Hi all,
An historian named Michael Paulkovich has just written a new book "No Meek Messiah". Here's a review: http://www.examiner.com/article/jesus-d ... historians. It claims that Jesus is (wait for it, drum roll...) a myth.
Now the fun begins.
I am wondering how long the Christian religion can last when rejected by historians as not based on historical facts. My guess is 50 years.
Warmly,
Jay Raskin
The Tide Turns
-
Stephan Huller
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
Re: The Tide Turns
But I think we should state for the record that it might be possible to raise doubts about the historical existence of a man named Jesus, to be 'convinced' that he probably did or didn't exist, but I don't think anyone can definitively say or prove that he didn't exist. It's similar to thinking about your spouses fidelity. You can walk around feeling 'certain' about whether or not they cheated on you but you have a vested interest in believing whatever you believe (either that they too cheated because you cheated or vice versa). You never know anything for certain.
Re: The Tide Turns
I agree. The current historicist position is that minimal that there's no real way to prove that Jesus didn't exist. The minimal historicist position goes something like "there was some Jewish gang leader who was not forgotten but immortalized by his followers after his untimely death by Roman hands." The only specific part of this is that his followers believed he was still with them, but the rest just fits too many people to be able to decide this once and for all.
Which also shows how irrelevant the question actually is. The way Christianity developed, there's basically pretty much no chance that the Jesus figure of the gospels resembles the real man, whether he originally existed or not.
Which also shows how irrelevant the question actually is. The way Christianity developed, there's basically pretty much no chance that the Jesus figure of the gospels resembles the real man, whether he originally existed or not.
-
Stephan Huller
- Posts: 3009
- Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm
Re: The Tide Turns
Right and I always think that we have to be careful to imitate our adversaries. They look stupid in their certainty, we too look stupid when we seem entrenched in our certainties. In both cases it comes down to personal biases.
I always go back to cheating because it's a topic that comes naturally when you've known as many highly sexualized people as I have. The only person you can be certain will never cheat on you is a person who doesn't have a pulse. Life is full of possibilities and twists and turns. That's why we all like this subject matter, early Christianity, religion etc.
What makes us better than the professional scholar is that we don't have to 'have a position' on anything. The professional scholar makes his money by offering 'authoritative' interpretations of texts and traditions. But where the professional scholar overreaches is on the subject of the historical existence of Jesus. It makes them feel impotent - a mere 'interpreter of texts' - if they were forced to admit they don't know whether Jesus existed. But the evidence is inconclusive. Yet they get paid to be authoritative. We don't have that problem hence the potential for amateur scholars to be more honest and truthful than their professional counterparts ... at least until the rest of the world learns to deal with the idea that Jesus might not have existed.
I always go back to cheating because it's a topic that comes naturally when you've known as many highly sexualized people as I have. The only person you can be certain will never cheat on you is a person who doesn't have a pulse. Life is full of possibilities and twists and turns. That's why we all like this subject matter, early Christianity, religion etc.
What makes us better than the professional scholar is that we don't have to 'have a position' on anything. The professional scholar makes his money by offering 'authoritative' interpretations of texts and traditions. But where the professional scholar overreaches is on the subject of the historical existence of Jesus. It makes them feel impotent - a mere 'interpreter of texts' - if they were forced to admit they don't know whether Jesus existed. But the evidence is inconclusive. Yet they get paid to be authoritative. We don't have that problem hence the potential for amateur scholars to be more honest and truthful than their professional counterparts ... at least until the rest of the world learns to deal with the idea that Jesus might not have existed.
Re: The Tide Turns
As far as I can tell, Paulkovich holds no academic appointment. His name does not appear in a search of L'Annee Philologique, where even Richard Carrier is cited twice. Is his book self-published? He seems to be what Tim O'Neill might call a "hobbyist."
No wonder Christian "historians" dismiss his claims.
From what the reports indicate, though, his arguments seem inconclusive. Let me know if he has something useful to contribute to debate on, say, the references to Jesus in Josephus.
Cheers, f
No wonder Christian "historians" dismiss his claims.
From what the reports indicate, though, his arguments seem inconclusive. Let me know if he has something useful to contribute to debate on, say, the references to Jesus in Josephus.
Cheers, f
Re: The Tide Turns
We non-academics have the freedom to look where truth may lead us--even as far as the scorned position that there are seven written eyewitness accounts within the four canonical gospels. That'll show them!Stephan Huller wrote: Yet they get paid to be authoritative. We don't have that problem hence the potential for amateur scholars to be more honest and truthful than their professional counterparts
Re: The Tide Turns
I agree with Freke and Gandy here - I think xianity will just accept it and move on, possibly get stronger - because they already believe in a chimera - fully god fully man. I thought catholicism teaches that the idea of a historical Jesus is heretical.
"We cannot slaughter each other out of the human impasse"
-
maryhelena
- Posts: 2945
- Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
- Location: England
Re: The Tide Turns
The controversy over this book is at least highlighting the idea that Jesus did not exist. The Bible and Interpretation website has posted a number of links to various articles in the media. The UK Daily Mail has nearly three thousand comments....ficino wrote:As far as I can tell, Paulkovich holds no academic appointment. His name does not appear in a search of L'Annee Philologique, where even Richard Carrier is cited twice. Is his book self-published? He seems to be what Tim O'Neill might call a "hobbyist."
No wonder Christian "historians" dismiss his claims.
From what the reports indicate, though, his arguments seem inconclusive. Let me know if he has something useful to contribute to debate on, say, the references to Jesus in Josephus.
Cheers, f
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
W.B. Yeats
Re: The Tide Turns
He proved that the Acts of the Apostles was actually written in A.D 638!!
Re: The Tide Turns
Silly, Jay.
Unknown author.
Unknown publisher with only one book on record.
Crap title with over-the-top sub.
Exaggerated claims.
Smacks of self-published tripe.
The Daily Fishwrapper calls him a historian? My cat's also a historian.
Unknown author.
Unknown publisher with only one book on record.
Crap title with over-the-top sub.
Exaggerated claims.
Smacks of self-published tripe.
The Daily Fishwrapper calls him a historian? My cat's also a historian.
Dysexlia lures • ⅔ of what we see is behind our eyes