FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2010, 09:24 AM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default R. Joseph Hoffmann: The Jesus Prospect

Interesting......

Quote:
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...esus-prospect/

The Jesus Prospect

I am happy to be working with New Testament scholar Stephanie Fisher in re-writing the script and continuing the work we had begun. We will be making an announcement of consultation members very soon. This space should be watched for who is in and who is not (Matthew 22.14). But unlike the Jesus Project, we want to avoid any impression that results are dictated by foregone (or are they forlorn?) conclusions or that an earth-shattering result is at hand.

<snip>

In fact, there is a good prospect that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is the most efficient explanation for the gospels, the writings of Paul and the formation of gospels and the church. There is a possibility he did not.

maryhelena is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 10:00 AM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
Interesting......

Quote:
http://rjosephhoffmann.wordpress.com...esus-prospect/

The Jesus Prospect

I am happy to be working with New Testament scholar Stephanie Fisher in re-writing the script and continuing the work we had begun. We will be making an announcement of consultation members very soon. This space should be watched for who is in and who is not (Matthew 22.14). But unlike the Jesus Project, we want to avoid any impression that results are dictated by foregone (or are they forlorn?) conclusions or that an earth-shattering result is at hand.

<snip>

In fact, there is a good prospect that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is the most efficient explanation for the gospels, the writings of Paul and the formation of gospels and the church. There is a possibility he did not.

And this is found in the very same source.

Quote:
...Everyone (almost) agrees that most of Jesus is a myth of the church, and even the church trades on the mythical power of a name that is basically unhistorical. We don’t need to convince scholars of that. They know it already, and rather wonder why it’s such a big deal to mythers....
There is really no good prospect that Jesus of Nazareth existed because if there was good historical sources HJers would have presented their sources a long long time ago.

Instead, HJers have always depended on the "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY."

This has been the fallacious mantra of HJers: "NO HISTORIAN, worth his salt, denies the historicity of Jesus."

Well, it is all over. The "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN FALLACY" cannot work anymore.

There is no known historical source external of apologetic sources that can show there was a character called Jesus, the Christ, Messiah, Son of God, Lord and Saviour, the Creator, offspring of the Holy Ghost and a Virgin who was believed to have walked on water, transfigured, was raised from the dead, ascended to heaven and had the power to forgive the sins of mankind, abolish the Laws of God including circumcision during the time of Pilate and up to the time of Nero.

The prospect for Jesus is virtually ZERO.

From the same source.

Quote:
"Everyone (almost) agrees that most of Jesus is a myth of the church....
What now is NOT a myth of the church with regards to Jesus?

What?
aa5874 is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 10:56 AM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

It is an informative and thoughtful blog posting, worth the time reading.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 11:26 AM   #4
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 320
Default

Quote:
Quote:
...Everyone (almost) agrees that most of Jesus is a myth of the church, and even the church trades on the mythical power of a name that is basically unhistorical. We don't need to convince scholars of that. They know it already, and rather wonder why it's such a big deal to mythers....
I wonder if they think an announcement by Biblical scholars that most if not all of story of JC is a falsehood might be a big deal to the billions of believers world-wide whose faith is based upon the belief that the opposite is true?

Is it possible (gasp) that this chummy secret is kept behind the ivied walls of academia because they would all lose their jobs if they actually announced what they all "know...already"?

Can they possible be so dense as to not understand "why it's such a big deal to mythers", or is such a statement intended to squelch debate and remove them from their responsibility to openly communicate what they know very well would be a pronouncement of apocalyptic proportions to the Church?

"Tech support!... I need Tech support!!" :devil1:
Zaphod is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 12:11 PM   #5
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

So everyone knows that "most of Jesus is a myth of the church" but "the thin possibility [that Jesus did not exist] cannot be supported by sweeping away the gospels like so much Palestinian debris that occludes a master-theory."

We're back to trying to extract history from mythology.
Toto is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 12:32 PM   #6
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toto View Post
So everyone knows that "most of Jesus is a myth of the church" but "the thin possibility [that Jesus did not exist] cannot be supported by sweeping away the gospels like so much Palestinian debris that occludes a master-theory."

We're back to trying to extract history from mythology.
Exactly right. We really have no choice but to do so, and it is sort of a relief to see Hoffman acknowledge that reality. It mythicists want to make a case that Jesus never existed, then they are going to have to find the history behind the mythology of the earliest Christian writings, the same way the historicists must do. If you simply take a postmodernist or minimalist (or whatever you would like me to call it) attitude that almost no history can be discerned from the myth, then you have only reached an intellectual dead end. The way forward is to evaluate competing theories based on what explains the evidence the best. Here is Hoffman's full statement:
In fact, there is a good prospect that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is the most efficient explanation for the gospels, the writings of Paul and the formation of gospels and the church. There is a possibility he did not. The thin possibility cannot be supported by sweeping away the gospels like so much Palestinian debris that occludes a master-theory, anymore than the uncertainty of who the Scythians were proves that Herodotus made them up. I am of one mind with April DeConick when I assay the work of the “mythers”–the born again pre-committed–a term I don’t like very much, but in an odd way one that points to the hollowness of many of the non-historicity arguments.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 12:41 PM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
It mythicists want to make a case that Jesus never existed, then they are going to have to find the history behind the mythology of the earliest Christian writings, the same way the historicists must do. If you simply take a postmodernist or minimalist (or whatever you would like me to call it) attitude that almost no history can be discerned from the myth, then you have only reached an intellectual dead end.
it is an intellectual dead end to claim that Jack and the Beanstalk is not history, until you can tell us how the story came into existence.

Who wrote it? Why did he write it?

Until then, Jack and the Beanstalk can no more be regarded as myth than the Gospels can.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 12:46 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
Here is Hoffman's full statement:
In fact, there is a good prospect that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is the most efficient explanation for the gospels, the writings of Paul and the formation of gospels and the church. There is a possibility he did not....


A possibility?

No way!

There is ZERO possibility that Josephus never wrote about Jesus in Ant. 18.

That has been established by scholars.


There is ZERO possibility that the words from Matthew 1:16 in Ant. 20 are a Christian interpolation.

That has been established by scholars.

There is ZERO possibility that the 'brothers of the Lord' in 1 Corinthians 9 are not blood-relatives of Jesus.

That has been established by scholars.

Biblical scholars will not entertain the possibility of these things, and yet they are open-minded enough to state there is a possibility Jesus never existed.

How do they do that?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 12:56 PM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
It mythicists want to make a case that Jesus never existed, then they are going to have to find the history behind the mythology of the earliest Christian writings, the same way the historicists must do. If you simply take a postmodernist or minimalist (or whatever you would like me to call it) attitude that almost no history can be discerned from the myth, then you have only reached an intellectual dead end.
it is an intellectual dead end to claim that Jack and the Beanstalk is not history, until you can tell us how the story came into existence.

Who wrote it? Why did he write it?

Until then, Jack and the Beanstalk can no more be regarded as myth than the Gospels can.
The evolution of Jack and the Beanstalk can actually be tracked through history and educated guesses can be made about its origins, including the motivations behind it. It is important that I said, "guesses." Nobody is claiming that you need absolutely certainty about how Christianity began. Jesus is not presumed to be historical any more than Jack and the Beanstalk is presumed to be originally mythical. We simply fit the most plausible hypothesis to the evidence that we have.
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 02-28-2010, 01:10 PM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
The evolution of Jack and the Beanstalk can actually be tracked through history and educated guesses can be made about its origins, including the motivations behind it. It is important that I said, "guesses." Nobody is claiming that you need absolutely certainty about how Christianity began. Jesus is not presumed to be historical any more than Jack and the Beanstalk is presumed to be originally mythical. We simply fit the most plausible hypothesis to the evidence that we have.
so what is the most plausible hypothesis for Paul's claim that Jews could not be expected to have heard about Jesus if Christians had not been sent to preach about him?
Steven Carr is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:01 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.