waltms

That there was a miracle-worker by the name of Jesus walking around Palestine in the first century before the first Jewish War, preaching the end of the world and happened to get crucified, after which a few of his followers experienced an incubation dream at his tomb and through this believed he was still "alive," divine, and a spiritual Messiah.

EarlDoherty

Some thoughts on this thread:

When you are studying in a field which is dependent on you having (or acquiring) a job in that field, you can’t help but be aware of the limits to which you can go in adopting radical ideas within that field without jeopardizing your job or job opportunities. (Robert Price found that out at Drew several years ago, but he had the integrity not to compromise.) It may be fashionable these days to adopt critical stances, but only to a point. We have discussed on this board why NT academia (those tied to university tenures or with peers in those circles) seems reluctant to touch Jesus mythicism except to dismiss it, and I’ve already said that the bulk of the scholars on The Jesus Project are going to be under the same kind of pressure. I have predicted that the question of Jesus’ possible non-existence will not be addressed in any meaningful fashion by that group, regardless of the starry-eyed intentions voiced by people at the Council for Secular Humanism or Free Inquiry editors who are “sponsoring” the Project.

I don’t know some of these people, but of those I do know, I find that these claiming their atheism or agnosticism are the ones who tend to be the most hostile toward the mythicist stance, expressing the most acrimony toward those who hold and argue it, often without backing up their vitriol with much in the way of substantive argument or demonstrating the slightest spirit of inquiry. (Ed Tyler was the first I met who expressed this kind of rabid hostility, despite being a declared non-believer.) Why this is so, I really don’t know, although I have a few ideas. I have not seen that kind of animosity in the writings of academia scholars who do not declare themselves atheists/agnostics but have expressed dismissal of the mythicist theory.

Recent discussions on this board involving people like Jeffrey Gibson and Chris Weimer were long on personal condemnation and short on actual grappling with the arguments. I made an erroneous statement as to scholarly consensus about a relatively minor point that had nothing to do with mythicism, namely the authenticity of the Hebrews ‘postscript’, accompanying that with arguments against such authenticity. What did Gibson and Weimer do? Both of them ‘ran with’ that error to label me an ignorant charlatan hardly without peer in the history of charlatanism, but neither had a word to say in refutation of those actual arguments on the subject itself.

I’ve read very little of what Shandruk has written. What might be informative is some views on his part as to why he “does not buy the Jesus Myth.” Unfortunately, we get very little of that from scholars who express such a view.

Again, why not? (I don't know Dr. Crook.) What are those arguments he finds unconvincing? Has he ever written about why he holds this view? How can we determine the strength of his case for rejection if we get no details, no demonstration of how his arguments for an HJ are superior to those against it? How do we know of the extent to which such scholars are familiar with or understand the Jesus Myth position? This, of course, is the standard posture of academia. Lots of rejection. Very little counter-argument, except the most standard kind (you know, Josephus and Paul having no interest in the HJ sort of thing). Very little if anything to indicate that they know anything in depth about the mythicist case. R. Joseph Hoffman dismissed my work as “inferior” (to other mythicists, apparently) while showing that he knew nothing concrete about it by labeling me a “disciple of Wells” and virtually a plagiarist of his ideas, which is complete nonsense.

Yes, and how are we to tell that academia doesn't also “accept his existence…without question” unless they seriously address it? Part of that serious address has to be to grapple honestly and thoroughly with the case put forward by mythicism, rather than simply dismiss it in knee-jerk fashion, whether accompanied or not by an hostility which more than suggests that they are incapable of doing so. Has any single dissenter from my views on this board who continues to appeal to the “authority” of academia’s dismissal of mythicism addressed a single point or counter-argument I made in my 43,000 word article (posted last year, with lots of notice by myself) against every major “refutation” of the mythicist case of the 20th century? Not that I’m aware of.

I have spent the last three months crafting a lengthy study of the Epistle to the Hebrews (building on many years of study of the epistolary record of early Christianity), in which I not only put forward a thorough case for that document’s entirely “cosmic Christ” but address in detail major works on academia’s study of Hebrews (Harold Attridge, for example) to demonstrate its traditional erroneous methodology and reasoning in reading an HJ into it. It would be nice if academia would reciprocate in kind. Will any here who regularly dismiss me and the mythicist case take the trouble to investigate it? I don't hold out much hope, though I'll provide the link below.

I have no doubt that in 66,000 words, Jeffrey Gibson (if he even deigned to read it—I wouldn’t expect with an open mind, that would be too much to ask) could manage to find a few statements which he could seize on to demand further evidence for, while avoiding addressing the case or the arguments I put forward. Such would be in keeping with his usual approach. But it would simply be another illustration of how established scholarship never comes to grips with a concept they have a vast distaste for—regardless of whether or how much that has to do with confessional interests. They would rather just heap scorn on the messengers of perilous new ideas.

“The Cosmic Christ of the Epistle to the Hebrews”:
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp14One.htm

(Oops, sorry, had to edit a mistake in the URL.)

Earl Doherty

JoeWallack

JW:
Thanks. Since this is Minimum information I'd like to ask a few questions for clarification:

1) What exactly do you mean by "miracle-worker"?

2) What exactly was "Jesus" given name?

3) Can you give a region of Palestine?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

waltms

Someone who does miracles, that is, does things that observers and the received tradition considers as miracles. There was no bending of the laws of physics here any more than there is when some folks today claim to witness a miracle.

Since IHSOUS in the LXX always translates yod-heh-waw-shin-ayin or the shorter yod-shin-waw-ayin, it was probably one of those (Yehoshua or Yeshua, traditionally translated as "Joshua" in the OT, but it's the same name).

No, but since no place outside of Palestine is associated with him, we can say he was at least limited to there.

DaMan121

What evidence? Bumps in the night? Tricks of light / darkness? Mysterious photographs? They point to a supernatural realm of spirits, or the fallibility of human senses and fault equipment?

Doug Shaver

There is no atheist position on Jesus except to say that if he was real, he was not the son of any god. Atheism has nothing at all to say about the likelihood of his historicity.

JoeWallack

JW:
I'd like to start moving towards identifying your Sources for this supposed Minimum Historicity. Regarding the above, presumably Jesus knew that he was tricking people? Did Jesus' Entourage also know he was tricking people or were they likewise fooled? Is your Source here people who were tricked?

JW:
So your Minimum historicity is better stated as there was a miracle-worker by the name of Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu who had either a Hebrew or Aramaic name. What about a reference to Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu's father in his name? Since these were common names isn't it likely that Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu was referred to as son of ...?

JW:
Where do your Sources place Jesus?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Solitary Man

Where do you get that Jesus thought he was tricking people?

aa5874

I think your reply was very interesting.

waltms

Why are you assuming anyone was being tricked? The psychology of religious experience is a bit more complex than simply being a charlatan or his fool. The sources are primarily the canonical Gospels and Paul. For parallel models of miracle-workers in antiquity, Josephus, the OT, and various classical sources are useful.

No, I wouldn't say it is better stated that way. The name in the Greek texts under question is IHSOUS and while the LXX can help us extrapolate which generic name that maps onto in Hebrew, we can't tell whether it's the plene form or an abbreviated form that he was given by his parents, so it's more efficient to state the minumum by a reference to the Greek name with the understood parallels in the LXX/HB.

I'm sure you have a Bible handy and can peruse the Gospels yourself to get a full list.