No, what I am saying is that, especially with regards to religion, people tend to get very loose and authoritative with terminology. For example, we can verify many things about the duel involving Aaron Burr. We cannot however, verify exactly what took place (for example, did Burr fire his shot into the air as opposed to at his target), but we can specualte from the evidence we have. The difference, in my estimation, is that historians are usually very alert to qualify to the reader when they are making their educated guesses. Apologist, and to a certain extent, New Testament scholars, often are not as guarded, because their "best probabilities" are also going to be considered as articles of faith, whereas, the exact circumstances surrounding Burr's fateful day are not.

For example, Irenæus, when he quotes the phrase from the epistle, does not attribute it to anyone except a vague "man". Now, when we have our debates about "lower criticism", which usually involves debates within the Christian community, these things can be freely discussed. When it moves to "higher criticism", these debate points are glossed over, especially if its a key point in maintaining internal structure.

Think about that for a moment, inside the larger Christian community, there can be internal debate over what is authentic, usually based on sectarian points of view that the ancient document is alleged to support or criticize. In other words, its completely acceptable to admit that these documents suffer from possible interpolations. But, once that document, or at least the importance for having said documents comes into higher criticism, the Christian community will unite behind the authenticty of its importance.

Take, for example, the order and the dates the Gospels are said to come to us. The "majority" of scholars will tell us that the "Markan" priority is most commonly accepted, and that Luke and Matthew are enlargements of that. But doesn't that mean Luke and Matthew cannot be considered "eyewitness" testimony? In fact, both Luke and Mark don't claim to be eyewitness testimony. The "Matthew" and "John" who wrote their corresponding gospels don't even claim to be disciples, yet we assume they are. So, if Matthew the eyewitness and Matthew the disciple are the same person, why does he copy from Mark? And if we accept the basic source criticism, then how can some claim a harmonization of the Gospels? If author A uses source B yet differs at some point from B, then A has modified B; they are not independent.

So you have to understand why I get a bit exasperated when you keep repeating the phrase "majority opinion" and "universally agreed", because you are deliberatly or ignorantly using a higher criticism defense when we get into lower criticism questions. I really don't care to get into Catholic versus Protestant and Dutch Radical discussions which are based in fine points of theological differences. My point, and the point of critics who are "hostile" to the claims of authenticty, is that as soon as we dare enter these lower criticism discussions, we are brushed back with higher criticism justifications. This, because, those of us without an interest of faith about the subject, have no problem declaring the whole thing spurious, which is simply a positon most of the theological camps are not going to jump on board with.

Harvey1, I have no idea what your background is, perhaps you do this type of thing professionally. You certainly speak with air of certainty about your position. I will admit, I cannot. I attended college for only three years, ran out of money, and fell into a completely different line of work than I thought was destined for me. That destiny for me, while I attended college, was pursuing a degree in History, possibly teaching. I cannot claim to be an historian since I have no degree nor am I associated with that line of work. But while I was studying, I was exposed to the historical method, I was exposed to the different ways in which we attempt to verify things, and what was the most proper way of presenting one's views with some sort of historical relevance. You don't have to take anything I say as anything more than an ignorant opinion, that's fine with me.

We diagree, I don't know why you would think that your words that appear to claim more than can be proven would move me towars your position. In my view, your "facts" are glued together with faith, and that glue has had centuries of application. I don't fault you for what you want to believe, but your standards of what are acceptable for consenting to something are different than mine. I'm not saying they are better or worse, they are simply different. You reassure yourself with "majority opinions" and "universal acceptance", I reassure myself with independent thought and examination. That doesn't mean you don't think independently at times or that I am not more than willing to line up with the majority belief in certain situations. However, in this general area, we are certainly not of the same mind, and I'm fine with that. But, you should know, I'm not as frightened or deterred by these majorities and universialities, so please understand, continue to use them if need be for your own reassurances. I've been quite aware I am swimming against the stream on this issue for quite some time.

-TC

Well maybe so.. I think there were a lot of "Christianities" and various groups and only later more cohesion... I'm sure Christians would like to see the earliest dates possible assigned to the Gospels.

I personally think that the verbal traditions or Logias went back to Jesus Himself and the Gospels were later "fleshed" around them.

- Art

__________________
"it benefits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God."
- Johannes Kepler

Hi TC,


I don't think faith is at all associated with most liberal scholarship, and just occasionally in conservative scholarship. You'd have to show me historians of other specialities who are criticizing scholarship happening in the biblical periods. Many scholars are trained in secular schools under a variety of programs, so what you're saying to me is completely foreign.


If this was the whole story, then there would be extensive doubting on Ignatius. However, even Irenaeus refers to Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians which refers to Ignatius by name. In addition, a few years after Irenaeus we have Origen who refers specifically to Ignatius (i.e., refering to Ignatius's Epistle to the Ephesians 19.1):



TC, most biblical scholars don't make this assumption (unless they are fundamentalists, which is a category of exegesis that I don't at all favor).

I think that all of these discussions are based only on the evidence. The purpose of mentioning opinion is to provide an external viewpoint of how critical thought in the scholarly world perceives this evidence. If you want to pull away from probablistic thinking, that's fine. However, that means that you give up your own ability to say what it is that you have been providing hypotheses concerning.

Would I buy it? Absolutely not. I've recently been doing quite a bit of reading about the Gnostics and how their beliefs, traditions and rites were wiped out by the likes of Irenaeus. I have come to see that we have been fed only one side of the early Christian story and it is the side of the traditional church. Much of the rich history of that time had been lost until the discoveries of the Gnostic texts in Egypt in the mid 1940s.

Since then we have had an opportunity to explore other forms of Christianity that were repressed by the church. These readings have been, for me, truly illuminating. They have given me another different view of the early church and church doctrine and dogma today. I haven't ascribed to the church dogma for years and these Gnostic writings made me realize afresh that the early church history leaves much to be desired in its truthfulness.

Many years ago I took a history course on the topic of the war between the French and English in Quebec. The first book we had to read was a book about how history is written. This book discussed the fact that most history is written from the point of view of the victor and thus is one-sided.

We then had to read two histories of that time...one written from an English point of view and the other for a French point of view. You'd have thought you were reading about two totally separate and different events. These two books were like night and day.

This sure made me realize that we need to take our history with a grain of salt...it's all slanted, IMO. It was a most enlightening exercies and one I've made use of ever since, and continue to apply to my reading about Christian history as well.

Maggie

__________________
So much to learn and see and do

Hi Maggie,


I probably misunderstand you, but that doesn't sound quite right to me because Irenaeus used a pen to try and "wipe out" his opponents. Surely you aren't suggesting that people who use pens and ideas to win over by argumentation aren't "wiping people out" unfairly. Are you?


Does evidence play any role in how you decide historical events, or is your mind already made up?

I think you are missing the point. Egyptology is a specific area of study comparable to New Testament scholarship. The difference is the Egyptian cosmology and religion is not practiced by very many today. There is very little pressure on such scholars to present their findings with words that reflect the uncertainty of opinion with their background in the subject. Dr. Hawas does not probably consider himself a devotee of Horus or Ra. He doesn't have throngs of people who believe the Egyptian idea of the "First Time" when it was asserted that the now mythologized Egyptian gods were also considered real people and we have no problem today safely classifying this as myth.

Dr. Crossan, on the other hand, despite being an outstanding scholar in his field is unabashedly a Christian. And while he may level excellent criticism at textual evidence for the Christian religion, his study never really counts the possibility these characters may be just as fictional as the Egyptian counterparts. He has a stake in it, personally and professionally. It drives his quest to find the historical Jesus, but it also does not let him consider the possibility he's chasing a myth. Instead he discounts the mythical attributes only to try and find his "real person". A person that is so unremarkable without the supernatural aspects, one is left really puzzled why such a person is even notable in the first place? He is not described by the Gospels minus his supernatural abilities, and he is not maintained by the early Christians without them either. So it strikes me as a bit odd to strip such a character of these things that make him remarkable to search for this utterly unremarkable person that really only seems to project what the researchers hope to find because there is no evidence of this "man".


Sure, I noted the extreme case, but even you are advocating an earlier date for the Gospels even though they are not referenced by name until Irenaeus in the late second century. As I'm sure you are aware, scholars try in vain to find hypothetical source documents such as Q, Ur-Marcus, and Ur-Lukas. In doing so, they overlook the obvious, which is that Marcion does have a Gospel out prior to the end of the second century, but is always discounted as a plagarization from Luke, or another canonical Gospel. This despite the fact, that as Justin Martyr rages against Marcion, he never once claims he copies from the Gospels that are supposedly in existence in the Christian community at this time.

That's evidence, and its evidence that's ignored not because they are being completely objective, its ignored because its a threat to their preconceived notion about how early Christianity started. Sure, it might be mentioned in passing, but it is always bypassed with a phrase reminiscent of "but most scholars still believe the Gospels were in existence by this time", without any real reason to do so. Some of the more conservative will claim Justin does quote from, I believe, Matthew, but that isn't what Justin claims, nor are the allusions really quotes. Justin does cite Memoirs of the Apostles, believed to possibly have been the Gospel of the Hebrews, which has inexplicably been lost. Its these types of loose associations that don't ring authentic to me. When I read the arguments for and against, the arguments against always seem more likely to me. But again, an historical Jesus is not a preconceived notion for me, I can take it or leave it, because if there is such an historical person, it would only be the type Crossan believes is there, which frankly doesn't impress me that much for anything. Might as well chalk that figure up next to Zeno, who cares. Jesus is special because of the myths attributed to him, and its the claim that these myths actually happened in history that is the force behind the claim to authenticity for Christianity. If one counters that its the "personal relationship" that's actually important, that's great, but that doesn't require a real person in history, that could be taught with the Gnostic notion of a Cosmic Christ just as easily.


I have no problem with probablistic thinking, as long as we remind ourselves that's what we are doing. You think the evidence probably point to an historical event and person, I think it probably points to a non-historical event and person, but, does point to an historical movement which had various interpretations in which one eventually won out. You think it won out because nobody doubted the history of it. I think it won out because it eventually became the more politically advantageous position.

I mean, just look at the council of Nicea. Constantine, declares the historical camp victorious, but doesn't convert until his deathbed. The person who argued against what Constantine would declare victorious signs a document that he has changed his stance (or face exile) and becomes the official Church historian. Arguably two of the most important people once the Christian religion gains its most favored status, yet neither of them agreed with the doctrine until it became advantageous for them to do so. Isn't that odd? For my skeptical mind, it raises a serious red flag. Constantine gains another means of controlling the masses through the Church, which is now the proxy between religious adoration and the One True God, and in exchange for lending his considerable reputation to the newly declared "truth" and abandoning his previous position, Eusebius gets to collect and write most of what is considered the history of the religion. Plus much more comfortable quarters than exile would have afforded him.

How familiar are you with Professor Crossan? He is the first to admit fictional elements. What I think you might misunderstand TC is that for the far majority of scholars in this field they are scholars first, lay members of their religious or secular ideologies... a distant sixth. You mentioned Robert Price as one of your resources in your last post in the debate forum. Actually, Price is a Chrisitan preacher. He's an excellent preacher, btw, and I love his articles. He's agnostic to the physical existence of historical Jesus, and doesn't think it really matters.

A number of years back I too was actually leaning toward Jesus's non-existence until I began researching the evidence. I was fully prepared to take a Pricean view of Christianity, and actually I don't think it would change Christianity all that much if that so happened to be where Christians ended up. I don't that Crossan or many other good scholars would allow their scholarship to be affected by their personal religious beliefs. We see this more clearly with Bart Ehrman who didn't actually become non-Christian because of scholarship. He left Christianity for philosophical reasons totally unrelated, according to him, due to his scholarship. Surely, if he felt the evidence pushed him to accept Jesus mythicism, he would have moved over to this position.


Well, there's very good reason to believe that Jesus was predominantly a healer. Even Ehrman will tell you that. However, the Gospels are built on strata layers that allow scholars to peep into the earliest layers where many of these supernatural abilities are missing. Jesus makes statements in these earliest records to show how Jewish Christians originally perceived him.


All the more reason to add to his historicity if there exists the earliest strata that shows him as an entirely human figure who gets angry, makes mistakes, lacks omniscience, shows signs of uncertainty, makes embarrassing displays, is inconsistent at times, etc. Jesus was a real human being.


Marcion accepted Luke. And, there are a thousand good reasons to think that Mark predates Luke by at least 15-20 years. And, we have Ignatius, Polycarp, I Clement who all refer to the Gospels in their writings. So, in my opinion you are just ignoring the hard evidence in favor of an ideology. This is what good scholars try not to do. It's a millstone in one's career if they did that.


It's just not so, TC. There's even paleographical evidence for a fragment that shows that a Gospel was in existence at least by around 125 CE. It would be completely unscholarly to reject the accummulation of all this evidence. This would be to give in to card stacking fallacies to maintain a view of Greek mythology origins. You can't approach scholarship with these kind of heavy biases.


There's a lot more that goes into referring to other literature than an ancient writer naming chapter and verse. It seems that you may not be familiar with textual analysis.


This is all fourth century stuff, TC. It might seem to you that it doesn't matter, but it does matter. If you want to talk the historicity of Jesus and the immediate era that followed, then we need to address the small, persecuted, and scattered church that existed at this time.

Just one update on Robert Price. It seems he's no longer a preacher after 2004. This is his comments on his website after accessing it:

Like I said, Harvey1, I'm more than willing to discuss all this "evidence" with you. All I ask is that you present the evidence and dispense with the long diatribes that are really more an attack the delusion you believe me o be under, than on arguing why it ought to be considered "evidence". We have opposing views, we both believe we have good reasons for maintaining those views. You think I'm ignoring, but I've read the supposed evidence you bring and to me, with my methodology, just don't buy it.

This idea that Jesus was famous because he was a healer? They were a dime a dozen. He's remembered, because it was claimed, he ROSE FROM THE DEAD, and anybody who tries to tell you anything else is selling you something! He's not revered and remembered because he healed the living of his time, he revered and remembered because he promises to heal you from eternal death. We don't occupy our time in digging up the pieces of Aesclepius because he was a famous healer. We look with disdain at faith healers in the same sense. If he cured someone famous, at least would could give good cause as to why he was held in higher esteem. He operated within an area of about 90 miles, most of that the "fly over" country of its day.

On Price:


I agree, I don't think it matters either, I'm just not as agnostic on where I think the evidence points. In other words, starting with a mythic Christ is actually more probable than searching in vain for an actual anonymous Jewish guy which they can pin all these myths on. That's the point. Paul is all about a risen Christ, is not concerned with his supposed historical presence, and the very few references that are supposed to "evidence" he thinks this risen Christ was a real person are debatable and frankly anonymous. Yet, we are to believe, that people writing well after the fact, who never met this anonymous person decided it was important to have said anonymous person be the subject upon which they will heap this massive amount of mythological baggage and mystical allegorization. Why on earth, would anyone go to the trouble to find such an anonymous person, who isn't at all important to the theological premise you want to assert. Isn't it much more efficient to simply leave any allusion to such an anonymous person, completely anonymous? Was there a real Hermes Tresmegistus, a real King Arthur? Is it really important to why we remember them if there was?

Robert Price on Zindler's, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew:


On D. M. Murdock's (Acharya S) new book, Fingerprints of the Christ:


Or on her previous book, Suns of God:

From Cassels again: