thedistillers

I don't have to, when all or most scholars agree with me. It's like a creationist demanding an "evolutionist" ( :devil: ) to make his case. You're the one who has the burden to make your case.

I'm not throwing any insult.

It is relevant, because I'm explaining why historians do not care about the Jesus Myth hypothesis: there is no reason to care about that contrived hypothesis, unless one has an agenda, or special love for conspiracy theories. Not only it is not "simple" or "straightforward", but it does not explain the data better. Show me otherwise without using the argument from "go-read-doherty" or the argument from "go-read-carrier".

I gave an EXAMPLE of a motivation for supporting the Jesus Myth hypothesis. If it does not apply to you, or people you know, GOOD FOR YOU. An example does not apply to all people. It applies to some people.

brianrein

And the "Argument from Doherty" and "Argument from Carrier" are often pitifully flimsy. The whole thing really reminds me a lot of JFK conspiracy theorists saying to go read Jim Marrs or other enthusiasts, as if that settles everything.

In fact, this whole thread has reminded me a lot of being in a JFK conspiracy discussion. Which is funny, because I kind of suspect that there was more than one gunman.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Petrich,

Yes, there are many arguments about what Socrates was like, just as there are arguments over what any person alive today is "really like". This is different than arguing historical existence. For example, We may argue if Richard Dawkins is really a qualified scholar or not, but we cannot seriously argue if he exists.

With the Jesus of Nazareth character, the existential problems are of a much more serious character.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Toto

Sorry, you are more like a creationist. Both creationists and the historical Jesus crowd accept the Bible as historical evidence.

Recognize that evolution is accepted, not because all scholars agree, but because there is overwhelming data in support of evolution everywhere you look. There is no such data supporting the historical Jesus, and no historian claims that there is such an overwhelming amount of data that all alternative explanations can be rejected.

Your original claim was "Having a REAL Jewish prophet explains the data much, much, much better, regardless of whatever details we might believe about him."

I referred you to a long, detailed article by a professional historian which examined the case for a mythical Jesus, and found that it was in fact a better explanation of the evidence that the historical Jesus. And this was from someone who initially accepted the conventional wisdom that there was a historical Jesus.

But you refuse to read the article, and it is impossible to summarize in a few sound bites.

Comparing someone to a creationist is an insult. Claiming that someone only believes what they believe because they have an agenda is an insult.

You CLAIM that historians do not care about the Jesus myth, but what sort of evidence do you have? Mostly Christian apologists who claim that, based on their own political agenda. I could give you many ulterior motives for people to accept the historical Jesus theory - that if fits in with the requirements of their religion or political beliefs, or that they are too lazy to look into the facts for themselves, or that their career depends on not rocking the boat. So if everyone has a motive for what they believe, what difference does that motive make - except as a way to insult someone and avoid the real issue?

OK, here is one place where the Jesus Myth is a better explanation of the data than the Historical Jesus: there is no record of this Jesus OR of his movement or any of his disciples that can be reliably dated before the end of the first century. When we first do find Christians who discuss their conversion to Christianity, they do not mention either meeting Jesus or any of his disciples - they got to their religion by reading the Hebrew Scriptures or Greek philosophy. The HJ school has to go through various convoluted explanations of this. For the mythicist, it is clear - Christianity started, like many religions, as a social movement, and later wrote the story of its founder.

No Robots

The major difference between JFK conspiracy theories and mythicism is that if they are true the former is culturally trivial while the latter is culturally momentous. Even Shakespeare as myth is culturally trivial in the sense that here "the play is the thing." But mythicism seeks to rob mankind of the singular individual, the one person who serves as an absolute cultural foundation stone.

brianrein

Now, now, gents. I don't think anybody wants to be called a creationist!

In addition, I think it's pretty clearly ridiculous to dismiss the Bible as historical evidence of anything. There are a few things for which the Bible certainly is historical evidence - not necessarily internal events (you won't catch many historians saying that it's proof water can become wine) but the fact that, for example, there was some sort of widespread movement as early as AD 60-110 centered around somebody named Jesus who had died a few decades previously, and that the followers of Jesus had disseminated across the Mediterranean - from Rome to Syria to Turkey to southern Egypt - with surprising rapidity. The Bible is also pretty firm evidence of ways in which belief in Jesus, and Christians' understanding of the Jesus character, changed over time, from the guy we see in Mark to the Word made flesh of (pseudo-)John.

In other words, there are quite a few things we can learn from the Bible without "believing in it." I haven't really stopped to put more thought into my response; otherwise I'm sure there are a few dozen more things we can accept historically speaking based on either what the Bible says or what the Bible is. Dismissing it categorically in every possible instance because of its obvious bias is unwarranted. We just face the monumental task of filtering out all the BS.

This is true.

spin

Which part of "historian" didn't you understand?


spin

Toto

I don't think you will find any widespread acceptance of this. The only basis for claiming that there was a Jesus movement before about 90 CE is the NT - specifically the Book of Acts. But that Book gives every sign of having been written after 110, and no particular indication that it is reliable history.

There are a lot of previous threads here on whether Acts can be treated as history, and whether Paul's letters can be dated to a particular year.

Yellum Notnef

Are there any mainstream scholars who doubt Uncle Sam was American?

brianrein

The Great Fire in Rome was in 64 CE. By that time there was already a substantial Christian population in the city, much of it in the district of Trastevere,* which was across from the Tiber and thus mostly spared from the flames. (This is why Nero famously blamed the Christians.)

Suetonius, Life of Nero:
In addition, if you were for the moment to consider NT as evidence, the fact that the letters of Paul which are actually considered to be authentic were written to an array of different cities should be evidence of the Christian group's spread.

*see Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries. That may not be the exact subtitle, I'm working from memory.