Vinnie

Layman is correct. That is really really really stretching what Luke Timothy Johnson says. He accepts that we can know things for certain about Jesus which lines up with the critical consensus. I tend to think the historicity of Jesus is axiomatic to Johnson.

Layman

Johnson does not think that the historical study of Jesus can serve as a basis for the Jesus of faith. He never indicates that Jesus was a myth, or that history cannot tell us whether Jesus existed or not. In fact, Johnson believes that if you ignore all of the gospels, you could still reconstruct facts about the historical Jesus from Paul's letters, Hebrews, and Josephus.

Vinnie

I totally agree with Johnson. I wouldn't actually cut the "Jesus of faith" off from the "Jesus of history" (and I don't think Johnson does), but how HJ research can serve as the basis of faith is beyond me. The Jesus seminar seems crazy in this light!

rodahi

I have a bit of good news for many here. I have to leave town for a few days. I should be back by Sunday or Monday.

rodahi

Agnos1

Rodahi, you said:

But our endeavor is to ascertain whether Jesus DID exist. What is scientific (or logical) about requiring Intensity to prove a negative?

I don't either.

I don't know him either, but it is obvious he did some research.

This is where the psychological nature in determining evidence comes in, but I'm NOT an expert, so I'll cease and desist on this issue.

No, and I have not determined ABSOLUTELY that God doesn't exist. I have reasonable doubt about the concept of God and about the historocity of Jesus based on the reason you just described: The NT is a corrupted myth-laden non-historical set of books, and there is no outside documentation (UNLIKE other historical figures of even minor importance) to support its claims.

I apologize for my digression regarding the inconsequence of Jesus. It was an extrapolation which really didn't pertain. What, in your opinion, IS the significance of ascertaining the reality of Jesus?

lcb

if the NT is so "corrupt and myth laden and non historical" then why are you even here arguing about it?

rodahi

rodahi: You seem to want to find some reason why I approach the figure of Jesus in a scientific manner.... Jesus could have existed. Christ, as presented in the NT, could not have.


Agnos1: But our endeavor is to ascertain whether Jesus DID exist. What is scientific (or logical) about requiring Intensity to prove a negative?

As far as I am concerned, IntenSity doesn't have to prove anything, negative or positive; however, it would be refreshing if he just once stated that he is presenting nothing more than his opinion and his justification for it. His assertions that Jesus is a myth and Mark is a fictional work remind me of the Christian fundamentalist claim that Jesus exists and the NT is--word for word--historical.

I have explained this to you in several different ways and you continue to ignore it. I wonder why.

Vorkosigan

Yes, there is a link about 3/4 of the way down in the thread on 20.200. It's at the top of one of my posts....I also noticed that there are many instances in which the editor of that copy of Whiston left out "men" forming weird sentences like "Herod together with the principal among the Jews...." so there are actually many more instances. I didn't count those, didn't see any way to.

As for your other comments, I stand by my analysis of Johnson. I am not the only person to see Johnson as having severe problems coming to grips with the lack of scholarly methodology to underpin the faith-position that the gospel Jesus stories depict a real human being.

I agree, though, that it is loony to publicly advocate mythicism, given how quickly one can be ostracized from the scholarly community or even canned.

Vorkosigan

rodahi

rodahi: Have you determined ABSOLUTELY that Jesus is mythical simply because there is little or no
documentation of his existence outside of the NT?

Agnos1: No, and I have not determined ABSOLUTELY that God doesn't exist. I have reasonable doubt about the concept of God and about the historocity of Jesus based on the reason you just described: The NT is a corrupted myth-laden non-historical set of books, and there is no outside documentation (UNLIKE other historical figures of even minor importance) to support its claims.

I also have "reasonable doubt" when it comes to the existence of Yahweh and all other gods. (I think the existence of the universe can be explained in a material, naturalistic way. I do not think it was created by any god or supernatural power.) I have arrived at this conclusion after looking at as much evidence as possible, scientific and non-scientific.

With respect to the figure of Jesus, I am just not sure either way. I have a problem with your assertion that "the NT is a corrupted myth-laden non-historical set of books." Yes, the NT is corrupted. That has been demonstrated by hundreds of scholars, Christian and secular. Yes, the NT is myth-laden. A reading of it demonstrates this fact very clearly. BUT, to say that it is "non-historical" as an absolute goes too far. Are you certain that it contains no history? I have to admit that I don't KNOW that for sure.

Vorkosigan

Johnson does not think that the historical study of Jesus can serve as a basis for the Jesus of faith.

History, especially in its comparative aspects, annihilates the idea that the gospels stories contain any useful facts!

He never indicates that Jesus was a myth, or that history cannot tell us whether Jesus existed or not. In fact, Johnson believes that if you ignore all of the gospels, you could still reconstruct facts about the historical Jesus from Paul's letters, Hebrews, and Josephus.

Like what? Hebrews tells us almost nothing about Jesus' life; even the Crucifixion is only referred to, and not mentioned. As for any other details.....like Paul, they aren't in there.

Vorkosigan