Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 06-02-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
I certainly think it is possible. And I'm sure you and I are both knowledgeable about the arguments on both sides of the issues. I hate to doubt your sincerity, but I can't believe you really expect every scholarly treatment published about any part of Jesus' life to contain a specific refutation of a position almost no one in the scholarly community takes seriously.

That being said, if you and the rest of the skeptics here intend to turn every thread on this forum into a discussion of the Jesus Myth, then I suspect I'll be spending much less time here. I sometimes post on that issue specifically and sometimes post on others. My interests are wider then proving/disproving Jesus' existence.

Sorry to sound like a Johnny One Note. I have read Wright's first two books in the series and know that he takes the historicity of Jesus as something which need not be proven by him. (Since it is a rather long book, in a wide-ranging series, I was a little disappointed, though not quite surprised, that the subject got a one sentence dismissal in Jesus and the Victory of God.) I was trying to provoke someone into making a summary of the Historical Jesus case in a similar way to what Vorkosigan and Doherty have done for their Jesus Myth ideas. I see that I am sidetracking this thread and will pursue the point no further here. But, of course, if you wish to start a thread on the subject sometime, you have at least me for an interested audience. To be honest I have not seen anything approaching a "definitive" case for the historicity of Jesus, like unto Doherty's site and book for the Jesus Myth, as everyone in recent times seems to think that the subject is beneath them. And I do have wide interests... honest. Would you like to comment on the absence (or presence) of the resurrection idea in the Gospel of Thomas? There's an interesting document if ever there was one.

best,
Peter Kirby

Paul Baxter · 06-02-2003, 06:05 PM

Hi all,

yes, I believe I was a bit broad initially, but my curiousity was a broad one. I haven't really been following what's been going on here (sorry), and a search for "Wright" on the search feature didn't turn up anything, so I was first of all curious as to whether his ideas had been presented here. I did notice subsequently that Layman had discussed Wright on at least one other thread, so I guess the answer to that is "yes, he has been discussed." Perhaps the search feature doesn't work well?

My other curiousity was to how intelligent atheists (and I hope there are some here

) would respond to this particular book. I'm no genius, nor a NT or historical scholar of any standing. Just a Christian who is curious and who has found Wright's stuff very stimulating. Which is to say I would love to hear from others who have read his work for themselves, rather than relying on my poor abilities to summarize. He is, undoubtedly, a better arguer than I am.

more on historical claims in next post though

Toto · 06-02-2003, 06:19 PM

Sometimes the search function seems unpredictable, but I tried searching for "Wright" in the BC&A forum, and got two pages of hits.

I would be interested in what you have to say about Wright's ideas, although my experience with Christian writers is that they start from the assumptions that a god exists and that Jesus must have existed.

What does Wright have to say about the gnostic view of the resurrection?

Paul Baxter · 06-02-2003, 06:20 PM

On the subject of New Testament historical claims, as I've noticed them being thrown about here and there, I havre just a couple of comments. My college major was in history, and I like to read history as much as I can, so I know just a little bit. One point, which I'm sure should be patently obvious, is that historical claims are/should be considered in a different way than scientific experimental claims or mathematical proofs. Historical claims (as Wright says in the note quoted at the beginning) are not the sort of thing where one can say "there, I've proven it beyond any doubt."

Thus, when evaluating historical evidence, one must try to create plausible theories which best account for the evidence. This is, again as Wright points out, the same sort of thing we do regularly. I won't bother to repeat his examples. But as far as Jesus existence as a real person goes, I have yet to see a plausible theory which explains all the evidence in a more reasonable way than the theory that he existed.

On the flip side, I see people making lots of claims based on virtually no evidence at all, to bolster claims against Jesus. An example would be the dating of the NT writings. Obviously we do not know exactly when they were written. None of them make any direct claims to be written in a particular year. We do know that they were written sometime after Jesus death (c. 30 AD). But, we absolutely have no external evidence which would require any particular later dating. (As a side note, Jesus' prophecies about coming destruction arguably could be considered rationally, which is to say it is entirely possible to imagine someone with no divine gift of foreknowledge predicting such events.) Whih is to say, it seems pretty flimsy to start with the assumption that the gospels were written late, then argue that they had no historical basis. The trend of recent scholarship, so far as I can tell, has been pushing them earlier and earlier. Of course, this is not "proof" of any kind, but it is, to my knowledge, the judgement of the scholars who are working on these issues.

Peter Kirby · 06-02-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
My other curiousity was to how intelligent atheists ... would respond to this particular book.

I think the real problem here is that we haven't read this book. I probably will read it eventually, but it's not a priority for me.

I have read books by Gary Habermas (The Historical Jesus) and William Lane Craig (Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus) that argue for the resurrection and responded to them. I've read about two dozen other books concerning the resurrection. What new things has Wright brought to the discussion? We've got the same source documents we've had for centuries, after all.

best,
Peter Kirby

Paul Baxter · 06-02-2003, 06:34 PM

Toto,

briefly, (and this isn't an area I know much about at all) Wright does survey the gnostic views a bit. He sees the gnostic views as a later development, and inluenced by platonism. He surveys first some of the earlier writers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Hermas, Papias, Ascention of Isaiah, and about 12 more) and shows that they majority of the early Christian views were quite contrary to the gnostic views. Of course many of these works are hard to date, but (again relying on Wright's word in my ignorance), there are a fair number of Xian writers who are known to pre-date the gnostics.

Paul Baxter · 06-02-2003, 06:36 PM

Peter,

I couldn't answer the question as you have read those books and I have read this one. It would be some sort of interesting logic puzzle for us to figure out, n'est-ce pas?

Toto · 06-02-2003, 06:39 PM

What about the gnostic language in the epistles attributed to Paul?

You say that the historical Jesus makes more sense than any other theory - which mythicist theories have you examined? Or do you just consider it improbable that Christianity could have started without a founder?

Peter Kirby · 06-02-2003, 06:39 PM

LOL, Paul. I guess if I want to find out, I will read Wright's work ... and get back to you in 2004.

best,
Peter Kirby

Dominus Paradoxum · 06-02-2003, 06:48 PM

According to this article by Richard Carrier, a professional historian, Doherty's thesis accounts for the genises of Christianity much better than the idea of a historical Jesus.

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

06-02-2003, 06:05 PM	#32
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	Hi all, yes, I believe I was a bit broad initially, but my curiousity was a broad one. I haven't really been following what's been going on here (sorry), and a search for "Wright" on the search feature didn't turn up anything, so I was first of all curious as to whether his ideas had been presented here. I did notice subsequently that Layman had discussed Wright on at least one other thread, so I guess the answer to that is "yes, he has been discussed." Perhaps the search feature doesn't work well? My other curiousity was to how intelligent atheists (and I hope there are some here ) would respond to this particular book. I'm no genius, nor a NT or historical scholar of any standing. Just a Christian who is curious and who has found Wright's stuff very stimulating. Which is to say I would love to hear from others who have read his work for themselves, rather than relying on my poor abilities to summarize. He is, undoubtedly, a better arguer than I am. more on historical claims in next post though

06-02-2003, 06:19 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Sometimes the search function seems unpredictable, but I tried searching for "Wright" in the BC&A forum, and got two pages of hits. I would be interested in what you have to say about Wright's ideas, although my experience with Christian writers is that they start from the assumptions that a god exists and that Jesus must have existed. What does Wright have to say about the gnostic view of the resurrection?

06-02-2003, 06:20 PM	#34
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	On the subject of New Testament historical claims, as I've noticed them being thrown about here and there, I havre just a couple of comments. My college major was in history, and I like to read history as much as I can, so I know just a little bit. One point, which I'm sure should be patently obvious, is that historical claims are/should be considered in a different way than scientific experimental claims or mathematical proofs. Historical claims (as Wright says in the note quoted at the beginning) are not the sort of thing where one can say "there, I've proven it beyond any doubt." Thus, when evaluating historical evidence, one must try to create plausible theories which best account for the evidence. This is, again as Wright points out, the same sort of thing we do regularly. I won't bother to repeat his examples. But as far as Jesus existence as a real person goes, I have yet to see a plausible theory which explains all the evidence in a more reasonable way than the theory that he existed. On the flip side, I see people making lots of claims based on virtually no evidence at all, to bolster claims against Jesus. An example would be the dating of the NT writings. Obviously we do not know exactly when they were written. None of them make any direct claims to be written in a particular year. We do know that they were written sometime after Jesus death (c. 30 AD). But, we absolutely have no external evidence which would require any particular later dating. (As a side note, Jesus' prophecies about coming destruction arguably could be considered rationally, which is to say it is entirely possible to imagine someone with no divine gift of foreknowledge predicting such events.) Whih is to say, it seems pretty flimsy to start with the assumption that the gospels were written late, then argue that they had no historical basis. The trend of recent scholarship, so far as I can tell, has been pushing them earlier and earlier. Of course, this is not "proof" of any kind, but it is, to my knowledge, the judgement of the scholars who are working on these issues.

06-02-2003, 06:34 PM	#36
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	Toto, briefly, (and this isn't an area I know much about at all) Wright does survey the gnostic views a bit. He sees the gnostic views as a later development, and inluenced by platonism. He surveys first some of the earlier writers (Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Hermas, Papias, Ascention of Isaiah, and about 12 more) and shows that they majority of the early Christian views were quite contrary to the gnostic views. Of course many of these works are hard to date, but (again relying on Wright's word in my ignorance), there are a fair number of Xian writers who are known to pre-date the gnostics.

06-02-2003, 06:36 PM	#37
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	Peter, I couldn't answer the question as you have read those books and I have read this one. It would be some sort of interesting logic puzzle for us to figure out, n'est-ce pas?

06-02-2003, 06:39 PM	#38
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	What about the gnostic language in the epistles attributed to Paul? You say that the historical Jesus makes more sense than any other theory - which mythicist theories have you examined? Or do you just consider it improbable that Christianity could have started without a founder?

06-02-2003, 06:39 PM	#39
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	LOL, Paul. I guess if I want to find out, I will read Wright's work ... and get back to you in 2004. best, Peter Kirby

06-02-2003, 06:48 PM	#40
Dominus Paradoxum Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: California Posts: 1,000	According to this article by Richard Carrier, a professional historian, Doherty's thesis accounts for the genises of Christianity much better than the idea of a historical Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.