mountainman

Did Jesus Exist? The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship

yalla

An excellent and authoritive article by Verenna.

I've been a bit suss about his work in the past but this article is not only first rate but close to the best that has ben written lately. Certainly better than Ehrman's effort.

tanya

Yalla, I do not share your enthusiasm for Verenna's review of Ehrman's work.

"...usually poorly researched..." is just as perverted, prejudiced, and parochial as anything Ehrman has written.

I don't share Acharya S' notions about pygmies, and I tend to ignore most of her focus on the astrotheological influence on christianity theme, nevertheless, she has scored at least one solid point, from my perspective, with her well researched (in my opinion) evidence of the adoption of many "pagan", i.e. non Jewish, themes assimilated by nascent christianity.

Yes, I can understand why that might rile up the jewish community, which, while condemning christianity as an abomination, nevertheless insists that christianity is primarily jewish in inspiration. (It is not. It is a Greek fairy tale, in the tradition of Homer and the fables of Hercules.) The notion that many of christianity's themes are derived from very ancient traditions in Persia, India, or Egypt, not Jerusalem, is annoying to the jews, who view themselves, as god's chosen people. I observe this tendency right here on the forum.

In my opinion, Acharya S' review of Ehrman's trash was superior to Verenna's.

What is needed, of course, is one of David's, or spin's, or Pete's estimable charts, with the half dozen odd reviews now available, in rows, and with four or five columns, to represent parameters of particular utility in assessing Dr. Ehrman's tome....

mountainman

We must learn to set aside and temporarily corale the usual fucking chest beating rhetoric that issues forth from the scholars and their cheer groups in the spotlight on the world's stage of Historical Jesus Scholarship against Acharya S's contribution to the field. If we do not separate this egoic dog's breakfast from the supposed historical claims, then the historical claims will never be examined.

The merit of Verenna's contributions is I agree, both negative and positive towards the clarification of his OP: Did Jesus Exist? The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship (Verenna). You point out the negative needless summary dismissal of Acharya from the "Boys Club" and I can see it as clear as day. We have seen enough of this on these discussion boards. For some reason they want to engage rhetoric against perceived less-than-themselves and have chosen Acharya to demean. They are all wearing their Wally hats. Let's just leave this aspect in the corner.

.

The positive merit of the Verenna contributions are to be evaluated separately. I see the greatest merit in this presentation because it clearly engages the fundamental issue that, with respect to Historical Jesus studies, the historical existence of Jesus can only ever be hypothetical and provisional.


The Trouble with Certainty

Despite what many people think there is no certainty in the field of ancient history. Sources can and have been forged and corrupted. Ancient history remains hypothetical reconstructions that are always provisional and awaiting further evidence. If the hypothesis cannot be falsified, then the hypothesis cannot be considered. The HJ is an hypothesis, nothing more. The MJ is an hypothesis, nothing more. Neither of these hypotheses have been peer reviewed.

The church and its supporters would like things to be certain, or almost certain, that their long-held faith is not misplaced. Many of them do not appear to understand that field of ancient historical scholarship does not provide such certainty when applied to Historical Jesus studies.


When people put down the ancient historical textbook, and seek refuge in the Bible, we are not doing ancient history, but apologetics. In the Bible certain people find a great certainty. Their expectations cannot be exported into ancient history. Lack of certainty is problematic, but must be learned to live with because that is the nature of the terrain and environment in history.





It may well be. Got a link please?

tanya

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/con...cal-jesus.html

Thanks for a well written reply, Pete. Most of what you have written, was simply lovely to encounter. Here is about the only sentence, with which I take exception:

Why do I disagree with this thought?

If you will substitute ONE word in this sentence, you will understand my reluctance to accept your position here:

Heracles, in lieu of Jesus.


Is the existence of a son of Zeus hypothetical, or provisional?

NO ???

Of course not.

Then, why should Iesous' existence be any more or less hypothetical than that of Heracles? Is Heracles existence provisional? These are two Greek myth characters in works of fiction. Does the fact that Philo of Alexandria, and Josephus, both reference Heracles, make his existence more plausible, in your view?

Keep up the good work, I remain one of your biggest admirers.

mountainman

Thanks - I will have a read through it.
I have time for Acharya's ideas.

yw





I use the term provisional to imply that new evidence may in theory turn up by which the previous ideas and hypothese might be completely overturned. It is the nature of science and of history. We cannot be certain of the conclusions, and the conclusions can only be provisional GIVEN today's assessment of the evidence. Tomorrow old evidence may be reassessed or new evidence introduced.


We may find evidence that indicates that Heracles or Jesus were historical identities. On the contrary we may find other evidence that strongly supports the antithetical argument - that they were not.

This uncertainty thing is a bit zen. We must learn to live in historical studies with uncertainty and the selection of the arguments of best explanation out of this background uncertainty. This same uncertainty does not fit with the popular notions of the most certainly existing historical jesus.

Having said all this, my bet is still with the explanation that jesus did not exist, but crawled out of the Constantine codex in the early 4th century in order to fuel the Arian controversy.


Thanks FWIW.

Dave31

This thread addresses Rook Hawkins/Tom's smear campaign against Acharya S:

Rook Watch (Rook Hawkins/Thomas Verenna) Smears Acharya