Toto

Robert Price, AFAIK, has never said that Jesus did not exist, but he has stated that he is agnostic on the issue, because he does not think there is an adequate amount of data to prove the case one way or another. He does treat Doherty as a serious scholar, which indicates that he does not think the idea is loony or outside the pale of rational inquiry.

Trying to compare the theory of evolution to the question of the existence or non-existence of an ill-defined person who might have lived 2000 years ago is like comparing apples and Polish sausage. The theory of evolution is an established scientific theory with an overwhelming amount of data from various disciplines supporting it. Scientists continually find new data supporting evolution and natural selection. Scientists agree on a methodology for testing the theory and and modifications to the theory. The only dissenters are a few people who start off with the idea that evolution cannot be valid because of their religious beliefs.

The idea that there is a real person behind the stories of Jesus is just an idea. There is no methodology for testing it. There are a handful of what you might call "data points", but their reliability is questionable.

If you did a survey of why scholars think that Jesus existed, you would not find a wealth of data points that others could examine and test. You would just find that most of them are professing Christians to start out with and see no reason to even consider the idea that Jesus did not exist. They are content to rely on second hand references to Jesus' brother as showing that it is probable that he existed. But even then there is no consensus on when Jesus was born, how he lived, what he said, or much of anything else. There is no equivalent of talkorigins where those who question the existence of Jesus can have their questions answered and their doubts resolved. This is a far, far cry from the state of the theory of evolution.

Layman

Thus further damaging his credibility.

Hey, we're talking about academic consensus. The academic consensus for the historicity of Jesus appears to be stronger than that for the theory of evolution. At least, according to you guys. You've got one guy at a serious institution who is "agnostic" on the issue and you claim that, as a result, there is no academic consensus.

Get busy on that survey. Many Jewish scholars, such as Paul White and Geza Vermes have no doubts about the existence of Jesus, and indeed, accept the validity of the TF. Other scholars, such as Crossan, Borg, Sanders, and Funk are secular. The idea that it's only professing Christians scholars out there that believe in the historicity of Jesus is just another myth.

jlowder

I do not dispute that almost all New Testament scholars accept the historicity of Jesus. But that is not equivalent to your previous claim that there is "no" argument among scholars, or your claim that the only dissenters are of little or no repute. It would be much more accurate, IMO, to say that there is very little argument among the vast majority of scholars, and that there are very few dissenters of any repute.

I am NOT aware of Price ever advocating the affirmative position, "Jesus did not exist." I am aware of Price being agnostic on the matter.

I think my worry is that you seem to equivocate between "consensus" and "nearly universal consensus." To say that there is a universal consensus on the historicity of Jesus is false. To say that there is almost a universal consensus that Jesus existed would be more accurate.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: jlowder ]</p>

Layman

It seems a matter of opinion. Perhaps semantics. I do not believe that the fact that a scholar is "agnostic" about the historicity of Jesus means that there is not a "consensus" that Jesus, in fact, existed. Do you?

I used the "nearly universal" to highlight just how strong that consensus is, but without implying that no one out there ever questioned the historicity of Jesus.

There is a consensus among historians and New Testament scholars that Jesus existed.

There is a consensus among scientists that the theory of evolution is true.

Without debating the authority or persuasive weight either consensus should carry in a discussion, I do not think that the "consensus" evoporates because a few learned Ph.Ds dissent. Even though I have sympathies for some critics of evolution, I realize that the scientific consensus strongly supports the theory.

jlowder

Layman,

The issue (question, really) I am raising is precisely a semantical one. I am not clear on how the word "consensus" should be used. If consensus means unanimous agreement, then I don't think there is a consensus for the historicity of Jesus or evolution. If consensus means near unanimous agreement, then I think there is a consensus for both the historicity of Jesus and evolution.

Regards,

jlowder

Layman

I agree. And since the former definition, when applied to a large field of study such as biology or history, would almost never exist, I just want to make clear that when speaking about the historicity of Jesus, I am using the latter definintion.

And thanks for dropping in. Without commiting you to further debate on the issue, did Peter Kirby's laudable article on this issue alter your opinion?

Just curious.

Vorkosigan

The consensus on the historicity of Jesus is irrelevant. Evolutionists can appeal to a proven methodology backed by overwhelming evidence. NT scholars have absolutely nothing to support their consensus. Conclusion? The "consensus" exists for social and not scholarly reasons.

If there is a methodology and a body of hard data underlying this "consensus," bring it forth, Layman. So far we're up to 96 posts and no methodology in sight.

Crossan, Birth of Christianity, p. 149
"I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation , that there is any way, acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata."

Vorkosigan

Layman

Okay. I forgot what time of the day it was Turton. Are you arguing against the historicity of Jesus or not?

Crossan, despite your limited selection of his writings, affirms the historicity of Jesus, the Testimonium Falvianum, and Jesus' death by crucifixion.

Toto

Nice work Layman trying to suck up to Peter Kirby. Are you hoping that he'll forget that Bede tried to use his work to argue that "only amateur Jesus Mythers said the TF was a complete fabrication"? Bede couldn't ever read well enough to figure out that Peter himself thinks the Testimonium is a total forgery.

Layman

Ah, mind-reading again Toto? What reason do I have to "suck up" to Kirby? Perhaps you think that because I'm so dismissive of you and your antics, that I'm similarly dismissive of all those with whom I disagree? You would be wrong. You've gained a special place in my low esteem Toto.

I told Kirby before that I thought his article was a good one. I also told him that I disagreed with his conclusions. I've started another thread about those disagreements and hope that it can remain above your petty ankle-biting. Though I'm doubtful.

Well, I suspect that Kirby is mature enough not to hold what Bede said against me. I'm not Bede. I don't speak for Bede. He doesn't speak for me.

That being said, I thought Bede apologized to Kirby and agreed with Kirby that he was wrong for making that statment.

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>