Toto

Here is why using the term "consensus" is a red flag. Certain Christian apologists who have posted on this board in the past started by saying that there is a historical consensus that Jesus existed, so let's just go on and prove that Jesus was the son of God, and by the way, anyone who disputes that is so looney they deserve to be mocked and their arguments ignored.

But in fact, there is no robust consensus about the historical Jesus. Doherty's mythicism is much closer to the minimal Jesus that most academics accept, than the minimal Jesus is to the Jesus Son of God that Christian fundamentalists prefer. Doherty has engaged with the evidence, while the fundamentalists refuse to.

And it is not clear why knowing Coptic would be any aid in evaluating the evidence. Are there untranslated Coptic documents? Are there disputes over the meaning of Coptic terms? Are any of the claims that Jesus existed based on the Gospel of Thomas or any other Coptic source?

If you delve into the alleged consensus over the existence of Jesus, it comes down to a fairly arbitrary and IMHO indefensible stance that there has to be some historical core that can be recovered from the gospels.

Barefoot Bree

How many people in any field, looking at any question, whether it's history, biology, public welfare, politics, psychology, green building industry, religion, or anything at all in the realm of human discourse, how many people "directly engage the source material"? Vanishingly few. Instead, the most widely informed get their material from the experts, trying to make it a wide variety of expert opinion from across the board, read those expert's presentations of the 'source material', and then make up their own mind.

I'm finding it difficult not to be offended at the implication that anyone who derives their opinion by such means, without "dealing with the source material" directly, is somehow inferior to the experts, especially if their so-derived opinion disagrees with whatever the consensus of said experts - regardless of their own prejudices - can be determined to be. "Run along and play, little one, the adults are talking'.

Roger Pearse

I agree that we do NOT want to go over to a situation where we are all told that we must bow down and obey the modern equivalent of the priesthood, who alone have the Truth, and that the rest of us must just trust them. I'm averse to creating little elites like this. History belongs to all of us.

But ... you may not be aware that the source material on ancient history is mostly available on the web -- and more every year. Likewise, since 99% of all ancient literature is lost, it is actually not so very difficult to actually know all the relevant source material. Really it isn't. So if you want to talk about the cult of the phrygian god Attis, for instance, there are 4 passages only in all ancient literature that talk about him. That's it. Once you know those, you know all that the "experts" have to work with. (There's also inscriptions, but these too are coming online).

In this circumstance, we can take a much more proactive view, as amateurs, towards the sources. If someone says something, we don't ask for "which scholars agree". What we want to see is what piece of primary evidence says so. And, after all, if it's mostly online, why not? Just use the scholars as a guide, you see. (And treat the other amateurs making claims in the same way).

So please don't feel excluded; rather be aware of the possibilities here. If you want links to collections of sources in English, ask.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Who, teaching ancient history at any university in the world, denies the existence of the historical Jesus?

The trouble with repeating nonsense endlessly is that it becomes possible to believe it. Please ... remember that this JM stuff is a group delusion by a handful of people seemingly (from their words) desperate to believe that Christianity is not true. No-one else gives it a thought.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Rick Sumner

History's a little different than harder sciences. Someone interested in biology is unlikely to be able to directly work with a whale, for example. Anyone can read source material.

It's not that you're "inferior" it's that your conclusion is less shaped by the evidence.

Do you know if Doherty's depiction of Middle Platonism is accurate? If he's wrong on that front, where does that leave his theory?

By way of analogy, I am a long, long way from a neurologist. I think Hare is probably right in suggesting a biological basis for psychopathy, and can even repeat the neurological points he raises.

Which means absolutely nothing. My opinion isn't reasoned through. I can read all the Hare and Meloy I want, at the end of the day I pick the one that sounds most plausible to me, because I'm ill-equipped to pick the one most rooted in the evidence.

It's just reality. If you find that offensive, well, I suppose you might be taking it too personally. If you aren't familiar with the evidence Doherty cites you can't evidentially conclude in his favor.

That is a tautology. Take it up with the people who define the words. In which case we'd just use different words to say the same thing.

Rick Sumner

I'm afraid the question here isn't one of "Fundamentalists" vs. "Skeptics," as convenient as that would be for you.

Did you read the post? Because you missed the point of the analogy entirely. The point was that we rely on experts without questioning their data all the time.

Whether it tells you anything about the historical Jesus or not is irrelevant to the analogy. That's what makes it an analogy.

Why there is a consensus doesn't matter for my point here. You're jumping on the same "red flag" you suggest above.

Barefoot Bree

I understand that the source material is easily available, Roger, but why should it be a requirement that I look at it directly before making up my mind on the question?

It seems to me that most of the conversation that goes on even in scholarly circles is about everyone else's research, translations, and theories, and only a small percentage is the direct reporting of one's own research into these source materials (either translated or original). If one is going to draw a line and say that only one who has studied the source materials directly has anything to say worth listening to by others, then that's going to cut out a whole hell of a lot of talk, even in your own rarified circles.

I refuse to be told my opinion is worthless, because I don't read Coptic.

Rick Sumner

You make the same mistake Toto did. It was an analogy. Comparing the necessity of relying on experts in translation to the necessity of relying on them elsewhere.

But that's irrelevant. Nobody said your opinion was "worthless." What I said is that your opinion is less grounded in evidence. What I also said is that subjectivity plays a massive role no matter how far up the chain of academy you go, just that that subjectivity is more obvious when someone is unfamiliar with the source material.

Are you actually reading what is being said before getting defensive?

Toto

I think it is, in fact. If you frame the issue as "Jesus existed or not" you can say that experts agree with you. If you frame the issue as "the gospels are a reliable sorce of history" your consensus would be different.

I read the post and I went back and reread it. I know that people rely on experts all the time without questioning the data. There are times where this is reasonable or necessary. I don't think this is one of those times.

Why doesn't it matter?

Rick Sumner

If you frame the issue as "There is at least some history contained in the gospels," your answer remains the same. And, in either event, you might break it down to "Christian" and "Skeptic." "Fundamentalist" and "Skeptic" is just silly, unless you're aware of a massive fundamentalist contingent to contemporary scholarship I'm not aware of.

It's always reasonable for someone not overly interested in learning the subject to rely on the experts. Invariably.

The point of the "consensus" was that it is justifiable to rely on authority when you aren't familiar with the subject matter. If you are not familiar but do not rely on authority, you are relying on predilection.

See above. Or any of the fifteen posts or so where I've restated it. I broke it down into a nice 3 item list somewhere up there. The why's don't matter to it.