Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Ulan wrote: Keep in mind that "Galilean" can also just mean "insurrectionist" without relation to the place.

Understood, Zealot sort of means Galilean as well.

Ulan wrote: In principle, the "historicist" explanation has a similar problem, which is why it never gets past the "martyred Galilean", with the rest of the figure staying out of grasp.

The current state of undisputed historicity is a bit more then that. It is however a very short paragraph.


A crucified traveling teacher who was baptized by John and took over Johns movement after Johns death. A teacher of apocalyptic Judaism who spoke for the most part Aramaic and told parables, who made at least one trip to the temple where he was crucified under the reign of Pilate and Caiaphas. His death martyred and soon after theology and mythology began to circulate in many different locations within the Diaspora.

after this many different Jesus can be made

Ulan wrote: . In Christian thinking this figure is Jesus Christ, and here you have the exact development from the idealized figure to the specific figure, the creation of a person out of an ideal image

Much more. And it depends on which authors. There are parallels to Moses the Emperor and many others.

They plagiarized many people and OT text with complete artistic freedom to mold the new religion to make it as popular as possible to the masses.

Ulan wrote:Paul has Christ living in himself

Paus Jesus is living in heaven, and quite clearly. Paul is telling us Christ lived in his heart in the above context. [but deeper sense then just heart]

I think coming down on Ehrman so hard for saying "a couple" is pretty rough. Consensus is very often brought up in other controversial academical subjects (human-caused global warming and evolution) and on these subjects the consensus is far less complete than for the historical Jesus.

timhendrix wrote:I think coming down on Ehrman so hard for saying "a couple" is pretty rough. Consensus is very often brought up in other controversial academical subjects (human-caused global warming and evolution) and on these subjects the consensus is far less complete than for the historical Jesus.

While I agree about the tone towards Ehrman, evolution is not a good example, as there the consensus is pretty much 100%. The controversy over evolution is limited to people outside of the field. In my experience, most people who are against the theory are unable to give a proper definition and/or have problems with specific models based on the theory, which doesn't touch the theory itself at all.

While you may make a similar statement for NT studies,,even though thee are at least some dissenters in the field, any counter arguments with regard to evolution are easily dismissed due to hard evidence, while humanities necessarily rely much more on judgment calls.

Ulan wrote: While I agree about the tone towards Ehrman, evolution is not a good example, as there the consensus is pretty much 100%. The controversy over evolution is limited to people outside of the field. In my experience, most people who are against the theory are unable to give a proper definition and/or have problems with specific models based on the theory, which doesn't touch the theory itself at all.

.

And in reality many mythicist, dare I say most? are uneducated on the topic. Similar to creationist.


With evolution you do have a few scientist that do fight against it, even if laughably so and published authors no less. There are many parallels here.


I see mythicist, making the same mistakes as creationist in that they stand behind something that has no hypothesis to explain the evidence. And there are many attempts like creation that all cannot stand behind.


Right now the only safe place is being agnostic about it.


My advise, is they need to develop a credible replacement hypothesis, they all can stand behind that does not require mental hurdles to explain. Its no easy task either.

outhouse wrote:

Ulan wrote: While I agree about the tone towards Ehrman, evolution is not a good example, as there the consensus is pretty much 100%. The controversy over evolution is limited to people outside of the field. In my experience, most people who are against the theory are unable to give a proper definition and/or have problems with specific models based on the theory, which doesn't touch the theory itself at all.

And in reality many mythicist, dare I say most? are uneducated on the topic. Similar to creationist.

With evolution you do have a few scientist that do fight against it, even if laughably so and published authors no less. There are many parallels here.

Are there really published scientists among the critics, except from that mathematician I know of (who calculated correctly, but started from wrong biological assumptions)? I know there's one scientist at the Discovery Institute, but he admits that he argues from religious assumptions, not scientific ones.

However, this point is not that important for my former statement, because even if there are any, my main point of why the comparison is lacking is the quality of evidence. Rocks or biological molecules don't lie. The human factor of following agendas up to purposefully lying starts with interpretations. Humans being humans, there will always be some kind of fraud, but in biology, it usually gets corrected, even if it takes time, because of the underlying evidence just exists without human input. The situation is different in religious studies, as the evidence itself is a human product, with all the input of agendas from the very beginning. The whole material is nothing but agenda, given the topic. This means the quality of evidence is vastly overrated.

outhouse wrote:I see mythicist, making the same mistakes as creationist in that they stand behind something that has no hypothesis to explain the evidence. And there are many attempts like creation that all cannot stand behind.

As I said, the quality of the evidence for historicity is vastly overrated. It's not a bad suggestion, but Paul or gMark alone won't cut it.

outhouse wrote:Right now the only safe place is being agnostic about it.

While I agree with this statement, this somehow clashes with the statement that historicity is the only logical position to take. This is an either/or thing. If you take historicity for granted, you are not agnostic about it.

outhouse wrote:My advise, is they need to develop a credible replacement hypothesis, they all can stand behind that does not require mental hurdles to explain. Its no easy task either.

In principle, already if you accept the old standard theory of oral transmission, there is no replacement theory needed anymore. Oral transmission is, from its very concept, unreliable. Proposing oral transmission is basically the sign that we are in the territory of a "free for all". That may not be satisfying, but that's the current state of matters.

I'm aware that this is also kind of a discussion killer, but that cannot be helped.

Ulan wrote: Are there really published scientists among the critics, except from that mathematician I know of (who calculated correctly, but started from wrong biological assumptions)? I know there's one scientist at the Discovery Institute, but he admits that he argues from religious assumptions, not scientific ones.

Sadly yes. There are religiously biased scientist. Not really credible but they do exist.

The situation is different in religious studies, as the evidence itself is a human product, with all the input of agendas from the very beginning. The whole material is nothing but agenda, given the topic. This means the quality of evidence is vastly overrated.

Agreed.

But case in point. AchryaS is probably the most famous and popular mythicist. Where education lacks to process he evidence properly.

While I agree with this statement, this somehow clashes with the statement that historicity is the only logical position to take. This is an either/or thing. If you take historicity for granted, you are not agnostic about it.

Evidence has led me to this conclusion, it is easy to think outside the box of logical conclusions. I prefer a reasonable explanation.


Now, the only current reasonable explanation is historicity, so its not about logic. No replacement hypothesis exist to explain the evidence we do possess.

there is no replacement theory needed anymore.

It is factually required.

Christianity has a factual origin, and it needs to be explained as to why we possess the factual evidence we do.

outhouse wrote:But case in point. AchryaS is probably the most famous and popular mythicist. Where education lacks to process he evidence properly.

Sure, her approach is severely lacking.

outhouse wrote:

Ulan wrote:While I agree with this statement, this somehow clashes with the statement that historicity is the only logical position to take. This is an either/or thing. If you take historicity for granted, you are not agnostic about it.

Evidence has led me to this conclusion, it is easy to think outside the box of logical conclusions. I prefer a reasonable explanation.

Now, the only current reasonable explanation is historicity, so its not about logic. No replacement hypothesis exist to explain the evidence we do possess.

The "logic" part was about your statement. You stated that being agnostic is the only safe assumption (this part I agree with), but claim that only one position is "reasonable". I don't see the inner logic in such a position, at least the way you formulate it.

outhouse wrote:

... there is no replacement theory needed anymore.

It is factually required.

Christianity has a factual origin, and it needs to be explained as to why we possess the factual evidence we do.

Yes, but that's mostly guesswork. Carrier employs math to give the guesswork the air of objectivity. But even when you assume historicity, it starts with assumptions like "the text is genuine" or "the text contains many interpolations". Of course, we tend to think our own assumptions are "reasonable". Are they?