|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 7, 2009 22:58:48 GMT
From the Dawkins forum, where this idea has been warmly received (my, how things have changed over there): For a while now I've been toying with the idea of putting up a website analysing and debunking the claims of the "Jesus never existed" crowd from an atheist perspective, since most of the material available out there is from Christians and therefore suspect in the eyes of many non-believers. Originally I thought of some kind of comprehensive site tackling every manifestation of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, but doing a page by page deconstruction of people like Dorothy "Acharya S" Murdock and Earl Doherty would be a major undertaking and not something I have time for just now. That may come later, but at this stage I think I might simply list the most common Jesus Myth arguments and then counter them one by one. Apart from anything else, it will save me time on this board and several others, where I have to repeat myself over and over again about once every three weeks at least. It will be useful to me and others to simply be able to point the latest bright-eyed, bushy-tailed Myther to a URL rather than typing out yet another analysis of why saying "but Josephus is FORGED!" or "Jesus = Hours!" doesn't cut the historical mustard.
Anyway, I thought I'd begin by compiling a list of the most common Myther arguments we see here and elsewhere. Others are welcome to add any more that they can think of. And it would be good if we can keep this thread to this purpose and not let it become yet another Jesus Myth debate. To do that it might be best to simply list the arguments, not why they are wrong (or right).
1. Jesus is not attested in any contemporary historians' writings.
2. The mentions in later historians works are forgeries, hearsay or about someone else.
3. Paul never mentioned any historical Jesus and simply believed in a celestial being.
4. Jesus is based on Horus/Mithras/Dionysus/insert god here.
Any others?Other arguments etc that have been suggested so far are: 5. You can't use (any part e.g.NT) of the bible for evidence. It's biased and contradictory etc., etc.. 6. If you argue that a historical Jesus probably did exist, you are a Christian apologist. 7. Nazareth never existed. Sections on how we can know anything historical about Jesus and the use of the historical method generally have also been suggested. After some discussion as to a domain name, I've chosen www.jesusmythbusters.com and have secured that domain. I'm pretty busy with work and other projects right now, but will begin work on this site in the next few weeks. Any other suggestions for topics will be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 8, 2009 1:46:30 GMT
My compliments, Tim, on this. Would that there was more honest assessment on both sides of the "God" debate!
My suggestion (an "argument" I have seen often enough on the internet) is that of course there was probably someone named Jesus who lived in first century Palestine, in fact there were probably many people by that name, but we don't know anything historical about them.
Best wishes, I'll check out the site with interest when it gets going.
|
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 8, 2009 8:56:42 GMT
Hi Tim,
It's a good idea. I think you will have to cover the pagan Christ arguments and the Raglan scale. It seems that Richard Carrier, who should know better, has been using the Raglan scale in some of his presentations, although until his book is out, it is hard to know how seriously he takes it.
Feel free to plunder my essays on Jesus methodology and the history of the Christ myth. However, since I'm no athiest it might defeat your purpose.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Nov 8, 2009 18:13:27 GMT
I look forward to reading your site. In my opinion, mythers don't seem to be able to grasp the idea that because the gospels contain theological interpretation of the life of Jesus they can also contain reliable historical reminiscences passed on in an oral tradition. Once admit the gospels as our primary source for the life of Jesus then the value of possible independent witnesses like Josephus and others is not as crucial. As for Paul playing down the biographical details, there can be a number of reasons for that, not least of which is that Paul was emphasisng Jesus' role as the risen Lord, and all that follows from that.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Nov 8, 2009 20:19:57 GMT
Indeed, Hawk. I'm surprised at how many non-christians tell me to read Robin Lane Fox as an antidote to my brainwashing, when actually (IIRC) he happily takes chunks of the Bible as fairly reliable history despite being an agnostic. Tim, my own suggestion, FWIW, would be to emphasise the need of the 1st century writer to only include in his writings that which was directly pertinent and relevant to his chosen topic and recipients - hence why we should not expect to find talk of Jesus' days in the carpenter's shop in a Pauline letter about morality and corruption. On another topic - when is this review of God's Philosophers coming out, then?  |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 9, 2009 12:05:17 GMT
On another topic - when is this review of God's Philosophers coming out, then? When I'm not working 11 hour days, flying all over the country (Australia - a BIG country) and coming home totally exhausted. Be patient: you all waited for my review of Freeman and I think that one was worth the wait. Thanks to all for their suggestions for www.jesusmythbusters.com. |
|
|
|
Post by himself on Nov 9, 2009 16:28:19 GMT
How much would we know about Plotinus, if we disregarded Porphyry as a "biased source"? Or about Socrates, if we dismissed Plato? Come to think of it (and iirc) all we know about Thales of Miletus is what Aristotle related about him.
Sometimes I think folks have an unrealistic expectation of the amount and types of documentation that would a) be made in the first place and b) survive fire, flood, mice, and mold.
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 20, 2009 1:09:01 GMT
Tim, In between your day job, your history reading, your blog and your upcoming mythbusters site, I'm sure you have plenty of spare time. ;D So you may be interested to enter this Jesus mythicist essay competition. Or perhaps Humphrey has some spare time for a sardonic entry!? The prize-winning essay must be one that "sheds light on the origins of Christianity and, at the same time, supports the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist." (One wag on the Infidels forum has already pointed out that there are two separate propositions here, which may in fact be mutually exclusive!) The judges are a panel comprising René Salm, Robert M. Price, Frank R. Zindler and Earl Doherty. This is old news by now, but I don't think I've seen it before. |
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 20, 2009 20:50:47 GMT
The judges are a panel comprising René Salm, Robert M. Price, Frank R. Zindler and Earl Doherty. A piano teacher, a retired biologist, a nobody and an expert on Cthulhu. With a panel of experts like that, what could possibly go wrong?  Sorry, but I don't think I'll bother. |
|
|
|
Post by eckadimmock on Nov 20, 2009 21:05:53 GMT
The light-shedding process is always faster when the desired conclusion is specified beforehand. It seems an interesting approach to historical research, too. State your desired result and give a prize to anyone who can argue it for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Nov 20, 2009 23:06:00 GMT
Price as a gibbering, mad cultist?
I always wondered why the man smelled of squid....
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 22, 2009 4:44:01 GMT
Here's my draft table of contents so far: WWW.JESUSMYTHBUSTERS.COM
Contents
The Main Jesus Myth ArgumentsJesus is not attested in contemporary history Jesus is not mentioned by writers who should have mentioned him (Remsburg’s list) The mention of Jesus in Josephus is a forgery The mention of Jesus in Tacitus is a forgery/only hearsay The NT can’t be used as any kind of basis for a case for Jesus’ existence Paul never mentioned a historical, earthly Jesus and believed in a celestial being only Jesus was based on Mithras/Horus/Dionysus/Attis
Minor Arguments and Side IssuesTrypho says Jesus didn’t exist. There is no archaeological evidence for Nazareth The gospels are purely Jewish “midrash” Jesus was actually Julius Caesar/Titus/Piso/Herod Philip
Wider IssuesThe history and development of the “Jesus Myth” thesis Why adopting the “Jesus Myth” thesis is a bad tactic for attacking Christianity So what can we know about the historical Jesus? Bibliography
Bookshop
Blog
Forum (maybe) |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 25, 2009 2:54:54 GMT
Tim,
I'm interested to know - when you prepare this material, will you be relying on your own historical study, or will you also need to rely on the writings of other historians. If the latter, which historians of the first century would you most rely on? (For that matter, even if the former, I'm interested in which first century historians you think are most reliable in the study of christian origins and the historicity of Jesus.)
This is not an academic question. I am very interested for my own sake to improve my understanding, and have asked this same question of others here. But I am interested in your perspective also.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Nov 25, 2009 6:21:40 GMT
I'm interested to know - when you prepare this material, will you be relying on your own historical study, or will you also need to rely on the writings of other historians. If the latter, which historians of the first century would you most rely on? (For that matter, even if the former, I'm interested in which first century historians you think are most reliable in the study of christian origins and the historicity of Jesus.) By “historians of the First Century”, I’m assuming you mean modern researchers specialising in that period, rather than historians from the period like Josephus and Tacitus. I tend to take my understanding of Jesus and his historical and cultural context from people like Geza Vermes, Paula Fredricksen, Dale Allison, Gerd Ludemann etc. On Messianic expectations (and how the Jesus Myth theories either ignore them or don’t fit them) I’m using the analysis in Joseph A. Fiztmeyr’s The One Who Is to Come and bits and pieces from Michael Grant and other general historians of the ancient Mediterranean. I don’t agree with his ideas about Jesus, but a lot of John Dominic Crossan’s work on Jesus’ social context will come in handy, as will Richard Horsley’s Jesus and the Cycle of Violence on his probable eschatological message within the context of the politics of the time. I don’t want to get too bogged down in this project though and there is a danger it will turn from a site on “why a historical Jesus is the most likely explanation of the evidence” into a site on the historical Jesus generally. And that’s a subject too vast for the scope of this site. BTW I ordered a copy of Shattering the Christ Myth last weekend, partly because it’s a great resource for Myther arguments and their counters and partly so I can plagiarise utilise a certain James Hannam’s history of the Myther thesis. |
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 25, 2009 6:43:32 GMT
Thanks. I have been discussing similar topics with a few people on Infidels, and they seem to mistrust anyone who doesn't agree with their views. So they mistrust Crossan, Vermes, Borg, Sanders, Evans, etc, calling them "theologians" and not "historians". They somehow find ways to dismiss Grant, and, of course, Wright is beyond redemption (so to speak). The only people they seem to trust are Ehrman, Price, Carrier and Doherty. So I was interested in seeing who you found most helpful or credible. Thanks for the information, and thanks for your intellectual integrity and help even though we have different views once the history is done. |
|
