Vinny's Jesus Agnostic Blog

[Peter Kirby]

I guess I would just like to see people who critically focus on the evidence, to actually try creating history using the evidence. Finding weakness is a part of the process, the real historical method is using the credible evidence in context to create history.

70% of what excites me about agnosticism or ahistoricity is the new light it can bring on a host of other issues regarding the sources and development of early Christianity (epistles, gospels, apocrypha, NHL, pseudepigrapha, mystery religions, Philo, even Josephus). All of that is indeed using credible evidence in context to create history. The other 30% of it is that it's just the right thing to do (be agnostic, that is).

If you asked me how to answer the question of the historicity of Jesus, I'd say to take about 10 years and divide it into two equal parts of 5 years. For the first five years, study the historicity of Jesus hypothesis and its most likely explanations of Christian origins. For the next five years, study the non-historicity of Jesus hypothesis and its most likely explanations of Christian origins. Then take another two years to decide.

[neilgodfrey]

Speaking of blogs, here's a rather extensive review of Carrier and the Bayesian approach in connection to the historicity of Jesus:

http://naturalreason.revolvingplanet.ne ... -of-jesus/

Whose blog is this? I'm sure I should see the name on the site but it has eluded me.


For some reason I had overlooked that Our good old Vinny is behind the You Call This Culture blog. That's good to know.

[Bernard Muller]

But that's our obligation, whether we're talking about Socrates, Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, or King Arthur. Unflinchingly we must ask the questions and unhesitatingly we must proportion our answers to the evidence, noting where there is doubt and how much. That is not "finding weakness in the historical method"; that is the historical method.

A historical method has to be used by anyone researching the topic, more so about the textual evidence. Questions for each text have to be asked: when? why? how? editing, interpolations, sequencing, content particularity. Either you start by that, or end by that, or combine that with your reconstruction, that has to be done. If you can answer these questions about the ancient texts with significant evidence, and show your reconstruction fits these texts (or vice versa), then you can claim to be on the right tracks.

If you deal with the history of the beginning of Christianity, you cannot escape looking at history. Even Carrier & Doherty & Murdoch & Atwill did that, except, most of the time, they are looking for history far away from the Christian core ancients texts (which they dismissed as useless regarding HJ).

I do not like the expression "historical method" personally. I rather prefer "investigative method".

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

70% of what excites me about agnosticism or ahistoricity is the new light it can bring on a host of other issues regarding the sources and development of early Christianity (epistles, gospels, apocrypha, NHL, pseudepigrapha, mystery religions, Philo, even Josephus). All of that is indeed using credible evidence in context to create history. The other 30% of it is that it's just the right thing to do (be agnostic, that is).

I think an ultra minimalist historical Jesus does not in any way turn off any light. Other issues about the sources and development of early Christianity (epistles, gospels, apocrypha, NHL, pseudepigrapha, mystery religions, Philo, even Josephus) can be brought about, without affecting that historical Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

[Peter Kirby]

70% of what excites me about agnosticism or ahistoricity is the new light it can bring on a host of other issues regarding the sources and development of early Christianity (epistles, gospels, apocrypha, NHL, pseudepigrapha, mystery religions, Philo, even Josephus). All of that is indeed using credible evidence in context to create history. The other 30% of it is that it's just the right thing to do (be agnostic, that is).

I think an ultra minimalist historical Jesus does not in any way turn off any light. Other issues about the sources and development of early Christianity (epistles, gospels, apocrypha, NHL, pseudepigrapha, mystery religions, Philo, even Josephus) can be brought about, without affecting that historical Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

Typically the inflection point at which everything begins to read a little differently is the point at which you allow for people who believe in Jesus Christ without knowing anything about a guy from Galilee named Jesus.

The historicity of Jesus hypothesis can usually (if not always) lead to reading the same texts effectively, but the readings are different.

[Peter Kirby]

Speaking of blogs, here's a rather extensive review of Carrier and the Bayesian approach in connection to the historicity of Jesus:

http://naturalreason.revolvingplanet.ne ... -of-jesus/

Whose blog is this? I'm sure I should see the name on the site but it has eluded me.

A website developer, husband, and father of two children using the name "Unobtanium." I'm not sure whether it can be connected with a real name.

http://revolvingplanet.net/blog/an-empty-playground/

What do you get when you add together a quality hosting plan that is very cheap, a bored developer, and a dad with two young children and, therefore, no time or energy to hand? You get a multi-site WordPress installation with lots of sub-sites but not a tremendous amount of content. In other words, you get this site.

At less than $10 per year the 75% hosting sale at NameCheap was just too good to pass up. With a young baby and a boisterous five year old though I don’t have a lot of time or sometimes even desire to engage in much intellectual activity. Setting up WordPress and even fiddling with a little bit of code is pretty fun though.

As a result this site will likely just function as a place for me to mess around (that’s sure to attract lots of visitors). Who knows though. Maybe something useful or interesting will occasionally pop up.

[outhouse]

If you asked me how to answer the question of the historicity of Jesus, I'd say to take about 10 years and divide it into two equal parts of 5 years. For the first five years, study the historicity of Jesus hypothesis and its most likely explanations of Christian origins. For the next five years, study the non-historicity of Jesus hypothesis and its most likely explanations of Christian origins. Then take another two years to decide.

Funny I was thinking this earlier today, I was going to ask you to do the Ben Franklin close.


Write out 2 paragraphs with the explanation and origins of the movement from a historicity position. Then a mythicist position.

Both from 20CE to 75CE.

Then decide which one make more sense.

[outhouse]

I think an ultra minimalist historical Jesus does not in any way turn off any light. Other issues about the sources and development of early Christianity (epistles, gospels, apocrypha, NHL, pseudepigrapha, mystery religions, Philo, even Josephus) can be brought about, without affecting that historical Jesus.

Cordially, Bernard

Agreed.


Its why I have little interest in anything after 100 CE ish.

If anything 50 years before the first century setting up context, has more bearing, then anything in the second century.

[Peter Kirby]

Its why I have little interest in anything after 100 CE ish.

The second century's where it's at, dog.

Of course I might agree with you, if I thought we knew much for certain, without inference, about Christianity in the first century. Unfortunately, we don't. Even to say something about Paul requires us to wrestle with the text of Paul, which draws us back to what happened in the second century (the transmission of this text).

Besides which, we can't securely date a huge number of texts which might be first or second century (including the canonical Gospels).

[neilgodfrey]

Its why I have little interest in anything after 100 CE ish.

Is your date referring to the contents of the story or the time the story was written?

What do you do with a story that was set in the Persian empire but written during the Roman empire?