an open mind or a valid process of inference.

ercatli

Are you suggesting that all NT historians voted on this matter?

skepticdude

My answer is that the post-resurrection apostles never quote Jesus, the obvious highest authority for settling theological disputes about salvation, because:

1 - the post-resurrection apostlic activity only comes to us from a the biased friend of Paul, the Acts-author, who therefore agrees with Paul's law-free gospel, which contradicts the legalistic salvation Jesus preached. As such, no Paulist biographer or historian would dare quote Jesus.

2 - Epistles not authored by Paul are either biased toward Paul or don't speak to the issues in question. If one maintains that James really authored the book of James, or Peter the Petrines, well, they aren't quoting Jesus either, which now means the original apostles really didn't quote Jesus to ground the teaching. An intriguing mystery, since the resurrected Jesus told them to teach HIS previous teachings. How they could have figured that this meant never quoting him is an absurdity, and cries out that the gospel texts we have today were not in circulation or weren't viewed as scripture in Paul's day.

skepticdude

On the contrary, Jesus words as remembered by the apostles would have been naturally regarded as supremely authoritative by the Gentiles currently in Paul's churches, who were being dissuaded by the Judaizers. The word of Jesus would be more important to the Christians whom the Gentile-controversy was centered on.

Again, if the gospel texts today are accurate, Paul could only help the Judaizers make their case if he had tried to quote Jesus on what people need to do to get saved.

Sure, and that hypothesis would shock the fundamentalist Christian types I intended to attack with my OP. Finding such hypothesis unacceptable, they go back between a rock and hard place trying to explain this screaming silence.

Toto

This is quite disinguenous. Are you implying that once a group of scholars reaches a "consensus" that the matter can never be examined again in the light of new methods?

The new methods are what historians use.

What do you "understand?" The earlier quests did not examine the possibility that Jesus did not exist.

The Christian end of scholarship varies in quality. Strobel is particularly unpersuasive.

But skepticism is supposed to be the hallmark of scholarship. I ask again, what is the problem with skeptical scholars?

All scholars are supposed to start with skepticism, to test all of the evidence. Strobel picks his scholars and gives them soft ball questions to get the answers that he wants, and labels that an investigation. It obviously is not. When apologists try to get skeptics to read Strobel, the skeptics are almost always just put off by the low quality of the argument. That's why you don't start with Strobel.

Crossan is not part of the Jesus Project. The Jesus Project is starting out without any prejudice, and has not reached any conclusion at the present time.

Another quote mined statement, without context and without examining the factual background of the claim.

On the contrary, I want to examine facts, not just accept a supposed expert consensus. I think you are the one who is clinging to just those scholars who support your established viewpoint - why else reject "skeptics?"

But I accept your concession of defeat.

You haven't read Raymond Brown? Which experts have you read??

Toto

An interesting perspective, but most commentators think that Acts was written by a later opponent of Paul (on issues other than legalistic salvation, to be sure.)

skepticdude

A scathing indictment of the apologist argument that oral traditions were assuredly reliable. If they were, the audiences of the apostles would have accepted Jesus saying quoted from memory just as surely as they did the Old Testament (minus Marcion and his followers, of course)

That's sufficiently inaccurate to be misleading.

The people who insisted that Gentiles needed to be circumcised to be saved, obviously weren't non-Christian Jews. They couldn't give a rat's ass about theological controversies within Christianity.

It was Pharisees who became Christians but still held to torah-observation:

A scathing indictment of apologists who assure us that oral traditions of the earliest Christians keep sayings just as accurately as written form. If that is true, the sayings of Jesus would have been authoritative, even if they were only given by memory.

Said the Mormon to the Christian.

Because he disagreed with the historical Jesus, as much evidence shows. You don't seriously accept that Jesus told Paul in Acts 22 to depart Jerusalem quickly, merely because "they will not accept your testimony about Me," do you? If Paul's gospel was the exact same as Jesus's and the other apostles' gospels, he'd have no more reason to flee Jerusalem than the 12 apostles. They encountered much resistence, but Jesus never told them to flee on this account. Paul's friend, who wrote Acts, cooked up the best excuse he could to justify Paul's immediate need to separate from the disciples, so he could cover up the real reason: Paul changed the gospel, and would never have a chance of success preaching a different gospel in the same locale as the orignal players. "Far away to the Gentiles" would help insure that his prospective audience wouldn't question his harmony with the apostles, or if they did, he could present them with Acts, and he knew they wouldn't likely make a costly dangerous first-century trip to Jerusalm merely to verify his claims. You hope you don't have to do business in the same town as your competitors.

What a pointless thing to say, since I could just as easily accuse fundamentalist Christians of not being willing to consider the historical evidence in a fair and factual manner. I think you DID aim that veiled ad hominem at me.

First, "mainstream experts" are not God. They are subject to correction. As such, the fact that they hold position X doesn't guarantee anything.

Second, most published commentators on the earliest non-biblical references to Jesus are Christians. Religious faith will cause a person to be more biased against the opposing viewpoint, than atheism. Atheists don't have a magic book that insists they keep the faith at all times no matter what, but Christians sure do. The bible forbids all apostasy and therefore all excuses for apostasy. As such, no bible believing scholar could be open to the possibility that the secular references to Jesus are all unreliable, because he knows that leaves him with nothing but the bible to show for the historicity of Jesus, and he realizes the gospel authors were more biased to promote Jesus than were Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, etc. That would mean that the objectivity of their case takes a direct hit. Can't have that.

Third, what others believe is of little consequence to the arguments presented to you. If you are presented with an argument that a secular reference to Jesus is unreliable, and you can't answer it, you are dishonest to just run to the mainstream scholarly opinions that agree with you. YOU have to be willing to concede loss of objectivity in the case for Jesus. Being stretched thin already, you aren't likely to do that.

Because the "speculation" is also "argument". refute it if you disagree with it.

aa5874

Let's get this straight.

You have made this claim Just tell us when was this concensus arrived at. Tell us what was used to come to the concensus? Was it a questionaire, a vote, colored balls, what was the method used to come to the concensus?

Are you really sure that your claim is true?

You are not familiar with the way concensus are arrived at?

skepticdude

Which would be pointless, since we all agree that the consensus says Jesus was historical. Unless you wish to argue that consensus of scholars proves true whatever they agree on, there is no benefit more than introducing newbies to the issue, of quoting consensus.

That logic can also get you in lots of trouble. Do you realize that the "consensus" of biblical scholars is that the gospels are anonymous, the Papias tradition confused and unreliable, that 2nd Peter is a forgery, etc, etc?

And all of them are subject to probability assessments based on how strongly or weakly those hypotheses comport with present experience.

You MUST be new, because you talk about honest discussing of facts as if none of us were doing that 'till you showed up.

Your rhetoric served it's purpose, it's now time to start stating what you believe and providing evidence in support.