an example of the kind of thing to avoid

[Peter Kirby]

Edmund Standing badly wants to refute the "position we have no adequate reason to believe that the gospels refer to a historical figure called Jesus at all."

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/200 ... cal-jesus/

What he ends up doing instead is writing an essay on Haile Selassie, which comports with an argument for the mere plausibility of a historical Jesus.

What the strange case of Haile Selassie demonstrates is that it is perfectly possible for a real historical figure to become so overlaid with mythology and religious notions that very little factual historical data remains. I contend that the same principle applies to the historical Jesus. That there was a historical figure, most likely a Jewish apocalyptic preacher, whose story was greatly embellished by devotees who misrepresented and exaggerated him in many ways seems to me entirely plausible. That there was no historical Jesus, and that the gospel accounts in their entirety are mythological texts that do not – and were never intended to – refer however obliquely to an actual historical figure seems to me an argument that takes scepticism a step further than it can justifiably go.

Yes, the writer by this circuitous, verbose route has established the possibility that a historical Jesus existed, on analogy with other historical figures whose mythology has taken a turn for the euhemerist. Do I need to explain how this utterly fails to disprove the "position we have no adequate reason to believe that the gospels refer to a historical figure called Jesus at all"?

This is the kind of thing that so often passes for argumentation on this subject. Somebody puffs up a few thousand words on to a page, prefaces and concludes it with some disparaging words about "mythicists," and the audience is expected to join the author in jeering at these lost souls. Practically speaking, it doesn't even seem to matter to some people what the body of the article actually says. As long as the right conclusion is reached, an article like this can be cited as yet another "refutation" of the "mythicists."

[Roger Pearse]

I suffer from a deep reluctance to spend my time refuting what nobody believes. That some damn fool convinces himself of something silly, and then insists on repeating it endlessly, does not mean that I have any duty to spend any of the little time that we have on this world in giving him an education. Particularly since he has got himself in that mess in the first place.

I suspect these feelings are general. It is useless to complain that people don't spend time on refuting a claim of the form "we have no adequate reason to believe that the gospels refer to a historical figure called Jesus at all". Really it is.

[Peter Kirby]

I suffer from a deep reluctance to spend my time refuting what nobody believes. That some damn fool convinces himself of something silly, and then insists on repeating it endlessly, does not mean that I have any duty to spend any of the little time that we have on this world in giving him an education. Particularly since he has got himself in that mess in the first place.

I suspect these feelings are general. It is useless to complain that people don't spend time on refuting a claim of the form "we have no adequate reason to believe that the gospels refer to a historical figure called Jesus at all". Really it is.

Another example of the kind of thing to avoid.

[Peter Kirby]

No shortage of examples. There's a discussion taking place in the blogosphere here. Anything and everything will be said against the non-historicity of Jesus, short of taking the time to make a real argument for the historicity of Jesus.

[yalla]

Here is the other side of the coin.
Alfred Wegener and Continental Drift
A paradigm shift.

"Reaction

In his work, Wegener presented a large amount of observational evidence in support of continental drift, but the mechanism remained elusive. While his ideas attracted a few early supporters such as Alexander Du Toit from South Africa and Arthur Holmes in England,[11] the hypothesis was initially met with skepticism from geologists who viewed Wegener as an outsider, and were resistant to change.[11] The one American edition of Wegener's work, published in 1925, which was written in "a dogmatic style that often results from Germany translations",[11] was received so poorly that the American Association of Petroleum Geologists organized a symposium specifically in opposition to the continental drift hypothesis"

My bolding.

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


Edited to add
I started studying geology in the late 50s/early 60s when Continental Drift/Plate Tectonics was the latest 'fad' [sort of like mythicism is now -sorry about that] and with the time lag for publications and changes of ideas the theory was still
considered controversial and fringe in Oz. Now its accepted orthodoxy. Ideas change with time and knowledge.

[Solo]

I suffer from a deep reluctance to spend my time refuting what nobody believes. That some damn fool convinces himself of something silly, and then insists on repeating it endlessly, does not mean that I have any duty to spend any of the little time that we have on this world in giving him an education. Particularly since he has got himself in that mess in the first place.

I suspect these feelings are general. It is useless to complain that people don't spend time on refuting a claim of the form "we have no adequate reason to believe that the gospels refer to a historical figure called Jesus at all". Really it is.

Another example of the kind of thing to avoid.

Neither side can claim certainty about the historical existence or non-existence of the person portrayed in the gospels as Jesus of Nazareth. Neither side can offer arguments that would withstand scrutiny. However, there are people on both sides of the argument who have convinced themselves that even in the absence of any reliable, verifiable data Jesus either must have existed or could not have and to believe otherwise must therefore be an exhibit of one's damnable folly or addiction to intellectual fraud. The passionate debates about Jesus' existence transparently serve only one purpose: to badmouth or deride the opposite belief. It should be apparent to an informed person that with what we really know both scenarios are plainly possible and that we cannot say conclusively, yeah or nay.

Best,
Jiri

[avi]

The passionate debates about Jesus' existence transparently serve only one purpose: to badmouth or deride the opposite belief. It should be apparent to an informed person that with what we really know both scenarios are plainly possible and that we cannot say conclusively, yeah or nay.

May I inquire, Jiri, if we replace the word "Jesus", with "Herakles", do you still believe that an informed person would agree that it is not possible to "say conclusively, yeah or nay"?

I deny, "conclusively", that Herakles ascended to Mount Olympus upon dying, to join with the other gods and demigods.

In other words, Jiri, I do not accept your underlying hypothesis, that I seek only to badmouth "true believers". I argue, in harmony with Galileo, that the earth rotates about the sun. I am not seeking to "deride the opposite belief". There is only ONE truth, Jiri. Not two. Your idea, that Galileo is entitled to his opinion, and the RCC entitled to their opinion, though, Galileo never imprisoned any church officials, nor bestowed unspeakable horrors upon those who dared to repudiate the Vatican, is false. Do you honestly believe, that when Galileo published his masterpiece, his goal was to "badmouth" the RCC? I believe that he published his epic research to prove his point, not to disprove someone else's.

Jesus is a myth, just like Herakles, the model upon which the gospel writers depended. There is only ONE truth, here, Jiri. Either Jesus existed, and we have no evidence for that, else he did not exist, and we do possess evidence that he did not. Here, as with Herakles, the evidence is overwhelming that the figure described is superhuman, hence, a work of fiction, not historical biography.

[Peter Kirby]

Word substitution is not an argument. A similar canard could be constructed by someone who favored the historicity of Jesus, with just a different change in name.

[Lorax]

Peter,

What I have observed over the years is that the defense from the established paradigm is to deride and ridicule the challenge from outside. It is easier to be dismissive and repeat weak retreads than to actually consider arguments, which, from that perspective appear to be so outside the established view as to not merit even consideration.

On the other hand, I see attempts made by the "mythicist" side to establish a warrant for their position, not necessarily a deriding of the paradigmatic viewpoint.

Neil Godfrey has made the case that the question is not whether or not Jesus existed, but what are the origins of Christianity? Where did these ideas come from? I find that question fascinating. When that question is explored, it doesn't seem that a historical Jesus is necessary to the origin of Christian beliefs. Liberating ancient writings concerning a savior figure from the necessity of a Jesus from Nazareth can open doors to new perspectives, new interpretations, and perhaps new views on the origins of Christianity. I see it as a valuable exploration and I get resentful when the endeavor is shut down with pat responses like we have seen so far from the establishment.

[Peter Kirby]

Peter,

What I have observed over the years is that the defense from the established paradigm is to deride and ridicule the challenge from outside. It is easier to be dismissive and repeat weak retreads than to actually consider arguments, which, from that perspective appear to be so outside the established view as to not merit even consideration.

On the other hand, I see attempts made by the "mythicist" side to establish a warrant for their position, not necessarily a deriding of the paradigmatic viewpoint.

Neil Godfrey has made the case that the question is not whether or not Jesus existed, but what are the origins of Christianity? Where did these ideas come from? I find that question fascinating.

Lorax,

I agree with all of the above, naturally.

When that question is explored, it doesn't seem that a historical Jesus is necessary to the origin of Christian beliefs. Liberating ancient writings concerning a savior figure from the necessity of a Jesus from Nazareth can open doors to new perspectives, new interpretations, and perhaps new views on the origins of Christianity. I see it as a valuable exploration and I get resentful when the endeavor is shut down with pat responses like we have seen so far from the establishment.

Thanks for saying it, because it can't be said enough.

Best regards,
Peter Kirby