Ben C Smith

I was not suggesting that there is such a requirement here. (Had I thought it violated some forum rule I would have pressed the Report button. )

I was wondering what your evaluation of your own wording might be. You answered, and thanks for that.

As one who at one point was pretty much a Wells mythicist, I like to think that I have discovered an historical core, and continue to hold that historical core as a position worthy of development. Cling to seems to me to imply a certain degree of desperation, a certain degree of defending the last lingering shreds of historicity against the oncoming tide of mythicism. And there is none, at least on my own part (coming from a mythicist perspective into the historicist camp). (If by historicist you meant to exclude the likes of me, I think it was too broad a generalization; if by historicist you meant to include the likes of me, I think you were mistaken.)

Ben.

Clivedurdle

But is your discovery of a historical core related to your beliefs?

Solitary Man

Golden, Toto, golden. All your professional and scholarly training in oral history, anthropology of religion, and non-literal transmission of information surely made you the expert on those articles on oral tradition. And all that is the non-form criticism works. If you'd even bother to touch one scholarly book, perhaps Meier would have already elucidated you. Have you read Bultmann? Dibelus? Schmidt? Arguably the best book on the historical Jesus which you've never read cites these three plus many others who lay down the groundwork and put the data together to make the most compelling case...and what do you do? You play on the computer and hand-wave it all away.

That warrants abuse, in my opinion.

Toto

I don't think that the tides of mythicism are about to overwhelm historicism. But it seems like the tides of agnosticism already have, as a practical matter.

But what did you discover and how? Forgive me if I haven't read everything you have written.

Toto

You don't know my training. I asked how you could recover any history from tradition, and you referred me to articles that said that some tradition could survive for a few generations - but nothing that indicated that tradition had to be based on any historical core.

You can't even bring yourself to mention this book, so I don't know if I've never read it or if I can argue with it.

I tried to get this information out of Jeffrey Gibson, and he referred me to Shirley Case. Outdated and unpersuasive.

If this devastatingly compelling case exists somewhere, who has it? Why isn't it critically acclaimed? Why doesn't Richard Carrier know about it?

Amaleq13

On what evidence is your estimate of "a few hundred" based?

Why assume they always assembled in the same place?

What comparable groups of assemblies do you know of that lend support for your speculation about leaving behind archaeological evidence?

Do your own research for a change, Pat. The change will do you good. Start with either wiki or google and work from there. IIRC, the rules are primarily in Leviticus but I will have to check my notes from my own research when I get home.

You asserted that the burden of proof is on anyone who relies on a text to show that the text is reliable.

You asserted that Paul's gentiles were not allowed into the temple and identified Acts as your source.

Do you understand the problem you created for yourself?

Ben C Smith

I once thought (like Wells) that Paul probably thought of Jesus as a figure from the distant, even undefined past. Eventually I came to see that Paul actually thought of Jesus as a recent figure in history.

I wrote a bit about this on an older thread. Bear in mind that my argument there (A) is far more developed than when I originally changed my mind and (B) has been modified a few times since (there is at least one point on that OP that requires some pretty heavy reworking). Also bear in mind that it is not just Paul, but rather a dovetailing of his evidence with that from other sources. Finally, bear in mind that some of the points (such as James the brother of Jesus) are sketched ever so briefly simply so as to supply fodder for the cumulative argument, not so as to make them stand on their own in such an abbreviated form.

(Most of this dovetailing I have not presented very much on this board or elsewhere; the parts that I have at least touched upon include Simon of Cyrene and Mary the mother of James and Joses; parts that I have not really talked about much if at all include Marcion, the Lucan genealogy -- but interpreted in a very different way than you might be used to -- apparently independent chains of tradition, the beloved disciple, the shaken reed of Matthew and Luke, the baptism of Jesus, and the parousia predictions. The whole point of this dovetailing, BTW, is to find contemporary or near contemporary evidence.)

I politely ask that you consider the arguments on that thread, with an open mind, as a general introduction to my thought process on this matter. I also politely ask that you not turn this sketchy response of mine into a debate just yet. I do not have the time right now, am simply answering your question, and am still working on aspects of the case.

Let it never be said that I am unsympathetic to the kind of skepticism that finds fiction, legend, embellishment, and misunderstanding all over the early Christian record. When I read Robert Price (for example) tracing every single dominical saying back to sources (Cynic, for example) other than Jesus, something deep inside me almost wants it to be so; there may be some of Wells left in me yet. But I cannot simply declare it so until I have tested it for myself.

Quite simply, I think that, once all due diligence has been applied in stripping away the layers of legend, there remains a body of material that is not as easy to strip away. Then, once all due diligence has been applied to that body of material to strip away the stuff that could go either way, there remains a body of material (including, most centrally, the crucifixion) that leans quite clearly in the historicist direction.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

AFAICT, no, though as one reared in the family I was reared in there is no way to be absolutely certain there was no lingering influence.

But I had completely abandoned my faith at that time; I was even somewhat disowned. My faith (in an incredibly altered form) did not return until long, long after I had already decided there was an historical core to early Christianity.

Ben.

Solitary Man

I clearly named the person. Meier. Marginal Jew. And it is critically acclaimed. And Richard Carrier wouldn't be worth his weight in bullet holes if he doesn't know about it.

gurugeorge

Just on a general level Ben, I'd say that the problem with your methodology (if I may be so bold, being an academic nonentity ) is that it assumes that you're going to be able to extract historical data from a mythological entity's biography by paring stuff away.

But I don't see how this can be a legitimate move without further evidence of a kind we simply don't have. It seems to me that it can only be a legitimate move if you have other reasons to believe there was a man who fits the bill as the man behind the myth. Then paring away makes sense - you can see, on the one hand, some evidence of a real man, and on the other the mythological story, and you can say "ah yes, so these elements might well be real historical bits about a real man, as opposed to just pseudo-historical bits about a myth."

It's like, ok, we have barmy encomia about the fantasticness and god-like nature of certain Roman emperors - but we also have good independent reasons to believe those emperors existed - there are real people who fit the bill as being real human beings behind those particular god-men.

But the $64,000 question is, do we have anything similar for the case of "Joshua Messiah"? Seems to me not. This doesn't mean there's no point in pursuing the hypothesis that there was a man behind the myth, but it doesn't look promising, given that there's no evidence of a real man apart from the myth.