Toto

You recall wrong, Rad. The person Doherty debated here was not a professional historian, but an amateur apologist named Nomad. Doherty decided the debate was not worth his time when Nomad would not deal with Doherty's points, but posted some low grade apologetics. You can read it yourself in the Formal Debates Forum if you go back far enough.

The pronoun issue wasn't 'he' but "He" - which indicates that the person debating is coming from a faith perspective rather than a neutral historical perspective. Doherty was not interested in debating a faith point of view.

Could you post a direct quote from Carrier where he complains about Doherty's attitute towards conservative scholars?

Radorth

I will quote Durant later as I have to dig it off a disk. I'm amazed Vorkosigan has already written off Durant given he doesn't have the quote yet, particularly since Durant is most unkind to Paul IMO. Hopefully some readers will reserve judgement until they hear a point by point refutation which contains something besides links to other commentators and assertions that they know more than Durant.

Rad

Family Man

No one here is saying that they "know more than Durant" -. It that there are other scholars out there that clearly do "know more than Durant" on this subject. No one scholar has a hammerlock on who or what Jesus was, least of all Durant who is clearly the least of all.

Have fun, Vork. Durant really has very little to say.

Toto

I do not have a copy of Durant with me, but I recall reading and discussing him before. The only part of his position that I remember is that the character of Jesus was too complex to have originated by legendary development in the short period between the presumed death of Jesus in 30 CE and the presumed date of Mark at 70 CE. This has been refuted many times.

GreggLD1

Peter, to tell you the truth, this is where I find fault with modern NT scholarship.

If a lay scholar like Doherty can produce an argument for a mythical Jesus that professional scholars like Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier find sound, persuasive, compelling, and worth taking seriously, even if it doesn't quite meet the standards of an "academic" work, then why aren't any professional scholars advancing this theory in the journals already? And why is the work of the Dutch "radical" critics of the 19th century, several of whom regarded Jesus as purely mythical, largely ignored? It seems like this is a valid area of inquiry that is being avoided for one reason or another (probably a variety of reasons).

Perhaps most scholars are operating on the (unexamined) assumption that the case for Jesus' historical existence has already been made, that the question has been settled, and there's no need to plow that field again. And even if they're aware that there IS still controversy over this issue, they prefer to play it safe by going along with the consensus view instead of rocking the boat.

I think you have it backwards--FIRST we need to persuade a few professional scholars to go nuts and challenge the consensus on Jesus' existence--THEN we can encourage other scholars to respond. Perhaps there needs to be a mythicist movement within NT scholarship similar to the Jesus Seminar.

Gregg

Family Man

He also argues that there are too many embarrassing episodes the writers would have left out if they were just making it up. Then he naively assumes many events -- like Jesus alleged precociousness as a child -- are true, even though this has to be considered dubious history by any critical measure. Finally, he quotes a scholar that agrees with his position.

That by itself doesn't mean he's wrong -- not being a Jesus Myther myself, I don't have a problem with it. It's just that there are so many better discussions of the topic out there. Durant's discussion is outdated and it misses or glosses over many of things that better scholars discuss. Durant simply isn't the be all and end all in historical research into Jesus's life.

Bobzammel

The John the Baptist mention is in Josephus.

NOGO

Radorth,

I remember that debate and thought Nomad was rather agressive. He did not come across as a man who was sure of his case and his ability to present it.

I had an arguement with Nomad over Paul's vision of Jesus.
Nomad insisted that Paul saw Jesus "bodily". In other words Jesus materialized on the road to Damascus. Paul's own account does not reflect this at all. It speaks of a light, a vision which Paul's companions could not see.

Generally it is hard to argue with a person who disregards the evidence in favour of his own beliefs.

As you may know, Radorth, Doherty's theory stands on the fact that Paul's Jesus is a heavenly Son of God. If Paul saw a physical Jesus then it is all for not. But where does Nomad get this?

Paul: Flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven
GLuke?: Jesus ate fish to prove that he was not a ghost.

Only Nomad and others like him will deny that a problem exists.

Radorth

Durant is below, but I thought you guys might want to refute Michael Grant, an atheist, while you're at it.



Michael Grant on JM er's

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.

Rad

Vorkosigan

Durant is below, but I htought you guys might want refute Michael Grant, an atheist, while you're at it.

'dorth, can you supply any evidence that Grant is an atheist. That claim has been made before here, with no substantiation (in fact, your repeating it may tell us something ). In any case, there is no link between JM and atheism, so what's your point?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

This is incorrect on its face. First, numerous genres of ancient writing contain historical material, both fiction and non-fiction. For example, Roman-era novels contain material that was considered "historical" at the time (referred to the past of the writer), and also material that later scholars consider "historical" (such as the prices of items, or days required to travel a given distance, which the writer simply considered the stuff of life). Note how Grant elides these two radically different meanings of "historical material." So the issue is: what are the proper criteria to use? Like all other "historicists" Grant has no answer to that question, because there currently isn't one.

As for "making the great mass of pagan figures" into legend, that is a non-argument. Conclusions about Jesus entail nothing about conclusions about every other figure. There are few, if any figures from antiquity who became the central figure of a militant and destructive faith that urgently required the historical existence of its mythic central figure, as Jesus did. Further, the gospels are widely considered a unique literary genre that the Christians invented sui generis. So conclusions about them would hardly entail revising conclusions about Hannibal or Crassus.

Finally, we know numerous fake, forged, and fraudulent documents from the past that contain historical information. Do you think Grant is arguing that if something contains historical information, that it must relate a story that is somehow true? Do you think he is arguing that we must accept all stories from antiquity as true? That, I think, is absurd. Somehow scholars must have tools to distinguish falseness, like the forged correspondence between Paul and Seneca. It is those critical tools, which, when turned on the NT canon and its accompanying documents, show them to be fictional theological constructions.

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....

I assume you've cut off the quote, since no mythicist relies on the discrepancies in the gospels to argue that Jesus didn't exist. Mischaracterizing the mythicist position is a common historicist tactic.

To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory.

They fail to support the historicist theory as well. A conundrum of the first rank, eh?

It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.'

Actually, this is another problem. No first-rank scholar has given mythicism the going over it deserves, although when you look at the way scholarship has gone since WWII, you can see that it is in large part a covert response to the problems raised by mythicists over the years.

If such a going over exists, can you give me the reference. Kirby I know would like to know as well.

In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus'

First he says "no serious scholar," then he corrects himself:

-- or at any rate very few,

But Grant was writing in 1977. After Wells, Loisy, Robinson, and numerous others. Of course, Campbell in myth.....

and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary

There is no abundance of evidence; indeed, the evidence raises all sorts of problems for the historicist position. Indeed, many scholars who remain convinced that Jesus existed as some sort of real person, like Bultman, are nevertheless sure that the gospels are largely or almost entirely fictions.

This issue is also not dealt with well in Grant. It is one thing, very minor, to claim that such a person as Jesus existed. It is quite another to claim that the fictional representations known as the gospels in any way accurately reflect his life. The two ideas must be kept separate at all times.

Of course, Grant had to sell books, so it is not surprising he asks his readers to have faith in a position he cannot prove.

On DURANT:

Again, what does Durant's position on the existence of god mean? Lots of Christians see Jesus as primarily myth -- some 40% of American christians believe he was spiritually resurrected, not physically. Lots of atheists, including me, believe that a real figure exists under the gospels.

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;

Durant reveals his ignorance here. No one may have questioned the existence of Paul; that is an issue of no great import. The main point is the authenticity of the "authentic" Pauline epistles, which have been questioned, and quite vigorously, and certainly before Durant had written this. See the Dutch Radicals, for example.

and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh.

Where do the letters ascribed to Paul "enviously admit" this? Not once does he ever say that Peter met Jesus in the flesh (Unless Durant wants to take the reference in Corinthians as an actual physical resurrection, a gross violation of historical methodology), as I can recall. Ditto for John, who is only mentioned in Galatians 2. Did Durant even read the letters of Paul? It looks like he is simply repeating things he learned in catechism.

The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion....

<yawn> As we can see, Paul nowhere refers to the Crucifixion as a real event that took place on Earth. Jerusalem is important to Paul as the center of the cult, not the place where God died. Paul does not "frequently" refer to the Last Supper (offhand I can only think of the passages in 1 Cor. What are the others??) Further, to argue this is to commit the error of reading the gospels back into Paul. The issue is not whether Paul refers to a crucifixion, but how it relates to the one in the Gospels. Durant here merely assumes what he is trying to prove, a minor-league error.

The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ.

No kidding, since the Synoptics copied each other, a basic piece of scholarly knowledge that had been known for 150 years when Durant wrote this passage. Didn't he bother to do the slightest bit of serious reading?

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.

Alas for Durant, David is clearly largely legend. Socrates we have several different vectors for. And again, the claim is on its face absurd -- the tests applied to the NT are the same applied to any set of documents.

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,

Who denies this? It is well known that there was disagreement in the early Church about who was running the show. Why would mere inventors conceal such a thing, when some of the alterations occurred to favor one faction or another?

their flight after Jesus' arrest,

taken from the OT, of course.

Peter's denial,

a bit of theological construction, occuring in a Markan intercalation.

the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee,

Loisy explains this quite well:

• "From the moment his epiphany as Messiah was thrown back into his public ministry on earth an explanation became necessary of these marvellous novelties, now heard of for the first time as belonging to the activity of the Christ before his saving death. The silence repeatedly enjoined on these occasions was the explanation, naive enough, but indispensable, of why they had not been heard of before." (italics mine) [i]The Origins of the New Testament, p. 81

In other words, the writers were faced with a serious contradiction. Jesus was supposed to have performed miracles YET Jesus was not famous in Galilee. This is demonstrated by the outside vectors, where Josephus, who is responsible for the defense of Galilee nevertheless connects Jesus with Pilate, not Galilee. He does not even know that Jesus has a Galilee connection(!). Second, of course, is the well known historian, Justus of Tiberius, from Galilee, who has never heard of Jesus. Two outside vectors show no evidence for a Galilee connection. Therefore, for whatever reason, Jesus was not famous in his home grounds. The explanation is provided by this throwaway passage that mentions poor Jesus couldn't do miracles at home. Problem disappears.

the references of some auditors to his possible insanity,

People said the same about Frodo. And for the same reason: to heighten the drama of his triumph the end. Another way to read it is that at the symbolic level, the "family" of Jesus stands for Judaism against Christianity. See Loisy, which I recommend you read.

his early uncertainty as to his mission,

Frodo too.

his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness,

all found in fiction, for dramatic purposes. They prove nothing. The problem with historicizing details is that they are evidence either way. Outside vectors are required.

his despairing cry on the cross;

taken from a Psalm! Didn't Durant do any reading at all?

no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of th figure behind them.

The usual rhetorical bullshit.

That a few simple men...

Ooops! There's that class bias! The early Christians were humans just like us, not simpletons too dumb to make things up. The fact is that men like Paul and James had educated and forceful personalities and left their mark on the nascent religion.

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.

Since there is nothing new in Jesus -- there is no objection here. The writers did not invent anything "in one generation," they merely added sayings and ideas that were common currency at the time. Durant must know this, since he was writing a history of the time. Surely any competent historian would know it. It is comments like this, 'dorth, that make serious thinkers look down on Durant's historical thinking.

Note the value judgements too disguised as arguments. Even taking seriously the distorted argument Durant has put forth, there is nothing impossible about simple men inventing lofty philosophy. This is simply the long-discredited argument from incredulity (I can't believe....), presented with good rhetoric.

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.

There's no need to refute this. The first section has been shown to have collapsed as research reveals a dozen different HJs, the second part is simply fatuous opinion. Jesus' story is hardly the most fascinating feature in the history of western man, but simply one interesting story out of many. More rhetoric.

You can see that large portions of this passage, 'dorth, are either ignorant of scholarship as it stood in Durant's day, or simple-minded rhetoric that cannot be "refuted" since it is nothing but Durant's personal opinion couched in strong language.

Can I have the other 22 pages of the passage? If it shows the same mix of rhetorical fancy and ignorance as this, it won't be much trouble.

Vorkosigan