zog

I really think that it depends on what Jesus you are talking about, for me evidence of a Jewish Preacher (who may or may not have been crucified) as in Thomas is there in the Gospel of Thomas.

However then you get to the Jesus of the Gospels and it is a completely different matter then for even a watered down version of the story you would expect proof and evidence, proof that isnt really there.

I personally believe that there is a vague shadowy historical character behind the Gospels it is impossible for the writers of the Gospels not to draw on actual people as inspirations for the quite specific nature of the Gospels (i.e. It taking place in a rural backwater, execution) that really do require a person behind them

Jeremy Pallant

Sorry for the delay, Vinnie. I've had a busy weekend.

I'm sorry, Vinnie. I may have lead you astray by poor punctuation. I should have originally replied to the following question:

As follows.

The gospels?

Note the question mark where previously I had placed a period. My bad.

In truth, I don't know what percentage of the Bible actually describes Jesus of Nazareth. In addition, I don't know what of the non-canonical gospels "actually describe Jesus of Nazareth". Nor do I see reason to exclude any of them.

Felsenmeer

For my first-ever post at II, I'm gonna weigh in on the HJ side. Yes...I deem it more plausible to believe that some ACTUAL PERSON lurks beneath the woodpile of mythic accretions.
(And I shall readily allow that the woodpile soars to dizzying heights..)

I would cite one example that I don't recall seeing anywhere on these boards. Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judaea, seems to have been an historical personage. Yet he makes his appearance in the Gospels, and to my mind that gives it a certain flavor of reality. Hard to imagine some mythmaker weaving wholecloth fabrications about such a real-life character. I find it easier to entertain a suspicion that Pilate did indeed encounter a Yeshua ben Josef at some point in his administrative career, and very possibly passed a sentence of crucifixion. Doesn't stretch the bounds of credibility a bit, IMHO....

And this Yeshua person, likely as not, could have been a radical preacher/troublemaker type. The woods were full of such characters back then...

Of course, that's no proof-positive for any HJ, just my gut feeling...

Regards to all...

Peter Kirby

Felsenmeer, welcome to the Internet Infidels, and thank you for the thoughts in your first post!

The point that you make is often overlooked: that there was a Galilean carpenter turned preacher named Joshua back in the first century has a good background probability. It fits with what we know of the era. It does not require extraordinary evidence (unlike the frequently noted more spectacular claims about him).

On the other hand, Jesus would certainly not be the only imaginary character ever invented. Indeed there are many. But not as many fictional characters are taken as historical beings soon after the published stories; fiction written as fiction is recognized as fiction in the communites that produce it, as a general rule. This places the Jesus Myth in a smaller club. The Jesus Myth is not extraordinary by any means, but it does not have a higher background probability than the existence of an actual person behind some of the stories.

However, a historical Jesus theory is not without its difficulties. For example, few ordinary men have been believed to be divine. How do you propose that the historical Jesus came to be viewed as god?

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

How exactly do you calculate this probability?

For many reasons, MJ theory had greater explanatory power than HJ. In terms of ABE, it "wins" hands down. And there are lots of things to be explained.

As far as Vinnie goes, he has been soundly thumped in the thread I started. His pretentiousness is evident considering he earlier stated that he is agnostic about the issue. His is empty posturing and self-aggrandizement. He has no case against Jesus mythicism - and there is none. If there were any, one of the numerous scholars peddling historicity of Jesus would have provided it by now.

At best, he will talk of embarrasment criterion, pericodes, and limn a HJ using all manner of convenient "methodology". I expect lots of non sequiturs and special pleading from him as evidenced by his woeful performance in the earlier thread. If his dating of the gospels is so off the mark, he has no starting point. It is not enough to sprinkle the names of scholars here and there and sit back smugly.

For whatever its worth, I would like to see someone worthy making up a strong case against Jesus mythicism - it would be fine to see our meek Vinnie pluck up enough courage and gather enough knowledge to forge a formidable battering ram that can shatter Jesus Mythicism.

Layman tried one verse at a time. He was out of breath two verses down the line and the verses are hundreds. I imagine he is thinking of another tack. Maybe Vinnie can email him for pointers.

JP, I was never a Myther until I set out to refute McDowells Chapter 9 Resurrection - Hoax or History in his book The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict.
You could check out my site too.

Vinnie

Dear Layman,

I am writing you to ask you a very important question. How did you ever manage to make it through two whole verses?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

I was not speaking of the probability of the theories after all the particulars of the record are examined. I was speaking of the background issue of, how often does this sort of thing go on? How often did itinerant religious preachers show up in ancient Palestine? How often were heavenly savior gods turned into itinerant Galilean preachers? That sort of question.

Surely it is the personalities that count and not the issues? :boohoo:

But, personally, I think that Vinnie is an asset to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Soundly thumped by that red herring Roswell/Robin Hood/Titan Hood nonsense? Please. Or was it the "some scholars" lin which thumped me?

Agnostic on what issue? I said I know next to nothing about the possibile historicity of Robin Hood and I also said I could care less.

This is laughable. Its not because they do not have evidence, its because Jesus' historicity is axiomatic. Serious scholars don't usually make a habit of dealing with nonsense the likes of which is advocated here.

Which is probably sufficient itself to overturn mythicist nonsense. Not to mention first stratum material, multiple attestation, a host of sources and numerous arguments based upon them.

That would be pericope.

What is so convenient about E.P. Sander's methodology? The mere fact that it allows a possible reconstruction of Jesus? LOL

It won't sadden me to dissapoint you.

I'm pretty confident in my dating. I've seen several laughable attempts at later dating here. Some have tried to date the Gospels 2d on the basis of them mentioning synagogues. Woops!

Its nothing more than the "those were forged" and the "thats an interpolation" line. And you want to talk about "convenience"??? Woops!

The "arguments" of the revisionists (fundibots who date all the Gospels pre 70 ad and village atheists on the internet who like to date them in the 2d) are of equal quality.

Too bad you've never read these scholars. Feel free to peddle mythicism.

It has nothing to do with knowledge or courage. Time is the key element here.

Try refuting a real book.

Vinnie

Vinnie

For all my empty posturing and self-aggrandizement I seem to recall that no one took up my methodology challenge.

Vork: They used to say that about Mohammed, and Buddha, and so on. The trouble is that, as you well know, t'aint no historical methodology out there that can rescue the figure from under the story, except independent vectors. And we don't have any. Can't see how we are going to get any, either.

Vinnie: Actually I don't know that. I've been doing a little reading on methodology and I find your reliance on that chapter by Crossan in BoC to be extremely weak. If you would like to summarize some of Crossan's arguments or any other problems with HJ methodology feel free to do so and I'll do my best to address them. I think there are several bedrock facts about Jesus that are beyond dispute.

I extended this same offer to you as well.

Iron Monkey: In Biblical scolarship, there is still no clear methodology in sight.

Vinnie: Who is discussing biblical scholarship? I thought we were talking specifically HJ research? So, do you mean historical Jesus research or theology? If the former I would point you to Crossan, Meier, Sanders etc. They have all laid out "methodologies". Crossan decided to critique Meiers but he didn't do too good of a job and they have similar methodologies anyways. I extend the same offer to you as I did Vork. Feel free to critique their methodologies (assuming you actually know what they are). But if you are referring to the latter then I guess I have to ask you if you ever read a systematic theology text? A good one should include a method or a lay out of the sources used for obtaining a systematic theology.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

This is what you said:
And you said it right here. Short memory?

I think I will just sit back and wait for you to bring your COMPLETE case against Jesus Mythicism. Your shoot and run tactics are simply pathetic.
Start a new thread and we will chase you to the edge of the woods. This is JPs thread - start your thread and present your case. I assure you we shall take it out conclusively.

I remember this sort of (no pun intended) question coming up when we were discussing the Ossuary issue with Sauron and Haran. The significance of the question eludes me.
Does commonness confer veracity?
Does rarity bereave an event/thing of credibility?

As far as eheumerizing and historicizing a saviour figure goes, I remember reading something about Price saying in Decon that it was anachronistic of Mark to write as if Jesus was a historical figure. Perhaps I could read more on it to make a fine point, but like I said - the significance eludes me.

I think one of the strengths of MJ theory is it explains Pauls unfathomable silence about a HJ and as I posted earlier - how come Paul didnt know anything about a HJ?
Do you have an explanation Kirby? Because I think the explanation for this is that there was no "tradition" of a HJ at the time of Paul - a HJ was manufactured later.