Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Neil, if all those quotes are somehow directed as a response to me, then you're only proving my point - that there is a recognition of the problem of bias in the field of Christian Origins / Historical Jesus. This is contrary to your claim that there is a failure to recognise the problem of bias.

Peter Kirby wrote:It is possible, on the other hand, that [MrMacSon] and toejam have different interpretations of what the words "literally true" would mean when applied to the Gospels.

Yep. That seems to be what's going on. And I think my interpretation of phrases like "believing literally true" is closer to the mark of how such phrases are typically understood. People like Borg, Spong, Allison etc. are "believers". But to say they hold to a literalist reading of the gospels is, at best, unintentionally causing more confusion than understanding (and thus requires clarification), or, at worst, disingenuous. It seems to me that MrMacSon is all too quick on the trigger to make accusations of logical fallacies when in reality he is misunderstanding the clarifications being attempted. Is he going to suggest that Marcus Borg wasn't a "believer"? Obviously Borg was. Or will he argue that Borg took the gospels literally? Clearly he didn't. And yet trying to point something like this out to MrMacSon renders premature accusations of red-herrings and so-forth. Sigh. Ah... sorry for rant.

Since this thread has been meandering and practically nobody (or absolutely nobody, depending on how you read certain comments) has actually attempted to controvert the point initially raised by Huller that there is some level of bias at play in favor of historicity in 'serious scholarship', I would say that accusing anyone of a red herring, specifically with reference to your (i), (ii), and (iii), would seem to be a little hasty. First we'd have to know that someone was actually attempting to diminish that claim or argument, in general, before we could say that they had done so by any particular means.

Thanks, Peter. We're all in agreement here on the main point. Bias is a problem in the field of Historical Jesus research. Even as someone who thinks there was a historical Jesus, I'm not denying that there exists a bias in favor of his existence in the field, and the types of Jesus' typically proposed. My gripe in this thread has been over the degree of extent and recognition of this bias.

neilgodfrey wrote:

outhouse wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:N.T. Wright trying to imply he has no theological axe to grind!

That is laughable. He is very apologetic.


All religions will continue to produce biased scholars.


But that doesn't mean secular thinking has not attacked most angles in academia on this topic.



Its like saying a muslim scholar [alright stop laughing] who posits Jesus was not crucified. Its not based on evidence, its based on his faith. YET no one takes them with any credibility, less the uneducated sheeple.

Its the target that matters

Hoo boy, outhouse -- still you don't bother to read with any attention what you think you are attacking.

Of course Wright's apologetic. That was Childs' (and my) point.

Irony is clearly lost on you. But if you even grasped the point of the post itself the meaning of the sentence should have registered with you.

No Neil you misunderstood. Wrights statement was laughable, not yours.

I was agreeing with you.


NT Wright is an embarrassment in my eyes. His work should only be read by those already well educated so one can throw out all the useless apologetic crap.

Further progress is futile because we simply don't have any preserved accounts of Jesus from his time or from any proven eyewitnesses.

Which is a fallacy. And easily refuted.

How can we have evidence of a man who was a peasant up until the time he died?????????????? There were hundreds if not thousands of Aramaic Galilean teachers and we have no evidence for any.


I swear people cannot read. Its pretty obvious he was martyred for his perceived selfless actions in the temple at Passover in front of half a million possible witnesses.

Had he been hung up in an entrance way, its possible hundreds of thousands witnessed his death.

Blood wrote:People today construct a "Jesus" who fits their views.

and can be altered at any time as their views change.

Why should people in the first century have been any different?

The problem is people interpret the evidence differently.

Some accept it all, some throw it all out.

Then there are different levels of education in certain areas that lead to different educated opinions.

toejam wrote:Neil, if all those quotes are somehow directed as a response to me, then you're only proving my point - that there is a recognition of the problem of bias in the field of Christian Origins / Historical Jesus. This is contrary to your claim that there is a failure to recognise the problem of bias.

No toejam, no need to be so vain, like Robert Tulip, as to think my posts are all about you Recall Stephan had also pleaded with commenters to get back to his OP and I thought evidence would be a good way to go. You do not govern my interests and I do not write for you. I don't know the first thing about you. Though I DO know you will always find some way to gainsay whatever comes from me for some reason and I'm not interested in arguing the same points I have made already and that you simply ignore with each of your comments.

But I do thank you for prompting me to collate something I have had a mind to do for some time and that I will continue to add to long after I've completely forgotten your role in this whole affair.

P.S.
Another list I am preparing to compile includes quotes from scholars who directly contradict the words cited in the list I have presented here -- and that demonstrate the truth of the words in my list and how scholars like Hurtado, Bauckham and many more simply do NOT recognize the problem as set out by the Crossleys and Childs and Macks. They strenuously deny it. And Crossley himself falls right into the trap of their assumptions, too -- showing that even his understanding of what he himself is saying is only ankle deep! And if the secularist Crossley can only see the problem through a glass darkly the situation is worse for those like the McKnights.

If the words I have quoted demonstrate that the problem is recognized generally then the words -- if you really read them -- make absolutely no sense.

^Nope. I don't think all your posts are about me. Why would you think that? Note the key word "if" in my comment. But you admit our small conversation prompted you. So my suspicion wasn't off base at all, and was not an expression of my "vanity". Sorry to disappoint. Sheesh.

neilgodfrey wrote:-- if you really read them -- make absolutely no sense.

Context is key.

And understanding the social anthropology is key to placing the text into context. When you do this, the clarity is simply amplified and leaves only one simply conclusion that matches all the evidence were left with. With no mental hurdles any other explanation leaves.


As easy as a beginner like me easily refuted the last quote, they all fall under refutation by modern unbiased scholars.

How can we have evidence of a man who was a peasant up until the time he died?????????????? There were hundreds if not thousands of Aramaic Galilean teachers and we have no evidence for any.


I swear people cannot read. Its pretty obvious he was martyred for his perceived selfless actions in the temple at Passover in front of half a million possible witnesses.

I think the evidence points in a very different direction.

The burial, by Joseph of Arimathea, is in a very expensive grave. We have stories of Jesus with this Joseph travelling to Britain. We have other stories of Jesus travelling to India.

We have stories of conversations with rich young men. Many of the parables are stories about very wealthy households, complete with slave retinues. A story of a wedding includes the very expensive trick by Hera.

The cross is said to have the inscription king of the jews. The trial includes Pilate and the Sanhedrin.

I am sorry, this all points to a very wealthy highly educated upper class young greek speaking Jew who was in the upper power echelons - a prince.

One who is the equivalent of a rock star, probably because of interests in helping the poor. One who is able to feed five thousand from the resources of his estates.

Jesus Christ Super Star is on the right lines.

If there was an hj we should be looking amongst the wealthy, possibly born out of wedlock.

Clive wrote:

How can we have evidence of a man who was a peasant up until the time he died?????????????? There were hundreds if not thousands of Aramaic Galilean teachers and we have no evidence for any.


I swear people cannot read. Its pretty obvious he was martyred for his perceived selfless actions in the temple at Passover in front of half a million possible witnesses.

I think the evidence points in a very different direction.

The burial, by Joseph of Arimathea, is in a very expensive grave. .

Yes a rhetorical device to parallel a royal burial instead of a peasants burial, having his body thrown in a pit.

There is plenty of evidence of this rhetorical Emperor paralleling.

We have stories of Jesus with this Joseph travelling to Britain. We have other stories of Jesus travelling to India.

Hundreds of years after. Not in any early text. Traditions were perverted. We see that with Paul as well.

I am sorry, this all points to a very wealthy highly educated upper class young greek speaking Jew who was in the upper power echelons - a prince.

Be sorry for yourself.

Nazareth was a hovel. And your reading the Hellenist version of the Hellenist god, the Hellenist created after death by rhetorically building divinity that equals the first son of god, the Emperor.

They are not going to worship a mortal peasant Jew. And yet we see clearly then building from this foundation.

If there was an hj we should be looking amongst the wealthy

Aramaic Galilean Zealots were never wealthy. Nazareth was not wealthy.

Had he been a rich Hellenist, he would not have been fighting the rich Hellenist in the temple. Im sorry your so lost here, and your position fits none of the evidence here, and raises more questions then it answers.