"Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths?"

[bjorn]

Stephen Law is continuing his quest against historians who are so naive and unscholarly as to believe that there is good evidence for a historical Jesus, at stephenlaw.blogspot.no/2013/07/my-response-to-william-lane-craigs.html

Though it to an untrained eye may look like an alpha male contest with Lane Craig on the resurrection.

Some excerpts:

"In the article, I challenge the standards and criteria employed by many of those engaged in New Testament Studies. The paper begins by clearly pointing this out. The opening lines are:

“The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views.”

Indeed, I go on to question three of the main criteria Biblical historians use in arriving at the conclusion that Jesus’ existence is established beyond reasonable doubt.

It’s obviously hopelessly question-begging, as a response to an argument that questions the authority/expertise of those working in a certain field, to appeal to their authority. If I published a paper arguing on philosophical grounds that the methodology of homeopaths is flawed and their conclusions therefore untrustworthy, it obviously won’t do to say in response, “Bah Humbug! The homeopaths say this is rubbish!” Craig is making a no less question-begging move here."

[fortigurn]

“The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views.”

I note that these people always talk about 'Biblical scholars' and 'Biblical historians' believing there is sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus, as if they are the only scholars or historians who do. No one says 'The vast majority of philosophers believe there is evidence sufficient to place the existence of Socrates and Aristotle beyond reasonable doubt'.

The historicity of Jesus has been established by historians, so naturally non-historians who study the New Testament texts will accept the historicity of Jesus, and don't need to re-invent that wheel. Similarly, philosophers don't spend their time defending the existence of Socrates and Aristotle, they acknowledge this has already been established by historians, and get on with discussing the philosophy.

In passing, who is Stephen Law, and why should anyone care about what he says?

[bjorn]

Jul 17, 2013 14:35:28 GMT fortigurn said:

In passing, who is Stephen Law, and why should anyone care about what he says?

A bestselling British philosopher who lately has turned his attention to philosophy of religion, and has more and more become a voice in media.

Law has been debating Lane Craig and has come up with in my wiew rather contrived arguments against the existence of God ("The Evil God Challenge") and of Jesus.

[ignorantianescia]

Jul 17, 2013 9:01:53 GMT fortigurn said:

Jul 17, 2013 8:47:40 GMT ignorantianescia said:

I'll outline some more details, which indicate he did not do any half-serious research for his claims and likely only read the version of the Acharya S groupies you found.

Most informative, thank you. It's always a pleasure to read a post by someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Thanks. It was actually just some thirty minutes of reading material (thus half-serious), but of course this Mythicist couldn't be bothered to check. Just like thousands of YECs. For who's interested, here are the sources I used:

sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=4 (English, sufficient for a solid impression)
www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/jobundberuf/theologenstreit-irrlehrer-luedemann-hofft-aufs-hoechste-gericht-a-303597.html (German)
www.spiegel.de/unispiegel/studium/unglaeubiger-theologe-lehrstuhl-bleibt-verloren-a-383224.html (German)
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_L%C3%BCdemann (German)

[wraggy]

As far as I can recall the early polemicists raised objections to Jesus being a prophet/Messiah but none of those objections included the accusation that he did not exist. Is this correct?

Also does my friend have a point when he says, quote:

They assume, a priori, that Jesus must have existed and work from there without ever substantiating the claim first. Meanwhile, they have no problem accepting that Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other 'godmen', are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures. So, they're all mythicists EXCEPT when it comes to Jesus.

I was thinking in terms of the gospel of Luke's statement.

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35.

Does this give support to their mythic godman idea?
Maybe the Terrible Twins can can help here.

Also, were not some Roman Emporers and even Alexander the great deified in some fashion? And would that not rule out his contention that " So, they're all mythicists EXCEPT when it comes to Jesus."

[sankari]

Jul 18, 2013 4:07:01 GMT wraggy said:

As far as I can recall the early polemicists raised objections to Jesus being a prophet/Messiah but none of those objections included the accusation that he did not exist. Is this correct?

Also does my friend have a point when he says, quote:

They assume, a priori, that Jesus must have existed and work from there without ever substantiating the claim first. Meanwhile, they have no problem accepting that Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other 'godmen', are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures. So, they're all mythicists EXCEPT when it comes to Jesus.

Firstly, I would like to see a list of these alleged Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, and Roman 'godmen.'

Secondly, I would like to see the evidence that might be advanced in support of their literal existence.

Thirdly, the question is flawed because it does not accurately represent the search for the historical Jesus, which says absolutely nothing about a 'godman.' The whole point of the search is to discover the mundane Jesus at the heart of the early Christian cult.

Does this give support to their mythic godman idea?

Not even close.

[ignorantianescia]

It is also worthy to note that several scholars, but I don't know whether they're a majority, support the existence of Zarathustra, though there are disagreements in dating him with proposed dates spanning over a millennium. Now he was not a "godman", but neither does the New Testament describe Jesus as a "godman" as Sankari said.

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.
Luke 1:35.

Does this give support to their mythic godman idea?

Only if the meaning of "Son of God" in Jewish context is ignored and a Pagan face-value interpretation is used. Nor is this related to Pagan deities being promiscuous with their human subjects.

Also, were not some Roman Emporers and even Alexander the great deified in some fashion? And would that not rule out his contention that " So, they're all mythicists EXCEPT when it comes to Jesus."

That is correct. However, the astrotheologists would probably retort that this is just post-death superstition, though that isn't true.

[fortigurn]

Now you made me post a comment to Laws.

"P2 Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth."

I would like to see this argument accompanied by evidence for its merit (the Bert analogy does not comprise such evidence). Does this argument follow standard professional historiographical methodology?

"Indeed, I go on to question three of the main criteria Biblical historians use in arriving at the conclusion that Jesus’ existence is established beyond reasonable doubt."

Actually it seems you address the 'criteria of authenticity', which are supposed to be used to determine which parts of the gospel records are authentic records of Jesus. Their purpose is to differentiate between authentic Jesus traditions and inauthentic traditions, not to establish the historicity of Jesus. They are not 'criteria of historicity', they are 'criteria of authenticity'. If Craig is citing them as 'criteria of historicity' then he is wrong.

"It’s obviously hopelessly question-begging, as a response to an argument that questions the authority/expertise of those working in a certain field, to appeal to their authority."

Does your argument actually provide valid grounds on which to question the current professional historiographical method, and dismiss professional historians as equivalent to homeopaths? Your homeopath example is invalid, by the way, because homeopaths are people claiming to do science while being completely unqualified in science. But professional historians are doing historiography while being academically qualified in historiography. I would trust a professional historian to know more about historiography than a philosopher (not least because the historians entire field of study is ground in reality rather than imagination).

"And, as I point out in the paper, there is controversy, not only about the extent to which the Josephus passages have been tampered with by Christians, but also about the extent to which we can be confident Josephus’s information ultimately traces back to non-Christian sources."

Could you provide evidence of the extent of this controversy among those best qualified to address the issue? I don't mean pointing to blogs on which Mytherists say it's controversial, I mean evidence from people who are actually qualified to know what they are talking about. Carrier claims both passages in Josephus are interpolations, but cites only two articles, one written in 1990 and the other written by himself (!). I don't regard this as evidence that the case has been concluded in his favour.

[jamierobertson]

Further to what fortigurn wrote above - can anyone here shed more light on this claim of Law's?

Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth

This seems rather arbitrary to me, but am happy to be enlightened by anyone of a philosophical bent... JimS, I'm looking in your direction...

[fortigurn]

Jul 18, 2013 9:24:54 GMT jamierobertson said:

Further to what fortigurn wrote above - can anyone here shed more light on this claim of Law's?

It certainly struck me as odd; I wasn't aware that this is standard historiographical methodology.

[jamierobertson]

Just noticed that he goes into more detail in his article atstephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philosophy-2011.html. Not read it through properly yet though.

[ignorantianescia]

Jamie, if you've read it, you should also read this comment on it by Humphrey Clarke:

bedejournal.blogspot.nl/2012/04/pd-off.html

I think at this stage I have to present my own set of principles:

1) The Gavin Menzies principle – history and the methodology of historical research should be the art of historians who are properly qualified in their fields. Philosophers, English professors and retired submarine commanders can popularise, but beyond that should STFU (especially if they are 'introducing a new paradigm') .

2) The Egregious Jargon principle – history should remain free of the type of meaningless twaddle I have witness over the past few weeks – this would include Bayes probability theorem, obscure Marxist terminology, postmodern waffle, p’s q’s I’s brackets and other the other assorted excel formulas that seem to be creeping in.

3)The James the Just principle – People that don't exist don't tend to have flesh and blood brothers (whose existence is multiply attested).

[fortigurn]

Jul 18, 2013 9:31:50 GMT jamierobertson said:

Just noticed that he goes into more detail in his article atstephenlaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/published-in-faith-and-philosophy-2011.html. Not read it through properly yet though.

I read it, and I can't say I was impressed.

[jamierobertson]

Cheers fellas

[ignorantianescia]

Jul 17, 2013 13:26:36 GMT bjorn said:

Though it to an untrained eye may look like an alpha male contest with Lane Craig on the resurrection.

So that is why he has that lion-like mane!