TrueMyth

Let's take a different (and hopefully more pleasant) approach, since I have doubts as to the value of continued discussion down these lines. I am curious, with no motive to contradict or contend, as to what you perceive the MJ position to be composed of, and consequently how and in what ways does it provide a more satisfying picture of the origins of Christianity. As I stated, this is merely out of curiosity, and any followup on my part will merely be questions for clarification of concepts.

TrueMyth

Most of my understanding of the scholarly consensus comes from Mark Allan Powell in his book Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville, KY, 1998, p. 72). This is a review of the scholarly work done so far, and not one man's opinion of the data. That which you and jakejonesiv have provided me have been of the latter stripe. This, while it cannot be ignored, is of lesser value than a consensus of the group as a whole. Yes, there are biases such as groupthink which are peculiar to a group, but there are also personal biases to consider when evaluating an individual's work. In addition, the effects of groupthink diminish in relation to the proximity of the group members-- it is much harder to disagree with someone to their face than it is to do so impersonally.

Toto

When I search that book on Amazon, p. 72 describes the Jesus Seminar's conclusions. When I seach for the word consensus, I don't see a description of any particular consensus. The preface does not describe a consensus, and the description of the motives for the search for the historical Jesus indicates that most searchers are concerned with their faith in one way or another.

This is not a firm foundation for accepting a consensus of scholars.

TrueMyth

I'm sorry, I misposted. Pg. 72 is where the JS's conclusions are stated (I was copying the reference from an earlier post where I discussed these conclusions; my fault). The entire book is a survey of all the different positions, with consensus being stated at the end and throughout each chapter. Its subtitle, "How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee", displays this. To find it, one might seek words such as "critical consensus," "the majority of historians believe," and "most scholars feel". Consensus does not mean one clear voice. There are obviously dissenting opinions, but on the whole there is agreement both about the question and the answer. There are definite whole sections regarding the search for the HJ which have no consensus. However, some things we can ascertain b/c there is consensus.

I suppose I am somewhat confused, since I am not arguing for the historicity of the Gospel Jesus. I am arguing that current scholarship leads us to believe (with some notable dissentions) that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, that he was an iconoclastic teacher who had many followers in his lifetime, that he was believed to have done miracles and be wise, that he was executed by Pilate, and that he is the ultimate source for the present-day movement of Christianity. I'm not sure why there seems to be such animosity to these bare facts. They are not threatening, after all. One can be a rigorously intellectually honest atheist and still believe every fact just stated is true. Must both God and Jesus not exist in order to be an atheist?

Toto

Why do you feel that there is animosity, or that people feel threatened by a historical Jesus? I read a lot of scorn and animosity coming from you, as if you are trying to bully others into accepting your assertions of fact. Other posters here have calmly and rationally discussed the evidence, but you have charged us all with bad faith and a willful refusal to believe the obvious, based on your reading one book that attempts to describe a scholarly consensus, it appears. Could it be more likely that the possible non-existence of Jesus is threatening to you, and you are projecting your feelings on others?

I think that most atheists probably have agreed with those so-called facts at some point in their thinking, since they are so common. But many on this forum have been influenced by Earl Doherty's work, the Jesus Puzzle, and by discussions on the Jesus Mysteries list, and have found the reconstruction of early Christianity provided there to be more plausible.

But either way - whether Jesus never existed or if he was a minor failed prophet who inadvertently started a new religion based on misperceptions of what he said - makes very little difference to my views.

J-D

You have not responded to my criticism of your stance on this point in a subsequent post (although you have reasserted your stance in a still later post).

J-D

Can we have more information please? What are the differences in form between midrash and 'allegory', and how can it be surely known that 'allegory' did not exist before the late 1st century?Your reasoning is plausible. It is a partly but not wholly speculative attempt to determine which parts of the text are historically reliable. And thus it is evidence against your own assertion that any attempt at historical reconstruction must be purely speculative.Ditto. Although this time I find you less persuasive.Vengeance has usually been far more popular than non-violence, not just in that part of the world but in most parts of the world.

J-D

I agree with that last sentence. It doesn't make a lot of difference. Nevertheless, as at present informed, and for whatever it's worth, I think the latter possibility more probable than the former: and sometimes I seem to attract scorn and animosity as a result from those who take the contrary view.

TrueMyth

Thank you for pointing this out to me. I apologize both to you and to anyone else if any statements I have made have come off as scornful and/or full of animosity. It was certainly not my intention, and I have no such feelings towards anyone (or their ideas) on this forum. Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

I can see, in rereading some of my posts, where that perception could be justified. I am trying to follow Christ's example like any Christian; and like any Christian I fail frequently. The sad irony of it all, of course, is that I was reacting out of frustration to my perception of scorn and animosity from the other side, when all along the Christian thing to do would have been to turn the other cheek, a principle which has been a frequent topic of this thread. I will endeavor to do better in the future.

I wonder sometimes whether I would not be better off not visiting this forum, since it seems to bring out that side in me frequently. However, my honest intention is to test my faith, to see if I can provide reasons for what I believe, and to widen my social and philosophical sphere. Is that so bad? Or am I just so weak as to fall prey to baser urges upon relatively slight provocation? I'm not sure. In any case, a break is probably in order. Since I'll be going on vacation this weekend starting tomorrow, that should afford a suitable opportunity.

gurugeorge

Stick around! Really, all you need to do is take this online thing a bit less seriously. If you've hung around newsgroups and messageboards for a while, you learn to develop a thick skin. You win some, you lose some, and you will just have to get used to the fact that there will be nothing you can ever say that will be perceived as a knock-down argument by anybody

Speaking personally, I've enjoyed your posts because of your sincerity. I recognise that you are an HJ-er to whom "Jesus"'s existence matters; I recognise this because I am an MJ-er to whom it matters too. (I mean this in distinction to, for example, the kinds of HJ-ers and MJ-ers like Toto and J-D, who have both stated that for them the interest is purely intellectual rather than deeply felt and passionate.)

I'd say it does matter a lot, to two types of people: to strong believers and to (especially younger) unbelievers who had to struggle more or less alone against the weight of a believing environment to win their non-believing stance. With both those types, the argument will sometimes get a bit "hot".