Vorkosigan

Because -- duh -- in order to carry out historical study of Jesus, you have to treat his existence as an axiom. That is Farmer's point, which applies to any historical excavation of Jesus. Your dodge is to claim that he only meant that in the conduct of a study of Jesus' aims, but his comment about "unfinished business in the history of the west" clearly shows that his observation is far more basic.

You can test this for yourself. Please bring forth a criterion used in historical Jesus studies which does not encode as an axiom that Jesus was historical (plus the other axioms that Farmer also put forth).

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

There are others (eg Nicene Creed) but the point is the individual declares their faith in the truth of the assertions and one of them is a declaration of the historicity of Jesus. Your appeal to an absent "future promise" is just a red herring. The individual cannot change his mind unless and until he first sets aside this declaration of faith in the historicity of Jesus. This should be obvious from a purely logical standpoint. The notion of a declaration of faith as contingent upon future evidence is oxymoronic. That the individual intends to hold those beliefs until his death is clearly part of having genuine faith. As a result, it is their starting point for any consideration of the evidence.

I have no idea why you refuse to accept this apparent fact. You certainly haven't offered anything substantive against it. All of your shots so far have been quite wide of the mark.

Thanks, but I'm already pretty familiar with his work and I happen to like it but I know of no evidence, and you certainly have not presented any, that he has ever attemped to critically examine the historicity of Jesus.

You denied that it could be considered evidence at all so I'll consider this progress.

We've got both if we've got a declaration of faith in the historicity of Jesus and the absence of any effort to critically examine arguments calling that historicity into question.

If you don't understand that asserting, as part of the tenents of faith for one's religion, a belief in the historicity of Jesus constitutes a bias against any attempt to deny that historicity, then I don't know how to help you. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Could a Christian scholar set aside their religious beliefs to critically examine the evidence? I think there are examples of Christian scholars who have, IMO, done an impressive job of attempting it though not to the full extent relevant to this discussion. Spong and Crossan have certainly been willing to challenge their beliefs to a significant extent but at the cost of being declared heretics by many of their Christian brethren. Both, however, start with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus.

rlogan

Toto gave a concise rendition of the creed according to St. Doherty, and I defer to the "myth first"/ "Historical Jesus second" description of what a "mythicist" is.

But again, this is still a far cry from a black and white distinction. Whoever the "historicists" think was the model for Jesus, it still isn't the Jesus of the Gospels.


The term "mythicist" has taken a pejoritive connotation when the fact of the matter is even "historicists" have a significant belief in myth themselves.

Zeichman

It has to do with scholars rejecting elements which were probably previously considered integral to their faith due to academic honesty.

You're assuming that their Christianity takes precedence over academic honesty. Or that the evidence for an HJ may have caused their faith (which, granted, is relatively unlikely).

Given that almost all non-religious/non-Christian NT scholars accept an HJ, I'm going to suggest that this is evidence for the former.

Vorkosigan

That is most emphatically untrue, Zeich. If you consider the non-Christian scholars as a group separate from the Christian NT scholars as a whole, you get a much more varied position on the HJ. This becomes even more variegated if you take NT scholars who are not employed as NT instructors at universities. For we know that religious orthodoxy is enforced one way or another, by removal from position (Ludemann) or defrocking in the case of clerics.

But of course, I must be paranoid to point out that you can get removed from your position like Ludemann. Or get your PHD thesis rejected by a vengeful Catholic toady like T. Thompson did. Or be threatened by religious authorities like Spong. Or have your masterwork pass the Catholic Censor, like Brown. And certainly the whole James Ossuary flap shows that the NT studies field is not motivated by any need to have an archaeological link to Jesus, or that there isn't a vast, secret anxiety on the issue, or that people would in their haste for proof overlook irregularities. No sirree.

I go to take my meds. Clearly I am too insane to be posting here.

Vorkosigan

yalla

freigeister

Thanks for the links.
My point was that in the books I had read the mythical JC was a non-issue for the Christian scholars and that such constitutes the vast majority.
Some of the authors give the issue very brief attention and usually sweep it aside with a casual remark along the lines of not being worthy of consideration.
Or they promise an objective historical approach to the question of HJ/MJ etc and then proceed to assume an HJ.

They have a vested interest.

I have visited Bede's site previously and read his posts with interest but consider his comments in the light of his Christianity. [Is that diplomatic enough?]
The other site I have bookmarked, it looks interesting.
I also look at other sites including, for eg, Journal of Higher Criticism, R.Pearse, Vork, S.C Carlson, Zindler.
In fact I am currently getting most of my information from such places as that and IIDB.
But in trying to learn about this topic I would assert that the books available to the general public are hopelessly one-sided.
For eg on the subject of the James Ossuary I could only find Witherington's book in store and having read his stuff elsewhere would not waste my time buying it. Fair comment?

There is a vast quantity of devotional stuff available and very little of critical value and I have become dis-enchanted by the reputable liberal scholars who still have that belief system underlying their analyses.

For various reasons I do no financial stuff over the net and so using Amazon is no good for me..but thanks for the link.

I have read Doherty's site at length but really want to hold the hard copy in my hands, it gives me a better chance to examine and re-examine...age showing I suspect, I'm still a paper person.
And I find it sad that the book is essentially unavailable in Australia.
Yet I can buy Witherington and any number of apologists with ease.
There is a vast industry out there supporting orthodox Chritianity.
cheers
yalla

Rick Sumner

This isn't quite correct. Vermes began studying the DSS with that goal in mind. He began studying the historical Jesus largely as an offshoot (and as something of a break from) his research into the historical Jesus.

His conversion to Catholicism in the first place was done to avoid the Germans.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Clivedurdle

I don't think this is correct. I see HJ as a heresy from the original gnostic beliefs - F & G argue this.

I think it is quite possible to be a mythicist and a xian - people like St Francis are clear evidence - HJism is a habit most people have - it is not a necesary part of their religion.

Steven Avery

First, the Nicene Creed is a statement of faith, not an oath.

And more significantly, I rarely hear of it being a standard in Christian circles.

Some "orthodox" Christian groups want to hear an affirmation of the Trinity, others do not. Some have it on their statement of faith, but would let members simply bypass or cross out that section.

As to creeds, various groups have different views toward them. Probably the Athanasian Creed is more of a standard in Catholic or Orthodox type groups than the Nicean. And the Reformed protestants would have more intererest in the Westminster Confession than the Nicean Creed, while some Baptists have their own confessions that are far closer to the Westminster than to the Nicean or Athanasian creeds.

Anyway, probably the only "Christians" who might use the Nicene Creed as an enforced standard would be some Catholics and perhaps some Orthodox.

Such usage of the Nicean Creed, insistence on its words and doctrine, would be rare among evangelicals and fundamentalists. I have never run across it in the organizations I join or consider joining.

A good example would be ETS, the Evangelical Theological Society.

http://www.etsjets.org/ '
"Doctrinal Basis"

"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."

Offhand I dunno if they have speakers who knowingly disagree with their doctrinal basis, or to what extent they insist upon it for membership, however that is a better example of the type of view expected.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

youngalexander

The only thing that I am assuming is the answers to the 3 questions. I notice that you did not dispute them. The logic of the sequence is that Christian scholars cannot accept a MJ.
I only mentioned Christian scholars.

Would not bloody surprise me. Why, I have even heard of atheistic Anglican Bishops.:wave: