I guess if you believe that yeah I could see where that would make sense.
This statement does not depend on whether I believe in historicity or not. It's just stating the obvious: starting from a widespread consensus is easier than presenting a completely different framework of thought. That's the same in all sciences.
The Crow wrote:Well this could border on conformation biased don't you think?
Maybe, in some specific cases. However, I would assume that more than 99% of everything written in Biblical Studies doesn't depend on this question, which is what I refer to. If you tackle the meaning of some passage in a biblical text, an "and, by the way, I think Jesus was a myth" isn't helpful. It's also superfluous in this context and just distracts from your point. You have to pick your battles when they matter.
The Crow wrote:But since you brought up what you did here is the questions:
(1)."How do you conclude some one existed when in all the writings about him no physical description is ever given?" Now I equate this to posting a most wanted poster giving just the offenders name with no picture. How do you know who you are looking for?
If you visit a literature course, you will probably learn that the opposite is true: physical descriptions are suspicious. A good text follows a certain guideline and doesn't get clogged up with irrelevant matters. Physical descriptions belong to the realm of dime novels, which tend to provide them extensively. A good book only brings them up if they serve a purpose. The "Acts of Paul and Thecla" for example contain physical descriptions (not of Jesus of course). They also read like a novel.
The Crow wrote:(2). "Why does a man supposedly strung up on a stick die and resurrect yet vanishes off the face of the earth?"
Most people vanish off the face of Earth. Can you rephrase what the problem with this is?
The Crow wrote:(3). "You spoke of extant evidence. Examples of physical evidence would be nice. Where is it?" Now granted I am sure some one will come back with "Well there was no physical evidence of so and so but he existed."
Did I claim any physical evidence? You added the "physical". We have textual evidence, and I said that I don't think this forces one conclusion or the other. So yeah, toejam or outhouse may be the guys to ask this.
Most people vanish off the face of Earth. Can you rephrase what the problem with this is?
If you could not be killed would you disappear off the face of the planet? Where did he go? Is he hiding in a cave in Jerusalem? Maybe hold up in an abandon shack somewhere outside town? Did he end up in a garbage heap somewhere? Maybe the Graveyard of the Condemned?
Peter Kirby wrote:You can see this at work in the reception of the books of someone (like Robert Price) by most reviewers. It's not just a different idea, to be considered just like any other 'yahoo theory' that the beloved disciple was Lazarus or that Luke wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews or that Mark abridged Matthew and Luke. No. It has to be "debunked." It needs to be labeled ("mythicism" ... and they still need a good one word label for questioning the authenticity of letters of Paul). There needs to be disapproval of the questions being asked, questioning of motives, impugning of credentials, and a general air of indignation. This is not just exploration of ideas. These ideas are undoubtedly considered in connection with their impact on common, shared cultural assumptions. Of course it takes a special kind of person to question whether faith commitments and cultural assumptions are affecting the investigation regarding Jesus (but they'll often do that too, when not at their most calm and collected, while at the same time holding out that bitter personal vendettas and polemical purposes are all that is at work in others). It's an ugly spectacle, and for some observers it can reinforce belief, but for more critical and impartial persons it is just a huge turnoff.
I see scholars sneaking faith into this equation, under the premise of grey areas and building their own character. I see almost all do this.
The thing is you can see the apologetic footprint left, much like a dinosaur track in soft sand.
The problem as you describe, seems to be if one gets to far right or left they will receive criticism from a wide variety of characters. Whether they are right or wrong.
Someone once said that Crossan may often be wrong but at least he is wrong productively. I feel the same about non historicity. It is definitely not an 'assured conclusion' but allowing ourselves to consider it as a plausible hypothesis opens up interesting avenues if investigation that might otherwise be prematurely closed off by the opposite assumption.
I call this the Huller method of turning stones over no matter how relevant looking for clues. In the process you will learn more. PROVIDED one has the time to do so.
Someone once said that Crossan may often be wrong but at least he is wrong productively. I feel the same about non historicity. It is definitely not an 'assured conclusion' but allowing ourselves to consider it as a plausible hypothesis opens up interesting avenues if investigation that might otherwise be prematurely closed off by the opposite assumption.
I call this the Huller method of turning stones over no matter how relevant looking for clues. In the process you will learn more. PROVIDED one has the time to do so.
My theory is that when Hüller was on Eisenman's boat, Stephan was possessed by the same spirit that drives Eisenman to do the same kind of thing with his books.
I call this the Huller method of turning stones over no matter how relevant looking for clues. In the process you will learn more. PROVIDED one has the time to do so.
