The Historical Jesus
Jesus never existed.
How do you know?
The same way I know that Superman never existed, and that Spiderman never existed, and that Frodo never existed, and that Gilligan never existed.
and Caesar, Plato, and George Washington as well, no doubt.
The way I see it is as follows.
The mere fact that you have a scholarly consensus on a given proposition, it of course doesn't follow that the proposition is true. On the other hand, it does follow that the burden of proof shifts to you if you wish to challenge that consensus.
I'm sure there are scattered peer-reviewed doctorate-level scholars that state that Jesus is akin to Thor, a myth just as there are scattered scholars with similar credentials who claim that the canonical scriptures are utterly factual. (Actually, I'm not aware of any professional historian who takes the position that Jesus never existed, but I'm trying to argue carefully. Feel free to provide me with a link to the monograph of such a person.) In both case, I suspect that these conclusions are generally dishonest projections of world view assumptions-- theism or atheism-- rather than a dispassionate, logical sifting of existing evidence, and that in itself is sufficient grounds to reject their conclusions.
The vast majority of scholars describe Jesus as a historical figure while discounting the more fanciful elements as described in the four Gospels and the Book of the Acts. Even apart from the New Testament and somewhat questionable fragments in other writing, there is of course the indisputable fact that a movement did arise that eventually brought the Roman Empire to its knees. Constantine, by the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, chose Christianity because of a vision of the Christian cross, but as a politician, I suspect he was counting noses as well. By this time, the emperor was aware of his Christian military officers and state officials as well of the popular appeal and moral force of Christianity in the face of persecution. Christianity, I believe, was a bottom-up movement. The political elite responded to the people rather than vice versa, and the mass of the people were responding to a real event. Myths have sometimes created mass movements. But the most parsimonious and most likely explanation for this mass movement is that it started with one man who stands at the hinge of history—Jesus Christ.
The primary source evidence are the writing in the Greek testmanet. These were of course written with a point of view, and they only account in totality for about two months of Jesus’ life. But I believe that they are credible, as they are inetgrated with many other historical events that can be independently cross collaborated. They were written from about 50 to 100 AD, a relatively short time in a culture that had a strong oral tradition. By contrast, Caesar’s Gallic Wars date from 100-44 BC, but our earliest copy is from 900 AD. It would be the equivalent of writing about the events of the Second World War—well within the memory of living people or their children. There are credible parallels between the gospels as well as confirmation of names of rulers and places that historians have unearthed in modern times. We also have the testimony of perhaps a half dozen writers that were roughly the contemporary to Jesus and His apostles. External sources include Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others. Some extra-canonical writings also provide us with additional insights. While some of these writings may be fictional, in totality there is enough to support the claim that Jesus lived. It is remarkable that a man of Jesus’ rank—a common carpenter—would have so much documentation.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative-- the non-existence of someone. I am asking you to prove your positive claim that the evidence that modern historians point to to support their claim that Jesus was a real person-- most notably the writing of the Greek testament-- is fabricated or mythical.
Wikpedia has a review of the questions in play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Yeah, like you've even bothered looking. Links just scratching the surface to such are in the wiki entry you provided.
I actually gave you a misleading link "Historical Jesus". Here is a better link "Historicity of Jesus" and the pertinent section of its commentary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Contrary to your assertion, you are mistaken that "there are no credible extra-biblical source for the existence of Jesus." Clearly, there are many.
Anyway, here is the Jesus as myth counterargument and its refutation.
"A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity have been Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. The non-historicity thesis was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century, and has recently been put forward in popular literature by a number of authors. Arguments for non-historicity have been advanced by George Albert Wells in The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth. Popular proponents have included the writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Other proponents of non-historicity are Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle ).
"The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and some similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology.[65]
Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:
"…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[66]
"Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians[67],[68] & [69]."
What I admire about atheists generally is their ability to embrace what I call the "is ness" of life-- reality as it is and let the chips fall where they may. But this appears to be an exception among some atheists such as yourself, allowing, I believe, not evidence and logic to guide your conclusions, but your atheism, possibly because of the fallacious notion that somehow this will butress Christian theistic assumptions. This warping effect where convictions take precedence over evidence is needless to say irrational. And, of course, there are many people who reject the divinity of Jesus while accepting the scholarship that sustains the probability that the Jesus the man lived.
Yeah, wikipedia is full of unbiased articles re: religion. How was your first link "misleading", because it was less overtly cheerleading for the "he existed" side?
Wikpedia notes the distinction between history and historicity as follows: "Scholars draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition."
Wikpedia is open source, which means that you are free to contribute your two-cents to any article that you choose. But if it is intellectually flawed or dishonest, it won't be published. And that, in the market place of ideas, is the way it should be. I have a hunch that the folks that profess creationism went to the same school as those who profess the Jesus is Myth theory. They both join hands in rejecting the proponderance of evidence and logic that is contrary to their religious principles. Ironic isn't it?
How do you know?
The same way I know that Superman never existed, and that Spiderman never existed, and that Frodo never existed, and that Gilligan never existed.
and Caesar, Plato, and George Washington as well, no doubt.
The way I see it is as follows.
The mere fact that you have a scholarly consensus on a given proposition, it of course doesn't follow that the proposition is true. On the other hand, it does follow that the burden of proof shifts to you if you wish to challenge that consensus.
I'm sure there are scattered peer-reviewed doctorate-level scholars that state that Jesus is akin to Thor, a myth just as there are scattered scholars with similar credentials who claim that the canonical scriptures are utterly factual. (Actually, I'm not aware of any professional historian who takes the position that Jesus never existed, but I'm trying to argue carefully. Feel free to provide me with a link to the monograph of such a person.) In both case, I suspect that these conclusions are generally dishonest projections of world view assumptions-- theism or atheism-- rather than a dispassionate, logical sifting of existing evidence, and that in itself is sufficient grounds to reject their conclusions.
The vast majority of scholars describe Jesus as a historical figure while discounting the more fanciful elements as described in the four Gospels and the Book of the Acts. Even apart from the New Testament and somewhat questionable fragments in other writing, there is of course the indisputable fact that a movement did arise that eventually brought the Roman Empire to its knees. Constantine, by the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, chose Christianity because of a vision of the Christian cross, but as a politician, I suspect he was counting noses as well. By this time, the emperor was aware of his Christian military officers and state officials as well of the popular appeal and moral force of Christianity in the face of persecution. Christianity, I believe, was a bottom-up movement. The political elite responded to the people rather than vice versa, and the mass of the people were responding to a real event. Myths have sometimes created mass movements. But the most parsimonious and most likely explanation for this mass movement is that it started with one man who stands at the hinge of history—Jesus Christ.
The primary source evidence are the writing in the Greek testmanet. These were of course written with a point of view, and they only account in totality for about two months of Jesus’ life. But I believe that they are credible, as they are inetgrated with many other historical events that can be independently cross collaborated. They were written from about 50 to 100 AD, a relatively short time in a culture that had a strong oral tradition. By contrast, Caesar’s Gallic Wars date from 100-44 BC, but our earliest copy is from 900 AD. It would be the equivalent of writing about the events of the Second World War—well within the memory of living people or their children. There are credible parallels between the gospels as well as confirmation of names of rulers and places that historians have unearthed in modern times. We also have the testimony of perhaps a half dozen writers that were roughly the contemporary to Jesus and His apostles. External sources include Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and others. Some extra-canonical writings also provide us with additional insights. While some of these writings may be fictional, in totality there is enough to support the claim that Jesus lived. It is remarkable that a man of Jesus’ rank—a common carpenter—would have so much documentation.
I'm not asking you to prove a negative-- the non-existence of someone. I am asking you to prove your positive claim that the evidence that modern historians point to to support their claim that Jesus was a real person-- most notably the writing of the Greek testament-- is fabricated or mythical.
Wikpedia has a review of the questions in play.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Yeah, like you've even bothered looking. Links just scratching the surface to such are in the wiki entry you provided.
I actually gave you a misleading link "Historical Jesus". Here is a better link "Historicity of Jesus" and the pertinent section of its commentary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Contrary to your assertion, you are mistaken that "there are no credible extra-biblical source for the existence of Jesus." Clearly, there are many.
Anyway, here is the Jesus as myth counterargument and its refutation.
"A few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure. Among the proponents of non-historicity have been Bruno Bauer in the 19th century. The non-historicity thesis was somewhat influential in biblical studies during the early 20th century, and has recently been put forward in popular literature by a number of authors. Arguments for non-historicity have been advanced by George Albert Wells in The Jesus Legend and The Jesus Myth. Popular proponents have included the writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in their books The Jesus Mysteries and Jesus and the Lost Goddess. Other proponents of non-historicity are Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty (The Jesus Puzzle ).
"The views of scholars who entirely reject Jesus' historicity are summarized in the chapter on Jesus in Will Durant's Caesar and Christ; they are based on a suggested lack of eyewitness, a lack of direct archaeological evidence, the failure of certain ancient works to mention Jesus, and some similarities between early Christianity and contemporary mythology.[65]
Michael Grant stated that the view is derived from a lack of application of historical methods:
"…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.[66]
"Overall, the unhistoricity theory is regarded as effectively refuted by almost all Biblical scholars and historians[67],[68] & [69]."
What I admire about atheists generally is their ability to embrace what I call the "is ness" of life-- reality as it is and let the chips fall where they may. But this appears to be an exception among some atheists such as yourself, allowing, I believe, not evidence and logic to guide your conclusions, but your atheism, possibly because of the fallacious notion that somehow this will butress Christian theistic assumptions. This warping effect where convictions take precedence over evidence is needless to say irrational. And, of course, there are many people who reject the divinity of Jesus while accepting the scholarship that sustains the probability that the Jesus the man lived.
Yeah, wikipedia is full of unbiased articles re: religion. How was your first link "misleading", because it was less overtly cheerleading for the "he existed" side?
Wikpedia notes the distinction between history and historicity as follows: "Scholars draw a distinction between Jesus as reconstructed through historical methods and the Christ of faith as understood through theological tradition."
Wikpedia is open source, which means that you are free to contribute your two-cents to any article that you choose. But if it is intellectually flawed or dishonest, it won't be published. And that, in the market place of ideas, is the way it should be. I have a hunch that the folks that profess creationism went to the same school as those who profess the Jesus is Myth theory. They both join hands in rejecting the proponderance of evidence and logic that is contrary to their religious principles. Ironic isn't it?
Labels: theology
posted by My Mall and News at
11:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home