Solo

I think Dunn has trapped himself here. There is realistically no chance that Jesus was the lionized figure of the the gospels and then escaped all historical attention of his time. So, the Bultmann solution seems pretty much the only exit out of the dilemma. If it is, then someone has to explain Paul's 'elaborate myth' around the obscure, rejected figure of Q. Dunn has all the learning that he needs to crack this - except he is not an ecstatic himself or dedicated some of his time to be around such people to grasp Paul's paradox of Christ. His immense erudition is wasted on churning out what Paul Tillich called 'empty theism'.

Jiri

maryhelena

My chuckle was in regard to Crossan not Price....

I am finding this review - although as Toto termed it - a report rather than a review - rather interesting. Particularly the comments the various contributors have made to the scholarship of the others....Perhaps more of this sort of thing is needed i.e. instead of these scholars writing nicely for the general public - make them publicly expose the errors in each others work! Far more interesting than just giving out their own ideas. In fact a similar thought is made by the reviewer:
As to being scholarly - looks like taking little digs at one another is part of the setup:
Crossan responses

Open debate is to be applauded - and that Price was invited to the party - good for him - and good for the Jesus myth theory to have achieved a place at the table.

Rick Sumner

Well, unless he's changed recently, Price isn't quite a mythicist, just very close. But you're right, I'd misread your post, and it was Crossan taking the shot. Which also isn't terribly scholarly.

Solo

For Chris'socks sake, Clive, I was just trying to be funny !
Is avi the only one here who gets my jokes ?



Dunn is a Christian theologian: I was just applying Mark 10:27 to MJ : 'with men the theory is impossible, but with God all things are possible'. I was saying well, how can he then say the theory has "fatal" flaw ? So what if, by God's miracle, MJ becomes accepted ? He should fall on his knees and pray to God that MJ "is either not true or it does not become generally known", as the wife of the bishop of Oxford suggested that her friends do when she heard of Darwin's theory of man's descent from apes.


Jiri

maryhelena

"Out of Eqypt I called my son.".........perhaps the gospel storyline was trying to provide some mythological linkage or other....:constern01:

Solo

It's always going to be a dilemma: either the guy is far too nice to be worth crucifying or there is no point to resurrecting him at all.

Paul actually had a solution to this but it was just too hard and did not sell as well as the miracle fetish : the guy was made look like an impudent imposter or a lunatic, but who knows the mind of God ? Would you believe he was God's own, and I am he as you are he and we are all together ..... ?

Jiri

Rick Sumner

I don't think it's that simple. Meier nails this one on the head (putting aside the historicity argument for a moment). A Jesus who does not offend authority is not the historical Jesus.

He can be offensive. He just can't be offensive to everyone.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Steven Carr

So why does Paul not deal with this 'offense' of Jesus? The only objection Paul has to deal with is the fact that this Jesus was crucified.He never deals with any charges brought against Jesus.

And why does Paul insist that the governing authorities hold no terror for the innocent, but are agents of God to punish wrong-doers?

Solo

You are not getting what I have said. To the Nazarenes, and anti-Paulines like Crossan, Jesus was innocent (a really nice guy) who was murdered. Paul maintained he was offensive...just as he and his ecstatic friends were.

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the question of whether you beg the question in your claim that Jesus was "lionized", let alone by the very people you imply should have mentioned (who are they, by the way), you might want to review your claim (which has an air of the appeal to personal incredulity about it) of what is and what is not a "realistic chance" in the light of the absence of any mention in Josephus (a Pharisee) of the "lionized" Hillel or in Dio Cassius' account of the Jewish revolt of 132-135 of the "lionized" Bar Kochba.

Jeffrey