Weighing up the evidence for the ‘Historical Jesus’

[outhouse]

To argue against mythicism one needs to address the arguments. This is what I have found with most protesting against mythicism -- a failure to tackle the arguments.
.

Many people choose to not argue conspiracy mentality and methodology. You cannot win because evidence can be spun into what ever one wishes.


So far to date, every attempt to explain the evidence by nythicist only brings or creates more questions then answers, and leaves larger gaps then the current hypothesis.

Most of these argument you speak of have been refuted completely for over a 100 years.

Out of thousands of scholars, you only have a handful that have addressed the issue and even created intelligent arguments against historicity. And so far they have failed miserably.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Quest for the historical Jesus

The quest for the historical Jesus refers to academic efforts to provide a historical portrait of Jesus.[132] Since the 18th century, three separate scholarly quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, each with distinct characteristics and based on different research criteria, which were often developed during each specific phase.[116][133][117] These quests are distinguished from earlier approaches because they rely on the historical method to study biblical narratives. While textual analysis of biblical sources had taken place for centuries, these quests introduced new methods and specific techniques to establish the historical validity of their conclusions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Existence

Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted

[Sheshbazzar]

Thanks to the arguments of outhouse, I come to believe less and less of this 'Let's pretend its 'history' cum religious horse crap every day.

'Agreeing' that a NT Jesus existed, will never make this mythical religious character exist.
May as well be agreeing that Pecos Bill existed as a quote "historical" person, for all the validity that these empty popular assertions contain.

Sheshbazzar

[Peter Kirby]

most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted

Would be so much better if they would show what they "see."

If you've read the literature, though, you know this is circular. How do we know? Because it's agreed. Why do we agree? Because we know!

Only a very few authors have made any kind of attempt to break out and frame the discussion in terms of evidence and argument. Reading them doesn't give me that much confidence in the conclusion, but I am glad that some put in some effort.

The true extent of the case actually made for a historical Jesus resembles the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. "Wonderful argument for the historicity of Jesus, your grace." "Way to put those mythicists in their place, your excellency." "Mommy, mommy, I can't see any proof at all!"

[ficino]

Most contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted

Outhouse, my provisional belief set is not, I think, much different from yours on the HJ question. But I wish you would go beyond appeals to authority and scholarly consensus. I also wish you'd go beyond assertions that smell of ignoratio elenchi, such as:
anthropological/archaeological studies show that Galilee had lots of poor people
there were political movements opposed to the Temple priesthood
etc etc

We don't need to know whether there could have been a wandering preacher from a poor background in Galilee who got into trouble.

I think you know what else the HJ proponents need to establish.

And I think you continue to use the word "scholarships" in the plural, as though it functions like the Italian informazioni, to drive the rest of us crazy.

[junego]

LOL - I just wrote a summarised paragraph addressing the statement that "Paul only describes a heavenly Jesus" by quoting verses by Paul that I think point to the contrary. This is how one addresses the arguments. But no, to you I'm "not addressing the arguments". Ridiculous. If you have a different view on these points, that's fine. But don't accuse me of "not addressing the arguments" when that is exactly what I have done.

How is just repeating all the issues in Paul that have been disputed and exhaustively analyzed by people like Carrier and Doherty without even acknowledging their arguments in any way "addressing the arguments"?

For example, what is your take on the Greek verb used in Paul's verse about being "made", not "born", of a woman (and wrt being "made" not "born" of David's seed) and the argument that Paul never uses this "made" verb for someone who is obviously born (he uses the more common "born" verb, IIRC), but mainly wrt instances such as Adam (who was obviously not "born" but "made") and the new bodies believers will receive after resurrection (that are obviously not "born" but "made")? What does it mean that Paul makes this distinction in the verbs he uses? Isn't it possible that, since he used the "made" verb for Adam and resurrected bodies because they were created 'supernaturally', he meant for the same meaning to apply in the "made" from a woman and David's seed verses? This argument supports the statement that "Paul only describes a heavenly Jesus." (Personally, I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a determination about this argument, but I haven't yet found a learned response to it, ergo part of why I'm on the fence about historicity.)

There are these types of detailed scholarly arguments for each of the points you brought up in your post, if you don't deal with them you aren't "addressing the arguments".

If you acknowledged and addressed arguments like the above when you bring up "I dispute this. There are numerous references in the 7 generally-accepted-as-authentic Pauline letters that give us good reason to think Paul believed Jesus had been here on Earth (regardless of what else he thought of him). The most telling are his claims of Jesus' Davidic descent and being born of a woman under the (Mosaic) law." that would actually be disputing.

Of course, no one says you have to address any arguments. That's your choice, but it doesn't really add anything to the conversation if you don't.

[outhouse]

most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted

Would be so much better if they would show what they "see."

If you've read the literature, though, you know this is circular. How do we know? Because it's agreed. Why do we agree? Because we know!

Only a very few authors have made any kind of attempt to break out and frame the discussion in terms of evidence and argument. Reading them doesn't give me that much confidence in the conclusion, but I am glad that some put in some effort.

The true extent of the case actually made for a historical Jesus resembles the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. "Wonderful argument for the historicity of Jesus, your grace." "Way to put those mythicists in their place, your excellency." "Mommy, mommy, I can't see any proof at all!"

I look at a non biased view of this, and it is not just a group of like minded good ole boys.


For me, what it comes down to is the fact, nothing explains the evidence as well as a martyred Galilean that was crucified at Passover for causing trouble. There are no mental hurdles, and the cultural and physical anthropology fit 100% in line with no imagination required. Add to the fact not one of the movements enemies within that living generation claimed he was not a man. And there were many people trying to shut this movement down that would have used any propaganda they could to deem these people heretics and blasphemers.

I see all credible scholars dealing with historical aspects and evidence, and none of the counter arguments so far carry enough weight to even warrant a response. Maybe that will change if mythicist provide better arguments, and that movement grows enough. But answering better questions put forth will not prove mythicism. It will take a REAL explanation of evidence, a replacement hypothesis that is credible.


Its not like we have two differently equally valuable hypothesis to choose from.

[outhouse]

And I think you continue to use the word "scholarships" in the plural, as though it functions like the Italian informazioni, to drive the rest of us crazy.

LOl I was hammered on that 5 years ago. I still love it. I think it functions the same as "historians work" but know the definition is incorrect.

[junego]

most biblical scholars and classical historians see the theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted

Would be so much better if they would show what they "see."

If you've read the literature, though, you know this is circular. How do we know? Because it's agreed. Why do we agree? Because we know!

Only a very few authors have made any kind of attempt to break out and frame the discussion in terms of evidence and argument. Reading them doesn't give me that much confidence in the conclusion, but I am glad that some put in some effort.

The true extent of the case actually made for a historical Jesus resembles the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. "Wonderful argument for the historicity of Jesus, your grace." "Way to put those mythicists in their place, your excellency." "Mommy, mommy, I can't see any proof at all!"

BINGO!!!

[outhouse]

Outhouse, my provisional belief set is not, I think, much different from yours on the HJ question. But I wish you would go beyond appeals to authority and scholarly consensus. I also wish you'd go beyond assertions that smell of ignoratio elenchi, such as:
anthropological/archaeological studies show that Galilee had lots of poor people
there were political movements opposed to the Temple priesthood
etc etc


.

Context is key brother.

Context Is the only way to determine evidence. If your going to build up a hypothesis for something else to have happened, the context is THE ONLY WAY to make your case.

Context, backs the evidence no matter what hypothesis is put forth, correct?

[outhouse]

'Agreeing' that a NT Jesus existed, will never make this mythical religious character exist.


Sheshbazzar

Agreed.

It works in reverse too! Only a credible replacement hypothesis that equals the one currently in place will give credibility to a 100% mythical Jesus.


If scholars did not ignore mythicist due to the perceived poor work involved in creating a credible explanation for evidence, and went on the offensive, your arguments would be forced to get better then the mire they are stuck in.

Hell scholars are not even on the defensive position here, let alone offensive.