maryhelena: Goodness gracious me.....the subject under consideration is the gospel story of a Jesus figure. Any other figure that you desire to dream up and assume historicity for - who cares? The figure under discussion is a figure that NT scholars claim to be, somehow or another, of relevance to that gospel Jesus story. So, cut to the chase and keep focus here. If all you want to do is assume historicity for some arbitrary figure - carry on. That exercise has no relevance to any debate over the gospel JC or early christian origins.srd44” These are 2 different claims. Asserting a Jew named Joshua existed in the 1c. century and asserting that this Jew relates to how he was conceptualized by writers living decades later are different questions.
maryhelena: Debates over the historicity or non-historicity of some variant of the gospel Jesus is child's play. One makes ones decision either way. I am interested in where either decision can take one. I don't see any future for the historicist Jesus position - it is what it is. It is going nowhere. It's a dead-end as far as research into early christian origins is concerned. In contrast, the ahistoricist/mythicist perspective is open-ended - it asks new questions about christian origins. It seeks the historical realities behind that gospel story. It seeks to comprehend what it was in history that led the gospel writers to construct their gospel Jesus story.
maryhelena: The burden of proof rests with those who claim that there was in history a Jesus; a Jesus who has relevance for the gospel Jesus story. The ahistoricists/mythicists find this claim wanting. Now you can do a song and dance about many of the reasons that ahistoricists/mythicist might offer in support of this conclusion they have reached. You might well be able to fault many of them. But what you can't do is establish historicity for your Jesus figure. On that basis alone, a scholar should be able to keep an open mind on this subject rather than seek to discredit opposing views to his claim. After all, knocking down stuff is normally child's play - it takes creativity to produce and offer something of value - you know - thinking the unthinkable....srd44: Could not disagree more. When the mythicist can mount evidence for the non-exitence of all peoples of antiquity never mentioned by contemporary historians---since as you claim the burden of proof fails on these so-called historicists to prove their existence (a child's game indeed), then I will be persuaded. But as you yourself have admitted, there is no evidence, criteria, etc. by which means on can do this. And thus the mythicists claims, not to mention their methodology which we have not discussed at all, are moot.
