Layman

What do you mean by "rejected and has not rebutted"?

What is there to rebut? Does anyone have any evidence that the scholarly community does take the Jesus Myth theory seriously?

Toto

The question is whether the rejection by the scholarly community is meaningful, whether it was based on an examination of the evidence or whether it was based on ideological or social or economic factors.

Are you maintaining that no one is entitled to look behind that rejection?

Layman

I don't see how anyone could answer this in one thread. I've provided my substantive arguments elsewhere and continue to do so. It's the first article on the page because most people want to know what historians and scholars think about the issue.

Obviously not, Toto, or I would not be spending so much time writing substantively about Doherty's theories, would I?

Are you maintaining that expertise in these areas is irrelevant?

Toto

You have discussed substantive matters about Doherty's thesis. But you have not provided any evidence that the historians and scholars that you list have actually made a study of the mythicist case and rejected it based on evidence, as opposed to prejudice or bad reasoning. That is the issue.

Layman

It is not for you to tell me what the issue is, Toto. But if you are going to engage in a discussion, please discuss. By answering my questions as well:

Obviously not, Toto, or I would not be spending so much time writing substantively about Doherty's theories, would I?

Are you maintaining that expertise in these areas is irrelevant?

Toto

I said:

You said:

Me again:

The first question is rhetorical (as was mine). I think that the answer to your last statement, councilor, is implicit in my first answer. You have listed experts, but you have not explained how they used their expertise. When a scientist makes a pronouncement on a scientific matter, he or she explains how the result was reached, what experiments were done, what analysis of data, etc. That is missing here.

Layman

Actually, scientists regularly rule out prepostorous theories.

YECism is a good example, with some qualifications. The vast majority of scientists do not spend their time debunking arguments about "apparent age" or various counters to radiocarbon dating or dinosaur and human footprints together. Admittedly, a few scientists have popularized some refutations of these "theories" and have engaged in the odd debate here and there. But that is only because so many people take creationism so seriously. And even so, most of the anti-YECs I have seen have been informed amateurs taking it on themselves.

With the Jesus Myth, the idea is considered to be just as bizarre by the scholarly community as YECism is to scientists. But unlike YECism, only a tiny number of people actually take the Jesus Myth seriously. So scholars see little point in wasting their time responding to an issue they see as 1) dead, and 2) showing no signs of being believed by anyone of consequence.

Honestly, I have never looked into the issue surrounding YEC claims against radio-carbon dating. I've never read any responses to their claims. But I believe myself quite reasonable in relying on those scientists who do rely on radiocarbon dating without having conducted my own investigation.

Toto

The vast majority of scientists do not spend their time refuting YECs because at least some of them have, and they know the methodology and the research data.

I have still not seen a scholar who has examined the Jesus Myth theory and rejected because there is clear overwhelming evidence of a historical Jesus whose crucifixion was the beginning of the Christian church. That's all we're looking for here.

It appears that some scholars reject the JM theory for reasons that turn out to be fallacious ("no one could have invented such a character" or "how else did Christianity get started?"). Others just accept that there must be some historical basis for the gospels, although many Christian scholars admit that the gospels are mostly legend and moral stories. (Crossan has admitted that he cannot prove the existence of a historical Jesus in the face of skepticism about the sources.) Some seem to grab at the few references to Jesus or early Christianity in Josephus, but this is a very slim bit of evidence that was possibly forged, not clear overwhelming proof.

So your comparison between YEC, which has been examined and rejected based on volumes of evidence, and the JM theory, which is usually rejected out of hand without really looking at the evidence, is fallacious. And it gets very tiresome after going through all of these points to see you repeating the same arguments about relying on experts.

If you want to advance the debate, do more than just list names of scholars who say that the issue has been put to rest. Give the basis of their conclusions.

It may be that a historical Jesus is the best explanation of the evidence. But this case has yet to be made.

Layman

The methodologies are well known. The books reconstructing his life are legion. The issues that Jesus Mythers often rely on, such as the silence of Paul, the lack of secular references, the interpolation of Josephus, even the late dating of the gospels and arguments about Acts being fiction, the idea of Paul's direct revelation, have been subject to thorough review and analysis by scholar after scholar from diverse backgrounds. It's not as if Doherty has discovered a new element, he's covering the same ground as others with a slight twist and takes it further than others have thought to do.

So long as the Jesus Myth gains adherents among only a few onliners who also happen to be hostile the Christian religion it's not going to get, or be worth, serious response.

Most people quite reasonably believe scientists when they tell them the age of the universe even when those scientists don't take the time to refute Duane Gish arguments. So too with those who do not take the time to refute Earl Doherty arguments.

Jesus Mythers must either make a serious case or convince a serious number of people that they have something to say before they can expect to be taken seriously.

Amaleq13

Toto wrote:
You have discussed substantive matters about Doherty's thesis. But you have not provided any evidence that the historians and scholars that you list have actually made a study of the mythicist case and rejected it based on evidence, as opposed to prejudice or bad reasoning. That is the issue.

I don't want to leave Toto hanging out on a limb on his own. How he states the issue above is exactly what I understood the point of the discussion to be.

And I was also operating under the assumption that only the article linked in the OP was under discussion.

<You may now return to your regularly scheduled debate>