Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Religion
Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][size=24]Maurice Casey, an irreligious Emeritus Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature at the University of Nottingham, concludes in his book Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? that "the whole idea that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist as a historical figure is verifiably false. Moreover, it has not been produced by anyone or anything with any reasonable relationship to critical scholarship. It belongs to the fantasy lives of people who used to be fundamentalist Christians. They did not believe in critical scholarship then, and they do not do so now. I cannot find any evidence that any of them have adequate professional qualifications."[/size][/quote] +1[/quote] Maurice Casey’s argument represents a defensive attempt to shield the field of New Testament studies from legitimate critical inquiry. Calling the non-existence of Jesus "verifiably false" is a rhetorical overreach that misrepresents the nature of historical inquiry. The evidence for Jesus is entirely post-mortem and literary. The primary "evidence" for Jesus consists of late, highly mythologized accounts that follow known literary tropes and creative imitation. Casey dismisses related scholarship of peers like Thomas L. Brodie who concluded that the Gospels are literary adaptations of earlier Hebrew scriptures rather than historical reports. By labeling all mythicists as unprofessional, Casey is defining critical scholarship as only that which he accepts, a pre-determined conclusion of Jesus’s existence. All arguments for a historical Jesus must be evaluated on the evidence provided, such as the silence of Paul on a historical Jesus and the lack of first-century non-Christian references. There was no historical Jesus. A “celestial” Jesus was invented through Midrash, then later historicized after the fall of the 2nd Temple. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics