tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294505416127496842.post7866571847971988716..comments2024-03-25T14:09:59.347-05:00Comments on Augoeides: Mythic Versus Historical JesusScott Stenwickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12389664381513219613noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294505416127496842.post-47220939013610731612014-04-01T08:49:48.461-05:002014-04-01T08:49:48.461-05:00@Frank, That's my opinion as well. There were ...@Frank, That's my opinion as well. There were all sorts of messianic sects in Palestine at that time, and prior to the rise of Christianity the one that Jesus led was just one among many. The mythic Jesus hypothesis, though, is supported by the accretion of myth that grew around him as the religion expanded. Because of that, even if you accept the evidence we have as valid it's not clear at all that a historical Jesus existed who had much in common with the Jesus of the later church.Scott Stenwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389664381513219613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294505416127496842.post-58931664042956851592014-03-31T18:13:41.535-05:002014-03-31T18:13:41.535-05:00I'd imagine B)to be the case. Jesus never went...I'd imagine B)to be the case. Jesus never went outside of Palestine, though his Apostles did. It's kind of subversive isn't it? You can't beat the Romans, but if you convert them, it is a victory of sorts.<br />An even better question might be not who Jesus was, but rather who was Barabbas...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04021822706137063288noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294505416127496842.post-22993035964897561792013-09-10T14:35:02.385-05:002013-09-10T14:35:02.385-05:00I've followed some of those arguments casually...I've followed some of those arguments casually, but the fact is that as a Thelemite the argument itself only engages me to a limited extent. Essentially, it matters little to my personal spiritual work. What I find more interesting is why a certain subset of the esoteric community gravitates towards the mythic hypothesis and finds it so appealing. Regarding Carrier's work, it doesn't seem to me that the Bayesian version of "plausible" is any more compelling than that applied by mainstream historians, just different. Just because the two methods tend to err in opposite directions doesn't say anything about the accuracy of their conclusions.<br /><br />In many ways this is similar to my problem with the logic employed by hardcore paranormal skeptics. As with psychic abilities, we have a lot of weak evidence for a historical Jesus but nothing strong. This can be interpreted as (A) Jesus never existed or (B) Jesus was not considered all that important during his lifetime. The problem with (A) is that it requires throwing out all the evidence we do have on the grounds that it's not strong enough - but that right there is also a bias.Scott Stenwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12389664381513219613noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7294505416127496842.post-60436130288324447802013-09-10T13:43:17.046-05:002013-09-10T13:43:17.046-05:00Actual scholars are coming out in support of the h...Actual scholars are coming out in support of the hypothesis recently, foremost among them Richard Carrier. His book Proving History argues for a Bayesian approach to history, and his second book in the series tackles Jesus Christ directly. You might want to check it out.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09167476244719554755noreply@blogger.com