Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I certainly should not forget Price, who can be considered the somewhat reluctant dean of both Jesus and Paul skepticism. His willingness to speculate and refusal to systematize are characteristic, but we can cherish such in a field so frought with confusion.

But yes there are certain sociological context clues that make the non historicity of Jesus look like crap. It is unfortunate that so many take their first and last from these head counting exercises, at least when they want to make comment primarily on such a basis. There is definitely plenty of fear and loathing too here, but anyone giving it less than very considerable thought can be forgiven for not thinking it worth the time. I believe it is useful in this regard that people who even doubt the high probabilities assigned to existence speak up. Their reluctance to do so sends the signal back to the herd to ignore this idea. Still a scholar's got to eat somehow, and there is plenty to do without verbally questioning the most cherished assumptions around.

It is interesting that the prewar and interwar period could still have been more productive in this regard than the 21st century. The ascendance of American academics is a related factor here, perhaps, providing a less unfettered environment for radical criticism than the German and Dutch of their time. Still, they received little better notice then.

Still, I want to know what Paul wrote. I want to know whether Jesus existed. And I am willing to continue to struggle for the answers that can be found.

Just about to leave for a work appointment, and waiting for the computer to process uploaded software changes.

Keep in mind that the books of the Bible ARE, in fact, literary evidence and should be treated the same as any other literary source (regardless of what we think of the sources' biases). ALL literary evidence has biases, intentions, etc. It is the job of a historian to analyze them to see if these tendencies can be identified and the events relayed compared to other records where possible, but all conclusions by the historian, which are essentially plausible explanations for the evidence we do know of, have to be taken with a grain of salt.

OK, computer finally shut down. Time to go ...

DCH

Still, I want to know what Paul wrote. I want to know whether Jesus existed. And I am willing to continue to struggle for the answers that can be found.

For an atheist:
Why is it so important to know if Jesus existed or not?
Why does research of early Christianity have to focus on the existence or non-existence of Jesus?
Why find all kind of pretexts in order to, at best, bring doubts on the existence of Jesus (but hardly enough to eliminate the possibility of his existence)?
Why concoct all kind of flawed, ill-evidenced, spotty, far-fetched, even stupid theories in order to replace the existence of Jesus by a mythical or fictional one?

It is so much easier (and a lot more probable) to establish, through investigation of the Christian core texts and others, the existence of a "humble" not divine rural Jew, who by some obvious circumstances, got crucified as "king of the Jews", which was good enough to start the development of Christianity, according to the historical, social & religious context of the time: http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html.
From that point on, everything unravels, without looking for clues way outside the box:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html

Making that study made me more of an atheist and a non-religious person that ever was before (even if I feared the opposite at the beginning), because now I am absolutely certain that Christianity premises are wrong (& I know how & why). And that knowledge is based not on shifting opinions or faith in some dubious mythicist theory, but on solid ground reached by years of research.

As for Paul, once you accept (through evidence) all Pauline epistles have been interpolated, and the Corinthians epistles are composite letters, and Acts is not all crap, then Paul's evolution in the faith he preached become obvious, and so his existence, travels and humanity.

In conclusion, everything fits and a huge lot can be explained through available textual evidence, with the result to put you at peace with a 100% atheist position, even if (or rather because) the existence of (an ultra minimal) Jesus is acknowledged.

Cordially, Bernard

It is so much easier ... to establish, through investigation of the Christian core texts and others, the existence of a "humble" not divine rural Jew, who by some obvious circumstances, got crucified as "king of the Jews", which was good enough to start the development of Christianity, according to the historical, social & religious context of the time

That's exactly the point of the thread. I'd substitute 'useful' but again that's the point of the thread. This is the reason we stay with our wives and girlfriends, that's why we think our jobs matter, that's why we go along with what the majority believes. What's easy, what's useful' are things that aren't necessarily true. They're just helpful to 'get where we want to go.' As I have hoped to demonstrate 'what seems to be obvious' is inevitably attributable to a psychological - rather than an evidentiary - predisposition.

And what 'started this' is the fact that 'mythicism' inevitably gets reduced down to 'hatred for Christianity' or 'God' or 'religion.' That might often be the case. I won't deny that. But that doesn't take away from there are similar psychological motivations for the other side that get ignored.

As a parallel issue one might wonder about the obsession with 'one God' that suddenly took over all the Palestinian religions in the late second century. What's the big deal about monotheism? Why would emphasizing a 'monarchy' in heaven under an Imperial political system (a monarchy on earth) have turned out to be preferential, desirable = useful?

And scholars ALMOST NEVER ask this question ...

It's like they want there to be 'something' - ANYTHING - to be real - i.e. that there really is 'one God' or 'one principle' that the Christians and Jews 'truly' believed this rather than a mandated (= arbitrary and hence 'untrue') requirement placed upon these religions.

It's almost as if the 'search for truth' paradoxically makes random things 'true' in order to justify the search. It's as if no one wants to conclude the universe is just an empty and meaningless jumble.

neilgodfrey wrote:

outhouse wrote: Two widely accepted historical facts

Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts

Can you tell us why "almost all modern scholars" consider each of these to be "historical facts"?

Outhouse -- you may have missed this. I was hoping you would reply. I don't think it's a difficult question but if you are not sure of the answer do let me know.

Isn't this a little like asking "Is mainstream science biased in favor of physics and chemistry?" Duh ... YEAH!

"Those damn physics professors FORCE their biased crap DOWN OUR THROATS! When I wanted to write my Doctoral Thesis on the use of Aqua Regia to induce chrysopoeia, the transmutation of lead into gold, he refused to hear of it and had me ejected from the university's doctoral program."

Harrumphhh!

DCH

Bernard, have you ever considered that your website might be a load of good intentioned but methodologically unsustainable crap?

Do you have the mental agility to see why someone else would see it that way?

Basically I know you mean well, but don't tell me about what you BELIEVE as if that settles anything.

And fuck you for imputing bad intentions to me and my investigation of Christian origins. That is completely fucked up.

Why find all kind of pretexts in order to, at best, bring doubts on the existence of Jesus (but hardly enough to eliminate the possibility of his existence)?
Why concoct all kind of flawed, ill-evidenced, spotty, far-fetched, even stupid theories in order to replace the existence of Jesus by a mythical or fictional one?

Stephan Huller wrote: And what 'started this' is the fact that 'mythicism' inevitably gets reduced down to 'hatred for Christianity' or 'God' or 'religion.'

Which is often a misrepresentation or a red-herring or both.

I do hate the 'Gospel Truth' assertions or memes, though.

Peter Kirby wrote:Bernard, have you ever considered that your website might be a load of good intentioned but methodologically unsustainable crap?

Do you have the mental agility to see why someone else would see it that way?

Basically I know you mean well, but don't tell me about what you BELIEVE as if that settles anything.

And fuck you for imputing bad intentions to me and my investigation of Christian origins. That is completely fucked up.

Seconded.