by RealityRules wrote:
Raphael Lataster (2014), The Fourth Quest: A Critical Analysis of the Recent Literature on Jesus’ (a)Historicity, Literature Aesthetics, 24 (1): pp.1-28
Abstract
"There has been some recent scholarly discussion on the reasonableness of questioning Jesus’ historicity. While generally avoiding the question, this analysis seeks to compare the methods of those who assert Jesus’ historical existence (historicists), and those who are less certain (mythicists or agnostics). Examples were taken from four recent authors on the topic. It was found that the [then] recent defences of historicity by Bart Ehrman [Did Jesus Exist?, 2012] and Maurice Casey [Jesus: Evidence and Argument Or Mythicist Myths?, 2014] lack lucid and competent methodologies; rely on highly questionable documents; and further make use of sources that no longer exist, if they ever did. They also seemed polemical, were occasionally vulgar, and often resorted to cavilling, focussing on tangential arguments of the more amateurish mythicists ..."
The rest of the abstract:
- My own [ie. Lataster's] case for agnosticism is largely grounded in the skepticism over the relevant sources necessitated by sound historical approaches, and has been well received by critical scholars. Richard Carrier’s case for outright mythicism lays out a clear and transparent historical method, incorporating much relevant background knowledge that many mainstream scholars would be largely ignorant of. Despite arguing for the more controversial hypotheses, these more sceptical scholars are employing superior methods.
The Case for Jesus’ Historicity: Bart Ehrman
"The first of the [then] recent [ie. pre-2014] books arguing for Jesus’ historicity, Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist? acknowledges that the Christ of Faith is a myth, and seeks to demonstrate the reality of 'the Historical Jesus'. Parts II (‘The Mythicists’ Claims’) and III (‘Who Was the Historical Jesus?’) of the book can be overlooked as they proceed from the assumption of Jesus’ historicity. It is in Part I, ‘Evidence for the Historical Jesus’, where Ehrman’s positive case for Jesus’ historicity is presented. Over five chapters, Ehrman acknowledges that the available sources are problematic, yet somehow finds them useful regarding the Historical Jesus, and appeals to hypothetical 'sources' supposedly pre-dating the Gospels – which supposedly provide certainty over Jesus’ historical existence – and the Pauline Epistles.
"Ehrman...clarifies that historians would prefer numerous, contemporary, detailed, and somewhat disinterested sources, which corroborate others’ accounts without collaboration having taking place. This is effectively a description of precisely what is lacking in the case for Jesus. In what could be mistaken as a case for Jesus agnosticism, Ehrman then admits that there is no physical evidence for Jesus, there are no mentions of him by first-century Greek or Roman authors, and agrees that no contemporary accounts are available. Focussing on the non-Christian sources that are available, Ehrman generally dismisses the testimonies of Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus. Likewise dismissing the disputed Talmudic references to Jesus, Ehrman somewhat surprisingly finds the Josephean references to Jesus inconclusive, as they would be derivative if genuine (citing arguments that suggest they had in fact been forged)."
https://www.academia.edu/26664790/The_F ... istoricity
