Vinnie

Why would I apply these criteria to known fictional sources? I'm sure you understand that there are genre differences. How are you are so willing to call Mark, John, Q, Paul, M, L, Miracle List, all the sources underlying material (prayer at Gethsemane, passion narrative, Mark's controversy traditions etc.) as fiction like the LotR trilogy?

Reading some E.P. Sanders will do you good. He constantly stresses how the Christian creativity was relatively limited.

Josephus mentioned Jesus as if he were historical, as did Mark, John, Paul, and Q, M, L, and the Miracle list all mention details as if they were coiming from a historical person. Not to mention the earlier traditions found within the Gospels and other works

The embarassment in the fictional work comparison is ridiculous as well. This is one of the reasons why I don't like putting in the leg work to bother with the mythicists here. These arguments are so lame that they do not deserve a decent response.

The "embarrassment" of the Gospels is applied to a person whom people followed as their Lord and Savior. Not a fictional character in a book. At any rate, it is obvious in certain areas that there is theological damage control going on (e.g. the Baptism by JBap). Call me a simpleton but why anyone would ficticiously create this sort of thing is beyond my comprehension.

This is not historical skepticism as these arguments have nothing to do with serious historical research. Its some sort of anti-Jesus bias. For example, look at Justin's response to my congratulation on critiquing fundamentalism:

Most of the mythicism I see here is nothing more than an argument against fundamentalism or evangelicalism.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Further, who believed Frodo Baggins to be sinless and capable of forgiving sins?

Vinnie

Justin70

So, anyone that doesn't agree with what you have to say regarding your 'serious historical research' obviously has an 'anti-Jesus bias'? Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me with your evidence for some type of historicity of Jesus instead of doing your verbal tap dances, k?

Quote:

Most of the mythicism I see here is nothing more than an argument against fundamentalism or evangelicalism.

Could you please define what you mean by 'fundamentalism' and 'evangelicalism' because, as I have stated before: All variations of Christianity accept Jesus as a historic person and I have yet to see how the alleged differences between Fundamentalist Christianity and any other type have any bearing on discussions on a Historical Jesus.

Vinnie

Because the question has nothing to do with a Christian reconstruction of Jesus. If theists (especially Christians) want to reconstruct the historical Jesus they must prescind from faith. Historians have known for a long time now that there are diverging theologies and numerous contradictions between the Gospels. Its only the fundamentalists who look at a error and say "all or nothing". Serious scholars simply don't read the Bible in the same manner and they don't reconstruct Jesus in the same manner either. Have you ever read any works on the historical Jesus by a bona fide scholar?

Critical NT scholars all pretty much dismiss the classical view and I do not know a single one who would accept all these "facts" from the Gospels as authentic. This has nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus though. This has nothing to do with critical Jesus scholarship as far as I can see. If you are applying this to HJ research then let me be the first to tell you that it is a strawman.

Then you went on to say:

This is a critique of fundamentalism. Historians have used these Gospels for years while recongnizing various inconsistencies. And what do we have to look outside the Gospels for? Proof of Jesus' historicity? If so I'll add in another ad hominem. This is an anti-Christian canon bias. Its always "we must look outside the bible". Why? Get over it the canonical dimension for a minute. Serious scholars treat them as hostile witnesses.

No, the arguments here mainly consists of reactions against conservative historical apologetics. Very few manage to reach the next level.

Various sources treat Jesus (died ca 30 ad) as a historical person: Josephus (90s), Mark (70), the Pauline corpus (50s with traditions coming from the 40s and possibly the thirties), Q, M, L, and numerous sources detectable within the Gospels.

Johannine and Marcan independence (admittedly, this is disputed by some scholars). Establishes the existence of a pre-Marcan burial account, pre-Marcan Passion, last supper (also Paul), temple cleansing etc. These elements all apply to a historical person.

The embarrassment of the crucifixion of Jesus.
The embarrassment of the Baptism of Jesus
Triple (all very solid) attestation that he had a brother named James (Mark, Paul, Josephus).

Evidence for the existence of Peter (a follower of Jesus) being Paul, Mark etc.

All the material in the Pauline corpus (teaching on divorce, crucifixion, last supper, the existence of the twelve etc. etc.

Widespread = numerous sources:
Widespread data which suggest Jesus performed exorcisms
Widespread data which suggests Jesus performed miracles
Widespread data which suggest Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God
Widespread data which suggest Jesus spoke in parables.

Vinnie

keyser_soze

Vinnie;

I believe vorks is trying to get you to understand that the methodology ITSELF is flawed. By applying it to any other multi authored character, it PROVES their historicity. I think you are mistunderstanding and redirecting purposefully. The methodology is FLAWED, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the genre of the written material. If you wish it, you can apply it to another RELIGION, and it will still fail to disprove historicity. You appear to be obfuscating his/her point.

godfry n. glad

Vinnie's also applying controversial dates to controversial sources as though they were "widely accepted" when they aren't.

godfry

Vinnie

No, I am not obfuscating anything. The evidence for an "acutal person is right there on the texts which all seem to speak of a historical person. Frodo Baggins is a fictional construct. This is a genre difference. There is no comparison here. Its not my job to demonstrate the falsity of an unsubstantiated parallels.

Vinine

Vinnie

The datings I listed:

Josephus' AJ 90s ad. This is controversial and widely disputed?

Q pre-dating 70 ad. This is controversial and widely disputed?

Paul writing in the 50s and passing along some earlier tradition. This is widely disputed and controversial?

Mark writing ca 70 ad. This is controversial and widely disputed?

These are all consensus positions that are not widely disputed by scholars. This is why I have trouble putting in the leg-work here. You obviously have no clue what is and isn't "widely accepted" by critical scholars today.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Axiomatic as in self-evident from the texts.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

Sweating blood because of a threat from a mortal is no less embarassing than resurrecting naked and walking out of the tomb naked.
How about believing that insanity is caused by demon posession? is that honourable? And God making a woman pregnant?

Christians do not find it embarassing that Jesus was baptised by HJ - they saw it as a necessary rite of passage for Jesus. There is no reason to think the Gospel writers could have discerned any embarrasment in what they wrote about Jesus; his life was supposed to be a lesson - it is even said he washed the disciples feet.

If embarassment is what you want to talk about, Jesus' whole life was an embarassment. The manner of his half-naked death and dishonourable burial in a non-family tomb etc etc.

This is a case of applying 21st century thinking on 1st century writings.

Special pleading.

Fallacy of missing arguments - what exactly is self-evident? Jesus' historicity?

Oh, I must express my satisfaction at Vorks fine post regarding HJ methodologies. From Vinnie's special pleading tactics, its evident that Meiers criteria are inadequate.
I haven't read The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide
by Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz but I will try and get a copy.