The "Reliability" Of Bible Scholars

[Jagella]

In so much as all scholars of a religion seek to support said religion is Not surprising they all make a living from same. Football manufacturers will tell you football is the greatest game evah!

Bible scholars have managed to earn a reputation as the guys in the know regarding the historical basis for the Bible. I do not know if that reputation is deserved. Scholars have never demonstrated their ability to tell history from mythology--at least not to my satisfaction. It was not that long ago that Bible scholars assured us that Moses really led the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt. Many have since changed their minds about that event. I wonder what's next on the chopping block--Jesus, perhaps?

[Jagella]

Maybe another way to explain this is that I don't know if a Jesus guy existed or not, but I do know that a Mohammed guy did exist.  But neither the lack of fact about Jesus or the actual fact of Mohammed leads to an ultimate truth about the Abrahamic God, let alone any other god.

Mythicists have been derided as a bunch of atheists who are out to destroy Christianity by arguing that Jesus never existed. They have an agenda, in other words. I wonder if the opposing side has an agenda.

In any case, a real Jesus would not prove a real God, and a real God would not prove a real Jesus. So the prevalence of atheism among mythicists may be the result of some other factor. I think atheists just have no need for a historical Jesus, and therefore are more open to the possibility that he didn't exist.

[SGOS]

I think atheists just have no need for a historical Jesus, and therefore are more open to the possibility that he didn't exist.

That's me.  I'm open to it, but I don't care if he existed or not.  My guess is... Hmm, I don't even want to guess, so I'm going to pass. I sometimes think about buying some of the recommended books on the subject, but I probably won't because I don't care if I have an opinion on the matter or not.

[Mike Cl]

Some critics of real-Jesus apologists have alleged that if such scholars entertain Jesus-mythicism, then they may lose their jobs. I'm not sure if that's true, but scholar Hector Avalos has written that Biblical studies is essentially a "liberal-Christian apologetic." If Avalos is correct, then Bible scholars must kowtow to liberal Christianity. They may question the resurrection or the virgin birth, but questioning the historicity of Christ is going too far.

I understand that such scholars have cropped-up on occasion, but their work did not endure long in the scholarly community supposedly because it was of poor quality and refuted. Either that was the reason for their work getting the big heave-ho, or those dissenting scholars just weren't toeing the party line.

My current favorite is Richard Carrier; his latest book is excellent.  Google him--he's good. Robert M. Price, a recovered Baptist minister of 30 years or so, also has written several books on the subject.  He does good work, as well.

[Baruch]

Mythicists have been derided as a bunch of atheists who are out to destroy Christianity by arguing that Jesus never existed. They have an agenda, in other words. I wonder if the opposing side has an agenda.

In any case, a real Jesus would not prove a real God, and a real God would not prove a real Jesus. So the prevalence of atheism among mythicists may be the result of some other factor. I think atheists just have no need for a historical Jesus, and therefore are more open to the possibility that he didn't exist.

Mythicists are psychologically and physically realistic.  All of this is an exercise in personal and social psychology.  So IMHO, Mythicists are based.  Of course, that being so, religion might not be of much interest except to anthropology nerds.  As much as secular and atheist people constantly talk about religion, they seem to have their own clinical needs (completing their deprogramming for example).

[Jagella]

That's me.  I'm open to it, but I don't care if he existed or not.  My guess is... Hmm, I don't even want to guess, so I'm going to pass. I sometimes think about buying some of the recommended books on the subject, but I probably won't because I don't care if I have an opinion on the matter or not.

Unlike you, I do care if Jesus existed or not because so many people claim he did exist. When I'm told something, I want to know if what I'm told is true. But what's even more important to me, is knowing the difference between history and myth. If Jesus never existed, then obviously many historians are wrong. If I cannot rely on historians to get it right, then I don't want to be too quick to believe them, of course.

[Jagella]

My current favorite is Richard Carrier; his latest book is excellent.  Google him--he's good. Robert M. Price, a recovered Baptist minister of 30 years or so, also has written several books on the subject.  He does good work, as well.

I'm familiar with both authors, and I've read some of their books. I think they make some good points about the historicity of Jesus. Like it or not, we do have reason to doubt he existed.

[Mike Cl]

I'm familiar with both authors, and I've read some of their books. I think they make some good points about the historicity of Jesus. Like it or not, we do have reason to doubt he existed.

What is your current fav book and author??  On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, is my current fav.  But I do have a library of several others.

[Jagella]

What is your current fav book and author??  On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, is my current fav.  But I do have a library of several others.

Here's a list of books I've read by real-Jesus apologists:

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus)
Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? (Biblical Studies)
Man, Myth, Messiah: Answering History's Greatest Question
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth

And here's a list of mythicist books I've read:

Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus
The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus
On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt
The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems
The Greatest Story Ever Sold The Christ Conspiracy
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All
Bart Ehrman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman

I'd say the best of the mythicist books I've read is the last one on the list. My favorite mythicist author is Richard Carrier.

[Mike Cl]

I just happen to have this one on my desk right now:
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, by David Fitzgerald

[Jagella]

I just happen to have this one on my desk right now:
Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All, by David Fitzgerald

That's a good book, but in my opinion Fitzgerald doesn't quite "nail it." He does a good job of casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus, but he doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist.

[Baruch]

That's a good book, but in my opinion Fitzgerald doesn't quite "nail it." He does a good job of casting doubt on the historicity of Jesus, but he doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist.

How can you prove a human Jesus didn't exist?  There are thousands of Jesus' in Mexico even today ;-)

[SoldierofFortune]

How can you prove a human Jesus didn't exist?  There are thousands of Jesus' in Mexico even today ;-)

If there had not been an Arab conquest, then Islam was just a lost marginal religion, and Muhammed was a religious leader in the papers of lost history books.

[Baruch]

If there had not been an Arab conquest, then Islam was just a lost marginal religion, and Muhammed was a religious leader in the papers of lost history books.

Correct, though I believe in his G-d, even if Muhammad was forgotten, his G-d would remain ;-)  His G-d is my G-d, is Jesus' G-d ;-)

Don't count Islam out, even if marginalized.  A great tree starts from a single seed.

[Baruch]

A gift for those who have eyes to see, and ears to hear ...

‘Ashrey ha’ish ‘asher lo halak ba’atzat r’sha’im, wuv’derek cha’tayim lo ‘amad wuv’moshav letzim lo yashav.  Kiy ‘im b’torat ha’adonay chef’tzo wuv’torato yeh’geh yomam valay’lah.  V’hayah k’etz shatul ‘al pal’gey mayim ‘asher pig’yo yiten b’ito v’alehu lo yibol.  v’kol ‘asher ya’aseh, yatz’liach.  Lo ken har’sha’iym kiy ’im kamotz ‘asher tid’fenu ruach. ‘al ken lo yaqumu r’shayim bamish’pat v’cha’tayim ba’adat tzadiyqim. ki yode’a ha’adonay derek tzadiyqim v’derek r’sha’iym t’oved. - Moshe

My system of phonetic transcription (that I used last in teaching Biblical Hebrew to adults), of Psalm 1.  Carefully transcribed and triple checked, as by a Torah scribe.  I am reliable?  Not as reliable as G-d.  But I let the ha'ruach ha'qodesh guide me.