Zaphod

If the evidence - should it exist - is "fundamentally subjective and ambiguous", then why would we not see a random distribution of opinions?

Why would not equal numbers of Biblical scholars be HJ and MJ? Doesn't the fact that not one of thousands of Biblical scholars being a MJ indicate, as you say above, that they have a "fundamentally bad way of thinking, because it is dogmatic"?

Your argument doesn't make sense at best, and is disingenuous at worst. Of course there is a default position! It just happens to be, IMO, indefensible.

Addition: Just read your post above re "Biblical" scholars. Rather than delete the word "Biblical", as we are posting at the same time, could we simply read this post as not using the word? Thanks.

Zaphod

Are you trying to say that these are secular institutions employing objective scholars, who just happen to be Christians who believe in the HJ? Are you saying that this "large sector" of scholarship has looked objectively at the historicity of JC?

ApostateAbe

If I say that the field is "fundamentally subjective and ambiguous," it is does not follow that all explanations are equally probable. That would be a postmodernist conclusion. Postmodernism is the philosophy that the search for knowledge is useless, since almost anything is possible (for example, the reality could be that we are merely brains in jars fed illusions by a nefarious scientist, and we could never know the truth). But, chances are, you are not really a postmodernist, so allow me to justify the position that a field that is fundamentally subjective and ambiguous can still allow theories that are accepted as more probable than competing theories.

A close analogy to historical studies is judicial law. In my field of study (land surveying), the primary deciding evidence in a court case is often just one written deed. The decision of the court depends entirely on their interpretation of the intent of the parties to the deed. Since the evidence is in writing, it is entirely subjective, and it is often ambiguous. But, sometimes, there is very little ambiguity, and it is an open-and-shut case.

"I know that the deed says that the line should to go to the center of the river, but the intention was that it should go 300 feet in order to preserve the area of the parcel."

No, the deed says the line goes to the center of river, therefore, the line goes to the center of the river.

One explanation is accepted as more likely than another, and that is the normal way we think critically about almost anything, ambiguous or not, subjective or not.

Toto

I fail to see how "they made it up" is less plausible than the standard historicist case, which seems to be that Jesus existed and then disappeared from history, leaving a faint reflection in the literature.

More evidence that McGrath doesn't know beans about creationists or mythicists.

Why not admit that sometimes it isn't necessary to chose between history and myth? It is sufficient to admit that we have a myth and we don't know if there is a historical person behind the myth?

You are just babbling without knowing what you are talking about, especially about "projection." You can find explicit statements in NT writings where the existence of Jesus is assumed. Have you actually examined the way the "criteria" (embarrassment, dissimilarity, etc.) are applied?

It seems to me that you have implicitly made the historical Jesus the default position by your challenge to mythicists to come up with a more explicit and coherent theory than any historicist has.

If the evidence is so ambiguous, why are you so sure that it points to a historical Jesus?

ApostateAbe

Yes, they do so all of the time, because they need the evidence on their side to advance their own particular models of Jesus and early Christianity.

aa5874

Well this is the evidence.

1. Jesus was the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

2. Jesus walked on water during a storm at sea.

3. Jesus cursed a tree to destroy it.

4. Jesus raised a man from the dead after he began to rot.

5. Jesus and the Devil was on the pinnacle of the Jewish Temple and the Devil asked Jesus to jump.

6. Jesus used to spit in peoples eyes to make them see.

7. Jesus was the Creator and equal to God.

8. Jesus transfigured.

9. Jesus resurrected.

10. Salvation of mankind was achieved by the resurrection

11. Jesus ascended through the clouds.

12. Jesus is supposed come back to earth a second time.

13. Jesus was worshiped as a God.

14. Jews and Jesus believers did not worship men as Gods.


What is the explanation that best fit the evidence?

A very good explanation is that Jesus was known, believed or intended to be a God.

A very weak explanation is that Jesus was known, believed or intended to be a mere man.

Toto

There is a big difference between legal decisions and scholarship. Courts existe to decide disputes, and they must come to a decision within an economic time frame. As a matter of procedure, one party in court has the burden of proof, or at least the burden of going forward with the evidence, and the court must make a decision. Our whole system of laws depends on making decisions and moving on; it is better that some decisions be wrong, rather than spend all of our time settling some dispute.

Scholarship works on a completely different basis. There is no need to decide if Jesus was historical or not. You don't have to look at an ambiguous mess of evidence, decide that it favors a historical Jesus by a margin of 51%, and then declare the case closed.

ApostateAbe

Toto, are you with me on the point that there should not be a "default" position? I would rather that we agree on something rather than follow an infinitely branching chain of debating points.

ApostateAbe

That could be a good point, so thank you, but it isn't relevant to the point I was making to Zaphod, that a field with subjective and ambiguous evidence can still favor one theory over another.

Toto

I think that mainstream scholarship relies on a default position of historicity. Do you agree?