EarlDoherty

The problem is, what are you going to consider "clear and unambiguous evidence"? As opposed to "evidence" (primary, of course) which suggests good support for accepting that people were quite capable of believing in a cosmic Christ who died in the heavens? I'd really like to see you judge balance of probability rather than seek for your apparently unrealistic style of 'laboratory proof.' Nobody claims that for anything in history, and certainly I don't. But I do rely on open-mindedness and a lack of a priori commitment to one side which precludes any willingness to even move experimentally toward a center position.

Anyway, much of the bulk of the new material falls into the areas you have shown the most interest in. (Other areas are the midrash content of the Gospels, the redaction of the later Gospels from Mark, and the non-Christian witness to Jesus. Tacitus, for example, should be a surprise. And, of course, many pages devoted to arguing the existence of Q and the flaws in Goodacr'es contrary case.)

My thanks to Jeffrey for being so on top of the postings here that I got his postal code in double-quick time. He'll be getting a free copy, as promised.

And if I thought for one nanosecond that Roger would really read the book and seriously engage with it (unlike any of his commentary here in regard to the mythicist position,) I'd send him a free copy too. But that's about as far from realistic expectation than just about anything I can imagine.

And may I express the hope that if Jeffrey, Don, and even Roger were to read and comment on the book, that someone else less committed to shooting me down might do so as well to provide some balance.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Solo

Not inside the church, Roger. Read the original post, will you ?

Jiri

Rick Sumner

Obviously the synoptic problem is a little out of your usual bailwick, so there's certainly no shame if you rely on other people's arguments, but I'll ask anyway: Is there anything new in this? Not simply new to you, but new period, or is it going to be the same contrary case I've seen before?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

lpetrich

Toto, do you know where one might find any statement of that consensus? Or at least some reasonable approximation of such a statement.

Such a statement could be a good response to the "Minimal Facts" apologetic of Troy Brooks and others.

They may all agree that there had been one, but beyond that, it hardly supports traditional Xian notions of what Jesus Christ had been and what he had done. Things like walk on water, conjure up bread and fish, turn water into wine, cure disease, raise people from the dead, and himself rise from the dead.

Toto's point is what there does not seem to be much agreement beyond there having been a historical Jesus Christ. Was he a revolutionary? An apocapytic prophet? A Cynic sage?

Why do you think that about Jesus mythers? Do you also think that believers in other religions are desperate to believe that Xianity is false?

Toto

I don't. It's based on what I have read, and the throw away line that I keep reading, which is that the only consensus about the historical Jesus is that he existed (or that he was crucified.)

And most of the people who talk about this consensus are people explaining why they are not going to bother reading about mythicism.

I don't think that this is a real consensus in the sense of a consensus of expert opinion, formed after all the issues are debated and hashed out by qualified experts who interact with each other and challenge each other's assumptions and reasoning until they finally arrive at a well reasoned opinion. It's more like the conventional wisdom about the historical Jesus.

Barefoot Bree

Just to be clear - and I'm skipping ahead; I haven't read this last page yet - my panties aren't in a twist, and haven't been for my last several posts (I admit they did get briefly twisted). I'm after exploring the nuances of your position and others, Rick. Thanks for being patient with me and explaining.

spamandham

Those who claim there is a consensus should have no problem providing you the journal references where it is defined and rigorously supported.

EarlDoherty

There are many of my own ideas and arguments mixed in with others' views on the existence of Q, though I can't swear that they haven't been raised before, but not to my knowledge.

Earl Doherty

Rick Sumner

No problem. I apologize if any offense was taken, I assure you none was intended.

Rick Sumner

I'll be honest. It would take a hell of a case to convince me of Q. IMHO it should have died with Streeter. But FWIW I will be buying your book, though at the moment my $40 is going to X-Mas presents for the kids. All in due course.