Second, you utterly failed to respond to my point that even if you could demonstrate John's relationship to Mark, or a common independent tradition, as to two events, the vast majority of his gospel would still be independent of Mark. John has a different chronology, has differences in his Passion Narrative, and completely forgoes mentioning exorcisms, the Baptism by John, and the Eucharist.

Hahaha. Which consensus of scholars? The one that, as Ray Brown pointed out, is slowly shifting back to the "dependence" position, where it was years ago? The constantly shifting "consensus" is a clue that there is no story to be reliably recovered. Why were the first two Quests for the Historical Jesus a failure? Why is there widespread disagreement on even basic points, like how much of Mark is fiction -- all, some or none? Why does the criterion for acceptance shift over time, but the positions do not? It used to be, as Meier noted, that the John the Baptist story was true because of the criterion of discontinuity. Now it is true because of the criterion of embarrassment. I have no doubt that when embarrassment goes to its richly-deserved demise, another criterion will quickly be raised to preserve the truth of what is obviously a mythicized event created to legitimize Jesus by linking him to John.

Second, the differences in John's gospel are simply meaningless as far as dependence is concerned. Are you claiming that the writers and redactors of "John" were just robots? Even Luke and Matthew updated Mark. The writers of John just rewrote him more. This is the usual apologist assumption that the gospelers were too dumb to create anything on their own. Opposite is true; as mythmakers, they were using their creativity to make things anew. If I picked over the oral and literary traditions regarding Robin Hood or King Arthur, could I find disagreements, even radical ones? You betcha. In some poems and songs, Robin Hood does not court Marian, or lives in an alternate locality -- not Nottingham Wood. Yet enough of a story remains to see that the chroniclers were aware of other traditions. "Difference" does not mean "independence," unless we take the position that people in other times and climes were just parrots.

Merely looking at the structure of John, its highly artificial arrangement into seven parts, with the fictions of Mark neatly tucked into one part, etc. It is obviously invention, and highly sophisticated mythological invention at that. John's writers, as they state, had a message to send. They wrote a powerful and beautiful myth, that has captivated millions. Do you think if they had written "history" like Tacitus or Sima Qian, they would have started a new religion? Who ever got religious revelations from Polybius or Ibn Khaldun?

Finally, let's look at the "consensus" on John. Please tell me how many sayings in it go back to Jesus, according to the learned fellows of the Jesus Seminar. Would that be, umm…..zero? The Seminar was unable to find a single saying they could trace back to the historical Jesus in the Gospel of John. Now that's consensus! Yes, I know, they disagree with NT Wright, so they must not be real scholars.

Here's another "consensus": what about the ideas of Bruce Malina, Jerome Neyrey and Richard Rohrbaugh? If you get on the Yahoo John list, listmembers are discussing the authorship of John right now. Need I say that there is no consensus on who even wrote up this myth? Mythical authors of mythical events. I am flattened by this astonishing evidence.

So, in fact, this consensus of NT scholars that you want to club me with, turns out in reality to be a myriad of points of view, including some who deny there is anything at all that goes back to Jesus in John, and others who argue that "John" was not a single person, but a composite by some of Jesus' followers who felt the message had gone astray from its roots.

In fact, the performance of such miracles and exorcism presupposes a human Jesus. Which is the point.

Is this a serious argument? That the existence of a healings tradition is incontrovertible truth? Now that's comedy! The existence of a healing tradition proves…..the existence of a healing tradition. I personally regard it as weak evidence, as I said before. It proves nothing. An oral tradition underlies the first major mentions of Robin Hood, but that does not mean that he was a real figure.

Your attitude is very revealing Mike. You have no idea about scholarship regarding L, but conclude that it must be myth so it is no evidence.

Ah, Layman, it is "myth," as in not-history. In fact, it seems to be Paffenroth's invention….as it turns out, I do have some idea…..

But, in fact, L is evidence that Jesus existed as a human being. You simply label it "myth" as if that means something or provides some explanatory power. It does not. It is your assertion. It boils down to, "it includes references to the miraculous so it cannot provide us with historical evidence."

Once again, your strawman argument. The whole thing is "myth" and history cannot be sorted out from invention with any surety. Please stop deliberately confusing "myth" with "falsehood." If you can get history out of myth, by all means tell us who the real King Arthur was and where he lived, and if he was really betrayed by his wife and best buddy.

The most recent exhaustive treatment of the L material is by Kim Paffenroth in his 1997, "The Story of Jesus according to L." Dr. Paffenroth analyzes the form and content of L and concludes that there is a coherent, unified source which was written by Jewish-Christians in Palestine sometime between 40-60 CE.

From Mark Goodacre's review of Paffenroth (after many interactions with you, I have come to understand that you don't understand the people whom you read, if you have even read Paffenroth)

• For a reviewer who is inclined to see Lukan creativity on a much broader scale in the L material, however, there are several qualms.
  
  (1) The argument from language often has it too easy. Like many other synoptic
  scholars, Paffenroth does not pay adequate attention to the thorny issue of Luke's
  versatility. Among the evangelists, he is the most capable of apparently writing
  "uncharacteristically" since he has the largest vocabulary, the greatest number of hapax legomena, and a disturbing habit of varying his synonyms. Paffenroth does not engage, for example, with Michael Goulder's claim that Luke introduces more hapaxes into Mark than he takes over. The difficulty is compounded by the fact that Paffenroth seems to work with a highly idiosyncratic definition of the term hapax legomena. Though on p. 70 they are "words that occur nowhere else in Luke-Acts," on p. 73 he goes on to
  discuss "hapax legomena that occur in more than one L pericope," listing words such as
  br/exw (Luke 7:38, 44; 17:29) and g/amos (Luke 12:36; 14:8). I do not understand how
  words like this, "that occur in more than one L pericope" (p. 78, my emphasis), can be
  described as hapax legomena.
  
  {translation: Paffenroth uses terminology and understandings nobody else uses}
  
  (2) In the search for "un-Lukan" features, one cannot help thinking that with a sharp
  enough scalpel, everything is unique. On the Zacchaeus story, for example, often
  thought to be so typical of Luke, we discover that "the fit with Lukan theology is again
  not perfect" (pp. 64-75).
  
  {Translation: Paffenroth can conjure up anything he wants with his "method."}
  
  (3) The methodology, which proceeds from Luke's known redactional procedures (based
  on use of Mark and Q) to the establishment of unknown source material (L), is potentially helpful but a little too mechanically employed. Due attention is not always given to the contexts in which certain features occur, nor to the overall development of
  the story of Luke-Acts.
  
  (4) Paffenroth apparently assumes that Luke's redactional habits would have been even
  throughout his work. This is a possible assumption but not the only possible
  assumption. What if Luke's reaction to material from oral tradition was different from his reaction to material from written tradition? What if Luke had interacted with the different kinds of material for differing lengths of time? What if "L" materials were, on the whole, more to Luke's taste and so more richly redacted than Mark and Q, with more care, attention, and flare?
  
  These criticisms ought not obscure the fact that this is a useful study, with some
  genuinely interesting observations and contributions. If it succeeds in its attempt to reopen the debate over Luke's sources, it will have scored an important goal.

Gee, it looks like Paffenroth has, um, failed to make his case…..so L, which in any case, is myth, an intermixture of imagination, understanding and history, is not all that well-founded. Do you accept Crossan's proposed Cross Gospel?

Just because something is arguable doesn't mean it is legitimately in dispute. Again, however, your only response is that they are myths so they contain no history

As usual, clueless as to what is meant by "myth." My response is that since they are "myth," history cannot be recovered from them. If doubt that, simply turn the NT techniques loose on the Arthur cycle, or the Roland cycle, or the Robin Hood stories. GIGO. Should I believe Lancelot boffed Gwen, because it is embarrassing to Arthur? Do multiple attestations from different localities, all saying Robin Hood lived in their area, mean that he actually lived? This wonderful site
on the outlaw of Sherwood Forest will enable you to understand how difficult it is to recover history from myth. In the Jesus case things are even more complicated, because some of the legends were ruled inadmissible and can't be considered.

Mike, the basis of your opinion is simply that because incredible things are asserted about Jesus that the references to him are simple "fictions" or "myths." This is an absurd position to take.

That IS NOT my position. Since I have repeated this only about a thousand times, I think you are simply deliberately misunderstanding my position.

The appearance of miracles in a text does not necessarily mean that the document itself is "myth." We both know that. "Myth" is a creation of a person or community, which job is to give order and meaning to life. It draws on many sources, extant tradition, the creativity of the mythmakers, such facts as are thought to be known, and freely combines them, generally expanding and inventing. Mark et al are writing "myths." This does not mean that they are false, it just means that recovering any history from them is impossible. Is Mark writing history? Of course not. Mark is fiction, but a special kind of fiction.

I don't know why that isn't clear. Do you regard every single character and event in the gospels as truth? But most scholars don't -- although the always disagree on what we should regard as true or untrue, and by how much.

And I'm still waiting for the Cambell statement that Jesus did not exist.

Wait away....in the meantime, reread the link carefully, and note his contempt for those who regard the gospel myths as history, a point he makes also on page 9 of Primitive Mythology. The gospels are as much "history" as the Greek myths, he makes a point of saying.

You are confused. As I explained above, accepting the theory of Q in no way means accepting Mack's unsupported speculation as to multi-Q stages. As I understand Wright's position, he accepts the existence of Q as a useful hypothesis explaining the common sources of Matthew and Mark. So do I. He believes, however, that reconstruction attempts such as Mack's are flawed.

I see. So I can accept his unsupported speculation about Q, or Mack's unsupported speculations. In neither case can we prove from Q or the Gospels that John the Baptist actually existed. They are all myth.

Consider something like the magnificent Njal's Saga, one of the greatest works ever written. Was Njal really a big wheel in 10th century Iceland, or was the author of Njal's Saga (my favorite epic, so be patient) really recasting events in the thirteenth back into the 10th? Did it really happen? Scholars are all over the map on that, some yes, some no. Recovering history from myth is highly problematical.

The simple fact is that if Christians did not insist that Jesus was a real person, we would not hesitate in labeling his existence "unproven," as we do with many other mythic figures. The Gospels are myths, just like the Icelandic sagas.

And what is the skeptic obsession with references to leading New Testament scholars? Somehow because I believe N.T. Wright about his characterization of New Testament studies in Europe I have to agree with him on everything or my reliance on him for the former position is somehow disengenuous? That is yet another absurdity.

What obsession? You were the one claiming I should bow to his mighty authority on what was clearly a sly piece of rhetoric.

I agree with Wright on a lot of things. Things he's convinced me he is right about. I don't agree with him on others. And many I haven't decided yet.

Me too.

I'm glad you brought up Grant. Do me a favor and put up the criterion from his last chapter on what we should use to make judgements about the gospel materials. Something about stuff close to the source, or something like that…..I don't have the book.

Jesus existed. It's not that threatening of a concept. Unless, of course, it is.

Jesus may not have existed. It's not a threatening concept unless, of course, it is.

Michael


[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited May 22, 2001).]

John and Mark did not have a common source per se. There is some evidence for a copule of sources in common on certain points,mainly in the Passion narrative:

1) The Passaion narrative source shared by all 5 gospels (Peter being 5th)

2) Speicial material unique to just John and Mark.

see Helmutt Koester Ancient Christian Gospels(1991)

Hey I'm sorry, Dhortey has prestened nothing like facts. He's full of it! He is reading in developments from the fourth century and making them fit Paul's words by merely assuming that that way of thinking existed at that time when it did not. There is no evdience for what is essentually neo platonism before the late second century. That is exactly what he's doing, reading neo platonism into Paul, calling it Gnsoticism and streaching the meanings to make them fit.

His whole case is built on a combination of an arument form silence and missapplied evidence on neo-platonism.

And the claims he makes about the Greek are just wrong! A second semester Greek student would know better. kata never means merely appearing like, but means "according to" as in John wrote this, and as in "Jesus has flesh and blood linage."

Meta =>Sorry, that is pure bunck. You really think the so called "mythist" posoition is growing? Ha! It's a tiny minority and real histoirans and scholars wont give it the time of day. I've told you this before, but when I've spoken to historians I've TAed for and worked with, atheists, secular historians, they say "why are you wasting your time on that crap?" That is literally what they said. One, a Cambridge trained historian of Iranian history, said something to the effect that this view is for idiots (no offense). These are not biased fundamentalists, they are atheists! They reason they say that is because the thing you always miss is that the case for anyone in hisory is just as shaky as that for Christ! If we are going to assume that we know anything about history we have to assume this!!! There are no archivel records with Cesar's birth certificate. You don't find everyone in the first century talking about Mark Antony, these are not people whose personal records you can go and look up. Now granted the evidence for their existence is better than for that of Jesus, but histoirans don't question ether becasue its good enough and it's not that much weaker. There is not really hard undeniable evidence for much of anything in the ancient world.

That does not mean we can just make up history. It doesn't mean that we are free to fill in the gaps with what we wish was there.


And now Doherty has blasted Nomad out of the water on the Formal Debate Board.


Meta =>I haven't seen it but I truley doubt it.
Meta =>I knew that. That's why the neo-pagans are always trying to calim him, they want to make him harmless, he can't make any unique demands on their lives if he's one of them, and they get to ride on his coat tails. But that is more of a motive to suplant the evidence and to read in wishful thinking than it is one to critically examine the facts. I strongly suspect that facts mean nothing to you.

And a lot of people would never have known about the controversy if you and Nomad hadn't made such a point about it.

Good work


MEta =>Controvery? A position that 90% of academics place in the same category as big foot and flying saucers is hardly a "controversy." more like a side show.

Meta ->Slippery slope reasoning. The consensus is shifting so there must not be anything in the first place. That's silly. It's shifting because we don't have enough evidence, that hardly means there was no core story in the first place. It means that we don't have much of anything from the first century. Have you ever seen a list of all the writtings we have from the first century that don't metion Jesus? It's only about 12 sources! Pathetically small. By your logic that means nothing happened in the first century. And that concensus shifts over a hand full of verses. Have you ever tried to consider the meaning of a few verses? Of course it's going to shift, but that is in within the larger frame work of a steadily migrating tradition that is becoming more histoircally acute all the time. We know realize that Jesus was an urban boy, even though he lived on a farm. That wasn't even speculated about 20 years ago. We are gaining more and more useful knowledge all the time, but you can't just make up what's in the gaps just becasue you want it to be there, or not be there.


Why were the first two Quests for the Historical Jesus a failure?


Meta =>They Weren't! They were both very successful! The first one was oriented around a bunch of fantasies, people reading in their own desires for an enlightened 18th century rational man, kind of like the Chrsit mythers. But Schweitzer realized this and put us on the right track by orienting us to Jesus' Jewishness. Than the second Quest was much more successful because it took us into the realm of actual concete knowledge in terms of apololyptic hopes and the agenda of Jewish heterodoxy. But we can't just make stuff up because we wont it to be there. Real scholarhsip is painstaking and slow.


Why is there widespread disagreement on even basic points, like how much of Mark is fiction --

Meta =>Obviously, because people are not content with the truth, and because we don't have the data, we can't go back in time and look at it. But to than assume that there is no data to be had is ridiculous. By your logic than there wasn't a Jewish settalment near the dead sea that hid documents in a cave becasue we didn't know about them for a long time. Hey we still don't have a sinlge fragment of writing by the teacher of righteousness, and we don't even know his name. But no one proposes that he was just a myth, why not? We have only three or four references to this teacher guy and most of them are enigmatic. So that means he was made up right? But no one thinks so, why not?

MEta ->contradiction above you spoke of the shifting position.

Meta =>What's wrong with embarassment as a criterion? It's used all the time, in many feilds, and its just common sense. If something was being hidden than a redactor would hardly admit to it. Why is that not logical? Now I agree that the application to John the B. is a little thin, but that doesn't mean the criterion is bad. It's just part of the rules of internal consistancy disocovered at Port Royal.


MEta =>Sorry to insult you, I don't mean to, but you don't begin to come anywhere close to understanding the complexity involved in that. You should really read Helmutt Koester's book. The redactors of John didn't just re-write him, what it shows is a community that had re-told the material over and over and that had become heavily neuonced with communal interp. And there are many layers of change all over it. There is a common source with Mark and it goes back to AD 50 according to Koester.


MEta =>There are no major differnces in any of the stories of Jesus, in the Jewish gospels, the infancy gospels, the Gnostic Gosples, the canonical Gospels, the non-canonical Orthodox Gosples, over 50 alternate Gospels and not a one of them has Jesus die in another place, by another means, or be burried in another way, or not raise from the dead, or not have an empty tomb, or the tomb not be discovered by the women (even though the number differs) not crucified at noon, not under Pilate, and so on. Obviously there was a core tradition that could not be deneied because it was publish knowledge, and it existed in essence just 19 years after the fact, not enough time for a consistent body of myth to crystalize.


Meta => You know I wonder if you even know what Mthology is? Becasue there are no mytholoigcal elements in there. And what criteria do you use for determining what myth is? Elliade? Karanye? Bullfinch? Why does being divided into seven parts make it artifical? Why would it be fiction if it is mirroriing the same basic story that all the others tell? Why would you think that the glimpse into the family of Bethiny for example is merely made up, when there is nothing artificial about them. The prestent consistant characters and a concete location, no mythological ear marks at all! Do you even know the difference in folk lore, legeond, and myth? Or history?

Meta => You are confussing myth with narrative. What makes it myth? Why is it essentially the same story they all tell? Why is there no divergence in any of the myriad of versions of Gosples up to the 3d or fourth century?
Meta =>And what was their means of looking? Well, they put up little colored balls to show their votes. That's about it. They have no method, they have critical faculties. You how vastly respected they are mong liberal collegues? Almost not at all. They have real credentials, and they sit on them and everyone knows. And not all of them are good scholars. Only a handfull are really of the stature of the big names, most of them are unkown and not very accomplished. They write lots of books and fill them with speculation and don't say anything of substance.

Here's another "consensus": what about the ideas of Bruce Malina, Jerome Neyrey and Richard Rohrbaugh? If you get on the Yahoo John list, listmembers are discussing the authorship of John right now. Need I say that there is no consensus on who even wrote up this myth? Mythical authors of mythical events. I am flattened by this astonishing evidence.

Meta =>IN other words I'm going to listen to the guys I wont to listen to becasue they tell me what I want to hear and the facts be damned.

MEta => Oooo amatueres!@ aAAAAA will you please go to a seminary and take a calss for God sake! try to learn something and figure out what it means? None of that i new, that's all 19thy century stuff. Nothing the Jesus Seminar has said is new or schocking. most of it has been said and discorded before. So what if there are differing view points. And it is crazy to assert that there is no core history at the root of the Johannine tradition! Read Ernst Kasemann, he was one of the top authorities on John. Yes, John was redacked in three layers, by a community that had a lot of discussion and a highly devleoped theology. That in now way means they did not have a core of history to draw from. IN fact it may mean that it did, since they had such a higly devleoped theology in only about 60 years, they probably had a lot of witnesses who made a profound impact upon the community.

In fact, the performance of such miracles and exorcism presupposes a human Jesus. Which is the point.


MEta=>Evidence of a healing tradition is an idication that the community was vital. IT's evidence of strong beleif system and since all testimonies of Jesus in clude the healing tradiiton one must conclude that Jesus had a reputation as a healer. Why would the Johonnie community have a healing tradition in the first place? That's not proof, but it may be one indication of a core of historical veracity. Why is it that all testimonies of Jeus portray him as a healer? On a lot less evidence than that scholars have decided that Hercules was based upon a real guy, and certian other figures.

Meta =>Sorry, that is pure bunck. You really think the so called "mythist" posoition is growing?

You've misread (and not for the first time). The disagreement in this spot is over whether John is dependent on Mark. That consensus shifts back and forth over time. Currently the pendulum seems to be moving back in the "dependence" direction although the "independence" advocates are still the majority. That's all.

Ha! It's a tiny minority and real histoirans and scholars wont give it the time of day. I've told you this before, but when I've spoken to historians I've TAed for and worked with, atheists, secular historians, they say "why are you wasting your time on that crap?" That is literally what they said. One, a Cambridge trained historian of Iranian history, said something to the effect that this view is for idiots (no offense). These are not biased fundamentalists, they are atheists!

What about scholars of myth, comparative religion, psychology of religion, cognition and religion, etc?

They reason they say that is because the thing you always miss is that the case for anyone in hisory is just as shaky as that for Christ!

No, it's not. The case for Augustus or Julius Caesar, or Wang Mang is a lot stronger. Have you never heard of archaeology?

If we are going to assume that we know anything about history we have to assume this!!! There are no archivel records with Cesar's birth certificate. You don't find everyone in the first century talking about Mark Antony, these are not people whose personal records you can go and look up. Now granted the evidence for their existence is better than for that of Jesus, but histoirans don't question ether becasue its good enough and it's not that much weaker. There is not really hard undeniable evidence for much of anything in the ancient world.

As a general statement, history about the ancient world is problematic on many points. But it is not as shaky as that for Jesus.

That does not mean we can just make up history. It doesn't mean that we are free to fill in the gaps with what we wish was there.

I agree. I just wish Christians did too.

Controvery? A position that 90% of academics place in the same category as big foot and flying saucers is hardly a "controversy." more like a side show.

Really? This 90% would include all scholars of myth, as well?

MC, your other comments are so cheesy it is actually difficult to discuss them. "By your logic than there wasn't a Jewish settalment near the dead sea that hid documents in a cave becasue we didn't know about them for a long time." It looks like you haven't read a word I've said. If you are going to reply please take the time to read the entire post, instead of skimming and then screaming at me.
What's wrong with embarassment as a criterion? It's used all the time, in many feilds, and its just common sense. If something was being hidden than a redactor would hardly admit to it. Why is that not logical? Now I agree that the application to John the B. is a little thin, but that doesn't mean the criterion is bad. It's just part of the rules of internal consistancy disocovered at Port Royal.

The problem with "embarrassment" -- which Nomad has defined as an "admission of truth contrary to interests" -- as a criterion is manifold. In the case of the John the Baptist story, we do not know if truth is being admitted, and we do not know if it was contrary to the writer's interests. Have you met Mark? Do you know anyone who recorded what he wrote and thought? You can't apply the "embarrassment" theory to myth, it won't work. GIGO.

Consider, as I posted to another thread, if we only had Kunene's Shaka Epic for information on Shaka the Great, we would attribute his problems with his mother as the cause of his trouble with his parents, as Kunene writes in the Epic, but actually, Shaka was illegitimate. One embarrassing story covering another, a common feature of many myths. Unless we have some objective history outside of the gospels, we can't tell which way the truth runs. Imagine if you applied that criterion to the Arthur stories. Was he really betrayed by Gwen with Lance? It's certainly embarrassing. For myth, which is what the gospelers wrote, embarrassment is simply worthless.

Sorry to insult you, I don't mean to, but you don't begin to come anywhere close to understanding the complexity involved in that. You should really read Helmutt Koester's book. The redactors of John didn't just re-write him, what it shows is a community that had re-told the material over and over and that had become heavily neuonced with communal interp. And there are many layers of change all over it. There is a common source with Mark and it goes back to AD 50 according to Koester.

Thanks! First you tell me how dumb I am, then you announce that your position and mine are very close. Of course the Markan and other material was worked over by a community with different interpretations. How much can I write in a one-sentence summary? Duh.

Besides, I doubt you are very sorry to insult me.

There are no major differnces in any of the stories of Jesus, in the Jewish gospels, the infancy gospels, the Gnostic Gosples, the canonical Gospels, the non-canonical Orthodox Gosples, over 50 alternate Gospels and not a one of them has Jesus die in another place, by another means, or be burried in another way, or not raise from the dead, or not have an empty tomb, or the tomb not be discovered by the women (even though the number differs) not crucified at noon, not under Pilate, and so on.

I'm always happy when an apologist makes sweeping statements. Let's look at how dumb this one is.

The Gospel of Thomas: contains no mention of any other major miracles, the crucifixion, resurrection, virgin birth etc. I guess those must not be major differences.

Gospel of Philip: criticizes virgin birth and bodily resurrection as naïve misunderstandings. No major differences here!

Gospel of the Egyptians: no mention of death, resurrection, virgin birth…..Jesus is mentioned but three times, the last with the simple title of savior and son of god. Certainly no major differences!

Secret Book of James: The text betrays no knowledge of the details of the passion accounts, even claiming Jesus to have been buried "in the sand" following his crucifixion.

There is more, but I don't have time to re-read 50 non-canonical documents this morning to find out how they differ too. It would nice, MC, if you had actually read the stuff before you went and made outrageous comments like the above, or claimed I was ill-informed. Perhaps it is you who needs a stint in a seminary.

Second, that's a non-point. All of the Robin Hood sources agree that he was an outlaw, but unfortunately he seems a composite figure. All Japanese sources agree that the Emperor descended from the sun god, so it must be true. All the sources written on Sai Baba by his followers agree that he does healing miracles, so it must be true (there is even video and photos!).

You know I wonder if you even know what Mthology is? Becasue there are no mytholoigcal elements in there. And what criteria do you use for determining what myth is? Elliade? Karanye? Bullfinch? Why does being divided into seven parts make it artifical? Why would it be fiction if it is mirroriing the same basic story that all the others tell? Why would you think that the glimpse into the family of Bethiny for example is merely made up, when there is nothing artificial about them. The prestent consistant characters and a concete location, no mythological ear marks at all! Do you even know the difference in folk lore, legeond, and myth? Or history?

<sigh> No mythological earmarks. Cut me a break! Just seven artificial signs. Re-arrangement of the original tale. Redaction by a several others. A Hero who fits archetypes of other heroes. Are you saying that the arrangement of John reflects the actual order of events? Of course it doesn't. Do you regard it as history? Does it have knowledge of other perspectives? Commitment to telling the historical truth? Balance and objectivity? Any kind of critique of sources or materials? Any dim sort of underlying "theory" of history? None of the above. It's "myth," a complex created thing consciously put together by different writers or groups of writers, depending on which theory you subscribe to.

As for your other (non)points, plenty of myths occur in concrete locations using pre-existent characters. Means nothing as far as truth is concerned. The issue is whether we can recover enough history from the material to make confident judgements. And we can't. It is myth -- an invented story written to give order and meaning to people's lives. Using the myths alone, can you deduce that Faust was a real person? The legend is about a concrete person in concrete places, culiminating in works in the 1580s in which Faust and Luther tussle (legitimation of Faust through linkage to known influential figure). The mythmaking dates from 1543, or within a couple of years of his death. It became wildly popular and was appearing in books, plays, etc, within 15 years. Rapid growth of myth within two decades of a persons' death. Remind you of anything?

You are confussing myth with narrative. What makes it myth? Why is it essentially the same story they all tell? Why is there no divergence in any of the myriad of versions of Gosples up to the 3d or fourth century?

Who is in confusion here? As we have seen, there is plenty of divergence, and a clear evolution of the Jesus-myth. (which may or may not be about a real person). Your claims are nonsense. The gospels are myths, stories evolved over time that create order and meaning for people's lives, using recognizable archetypal figures who carry out heroic tasks.

And what was [the Jesus Seminar's] means of looking? Well, they put up little colored balls to show their votes. That's about it. They have no method, they have critical faculties.

As I said, when they don't agree with you, you claim they are not real scholars. You shout that there is a consensus, and when I pull up fourscore scholars who disagree, you claim they are not scholars. As Crossan pointed out, methodologically, NT studies are extremely suspect. After all, if NT Wright can forthrightly claim that his historical inquiries are guided by his faith, and be accepted as a scholar, the field can't be really very tough methodologically, can it?

Oooo amatueres!@ aAAAAA will you please go to a seminary and take a calss for God sake! try to learn something and figure out what it means? None of that i new, that's all 19thy century stuff.

Would you please learn to read? I haven't said whether it is new or even true. People keep clubbing me over the head with a presumed consensus, only there isn't one, is there?

Evidence of a healing tradition is an idication that the community was vital. IT's evidence of strong beleif system and since all testimonies of Jesus in clude the healing tradiiton one must conclude that Jesus had a reputation as a healer. Why would the Johonnie community have a healing tradition in the first place? That's not proof, but it may be one indication of a core of historical veracity. Why is it that all testimonies of Jeus portray him as a healer? On a lot less evidence than that scholars have decided that Hercules was based upon a real guy, and certian other figures.

As I said, learn to read. We're in agreement here. I regard, like you, the healing traditions as an indication. Layman takes them for "proof." Doherty argues that this is a communal tradition, not necessarily relating to a real person. Since Folk-Daoism also produced a savior-cult, a Mary-figure (based on what was originally a male deity!), and other figures of early Christianity, it is not clear to me that an old tradition goes back to a particular source, but may have arisen out of thin air thanks to the stress of economic change under colonial rule (a very common situation in history). My position is that the gospels and other sources do not give us enough evidence to decide this with strong "proof," but only weak evidence or indications. Can you name evidence that would enable us to choose with confidence? Nope.

That's the problem when dealing with myth. Some myths are based on real people, like Wovoka, the Paiute Messiah (who died a silent movie actor), or the Zulu oral histories of Shaka the Great. Others are pure fiction, like the Hongs' mythical founder. Some appear to be composites, like Robin Hood. Others appear to have taken off so far they no longer relate to the original figure, like Faustus. Others whole religions have been built around them, and origins are completely obscure, like Hercules. Which of these is Jesus? I can't tell. Can you?

Good luck with the Third Jesus Quest. I'm sure I'll still be around when scholars embark on the Fourth, and Fifth, and Sixth…..

Michael


[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited May 23, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by turtonm (edited May 23, 2001).]

turtonm: What about scholars of myth, comparative religion, psychology of religion, cognition and religion, etc?

SecWebLurker: What about them, turtonm? You say "scholars" but concerning the only one you've mentioned - Joseph Campbell - you've presented no evidence demonstrating that Joe believes Jesus was not an historical person.

Where's the beef?

SecWebLurker

Spare the laughter Turton, I nowhere claimed there was a "consensus" on this issue. I claimed that a majority of scholars favored John's independence of Mark. J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, at 44.

So because there have been shifts in the opinion of scholars about the nature of Jesus's ministry you think he doesn't exist? How does this follow? Some opinions could be flat wrong. Some could be partial truths. But it certainly does not follow that because there has been some disagreements that Jesus does not exist. And you arrive at this conclusion with no discussion about the nature, quality, or methods of the previous inquiries.

One theory that has never reached any consensus among scholars, or a majority opinion, or even a substantial minority opinion is that Jesus did not exist.

I have no idea what you are talking about as far as Meier abandoning the criteria of discontinuity. But the criteria of embarrassment is not going to fade away. You seem to be under the erroneous impression that it is the unique province of Christian New Testament scholars. It is not. And your rejection of it is just another indication of your historical nihilism which claims that history is unknowable (or at least the parts that tend to support religious faith). Widely respected, and nonChristian, historians who are not New Testament specialists also utilize the criteria of dissimilarity. In fact, when such scholars have turned their attention to the Gospels, they have relied heavily on this very criteria.

You asked in your post about Michael Grant's criteria. He refers to one he realies on heavily as "surprise." It is, in fact, the criteria of embarrassment.

Michael Grant, Jesus, at 202-203.

So it seems that when Michael Grant, a leader in the field of Ancient History, decided to study the Gospels, he brought the criteria of "surprise" with him and put great faith in it. He also places great stock in the criteria of dissimilarity. Id. at 202. But, perhaps he is unique among nonN.T. scholars in this regard? Perhaps it is only all those New Testament scholars and Michael Grant who use this criteria.

Except, of course, such a notion would be undue skepticism and unsupported by any reference to such historians. Will Durant, another widely respected historian (and secular humanist), also puts great stock in this criteria. He also explicitly rejects your idea that the basic story of Jesus has shifted materially over time to the extent that we must doubt the very existence of Jesus.

Will Durant, Ceasar and Christ, at 557.

Clearly, therefore, the criteria of embarrassment is a tool used by the leading historians, even those who are not dedicated New Testament scholars nor Christians.

Returning to your claim that the first two quests "failed." It appears that you are judging whether or not a "quest" fails by whether it reaches a consensus on its subject. This is rather naive. Of course there is a consensus that Jesus existed and that his teachings spawned Christianity. Your claim that the conclusions have shifted over time is rather unspecific and conclusory. The belief that Jesus existed, performed exorcisms, had a religious ministry, and was crucified, has been the subject of widespread agreement along the various quests. However, whatever the shortcomings of the first two quests may be (and I agree that there were some), there is reason to be even more optimistic about the so-called third quest.

N.T. Wright, the Challenge of Jesus, at 26-27.

To sum up this post:

You misrepresented my statement, perhaps unintentionally. I never claimed a "consensus" but rather asserted that a "majority" of scholars accepted John's independence of Mark. (More on this in my next responsive post).

Your claim that since scholarly opinions of Jesus have shifted overtime is unsupported, conclusive, and fallacious. It does not follow that Jesus, therefore, did not exist. History is filled with such disputes and ongoing evaluations and reinterpretations. Even so, there has been a consensus throughout the first and second quests, as to Jesus existence, religious ministry, and crucifixion. Whether he was a teacher only of social justice or emphasized an apocalyptic vision of the Kingdom of God has been, and continues to be, the subject of much debate. But this hardly casts any doubt on his existence.

Perhaps most unfounded is your implication that the criteria of embarrassment is somehow unique to Christian New Testament scholars. This is flatly untrue. This is a regular criteria used by historians. Liberal, moderate, and conservative New Testament scholars do rely on it. However, so do leading historians in other fields. Leading nonChristian, nonNew Testament specialists, such as Michael Grant and Will Durant, have productively applied the criteria when they turned their attention to the Gospels.

Claims that the first and second quests "failed" are misleading, conclusory, and unsupported. Moreover, additional discoveries and new understandings about the geo-political and geo-religious features of early Christianity give additional tools to aid in the historical study of Jesus.

More later.


[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 23, 2001).]

Toto

Layman -

Will Durant was a popularizer and wrote about history, but he was not a working historian. Can you find a serious academic contemporary historian who uses the criteria of embarassment to decide what is true?

And have you found that quote from NT Wright?

Boy, that bar just keeps getting higher and higher.

I've provided Durant (too popular) and Grant (no explanation offered). Then there are the serious academic contemporary New Testament scholars such as E.P. Sanders (writes about this stuff too much), J.P. Meier (same, and a Catholic), Raymond Brown (same, and a Catholic), Graham Stanton (same), et. al.

How about Donald Harman Akenson, Professor of History at Queen's University ?

Donald Harman Akenson, St. Saul: A Skeleton Key to the Historical Jesus, at 192-3.

I did find one of the Wright references I was thinking about last night. But I left the book at home. Wright discusses the Jesus Seminar's leading scholars and their reaction to Reaganism. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God. I'll try and remember to bring it in tommorrow.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited May 23, 2001).]