Toto

I finally listened to this, and it is an offscreen voice reading passages from conservative Biblical scholars who admit that there is little evidence in the historical record for Jesus. There is nothing about "peer review and scientific scrutiny" unless I missed it.

This is standard stuff. It is only a refutation of the arguments of a few apologists who assert that the evidence for Jesus is better than that for <Caesare or Alexander or some other accepted historical figure>. This particular bogus argument has been often refuted, and no one who knows anything takes it seriously at this point, I hope.

This is not going to make a dent in the beliefs of anyone who thinks that there is some sort of minimal evidence for a historical Jesus, or that the historical Jesus hypothesis best fits the available scraps of evidence.

So I am not sure of the intended audience here. Young people who have heard a few apologetic arguments and might realize that they have been duped?

I don't think you will find any atheists or even most Christians claiming that there is more historical evidence for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar.

On the other hand, the evidence for Jesus is somewhat comparable to the evidence for Socrates, although Socrates scores a bit higher in a few categories. But no one gets upset over the question of whether Socrates was a historical versus a literary character.

I am not in a position to watch long videos, and I find this whole argument-by-youtube hard to deal with. But I guess it suits some people.

Newfie

I actually watched the short video. Are the quotes that Acharya S uses accurate? If so, don't they basically speak for themselves?

Dave31

Yes, they are and I believe the citations are included after each quote.

Toto, for the most part the point of your post is well taken.

Here's a video by some Christian apologists (probably part of the JP Holding cult) who make those claims in their video -

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...deoid=36830437

I have seen a FEW atheists who have used this argument to hold up their Historical Jesus view too.

My point here in this thread was simply to share the videos demonstrating that popular Christian biblical authorities who largely represent mainstream scholarship do not agree that there is evidence for Jesus. These are not people on the fringe but, again, are mainstream scholars revealing what is being said in the world of academia, whether secular or Christian.

We know we're never going to get all Christians to admit there's no evidence for Jesus that can withstand peer review and scientific scrutiny but what these Christian scholars offer is as good as it gets coming from Christians.

The large Christian academic bibliography in WWJ is popular and widely read by other scholars. They're all reading each others work. I think Acharya's book demonstrates that these Christian biblical experts inadvertently and reluctantly admit in their peer reviewed books that scientifically, there's nothing there for Jesus.

thedistillers

I don't think Meier was taken out of context, but just for the record, he makes absolutely clear right from the start in his "Marginal Jew" that he thinks the existence of Jesus is certain. (And not because he is (was?) a Catholic.)

thedistillers

That's not what you originally said. The point of your thread was to debunk the claim that "there is more evidence for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar, Socrates, George Washington, Micky Mouse, etc". The problem though, as Toto pointed out, is that very few people agree with that claim in the first place.

Now you're saying popular Christian biblical authorities who largely represent mainstream scholarship do not agree that there is evidence for Jesus.

What? That is not true at all. For example, if I take the list you provided:

* Craig L. Blomberg
* F.F. Bruce
* William Lane Craig
* John Dominic Crossan
* Bart Ehrman
* Norman Geisler
* Gary Habermas
* Josh McDowell
* John P. Meier
* Bruce M. Metzger
* J.P. Moreland
* Ronald H. Nash
* Lee Strobel
* Merrill C. Tenney
* Ben Witherington
* Edwin Yamauchi

To my knowledge, all of them (or most of them) think there is evidence for Jesus.

Toto

Let's not get involved in a pointless debate over the meaning of the word "evidence."

Most Christians think that there is evidence for a historical Jesus. If they are honest, they admit that it is not as impressive as the evidence for major political figures who left buildings and coins and personal diaries, but they still think there is sufficient evidence to believe in a historical Jesus.

Someone else may look at the quality and quantity of the evidence and decide that it is not sufficient, but then you can get into endless debates on what evidence would be expected, how this compares with someone's great great grandfather. . .

God Fearing Atheist

Please look up "quote mining."

Construing the statements made in the video by scholars who accept the historicity of Jesus on purely evidential grounds as "inadvertently and reluctantly admit[ing]" that there is "nothing there for Jesus" is precisely analogous to creationists using the words of an evolution accepting paleontologist about the current lack of fossil transitions between any two taxa as proof that scientists "reluctantly" admit that evolution is problematic.

Very bad form, methinks.

Dave31

Yes, I agree. When I check the citations throughout Acharya's WWJ book, she makes it clear that while they point out that the evidence for Jesus is, for example, "scanty and problematic" they continue on to insist that he must have existed while providing no "evidence"* for these assertions. Which is why they're all still Christians.

These Christian scholars totally rely on FAITH. And if there were "evidence" that could withstand scientific scrutiny and peer review, they'd be in the best position to point it out to us - but they don't because it doesn't exist. It's more of a faith issue rather than an evidence based issue.

If there were real evidence* to support religious claims faith would not be the main requirement.

Fair enough but, it's two or more birds & one stone for me. The Jesus vs. Socrates etc, is simply a bad argument to begin with - I think we all agree. Then, we have top Christian biblical scholars who can't provide "evidence"* for Jesus yet, continue on asserting he existed anyway.

* Note: When I say "evidence" I'm talking about evidence that can stand up to peer review and scientific scrutiny. As opposed to Christian rhetoric and propaganda.

Jeffrey Gibson

And you know this how, exactly? Have you direct first hand acquainatnce with what these scholars have written? That is to say, have you actually read their works in their entirety -- or at least read the context in which the quotes you refer us to appear? Or is what you "know" they say on the matter of "evidence" something that you "know" only indirectly, at second hand?

Jeffrey

Newfie

You are correct. They may depend on faith, but they never advertise the need for faith because there is a lack of evidence. Kierkegaard was right in that if Christianity could be proven, then it would lose all of it's religious aspects, including the need for faith.

Christian scholars understand this as well, and seem to jump at every opportunity to inject what amounts to skepticism in the lack of evidence, getting people to doubt the conclusion that there is a lack of hard evidence supporting religious beliefs. Much of the duck pecking against problematic (to them) historical and scientific principles which are supported by evidence seems like an attempt to introduce a shadow of doubt that a person of faith can anchor their total denial upon, as God Fearing Atheist illustrated so well in post 17.