Playing out religious hopes and desires

[drumdude]

I would start with Bart Ehrman if you are looking for a summary of the non-Christian consensus that Jesus was a real historical person. It’s a fringe position that Jesus didn’t exist at all. I wish the few academics who advocate for the Jesus myth idea wouldn’t give people the false impression that all academics hold their same view.

Note that it’s separate from all the claims about Jesus. Historians simply claim that the man existed, not that he was divine.

[dastardly stem]

I would start with Bart Ehrman if you are looking for a summary of the non-Christian consensus that Jesus was a real historical person. It’s a fringe position that Jesus didn’t exist at all. I wish the few academics who advocate for the Jesus myth idea wouldn’t give people the false impression that all academics hold their same view.

Note that it’s separate from all the claims about Jesus. Historians simply claim that the man existed, not that he was divine.

I've read and considered many views for all sides. The historicist position doesn't have a case in the scholarly work. But no doubt it's largely assumed by many scholars.

But beside that I was just curious about your claim that Jesus had revolutionary teachings. I'd agree we can't trace anything back to him, but I'd be curious if anything that later people attributed to him is all that revolutionary. It seems most attributed to him came from ideas already in the ethos.

[drumdude]

The historicist position doesn't have a case in the scholarly work.

The debates between Ehrman and Price were won pretty handily by Ehrman in my opinion. Price seemed very much to have an axe to grind, whereas Ehrman was simply applying unbiased historical methods to the evidence.

This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.

[dastardly stem]

The historicist position doesn't have a case in the scholarly work.

The debates between Ehrman and Price were won pretty handily by Ehrman in my opinion. Price seemed very much to have an axe to grind, whereas Ehrman was simply applying unbiased historical methods to the evidence.

This is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity.... The reason for thinking Jesus existed is because he is abundantly attested in early sources.... If you want to go where the evidence goes, I think that atheists have done themselves a disservice by jumping on the bandwagon of mythicism, because frankly, it makes you look foolish to the outside world. If that’s what you’re going to believe, you just look foolish.

Debates are just a sort of side show to express views and get some ideas out there. They don't necessarily show anything near scholarly work. And as to who won is really just opinion. Who won a debate or not doesn't really make a case. Additionally the question is not which view is favored. Its a matter of what hypothesis is most probable, given the data.

And I'd agree, Ehrman has spoken out against arguments for mythicism, quite vehemently. Although I'm not sure he's given the scholarly work a read, or consideration at all, as his statements don't really speak to the scholarly work that's out there. Anyway, good you use Ehrman as I've read his works on the topic and they are abysmal, which is odd because on other matters he's great. Some who question the historicity of Jesus actually think Bart's scholarship is their best advocate, if one pays attention. While his personal conclusion is there was a Jesus, and he's oddly thrown out a 99% certainty on that claim without any data to lay out his logic there, his other work actually fits in well with all the credible explanations that there was no Jesus.

But with that said, I raised a bit of a side issue here. Still just interested in trying to see why people think Jesus gave revolutionary teaching if much of what is attributed to him was ideas already floating around. If he has some material unique, I'd wonder what that is. ANy ideas?

[drumdude]

The debates between Ehrman and Price were won pretty handily by Ehrman in my opinion. Price seemed very much to have an axe to grind, whereas Ehrman was simply applying unbiased historical methods to the evidence.

Debates are just a sort of side show to express views and get some ideas out there. They don't necessarily show anything near scholarly work. And as to who won is really just opinion. Who won a debate or not doesn't really make a case. Additionally the question is not which view is favored. Its a matter of what hypothesis is most probable, given the data.

And I'd agree, Ehrman has spoken out against arguments for mythicism, quite vehemently. Although I'm not sure he's given the scholarly work a read, or consideration at all, as his statements don't really speak to the scholarly work that's out there. Anyway, good you use Ehrman as I've read his works on the topic and they are abysmal, which is odd because on other matters he's great. Some who question the historicity of Jesus actually think Bart's scholarship is their best advocate, if one pays attention. While his personal conclusion is there was a Jesus, and he's oddly thrown out a 99% certainty on that claim without any data to lay out his logic there, his other work actually fits in well with all the credible explanations that there was no Jesus.

But with that said, I raised a bit of a side issue here. Still just interested in trying to see why people think Jesus gave revolutionary teaching if much of what is attributed to him was ideas already floating around. If he has some material unique, I'd wonder what that is. ANy ideas?

It seems establishing that there was a historical Jesus is a prerequisite for the further argument about if he was the source of new ideas, no?

[huckelberry]

I would start with Bart Ehrman if you are looking for a summary of the non-Christian consensus that Jesus was a real historical person. It’s a fringe position that Jesus didn’t exist at all. I wish the few academics who advocate for the Jesus myth idea wouldn’t give people the false impression that all academics hold their same view.

Note that it’s separate from all the claims about Jesus. Historians simply claim that the man existed, not that he was divine.

I've read and considered many views for all sides. The historicist position doesn't have a case in the scholarly work. But no doubt it's largely assumed by many scholars.

But beside that I was just curious about your claim that Jesus had revolutionary teachings. I'd agree we can't trace anything back to him, but I'd be curious if anything that later people attributed to him is all that revolutionary. It seems most attributed to him came from ideas already in the ethos.

Stem, I am puzzled as to your meaning in the first sentence. In whose myopic scholarly work does the hirstoricist position have no case? There is a lot of scholarly work about Jesus not just dumb people making assumptions. I could understand if you said you are not convinced by the view that the reported Jesus was a real person. I think you enjoy the stubbornness but It can be discussed further I suppose.

Jesus had followers who would remember what he said. It is possible repetition and time altered some things but the New Testament has a collection of things he said. It is most likely a good representation though unlikely to be perfect.

Though Paul presents in his own words and point of view I think he shows that he is fallowing the inspirational direction of the words of Jesus.

//
Just to clarify my view, I do not think there is anything completely new in the teaching of Jesus.Completely new is just not the sort of thing that happens.

[dastardly stem]

Debates are just a sort of side show to express views and get some ideas out there. They don't necessarily show anything near scholarly work. And as to who won is really just opinion. Who won a debate or not doesn't really make a case. Additionally the question is not which view is favored. Its a matter of what hypothesis is most probable, given the data.

And I'd agree, Ehrman has spoken out against arguments for mythicism, quite vehemently. Although I'm not sure he's given the scholarly work a read, or consideration at all, as his statements don't really speak to the scholarly work that's out there. Anyway, good you use Ehrman as I've read his works on the topic and they are abysmal, which is odd because on other matters he's great. Some who question the historicity of Jesus actually think Bart's scholarship is their best advocate, if one pays attention. While his personal conclusion is there was a Jesus, and he's oddly thrown out a 99% certainty on that claim without any data to lay out his logic there, his other work actually fits in well with all the credible explanations that there was no Jesus.

But with that said, I raised a bit of a side issue here. Still just interested in trying to see why people think Jesus gave revolutionary teaching if much of what is attributed to him was ideas already floating around. If he has some material unique, I'd wonder what that is. ANy ideas?

It seems establishing that there was a historical Jesus is a prerequisite for the further argument about if he was the source of new ideas, no?

No. We can certainly assume his historicity to determine if he was or those who put words in his mouth brought new ideas

[dastardly stem]

Stem, I am puzzled as to your meaning in the first sentence. In whose myopic scholarly work does the hirstoricist position have no case? There is a lot of scholarly work about Jesus not just dumb people making assumptions. I could understand if you said you are not convinced by the view that the reported Jesus was a real person. I think you enjoy the stubbornness but It can be discussed further I suppose.

The point is there is no scholarly evaluation within the past 100 years addressing the question of Jesus’ historicity and concluding it’s more likely Jesus existed than did not. The peer reviewed works on the question conclude it is more likely there was no Jesus or conclude the data is so incomplete there is no reason to conclude it’s most likely Jesus lived.

Jesus had followers who would remember what he said. It is possible repetition and time altered some things but the New Testament has a collection of things he said. It is most likely a good representation though unlikely to be perfect.

Ok, which follower claimed to know him and repeat his words?

Though Paul presents in his own words and point of view I think he shows that he is fallowing the inspirational direction of the words of Jesus.

If so, what evidence do we have of that?

//
Just to clarify my view, I do not think there is anything completely new in the teaching of Jesus.Completely new is just not the sort of thing that happens.

Agreed. Thanks for the comments.

[huckelberry]

Stem, I am puzzled as to your meaning in the first sentence. In whose myopic scholarly work does the hirstoricist position have no case? There is a lot of scholarly work about Jesus not just dumb people making assumptions. I could understand if you said you are not convinced by the view that the reported Jesus was a real person. I think you enjoy the stubbornness but It can be discussed further I suppose.

The point is there is no scholarly evaluation within the past 100 years addressing the question of Jesus’ historicity and concluding it’s more likely Jesus existed than did not. The peer reviewed works on the question conclude it is more likely there was no Jesus or conclude the data is so incomplete there is no reason to conclude it’s most likely Jesus lived.

Jesus had followers who would remember what he said. It is possible repetition and time altered some things but the New Testament has a collection of things he said. It is most likely a good representation though unlikely to be perfect.

Ok, which follower claimed to know him and repeat his words?

Though Paul presents in his own words and point of view I think he shows that he is fallowing the inspirational direction of the words of Jesus.

If so, what evidence do we have of that?

//
Just to clarify my view, I do not think there is anything completely new in the teaching of Jesus.Completely new is just not the sort of thing that happens.

Agreed. Thanks for the comments.

Hi stem, a few quick observations.

you ask which followers. We both know full well that the sources we have are second or third hand. So what?

My comment about Paul is based upon reading his words , perhaps Romans in particular. It is an evaluation based upon what Paul said.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the past hundred years. There stacks of books are you looking for a computer game?

[dastardly stem]

Hi stem, a few quick observations.

you ask which followers. We both know full well that the sources we have are second or third hand. So what?

I would just point out that the sources are at best second or third hand. The big problem we have here is the sources of Jesus' life, the gospels, don't seem to be written with telling an accurate history as its goal. If not, I suppose we can eek out some useful history out of them, but we'd need any such eeking to be information found elsewhere.

My comment about Paul is based upon reading his words , perhaps Romans in particular. It is an evaluation based upon what Paul said.

But Paul doesn't reference Jesus' life. He may ambiguously make a few comments that could fit in well with a notion that Jesus actually lived on earth, but many have made arguments to suggest those ambiguous comments could fit well if Jesus lived and died cosmically.

I have no idea what you are talking about with the past hundred years. There stacks of books are you looking for a computer game?

Pretty simple. I am stating there are two works, peer reviewed and available, that detail scholarly assessments of the question on whether Jesus lived or not. They both conclude the data is insufficient to suggest it's probable Jesus lived. We have zero works from scholars within the past 100 years which took a seriously look at the question of Jesus' historicity and concluded he actually lived, or likely lived. There is at least one popular level book, or book written not under peer review but for a popular audience that addresses the question, but it is highly problematic in a few areas. One main point is it claims we have good extra-biblical data to show Jesus lived. We have Q and M and L etc. That is Bart claims hypothesized sources are ones we actually have in order to make his case. With that, he simply hasn't given the question a serious consideration, it appears.