It’s been a while since I bothered with JP Holding’s site, but from what I recall, he’s not a professional historian either.
While I think that, on balance, the evidence tips towards a historical Jesus, the evidence is not overly impressive. I’m not actually aware of all that many compelling arguments for Jesus’s historicity. Bart Ehrman is working on an E-book of sorts, that will be out soon where he is going to provide a case for Jesus’s historicity.
In any event, most historians take Jesus’s historicity for granted, as it’s an easier explanation for the rise of the church. That’s not a compelling argument, IMO.
I agree with Dr. Price, in that I think the most compelling argument for Jesus’s existence is the fact that the succession issues are similar to that of other religions (such as Islam). I should note that Price ultimately has reasons against this and does not think the evidence warrants a historical Jesus.
Cecil, bless his heart, is not a historian either. Further, Richard Carrier is not the ‘sole modern exception’. Dr. Price is another who doubts that Jesus existed. I believe there are a few more, but if you were going to say that the minority opinion is the mythicists opinion, I’d agree. Since you are saying that it’s only Dr. Carrier, well, that’s demonstratively wrong.
Well, as I said in an earlier post, there’s obviously a spectrum, but I’d say cutting off the tip of a baby’s penis for religious reasons is well over the line.
And just because a guy shown no overt signs of being a raving nut doesn’t mean that he’s not crazy. The people who went on the First Crusade (I’m referring to the one that was mostly peasants) were presumably completely normal by all outward appearances, doing all the things you said – going to work every day, marrying and raising a family. OK, I concede that your average 11th-century peasant didn’t go to college or invest, but you know what I mean.
But then, out of the blue, here comes Peter the Hermit telling them that God wants them to drop everything and walk hundreds of miles to the Holy Land and rescue it from the evil followers of Mahound. And so off they go, killing Jews along the way. When they reach Constantinople, the horrified Byzantines, who had expected a disciplined army of knights rather than a peasant rabble, just ferry them across the strait into Asia Minor, where they are promptly annihilated by the Turks (I stole that last part from Isaac Asimov).
That’s crazy. And I submit that they didn’t become crazy the day they took off for Palestine; they had to be crazy before that, or they wouldn’t have gone.
The fact that you express the proposition using Aristotelian logic would indicate that you are crazy or to use the terminology of General Semantics, unsane. Of course, that doesn’t exclude the proposition that Bachmann and Perry aren’t unsane also.
I personally have seen no evidence that I find credible that would require the existence of a supreme being, but the fact that other people do simply fails to offend me. I tend to evaluate religion operationally. If your religion leads you to acts of charity and kindness for your fellow man, then your religion is good. If your religion causes you to strap on a bomb and run into a crowd of people with different beliefs, then your religion is bad. The fact that these people often say they belong to the same religion had led me to suspect that most people bring out of religion whatever they brought in with them.
Also brainwashing is a semantically loaded word. Parents are supposed to educate their children. The fact that their beliefs are not identical to yours doesn’t mean it is brainwashing or that what you do to yours isn’t brainwashing. Frankly I am less offended that parents choose to pass their religious beliefs on to their children than some secular parents choose not to vaccinate theirs.
Both of those statements are correct. As I said earlier though, one need not be a professional historian in order to offer valid statements regarding history. The problem with Michael Martin is not merely that he lacks any historical credentials. Rather, the problem is that he is untrained in such matters and his statement flies in the face of the virtually unanimous opinion of professional historians. He also demonstrates considerable ignorance regarding historical methods.
Therein lies the problem. If the professional historians of the world – theist and non-theist, Christian and non-Christian – are virtually unanimous in affirming that Jesus existed, and if an untrained layperson argues that he did not, who is more likely to be correct?
That’s an extremely simplistic view of the evidence. The problem is isn’t merely that it’s an “easier” argument for the church’s existence. Rather, there are multiple other factors to consider – the lack of any early documents from hostile sources arguing against his existence, for example. There’s the fact that we have documents from multiple sources – the Gospels, the Epistles, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers – which either directly or indirectly allude to his existence. (Some of these were written within just a few decades – a large time period by modern standards, but a small one by the standards of ancient history.) We have two allusions from the wirings of Josephus, and even if we were to disregard one of them (the Testimonium Flavianum), we would still have an uncontested excerpt which make mention of James, the brother of Jesus. There’s the lack of any plausible competing theory that would simultaneously account for all of these facts. And so forth, and so on.
Now, I’m not saying that all of these arguments are 100% airtight. When it comes to matters of ancient history, the evidence is seldom beyond any dispute whatsoever. The point remains that the bulk of the evidence – both direct and indirect – points to his actual existence, and this evidence goes far beyond merely accounting for the church’s existence. That’s why even historians who are hostile to Christianity almost invariably accept that he genuinely existed.
If you’re talking about Robert M. Price, his background is in Theology and New Testament studies. I see nothing in his Wikipedia biography to indicate that he strictly qualifies as an historian. Even if we were to accept that he qualifies as an historian though, that still only makes two individuals – Carrier and Price – arguing against the overwhelming opinion of modern scholarship.
Ultimately though, that is a minor point. I am at least glad we can agree that the overwhelming bulk of historical scholarship does indeed agree that Jesus of Nazareth genuinely existed.
I’m glad that we agree on that point. Ultimately, that’s what I’ve been arguing in this thread. When skeptics say that the Bible is devoid of historical value – placing it on a par with the Harry Potter books or the Iliad – this demonstrates that they have not done any basic research into this matter.
Therein lies the irony. This thread started with the question of whether religious people are insane; after all, nobody would believe in witches, warlocks and magic simply because they read a Harry Potter book. As it turns out though, the people who argue for that viewpoint clearly have not done any basic research into how the holy writs of the world – and specifically, the Bible – differ from writings of JK Rowling and the ancient Greek Homer. It’s rather poor form to cast aspersions on the sanity of religious people when one’s own viewpoint is informed by presuppositions rather than actual evidence.
Your argument presupposes that one should disregard the Bible competely – as opposed to, say, examining the contents and evaluating each statement individually using the criteria of historical analysis. In other words, your response is a circular argument.
And, as I have pointed out more than once, Michael Martin has no credentials as an historical scholar. His statement also contradicts the overwhelming opinion of actual professional historians. Ergo, that objection is invalid.
The OP had nothing to do with historical value; that is your obsession. I and most atheists I know accept that the Bible is one of the best sources for the history of the ancient Israelites — but that is damning with faint praise, because there are not many sources, and none of them follow anything like modern standards of objectivity.
The fact that you seem to equate Harry Potter with the Iliad with regard to historical value shows that you are the one who needs to brush up on history.
It would be a circular admission to have the Bible be its own site. You’re missing that point.
Let’s see. Your argument is missing the definition of “professional historians” and uses weasel words such as “overwhelming opinion”. Thus, your counter is invalid.
It depends on the arguments and evidence. Had you asked me in the middle ages, with regard to the earth’s orbit, obviously the appeal to authority would result in a wrong answer.
Further, while I grant that it’s the minority opinion, I haven’t actually seen any detailed studies on the positions of the historians of the world. Can you provide those studies?
It’s a simplistic view, but it distills it down. Most arguments that are pro Jesus aren’t impressive, such as the one you put forth here (no offense). I should note that I would have the same reservations for a lot of ‘historical’ figures. My view is that it’s more parsimonious to accept these historical figures, but that’s about it - I wouldn’t say we should be very confident of their existence.
I don’t know why you would be expect documents arguing against his existence, much less that those documents would have survived. When Jesus was supposed to have gotten started, his following was extremely small. By the time it got large enough to garner notice, it was several decades after the fact. How would they show that he didn’t exist? Did the people at the time have extensive arguments against other demi-god’s existence?
The Gospels all rely on Mark, their is a good argument that they aren’t meant to be historical, and they contradict one another. The Epistles are Paul’s works and he never met the ‘historical’ Jesus and says very little about Jesus’s life. As to the Apostolic fathers, which one’s are you talking about ? The ones that come hundreds of years after the fact?
None of these sources you mention are eye witness accounts. I should mention that I’m very sympathetic to Carrier’s spiritual Jesus hypothesis, even though I think that it was a result of a historic core.
I’m not sure how this matters, since none of them were eye witnesses of a historical Jesus.
Josephus can attest to Christians living around 90 AD and what Christians might have believed, but again, this isn’t an eye witness account. Further, ‘brother’ has multiple meanings in early Christianity. It need not refer to flesh and blood.
The plausible theory is actually a good criticism and it’s one of the reasons I find Jesus mythicism reaching. So I’ll give you that, but it’s similar to what I’ve already mentioned.
My point in countering your claims is to show that they aren’t very conclusive. Or, rather, I should say they aren’t as conclusive as the people who tend to argue that Jesus’s existence is something we can say with a great deal of confidence.
The arguments that you’ve put forward (with exception of the last one) aren’t all that great. This is what I was suggesting. I’m not suggesting that there is no evidence at all - I put forth an argument that you didn’t mention (in this thread or the other one), which is the analogy argument.
None of these arguments are home runs. None of them provide a huge amount of confidence. This is my point.
Fair enough - can you please link me with a study that shows the majority positions of ancient historians who study this issue?
I think the Epistles are more ‘historical’ then the Gospels. I find the Gospels very suspicious and I do not think they are meant to be historical documents (Luke as an exception, however since it relies on Mark…).
Another thing to bring to the table is the amount of interpolations and changes going on in the church. I think the early church went through a lot of changes in the early years and that it’s possible (maybe probable) that the ‘truth’ of the matter is lost to us.