spamandham

Roger, we don't seem to have much in common, but we do seem to share this much. :grin:

spamandham

I think you'll find only the second one to be agreed upon among scholars, and it simply follows from the assumption that Jesus was historical combined with the observation that Christianity exists.

Amaleq13

No, I've found all three to be accepted by most scholars.

You know of "mainstream" scholars who deny that Jesus preached or was crucified? I don't believe that to be at all true but I would love to see some names.

spamandham

I'm going by what Amy-Jill Levine has stated. I'm guessing she knows her peers better than we do. Here's a link to a podcast in which she discusses this issue. I don't have a transcript.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=66

So I've provided my source, Amaleq. Now it's your turn to provide yours.

Amaleq13

You don't know any specific names she mentions?

I didn't ask for your source. I asked for the names of mainstream scholars engaged in the alleged dispute of those bare facts. You haven't provided that.

I already did. My conclusion is based on my own twenty years of reading relevant literature. Surely you aren't going beyond claiming the facts are disputed by mainstream scholars to claiming that they are not generally accepted by the mainstream? I would think it difficult to define "mainstream" without including those three points as agreed upon.

Amaleq13

I listened to the entire interview and she never said anything about those three core facts being disputed by mainstream scholars. The closest comment she made was a paraphrase of Schweitzer's comment about scholars finding their historical Jesus in the mirror rather than the evidence.

If she is all you have, you've got nothing to support your claim.

spamandham

And yet, I've still presented more than you have regarding your claim.

Amaleq13

No, you haven't. You presented a link to a radio interview that offered no support for your claim.

I've offered a conclusion based on my personal experience with the relevant literature. Am I supposed to list every book I've read? My counterclaim is so mundane that even a vague familiarity with mainstream scholarship should make it obvious. With the already mentioned possible exception of Mack on the crucifixion, just about any scholar discussing an historical Jesus accepts those three core facts.

Funk
Davies
Horsely
Maccoby
Theissen
Borg
Crossan
Meier
Brown
Ehrman
Fredriksen
Vermes
Lüdemann
Sanders
Johnson
Wright

Even Levine should be on that list as it was clear from the interview that she accepts all three as true.

I have a hard time believing you truly aren't aware of this but I suppose it is possible that your knowledge is based entirely on misunderstanding what someone said about the books you should have read yourself.

As far as I know there is no dispute in "mainstream" scholarship about whether Jesus preached or attracted a following or was crucified.

spamandham

In the Amy-Jill Levine interview, she makes a statement that there is no concensus among historians regarding Jesus, which is why I provided the link. She is not the only one in her field making that type of statement.

In addition to mythicist proponents such as Doherty, and the mystic proponents Freke, and Gandy, who obviously do not hold either the idea that Jesus (as a real person) had a following, nor that he was crucified...

Regarding the crucifixion specifically,

(drawing from http://www.earlychristianwritings.co....html#eisenman)

Alvar Ellegård concludes that the story of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pilate, was a fictional construction. "Jesus. 100 years before Christ"

G.A. Wells also argues Jesus was not crucified.

Gregory Riley argues Jesus was a real person with a religious following, who died and they raised him to legend status, but he does not contend the death was crucifixion.

E. P. Sanders finds it inconceivable the following:
1. He was one of the rare Jews in his day who believed in love, mercy, grace, repentance and the forgiveness of sin.
2. Jews in general, and Pharisees in particular, would kill people who believed in such things.
3. As a result of his work, Jewish confidence in election was 'shaken to pieces', Judaism was 'shaken to its foundations', and Judaism as a religion was destroyed.

There are others, but my job is merely to show a lack of concensus.

Regarding followers:

Robert Eisenman shows Jesus to be a minor figure in the insurrectionist movement of James the Just, and not someone who had his own following.

Gerd Lüdemann accepts teh crucifixion but sees Jesus an regular challenger of moral traditions - sort of a sleezball - without any followers per se.

Amaleq13

I guess you missed where I already mentioned that (hint>it was the reference to her paraphrasing Schweitzer). I do not deny that many of the specific details about Jesus are disputed by mainstream scholars but I do deny that the three I mentioned should be included.

This may come as a shock to you but the scholars who champion the mythicist position are not mainstream and they generally acknowledge that fact when they present their case. I would never deny that they dispute any or all of the three I mentioned and, had that been your claim, you would have obtained no objection. But, as I mentioned with regard to Mack, a single voice hardly constitutes a "dispute" by the "mainstream" even if that scholar can be considered part of it.

What books by Wells have you read?

In what I believe is his latest (Can We Trust The New Testament?, 2004), he rather vaguely suggests, following Ellegard, that Paul's belief that Jesus was crucified might have been based on received traditions about the numerous Jewish holy men who suffered that fate over the prior two centuries or specific traditions about the Teacher of Righteousness.

I don't understand why you bothered including this list since none of it appears to be relevant to supporting your claim. Filler to help hide your inability to support your claim? It didn't work.

This is obviously another book you haven't read yourself. He acknowledges that Jesus had followers but argues there was a split when James took over:

“Whether James succeeded to this leadership by direct appointment of Jesus, or he was accorded it by the Apostles or ‘elected’ is disputed in the sources.” (James, the Brother of Jesus,p9)

You haven't read him, either, have you?

"For Jesus’s disciples, his death was so severe a shock that it demanded a process of reconceptualization—one that began in Galilee and was marked by visionary experiences." (What Really Happened?: The Rise of Primitive Christianity, 30-70 c.e., Free Inquiry, Apr/May 2007)

This is available online at http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/down...reeInquiry.pdf

Actually, your job is to support your claim that "Every detail of his life is disputed in the mainstream." but this post does neither that job nor does it support this new position adjustment you offer. What you have accomplished is to establish that very few scholars in general and fewer still that might qualify as "mainstream" dispute the three facts about Jesus I listed. You have also established that you are personally quite unfamiliar with the relevant literature and rely upon what others say about it.

So, you have not provided support for your original claim and you have not provided support for your revised claim. The claim you have supported is one that would have obtained no objection from me:

One can find at least one scholar, though not typically mainstream, who disputes even the details agreed upon by the majority of mainstream scholars: preached, attracted followers, was crucified.

Unfortunately, you didn't restrict yourself to the facts when you made your claim.