Toto

Grant had no apparent religious bias, but he was insufficiently critical of his sources. Have you followed those links to read more? Or are you just here to repeat the factoid that most scholars agree that Jesus existed?

Carrier started off assuming, along with everyone else, that there was a historical Jesus. He was persuaded by a review of Earl Doherty's first book that this assumption was not based on evidence.

The book has not been published yet, but I have heard Carrier speak on the subject matter and have read other works by him.

aa5874

But, Justin Martyr implied he was writing about 150 years after the birth of Jesus.

First Apology 46
The writings of Justin Martyr appear to contradict the writing of Irenaeus in almost every way, but it is the conversion of Justin Martyr that seems to corroborate Celsus' lack of knowledge of the Gospels or the Memoirs of the Apostles.

In his search to find God, Justin Martyr did not seem aware of any Gospels, it was only after he conversed with an old man that he continued his search for God. Justin appear to have exhausted all the well-known schools of philosophy.

Justin mentioned that he went to the Stoic, the Platonist, the Peripatetics, the Theoretics and the Pythagorean but did not mention that he even read a single Gospel, the philosophy of Paul or visited a Church with Jesus believers while he conversed with the mysterious old man.

It would appear that Jesus believers were operating in secret just as Celsus had claimed. They were essentially a secret society with no known public places of worship.

The writings of Irenaeus appear not to represent historical facts but yet they were essential for Eusebius' "Church History."

ercatli

Perhaps only one similarity, and that is the important one - they haven't persuaded many of their peers of their case.

spin

We know Grant well, as he is one of the few historians christian apologists can muster on the subject of historians and christianity. He has been repeated often enough, for a historian who was born in 1914 and missed out on a lot of the philosophical debates on historiography over the last thirty years.

Now you make a claim about Toto not understanding historical method. Would you care to give meaningful examples of this evident lack of understanding?


spin

spin

So your criterion is a popularity contest.


spin

ercatli

I think I already answered this. Most historians I've read don't argue for the resurrection on historical grounds. Rather they argue for early belief in the resurrection on historical grounds, and then draw a conclusion about that as a reasonable belief based on the evidence. The only exception (among historians in my group 3) I am aware of is Wright, though of course there may be others.

ercatli

I've already answered this I think. I am here to answer the OP, and to discuss what the mainstream of expert scholars conclude about the historical Jesus. It is a fact that the mainstream has drawn a broad conclusion ("factoid" is unworthy of you!), whatever personal conclusion we each may have.

ercatli

It's a logical fallacy, it's called, I think, poisoning the well, and if that is the best you can do .....

He said: "In the quest for the historical Jesus, the experts often have a commitment to a version of history that supports some version of the Christian faith, or some other political stance. They generally assume that there was a historical Jesus because somebody must have started Christianity, and they assume that they can extract some history from the gospels."

Grant, for one, does not do this. I thought this factual error meant Toto didn't understand, so I thought reading Grant may assist him. (I chose Grant because he was a non-believer and a secular historian, which removes a few obstacles.) When said he had read Grant, I apologised.

ercatli

I'll take that in the spirit it was said, and laugh.

But if you are serious, peer review does not equal popularity contest.:huh:

ercatli

Well, I've written 20 posts in 24 hours, and I think that's just about enough. And I have achieved what I set out to do - to find out how much you guys take notice of the best scholars.

And I find that you do not take much notice. You give various reasons for this:

• All the scholars are christians and hence can't be trusted.
  Of course not all of them are, but that doesn't seem to matter. And then you don't seem to see any inconsistency in your trust of Richard Carrier, who is an atheist! I am willing to judge people by their qualifications and how their peers view them, but you apparently are not.
• The scholars are somehow totally inept, have never looked at the evidence, are out of date, etc.
  Like I've already said - poisoning the well fallacy.
• I have misrepresented the scholars.
  No-one actually documented this.
• In the end we prefer scholars who start from our point of view.
  Understandable, but hardly objective.
• We prefer our own opinions to those pesky scholars.
  Ditto.

In all these claims and accusations, there was a distinct lack of evidence. Scholars at prestigious universities, and with many books and peer-reviewed publications to their name were maligned rather than having to face up to what they say. It all sounds a little like a Young Earth Creationist avoiding facing expert evidence.

So, I am much discouraged by this, but in another way it has been a useful exercise. As Napoleon is reputed to have said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." (I do not regard you guys as enemies, I would rather hope we could be friends, but you get the drift I'm sure.) So I will leave you with it. (I will read any final comments you have, but will only respond briefly, if at all.)

Best wishes. Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to get involved, and thanks for the courtesy with which this discussion has been carried forward.