Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Jesus Exist? by Bart Ehrman
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9202
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 346 of 563 (915668)
02-16-2024 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by Granny Magda
02-16-2024 9:58 AM


Hector Avalos
Professor religious studies Iowa State University. Ph.D. Hebew Bible and Near Eastern Studies from Harvard University
Thomas Brodie
Priest. Biblical scholar. Doctorate in Theology, Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas Forced into retirement and silenced by the Vatican
Richard Carrier
Ph.D. History, Columbia University. Numerous peer reviewed articles and a peer reviewed book on the subject
Arthur Droge
Professor Ancient and Late Antique Mediterranean and Near Eastern World at the Toronto School of Theology
Raphael Lataster
Ph.D. University of Sydney
Kurt Knoll
Chair Religious Dept and associate professor of Judaism, Christianity, and biblical languages at Brandon University. Ph.D. Union Theological Seminary
Robert Price
Biblical Scholar PH.D's in theology and New Testament Studies Drew University.
Thomas L. Thompson
biblical scholar. Ph.D. University of Tubingen, specializing in the history of Judaism from the Old Testament and New Testament era.
These are the scholars I have read, Let me know if you want to know about any of them.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2024 9:58 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Percy, posted 02-17-2024 9:30 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 385 by Granny Magda, posted 02-18-2024 8:56 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9202
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 347 of 563 (915669)
02-16-2024 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 340 by Granny Magda
02-16-2024 10:00 AM


This was presented earlier on this thread and was original presented almost 20 years ago.
Message 8
Kapyong writes:
Greetings all,

Regarding evidence for the existance of Jesus - a well-known list of early writers from Remsberg is much bandied about by sceptics.

This list names a large number of early writers who lived about the time of Jesus, but who failed to mention him.

Some of the names on the list do not belong, because they just could not be expected to have mentioned Jesus. The Remsberg list is also without dates and subjects and places, and is unclear in identifying some authors.

So, I have updated and improved this list, taking it up to the mid 2nd century. Some of the writers listed need more details.

How Likely was a mention of Jesus?

The issue is really HOW LIKELY they would be to mention Jesus.

Factors which increase the expectation that Jesus would be mentioned in a work include :
* a large work (i.e. one which has large index of names)
* a work on an issue somehow related to Jesus or the Gospel events,
* a work whose genre tends to frequently mention or allude to many subjects and people,

I have thus classified these writers into broad categories -
* writers who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (5),
* writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (4,3),
* writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus (2,1, or even 0.5),
* writers who WOULDN'T have mentioned Jesus (0)

I have given each writer a WEIGHT out of 5 as indicated.

As well as -
* writers CLAIMED to mention Jesus.

Of course, one writer who didn't mention Jesus means nothing.
But,
when DOZENS of writers from the period in question fail to mention anything about Jesus (or the the Gospel events or actors), this argues against historicity.

The argument is sometimes made that these writers could not possibly have mentioned Jesus - because he was a minor figure and unrelated to the issues at hand.

This assumes that no such writer ever mentions a minor figure in passing, that they never make an aside about other events or figures who are not specially related to the subject.

Of course, this is not true, as the evidence below shows that many of the writers mentioned make many references to many other minor figures and often make excurses about other subjects and events and people.

I have included astronomers on the list who might have mentioned the Star of Bethlehem and/or the darkness at the crucifixion - if they had heard of them. This is a lesser issue then the existence of Jesus, and I have rated such writers as 0.5.

Summary of Results

The results of my current classifications is:

1 writer who surely SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Philo.)

3 writers who PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus (Seneca, Plutarch, Justus.)

31 writers who COULD have mentioned Jesus.

(20 writers who could not be expected to.
6 writers claimed to mention Jesus, but disputed or suspect.)

You can see the results presented chronologically with colour and font size here:
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip

WRITERS WHO SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

PHILO

Philo Judaeus wrote very many books about Jewish religion and history, in the 30s and 40s, living in Alexandria, and visiting Jerusalem.

Philo was contemporary with Jesus and Paul,
Philo visited Jerusalem and had family there,
he developed the concept of the Logos and the holy spirit,
he was considered a Christian by some later Christians,
he wrote a great deal about related times and peoples and issues.

If Jesus had existed, Philo would almost certainly have written about him and his teachings.

Rating: SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 5

WRITERS WHO PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

SENECA

Lucius Annaeus Seneca wrote many philosophic (Stoic) and satirical books and letters (and Tragedies) in Rome.

Seneca wrote a great deal on many subjects and mentioned many people. He was a Stoic, a school of thought considered sympathetic to Christian teachings.

In fact,
early Christians seemed to have expected him to discuss Christianity - they FORGED letters between him and Paul.

How else to explain these forgeries, except as Christian responses to a surprising VOID in Seneca's writings?

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4

PLUTARCH

Plutarch of Chaeronea wrote many works on history and philosophy in Rome and Boetia in about 90-120 CE.

Plutarch wrote about influential Roman figures, including some contemporary to Jesus,
Plutarch wrote on Oracles (prophesies),
Plutarch wrote on moral issues,
Plutarch wrote on spiritual and religious issues.

Plutarch's writings also include a fascinating piece known as the "Vision of Aridaeus", a spiritual journey, or out of body experience, or religious fantasy -
iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip

If Plutarch knew of Jesus or the Gospel events, it is highly likely he would have mentioned them.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus or his teachings, but did not.
Weight: 4

JUSTUS

Justus of Tiberias wrote a History of Jewish Kings in Galilee in late 1st century.

Photius read Justus in the 8th century and noted that he did not mention anything: "He (Justus of Tiberias) makes not one mention of Jesus, of what happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did."

It is surprising that a contemporary writer from the very region of Jesus' alleged acts did not mention him.

Rating: PROBABLY SHOULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 3

WRITERS WHO COULD HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

DAMIS

Damis wrote most of what we know about Apollonius of Tyana. He was a philospher and mystic exactly contemporary with Jesus and who was rather similar to Jesus - enough for some authors to argue they were one and the same person.

If Damis/Apollonius had known of Jesus, he could have easily have been mentioned as a competitor. A story in which Apollonius bested Jesus in debate would not be un-expected.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

APOLLONIUS

See Damis.

PLINY THE ELDER

Gaius Plinius Secundus wrote a large Natural History in Rome c.80CE

Pliny wrote a great deal - his Natural History mentions HUNDREDS of people, major & minor - writers, leaders, poets, artists - often with as much reason as mentioning Jesus. (Of course like many other writers he talks about astronomy too, but never mentions the Star of Bethlehem or the darkness.)

It is not at all un-reasoble for this prolific writer to have mentioned Jesus or the Gospels events.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

JUVENAL

Decimus Junius Juvenalis wrote sixteen satires in Rome in early 2nd century.

Lucian the Roman satirist DID ridicule Christians (as gullible, easily lead fools) in mid 2nd century. By the later time of Lucian, Christianity obviously was known to the wider Roman community. Whereas Juvenal wrote at a time when Christianity had only just started to rate a few tiny mentions (Pliny the Younger, Tacitus.)

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

MARTIAL

Marcus Valerius Martialus wrote satires in Rome in late 1st century.

Martial wrote a large body of poems about all sorts of things. He mentions many people, places, stories and issues - major and minor, within and without Rome, such as :
* Stoic suffering of discomfort and death,
* virgin's blood,
* Roman funerary practices,
* the way accused men look in court,
* Roman soldiers mocking their leaders,
* anointing the body with oil,
* Molorchus the good shepherd,
* Tutilius a minor rhetorician, Nestor the wise,
* the (ugly) Temple of Jupiter,

This shows Martial mentions or alludes to many and varied people and issues.

He could easily have mentioned Jesus (or the Gospel events).

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

PETRONIUS

Petronius Arbiter wrote a large novel (a bawdy drama) the "Satyricon" c.60CE.

Petronius mentions all sorts of people and events in this large work, including :
** a CRUCIFIXION !
** a scene where guards are posted to stop a corpse being stolen,
** a tomb scene of someone mistaking a person for a supernatural vision,
* gods such as Bacchus and Ceres,
* writers such as Sophocles and Euripides and Epicurus,
* books such as the Iliad,
* Romans such as Cato and Pompey,
* people such as Hannibal, and the Governor of Ephesus,
* female charioteers, slaves, merchants, Arabs, lawyers
* baths, shipwrecks, meals...

This large work, cover MANY topics, including a CRUCIFIXION, and it was written just as Peter and Paul had come to Rome, allegedly. It could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

PAUSANIAS

Pausanias wrote the massive Guide to Greece in mid 2nd century.

Pausanias' work is vast and the index covers over 70 pages of small print, I estimate a couple of THOUSAND names are mentioned. He mentions a large number of minor figues from within and without Greece.

He even mentions a Jewish prophetess - a figure so minor she is essentially unknown: "Then later than Demo there was a prophetic woman reared among the Jews beyond Palestine; her name was Sabbe." Phokis, Book X, 12, [5]

Pausanias also mentions the Jewish rebellion under Hadrian.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

EPICTETUS

Epictetus is known for several books of Stoic religious and philosophic discourses in the early 2nd century. One of his disciples was Arrian, and thanks to him much of Epictetus' works are extant.

Epictetus DID apparently mention "the Galileans", which could be a reference to :
* the early Christians,
or
* the revolt under Judas the Galilean in early 1st century.

Either way, this shows quite clearly that Epictetus could refer to a figure such as Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

AELIUS ARISTIDES

Aelius Aristides the Greek Orator spoke and wrote a History of Rome and other subjects - he seems to refer to the Christians as "impious men from Palestine" (Orations 46.2)

If he could mention people from Palestine, he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

FRONTO

Marcus Cornelius Fronto of Rome wrote several letters in mid 2nd century.

According to Minucius Felix, he scandalised rites practiced by Roman Christians - so he could easily have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD easily have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 2

PERSIUS

Aulus Persius Flaccus wrote six fairly long satires in Rome in the mid 1st century, of a rather philosophic nature.

The argument that no Roman satirist could be expected to mention Jesus, is proven wrong by the case of a Roman satirist who DID mention Jesus (but only as echoes of later Christian beliefs.)

Persius wrote a reasonably large body of work that mentions many people and issues.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1

DIO CHRYSOSTOM

Dio Chrysostom (Cocceianus Dio) wrote many works and gave many speeches in various Roman and Greek centres in late 1st century, of which 80 survive e.g. the Euboicus.

Dio wrote a large number of works in the late 1st century - he certainly could have mentioned Jesus, if he knew of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1

AULUS GELLIUS

Aulus Gellius wrote Attic Nights (Nights in Athens), a large compendium of many topics and which mentioned many people.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1

LUCIUS APULEIUS

Lucius Apuleius wrote the Metamorphoses (the Golden Ass or Transformations of Lucius) and many other spiritual, historical, and philosophic works - several survive.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1

MARCUS AURELIUS

Marcus Aelius Aurelius Antoninus wrote the Stoic Meditations in mid 2nd century - he (apparently) refers once to the Christians in XI, 3.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1

MUSONIUS RUFUS

C. Musonius Rufus wrote on Stoic philosophy in Rome in mid 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1

HIEROCLES

Hierocles of Alexandria wrote on Stoic philosophy in late 1st century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1

MAXIMUS of TYRE

Cassius Maximus Tyrius, a Greek NeoPlatonic philosopher, wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 1

ARRIAN

Arrian wrote a History of Alexander c.120CE.

The subject is not related, but Arrian wrote a very large work which mentioned HUNDREDS of people, some not from Alexander's time.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

APPIAN

Appian wrote a large Roman History (from the Gracchi to Caesar) in mid 2nd century.

It's not particularly likely that this specific writer would mention Jesus.
But,
he wrote a LARGE work which mentions HUNDREDS of people.
Appian does mention some issues of HIS day (mid 2nd century), e.g. a decision by Hadrian.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

THEON of SMYRNA

Theon of Smyrna wrote on astronomy/philosophy in early 2nd century.

Theon wrote about philosophy. If Jesus and his teachings were known, it is entirely plausible for to mention them.

Theon also wrote about astronomy.
If he had heard about the Star of Bethlehem or the Darkness (as an event, or from the Gospels) he could easily have mentioned it.

Apologists frequently cite Phlegon and Thallus, astronomers who mentioned eclipses (but NOT Jesus or the Gospel events, that is merely later Christian wishful thinking) as evidence for Jesus.

An astronomer could easily be expected to mention those incidents, especially when apologists claim other astronomers of the period did exactly that.

The silence of early astronomers about the Star of Bethlehem or the crucifixion darkness argues these "events" were unknown until later.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

QUINTILIAN

Marcus Fabius Quintilianus, wrote the "Education of an Orator" in Rome in late 1st century.

One of the things Jesus was allegedly noted for was his PUBLIC SPEECHES - e.g. the Sermon on the Mount, which supposedly drew and influenced large crowds.

If Quintilian had heard of Jesus or the Gospels events, he could have mentioned the allegedly famous speeches of Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

LUCIUS ANNAEUS FLORUS

Lucius Annaeus Florus wrote an Epitome of Roman History.

Although not directly on subject, Florus wrote a large work which mentions many names. He could have mentioned Jesus if he had known of him.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

LUCAN

Marcus Annaeus Lucanus wrote the Pharsalia (Civil War) in Rome in mid 1st century.

In his large poem, the Pharsalia, he mentions some events from later times, and he covers many different issues and people in passing.
He:
* mentions an event from 56CE,
* refers to places as far afield as Sicily and Kent,
* refered to Stoic religious beliefs about the end of the world,
* refers to many books and myths and persons and events not part of the main story.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

STATIUS

Publius Papinius Statius wrote numerous minor and epic poems (e.g. Ode to Sleep and the Thebaid) in Rome in late 1st century.

Statius wrote many works on several subjects, he could have mentioned Jesus.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

HERO of ALEXANDRIA

Hero(n) of Alexandria wrote many technical works, including astronomy.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

GEMINUS

Geminus wrote on mathematics astronomy in Greece.

If he had known of the Gospel stories about Jesus, he could have mentioned them.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

ALBINUS

Albinus taught on (neo-)Platonism in early 2nd century, a little survives.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

ARISTOCLES

Aristocles of Messene wrote On Philosophy, early 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

APOLLODORUS

Apollodorus compiled a large Mythology in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

HEPHAESTION

Hephaestion of Alexandria wrote many works in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

SEXTUS EMPIRICUS

Sextus Empiricus wrote Outlines of Scepticism in mid 2nd century.

Rating: COULD possibly have mentioned Jesus, but did not.
Weight: 0.5

WRITERS CLAIMED TO MENTION JESUS

JOSEPHUS

Much has been said about Josephus, but not here.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but may not have.

TACITUS

Cornelius Tacitus wrote a celebrated passage about Jesus roughly 80 years or so after the alleged events - but he seems to be reporting Christian beliefs of his later times, not using earlier documents: he uses the incorrect title 'procurator' - the term used in Tacitus' time, not Pilate's; he fails to name the executed man (Roman records could not possibly have called him 'Christ '); and he accepts the recent advent of the Christians, when Rome was known to allow only ancient cults and religions.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.

NUMENIUS

In the 3rd century, Origen claimed Numenius "quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus--without, however, mentioning His name"

Numenius does not mention Jesus, just a story that was later attributed to him.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but probably late hearsay.

SUETONIUS

Gaius SUETONIUS Tranquillus wrote a histories/biographies of Roman Caesars c.120CE.

He mentions a "Chrestus" (a common slave name meaning "Useful") who caused disturbance in Rome in 49CE.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.

PHLEGON

Phlegon wrote during the 140s - his works are lost. Later, Origen, Eusebius, and Julianus Africanus (as quoted by much later George Syncellus) refer to him, but quote differently his reference to an eclipse. There is no evidence Phlegon said anything about Gospel events - just evidence for later Christians believing his statements about an eclipse (there WAS an eclipse in this period) was really about the Gospel darkness.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.

THALLUS

Thallus perhaps wrote in early 2nd century or somewhat earlier (his works are lost, there is no evidence he wrote in the 1st century, in fact there is some evidence he wrote around 109 BCE, and some authors refer to him for events before the Trojan War!) - 9th century George Syncellus quotes the 3rd century Julianus Africanus, speaking of the darkness at the crucifixion: "Thallus calls this darkness an eclipse". There is no evidence Thallus made specific reference to Jesus or the Gospel events, as there was an eclipse in 29, the subject in question. Furthermore the supposed reference to Thallus in Eusebius is likely a mis-reading.

Rating: CLAIMED to mention Jesus, but did not.

WRITERS WHO COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO HAVE MENTIONED JESUS

Dion Prusaeus
Paterculus
Ptolemy
Valerius Maximus
Pomponius Mela
Quintus Curtus Rufus
Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella
Favorinus
Phaedrus
Babrius
Silius Italicus
Marcus Manilius
Cleomedes
Dioscorides
Sextus Julius Frontinus
Nicomachus of Gerasa
Menelaus of Alexandria
Menodotus of Nicomedia
Tiberius Claudius Herodes Atticus
Valerius Flaccus

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2024 10:00 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 384 by Granny Magda, posted 02-18-2024 8:53 AM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 386 by Granny Magda, posted 02-18-2024 9:00 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9202
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 348 of 563 (915670)
02-16-2024 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by PaulK
02-16-2024 10:47 AM


Thompson is known as an extreme minimalist (and was before he got into the New Testament) and Price is, I think, even more of a fringe figure.
Source? Mythicism is a fringe idea. That does not invalidate it. Your point?
Why does Carrier not qualify? He writes numerous peer reviewed articles. Does he not meet your standards?
Doherty is self taught, but well respected.
Instead of rejecting out of hand explain why you dismiss them.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2024 10:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2024 12:16 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 359 by Phat, posted 02-16-2024 4:10 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9202
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 349 of 563 (915671)
02-16-2024 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Tangle
02-16-2024 11:08 AM


Bayesian analysis is becoming a part of modern historical scholarship. Not just Carrier. Whether you think it is bollux is irrelevant. Also, Carrier has many peer reviewed articles that do not include Bayes Theorem at all.
He is a vile human being, but a hell of a scholar.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 11:08 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 12:21 PM Theodoric has not replied
 Message 465 by LamarkNewAge, posted 04-09-2024 4:15 PM Theodoric has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 350 of 563 (915673)
02-16-2024 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by Tangle
02-16-2024 10:13 AM


So as you note there aren't many.
Price is certainly a scholar, but much of his respect has dried up due to his enthusiasm for racist conspiracy theories. He comes across as a kook, pretty much full wingnut. His debate with Bart Ehrman was pretty excruciating to watch. He couldn't decide if he was attacking a mythical Jesus or the position Ehrman was actually defending, much to Ehrman's exasperation. So I don't know about respected, but yes, a scholar.
Richard Carrier is a blogger with a PhD. He is mostly active within atheist circles and on the internet. His publishing record is sparse. He has never held any academic position, mostly one suspects because of his embrace of mythicism but also because of his poor scholarship. He is not a respected scholar. Any respect I might have had for him dwindled up as I saw just how terrible his arguments were and
Earl Doherty holds no post-graduate degree and is simply an author. He is not a scholar. Despite this, Doherty is one of the more respected of the bunch. He has been complimented by critics for his scholarly approach and general level of effort. Not an academic though.
Thompson counts as a scholar. A bit of a patchy academic career, but a scholar indeed. According to his Wiki page however;
quote:
Thompson did not draw a final conclusion on the historicity or ahistoricity of Jesus
So I suppose you could say in a sense that he doesn't believe in a historical Jesus, but he seems to be a bit more on the fence than that description might imply. I don't think that makes him a mythicist.
And finally, Gerd Lüdemann was not a mythicist.
He had an interesting idea of what might have transpired though. This is Bart Ehrman outlining Lüdemann's hypothesis in a blog post;
quote:
The basic historical conclusions that Lüdemann draws – based on a careful analysis of all the relevant passages and a consideration of the historical events that lie behind them – is this:
o When Jesus was arrested and crucified his disciples fled. They did not go into hiding in Jerusalem – then went back home, to Galilee (where *else* would they go? They went home, to get out of Jerusalem!)
o Soon after, it was in Galilee (not in Jerusalem) that belief in the resurrection occurred. It occurred because Peter had a vision of Jesus that included auditory features (he thought he saw and heard him).
o This “vision” was induced by psychological factors. Peter felt terrifically guilty for having denied Jesus, and the “vision” he had brought forgiveness from his deep guilt.
o This vision was like other visions that people have (all the time): visions of dead loved ones; visions of the Virgin Mary. In these visions, of course the loved ones do not *really* come back to life from the dead, and the Virgin Mary does not *really* show up at Lourdes, etc. These are psychologically induced visions.
o Still, like other people who have visions, Peter took the vision to be real and assumed that Jesus was alive again, in heaven.
o Peter brought the other disciples together, and maintained with them that the end time was near, as Jesus had originally preached, and that the kingdom of God was soon to appear. The evidence? The resurrection of the dead had already begun. The evidence? Jesus had been raised. The evidence? He had appeared to Peter. All this is happening in Galilee.
o The vision was infectious, and the mission got underway.
o Even Jesus’ brothers were caught up in the excitement and James became a believer in Jesus.
o The other person who had a genuine vision of Jesus was much later, the apostle Paul, who too experienced a psychologically induced vision of Jesus. In this case, he found Jesus’ teaching of forgiveness and mercy appealing, even as he was violently persecuting the church as an enemy. But forgiveness won out and in a cataclysmic break from his past, Paul had a vision of the living Jesus, convincing him that Peter and the others were right: Jesus was still alive, and therefore had been raised from the dead.
o Some Christians thought that these visions showed that Jesus was spiritually exalted to heaven – not that his body had been physically raised from the dead.
o Others, including Peter and Paul, insisted that in fact Jesus had experienced a physical resurrection of the body, which had been transformed into an immortal body before being exalted to heaven.
o The implication was that the tomb was emptied before Jesus’ started to make his appearances (other Christians also claimed to see him, but it is hard to establish that any of the others actually had any visions – they may have simply been building on Peter’s original claim).
o But by this time it was too late to know whether the tomb was really empty. For several reasons:
 We don’t know how much after his death the vision to Peter came; Acts suggests that it was fifty days before the preaching began; if so, the body would have decomposed.
 No one knew where he was buried anyway (the story of Joseph of Arimathea may be a later account, not something that really happened; Jesus may have been buried in a common grave or somewhere no one knew.
 It is worth pointing out, Ludemann notes, that Christians in Jersualem appear to have placed ZERO emphasis on the location of the tomb. It was not until 326, according to Eusebius, was the alledged site of burial “rediscovered” under a temple dedicated to Venus. Life of Constantine 3.26-28.
And so, the short story: Chrsitianity started among Jesus’ followers in Galilee, sometime after his death, after Peter had a vision of Jesus that was psychologically induced.
So, to be clear, I’m not saying I agree with this entire reconstruction. But it’s very interesting, based on a detailed examination of all the evidence from the NT (and outside) by a skilled interpreter, and worth bearing in mind when trying to figure out what really happened both to Jesus’ body and to the followers of Jesus to make them believe it had been raised from the dead.
I'm not saying I think that's exactly how it went down, but I do find that model plausible. Personally, I think that the truth was something very close to that. This is the kind of thing I mean when I talk of the historical Jesus. We'll almost certainly never know for sure, but I agree with Ehrman that this is an interesting model and worth keeping in mind.
As far as that list of scholars goes though, it's not particularly prestigious.
Mutate and Survive

On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 10:13 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 1:21 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 351 of 563 (915674)
02-16-2024 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Theodoric
02-16-2024 12:03 PM


quote:
Source? Mythicism is a fringe idea. That does not invalidate it. Your point?
My point is exactly what I said, that there is a caveat on the title of “respected scholar”.
And I don’t think that either Carrier or Doherty are respected to any high degree. If you can provide evidence to the contrary I will take it into consideration.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2024 12:03 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 12:38 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9516
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 352 of 563 (915675)
02-16-2024 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by Theodoric
02-16-2024 12:08 PM


Theodoric writes:
Bayesian analysis is becoming a part of modern historical scholarship. Not just Carrier. Whether you think it is bollux is irrelevant. Also, Carrier has many peer reviewed articles that do not include Bayes Theorem at all.
I applaud the attempt to get some statistical rigour into what is predominantly educated opinion but I wasn't convinced by it. It seemed to me that he made his best guess, manufactured a probability, then factored up all the guesses. GIGO.
And whether I think it's bollox is very relevant to me.
I was pretty much with him on all his guesses though. Then I read someone else and changed my mind again. It's just not possible to know.
He is a vile human being, but a hell of a scholar.
I've no data on that.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2024 12:08 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9516
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


(1)
Message 353 of 563 (915677)
02-16-2024 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by PaulK
02-16-2024 12:16 PM


PaulK writes:
And I don’t think that either Carrier or Doherty are respected to any high degree. If you can provide evidence to the contrary I will take it into consideration.
They have reached conclusions - based on good scholarship - that the majority of other scholars disagree with. It's a unique situation where almost 100% of the scholars working in the field of historicity of the bible are also religious believers in the bible. They are obliged by their religious belief to believe that Jesus was a real person. Not only would they lose their faith if they found otherwise they would also lose their jobs.
There's nothing wrong with the dissenters' work. It's not like science vs creationism; there is no science done in creationism so it can't be respected. Here you've got people doing real scholarship, having it peer reviewed and published but are total outsiders in the field. You can't dismiss good work just because you disagree with it. That ain't being objective.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2024 12:16 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2024 12:46 PM Tangle has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 354 of 563 (915678)
02-16-2024 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by Tangle
02-16-2024 12:38 PM


The issue isn’t about their work - although I doubt that it is quite as good as you think - the issue is respect. And there you produce not a shred of evidence.
And given Carrier’s abusive responses to critics I rather doubt that he has much respect amongst scholars.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 12:38 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 1:02 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9516
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 355 of 563 (915681)
02-16-2024 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 354 by PaulK
02-16-2024 12:46 PM


PaulK writes:
The issue isn’t about their work - although I doubt that it is quite as good as you think - the issue is respect. And there you produce not a shred of evidence.
I don't accept your qualifier - the issue can only be about the quality of their work, if it's about anything else it's prejudice and bias.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2024 12:46 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by PaulK, posted 02-16-2024 1:16 PM Tangle has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 356 of 563 (915684)
02-16-2024 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 355 by Tangle
02-16-2024 1:02 PM


quote:
I don't accept your qualifier
My qualifier? You were the one who claimed that they were respected scholars. I’m simply disagreeing with that.
Message 341 and if you are going to quibble that you didn’t explicitly say ‘respected” there I will point out that it is a response to Message 339

This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 1:02 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9516
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 357 of 563 (915685)
02-16-2024 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Granny Magda
02-16-2024 12:15 PM


I'm forced to agree with you about Price, he sounded bizarre when I watch the debate - I turned him off. But I've not read anything he's written so it's hard to comment.
As for the rest, it's just a story isn't it? (albeit backed by some plausible analysis) Maybe it happened that way maybe it didn't, we can't know but what you believe seems to be reliant on your other beliefs, actual evidence is lacking.
This week I mostly think that JC did actually exist (as a person, not as a miracle worker.) A year ago I didn't. But it's nothing more than a coin toss and I'll read something in a few year's time that'll change my mind again.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Granny Magda, posted 02-16-2024 12:15 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 358 of 563 (915699)
02-16-2024 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Tangle
02-16-2024 11:32 AM


Re: Honest Falsification As Part Of The Method
Believers themselves qualify as evidence in my view. And by no means do I mean *all* of them. The guy that I linked you to was not some random internet troll nor a Pastor who was only in it for the money. That much I can assure you.
GDR used to be a fan of NT Wright and I have never read him, so I likely will put one of his books on my bucket list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 11:32 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 4:29 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied
 Message 362 by Percy, posted 02-16-2024 5:51 PM Phat has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18350
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 359 of 563 (915700)
02-16-2024 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by Theodoric
02-16-2024 12:03 PM


Character and Integrity Count
Theo writes:
Why does Carrier not qualify? He writes numerous peer reviewed articles. Does he not meet your standards?
Depends to an extent on who his peers are and what they personally believe.
Otherwise, I'm gonna call bias.
As I have said before, personality and character count as much as do evidence and data in my world.
You sure were quick to berate ICANT for his "arrogance". Seems as if you are all too ready to pounce on anyone who is unlike you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2024 12:03 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2024 4:36 PM Phat has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9516
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 5.1


(2)
Message 360 of 563 (915703)
02-16-2024 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by Phat
02-16-2024 4:04 PM


Re: Honest Falsification As Part Of The Method
Phat writes:
Believers themselves qualify as evidence in my view.
And that's why you can't think critically. You don't possess the faculty, the training or the - more importantly the desire. You actually do not want to be able to think. It would spoil your whole day.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by Phat, posted 02-16-2024 4:04 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024