just realized I spelt "copped" as 'coped' in that post
I agree mythics is a small (and somewhat confusing!) aspect of determining issues around Jesus scholarship.
Historical Jesus scholarship
Re: Historical Jesus scholarship
Last edited by MrMacSon on Sun Oct 06, 2013 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Historical Jesus scholarship
LOL...I'll ignore your missspelings if you ignore mine...fair enough?MrMacSon wrote:just realized I spelt "copped" as 'coped' in that post
I agree mythics is a small (and somewhat confusion) aspect of determining issues around Jesus scholarship.
To become fully human is divine.
Re: Historical Jesus scholarship
Ehrman asks rhetorically whether an inquirer would not rather have a dentist work on his teeth, as an analogy for consulting scholars like Ehrman who affirm the historicity of Jesus. My answer is that, yes, I would like to have a dentist work on my teeth, but I would prefer to have one who knew something about tooth decay. Ehrman admits that he had not heard of mythicism until recently (although Schweizer discussed it in Quest, which Ehrman should have read.) My New Testament professor in seminary said offhandedly that no one had ever doubted that Jesus existed "physically." If New Testment scholars have not studied the historicity of Jesus, they can hardly be considered experts on the subject. The truth is that New Testmanet scholars simply take the historicity of Jesus for granted and build their career on that unexamined assumption. They conprise what I call the Jesus Guild, which consists of all those whose careers are based on the study of Jesus. They are understandably resistant to the idea that there was no Jesus to study.
Re: Historical Jesus scholarship
Yes, that is my understanding of what was widely believed until a few were allowed to espouse inquiry during the Enlightenment, and may have been gnerally believed well beyond the Enlightenment.sidmartin wrote: ... My New Testament professor in seminary said offhandedly that no one had ever doubted that Jesus existed "physically."
It seems this has become true in the last century or two:
I'd say "the Academy" would be pushing a historical Jesussidmartin wrote: The truth is that New Testament scholars simply take the historicity of Jesus for granted and build their career on that unexamined assumption. They comprise what I call the Jesus Guild, which consists of all those whose careers are based on the study of Jesus. They are understandably resistant to the idea that there was no Jesus to study.
- * as a push-back against historical-Jesus-inquiry, &
* to provide a fall-back hook - of a real person - for those that loose faith in the supernatural.
They should be aware of difficulties in this area: it is likely they will increasingly be, but to what extent they acknowledge difficulties will likely vary form person to person, and institutions will vary on how they portray the institutions creed.If New Testament scholars have not studied the historicity of Jesus, they can hardly be considered experts on the subject.
Re: Historical Jesus scholarship
Ehrman should have heard of Bruno Bauer.sidmartin wrote:Ehrman asks rhetorically whether an inquirer would not rather have a dentist work on his teeth, as an analogy for consulting scholars like Ehrman who affirm the historicity of Jesus. My answer is that, yes, I would like to have a dentist work on my teeth, but I would prefer to have one who knew something about tooth decay. Ehrman admits that he had not heard of mythicism until recently (although Schweizer discussed it in Quest, which Ehrman should have read.) My New Testament professor in seminary said offhandedly that no one had ever doubted that Jesus existed "physically." If New Testment scholars have not studied the historicity of Jesus, they can hardly be considered experts on the subject. The truth is that New Testmanet scholars simply take the historicity of Jesus for granted and build their career on that unexamined assumption. They conprise what I call the Jesus Guild, which consists of all those whose careers are based on the study of Jesus. They are understandably resistant to the idea that there was no Jesus to study.
Ehrman seems not to realise that his claim about when he heard about mythicism is highly questionable.
How can Ehrman be considered a serious historian and heard about mythicism from e-mails?