Toto

Sorry, that's what I get for posting on the fly. I don't think it matters that the suffering servant was not a savior. There was still enough raw material around for Mark (or whoever) to construct the Jesus figure in a largely fictional gospel without waiting 3 generations for the legend to develop.

Layman

Umm. I never said I knew them on a "personal basis." I said it was my personal observations of them that lead me to those conclusions. And I have had plenty of time to make personal obeservations of you and many others.

The first part of your statement is true, the second part is ludicrous. Yes, I think Jesus-Mythers are hyper-skeptical and have vapid arguments and are motivated more by personal animus than by the search for historical truth. No, I do not htink that anyone who criticizes my religion is an anti-religious bigot. You do know that there are people out there that can honestly challenge my beliefs without being a whacko Jesus-Myther?

Yes, I read much of Carrier' essay and some of Doherty's stuff. And I think its unconvincing. Thoroughly.

Have you read R.T. France's "The Evidence for Jesus" or E.P. Sanders, "The Historical Figure of Jesus" or John P. Meier's "A Marginal Jew, Vols. I and II" or Robert Van Voorst' "Jesus Outside the Gospel" or Kim Paffenroth's "The Gospel According to L" or Louis Feldman's article on Josephus in "Christological Perspectives" or dozens of other works that I have? Probably not.

We can trade links, references and books till hell freezes over and I probably and much more well read on the subject than you are. Certainly when we have clashed on Acts and Paul you were obviously overmatched. Not to mention our argument about "Matthew's census."

I know that there are some "clever" proponents of the Jesus-Myth. There are "clever" YECS out there but doesn't mean that they are not part of an irrelevant fringe contraticted by an overwhelming scholarly consensus to the contrary.

As I've posted before:

Most historians and NT scholars relevant to the topic think Jesus-Mythers are idiots.

I. Howard Marshall points out that in the early-to-mid 20th century, one of the few "authorities" to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopedia. He then goes on to discuss the then recent work of G.A. Wells:

"There is said to be a Russian encyclopedia in current use which affirms in a brief entry that Jesus Christ was the mythological founder of Christianity, but it is virtually alone in doing so. The historian will not take its statement very seriously, since ... it offers no evidence for its assertion, and mere assertion cannot stand over against historical enquiry.

But more than mere assertion is involved, for an attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by G.A. Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better."

Professor Marshall was correct. Neither any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic.

Atheist historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea:

"This skeptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary...."

Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, at 199-200.

Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the Jesus-Myth idea:

"The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion....

The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies--e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates--would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed--the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of th figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man."

Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, at 555.

Even the famously liberal Professor Bultmann, who argued against the historicity of much of the gospels, is quite adamant that Jesus-mythers are "insane."

"Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community."

Rudolf Bultman, Jesus and the Word, at 13.

It is also obvious that the diverse and all-but completely unanimous opinion of modern Jesus scholars and relevant historians remain completely unconvinced by the Jesus-myth arguments -- whatever their background.

"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them
completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

Robert Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 6, 14.

"Today, nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which as to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second
century Jewish or pagan religious teacher."

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, at 140-41.

Because historians and New Testament scholars -- whether atheists, secular, Catholic, or Protestant -- realize how silly the "Jesus did not exist" position is, most proponents of that idea are untrained laypersons.

Perhaps the most famous of Jesus-Mythers is Dr. G.A. Wells. Of course, Mr. Wells has no historical training at all. He taught German. Nevertheless, Mr. Well's arguments received a direct response from a real historian who thoroughly trashed them. It's an affordable little book by R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus.

Another "Dr." that is often relied on by Jesus-Mythers is "Dr." Gordon Stein. But Dr. Stein has no training in historical studies either. He's a physiologist, not a historian or New Testament scholar.

Next up is Acharya S. (cringe). Hero to skeptics--reputed critical thinkers--the internet wide. These skeptics claim to be critical persons. They claim to rest only on logic and science. They claim that we have to scrutinize our sources carefully and not be taken in by our preconceived notions and biases. Of course, no such person could in good-faith rely on Acharya S. Her website: <a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com" target="_blank">http://www.truthbeknown.com</a>

She also maintains a discussion group styled, "From Sex to Superconsciousness." She also wrote the classic: "The Aquarian Manifesto: A Handbook for Survival into and a Blueprint for the New Age." I especially enjoyed her diatribe against the United States. Apparently--I did not realize--the Pledge of Allegiance is nothing more than a "cult oath." Oh yes, but she is impervious. She refuses to be recognized as "patriotic" or an "American." Afterall, "We are all members of the cosmos."
<a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com/national.htm" target="_blank">http://www.truthbeknown.com/national.htm</a>

For her diatribe against the family (it's exclusive you see), check out this link:
<a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com/family.htm" target="_blank">http://www.truthbeknown.com/family.htm</a>

She also, apparently, hates McDonalds. "In a sane society, the invasion of junkfood would be fought against tooth and nail, for it is major contributing factor in societal breakdown." <a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com/junkfood.htm" target="_blank">http://www.truthbeknown.com/junkfood.htm</a>

Oh, and she has discovered that there is no such thing as AIDS. It's just a result of our culturally repressed fears of sexuality: <a href="http://www.truthbeknown.com/aids.htm" target="_blank">http://www.truthbeknown.com/aids.htm</a>

For a review of her work, check this out: <a href="http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_SFS.html" target="_blank">http://www.tektonics.org/JPH_SFS.html</a>

It quotes from a radio broadcast where Acharya talks about talking with aliens and being instructed by aliens to spread the word. The link to the audio file is apparently dead, but I listened to it myself a while back.

Finally, there is Early Doherty. He has no doctorate in history or New Testament studies. And because he is unable to get his work published in any respected academic journals, he's propogated his theories on the internet.

So on one hand we have a diverse scholarly community that has completely rejected the "Jesus Myth" idea as silly. On the other hand, we have proponents of the Jesus Myth who typically committed atheists, have little or no formal training in history or the New Testament, and who cannot convince even other atheist historians that their theories should be respected.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Toto

If you were surveying the history of the idea of the myth of Jesus, all this might be relevant, but it's not. Your favorite whipping girl Acharya S. is irrelevant to this discussion (unless you think it would be fair to bring up Jerry Falwell as a typically ignorant Christian.)

I will just correct a few errors. Doherty has been published in the Journal of Higher Criticism. And he has convinced at least two credentialled historians to take his ideas seriously (perhaps more). Richard Carrier, and Robert Price.

Layman

I'm skeptical of the idea that the Jounal of Higher Criticism is a "respected academic journal." Does Carrier have his Ph.D. yet? And where has he been published? Price is a real historian, but known as a lone voice on the fringe. And I thought he had finally abandoned the idea that Jesus did not exist? Or maybe that was Wells, the German linguist.

RogerLeeCooke

Hi Laurie, so glad you showed up here. I was getting lonesome for some familiar voices. Hope the new hubby is still wonderful. (I'm sure he is.)

Meanwhile, what do you think about the problem of historicity? Something somebody said on this thread set me to thinking about the name Jesus (Iesous in Greek) and the words "iesis", "sos", "sostron", "soter" etc., meaning "healing", "safe and sound", "reward for saving someone's life", "savior", etc. There does seem to be more than a coincidental connection in the names. If so, it might make sense that the original of "Jesus" was a personification of a healing principle, like the god Asclepius, who really did heal people (at least, so the steles at Epidaurus say, set up by his grateful patients).

Radorth

Well Toto, one could wish for more non-Christian evidence I suppose. My own view is that the lack of it helps keep hypercrites and incorrigible nit-pickers ot of heaven.

Perhaps you were once aware of the following evidence pointed out by Durant and others in addition to the above quote which Layman gave. However since you say you can only remember one of Durant's arguments, I'll remind you

Tacitus ca 115 describes Nero's persecution of the Christians and so we know that by 64 there were enough Christians to blame various crimes on. Suetonius mentions the same persecution and also reports Claudias banishment of the "Jews stirred up by Christ" in ca 52, which passage accords well with Acts. About the middle of the first century, a pagan named Thallus argues that the abnormal darkness on the day of Jesus' crucifixion was only a natural event, so he seems to have taken the story of Christ for granted.

Well I've not really solved the "puzzle" but I have some points to make, (perhaps made already, but I like to read and answer myself). Hopefully they will keep all but the true believers from swallowing Doherty's theory whole. I'll post them a little later.

Since we are just arguing Doherty's anti-historicity theory here, I do not think your comments about what I believe and why I believe it are appropriate. Not yet anyway.

Radorth

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Layman

Oh my gosh. Does Doherty really make that argument? Is it in his book or on his website? I have to add that one to my "Jesus-Myth" archives.

RogerLeeCooke

I should hope not. How in the world can you claim that a person as credulous and gullible as Acharya is a "hero to skeptics"? Every skeptic I know would retch when reading the kind of screeds I found at the websites you linked to.

Radorth

Doherty asserts:

"Neither his miracles nor his apocalyptic preaching, not the places or details of his birth, ministry or death, not his parents, his prosecutor, his herald, his betrayer, are ever mentioned by the first century Christian letter writers, and the ethical teachings which resemble his as recorded in the Gospels are never attributed to him."

That is simply not true. Paul mentions the trial before Pilate in Timothy. Paul talks about the "Lord's brothers" (Attn Catholics) meaning this non-existent, never mentioned person had brothers. Peter talks about his experience with Jesus "when we were with him on the holy mountain."

If the Gospels were being circulated, why should the apostles necessarily repeat the story? And if they were not being circulated, how do we know that it was not well known anyway, via word of mouth? Muhammed didn't exist either, using Doherty's logic, as little or nothing was written down in his time either. But I would never question his existence, even though I shudder to think so many follow his hypocritical and dishonest teachings. (Yeah I know. I'm a bigot, etc for saying that.

Does not Acts contain reference to miracles and to the words and doctrines of Jesus, to the crucifixion etc? Doherty clearly insinuates miraculous happenings were all made up later, but he knows there is a problem with Acts, where the apostles are busy working the same miracles Jesus did and Peter is preaching Jesus crucified. So what does he do? He simply asserts Acts was made up later as well. He basically just asserts once again that "serious scholars believe" etc. No evidence, no references, no nothing. Why? Because there is nothing. The evidence is that Acts must have been written before AD 70. If not why would the author make no mention of Paul's death which even witch-hunting nutballs would concede occurred before AD 70? I think Doherty's theory really falls apart there because so much of it depends on a well-disputed assumption.

In part 3 Doherty asserts:

"That Mark wrote first and was reworked by 'Matthew' and 'Luke,' with other material added, is now an accepted principle by a majority of scholars."

(He means those who agree with him-Rad)

"Some of the problems which called Markan priority into question, such as those passages in which Matthew and Luke agree in wording but differ from that of similar passages in Mark, have been solved by another telling realization: that each of the canonical Gospels is the end result of an early history of writing and re-writing, including additions and excisions. The Gospel of "John" is thought to have passed through several stages of construction. Thus, Matthew and Luke, writing independently and probably unknown to each other, used an earlier edition (or editions) of Mark which would have conformed to their agreements. The concept of a unified Gospel, let alone one produced by inspiration, is no longer tenable.
This picture of Gospel relationships is really quite astonishing. Even John, in its narrative structure and passion story, is now considered by many scholars (see Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus, p.239) to be based on Mark or some other Synoptic stage. Gone is the old pious view that the four Gospels are independent and corroborating accounts. Instead, their strong similarities are the result of copying."

Does anybody else see Doherty taking best guesses, talking hyperbole and contradicting himself and many other (even liberal) scholars here? First we are told Mark was copied by Matthew and Luke. Then we are assured that any desparities must mean that there was another source prior to Mark. And then we are asked to believe (by faith alone apparently) that Mark could not possibly have been written before AD 90, and that even John copied Mark!!!

Then he tells us:

"Yet when Matthew comes to write his own version of Jesus' trial and crucifixion, all he can do is slavishly copy some document he has inherited, adding a few minor details of his own, such as the guard at the tomb. Luke does little more."

So first we are told by many wizened "scholars" that the accounts vary too much to be believed, and now we are told that they are too similar to be believed!!! Tell you what Toto. I give up. The good guys can't win in such an arena, where the rules are all made up by Doherty, and change with the wind.

Radorth

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Layman

I've seen "skeptics" defend or rely on her here and on many other cites. Personal observation. Unfortunately, most skeptics do not take the time to read her website, they just quote her Jesus-Myth stuff.

[ September 06, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>