Why are all the scholars changing their mind on

[alwayson]

A lot of mainstream scholars are changing their minds on the existence of Jesus.



Arthur Droge, professor of early Christianity at UCSD, Kurt Noll, associate professor of religion at Brandon University, and Thomas Thompson, renowned professor of theology, emeritus, at the University of Copenhagen believe that you cannot say whether Jesus existed or not.

Thomas Brodie, director emeritus of the Dominican Biblical Centre at the University of Limerick, Ireland, and Robert Price, who has two Ph.D.s from Drew University, in theology and New Testament studies, and Richard Carrier, Ph.D. in ancient history from Columbia University, are certain Jesus never existed.

[neverknewyou]

Considering that none of us here are experts, I should think that the scholarly consensus on this, or any, topic should be of great value. I would not merely dismiss the overwhelming consensus of biologists regarding Evolution, for example, as mere 'double fallacy'. At the same time, we have to recognize that consulting experts in a field of study cannot, in and of itself, decide a matter. In any debate, we must always examine the evidence.

Sure, but the level of evidence for a process that has been occuring around the world for millions of years, and the level of evidence for the existence of one man who was not a secular ruler who lived thousands of years ago is not the same to say the least.

To be sure. The point of an analogy is not to say that two things are "the same." Rather the point of an analogy, per the dictionary, is to point out "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

My wider point here is that the arguments put forward by Jesus Mythicists is similar to the arguments of Creationists.

And yet it is creationists that would agree with you as it concerns Jesus, so obviously the irony is completely lost on you. We cannot compare the evidence for evolution with what scholars deem as evidence for an historical Jesus, one is science and the other is a quest for the historical Jesus, not the same thing.

[historia]

I asked for evidence that modern historical Jesus research is an 'industry'. You've provided no evidence.

Instead, what you've given me is more unfounded assertions.

It is not an unfounded assertion that the education system is regarded and classified as a Tertiary Sector of modern industry "involved in the provision of services - including teachers, managers and other service providers." Industry is the production of a good or service within an economy within Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Sectors.

I didn't ask you for evidence that the education system is an industry, I asked for evidence that historical Jesus research is such.

Theologians (graduates from theology colleges and institutions) represent the largest subset of the "Jesus Industry".

So Bart Ehrman, who is atheist/agnostic, is a 'theologian' in your mind? How about Geza Vermes, a Jew, who was one of the leading historical Jesus scholars of the 20th Century, also a theologian? Secular scholars like E.P. Sanders teaching at secular institutions, also theologians? None of these authors are engaged in writing works of theology, as such. They are writing works of history.

Coining phrases like "Jesus Industry" doesn't bolster your case.

My response examines the history of the rise of modern scholarship. One cannot wave away the history of the "mission of the church", and I should not need to outline the depravity of this mission in its historical perspective.

Except that the 'mission of the church' has nothing to do with modern historical Jesus research. For some odd reason you've conflated the two, and when I ask for evidence to support that connection, you provide none.

Please provide evidence that they promote 'Church Dogma.'

What would any of them do without the Bible or without the 4th century "Church History" of Eusebius?

Again, no evidence, just more rhetoric.

Let me ask a more detailed question in the hope of gaining a more detailed response: A majority of scholars writing on the historical Jesus do not believe that the Virgin Birth and the physical resurrection of Jesus were historical events. If these scholars are merely 'promoting Church Dogma', as you claimed, then how do you explain the fact that they deny the historicity of these two major points of dogma?

And please provide evidence that these historians, whose scholarly output is largely confined to peer-reviewed journals and academic books, 'prey upon the young and the uneducated.'

No matter how squeaky-clean a picture one paints of modern scholarship, one must not make the mistake of leaving unexamined the history of that scholarship. If you read what I wrote, you will see that the claim I made was that the Biblical scholarship of the 16th-18th century, bolstered by "Blasphemy Laws" 'preyed upon the young and the uneducated.' Before that epoch the "Church Industry" conducted its own inquisitions, its own executions and its own genocides in the name of its DOGMA.

So, in other words, you want to talk about events that happened 200-400 or more years ago that have no bearing whatsoever on the question we are discussing here.

The dogma of the Church Industry has not changed substantially in these centuries and although a number of new generations of "modern scholarship" have taken up the discussion and the commentary upon commentary upon commentary of theological arguments - such as the existence (or non-existence) of Jesus - the DOGMA remains the same DOGMA.

Be honest here, Leucius: Have you actually read any modern scholarship on the historical Jesus? Authors like Schweitzer? Vermes? Crossan? Sanders? Wright? Even popular authors like Bart Ehrman or Reza Aslan? I don't mean to be rude, but to call their works "commentary upon commentary of theological arguments" is to show a profound ignorance. These are works of historical scholarship.

... and that these scholars have the power to 'ex-communicate' those who disagree with them.

Thomas Brodie was ex-communicated by his Head Scholar - the Pope.

Mike Licona loses his job over the Matthean Zombie Affair ...

The pope is not a historical Jesus scholar and neither are the administrators who dismissed Licona.

We're talking here about scholars engaged in the study of the historical Jesus. These scholars have no power to ex-communicate anyone and often come to conclusions expressly counter to 'Church Dogma'. Your assertions above that they do both, then, are simply unfounded.

It is common knowledge that scholars studying at a theological institution or college MUST accept the dogma of the Church industry. It has been so for 16 centuries, and it - the Dogma - is not going to change, unless it is exposed as a forgery.

How then do you explain the fact that John Dominic Crossan, one of the leading historical Jesus scholars, who previously taught at DePaul University, a Catholic institution, denies the historicity of the Virgin Birth, believes that Jesus' body was likely just thrown in a mass grave after crucifixion, and questions the historicity of large portions of the gospels?

You might dismiss this as an odd example, an exception to the rule. Yet his views on these topics are actually in keeping with a majority of historical Jesus scholars, almost all of whom teach at liberal Christian colleges or secular universities. You seem to not realize that such scholars and institutions even exist.

You don't seem to have answered this fundamental question. Is it a matter of faith, or of principles, or of a belief cultured by research, or is it the matter of the status quo of "Church Industry Dogma"?

Your whole argument is based on a slippery slope fallacy and arguments from silence. The mere existence of a handful of Medieval forgeries doesn't make me think that every document from the ancient world was forged in the 15th Century. But that's not far from what you're asking us to believe.

[Goat]

Considering that none of us here are experts, I should think that the scholarly consensus on this, or any, topic should be of great value. I would not merely dismiss the overwhelming consensus of biologists regarding Evolution, for example, as mere 'double fallacy'. At the same time, we have to recognize that consulting experts in a field of study cannot, in and of itself, decide a matter. In any debate, we must always examine the evidence.

Sure, but the level of evidence for a process that has been occuring around the world for millions of years, and the level of evidence for the existence of one man who was not a secular ruler who lived thousands of years ago is not the same to say the least.

To be sure. The point of an analogy is not to say that two things are "the same." Rather the point of an analogy, per the dictionary, is to point out "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

My wider point here is that the arguments put forward by Jesus Mythicists is similar to the arguments of Creationists.

While that is true in many cases, when it comes to Richard Carrier, he does not approach the issue as a theologian, he approaches it as a historian. That is his
area of expertise, and he basically applies the same discipline he uses for all historical writings to the question of 'How reliable is the evidence for a historical Jesus'. His conclusion is that there probably wasn't. He is not one of these 'conspiracy' freaks, nor does he say 'It's copied'. He is not looking at it from a religious aspect, he is looking at it from the historical aspect.

That is a much different approach than the 'mythists'

[neverknewyou]

[quote="historia"Secular scholars like E.P. Sanders teaching at secular institutions, also theologians?]




" Secular scholars like E.P. Sanders" c'mon man, his education consists of 3 or four years at the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and you have lost your credibility.

[historia]

We cannot compare the evidence for evolution with what scholars deem as evidence for an historical Jesus, one is science and the other is a quest for the historical Jesus, not the same thing.

So not even two posts after explaining what an an analogy is, here I am having to do it again. For the second time: An analogy is "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." Saying then that these are "not the same thing" is simply saying you don't understand how analogies work.

My wider point here is that the arguments put forward by Jesus Mythicists is similar to the arguments of Creationists.

And yet it is creationists that would agree with you as it concerns Jesus, so obviously the irony is completely lost on you.

First of all, Creationists would not agree with me concerning Jesus. Yes, we both believe that Jesus was an historical figure, and we both believe we can know with a degree of certain some things about what Jesus of Nazareth said and did. But for very different reasons. And that is where the agreement ends.

Most people in the world -- including most atheists -- would agree with me on these points too, so I'm not sure what this criticism is meant to show. Perhaps you need to look-up the meaning of the word 'irony' as well.

[historia]

"Secular scholars like E.P. Sanders" c'mon man, his education consists of 3 or four years at the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and you have lost your credibility.

I was under the impression that Sanders was agnostic, or at least not a practicing Christian upbringing. He is often described that way by other authors, but I see now that these descriptions are largely coming from conservative Christians. So I will happily concede that I may be mistaken on this point in calling him 'secular'.

But that has little to do with his education. That Sanders attended the Union Theological Seminary would not, in itself, mean that he is a believing Christian today, any more than the fact that he took degrees from secular institutions would make him non-religious. Consider that Bart Ehrman attended the fundamentalist Moody Bible Institute, but is today an agnostic/atheist (on that point I am not mistaken). This is the essential genetic fallacy on offer in this thread.

That a simple mistake like this (if I am mistaken) would mean I have "lost my credibility," though, is a lame assertion from someone desperate to score debating points but clearly has no substantive argument to make.

[Ooberman]

Considering that none of us here are experts, I should think that the scholarly consensus on this, or any, topic should be of great value. I would not merely dismiss the overwhelming consensus of biologists regarding Evolution, for example, as mere 'double fallacy'. At the same time, we have to recognize that consulting experts in a field of study cannot, in and of itself, decide a matter. In any debate, we must always examine the evidence.

Sure, but the level of evidence for a process that has been occuring around the world for millions of years, and the level of evidence for the existence of one man who was not a secular ruler who lived thousands of years ago is not the same to say the least.

To be sure. The point of an analogy is not to say that two things are "the same." Rather the point of an analogy, per the dictionary, is to point out "similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

My wider point here is that the arguments put forward by Jesus Mythicists is similar to the arguments of Creationists.

While that is true in many cases, when it comes to Richard Carrier, he does not approach the issue as a theologian, he approaches it as a historian. That is his
area of expertise, and he basically applies the same discipline he uses for all historical writings to the question of 'How reliable is the evidence for a historical Jesus'. His conclusion is that there probably wasn't. He is not one of these 'conspiracy' freaks, nor does he say 'It's copied'. He is not looking at it from a religious aspect, he is looking at it from the historical aspect.

That is a much different approach than the 'mythists'

Not to parse this too much, but I think Carrier's position is something like this:

The argument for Jesus being a myth can be made with the documents available, and it seems as good as the evidence that he did exist - however, there is no way of being sure either way.

In a way, he is saying it's unknown and will probably remain unknown, though arguments can be made either way.


The problem it raises is obviously the claim that Jesus was God. This claim must follow a proof that Jesus existed.


For example, it's not enough to know that Vlad III Dracula of Wallachia existed, but that he was actually a supernatural Being or not.

If the evidence was sketchy that Vlad III even existed in the first place, one can hardly build a case for his nocturnal activities.


Or, some historians suggest Beowulf was based on a real person. The evidence is speculative, and certainly undermines all credibility that Grendel or dragons existed.

Or, Robin Hood, or many other quasi-fictional characters: Noah, Adam, Eve, Moses, Barabbas, etc.


The difference between Creationism and Mythicist theories (as was mentioned in an effort to undermine Christian scholarship and Jesus Mythicists) is that science has disproved Creationism. There is no way one can prove or disprove Jesus's existence.

[neverknewyou]

"Secular scholars like E.P. Sanders" c'mon man, his education consists of 3 or four years at the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and you have lost your credibility.

I was under the impression that Sanders was agnostic, or at least not a practicing Christian upbringing. He is often described that way by other authors, but I see now that these descriptions are largely coming from conservative Christians. So I will happily concede that I may be mistaken on this point in calling him 'secular'.

But that has little to do with his education. That Sanders attended the Union Theological Seminary would not, in itself, mean that he is a believing Christian today, any more than the fact that he took degrees from secular institutions would make him non-religious. Consider that Bart Ehrman attended the fundamentalist Moody Bible Institute, but is today an agnostic/atheist (on that point I am not mistaken). This is the essential genetic fallacy on offer in this thread.

That a simple mistake like this (if I am mistaken) would mean I have "lost my credibility," though, is a lame assertion from someone desperate to score debating points but clearly has no substantive argument to make.

Ehrman claims to be an agnostic but he never states what he is agnostic about or what it has to do with Jesus being historical. He's a firm, totally committed, true believer of an historical Jesus with no concept whatsoever that Christianity could have begun with a mythical Christ.

[Goat]

"Secular scholars like E.P. Sanders" c'mon man, his education consists of 3 or four years at the Union Theological Seminary in the city of New York, and you have lost your credibility.

I was under the impression that Sanders was agnostic, or at least not a practicing Christian upbringing. He is often described that way by other authors, but I see now that these descriptions are largely coming from conservative Christians. So I will happily concede that I may be mistaken on this point in calling him 'secular'.

But that has little to do with his education. That Sanders attended the Union Theological Seminary would not, in itself, mean that he is a believing Christian today, any more than the fact that he took degrees from secular institutions would make him non-religious. Consider that Bart Ehrman attended the fundamentalist Moody Bible Institute, but is today an agnostic/atheist (on that point I am not mistaken). This is the essential genetic fallacy on offer in this thread.

That a simple mistake like this (if I am mistaken) would mean I have "lost my credibility," though, is a lame assertion from someone desperate to score debating points but clearly has no substantive argument to make.

Ehrman claims to be an agnostic but he never states what he is agnostic about or what it has to do with Jesus being historical. He's a firm, totally committed, true believer of an historical Jesus with no concept whatsoever that Christianity could have begun with a mythical Christ.

However, if you look at his background, he went through the theological college as a believer, and he approaches the problem from a theological viewpoint, rather than a historical one.

[Korah]

It is beyond laughable to pretend that the gospels are eyewitness accounts, being that these spurious 'eyewitnesses' apparently thought that this Jesus was so unimportant that they never bothered to write a single word about him until DECADES after his alleged death. If you yourself were a witness to Lazarus being brought back from the dead - just how long would you wait to write EVERYTHING you could about this miracle. And yet these 'believers' couldn't spare the time from their busy lives to put pen to paper for more than 50 years?? Again, laughable.

You can pretend as well that the Bible is evidence of Jesus, just as I can pretend that the Lord of the Rings is evidence of Frodo Baggins. We're still both pretending.....

You take for granted that NOTHING was written about Jesus until DECADES after his death. That's merely a COMPROMISE. Even the non-believer Peter Kirby in his website EarlyChristianWritings.com gives 30-60 as the date for the Passion Narrative, which allows for the possibility that the last few chapters of each of the four gospels was basically written right then. In my own thesis that there are seven written eyewitness records of Jesus. I propose that the teen-aged John Mark wrote this underlying source as his personal diary of the week he knew Jesus before Jesus died. I argue that the Discourses in the Gospel of John were written even earlier as Nicodemus's job to gather evidence against Jesus. That Nicodemus's viewpoint changes radically during the course of three years is evidence that this was originally written as on-the-scene notes.

I do not contend that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel bearing that name, but that he wrote notes during Jesus's lifetime is quite reasonable, resulting in what was soon called the Logia (indicating not just sayings, as Schliermacher mistakenly thought, but what we would call a gospel), perhaps modern scholarship's Q or more likely the Twelve-Source. Perhaps this was so early that it was only in Aramaic, say six to ten chapters, but the later portions originating in Greek could have been his own additions. As "Q" or whatever it was, it was itself known and used in the Gospel of Mark as the better scholars now acknowledge. Thus Mark 2:14-15 should be regarded as his own personal testimony that was later copied into Matthew 9:9.

Acts 12:12 records that Peter went to John Mark's house (apparently in 44 A.D when Herod Agrippa I died, Acts 12:21-23). If this was not when Peter and John Mark completed the Gospel of Mark (and even non-believer scholars James Crossley and Maurice Casey date Mark very early, based on Mark 13 being a response to the Caligula Decree of 41 A. D.), it would have been when much of the first 13 chapters of Mark (preceding the already written Passion Narrative) would have been written.

All the gospels were completed by 70 A. D., as demonstrated by the liberal scholar John A. T. Robinson. That they include seven written eyewitness records I have shown in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses at Christian Forums:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/
In addition Peter Kirby was kind enough to copy the same over to his website as well, where I go by the name "Adam" (and am in real life Dale Adams)
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopi ... &t=14#p495
in my Ur-Marcan Priority? thread.