Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Aractus]

Here's some more from Hurtado. And I can quote others, I already gave you an audio of Bart arguing with an ill-informed atheist, and there are plenty of other scholars who have said the same thing: that no serious historian qualified to interpret the evidence doubts the existence of Jesus.

1. “Sandwiches” (Once again, I’ll express my puzzlement that people are reluctant to identify themselves): Thanks for the link. My only comments in response to the “vidar” posting about me are (1) that it’s hardly “intellectual bullying” to point out that those trained in a given subject don’t support a given assertion; and (2) people have a right to their own opinions but not to their own “facts”. So, e.g., it is simply NOT the case that Paul’s reference to James as the “brother of the Lord” in Gal 1:19 is regarded as a later insertion by many scholars. There’s no textual uncertainty at that point, no basis for the claim in any case. Paul also refers to “brothers of the Lord” in 1 Cor 9:5, and again there’s no textual uncertainty there. This is simply one of the instances where the evangelists of the “mythicist” camp repeat erroneous claims (and/or invent them?). Refuting such is what makes it all “wearying”.

2. Neil,
I see no impugning in my statement that you quote. I asked you a question, which you didn’t answer: In other matters, would you take the word of trained figures in a given field (e.g., your health care) or canvass opinions on internet sites for which no such trained figures vouch? What I said about “authority” in scholarship is simply the way it is. Scholarship involves hard work and proving yourself to pretty damned critical people.
I don’t get what question you think I’ve side-stepped. Do scholars have a public responsibility? Of course they do. Believing that is the major reason why I set up this blog site, Neil. To try to bring to a wider public informed scholarship on the New Testament and early Christianity. It’s perhaps the case that the pressures of research and scholarly publication intended to advance knowledge in the field (which means having to publish in refereed journals and books, and presenting your work before other scholars in conference settings, etc.) leaves little time for writing for the general public. And in the UK, the only scholarly publications that count for national assessment purposes are those directed to other scholars, not “popular” level publication.
The result can be that scholars can seem cut off, aloof, or even a closed shop talking to one another, I agree. But, can I say, it doesn’t encourage scholars to bring their knowledge to a wider public when one gets the sort of intense resistance that I’ve had on historical Jesus matters in the last few days. I’m tough-skinned and dedicated to public understanding of the field, but I rather suspect some colleagues might shy away from the fray!

3. Neil, “there you go again,” making unfair and misleading accusations. I tire of this, Neil. And you should be ashamed. “Question-begging responses” and “appeals to authority rather that logical validiy”?? Really? So, you’ve completed missed the data and explanations that I’ve tried patiently to provide over the last week or so? Are you sure?? And the bibliographical references, you’ve now studied them and found them all the same? Really? Is it an “intellectual put-down” to note that an argument is invalid, that the data has been misrepresented or ignored, and that a claim that the majority opinion of experts is wrong is made by someone who hasn’t demonstrated the expertise to make a reliable judgement in the subject? It’s one thing to ask for an explanation of something, Neil, something I’m happy to do. It’s quite another to be accused of the various things you and others have lodged against scholars, and, when I give an explanation then to be assailed for giving it.
As for historical Jesus studies, Neil, once again I ask you to see if you can distinguish between the particular constructions of this or that scholar (which often differ) and the agreed basis on which such scholar argue with one another (which is that there is a historical figure to try to characterize rightly). Scholars differ over how rightly to characterize Abraham Lincoln, but they agree that he did exist, and that there is something to try to capture. So, I simply ask you one question, Neil: Do you really want to understand the field of Christian origins, and how scholars go about it, or do you wish to take insufficiently-informed pot-shots from the sidelines? I have little interest in engaging the latter.

4. Neil, you can’t use expressions such as “intellectual put-down” in attempting to chide me in one comment and then claim that you didn’t mean it in the next one! As for my own comments, if someone insists on denying what a body of scholarship holds, and does so without giving a superior analysis of the relevant data, then isn’t that a good bit like taking a “flat earth” stance? Come on, Neil. The analogy holds.
To answer (yet again, and hopefully for the last time!) your last question: The expertise you need to make a reliable judgement on whether Jesus was or wasn’t a historical figure is the expertise that scholars have to work up to present any judgement on the matter that might win the assent or at least respect of scholarly peers: You need a damn good knowledge of the languages of the original texts (so you can speak reliably to what they say and not be reliant on others); you need a damn good knowledge of the other historical sources of the time; you need a damn good familiarity with the intricate analysis of key materials (such as the Gospel tradition and its literary and rhetorical features and earmarks of provenance); you need a damn good knowledge of the ancient Jewish religious, social, and historical setting, and of the larger historical and religious environment; you need to hone analytical and judgement skills and have them tested and challenged by accomplished scholars; and you need them to publish work that wins the respect of competent scholars, demonstrating an ability to mount a successful case and withstand the (often fierce) criticism of other scholars. These are the sorts of things needed to have your judgement on matters taken seriously and possibly influential, Neil, if by “reliable” we man a judgment that doesn’t just satisfy you but that wins the respect of people with the cometence to assess it.
Now, does it matter that of those with this high degree of training overwhelmingly (I’d say unanimously but there’s sure to be some exception, as there almost always seems to be) the judgement is that the best conclusion is that Jesus of Nazareth lived, circulated in Roman Palestine, developed a certain following, and generated a sufficient opposition that it led to his execution. Should it matter to you that this is so, that this is the judgement of those (and I emphasize of various personal stances, including Jewish scholars, atheists or non-religious, as well as various Christian stances) with the sort of expertise that I describe? That’s for you to decide. But don’t try to justify a reluctance to accept this view as if you were doing so on some superior grounds. You haven’t offered anything such, but have thus far simply demurred from the scholarly view.

5. Dear “Brettongarcia”, since you posit your view in a straightforward manner, I presume that you’ll take no offence if I do likewise. I’m afraid that your view of matters is seriously out of touch with reality. Or perhaps you drink with people who don’t represent historical scholarship on these matters. In fact, it’s only a rump-group with a stubborn refusal to accept the verdict of historians that (re)asserts claims that have long since been demolished. Faith & piety have NOTHING to do with it. Scholars competent in the relevant subject, of various faith and no-faith stances, share “the perception that Jesus was historically real”. Get your facts from scholars, not from self-apointed “experts” unrecognized by scholars in the field.

6. Sorry, I don’t do percentages when it comes to historical judgements. I simply join practically the entire company of qualified historians in judging that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical figure.

7. If the most persuasive basis for the mythicist position is the alleged lack of evidence from “the epistles”, then that’s easily refuted, as I’ve indicated in other comments in recent days. In fact, there are a number of indications in Paul’s undisputed letters that he knows Jesus was a real historical figure. I take it from your comment that your claim is the sort of thing you find persuasive in these authors’ works. If so, they’ve been refuted for decades.

8. Dear Bobby,
The NT writers certainly saw Jesus through the lens of the events that they saw as his resurrection and the revelation (to them) of his exalted significance. But it would be uncritical and naive to fail to recognize that the Gospels are what I have called “renditions” of the figure of Jesus, portraying him through the lens of their “post-Easter” faith. This seems especially obvious in the Gospel of John. However difficult it may be to get back to the “historical” Jesus (i.e., how Jesus acted and spoke during his earthly lifetime), it is in principle a reasonable question.