Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
You’re hung up on being pigeonholed into the atheist contingent, I see. You poor soul.
You, tacticalogic, are showing a severe disrespect for science. In particular, the science behind historicity of one of the best attested events in all of history: That Jesus was put to death for the blasphemy of claiming equality with God. Even his enemies acknowledge the claim. There is no miracle to deny here, just simple history. But atheists like you with incredible idealogical blinders refuse to acknowledge a simple historical fact.
It is, in your own words, exactly what you are getting at.
***No. As in the past, you’re dead wrong. Again.
I’m simply demonstrating your lack of respect for science. You don’t even have to say you’re an atheist, just ignore that. But you can’t, because you are obligated to dance here when it is such a simple, historical fact being discussed.
Tell us.
I reposted to you without even mentioning the atheist contingent, seein’ how hung up you are on this triviality.
So answer the simple question. Show us how much you respect science.
My prediction: You will not answer the question.
One may as well debate with holocaust deniers or people who deny that Julius Caesar was the first roman emperor.
Why is isn't the question "Are you an atheist?"
You don't have to answer the question for the answer to be apparent.
As I predicted, you did not answer the question.
Your disrespect of science is there for all to see. Best of luck with denying huge swaths of history. Perhaps you’d be interested in denying the holocaust while you’re at it.
If you hand me a loaded question, I'm going to take it apart and hand it back to you in pieces without pulling the trigger. If you don't want that done with them, don't hand them to me.
Why isn't the question "Are you an atheist?"
Asking about a simple historical fact is a “loaded question”. Okay, got it. Thanks for the dance. Once again, your disdain for the science behind recorded history is there for all to see.
You're welcome.
I don't have to answer you questions, and you don't have to answer mine. All I need is for anyone reading the exchange to ponder that question for a few moments and I'll have done all I need to do.
Same here. Everyone can see you’re so revisionist in your history that you make Wikipedia look conservative. So much for having respect for science. Your respect only goes so far, until it collides with your irrational opinion.
Propagandists use phrases like that. Honest people know that kind of claim can't be supported.
Propagandists use phrases like that. Honest people
***Hah hah hah, oh, that’s precious. You are the honest one here... bowlsheet. You didn’t honestly answer a simple question of history. It’s a good indicator of your honesty in debating, but for those who prefer, they can just look through your posting history to see your lack of honesty in debating. Best of luck with your revisionist approach to science & history and trying to debate from such a position.
This is one of the reasons why I recommend a freeper voluntary idealogical matrix. One can see quickly that you simply are not a conservative.
From my home page...
___________________________________________________________________
I would like to see a VOLUNTARY idealogy litmus matrix here on Free Republic, but when I proposed it to Jimrob, he called me a newbie.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2145065/posts?page=130#130
To: babygene I don’t think he’s all that interested.
To: MHGinTN It doesn’t matter what a FReeper thinks. It’s just a list that they tell us what they think. That way we can tell who we’re dealing with.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2145065/posts?page=130#130
To: Jim Robinson Hah hah, that’s great. I signed up 2 months after you and I’m a newbie. Back then no one even said, “Welcome to FR”. But yeah, I do think that there are tons of RINOs. To be more accurate, the term would be CINOs.
I’ve been pushing for an idealogical litmus matrix here on FR, not to get rid of RINOs but to expose them.
THE GOP DOESN’T WANT US- SO WHAT’S NEXT?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1965735/posts?page=762#762
***It simply takes too long. Look at this thread alone. I see evidence of RINOism in some of the FReepers on this thread. It takes 700 posts to drill down. We need the matrix posted and available so that we don’t have to drill down on every FReeping thread. They’re wasting our time. Deliberately.
Agreed to a large degree. Perhaps a way to rate members by other members???
762 posted on Thursday, February 07, 2008 8:43:23 PM by roamer_1
130 posted on Monday, December 08, 2008 2:39:20 PM by Kevmo (Palin/Hunter 2012)
49 posted on Monday, December 22, 2008 7:29:27 PM by Kevmo ( It’s all over for this Country as a Constitutional Republic. ~Leo Donofrio, 12/14/08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies] 48 posted on Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:25:08 PM by Kevmo (So America gets what America deserves - the destruction of its Constitution. ~Leo Donofrio, 6/1/09)
___________________________________________________________________
For very good reasons, I suspect.
Yah,huh. Why don’t you ask him the reasons? He’ll give you the same answer you gave all of us on a simple historical question: crickets. So go ahead and proceed from that silence to argue from it, which is the classic fallacy of... arguing from silence.
I’m a newbie compared to him and you’re a diaper spoiling brat in comparison to others, especially real conservatives. You aint no conservative. I’ve run across you before and my conclusion is that you’re here to troll against conservatism. The first notion on the first page of Free republic in defining conservatism is that it is Pro-God. You ain’t pro God.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
As a conservative site, Free Republic is pro-God, pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-gun, pro-limited government, pro-private property rights, pro-limited taxes, pro-capitalism, pro-national defense, pro-freedom, and-pro America. We oppose all forms of liberalism, socialism, fascism, pacifism, totalitarianism, anarchism, government enforced atheism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, racism, wacko environmentalism, judicial activism, etc. We also oppose the United Nations or any other world government body that may attempt to impose its will or rule over our sovereign nation and sovereign people. We believe in defending our borders, our constitution and our national sovereignty.
Free Republic is private property. It is not a government project, nor is it funded by government or taxpayer money. We are not a publicly owned entity nor are we an IRS tax-free non-profit organization. We pay all applicable taxes on our income. We are not connected to or funded by any political party, news agency, or any other entity.
Naturally, I can not expect you to explain your anti-conservative views expressed on this website but at least others can see how much of a troll you are.
I'll happily ignore your loaded questions, and consider myself in good company while doing so.
Yup, the simple question about whether you accept the historicity of Jesus’s claim to being equal with God is a “loaded” question. Even when the enemies acknowledge the claim.
Thanks for letting it be up for all to see. Irrational approach to science and history. No good reason to debate someone that irrational, regardless of what company you think you’re in, whose skirt you hide behind, or whatever snide remark you’ll come up with next. Because all of us know you won’t simply answer a simple historical question.
Why not the much simpler, direct and intuitive question "Are you an atheist?". Why do you spend so much time making it more complicated than it needs to be?
for those who can see TL’s ridiculous lack of intellectual honesty...
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ShatteringChristMyth.htm
Shattering the Internet Mythicists
Review of Shattering the Christ Myth by J.P. Holding
Shattering the Christ Myth by J.P. Holding (Xulon Press, 2008)From a series of posts at “Internet Infidels” Biblical Criticism forum (July 2008)
Of course you want to see my review of the book, hopefully will appear on Amazon.com in a few days:
Shattering the Internet Mythicists (July 23, 2008)
by PhilVaz (St. Petersburg, FL United States)
Having been aware of this so-called “debate” on the Internet (please note: it is entirely an “online debate” not one advanced by serious NT or historical Jesus scholars) since the mid 1990s, I am glad that J.P. Holding has finally transcribed and edited some of his impressive “Tektonics” online articles for an entire book on “Shattering the Christ Myth.” He and his amateur scholar contributors have pulled together an excellent set of articles and chapters debunking both the “myth” hypothesis and the “copycat” or “pagan parallel” thesis presented by many an anti-Christian conspiracy buff and uninformed skeptic of historical Christianity.
Chapters include an introduction on the history and origin of the “Christ myth” claims dating from the early 1800s; detailed defenses of the standard non-biblical references to Jesus from the Jewish historian Josephus (his two passages), the Roman historian Tacitus, Lucian, Pliny the Younger, and Papias; responses to the various “silences” argued by “mythicists” from Remsburg to G.A. Wells to Earl Doherty; analysis of the supposed “pagan Christs” from Mithra to Krishna to Horus to Dionysos; reviews and refutations exposing the abysmal scholarship and poor arguments of recent “Christ myth” movies “The God Who Wasn’t There” and “Zeitgeist”; and additional material on the city of Nazareth, the academic and Internet mythicists, and more.
This book shows there is really nothing at all to the “mythicist” claims: they are groundless historically, poorly argued based on “silence” and refuted by numerous reliable witnesses to Jesus, and that includes the canonical Gospels and the earliest writings of St. Paul. The real debate among scholars is not whether there was a historical Jesus who was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30 AD, but on Christ’s claims to divinity and being the unique Son of God, the miracles of the Gospels as signs of that divinity, and especially the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ — i.e. the whole “Jesus of history” vs. “Christ of faith” debate among conservative evangelical and more “liberal” scholarship.
Jeffery Jay Lowder of Internet Infidels: “There is simply nothing intrinsically improbable about a historical Jesus; the New Testament alone (or at least portions of it) are reliable enough to provide evidence of a historical Jesus. On this point, it is important to note that even G.A. Wells, who until recently was the champion of the christ-myth hypothesis, now accepts the historicity of Jesus on the basis of ‘Q’.” (”Josh McDowell’s ‘Evidence’ for Jesus”)
British historian Michael Grant: “...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 serious 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.” (Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels [1977], pages 199, 200)
Anglican Bishop N.T. Wright: “It is quite difficult to know where to start, because actually the evidence for Jesus is so massive that, as a historian, I want to say we have got almost as much good evidence for Jesus as for anyone in the ancient world....the evidence fits so well with what we know of the Judaism of the period....that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don’t know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus [aside from one or two]....It is quite clear that in fact Jesus is a very, very well documented character of real history. So I think that question can be put to rest.” (”The Self-Revelation of God in Human History” from There Is A God by Antony Flew and Roy Abraham Varghese [2007])
Robert Van Voorst: “Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their [i.e. Jesus-mythers] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely....The theory of Jesus’ nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question....Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.” (Jesus Outside the New Testament [2000], pages 6, 14, 16)
Shattering the Christ Myth is a welcome addition to the many evangelical defenses of Jesus Christ by well-known scholars such as R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), Moreland/Wilkins (Jesus Under Fire), and recently Boyd/Eddy (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition). As a Catholic apologist, I also appreciated the brief chapter on “Leo’s Line” explaining the “fable quote” sometimes attributed to Pope Leo X by mythicist skeptics.
My only complaint is the book is slightly “oversized” so it is not the size of your normal paperback and may not fit easily on your bookshelf. Nevertheless a definite 5-star effort from apologist J.P. Holding and company.
Phil Porvaznik
Annihilating the Christ Myth
aa << This does not make much sense. In 1977, Grant wrote Christ-myth theory annihilated by first rank scholars, now 30 years later, J P Holding writes that the Jesus-myth is shattered. >>
OK, I’ll try to explain, but I’m no expert on this topic. You should go ahead and get the J.P. Holding book, and write your own fair and detailed review.
Here’s my “story”....
In the mid-1990s I became aware of this whole “Jesus myth” thing from some radical skeptic forums I was involved with on Usenet and FidoNet (particularly the old obnoxious “HolySmoke” forum). At the time I was a beginning Internet “Catholic lay apologist” (mainly inspired by Karl Keating and Catholic Answers) trying to sort out the whole Catholic-Protestant “fundamentalist” debate thing (along with a few Greek/Eastern Orthodox Christians too), and occasionally ventured into the skeptic-Christian debate. At that time the 80-year-old essay by M. M. Mangasarian “The Truth about Jesus : Is He a Myth?” (orig 1909) I remember was regularly posted at HolySmoke and elsewhere. That was my introduction to the “Jesus myth” claims, and I found this very strange that someone would actually deny Jesus even existed. Sure atheists believed God didn’t exist, I knew that already. But that there was no historical Jesus? I never heard that before.
This was back in 1994-95 for me, before Earl Doherty went online, and slightly before the “Internet Infidels” became a site I believe. Other atheists I found online in various discussion forums recommended books by G.A. Wells who was the only well-known “Jesus myth” scholar. What I didn’t know, but later found out, was he was not really a credentialed or professional NT or Jesus scholar, but a teacher of German. Wells had also changed his mind about this time, and now writes in his 2004 book:
“Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book, and Earl Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist.” (G.A. Wells, Can We Trust the New Testament [2004], page 4)
Wells is now saying he never really believed the “mythicist” claim. In the 1970s however, Wells had at least two books that many atheists and skeptics interpreted as arguing for the “Jesus myth” position, and these are probably the books that Michael Grant is referring to above in his 1977 book on Jesus, along with the earlier “Jesus myth” scholars (very few of them) dating back to the late 19th, early 20th century.
These are outlined in J.P. Holding’s book in the chapter by James Hannam “A Historical Introduction to the Myth that Jesus Never Existed.” So yes, the “Jesus myth” position had a very few adherents, beginning explicitly with Bruno Bauer (1809-1882), and later Arthur Drews The Christ Myth (1911), then John M. Robertson (1856-1933) The Historical Jesus (1916) and The Jesus Problem (1917) which argued Jesus was based on some sort of pre-Christian myth, and in the United States by John Remsburg The Christ (1909) that Jesus was a pagan god, and mathematician William B. Smith. However, Hannam writes:
“The generation of Jesus Mythologists represented by Smith and Robertson died out in the 1920s. They had based their work on theories about mythology from the ‘history of religions’ school but scholarship itself moved on, leaving the Jesus Mythologists high and dry....[but] a few amateurs trudged on....It was not until 1971 that the Jesus Myth burst back into life with the work of a polite and erudite Professor of German...George Albert Wells (1926- ).” (J.P. Holding, Shattering, chapter by Hannam, page xiv-xvi)
By the 1920s the earliest “mythicist” claims were answered, annihilated, shattered, and obliterated, and then later in the 1970s when they re-surfaced with G.A. Wells, his bogus claims were again answered, annihilated, shattered and obliterated by such historians as Michael Grant, once again in the 1980s (since Wells was still publishing his books) by the evangelical scholar R.T. France (The Evidence for Jesus), and then in the 1990s when Doherty replaced Wells as the primary “Jesus myth” scholar/historian for the skeptic/atheist community, the J.P. Holding online articles (and now his oversized book) answers, annihilates, shatters, and obliterates their claims all over again in excruciating detailed fashion (in my opinion, read the book for yourself).
Maybe when Doherty admits Jesus existed in a new edition of his book (like Wells did), then Richard Carrier will take over as the new “scholar/historian” for the “Jesus myth” claims and come up with new (or new and improved) arguments from silence for “mythicism.” You never know....
It is also true (just as I said) that this whole “debate” is limited to mainly online discussion forums (such as the Infidels.org) and web sites (and a couple of self-published books) and isn’t addressed by professionals anymore, and is simply ignored by mainstream biblical scholarship and modern historical Jesus studies. E.G. see the Crossans vs. the Craigs, the Borgs vs. the Wrights, the Jesus Seminar or more “liberal” types vs. the evangelicals, or traditional or moderate Catholic scholars like Raymond Brown or John P. Meier, etc. None of these guys are “mythicists” and they do not even address them or their “arguments.” Why? Because there is no real “debate” on the subject, never has been. That is my understanding after carefully studying this subject as an amateur the past 10+ years.
Historical Criteria
Steven << We shall never know, unless Phil reproduces the criteria that Grant used to definitely state that Jesus existed. >>
I have Michael Grant’s 1977 edition of his book, I might be able to type in some of his criteria. Also you are correct that R.T. France conceded the point to Wells on Tacitus, France says: “I find Wells’ argument entirely convincing. Tacitus’ reference to ‘Christus’ is evidence only for what was believed about Christian origins at the time he wrote, and there is plenty of other evidence for that.” (France, Evidence for Jesus, page 23 [1986 edition]). France concedes that Tacitus is not necessarily independent testimony. But on all other evidence, France argues against Wells. J.P. Holding’s book argues differently on Tacitus, citing various scholars.
Wells vs. France/Habermas/Boyd
Steven << Gosh. France agrees with Wells on Suetonius as well! Are you sure France demolished Wells? >>
BTW, Yes I am sure. Tacitus takes up 3 or 4 pages in France’s book, Suetonius a page, Pliny the Younger a page, Josephus 8 pages. The R.T. France book The Evidence for Jesus is 190+ pages so obviously there is more to the book than the non-biblical references to Jesus. He doesn’t concede everything to Wells, he simply agrees that Tacitus does not provide “independent testimony” and that Suetonius and Pliny the Younger give us no additional information about Jesus.
The chapters in the France book are “Non-Christian Evidence” (40 pages), “Christian Evidence Outside the NT” (about 30 pages), “Evidence of the NT” (55 pages), “Evidence of Archaeology” (18 pages), and “Jesus in History” (10 pages). The main G.A. Wells arguments to fall is the supposed “silence of Paul” about Jesus and the unreliability of the NT. Not only France The Evidence for Jesus (1986) demolishes Wells, but also Habermas The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (1996) demolishes Wells, and Boyd/Eddy The Jesus Legend (2007) demolishes both Wells and Doherty, and now J.P. Holding Shattering the Christ Myth also demolishes both Wells and Doherty (in my opinion). Remember G.A. Wells says he never held to the “mythicist position” in the first place! Although many scholars certainly have interpreted his first 2 or 3 books to teach just that.
As for Michael Grant’s historical criterion, although he does not directly address Wells or his arguments, I find him more believable than Wells. Grant is certainly more credentialed to write as a historian on the topic: Michael Grant has been a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, Professor of Humanity at Edinburgh Univ, and President and Vice-Chan of the Queen’s Univ, Belfast. He holds Doctorates of Cambridge, Dublin, and Belfast. His books include The Twelve Caesars, The Army of the Caesars, The Annals of Imperial Rome, and Saint Paul. He is not a believer, but a skeptic.
Here is a summary from Grant’s Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (1977 edition is what I have, it is also available used in the 1995 edition).
“Yet one large, nagging doubt may well still be lodged in the minds of some of those who have read the foregoing chapters. It is this: what reason have we for supposing that the facts as narrated by the Gospels, and presented — with such explanations as I have felt to be necessary — in the course of this book, deserve any degree of belief whatsoever, from the standpoint of historical accuracy?....[this] will require some explanation and justification. In particular, [we] want to have some account of the principles that need to be followed, and the methods that need to be adopted, in deciding which portions of the Gospels can be accepted as historical fact as they stand, or accepted with due reservations or interpretations, or rejected altogether as fictitious inventions by the evangelists or their sources. To offer an adequate answer to these demands is a notoriously hard and challenging task — as the discussions in the course of this book have already, surely, shown. But it must now, briefly, be attempted.” (Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review, page 195-196)
In the next appendix (page 197ff) “Attitudes to the Evidence” some points from Grant are:
there are three possible approaches: one can write as a believer, or as an unbeliever, or as Grant has attempted “as a student of history seeking...to employ methods that make belief or unbelief irrelevant.”
some partial measure of skepticism regarding the Gospel stories is inevitable, if historical standards are going to be applied; this started extremely early, and inside the Church itself as Origen (third century AD) conceded to his pagan opponents that some passages in the Gospels were by no means literal, and indeed absurd or impossible;
this skeptical approach reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth; convincing refutations of this “Christ-myth” hypothesis can be made from an appeal to method (backgrounds in Judaism; similar criteria applied to other ancient writings containing historical material; pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned; etc);
certainly there are discrepancies between one Gospel and another, and there was a growth of legend round Jesus, and it rose very quickly; but the same can be said for such figures as Alexander the Great yet nobody regards him as mythical and fictitious;
modern critical methods fail to support the “Christ-myth” theory; it has again and again been answered by first-rate scholars; in recent years (1977) no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus (except G.A. Wells two 1970s books which he mentions in a footnote);
the historian must first try to decide as best he can, what Jesus said and did, and to consider the significance of (including what Jesus himself attached to) those words and deeds;
the view an historian should take is that everything the evangelists say must be assumed correct until it is proved wrong; the opposite view, that all contents of the Gospels must be assumed fictitious until they are proved genuine is too extreme a viewpoint and would not be applied in other fields; for example: when one builds up facts derived from accounts by pagan historians, judgment often has to be given not in the light of any external confirmation, but on the basis of historical deductions and arguments which attain nothing better than probability — the same applies to the Gospels;
other criterion he mentions are “multiple attestation”; or “attestation by multiple forms” (if a motif is presented more than once in different literary forms, it is more likely genuine); a rejection from the lifetime of Jesus of all material which seems to be derived from the days of the Christian Church as it existed after his death (although difficult to apply this correctly, it provides “our principal valid method of research”); and “form criticism” to eliminate from the Gospels the accretions that were introduced after Jesus’ death; also to “look out for surprises” — anything “really surprising” in the Gospels is quite likely to be authentic (i.e. that which clashes with what we should expect to find in something written after the time of Jesus);
There’s more, but here is Grant’s conclusion: “The consistency, therefore, of the [Jesus] tradition in their [the Gospels] pages suggests that the picture they present is largely authentic. By such methods information about Jesus can be derived from the Gospels. And that is what this book has tried to do.” (page 204)
Special Pleading?
Steven << Grant’s methods are simply special pleading, as he has no real evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. >>
Read Grant’s book or the Boyd/Eddy book. The Gospels are the evidence you are looking for. Josephus also stands (both passages, one partially authentic), see the long detailed chapter on Josephus in J.P. Holding’s book. Did you forget that even G.A. Wells says he never fully believed the “Christ-myth” claim (see his 2004 book which I quoted) ? BTW, Judas is mentioned in all four Gospels (e.g. Matt 10:2ff) and Acts. So is Jesus of Nazareth, and in the Acts, and the NT letters. That’s enough for most historians (like Michael Grant).
1920 to 1970
Earl Doherty << And who are the “first-rank scholars” who have dealt out annihilation prior to Dunkerly’s and Betz’s claims? >>
You may be right on the “lack of annihilation” from “first-rank scholars” but of course there weren’t ever that many books and scholars on the “Jesus myth” claims to answer and/or annihilate in the first place. It looks like Dunkerly (Beyond the Gospels, 1957) and/or Betz (What Do We Know About Jesus, 1968) only had to annihilate the arguments from two or three “Jesus myth” books of their time period (A. Robertson, H. Cutner, and John Allegro, see titles/dates below). The opposite question might be posed:
Who are the first-rank scholars from 1920 to 1970 who even postulated the non-historicity of Jesus (that Jesus did not exist) ?
Apparently, according to the Hannam chapter in J.P. Holding’s book, after the few books that did postulate this in the early 20th century:
“The generation of Jesus Mythologists represented by [William B.] Smith and [John M.] Robertson died out in the 1920s. They had based their work on theories of mythology from the history of religions school but scholarship itself moved on, leaving the Jesus Mythologists high and dry....” (Holding, Shattering the Christ Myth, chapter by James Hannam, page xv)
On the whole “history of religions” approach to scholarship, Eddy/Boyd note:
“While the claim that aspects of the Christian view of Jesus parallel, even are indebted to, ancient pagan legends and myths has a long history, it gained prominence with the birth of the history of religions school (Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries....The history of religions school was extremely popular in academic circles for several decades, but owing to trenchant critiques by such scholars as Samuel Cheetham [1897], H.A.A. Kennedy [1913], J. Gresham Machen [1925], A.D. Nock [1964], Bruce Metzger [1968], and Gunter Wagner [1967], it eventually fell out of fashion.” (The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition [Baker Academic, 2007], pages 134,136).
They also mention a book by W.D. Davies and D. Daube [1956] with a chapter on the demise of the “history of religions” school.
Besides the first “Jesus mythers” from the early 20th century (e.g. Arthur Drews, who claimed all of Paul’s letters were forgeries), Hannam names P.L. Couchoud The Enigma of Jesus (1924) who was a medical doctor, not a biblical scholar, and a French book La Fable de Jesus Christ (1967) by G. Fan. Then there’s Archibald Robertson Jesus: Myth or History (1949) and Herbert Cutner Jesus: God, Man or Myth? (1950). In the 1960s there was John Allegro and his “sacred mushroom” hypothesis.
Was there anybody else?
Among the thousands upon thousands of books and journal articles published on the historical Jesus and Jesus-like topics by thousands of various biblical or classical scholars and historians, can you name any others from 1920 to 1970 (a period of 50 years), that accepted these “great arguments” of the “Jesus myth” types that supposedly weren’t rebutted (or annihilated) properly 100 years ago? Why did these “great arguments” for “Jesus mythicism” die out in mainstream scholarship in the 1920s? Why were these “great arguments” ignored for 50 years?
Maybe Hannam is leaving out a TON of “Jesus myth” scholars from 1920 to 1970 that you know about? Please tell me. BTW, here are the books I own on this topic so far:
Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1977)
The Evidence for Jesus by R.T. France (Intervarsity Press, 1986)
A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (volume 1) by John P. Meier (Anchor / Doubleday, 1991)
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant by John Dominic Crossan (HarperSanFrancisco, 1991)
The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders (The Penguin Press, 1993)
Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus edited by Wilkins / Moreland (Zondervan, 1995)
The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels by L.T. Johnson (HarperSanFrancisco, 1996)
Jesus and the Victory of God by N. T. Wright (Fortress, 1996)
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary Habermas (College Press, 1996)
Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? : A Debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (Baker Academic, 1998)
The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty (Age of Reason, 1999, 2005)
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence by Robert van Voorst (Eerdmans, 2000)
The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition? by Robert M. Price (Prometheus, 2003)
What Have They Done With Jesus? by Ben Witherington III (HarperSanFrancisco, 2006)
Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels by Craig Evans (Intervarsity, 2006)
The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition by Eddy / Boyd (Baker Academic, 2007)
Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI (Doubleday, 2007)
Shattering the Christ Myth: Did Jesus Not Exist? edited by James Patrick Holding (Xulon Press, 2008)
I now own all of these books but it’s gonna take some time to read them all a couple times so I understand the arguments. Hope to finish Part 2 of my little “historical Jesus” project by Christmas 2008. Part 2 will summarize what I consider the best evidence for Jesus (arguments and data culled from the above books), a brief refutation of “The God Who Wasn’t There” DVD, and the best responses to Doherty’s book. Part 1 on “pagan parallels” is finished. I am an amateur, like most of us, and like Peter Kirby (thanks for his review of Habermas), but I do enjoy this “online debate” we have (even if it’s ignored by mainstream scholarship).
A Billion Believers
aa << You actually BELIEVE in your heart that Jesus ROSE from the DEAD, floated through the clouds and will come back for you when you DIE in Jesus Christ. >>
Yep, me and a billion other Catholics (according to World Christian Encyclopedia raw stats). Not sure about the floating part, but the ascension does require at least a “going up” and disappearing into the “dimension” of heaven. And yes Christ’s return is part of the classic Christian creeds. “He will return to judge the living and the dead.”
And I actively go out of my way to read the best stuff against my beliefs as well. I am unique like that. I have one Robert Price book, one G.A. Wells book, the Doherty book, several atheist books (Dan Barker, Vic Stenger, Richard Dawkins, David Mills, George Smith, etc), and I defend evolution often at the Catholic Answers boards. Hooray!
Real Debate
ChristMyth << The idea that this Jesus was “Christ” however is still something that needs to be shown to be valid. In my mind, it is his divinity that is in question. >>
That’s the “real” scholarly debate. The “historical Jesus didn’t exist” isn’t a valid debate in today’s NT or Jesus scholarship. The “Jesus of history” vs. the “Christ of faith” is what divides traditional Catholics and conservative evangelicals on the one side, from “Jesus Seminar” or more “liberal” branches of Christian scholars on the other. The Wrights vs. the Borgs (The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions), the Craigs vs. the Crossans (Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?), and that is a more “respectable” debate in my opinion since at least it represents a sizeable number of people on each side.
Craig vs. Crossan (mp3)
Craig vs. Borg (mp3)
Wright vs. Crossan (mp3)
This “historical Jesus didn’t exist” business is only found here on this site, other spin-off atheist or “freethought” sites, other eccentrics and cranks (Acharya S, Freke/Gandy), and one semi-scholarly book today: Earl Doherty’s. And J.P. Holding’s book does a number on all of these.
Please Make Sense
aa << You are just not making sense. You appear to just chatter about shatter. >>
I thought the message was clear and I’ve been consistent. Here it is again:
there are people on the Internet who “think” there is this “big debate” going on about whether an historical Jesus existed (these are people who ONLY read Internet Infidels, Rational Responders, and other atheist/skeptic/freethought sites, but ignore mainstream NT or Jesus scholarship);
J.P. Holding’s book was written for such people, or for other people (like myself) who know there is no real debate on this topic but would like the best arguments against “Jesus mythicism” anyway, so they can engage in this bogus “online debate”;
The truth in actual NT and Jesus scholarship is there is no debate on whether Jesus existed since it was shattered 100 years ago, again 50 years ago, again 30 years ago (e.g. Michael Grant), again 20 years ago (e.g. R.T. France), again 10 years ago (e.g. John P. Meier), again last year (e.g. Eddy/Boyd), and again a couple weeks ago by J.P. Holding and company (i.e. there wasn’t much shattering necessary, just the few cranks, eccentrics on “copycat” and “pagan parallel” conspiracies, and some “scholarly” arguments from silence that need answering);
The real debate is between more conservative or “traditional” biblical scholars (Catholic, or evangelical, or Orthodox) who affirm Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and those liberals or modernist scholars (Catholic, or Protestant, or Orthodox or skeptics) and others who reject that.
I answered your question, pointed out that it was a triviality. You danced around mine.
You’re simply a dishonest debater. You’re not even conservative.
We'll see who's willing to imagine it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.