To The Jesus Myth Theorist

[michaelsherlock]

Mythicists, not mystics. You need to read your link more carefully. The whole post is about mythicists. The term "mythicists" refers to those who think that Jesus is only a myth and there's no evidence for him as a historical individual.

Your link is disagreeing completely with everything your saying. It's a post by professor and specialist on this subject criticizing the methods, practices, and biases of mythicists, not mystics. When the author states mythicists aren't taken seriously by historians (and that they aren't historians), he's talking about people like you: those who believe we don't have persuasive evidence for a historical Jesus.

Sorry about that! I misread it, as it was very late when I found it, but that is no excuse, so you are right, I apologize, I will be more careful in the future. Yes, I realize that the "Professor" is arguing for an historical Jesus, but I thought the argument regarding the uncertainty of historical figures, such as Socrates and Jesus was interesting and reminded me of what you have been asserting in our dialogues.

We cannot prove either of those two figures was an historical person, so it comes down to faith and your faith seems to lean toward an historical Jesus, those you hold in high regard have presented evidence which you find compelling, but we must not ignore the reality of the situation. If I recall the article discussed how people, in this case "Mythisists" place more weight on evidence for Socrates even though it is just as sketchy as the evidence for Jesus, but in that evidence they see proof. I think the postion could be reversed as well!

As you seem to hold "professors" in high esteem, and I assume not only those who share your beliefs, how about Ehrman, would his findings be acceptable in your learned opinion?

"If we cast our net over all surviving Greek and Roman (pagan) sources for the first hundred years after Jesus’ death (30–130 CE), these two(Suetonius and Tacitus) brief references are all we find."

[FONT=ＭＳ Ｐゴシック][/FONT]Bart D Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted. HarperCollins. 2009. Pg. 158

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., I realize that the "Professor" is arguing for an historical Jesus, but I thought the argument regarding the uncertainty of historical figures, such as Socrates and Jesus was interesting ...

Because it supports your presuppositions and your agenda: you see what you want to see. The fact remains that an historical Jesus is by far the more reasonable inference, and to argue that Jesus is likely fictive because he could possible be fictive is childish at best.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Because it supports your presuppositions and your agenda: you see what you want to see. The fact remains that an historical Jesus is by far the more reasonable inference, and to argue that Jesus is likely fictive because he could possible be fictive is childish at best.

My name is Jayhawker. I am saying this to michaelsherlock because it supports my presuppositions and my agenda. I see what I want to see. The fact remains that an historical Jesus is by far more reasonable inference, and to argue that Jesus is likely fictive because he could possible be fictive is childish at best, because I beleive it to be so!!!

Where is your evidence? I know what you believe, but you belief has nothing to do with what is, nor do my beliefs, so we are both in the same boat, only one of us believes they are on dry land!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Where is your evidence?

Acts, Paul, Josephus, Talmud, ...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I wouldnt hold your breath

until then assumptions is all we can go by.Theres no reason to think it couldnt have existed in oral tradition.

Yeah I agree. I rarely mention ("Q") unless I'm stating what some scholars believe. But looking at the gospels do lend credit, to a degree, that some of the things said or some of the actions were orally transmitted.

I agree that it could give us the best picture of HJ that we have.


Funny Gmark rambles on, putting these parables one next to each other as if HJ was just rattling them off. Its more then likely Gmarks author was also using a simular source when contructing his work. We know these were more then likey carefully spoken on a individual basis then chatted off

I agree and what happens to a saying when orally transmitted from person to person over time. About time it's written down it may be striking different than how it was originally transmitted.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"If we cast our net over all surviving Greek and Roman (pagan) sources for the first hundred years after Jesus’ death (30–130 CE), these two(Suetonius and Tacitus) brief references are all we find."

Bart D Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted. HarperCollins. 2009. Pg. 158

Then again we're talking about a "historical" Yeshua and not a biblical one per se. I think there is enough historical information that give credence to the notion Yeshua did exist. I don't think the magic wielding, resurrection god man existed. I think the historical information we have points to a simple teacher who had a small following.

 

[michaelsherlock]

Acts, Paul, Josephus, Talmud, ...

I have an early morning tomorrow but I look forward to addressing these issues. I address Paul, Josephus, and the Talmud in the first volume of my work, but I will give you the gist tomorrow!

 

[outhouse]

Yeah I agree. I rarely mention ("Q") unless I'm stating what some scholars believe. But looking at the gospels do lend credit, to a degree, that some of the things said or some of the actions were orally transmitted.




I agree and what happens to a saying when orally transmitted from person to person over time. About time it's written down it may be striking different than how it was originally transmitted.

Most people in these forums dont have a clue how prevelant oral tradition was.

with a 90% illiteracy rate, oral tradition was used on a basis most here cant understand.


And I also agree much was lost from time going down the line, but more so with the hellenistic influences to a roman audience

 

[fallingblood]

I agree and what happens to a saying when orally transmitted from person to person over time. About time it's written down it may be striking different than how it was originally transmitted.

In a historical context though, oral tradition did have a pretty good accuracy rate. Part of this is because that is how history was recorded then. So they had to be better at it, as that is what they relied on. In fact, if we look at pretty much any history from around that time, it was in part based off of oral transmission.

The reason was that we didn't have journalists like we do now. Most people in fact, found an orally transmitted story to be more reliable than a written one. That is just the culture they lived in.

That and people were trained with this oral transmission. They grew up with it, and learned how to keep the information.

And it was also somewhat simplified by certain types of tricks. One was not to try to remember the exact details, but the gist. In doing so, they could relate the message accurately, even though the exact words or such are not kept. There were also forms of literature that were more easily remembered.

 

[outhouse]

In a historical context though, oral tradition did have a pretty good accuracy rate.

true

but in a cross cultural transmission, or a different religion, oral tradition was free to change with no real reason not to.

People that could resite the OT in places word for word are a example of how accurate they were, because they had to be, there work could be checked.


In the same token, how the mesopotamians brought with them their oral tradition and the legends were completely redacted to meet a new culture shows how oral tradition can and does get changed to a cultures changing needs

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

We cannot prove either of those two figures was an historical person, so it comes down to faith and your faith seems to lean toward an historical Jesus, those you hold in high regard have presented evidence which you find compelling, but we must not ignore the reality of the situation.

"Prove" is a loaded term. Even if one includes historiography among the social sciences, hypotheses are still never "proved." As I believe I mentioned recently somewhere on this forum, this is how people exploit the use of "theory" in "theory of evolution" to say it isn't "proven." Well, that's technically true, but only because scientists generally don't use the word. For all intents and purposes, it is "proven." It's just an issue of terminology. The social science, and history (whether one includes it as a social science or not), aren't quite as lucky as those who study physical phenomena. Historians in particular are limited to evidence, and any "experiments" (in the sense of hypothesis testing) cannot be performed in a lab.

That said, just because history can't be compared to, say, mathematics or physics when it comes to "proofs," neither can it be compared to faith. Historians look at the evidence, and try determine to the extent possible what the most likely explanation of the evidence is. No matter what one wishes to say about Socrates or Jesus or Pythagoras or Gerald Gardner, if one is adopting an historical approach, one must generate a hypothesis and see if the evidence supports it. To assert that Jesus never existed, or that we lack enough evidence to say that he did, is a hypothesis. To test it, a historian has to look at the evidence we have (not just the NT or Josephus, Tacitus, etc., but the Greco-roman world, hellenization, genre, judaism, archaeology, and much more). Given the evidence, the historian then has to explain why this hypothesis (we can't conclude Jesus existed) is the best explanation for the evidence we have. It isn't. In fact, it's so very improbable that even the most skeptical professional historians reject it is as plausible.

If I recall the article discussed how people, in this case "Mythisists" place more weight on evidence for Socrates even though it is just as sketchy as the evidence for Jesus, but in that evidence they see proof. I think the postion could be reversed as well!

The point the author was trying to make is that mythicists (again, those who argue we lack the evidence to conclude Jesus was a historical figure) are only skeptical when it comes to Jesus. His point was not that we could equally say that Socrates didn't exist, but that if mythicists apply a different standard of evidence when it comes to Jesus- skepticism that borders on the ridiculous. He uses Socrates because of a comment a mythicist made elsewhere to illustrate that this extreme skeptism it only applied to Jesus, not that it is a solid historiographical approach. It isn't. Skeptism is important within reason. But mythicists interpret all evidence as supporting their view or they simply reject it as unreliable. It's happening now in another thread concerning Paul's "silence" when it comes to Jesus. The fact that Paul knew Jesus' brother is written off as an interpolation because of an underlying assumption. The fact that this same brother is independently attested to in three other sources (one of them non-christian) is ignored. That isn't skepticism, it's simply bias. It's just as biased as uncritically accepting the gospels as "gospel truth." Neither approach is historical; both involve faith, not facts.

As you seem to hold "professors" in high esteem, and I assume not only those who share your beliefs, how about Ehrman, would his findings be acceptable in your learned opinion?

Here's Ehrman's view:
[youtube]zdqJyk-dtLs[/youtube]
Did Jesus Exist? - YouTube


I've read Ehrman's book on the historical Jesus. I was a lot more impressed when I first read it, as it was one of the first books I had read on the subject. After reading Schweitzer, Bultmann, Wrede, Dodd, and modern historians, I realize he didn't offer much of anything in his book. But as he says in the clip (despite being an agnostic) "we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period."

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have an early morning tomorrow but I look forward to addressing these issues.

Hopefully after rethinking them ... but I doubt it - it's far more likely that tomorrow I will find myself offered a breakfast of rehash and eggs.

 

[michaelsherlock]

"Prove" is a loaded term. Even if one includes historiography among the social sciences, hypotheses are still never "proved." As I believe I mentioned recently somewhere on this forum, this is how people exploit the use of "theory" in "theory of evolution" to say it isn't "proven." Well, that's technically true, but only because scientists generally don't use the word. For all intents and purposes, it is "proven." It's just an issue of terminology. The social science, and history (whether one includes it as a social science or not), aren't quite as lucky as those who study physical phenomena. Historians in particular are limited to evidence, and any "experiments" (in the sense of hypothesis testing) cannot be performed in a lab.

That said, just because history can't be compared to, say, mathematics or physics when it comes to "proofs," neither can it be compared to faith. Historians look at the evidence, and try determine to the extent possible what the most likely explanation of the evidence is. No matter what one wishes to say about Socrates or Jesus or Pythagoras or Gerald Gardner, if one is adopting an historical approach, one must generate a hypothesis and see if the evidence supports it. To assert that Jesus never existed, or that we lack enough evidence to say that he did, is a hypothesis. To test it, a historian has to look at the evidence we have (not just the NT or Josephus, Tacitus, etc., but the Greco-roman world, hellenization, genre, judaism, archaeology, and much more). Given the evidence, the historian then has to explain why this hypothesis (we can't conclude Jesus existed) is the best explanation for the evidence we have. It isn't. In fact, it's so very improbable that even the most skeptical professional historians reject it is as plausible.



The point the author was trying to make is that mythicists (again, those who argue we lack the evidence to conclude Jesus was a historical figure) are only skeptical when it comes to Jesus. His point was not that we could equally say that Socrates didn't exist, but that if mythicists apply a different standard of evidence when it comes to Jesus- skepticism that borders on the ridiculous. He uses Socrates because of a comment a mythicist made elsewhere to illustrate that this extreme skeptism it only applied to Jesus, not that it is a solid historiographical approach. It isn't. Skeptism is important within reason. But mythicists interpret all evidence as supporting their view or they simply reject it as unreliable. It's happening now in another thread concerning Paul's "silence" when it comes to Jesus. The fact that Paul knew Jesus' brother is written off as an interpolation because of an underlying assumption. The fact that this same brother is independently attested to in three other sources (one of them non-christian) is ignored. That isn't skepticism, it's simply bias. It's just as biased as uncritically accepting the gospels as "gospel truth." Neither approach is historical; both involve faith, not facts.



Here's Ehrman's view:
[youtube]zdqJyk-dtLs[/youtube]
Did Jesus Exist? - YouTube


I've read Ehrman's book on the historical Jesus. I was a lot more impressed when I first read it, as it was one of the first books I had read on the subject. After reading Schweitzer, Bultmann, Wrede, Dodd, and modern historians, I realize he didn't offer much of anything in his book. But as he says in the clip (despite being an agnostic) "we have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period."

Sometimes in youth, people become overconfident and develope strong emotional bonds to information. As I have said, I neither believe nor disbelieve in either the historical or mythological Jesus, my posiition is that we do not have enough evidence to come to any conclusions. I wonder if I am just old, or you are too young? When did you do your undergraduate at University, I mean, how long ago! Time is the greatest teacher!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

my posiition is that we do not have enough evidence to come to any conclusions. I wonder if I am just old, or you are too young?

I've known teenagers who think that, and I know people my age who also come to that conclusion. The question is, what is there basis for their conclusion? Inevitably, it's that they've done little or no research, or the only research they've done is read books like The Jesus Puzzle or blogs which support the view they wanted to find in the first place. Age has nothing to do with it. You started with a a list of "scholars" who are supposedly relevant here and somehow support your view. Few had any actual expertise, most were dated, and some blatantly disagree with your conclusion that we don't have enough evidence (in particular Renan & Cline, although some of the people who didn't or don't have any expertise here that you refer to have also stated Jesus was an historical figure).

Then you linked to a post which stated exactly what I was trying to say: Those who argue that there isn't enough evidence for Jesus are not historians or specialists, and they only apply their skepticism to the historical Jesus.

Then you asked about Bart Ehrman, who states that he doesn't know of any serious historian who doubts the existence of the historical Jesus and even says wew have more evidence for Jesus than just about anyone from his time.

So you can say it's age all you want. There are a lot of teenagers who share your view, and a lot of people my age who do as well. The question is, what research have you done? What are basing your conclusions on? Because so far it seems your much more interested in finding any link or source you can in your effort to support a conclusion you made already, and in your haste to do so you've even linked to sites and authors who blatantly and completely disagree with you.

 

[michaelsherlock]

I've known teenagers who think that, and I know people my age who also come to that conclusion. The question is, what is there basis for their conclusion? Inevitably, it's that they've done little or no research, or the only research they've done is read books like The Jesus Puzzle or blogs which support the view they wanted to find in the first place. Age has nothing to do with it. You started with a a list of "scholars" who are supposedly relevant here and somehow support your view. Few had any actual expertise, most were dated, and some blatantly disagree with your conclusion that we don't have enough evidence (in particular Renan & Cline, although some of the people who didn't or don't have any expertise here that you refer to have also stated Jesus was an historical figure).

Then you linked to a post which stated exactly what I was trying to say: Those who argue that there isn't enough evidence for Jesus are not historians or specialists, and they only apply their skepticism to the historical Jesus.

Then you asked about Bart Ehrman, who states that he doesn't know of any serious historian who doubts the existence of the historical Jesus and even says wew have more evidence for Jesus than just about anyone from his time.

So you can say it's age all you want. There are a lot of teenagers who share your view, and a lot of people my age who do as well. The question is, what research have you done? What are basing your conclusions on? Because so far it seems your much more interested in finding any link or source you can in your effort to support a conclusion you made already, and in your haste to do so you've even linked to sites and authors who blatantly and completely disagree with you.

You misunderstand me! I am only interested in the truth, even if it goes against my conclusions, which at present, have not been made. How long ago did you "study" at uni?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You misunderstand me! I am only interested in the truth

Then why are you not dealing with the vast majority of academic works on this subject? Why pick the sources you have so far? You don't even need to read massive amounts of journal articles or learn half a dozen languages to get an idea of what the field looks like. There are massive volumes which survey the scholarship, some written by one author, some with papers from many contributers.

How long ago did you "study" at uni?

I'm still studying (though not as an undergrad anymore, and at a different university). But it was not that long ago, as I started late. I'm almost 30. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

As I have said, I neither believe nor disbelieve in either the historical or mythological Jesus, my posiition is that we do not have enough evidence to come to any conclusions. I wonder if I am just old, or you are too young?

(what a lovely melding of childish historiography and adolescent ad hominem)

 

[michaelsherlock]

Then why are you not dealing with the vast majority of academic works on this subject? Why pick the sources you have so far? You don't even need to read massive amounts of journal articles or learn half a dozen languages to get an idea of what the field looks like. There are massive volumes which survey the scholarship, some written by one author, some with papers from many contributers.


I'm still studying (though not as an undergrad anymore, and at a different university). But it was not that long ago, as I started late. I'm almost 30. I don't see what that has to do with anything.

The reason I wanted to establish your age was to establish when you did your undergraduate studies. The reason I wanted to establish this, is because you said in an earlier post that during your undergrad studies you began looking into the historical Jesus.
In a more recent post you said that the first material you had ever read on the historical Jesus was Ehrman’s book, either Misquoting Jesus, or Jesus Interrupted, I don’t recall, yet both of those books were published very recently, from 2007 onwards. Therefore, there seemed to me to be a discrepancy between your two assertions. But now that I realize you are fresh out of your undergraduate degree, I see that there is no discrepancy.
I have been looking into the historicity of Jesus, Pythagoras, Socrates and other more ancient historical characters since my days in University, which ended over a decade ago. In that time I have read many works by Bible scholars and historians, none of which have provided solid evidence for Jesus. Some of the arguments have been persuasive, rhetorically speaking, yet none have been able to provide evidence, which on the balance of probabilities, would establish Jesus as an historical person.

As you rightly point out, the social sciences, in particular history, is somewhat handicapped in comparison to science, due to the kinds of tests employed and the quality of evidence (re: historical Jesus: Josephus, NT, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Paul, etc.) available to them. This is exactly why I began questioning accepted “knowledge” in the first place. I guess you could call me an unrepentant heretic, for I do not make a good follower, instead, I like to challenge accepted beliefs, values, norms and “knowledge.” Not because I feel it is wrong, per se, but rather because the automatic acceptance of the beliefs of others, especially those society has deemed, “orthodox” is something which troubles me in a world that has neither the answers to problems of history nor the present.
What historians deem as “the most likely” explanation is often affected by pre-established beliefs about a given subject matter, be it a theory they have invested in academically, or been persuaded to accept by their “role models.” To eliminate the psychological pressures and drives from the equation altogether seems to me to be rather short, or at least, narrow sighted to me.

When we survey the majority of “scholars” who have looked into the historical Jesus, we find that the majority of said scholars have been theologians, and “Christian” bible scholars. Like it or not, if you have looked into it for as long as I have, you will see this trend and it is very natural that those invested with this particular belief would want to present a rational basis for it, by proving they have not been dedicated to worshiping thin air! As Aaronson once quipped; people are not rational beings, but rather rationalizing beings, preferring to believe they are right rather than actually be right.
So it is due to the inferior quality of evidence coupled with the psychological pressures inherent within belief that have lead me to challenge, not prove, or establish, simply challenge, current beliefs. I imagine that in the distant future we will all look rather foolish, so I see no harm in thinking beyond the bounds of both current and accepted “knowledge.” Yes, such an endeavour will make me unpopular, but that is my choice.
Now, in quoting from Cline, Renan, Ehrman and the like, I never once made the claim that these scholars reject an historical Jesus, I was using observations they had made that cast a shadow over the certainty propagated by, let’s say, less critical scholars. You seemed to have assumed that I thought that these scholars rejected an historical Jesus, when I never made such a claim. I listed them as references and raised them, because information they have put forth demonstrates uncertainty with regards to the issue.

Getting back to your initial contact in this field, Ehrman. You say that: “After reading Schweitzer, Bultmann, Wrede and Dodd, and certain anonymous “modern historians,” you realized that Ehrman’s book (he has written many however) did not offer much!”

I would have thought that Schweitzer, who I reference in the first volume of my work, and Wrede, in particular, would be too dated for your taste! Just goes to show, if you see a good idea somewhere, no matter when it was created, i.e Pi, it can have value. And the fact that you see Ehrman’s more recent scholarly contribution (2000’s) as being less valuable than the two aforementioned scholars, seems to represent a contradiction to me, being that both Schweitzer’s, Wrede’s or even Bultmann’s are “dated” as you would put it.

If I might quote from your esteemed German theologian, Albert Schweitzer without you assuming that I am alleging he proscribed to the Jesus myth:

The historical Jesus, if He really existed, can only have been One who reconciled in His own consciousness the antithesis which obsessed the Jewish mind, namely the separation between God and Man.
The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910) Pg. 155.


The historical Jesus will be to our time a stranger and an enigma.

The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910) Pg 397.


We are experiencing what Paul experienced. In the very moment when we were coming nearer to the historical Jesus than men had ever come before, and were already stretching out our hands to draw Him into our own time, we have been obliged to give up the attempt and acknowledge our failure.
The Quest of the Historical Jesus (1910) Pg. 399.

P.S; I linked you to that post because it agreed with you and I felt in my gut you would jump all over it!

You still have not provided me with good historical evidence for the Jesus of the Gospels. Just thought I would remind you and then would get back on track.

If you like, give me your favourite piece of evidence (either direct, which I think there is none, or indirect) for an historical Jesus and we can go through it together from there. Also, I know how fond of Professors you are, so feel free to include any “Orthodox” scholarship on your chosen piece of evidence.

I look forward to our coming dialogues.

 

[michaelsherlock]

(what a lovely melding of childish historiography and adolescent ad hominem)

If all you are able to contribute to the discussion is childish insults and personal attacks, then I suggest you be quiet while the grown ups are speaking!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If all you are able to contribute to the discussion is childish insults and personal attacks, then I suggest you be quiet while the grown ups are speaking!

Acts, Paul, Josephus, Talmud, ...

:beach: