Amaleq13

Based on the link, the confusion is not on my part since the words clearly share a common meaning:

vow: 2. A declaration or assertion.

affirmation: 1. The act of affirming or the state of being affirmed; assertion.

Read the common credal statements of faith associated with most, if not all, branches of Christianity. As I've already mentioned, part of every Sunday service included a repetition of the central tenets of the faith in the form of a crede. Part of that affirmation of faith was an assertion that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate and was crucified. If you don't understand how such an assertion, taken seriously as part of one's faith, might influence the efforts of a biblical scholar, I don't know what to tell you.

His story is utterly irrelevant to what I've been saying. Where do you show that, despite making an assertion of Jesus' historicity as part of his religion, Vermes pursued the question of Jesus' historical existence and critically examined the evidence?

Nothing you wrote establishes that Vermes never took such a vow nor that, despite the vow, he made an effort to critically examine the evidence supporting a historical Jesus.

The evidence exists in most, if not all, the credal statements of Christianity. I think there might be similar statements required by certain universities but this fundamental vow is the one I have been focusing upon.

I believe you are mistaken on this. IIUC, several terrorist suspects have had the fact of their public vow to destroy the U.S. used as evidence against them. Do you really think that, if I made a public vow to kill my wife, this fact would not be entered as evidence supporting my guilt in her clearly intentional death? That makes no sense at all.

RPS

You're referring to the Apostles' Creed, all of which is present tense ("I believe...."). It makes no future promise.

Read a little about him -- he's has spent decades examining the evidence.

It's only evidence of intent. Threats without actual evidence of action won't get it done. Similarly, reasons for bias don't establish bias without evidence of bias.

Ahab

However, I have the unfortunate impression that to the mythicists here it is an all or nothing proposition. They aren't happy even with the idea that there really was a historical Jesus who did some teaching and was executed by the Romans while all the miracle and supernatural stuff was added later. Or have I gotten the wrong impression?

freigeister

Some will say that there was perhaps a guy wandering around to whom the legends became attached. But the mythicist position is essentially that the man, if there was one, is insignificant and/or unrecoverable; and that we are therefore left with no alternative but to discount him in favour of studying the myth that surrounds him.

Toto

Not exactly.

There were a lot of people named Jesus, some of whom probably wandered around, some of whom might have been crucified.

The question is whether the Christian religion started with one such Jesus who was crucified and inspired followers to go on and start what became Christianity. The historicist position is that there was such a person at the beginning of Christianity. The mythicist position is that the religion started around a supernatural savior, and that stories were later written that put that supernatural savior on earth, suffering an actual crucifixion.

freigeister

Yeah, and this is the position that Ahab calls his "unfortunate impression". So, Ahab, you were right.

Toto

I'm not sure what is so unfortunate about it.

There are well know historical cases where movements invent a founding figure for themselves (William Tell, for example). There are also well known cases where a historical figure who founds a movement or a nation accumulates legendary mythic material around himself (George Washington, Alexander the Great). After several centuries, it may be impossible to tell the two cases apart.

Ahab

It's not that its unfortunate that Jesus did or did not exist. But I am very skeptical that there is enough evidence to come down with much certainty one way or another on this issue. So I think it rather unfortunate that the mythicist position seems to require that certainty.
I think freigeister's view is probably pretty close to the views of some of the liberal scholars who still maintain there was a historical Jesus. I'm guessing most of them would also think he was crucified.
As I've admitted here already, I'm still rather ignorant of all the details pro and con on this matter. At one time I was pretty heavy into biblical studies, but it's been about 15 or so years since I've given it much serious thought. Hopefully I will be able to look a little closer look into the subject in the near future. Maybe the evidence is there but I haven't seen it yet.

Vorkosigan

No one said "every HJ scholar" RPS. Reading is an important skill! I said "every NT scholar who is a Christian" must periodically take an oath called the Nicene Creed. Some NT scholars who are Catholic clerics must pass the Catholic Censor too.

I didn't say that they lacked integrity. You and Don follow the same strategy -- that it is impermissable, even slightly insane, to point out that people who are committed Christians are performing research into their own past, into a story that legitimates their own beliefs.

....which is of course bullshit, although it certainly sounds reasonable. Only the incompetent would fail to note when a scholar has a vested interest in his conclusion -- and of course the only reply available is a hint that the observer of this fact must be insane, since the only rational response would be "yes, you're right." Don has to rule such discourse out of bounds, since it is of course right. The strategy is followed by Mormon scholars, although they do not have the social clout of Christian scholars, so everyone gets to note that they are oath-sworn Mormons when they write on Mormonism. Anyone think that a Mormon scholar who defends the validity of the book of Mormon is operating with effective objectivity? So why doesn't that apply to scholars who are Christians when they write about Christianity? It's only when you get to Christians that it becomes permissable to hint that opponents do not have all their marbles when they point out something that would be taken for granted if we were discussing Tobacco Institute scholars, Mormons, and so on. That is a social, not a scholarly, judgment.

Vorkosigan

youngalexander

We are not discussing the 'virgin birth' or 'the historicity of events' but whether Jesus was historical and how Christian scholars approach the question. Does this really have anything to do with 'vows'?

Let us turn this on its head.
Is it not an integral part of being a Christian to accept an HJ? Yes.
Could a scholar accept a MJ and still be considered a Christian? No.
Thus, could a Christian scholar accept a Mythical Jesus? No.

OK, a few have taken that option and are no longer Christian. The majority have not. Is this because they have investigated the question and rejected a MJ, or because remaining a Christian is overwhelmingly more important to them?
A few brief comments:
1. For an atheist the question of Jesus' divinity is an entirely seperate issue to the historical questions surrounding Christianity. This can hardly be the case for a theist.
2. As far as I am concerned the origin of Christianity is the main question. HJ/MJ is an interesting side issue which clearly bears upon that main question but in which I have no emotional investment, ie. 'all or nothing' does not enter into it.
3. HJ/MJ is an historical question for which there is a limited amount of evidence. There can be no definitive 'all or nothing' answer. It is a 'balance of probabilities'.
4. Until a few years ago I was perfectly 'happy even with the idea that there really was a historical Jesus who did some teaching and...'. However, upon examining the evidence re HJ/MJ I came to the conclusion that 'on the balance of probabilities' the MJ was a better explanation. Again, there is no 'all or nothing'.