Steven Carr

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com/2009/10/17/390/

'That answer will dissuade (has dissuaded) no one from trying, just as the “collaboration” made possible from the Jesus Seminar turned into a cloud of witnesses to a range of historical characters named Jesus who probably (and I do not mean this in the historical sense) never existed.'

His view seems to be that nobody can find any evidence that Jesus never existed.

Toto

This seems to be the same article as the one in Bible and Interpretation, but the title there is "Threnody: Rethinking the Thinking behind The Jesus Project." (Threnody: "song or hymn of mourning composed or performed as a memorial to a dead person.")

I think his main point is in the last paragrah:

aa5874

It is not possible to find evidence for non-existence. All things considered to have not existed naturally has no evidence of existence.

Once Jesus of the NT was presented as an implausible entity then one would not expect to find any evidence of existence and that is the situation right now, there is no evidence of existence.

Non-historicity of Jesus can therefore be reasonably maintained for eternity or until evidence of existence surfaces.

I find some statements by Hoffman problematic, for example...


This can hardly be true of the Gospels. They are precisely what NO-ONE expected to be written of Jesus if he was only human.

The Gospels appear to be fundamentally "far outside the limits of story telling" since witnesses are named and some authors themselves claimed to be participants of the supernatural events.

Where can we find sources of antiquity or Hellenistic story-tellers and writers who have claimed to have personally witnessed the resurrection of a human being after being dead for three days?

The conversion of Justin Martyr as found in "Dialogue with Trypho" or the conversion of Caecilius in "Octavius" by Municius Felix is far more accteptable and expected than the outrageous MAGICAL conversion of Saul/Paul where bright lights and voices from heaven were the main persuasive elements.

Justin Martyr and Caecilius became converts without a single mention of a miracle, vision, bright lights or voices.

The NT is not typical of rudimental historiography , the authors were witnesses and participants of the very implausible and fictitious supernatural events.

The writers called Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Municius Felix did not write that they were witnesses and partcipants of the implausible but Paul was a witness and a participant in fiction.

Paul saw Jesus in a resurrected state and Jesus, from heaven, used to reveal things to him.

The information in the NT is certainly NOT what one would expect at all if Jesus only was human.

Doug Shaver

He does seem to to think that. And I agree, but with a modification. I suspect that nobody is ever going to find any more evidence against Jesus' existence than we already have.

But his main point seems to be that projects such as the Jesus Seminar and Jesus Project are a waste of time if they can't reach a consensus. I can't agree with that at all.

aa5874

I find many statements by Hoffman to be inaccurate or, at the very least, confusing and contradictory. He seems to have acknowledged, quite inadvertently, and without any supporting evidence whatsoever that the Gospels are history.

This is Hoffman.
.... Once Hoffman admits, and I don't know how, that the Gospels are historical memoirs then he has actually implied that Jesus of the NT was a figure of history, yet he has somehow managed to write that he does not trust the Church writer called Tertullian with respect to Marcion's Jesus.

Why does he trust unknown writers about Jesus of the NT?

The truth is that we know that the NT is filled with implausible mythical tales and no history can be verified with respect to Jesus and his disciples.

We really don't know that the NT contains memoirs of a real individual. That is the fundamental problem, that is the reason for the debate.

That is exactly why there are MJers.

Solo

I think you are missing Hoffman's point. He says groups like JS and JP are useless because they are dominated by private agendas on issues which are by their nature 'unsuited to collaborative effort'. Whether Jesus existed or what he said or did not say cannot be decided by a commitee, not matter how learned.

Jiri

Zaphod

Does he really mean this this?

Surely the Argument from Silence is strong evidence that Jesus never existed.

aa5874

SILENCE is the most basic fundamental criteria of the argument for non-existence.

Minimalist

I wonder if he denies the "reality" of Zeus, Quetzalcoatl or Marduk?

Or is it only xtian mythology which MUST have a "real" historical person at its core?