Clarification: why does it have to read like a MODERN history text? (Then again, our modern history texts, at least the ones given in U.S. public schools, aren't a whole lot more accurate...)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Jesus Myth
- Thread starter fallingblood
- Start date
- Status
Clarification: why does it have to read like a MODERN history text? (Then again, our modern history texts, at least the ones given in U.S. public schools, aren't a whole lot more accurate...)
roger_pearse
Member
May I respond to the OP here?
This is not the way to go about this. What you need to do is start looking at ordinary uncontroversial people. You need to immerse yourself in the classical world, and start looking at what kinds of evidence we usually have for people whose existence is never questioned. Until we have some kind of level playing field, acquired under conditions other than religious controversy, all we are liable to do is articulate what we already wish to believe.
Start with the Penguin translation of the Letters of Pliny the Younger. Immerse yourself in those, and start to get a feel for Roman society around 96 AD.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
roger pearse said:
But Dr. Robert Price, Dr. Richard Carrier, and Earl Doherty have already done that, and a lot more. Price and Carrier are well-educated, and they believe that Earl is brilliant. Your refusal to read and critique Earl's latest book might indicate that you know that he is well-prepared to defend his writings. I am not necessarily arguing for or against a historical Jesus, but it is not appropriate for you to criticize writings that you have not read and discussed.
Regarding "start to get a feel for Roman society around 96 AD," that is quite interesting. Christian apologist James Holding has basically said that ancient people who lived in Palestine were very nosey and inquisitive. If that is true, if Jesus performed miracles, he would have become a media sensation, and his miracles would have been unprecedented in human history, and yet no Roman records that I am aware of says that Jesus performed miracles.
Last edited:
So have hundreds of other experts over the past several centuries. Critical inquiry into Jesus began in the 1700s. It was in full swing by the late 19th century and for the past hundreds of years thousands and thousands and thousands of pages have been written by experts on the subject (by experts, I mean primarily biblical scholars, scholars of ancient Judaism, and NT scholars, but also classicists and other historians of that time period and region). The one thing virtually all agree on was that Jesus existed. The consensus of experts is virtually unanimous. There are perhaps 3 or 4 experts with relevant degrees who buy into the Jesus myth nonsense.
Carrier and Price are two. Earl Doherty is not.
I have read Earl's book, and I have read papers by Price, includin his contribution to the recent book The Historical Jesus: Five Views in which he was roundly critiqued for making significant methodological error.
The fact is that those who buy into the Jesus myth theory tend to read only websites and/or books written for the public largely by non-experts (like Doherty). Rarely have they read even popular books by other experts in the fields, let alone academic works by scholars in the field.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Like some modern pseudo history, it's a rewrite, propaganda, an attempt to smooth out the tensions and disagreements between the apostles of an early church, and a means to connect Jerusalem with Rome. It's second century myth making including some very tall tales, viewed as history by pretenders.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I don't think that you have.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Biblical experts admitted that Galileo was right about the earth revolving about the sun almost 400 years after the fact. What else have you got besides worn out appeals to authority?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Of which you have apparently read a great deal.
Sounds not only like ancient history, but modern as well.
First, Acts was written by Luke, who was quite active in the first century, and wrote his gospel in the first century. So IF Acts was written in the 2nd (which I doubt, and is hardly a consensus position), it means the author waited many, many years to write the second half of his work.
Second, it's only "myth making" to people like you who haven't read primary texts, either those of ancient history or those of myth. When you have read the Hymn to Demeter, the Odyssey, etc, along with Livy, Plutarch, Herodotus, Josephus, etc, in their entirety, then talk to us about the genre of Acts.
Or start reading some secondary scholarship.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Even a casual reading of wikipedia entries would be helpful. :yes:
So, in order to compare over 200+ years of critical inquiry, all after the Enlightenment, and up to the present day, of thousands of scholarly works on the subject by experts, you have the following:
An example hundreds of years ago, where "biblical experts "admitted" something that had nothing to do with their area of study (and, by the way, which biblical experts are we talking about, who didn't admit until the 20th century that the earth revolves around the sun?)
Hardly a comparison. One, we are in the modern age, dealing with modern historians, and the unanimous position stands. Two, we are dealing with experts who are working in their field of expertise, not a totally different field (actually, that's what you do).
Finally, you are as usual misusing the "appeal to authority argument" which was designed to guard against arguments like "the pope said so" or "the village elder says so" or (more modern) "some professor said so." It was not designed to refute appeals to a massive amount of scholarly literature, which is what our knowledge of any field is based on.
Last edited:
And yet, just like modern public school history, it is based on actual truth.
Columbus didn't try to argue that the world was round when everyone thought the world was flat; it had already been proven that the world was round centuries before. Yet this is taught in public school. Neither did the man discover America or befriend the natives he found; yet that's what's taught in public school.
Yet behind these myths there lies the truth. Why is ancient history any different?
logician
Well-Known Member
dogsgod said:
My God, you've been here for 3 years and you still have no idea at all what this place is for, do you.
All you know is that you saw the word "Religious" in it's title, therefore you made up your mind right there and for all time about what this place was all about the moment you laid eyes on the name, slammed your mind completely shut, and your understanding of what RF really is hasn't increased one iota in all this time.
Three years. My God. How is that even possible?
My mistake. Facts.
Reading through this (and other similar recent threads) about the Jesus myth "theory" I am struck by a shared element in the methodology employed by those members who most adamantly cling to the mythicist theory.
One the one hand, these stand on the shoulders of scholars like Holtzman (establishing Markan priority) and other great scholars of the 19th century who came up with the Q hypothesis, and more onward into the 20th century, in many ways.
For example, skeptics have repeatedly pointed out (accurately, in this case) that Mark, Matthew, and Luke cannot be considered independent sources. Matthew and Luke used Q and Mark. Hence, we can't say we have four independent sources for Jesus. This one element of the mythicist argument.
However, it was only by long, painstaking, arduous, and careful scrutiny by many, many experts that these theories became so widely accepted. The idea that the synoptics are dependent on one another is not obvious from simply reading them, particularly in translation. Sure, they share a lot of information, but they are about the same thing, so they ought to. Again, only after scholar after scholar after scholar put forth arguments and refuted counter-arguments did these theories gain such widespread acceptance.
One thing members like Logician and Dogsgod have repeatedly accused myself and others of is "appealing to authority" or "jumping on the bandwagon." Yet they do the exact same thing by using the work of many scholars and thousands of pages by experts detailing these arguments to make claims about the interdependence of the gospels.
Interestingly enough, while there are no serious academic works I am aware of (i.e. published by an academic press or peer-reviewed journal) about the Jesus myth (even those books or essays written by the precious few experts supporting the idea are written for the public), there actually are serious and in depth analyses published by academic presses rejecting Q and Markan priority.
Despite this, the mythicist are confident in the consensus of scholarship that Matthew and Luke used Q.
They have no problem using scholarly consensus when it suites their purposes, but scream "arguments from authority" when it doesn't.
One the one hand, these stand on the shoulders of scholars like Holtzman (establishing Markan priority) and other great scholars of the 19th century who came up with the Q hypothesis, and more onward into the 20th century, in many ways.
For example, skeptics have repeatedly pointed out (accurately, in this case) that Mark, Matthew, and Luke cannot be considered independent sources. Matthew and Luke used Q and Mark. Hence, we can't say we have four independent sources for Jesus. This one element of the mythicist argument.
However, it was only by long, painstaking, arduous, and careful scrutiny by many, many experts that these theories became so widely accepted. The idea that the synoptics are dependent on one another is not obvious from simply reading them, particularly in translation. Sure, they share a lot of information, but they are about the same thing, so they ought to. Again, only after scholar after scholar after scholar put forth arguments and refuted counter-arguments did these theories gain such widespread acceptance.
One thing members like Logician and Dogsgod have repeatedly accused myself and others of is "appealing to authority" or "jumping on the bandwagon." Yet they do the exact same thing by using the work of many scholars and thousands of pages by experts detailing these arguments to make claims about the interdependence of the gospels.
Interestingly enough, while there are no serious academic works I am aware of (i.e. published by an academic press or peer-reviewed journal) about the Jesus myth (even those books or essays written by the precious few experts supporting the idea are written for the public), there actually are serious and in depth analyses published by academic presses rejecting Q and Markan priority.
Despite this, the mythicist are confident in the consensus of scholarship that Matthew and Luke used Q.
They have no problem using scholarly consensus when it suites their purposes, but scream "arguments from authority" when it doesn't.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Really?
It seems to me like they just simply compare Bible translations and see that the Gospels are similar.
If that were the case, then we wouldn't have posts like:
This assumes Markan priority.
or
Here we have Markan priority and Q.
After all, one would expect that various accounts of the same events would agree without necessitating interdependece. Moreover, even if that conclusion was reached, what explains the view that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke used a common source called Q? The only explanation is awareness of this product of scholarship.
Why would people die for a lie?
You may want to take a look at the book "The Rise and Fall of Jesus" by Steuart Campbell. It is a very interesting book which gives valid scenarios of how Jesus could have pulled off the so called miracles and he gives very compelling arguments. Even to the point of how he could have faked the resurrection of Lazarus(especially since he knew Lazarus) as well as faking his own resurrection. Something to consider when trying to label it as myth, legend or factual stories.
- Status