Vorkosigan

All I can say is, I've done both. I always point people to The Jesus Puzzle, for some people it resonates. But I also always point them to Theissen and Merz, and Crossan as well. The point is that if you want to present JM stuff you have to be absolutely clear that it is your personal position and that it is a fringe position in NT studies. Absolute honesty is the only way to go here. Otherwise you'll lose all credibility when your partner finds out that nobody buys your position. One goal I have is merely to create a space where the JM position can be discussed by scholars. At the moment, NT studies is so wildly skewed that you can advocate for a resurrection -- violations of natural law -- and be accounted a scholar, but say Jesus didn't exist and you're on the fringe and in it for the money. No point in bucking that.

jjramsey is convinced on faith that there is a historical Jesus, and there's no way to shake him from that position, though he has never had the slightest methodological support for it. But he's a good example of the kind of faith positions you'll encounter on this issue and the snotty attitude that people take as a defensive tactic. The Historical Jesus is defended with faith-statements, insults and dismissals, not methodology. Ironically, this shows that jj is right. Better stick to what will keep you talking together. You can introduce Jesus Myth at a later time. First, because you don't want to be offputting, and second, it requires some little knowledge of the texts and methods before you can successfully defend a JM position.

If you want to shake certainty, send him one of Robert Price's books or The Jesus Puzzle. But be sure to stress that those are strictly for fun.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

You've got to be kidding me. There isn't any "collection" of sayings. Crossan simply ignores what doesn't fit, asserts independence where there is clear dependence, and reshapes the data to fit his needs. You can even catch him inventing shit if you read carefully. See my review of Crossan

http://www.christianorigins.com/crossan.html

Crossan convinces because his rhetoric is so beautiful, not because he has sound arguments.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

Vork, I'd be interested to read any recent article in a peer-reviewed publication that advocates for a resurrection. Do they ever appear there?

GakuseiDon

Vork, that is so over-the-top that I have to laugh when you start these rants. I always enjoy reading your posts, but seriously, sometimes you sound like the creationists who see agendas wherever evolution is mentioned. You're not doing mythicism any favours by such blanket statements that border on paranoia.

I have to wonder what atheists who accept that there was a historical Jesus think of such statements. I use two comments from Jeffrey Jay Lowder and Peter Kirby, both atheists and contributors to II, in my review of "The God Who Wasn't There". To quote from my article:
______________________

Jeffery Jay Lowder is a cofounder and Past President of Internet Infidels, who writes on historical criticism issues. In this article here, Lowder examines whether the New Testament provides prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. He looks at some criteria of independent confirmation, and concludes (my emphasis):

"There simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the mere existence of a man named Jesus. (Just because Jesus existed does not mean that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, etc.) Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material", we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

Peter Kirby is the list owner of the XTIANITY mailing list, and recently contributed to a published work investigating the Empty Tomb concept from a critical/skeptical perspective. In this article here on Josephus's two references to Christ, Peter states that he is "presently persuaded to regard the shorter reference as authentic" and notes (my emphasis):

"But assuming that at least the shorter reference is authentic, what can we conclude from this? It shows that Josephus accepted the historicity of Jesus. Simply by the standard practice of conducting history, a comment from Josephus about a fact of the first century constitutes prima facie evidence for that fact. It ought to be accepted as history unless there is good reason for disputing the fact."

______________________

Of course, it could be argued that the gospels are all fiction (as you do), or that the references to Christ in Josephus didn't appear in the original (as some do) -- still, neither Lowder nor Kirby are relying on "faith positions" AFAICS.

Don Alhambra

Thanks, Vork.

The whole thing came about because my colleague is a PhD student in neuroscience who also happens to be a youth pastor... the question of evolution came up one day, and he didn't think much of it. We've been discussing these issues for a while on and off, but we're currently making a concerted attempt to have a fun discussion.

He's a really nice guy and doesn't go in for the insults much, it's just nice to have a frank exchange of views with someone who doesn't automatically think I'm going to hell (probably).

Vorkosigan

Offhand I don't know any, in the NT publications (other types of "peer-reviewed" publications may have them -- Christian Research Journal, etc) -- nor did I claim there were -- but there have been books from people like NT Wright and a recent one from Dale Allison {Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition And Its Interpreters} (don't miss Loren Rossen's excellent review there at Amazon) which I understand appears to be come down on the pro-resurrection side, marginally. It is widely argued among Christian scholars that it is an a priori to decide against miracles -- Crossan does a wonderful dance around the topic on p303-4 of The Birth of Christianity.

The point is that you can argue that Jesus was resurrected and be accepted as an NT scholar, but you can't argue that Jesus was a myth and be accepted as an NT scholar. You can argue that people are "biased" or have "presuppositions" about the supernatural, but you can't argue that Jesus is a myth. Think how weird that is. I went to the dentist yesterday, and when he x-rayed my daughter, I didn't think him presumptuous and biased for discounting demons as the cause of her strangely-shaped upper jaw, nor did any of the dental students present mention that possibility, nor did my wife, a Buddhist, think for a second that it might be supernatural in cause. But that option is preserved in NT studies.

NT studies is basically the only scholarly field where everyone agrees to disagree on the supernatural. You don't find that in the study of any other set of myths, nor in any of the scholarly or scientific fields. On its face that looks like balance, but that's arrant nonsense. It is essentially an apologetic for Christianity to argue that critical scholarship is a "presupposition." Practically, of course, it permits mailing lists and other discussion groups to keep the peace.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon

I haven't read the book, but the review suggests that it doesn't do that. From that link:

"Weighing arguments for the empty tomb as legend and history, Allison comes down on the side of history: Jesus' tomb was found empty, and because of this we today have the doctrine of the resurrection."... The upshot is that both Allison and Wright think it took the empty tomb (in conjunction with visions) to cause the disciples to conclude that Jesus was resurrected prematurely.

I've seen scholars argue for an empty tomb, but I've never seen them argue for an actual resurrection. I'd like to see one if there is.

I have to wonder if that's true. If you've seen scholars actually argue for a resurrection based on an analysis of the NT, then I will take your word for it. But I can't conceive how such an argument might present itself, which is why I'd like to see one. I can see how an empty tomb could be argued for, but evidence for a supernatural resurrection simply isn't there.

I have to wonder if that's true as well. AFAICS you can't argue that Jesus is a myth in scholarly journals because the evidence for it simply isn't there. That's why books on the subject are published in a popular format, and articles on the subject aren't published in peer-reviewed journals as a rule.

jjramsey

N. T. Wright certainly has argued for a resurrection in The Resurrection and the Son of God. Dale Allison is far more cautious in Resurrecting Jesus. He believes the evidence is just barely in favor of an empty tomb, but says that the evidence for the resurrection just isn't that solid. He even discusses the issue of grief hallucinations and notes just how real they seem to the people experiencing them.

What I find a lot more telling is that it is fair game to argue against the resurrection, and commonplace to deny it, even though it is central to Christianity. That is a bellwether that indicates that biblical scholarship is at the least tolerant of ideas that are dangerous to religion. Individual scholars may be afraid of certain ideas, but the fears of individuals don't seem to be stopping discussion of those ideas in the field.

mens_sana

And the Iliad is not evidence for the Trojan War, yet Schliemann used it to find Troy and Arthur Evans used the Greek myths as his guide to Crete and Knossos. The Bible cannot be used as evidence for its own divine inspiration, but it can be used to tell us the beliefs of the faithful and, critically read, it can provide us with some history.

mens_sana

His rhetoric (not always a "bad" word) is beautiful, but his arguments are sound. He has some 20 years of solid study prior to his popular rhetoric. As I said: multiply attested sayings from sources independent of each other, mostly from the first hundred years after Jesus' death. And that's the point, although many NT scholars note multiple attestation, no one before Crossan collated them from independent sources. The combination establishes the congruity of the collection. Crossan cites Alfred Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels to a considerable extent while he does this, so if you want to dump Crossan, you should be ready to take on Koester at the same time.