Quest for the historical Jesus

[maxfreakout]

Non-historical Jesus implications

1. James: Either completely delusional or flat out lying/fiction
2. Matthew: Basically completely fictional // lying

Neither of these ^ statements is implied by the mythicist position. Writing mythology is not the same thing as lying, you wouldnt say that Homer 'lied' about Odysseus. Also fiction is not exactly the same thing as mythology; all mythology is fictional, but not all fiction is mythological.

A major obstacle to this kind of debate is that historical Jesus advocates have no understanding of what the mythicist position entails, even the self-proclaimed mythicist scholars dont get it right. Ehrman for example constantly equates mythicism with atheism, but that equation is entirely unjustified and Ehrman never attempts to justify it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A major obstacle to this kind of debate is that historical Jesus advocates have no understanding of what the mythicist position entails, even the self-proclaimed mythicist scholars dont get it right.

Oh my ...

 

[outhouse]

You do not understand the function of the money-changers. It had zero to do with payday.

I understand their function well.

It was just on of many sources fro revenue.

I place this event as a modern day rock concert, and the revenue they generated.

You had foreign kings and governements bringing in donkey and camel trains full of lavish gifts for this event.

It wasnt free to come to this wonder of the world and share a meal with god in his own house. Which happened tp be the treasury.


Just my opinion but. The money changers did charge for this exchange, and for someone like Jesus, they would have made his point about how money in the temple was being generated and feeding their oppresors. I doubt any Jew liked the Roman infection in the temple.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You had foreign kings and governements bringing in donkey and camel trains full of lavish gifts for this event.

Source? See, for example, Money Changers

 

[outhouse]

Source? See, for example, Money Changers

Wasnt in the link I already provided?

 

[Quagmire]

Bias and self-interest.

Could you expand on that?

What I mean is: why would biblical scholars automaticaly be biased in favor of one position over another?

Also: in your opinion does this also apply to historians in general?

 

[Desert Snake]

It's a story. Stories are not considered lies, they are considered to be fiction and in the case of the gospels allegorical fiction.

I'm not taking your word for that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I understand their function well.

It was just on of many sources fro revenue.

I place this event as a modern day rock concert, and the revenue they generated.

You had foreign kings and governements bringing in donkey and camel trains full of lavish gifts for this event.

It wasnt free to come to this wonder of the world and share a meal with god in his own house. Which happened tp be the treasury.


Just my opinion but. The money changers did charge for this exchange, and for someone like Jesus, they would have made his point about how money in the temple was being generated and feeding their oppresors. I doubt any Jew liked the Roman infection in the temple.

Again: source?

 

[Ouroboros]

When I asked "When did one scholar become most scholars" I wasn't questioning the fact that most scholars believe in an historical Jesus (already knew that), I was questioning the other posters assertion that "scholars believe it because other scholars believe it" based on his accessment of a single author's work.

Ah. Sorry. I misunderstood you.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Could you expand on that?

What I mean is: why would biblical scholars automaticaly be biased infavor of one position over another?

Certainly in the past and even today, most of those who go into bibical scholasticism were raised in a Christian culture which assumed the historicity of Jesus, usually by Bible-believing families, and very often get to such study through seminaries or religious universities. Please don't ask me for a scientific study proving my case. I'm giving you my impression of the state of things, though you're welcome to offer contrary evidence if you have it.

In other words, these are for the most part not secular guys who just decided to devote their lives to an historical study of the Bible. They are biased, even if simply raised in a culture which assumes the historicity of Jesus but especially if they have come to it through any devotion to the Christian religion. Most people have a very difficult time throwing off the assumptions of their upbringing.

Add to that the investment which these scholars have in the historical Jesus. If they take the position that 'Jesus didn't exist,' they'll be marginalized, even attacked by their peers, and they won't be able to play the who-was-Jesus game anymore.

Also: in your opinion does this also apply to historians in general?

Good question. My answer is, "Not so much, except for those historians who focus on specific historical figures. Those historians can be as biased and self-interested as Biblical scholars."

I once read a biography of Alexander the Great, written by an Englishwoman. Except I didn't read it; I listened to it on tape, and it was read by the author.

You should have heard the emotion in her voice. There was lots of anger at those historians who disagreed with her. I remember in particular when she came to the story of the Gordian Knot. She was outraged that people believed that Alex had cut it with his sword, and cheated, rather than that he figured out how to untie it.

So, yeah. I think biographers of secular figures can be almost as biased as scholars of Jesus.

 

[outhouse]

Again: source?

Looking right now. Also at work so it is taking second place atm.

 

[maxfreakout]

I was questioning the other posters assertion that "scholars believe it because other scholars believe it" based on his accessment of a single author's work.

That 'single scholar' is the *only*modern scholar who ever actually asked the question "did Jesus exist" explicitly and dealt with that question in a sustained and critical way, as opposed to merely assuming uncritically that Jesus was a historical person. And if you look at Ehrman's argumentation for HJ in that book carefully, you can see that the vast bulk of it is appeal to the authority of scholars.

 

[Quagmire]

Certainly in the past and even today, most of those who go into bibical scholasticism were raised in a Christian culture which assumed the historicity of Jesus,

As were most Jesus Mythists.

usually by Bible-believing families, and very often get to such study through seminaries or religious universities. Please don't ask me for a scientific study proving my case. I'm giving you my impression of the state of things, though you're welcome to offer contrary evidence if you have it.

Thanks, but I feel a little cheated being asked to provide actual evidence in order to answer an impression.

In other words, these are for the most part not secular guys who just decided to devote their lives to an historical study of the Bible. They are biased, even if simply raised in a culture which assumes the historicity of Jesus but especially if they have come to it through any devotion to the Christian religion.

Again: the same thing could be said for most Jesus Mythists.

Most people have a very difficult time throwing off the assumptions of their upbringing.

Add to that the investment which these scholars have in the historical Jesus. If they take the position that 'Jesus didn't exist,' they'll be marginalized, even attacked by their peers, and they won't be able to play the who-was-Jesus game anymore.

This may be true of scholars who personally identify as Christian and/or who operate in religious circles, but I doubt that the pressure to accept the historicity of Jesus is anywhere near that strong or prevalent in secular academia.

Good question. My answer is, "Not so much, except for those historians who focus on specific historical figures. Those historians can be as biased and self-interested as Biblical scholars."

So, yeah. I think biographers of secular figures can be almost as biased as scholars of Jesus.

Almost all historians accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as at least probable, not just those personally or professinally affiliated with the Christian religion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As were most Jesus Mythists.

Sure. It's why we need to get away from assertions of authority and down to an actual discussion of the issue. Mythists may be just as biased as biblical scholars, although I wouldn't think so. But any mythist who points to his favorite scholar as proof of a non-historical Jesus seems as ineffectual as a realer who points to his.

Thanks, but I feel a little cheated being asked to provide actual evidence in order to answer an impression.

I didn't ask you to provide evidence. I simply left the door open in case you wanted to find some and convince me that I'm wrong about the backgrounds of most biblical scholars.

Again: the same thing could be said for most Jesus Mythists.

Indeed.

This may be true of scholars who personally identify as Christian and/or who operate in religious circles, but I doubt that the pressure to accept the historicity of Jesus is anywhere near that strong or prevalent in secular academia.

You might be right. I'm not really sure what secular academia might look like in regards to biblical study. I can imagine someone now and again going into that field without any religious impetus, but not many.

Almost all historians accept the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as at least probable, not just those personally or professinally affiliated with the Christian religion.

Perhaps. It wouldn't surprise me. The cultural assumption about Jesus is profound. Two thousand years of assuming he was real -- that's going to be the default position for most people. Beyond any question for most.

That's why we need to debate the issue. We should always question our assumptions.

 

[Quagmire]

That 'single scholar' is the *only*modern scholar who ever actually asked the question "did Jesus exist" explicitly and dealt with that question in a sustained and critical way, as opposed to merely assuming uncritically that Jesus was a historical person. And if you look at Ehrman's argumentation for HJ in that book carefully, you can see that the vast bulk of it is appeal to the authority of modern scholars.

People have been debating the historicity of Jesus for centuries. I'm not well read enough to give the names of books or authors dealing with the topic myself off the top of my head, but I'm guessing there are at least a few people in here who are and could (if they haven't already done so in this thread).

And just a quick Bing provided this list:

Bibliography on general historical Jesus studies

• Paul Barnett, Messiah: Jesus - the Evidence of History.[This is a simple introductory text which examines the historical evidence for Jesus - whether it be the sources within the New Testament or outside the NT. Barnett discusses what we can know.]*
• Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ. [An expanded and more advanced, although still quite straightforward historical Jesus study by Barnett]
• James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Editors), The Historical Jesus: Five Views. [A great interaction between some reputable scholars, including Christ Mythicist Robert M. Price.]* James McGrath has reviewed this book, and the contribution by Price here.
• Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.
• James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1).
• Ben Witherington, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. [A review of the major schools within the third quest for the historical Jesus]*

Where did you get the impression that Ehrman is the only modern scholar to address this?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

People have been debating the historicity of Jesus for centuries. I'm not well read enough to give the names of books or authors dealing with the topic myself off the top of my head, but I'm guessing there are at least a few people in here who are and could (if they haven't already done so in this thread).

And just a quick Bing provided this list:

Bibliography on general historical Jesus studies

• Paul Barnett, Messiah: Jesus - the Evidence of History.[This is a simple introductory text which examines the historical evidence for Jesus - whether it be the sources within the New Testament or outside the NT. Barnett discusses what we can know.]*
• Paul Barnett, Finding the Historical Christ. [An expanded and more advanced, although still quite straightforward historical Jesus study by Barnett]
• James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy (Editors), The Historical Jesus: Five Views. [A great interaction between some reputable scholars, including Christ Mythicist Robert M. Price.]* James McGrath has reviewed this book, and the contribution by Price here.
• Darrell L. Bock, Studying the Historical Jesus: A Guide to Sources and Methods.
• James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered (Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1).
• Ben Witherington, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth. [A review of the major schools within the third quest for the historical Jesus]*

Where did you get the impression that Ehrman is the only modern scholar to address this?

What a surprise!

 

[Quagmire]

I think if anyone were serious about having some sort of constructive debate about this, it would be better to take any evidence or alledged evidence item by item and examine/discuss each in it's own right.

Otherwise, just like what's happening here, we wind up geting bogged down in a lot of dead-end speculations about the motives or methods of the people presenting the evidence and arguments.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think if anyone were serious about having some sort of constructive debate about this, it would be better to take any evidence or alledged evidence item by item and examine/discuss each in it's own right.

Otherwise, just like what's happening here, we wind up getting bogged down in a lot of dead-end speculations about the motives or methods of the people presenting the evidence and arguments.

Rubbish - you're only saying that because you're a DWBHist. Just stop yourself. :slap:

 

[Quagmire]

Rubbish - you're only saying that because you're a DWBHist. Just stop yourself. :slap:

I'm perfectly capable of setting aside my DWBHist beliefs (even though those are the only right ones ) and dismissing all of my opponent's ridiculous arguments objectively.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think if anyone were serious about having some sort of constructive debate about this, it would be better to take any evidence or alledged evidence item by item and examine/discuss each in it's own right.

Otherwise, just like what's happening here, we wind up geting bogged down in a lot of dead-end speculations about the motives or methods of the people presenting the evidence and arguments.

I agree completely and have listed 3 of my top reasons for leaning toward a non-historical Jesus (Msg#73). Synoptic gospels, Paul's silence and hero-worship.