Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
maximara said:
Well, it was not until Horace Miner shoved the faces of his fellow anthropologists into the dismissive way they were blowing off so called primitive peoples views as "magic" they they finally got the message they had been largely ignoring for nearly 150 years.

Similarly, David Waterston of King's College London in 1913, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule, and Franz Weidenreich in 1923 all said the Piltdown skull was a fake consisting of and altered ape mandible and human skull. Yet because Piltdown skull fit so well into the view of human evolution of that time they were ignored and 200+ papers praising Piltdown find were written. Then the 1953 test that no one could ignore came finally vindicating Waterston, Boule, and Weidenreich. Funny thing is that most over views of Piltdown ignore these three scientific dissenters.

Finally, as has been demonstrated by James Burke in Connections and The Day the Universe Changed Aristotelian Cosmology had a lot wrong with it that could be PROVEN to be wrong with simple experiments and yet the cosmology dominated Western thought for 18 centuries.

As Burke pointed out in The Day the Universe Changed you need a model to even begin to ask questions and that very model will even dictate what is viewed as acceptable evidence. It isn't until the model encounters something it can't explain or had to become like a Rube Goldberg machine to do so that a new model is considered.
Click to expand...

And?

What's your point? Where did the refutations of these things come from?

Did they come from people outside the discipline who never even studied the subject?

Or, were they overturned by people researching within the field?
 
Brainache said:
No one is stopping you from learning about this stuff yourself. Why do you expect someone else to do it for you?

Elagabalus kindly provided this link, do you need someone else to read it for you?

http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.co...ocess-a-consultation-on-the-historical-jesus/
Click to expand...

"This essay is in part an attempt to clarify procedural issues relevant to what is sometimes called the “Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis—an argumentative approach to the New Testament based on the theory that the historical Jesus of Nazareth did not exist." (Hoffmann 2012)

EXCEPT all the following have been called "Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis:

1) Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58) (Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

2) "The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility (that a flesh and blood Jesus may be behind part of the myth). What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History? regarding John Robertson's 1900 Christ Myth theory)

3) "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.


4) The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this. Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd. (Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24) Given Wells' current position fits definition number 1 above this makes sense.

5) The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition. (Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

6) Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)


If you are going to talk about the "Christ-myth” or “Non-historicity” thesis you HAVE to acknowledge that it has been and still is a LOT more then simply "the theory that the historical Jesus of Nazareth did not exist" because thanks to the internet we can check that definition and once we show it is WRONG you loose the argument.

When it can be demonstrated by several works over 100 years on both sides of the issue that the very definition Hoffmann gives us is WRONG then the paper isn't worth beans because his very starting point is in error. When a historian presents demonstrably incorrect information regarding the definition of a term that is the very foundation of their arguments then their view is worthless! I mean what good is a historian who seems to not know the very history of the term he is using?!?
 
Last edited:
The whole "you believe the Bible" nonsense is such an appeal to emotion. "If you don't want me to call you a believer, then you should not support HJ." or somesuch. It's a poor way to address the issue, and is uncivil, to boot.

I've read the Hoffmann article linked by Elagabalus above, and it explains the available evidence, references and controversy very succintly. Thanks for the link.

I must say that I started participating in this topic at least two years ago with the thought that Jesus was probably myth. "Where's the evidence ?", I asked. But this was in part due to my personal bias as an Atheist, and my misunderstanding of historical expertise. Then Piggy managed to drag me slightly to the other side via PM, only to lose me again to HansMustermann's arguments. Piggy didn't help himself with his inability to properly address questions and reach his audience in his last big thread on the matter.

This thread has been very informative, and I saw myself beign slightly drawn towards the HJ side again, if only because the narrative makes sense, fits known history, and presents no problem. It's certainly not because the evidence is solid, but, at least contrary to any MJ theory I've seen, it has _some_ evidence for it, no matter how weak. Is the NT evidence ? Yes. Is it weak ? Sure is. Can we still reach some tentative if uncertain conclusion based on it and its historical circumstances ? Absolutely.

There's been a lot of snark and disrespect on both sides, from myself and others. But I've seen nothing convincing at all from the MJ side here, only petulant requests for evidence even after it's been patiently and repeatedly explained that there isn't any more than has already been given, and that history isn't all about hard evidence. History isn't physics. It doesn't help that a lot of MJers here are deliberately confrontational and insulting, which doesn't encourage anyone to be sympathetic to their weak arguments. Dejudge and IanS have been particularily guilty of this, and Tsig, whom I often agree with on other topics, contributed next to nothing aside from short quips. Maximara is more patient and convincing, but too focused on the single Frum example. I wish Hans were here to spice things up.

Therefore, I can only say that, from a 60-40 position, I have moved to a 70-30 one. I wish the debate was more balanced, but it isn't.
 
Last edited:
maximara said:
...
When it can be demonstrated by several works over 100 years on both sides of the issue that the very definition Hoffmann gives us is WRONG then the paper isn't worth beans because his very starting point is in error. When a historian presents demonstrably incorrect information that is the very foundation of their arguments then their view is worthless!
Click to expand...

Why do you ignore the fact that definitions are context dependent?

We have been over this many times.

Your definition of "Mythical Jesus" is so wide as to be useless in this debate. It encompasses the Academic HJ. No one has been arguing for a literal Gospel Jesus in these threads and you know it.

This argument of yours is a pathetically transparent dishonest attempt to conflate Carrier's "Mythical Jesus" with the Historical Jesus as taught in Universities. It isn't fooling anyone.

Get a new dictionary.
 
I'd also like to add that Maximara's "which mythical Jesus ?" is also a bit of a misdirection. If the HJ that people here propose -- that is, a flesh-and-blood preacher who might have said or done some of the things written in the NT, but most likely did only a very few if any of them, and may have been executed, etc. -- is part of MJ, then why would the MJ folk argue with the HJ folk here at all ?

No. The proposed HJ is _not_ an MJ. The distinction between HJ and MJ is the flesh-and-blood part. MJ proposes a made up Jesus. HJ proposes a man at the core of the legend. CJ, the Christ Jesus, the one from the actual story, isn't considered seriously by anyone even near this thread with the notable exception of DOC.
 
Brainache said:
Why do you ignore the fact that definitions are context dependent?
Click to expand...

Are they called Christ Myth theories or equivalent ? If yes then their context does not matter.

Conspiracy theory is another term that is commonly misused: it applies equally to the rational idea the Mob killed Hoffa and buried him someplace and the irrational idea that the government is using fluoride as some sort of mind control drug.

The fact of the matter is the Christ Myth term is broader then claimed.
 
maximara said:
Are they called Christ Myth theories or equivalent ? If yes then their context does not matter.

Conspiracy theory is another term that is commonly misused: it applies equally to the rational idea the Mob killed Hoffa and buried him someplace and the irrational idea that the government is using fluoride as some sort of mind control drug.

The fact of the matter is the Christ Myth term is broader then claimed.
Click to expand...

So what?

If all you are arguing about is the descriptor, find a different word.

To say that the HJ of Academia is the same as Carrier's MJ because neither rely on a literal interpretation of the Gospels is just silly.

You don't want us to call Carrier's hypothesis "MJ", OK then: What should we call it?

Why do you place so much importance on the label? It's what the idea says which is important, not the word someone uses to identify it.
 
Belz... said:
This thread has been very informative, and I saw myself beign slightly drawn towards the HJ side again, if only because the narrative makes sense, fits known history, and presents no problem. It's certainly not because the evidence is solid, but, at least contrary to any MJ theory I've seen, it has _some_ evidence for it, no matter how weak. Is the NT evidence ? Yes. Is it weak ? Sure is. Can we still reach some tentative if uncertain conclusion based on it and its historical circumstances ? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

When you say any MJ theory are you including John M. Robertson in that?

"(John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.

1 The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.

2 An historical Jesus may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death "; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts.

3 Or a Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation may have been slain as a human sacrifice at some time of social tumult; and his story may have got mixed up with the myth.

4 The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History?)

More over John Robertson stated "All that can rationally be claimed is that a teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several, differently named teachers called Messiahs, may have Messianically uttered some of these teachings at various periods, presumably after the writing of the Pauline epistles. (Christianity and mythology (1910))

We have a real world example of John Robertson's theory in the John Frum cargo cult. The cult as best as anyone can figure started in the late 1930s but the 1940s saw three people take up the name "John Frum" and try the lead the movement.

Again not all Christ Myth theories threw out the idea of a flesh and blood Jesus entirely.
 
maximara said:
When you say any MJ theory are you including John M. Robertson in that?

"(John) Robertson is prepared to concede the possibility of an historical Jesus, perhaps more than one, having contributed something to the Gospel story. "A teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several differently named teachers called Messiahs " (of whom many are on record) may have uttered some of the sayings in the Gospels.

1 The Jesus of the Talmud, who was stoned and hanged over a century before the traditional date of the crucifixion, may really have existed and have contributed something to the tradition.

2 An historical Jesus may have "preached a political doctrine subversive of the Roman rule, and . . . thereby met his death "; and Christian writers concerned to conciliate the Romans may have suppressed the facts.

3 Or a Galilean faith-healer with a local reputation may have been slain as a human sacrifice at some time of social tumult; and his story may have got mixed up with the myth.

4 The myth theory is not concerned to deny such a possibility. What the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" (Robertson, Archibald. (1946) Jesus: Myth or History?)

More over John Robertson stated "All that can rationally be claimed is that a teacher or teachers named Jesus, or several, differently named teachers called Messiahs, may have Messianically uttered some of these teachings at various periods, presumably after the writing of the Pauline epistles. (Christianity and mythology (1910))

We have a real world example of John Robertson's theory in the John Frum cargo cult. The cult as best as anyone can figure started in the late 1930s but the 1940s saw three people take up the name "John Frum" and try the lead the movement.

Again not all Christ Myth theories threw out the idea of a flesh and blood Jesus entirely.
Click to expand...

Then that isn't what Belz... is talking about. Seems obvious to everyone but you.

The Scholarship has sailed on a bit since 1910...
 
Belz... said:
I'd also like to add that Maximara's "which mythical Jesus ?" is also a bit of a misdirection. If the HJ that people here propose -- that is, a flesh-and-blood preacher who might have said or done some of the things written in the NT, but most likely did only a very few if any of them, and may have been executed, etc. -- is part of MJ, then why would the MJ folk argue with the HJ folk here at all ?

No. The proposed HJ is _not_ an MJ. The distinction between HJ and MJ is the flesh-and-blood part. MJ proposes a made up Jesus. HJ proposes a man at the core of the legend. CJ, the Christ Jesus, the one from the actual story, isn't considered seriously by anyone even near this thread with the notable exception of DOC.
Click to expand...

Sorry but once Frazer, G.R.S. Mead, Alvar Ellegård and Wells post-Jesus Myth all of whom accepted a flesh and blood Jesus being behind the Gospel account were effectively called Christ Mythers that argument died a twitching death. The horse has left the barn and has had colts.

Even the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia in 1982 and again in 1995 defines Christ Myth as the idea "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." and some of those "old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes" are based on either known or possible historical events (Trojan War, Grænlendinga Saga, and Eiríks Saga Rauða). It says NOTHING about the Christ Myth being the idea that Jesus didn't exist as a flesh and blood human being.

Face it, MJ does NOT mean what you think it means and I can PROVE it. This is why I consider Remsburg's The Christ to be the best Christ Myth book out there because it is honest about what myth really means and what the Christ Myth really is.
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
I'm just doing what you said in the hilited.

Are you going to post any evidence or are you going with the "wounded feelings" ploy?
Click to expand...

If someone doesn't want to participate I can't force them to.

But I'll do my best not to respond to further trolling from that quarter.
 
maximara said:
Not only that but the whole thing ignore several aspects of the Historical Method:

In order of quality good evidence is:

1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened.

2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost.

3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time.

A good rule of thumb here is that history records the unusual, the special, and the important; and the amount history records is generally directly proportional to when these factors achieve a critical mass. If a person is said to be important and popular during their lifetime then it is reasonable to expect contemporary evidence, or at the least derivative evidence, documenting this.
Other criteria include:

A) A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.

B) A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, which in turn is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.

C) If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

D) The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

E) If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased

----

The best we get with the Gospels and Acts is comparative evidence and in that they do poorly: there are social political irregularities galore, people and institutions behave in manners totally at odds with other sources, and more you assume it actual history rather then exaggeration the worse things get. More over Paul is the only known possible contemporary and he gives us nothing that can be cross checked with history, only vague generalities.

Regarding points A, B, and C above everything more or less can be traced back to Paul so the originality issue begins with him and he give us NO real information to put the Jesus he talks about in a specific time. The potential independent sources all have problems: either evidence of tampering or conflicts with people known to be in the rough place and time being describes many years later. Finally nearly all we have is propaganda; it was designed to portray Jesus, his supporters, his enemies, the Jewish community of the time, and the Romans in a particular way. As such it is subject to the same issues as all propaganda with distortions, half-truths, omissions, and outright lies.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that Dale Martin doesn't address any of this in the YouTube clip.

Maybe it's part of the Seminar package?
 
Brainache said:
Then that isn't what Belz... is talking about. Seems obvious to everyone but you.

The Scholarship has sailed on a bit since 1910...
Click to expand...

Really?

1) Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58) (Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

2) "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.


3) The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this. Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd. (Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24) Given Wells' current position fits definition number 1 above this makes sense.

4) The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition. (Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

6) Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

All of these more or less fit the 1910 position. Well's Jesus Myth (ie current) position especially as it fits Robertson's "what the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" to a 'T' as he says Jesus was not crucified and has been called Christ Myth by Earl Doherty, (1999), Robert M Price (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine), Graham Stanton ((2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143), Richard Carrier (2005), and (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)


You can put your fingers in your ears and go la la la til the horse's colts have colts but the reality is John Robertson's 1910 definition is being used TODAY...for G.A Wells CURRENT position by people on both sides.
 
Last edited:
Brainache said:
And?

What's your point? Where did the refutations of these things come from?

Did they come from people outside the discipline who never even studied the subject?

Or, were they overturned by people researching within the field?
Click to expand...

I think you'll find the scholars who critique the various HJ hypotheses actually study the subject.

What's your point? Why do you need to twist everything? Why would you bother being that blatantly dishonest?

Don't you know everyone else can see these pathetic lies for what they are?
 
proudfootz said:
I think you'll find the scholars who critique the various HJ hypotheses actually study the subject.

What's your point? Why do you need to twist everything? Why would you bother being that blatantly dishonest?

Don't you know everyone else can see these pathetic lies for what they are?
Click to expand...

You'll have a link for that, I assume.

There is Carrier.

Who else?

What other Historians of the Ancient Near East are questioning the idea of an HJ?
 
Brainache said:
So what?

If all you are arguing about is the descriptor, find a different word.
Click to expand...

"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth"(Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." (Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125)

Doesn't matter what word games you try to play it won't work:

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (Richard Carrier 2006)

"In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A Wells; the most recent is the Jesus Legend (1996)" (Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143.)

Every possible alternative and synonym to Christ Myth has been applied to works that accepted a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account be it 1900, 2007 or any reasonable point between. The reality is it doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
maximara said:
Really?

1) Jesus began as a myth with historical trappings possibly including "reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name" being added later. (Walsh, George (1998) ''The Role of Religion in History'' Transaction Publishers pg 58) (Dodd, C.H. (1938) ''History and the Gospel'' under the heading Christ Myth Theory Manchester University Press pg 17)

2) "This view (Christ Myth theory) states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J 1982, 1995 by Geoffrey W. Bromiley)

There are modern examples of stories of known historical people "possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes"--George Washington and the Cherry Tree; Davy Crockett and the Frozen Dawn; Jesse James and the Widow to mention a few. King Arthur and Robin Hood are two more examples of suspected historical people whose stories are most likely fictional in nature.


3) The ''Gospel Jesus'' didn't exist and GA Wells' ''Jesus Myth'' (1999) is an example of this. Doherty, Earl "Book And Article Reviews: The Case For The Jesus Myth: "Jesus — One Hundred Years Before Christ by Alvar Ellegard" Note that from ''Jesus Legend'' (1996) on Wells has accepted there was a historical Jesus behind the hypothetical Q Gospel and that both ''Jesus Legend'' and ''Jesus Myth'' have been presented as examples of the Christ Myth theory by Robert Price, Richard Carrier, and Eddy-Boyd. (Eddy and Boyd (2007), The Jesus Legend pp. 24) Given Wells' current position fits definition number 1 above this makes sense.

4) The Gospel Jesus is in essence a composite character (that is, an amalgamation of several actual individuals whose stories have been melded into one character, such as is the case with Robin Hood), and therefore non-historical by definition. (Price, Robert M. (2000) ''Deconstructing Jesus'' Prometheus Books, pg 85)

6) Jesus Agnosticism: The Gospel story is so filled with myth and legend that nothing about it including the very existence of the Jesus described can be shown to be historical. (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)

All of these more or less fit the 1910 position. Well's Jesus Myth (ie current) position especially as it fits Robertson's "what the myth theory denies is that Christianity can be traced to a personal founder who taught as reported in the Gospels and was put to death in the circumstances there recorded" to a 'T' as he says Jesus was not crucified and has been called Christ Myth by Earl Doherty, (1999), Robert M Price (Winter, 1999/2000) Free Inquiry magazine), Graham Stanton ((2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143), Richard Carrier (2005), and (Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. ''The Jesus Legend'' Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25)


You can put your fingers in your ears and go la la la til the horse's colts have colts but the reality is John Robertson's 1910 definition is being used TODAY...for G.A Wells CURRENT position by people on both sides.
Click to expand...

Why are you still quibbling about the definition of "Myth"?

What has any of that got to do with Carrier's assertion that Jesus didn't exist?

You can watch him explain it here:



I have to link to a video, because the book that was due out last February still hasn't materialised.

Maybe you could read his blog to see what he is saying:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/4733
 
maximara said:
"My theory assumes the historical reality of Jesus of Nazareth"(Frazer, Sir James George (1913) The golden bough: a study in magic and religion, Volume 9 pg 412)

"I especially wanted to explain late Jewish eschatology more thoroughly and to discuss the works of John M. Robertson, William Benjamin Smith, James George Frazer, Arthur Drews, and others, who contested the historical existence of Jesus. It is not difficult to pretend that Jesus never lived. The attempt to prove it, however, invariably produces the opposite conclusion." (Schweitzer, Albert (1931) Out of my life and thought: an autobiography pg 125)

Doesn't matter what word games you try to play it won't work:

"Books by Contemporary Scholars Defending Ahistoricity: (...) George Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1988); Who Was Jesus? (1989); The Jesus Legend (1993); The Jesus Myth (1998); Can We Trust the New Testament? (2005)" (Richard Carrier 2006)

"In recent years the existence of Jesus has been debated heatedly on the Internet. The most thoroughgoing and sophisticated statement of this theory has been set out in five books by G. A Wells; the most recent is the Jesus Legend (1996)" (Stanton, Graham (2002) The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press, p. 143.)

Every possible alternative and synonym to Christ Myth has been applied to works that accepted a flesh and blood Jesus being involved in the Gospel account be it 1900, 2007 or any reasonable point between. The reality is it doesn't mean what you think it means.
Click to expand...

But you are still just arguing about definitions, not dealing with the arguments.

Why?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom