Ben C Smith

This claim, taken as it stands, is absurd. Surely you meant to write this differently (perhaps a different verb for supports?).

Ben.

Toto

Is there any peer reviewed historical research on the existence of Jesus? What did you think that I meant?

Toto

It might just show that you need to tone down or rework a few claims.

What evidence?

Then why are you so adamant about an issue where the historical evidence is so thin? Agnosticism is a valid position.

Exactly how? I have no idea what your motives are. I just think that there are issues that you have evidently not considered.

You may be an expert on Christian apologetics. That doesn't make you an expert on everything.

Ben C Smith

I hoped (and still hope) you meant that no peer reviewed historical research was written for the purpose of directly addressing (and answering in the affirmative) the question: Did Jesus exist?

But that is not what you wrote. You wrote that no peer reviewed historical research supports the existence of Jesus.

Ben.

Toto

I'm not sure what the difference is in those two sentences.

Do you claim that there is peer reviewed historical research that supports the claim of the existence of Jesus? What would it be?

Ben C Smith

You must be working with a different definition of supports than I am familiar with for these contexts.

Every time a monograph or article compares, for example, the picture we find in a (reconstructed) Testimonium with the picture we find in the gospels and then uses that comparison to draw conclusions about the HJ, that monograph or article is supporting the existence of Jesus. You may say that it is doing so inadequately, but that would be adding to what support means, at least to me in this kind of context.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Why, BTW, do the following works fail to qualify as peer reviewed research that supports an HJ?

• R. T. France, The Evidence for Jesus.
• Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament.
• Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus.
• Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History?

Are you simply saying that, IYHO, none of these works supports an HJ successfully?

Ben.

Toto

Perhaps we do have a different idea of what "support" means.

It seems that the essay you describe (do you have an example?) would be assuming the existence of a historical Jesus, not providing evidence that supports the hypothesis that there is a historical Jesus.

None use modern standards of history to evaluate the probability of the existence of a historical Jesus, and I don't see evidence that any were peer reviewed. I read RT France (or via: amazon.co.uk) and reviewed it here. France decides that all of the extra-Biblical evidence for Jesus is problematic, but that the gospels are sufficient evidence. Van Voorst (or via: amazon.co.uk) reports that NT scholars reject the mythicist hypothesis because there are flaws in Wells work.

I have not read Stanton (or via: amazon.co.uk) but he does not appear to be a historian, and the book you reference has only a few pages on the issue of whether Jesus existed.

I don't know what you are looking for. I am looking for a professional modern historian who has looked at the issue of whether Jesus existed. I haven't seen one. That's why I think the Jesus Project is breaking new ground.

Ben C Smith

This is what I mean by support in these contexts (to use a silly example). Scholar A argues that all ancient Romans hated truffles. Scholar B, who is arguing that all ancient Romans lacked style and civil graces, says of scholar A: His arguments support my conclusion.

For an argument to support a theory does not entail that the one making the original argument even knew about the theory in question.

The scholar himself may be assuming the existence of an HJ; but his argument can still support an HJ.

And no, I do not have a specific example, because examples of this sort of thing are so numerous.

In a different debate, and on a webpage I just linked to on another thread, I give an example of this kind of indirect support, which I offer here by way of clarification. J. Kloppenborg uses Matthew 10.24-39 to argue that, for these units, Luke has preserved the original order of Q. He is assuming that Q exists, of course, but his argument supports the very existence of Q when coupled with other units in which it is Matthew that seems to preserve Q better than Luke. One can certainly question whether his argument supports either of these propositions successfully, but it is still supporting both.

IOW, yes, you are saying that they fail to do so successfully.

What are you counting or discounting as peer review?

Pragmatically, peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications.

Okay. Would you say, then, that France is supporting or rejecting an HJ?

When Van Voorst critiques Wells mythicism, is he not supporting an HJ theory?

I was looking for your definition of support.

Since your first post, the one I responded to, you have now added modern and (seem to) have specified that by support you mean specifically (directly) investigating the issue of whether Jesus existed. I thank you for that clarification.

Ben.

spamandham

...and all this happened exactly a convenient 40 years before the fall of the temple?