Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rodahi · 07-30-2002, 12:43 PM

rodahi: 2. I am not interested in horror movies. However, you might watch The Exorcist to get an idea of what superstitious people think about the subject.

IntenSity: I watched the exorcist, you might also find The Entity very interesting. The Exorcist seems to have rubbed off on you.

The only thing that has "rubbed off" on me was a good-looking woman. Ah, what an experience.

IntenSity: I have seen countless mad people and none of them have strange voices emanating from them even during "spells" when they become catatonic.

How many exorcisms have you witnessed? (ONE MORE TIME, I do not believe in demons or possessions, but those involved do.)

IntenSity: I am sorry

I wouldn't go that far. "Not worthy" might be a better descriptor.

IntenSity: if I seem to imply that you believe in exorcisms, but YOU said yourself that cases of exorcism have been documented. That meant assent on your part.

It means nothing of the kind, UNLESS you wish to ignore the fact that I have stated repeatedly that I don't think demons exist. The superstitious people involved in the exorcism BELIEVE that demons are exorcised.

rodahi · 07-30-2002, 01:01 PM

rodahi: Go to <a href="http://www.Google.com" target="_blank">www.Google.com</a> and type in "exorcisms." It is pretty simple. Or better yet, read a few books on the subject.

IntenSity: <runs a google check>
None of the books that "support" exorcisms are scientific. They are either religious or pseudoscientific.

Bullshit! Only in your tiny world are ALL books about exorcism " either religious or pseudoscientific." I took all of thirty seconds to find the following books from my shelf:
Jesus the Magician, Morton Smith (a scholar)
The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, Gerd Theissen (a scholar)
Semitic Magic, R. Campbell Thompson (a scholar)
The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Hans Dieter Betz, ed. (a scholar)
Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, John M. Hull (a scholar)
Magic in Ancient Egypt, Geraldinie Pinch (a scholar)
The Myth of the Magus, E. M. Butler (a scholar)
Arcana Mundi, Georg Luck (a scholar)
Chaldean Magic: Its Origins and Development, Francois Lenormant (a scholar)
Amulets and Superstitions, E. A Wallis Budge (a scholar)
Magic in the Ancient World, Fritz Graf (a scholar)
The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, Charles Guignebert (a scholar)

IntenSity: So you have no basis for asserting that exorcism may involve mad people calming down. Or voices of mad people being strange.

Sure. Whatever you say. After all, IntenSity, you KNOW so much.

Layman · 07-30-2002, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
I have been seeking all over the web for refutations directed to christ-myth hypotheses by scholars who hold the idea that a historical Jesus more likely than not existed.

Largely, the biggest Christ Mythers are Earl Doherty and G. A. Wells. Archaya S OTOH has been a sitting-duck for people against the idea of Jesus being a myth she has actually placed herself in a position of ridicule by claiming visitations by aliens and so on. Its hard to take her seriously.

J. P. Holding, I have found, is a hard anti christ myther. When one wades through his ridicules and insults directed at christ mythers and scratches the bottom of his derisions, there are some weak arguments.

Are there any serious scholars who have advanced arguments against the christ-myth hypothesis? Does any of you have any trenchant argument that can shatter the idea of Jesus having been mythical?

Alternatively, links to relevant sites supporting both christ myth and historical Jesus would be appreciated.

And oh, for the record, I am a six-day old christ myther.

Most historians and NT scholars relevant to the topic think Jesus-Mythers are idiots and have better things to do with their time.

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:

Quote:

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 voer 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. Niether 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:

Quote:

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 serous 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 idea:

Quote:

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 of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his 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."

Quote:

"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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

But back to your question. Like I said, most scholars find the Jesus-myth position so stupid they do not bother to write books about it. They are more interested in the real scholarly action. However, one bona fide scholar who did stoop to write a response to G.A. Wells may be of interest to you:

R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus.

Because I have not read the entire book I can't exactly recommend it, but I did find the parts I read to be well done.

Toto · 07-31-2002, 12:00 AM

Layman, I will be charitable and assume that because you have been away, you have just missed out on developments.

Please catch up by reading Carrier's review of Doherty:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml</a>

and catch up with this thread on the question:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000394" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000394</a>

You post above was an argument from outdated authority. Yes, there are a lot of scholars who think that the idea that Jesus was a myth is laughable or insane, but this is more a comment on their own inadequacies.

Steven Carr · 07-31-2002, 12:54 AM

Rodahi writes
'Atheist historian Michael Grant'

Can we have a quote by Michael Grant saying that he is an atheist? Some sort of references to this would be nice to see.

Ted Hoffman · 07-31-2002, 12:57 AM

Layman,
I am disapointed that you could make such a weak "objecion" against the Jesus myth idea. I have seen you fare better in other debates. Your adhominems aside, let me mention that consensus among "scholars" concerning HJ are meaningless because there is no clear, established methodology for Historical Jesus studies. Because of this, consensus among scholars in this field is normally for social as opposed to intellectual or academic reasons.
As such your whole argument collapses to appeal to authority and appeal to numbers, which is really pathetic.

Scholars who deride the subject do so for dishonest reasons. Whether or not there was a historical Jesus is very critical to Christianity and there is no diminishing the importance of the quest. To downplay the issue is basically a manifestation of a closed mind over the matter or can also be a sign of plain, raw fear. I know jobs may be lost when it is actually established that a HJ never existed. So its understandable the way discussion over the matter is being muffled and derided. But it is NOT enough for people who are out to pursue the truth.

lets look at what your scholars are saying:

Howard Marshall

Quote:

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.

The extreme egoomania may mislead some scholars that people who venture to study the history of christianity do so to make an impression on them. Arguments must be evaluated on their own merit, NOT on scholarly appeal. This is NOT entertainment.

you added:
Professor Marshall was correct. Niether any earlier attempt nor Wells have swayed scholarly opinion. This remains true whether the scholars were Christians, liberals, conservatives, Jewish, atheist, agnostic, or Catholic.
Scholarly opinion doesnt mean squat in this field.

Michael Grant

Quote:

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 serous 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....

Again, no sound rebuttal, just appeals to popular opinions and baseless claims. That doesnt work here.

Will Durant

Quote:

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.

Appeal to personal incredulity. Nothing of substance. Even Yahweh was invented, Socrates, Dionysus, etc.
Whats so uninventable about Jesus - the miracles?

Professor Bultman

Quote:

No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the Palestinian community.

Argumentum ad hominem. No argument, just appeals.

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.
This is incorrect. But since you have not offered any recent search on scolarship positions on the matter, I will leave it as your opinion.

Van Vorst

Quote:

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.

Appeal to authority.

But back to your question. Like I said, most scholars find the Jesus-myth position so stupid they do not bother to write books about it.
Back to you Layman, why do you think the Jesus-myth position is so stupid ?
And what makes the HJ position superior?

PS: Next time you feel compelled to give us scholarly quotes, give us relevant quotes. Provide their arguments against the christ-myth position.
We are not interested in surveys or opinion polls. What we are interested in is rigorous discussion on matters regarding historical Jesus.

Steven Carr · 07-31-2002, 12:58 AM

Rohadi writes about Will Durant '... Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh.'

Where does Paul say that? Is Rohadi using the fallacy of argument by mistaken authority?

Ted Hoffman · 07-31-2002, 01:16 AM

Rodahi,
I have stated which parts I do not believe in the bible. You have partly agreed with me that they are indeed unbeleivable or fictitious. How do we tell a work of fiction, by demonstrating that there are fictitious elements in the work. Which I have done. My argument is, whether or not there was a poor peasant who performed magic in ancient Palestine called Jesus, would be a pure coincidence. He is NOT the character Mark is talking about. The Gospel of Mark is NOT a historical account.

I have then asked you why you believe. You have not yet responded. The only response I can envisage you giving is: "I beleive because it doesnt make sense" - because you keep saying you dont see why....
But I will wait for your response.

I Understand that you dont believe in demons and in Magic.

A person practicing the art of magic can believe his magic works and his trusting audience can believe that his magic works, even though there are no supernatural element involved. IF a magician THINKS his magic works (even though it does not in reality) and his audience THINKS his magic works (even though it does not in reality) then there is no deception. IF a magician KNOWS he is an illusionist and he KNOWS that his magic is nothing more than illusion, then he deceives a gullible audience IF they think he has performed a magical act.
My question is, WHY WOULD A MAGICIAN THINK HIS MAGIC WORKS AT ALL? (Considering it doesnt work in reality) Are you saying some magicians are deluded? Do you have evidence for this?
(the power of suggestion is what deceitful magicians exploit)

Quote:

Jesus the Magician, Morton Smith (a scholar)
The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, Gerd Theissen (a scholar)
Semitic Magic, R. Campbell Thompson (a scholar)
The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Hans Dieter Betz, ed. (a scholar)
Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, John M. Hull (a scholar)
Magic in Ancient Egypt, Geraldinie Pinch (a scholar)
The Myth of the Magus, E. M. Butler (a scholar)
Arcana Mundi, Georg Luck (a scholar)
Chaldean Magic: Its Origins and Development, Francois Lenormant (a scholar)
Amulets and Superstitions, E. A Wallis Budge (a scholar)
Magic in the Ancient World, Fritz Graf (a scholar)
The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, Charles Guignebert (a scholar)

All these books seem to be studies on ancient beliefs and practices.
If they are what you referred to as "documents", I understand. The context in which you asserted that exorcism has been "documented" implied that you were asserting "exorcism" DOES happen. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Lets wrap this up: tell me why you believe.

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]

Vorkosigan · 07-31-2002, 01:45 AM

Shit, Will Durant's point is awful. Durant seems to be unaware that the Synoptics all copied each other. No wonder they agree; three versions of one book.....

Layman, if you want to argue about mythicism, neither Grant nor Durant, for all their erudition, are relevant sources. I realize you like citing Grant, but he obviously did not do his homework. This was an old Nomad tactic, as if citing atheists was somehow effective against atheists -- a form of rhetorical sympathetic magic, using like against like.

Far from being annihilated by competent scholars; mythicism, represented by the methodological crisis in HJ studies, has grown so profound that Luke Timothy Johnson can only recommend fideism at the end of his recent study of the HJ; since he knows full well that NT scholars have developed no methodology for separating legend from fact. Not their fault; no one else has either. Only the presence of outside historical vectors -- archaeology, other texts -- permits this. We currently have none.

I direct your attention to a relevant source, Crossan's discussion of NT methodology in The Birth of Christianity from page 149, where he says bluntly that there is no way you can reach into the mound of materials and pull out anything historical. The methods do not exist. All you can do is make some assumptions and try to get down to the earliest stratum. Problem is that the earliest stratum is already legend.

Or your own quote from a couple of months ago:

"The issue is that historians face about Jesus is to determine how much we have reported about him is true. This is a problem faced for any notable historical personage."

And NT scholars do not have any reliable method for doing this. Their own widespread position that the Jesus of the Gospels is a real historical person is not underpinned by sound methodology and array of historical sources. It is merely the inertia of faith-commitment, and, I suspect, the unwillingness of skeptics to say so to their believing colleagues to prevent bad feelings all around. Andrew Bernhard was arguing on XTALK a couple of months ago that many of the datings seem designed to provide time for both sides to allow for the events they favor to occur, and I have long suspected that the "partial interpolation" thesis in the TF also serves this function.*

I'm a little tired of this issue, and would like to hear something new or at least interesting, instead of the usual complaints about how insane skeptics are cuz we're not in the majority. Conjuring up the ghost of Nomad will not enable you to magic up sound methodology and whisk your HJ into existence. Bring me a methodology or evidence and we'll talk.

Alternatively, you and I can stage a formal debate on this topic here at II or at a Christian or other venue of your choice; if we can agree on a topic like "The story of Jesus as portrayed in the NT writings is substantially true" or "What methodologies should we bring to bear on the Jesus stories?" Actually, defining the proper topic for this may be more difficult than I thought at first pass! Perhaps the more sensible minds of Polycarp, Peter Kirby, Toto or HRG can refine the topic a bit. But let me know your thoughts. If you are not able (I understand your time commitments in your job), you can bring on the scholar/apologist of your choice. I'm not picky.

Vorkosigan

*Which reminds me. Re: your discussion on 'principal men' with PK, I ran it through War and Antiquities and found 58 instances, many unlinked to any city, including a few late in Ant.... So it looks like you are right on that score.

rodahi · 07-31-2002, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr:
Rodahi writes
'Atheist historian Michael Grant'

Can we have a quote by Michael Grant saying that he is an atheist? Some sort of references to this would be nice to see.

Steven, I did not make that statement. It was Layman. Also, for future reference, I am as atheistic as you are. Layman is a Christian.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-30-2002, 12:43 PM	#111
rodahi Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX, USA Posts: 137	rodahi: 2. I am not interested in horror movies. However, you might watch The Exorcist to get an idea of what superstitious people think about the subject. IntenSity: I watched the exorcist, you might also find The Entity very interesting. The Exorcist seems to have rubbed off on you. The only thing that has "rubbed off" on me was a good-looking woman. Ah, what an experience. IntenSity: I have seen countless mad people and none of them have strange voices emanating from them even during "spells" when they become catatonic. How many exorcisms have you witnessed? (ONE MORE TIME, I do not believe in demons or possessions, but those involved do.) IntenSity: I am sorry I wouldn't go that far. "Not worthy" might be a better descriptor. IntenSity: if I seem to imply that you believe in exorcisms, but YOU said yourself that cases of exorcism have been documented. That meant assent on your part. It means nothing of the kind, UNLESS you wish to ignore the fact that I have stated repeatedly that I don't think demons exist. The superstitious people involved in the exorcism BELIEVE that demons are exorcised.

07-30-2002, 01:01 PM	#112
rodahi Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: Weslaco, TX, USA Posts: 137	rodahi: Go to <a href="http://www.Google.com" target="_blank">www.Google.com</a> and type in "exorcisms." It is pretty simple. Or better yet, read a few books on the subject. IntenSity: <runs a google check> None of the books that "support" exorcisms are scientific. They are either religious or pseudoscientific. Bullshit! Only in your tiny world are ALL books about exorcism " either religious or pseudoscientific." I took all of thirty seconds to find the following books from my shelf: Jesus the Magician, Morton Smith (a scholar) The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, Gerd Theissen (a scholar) Semitic Magic, R. Campbell Thompson (a scholar) The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation, Hans Dieter Betz, ed. (a scholar) Hellenistic Magic and the Synoptic Tradition, John M. Hull (a scholar) Magic in Ancient Egypt, Geraldinie Pinch (a scholar) The Myth of the Magus, E. M. Butler (a scholar) Arcana Mundi, Georg Luck (a scholar) Chaldean Magic: Its Origins and Development, Francois Lenormant (a scholar) Amulets and Superstitions, E. A Wallis Budge (a scholar) Magic in the Ancient World, Fritz Graf (a scholar) The Jewish World in the Time of Jesus, Charles Guignebert (a scholar) IntenSity: So you have no basis for asserting that exorcism may involve mad people calming down. Or voices of mad people being strange. Sure. Whatever you say. After all, IntenSity, you KNOW so much.

07-31-2002, 12:00 AM	#114
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Layman, I will be charitable and assume that because you have been away, you have just missed out on developments. Please catch up by reading Carrier's review of Doherty: <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml</a> and catch up with this thread on the question: <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000394" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000394</a> You post above was an argument from outdated authority. Yes, there are a lot of scholars who think that the idea that Jesus was a myth is laughable or insane, but this is more a comment on their own inadequacies.

07-31-2002, 12:54 AM	#115
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Rodahi writes 'Atheist historian Michael Grant' Can we have a quote by Michael Grant saying that he is an atheist? Some sort of references to this would be nice to see.

07-31-2002, 12:58 AM	#117
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Rohadi writes about Will Durant '... Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh.' Where does Paul say that? Is Rohadi using the fallacy of argument by mistaken authority?

07-31-2002, 01:45 AM	#119
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Shit, Will Durant's point is awful. Durant seems to be unaware that the Synoptics all copied each other. No wonder they agree; three versions of one book..... Layman, if you want to argue about mythicism, neither Grant nor Durant, for all their erudition, are relevant sources. I realize you like citing Grant, but he obviously did not do his homework. This was an old Nomad tactic, as if citing atheists was somehow effective against atheists -- a form of rhetorical sympathetic magic, using like against like. Far from being annihilated by competent scholars; mythicism, represented by the methodological crisis in HJ studies, has grown so profound that Luke Timothy Johnson can only recommend fideism at the end of his recent study of the HJ; since he knows full well that NT scholars have developed no methodology for separating legend from fact. Not their fault; no one else has either. Only the presence of outside historical vectors -- archaeology, other texts -- permits this. We currently have none. I direct your attention to a relevant source, Crossan's discussion of NT methodology in The Birth of Christianity from page 149, where he says bluntly that there is no way you can reach into the mound of materials and pull out anything historical. The methods do not exist. All you can do is make some assumptions and try to get down to the earliest stratum. Problem is that the earliest stratum is already legend. Or your own quote from a couple of months ago: "The issue is that historians face about Jesus is to determine how much we have reported about him is true. This is a problem faced for any notable historical personage." And NT scholars do not have any reliable method for doing this. Their own widespread position that the Jesus of the Gospels is a real historical person is not underpinned by sound methodology and array of historical sources. It is merely the inertia of faith-commitment, and, I suspect, the unwillingness of skeptics to say so to their believing colleagues to prevent bad feelings all around. Andrew Bernhard was arguing on XTALK a couple of months ago that many of the datings seem designed to provide time for both sides to allow for the events they favor to occur, and I have long suspected that the "partial interpolation" thesis in the TF also serves this function.* I'm a little tired of this issue, and would like to hear something new or at least interesting, instead of the usual complaints about how insane skeptics are cuz we're not in the majority. Conjuring up the ghost of Nomad will not enable you to magic up sound methodology and whisk your HJ into existence. Bring me a methodology or evidence and we'll talk. Alternatively, you and I can stage a formal debate on this topic here at II or at a Christian or other venue of your choice; if we can agree on a topic like "The story of Jesus as portrayed in the NT writings is substantially true" or "What methodologies should we bring to bear on the Jesus stories?" Actually, defining the proper topic for this may be more difficult than I thought at first pass! Perhaps the more sensible minds of Polycarp, Peter Kirby, Toto or HRG can refine the topic a bit. But let me know your thoughts. If you are not able (I understand your time commitments in your job), you can bring on the scholar/apologist of your choice. I'm not picky. Vorkosigan *Which reminds me. Re: your discussion on 'principal men' with PK, I ran it through War and Antiquities and found 58 instances, many unlinked to any city, including a few late in Ant.... So it looks like you are right on that score.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.