Freethought & Rationalism Archive

luvluv · 03-23-2004, 10:26 AM

Just curiousity here. Out of all the folks on this board who are Jesus Mythers, how many of you have made it through Wright's 700+ page defense of the Ressurection: The Ressurection and the Son of God?

And of that portion, how many of you found that Doherty's treatment of the same issues (particularly the issue of what the word "ressurection" meant to first century Jews) is more plausibly true than Wright's?

You can say why if you want, but it's not necessary. I haven't read either book yet myself, but I definitely plan on reading Wright's book at least sometime before I die (Lord willing and the creek don't rise).

Vinnie · 03-23-2004, 11:00 AM

The results of this poll will be extremely lop-sided.

i haven't read this specific work of NT. I've read some others though.

Summary:

1. Wright makes some very good points at times.
2. His canonical reconstruction of Jesus is, well, to put it simply, just too canonical.

Vinnie

Toto · 03-23-2004, 11:35 AM

It's The Resurrection of the Son of God.

Stephen Carr makes a point of posting nonsense statements here from the Bishop of Durham, which has made me a bit reluctant to invest the time in a 700 page work of apologetics from someone who knows what conclusion he has to reach before he starts. But other reviewers are more positive, so I might read Wright some day. Is there some point that you think is especially persuasive?

Layman · 03-23-2004, 11:38 AM

I suppose that someone who is a JM is forbidden from reading both and finding Wright more convincing than Doherty?

Toto · 03-23-2004, 11:47 AM

That sounds like a challenge. I'll read it and let you know how convincing it is. (It might take me some time to find a copy and time to read it.) Unless, of course, Mr. Carr shows up and gives me a good reason not to waste my time and money.

Layman · 03-23-2004, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
That sounds like a challenge. I'll read it and let you know how convincing it is. (It might take me some time to find a copy and time to read it.) Unless, of course, Mr. Carr shows up and gives me a good reason not to waste my time and money.

With an escape hatch that huge I'm sure Mr. Carr will comply with your request. Of course, Mr. Carr has not read the book either.

luvluv · 03-23-2004, 12:17 PM

Are you taking this Steven Carr to be an authority on... well... anything?

If so, we must not be thinking about the same Steven Carr.

Layman:

Quote:

I suppose that someone who is a JM is forbidden from reading both and finding Wright more convincing than Doherty?

Well, if that is the case why would this person be a Jesus Myther? I guess I am just assuming that Doherty's case for JM is the best one out there, is that not so?

Vinnie:

What is your impression of the general scholarly opinion of N.T. Wright? I'd always heard he was one of the most respected New Testament scholars.

Vinnie · 03-23-2004, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv
Vinnie:

What is your impression of the general scholarly opinion of N.T. Wright? I'd always heard he was one of the most respected New Testament scholars.

I would say Wright is about as close as an evangelical scholar can come to doing real history. But in the end he reconstructs a canonical potrait of Jesus who thought he had to die for Irael//the world. His entire portrat of Jesus goes entirely with the grain of our texts. We have criteria called "with and against the grain" for a reason.

Not to mention our evaluation of the Gospel's reliability which most assuredly would be different.

If anyone would like to summarize Wrights strongest arguments for the resurrection I'll be happy to discuss them.

Vinnie

luvluv · 03-23-2004, 12:58 PM

Here's a link to 3 audio sermons by Wright I found. I doubt they do his actual scholarly arguments justice, but this is a start.

http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/wrightpage.html

Scroll down to the section marked "Wright Audio/Video" and you'll find 3 sermons on the ressurection. You might want to skip past the worship services at the beginning of the mp3's and get to the arguments. I haven't heard them yet myself, so I'll give them a listen with you. (I was linked here by a friend, but I never had time to look through the page).

But to be clear on this, I was told that Wright throughly undressess the claim of Spong, Crossan et al that the apostles took Jesus ressurection to be a metaphor or some kind of event in the heavens and not a physical reality. I'm also told he goes into basically incredible detail about the social environment in which the Ressurection was preached (both in this book and the 2 500+ page books on Jesus which are previous to this book). I would imagine that this would also contradict Doherty. So I didn't start this thread with the intention of getting into arguments about the Ressurection, but just to see if anyone had compared Doherty's findings in this area with Wright's.

(For the record, do you believe in the physical ressurection? If so, do you believe it can be argued for historically? )

Toto · 03-23-2004, 01:57 PM

There's a summary of Wright's theories here:

Quote:

Wright sees traditions that have been passed along relatively intact, with some editing done by the transmitters and then by the Gospel writers. He believes that this model better fits what we know of the way early Jews handled revered or sacred traditions than does the Bultmannian one, which contends that the Gospel material was handled rather like ancient folklore such as Homer's Odyssey or Iliad. The gestation period for the Gospel material is at most only a generation or so, a period of time in which there were still numerous eyewitnesses to corroborate or correct this or that form of a Jesus tradition. Thus, analogies with the handling of legendary material by writers far removed from any eyewitnesses simply will not work.

That's a BIG leap of faith right there, given that Mark was written at the earliest around the time of the destruction of the Temple and the scattering or slaughter of any eyewitnesses.

Quote:

Wright understands that a Jesus separated from the passion narratives is to a large degree a passionless and perhaps pointless Jesus. The Jesus of endless one-liners or short pithy sayings or even of modest social reforms was highly unlikely to cleanse the temple or get himself crucified during one of the major Jewish feasts, and certainly unlikely to generate the variety of Christologies one finds in the New Testament.

A good argument for the incoherence of the Jesus character.

Another online article

Quote:

Tuesday’s lectures on "Why Did Christianity Begin?" and "Paul and the Resurrection," took the questions to a deeper level. Wright described how Christianity was at once a kingdom of God movement, a messianic movement, and a resurrection movement. And he noted several ways that these Judaic notions had to be radically re-constructed following Jesus’ crucifixion. For Wright, the only explanation for this re-construction was that Jesus had been raised from the dead.

"There is no room…for the suggestion (as is often made today) that Paul’s view of Christianity, including the resurrection, was just one of many positions in the early church, and that there were many other movements in the same time, or even earlier, in which Jesus’ death and resurrection were unknown or of little importance." Further, Wright argued that not only did virtually all of the early Christians believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, but that the truth of this conviction can be accepted by modern persons as well. "Some scholars affirm the first while denying the second. I affirm both.

"Many scholars who firmly themselves disbelieve in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, acknowledge that, as far as we can tell, most of the early Christians did seem to believe it. As historians, we have to inquire whether we have any better alternative to offer, or whether in fact the early church was right."
. . .

"Paul was not dependent on the Gospel evangelists, nor they on him, yet the stories they tell dovetail, provided we do not get bogged down with [small] details."

Okay, he bases his beliefs on some discredited ideas: the eyewitness character of the gospels, and the "no better explanation" idea.

Quote:

"Proof is impossible," Wright noted. "But it is equally impossible to explain the origins of Christianity without something like this happening."

It is not only possible to explain the origins of Christianity without resorting to supernatural explanations, it has been done. And it is not clear what kind of wiggle room something "like this" is intended to provide.

Doherty agrees with most liberal New Testament scholars who think that the origins of Christianity can be explained without a resurrection, and that Christianity can be explained without Jesus.

I think Wright is talking to keep his own courage up. It does not appear that he has anything new or especially persuasive to add to the debate.

View Poll Results: I am a Jesus Myther and...
I have read Doherty's arguments, but not Wright's arguments.	23	71.88%
I have read Wright's arguments, but not Doherty's arguments.	1	3.13%
I have read both arguments, and I find Doherty's superior to Wrights	8	25.00%
I have read both documents, and I find them to be equally convincing.	0	0%
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll

03-23-2004, 10:26 AM	#1
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Jesus Mythers: Earl Doherty vs N.T. Wright Just curiousity here. Out of all the folks on this board who are Jesus Mythers, how many of you have made it through Wright's 700+ page defense of the Ressurection: The Ressurection and the Son of God? And of that portion, how many of you found that Doherty's treatment of the same issues (particularly the issue of what the word "ressurection" meant to first century Jews) is more plausibly true than Wright's? You can say why if you want, but it's not necessary. I haven't read either book yet myself, but I definitely plan on reading Wright's book at least sometime before I die (Lord willing and the creek don't rise).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-23-2004, 11:00 AM	#2
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	The results of this poll will be extremely lop-sided. i haven't read this specific work of NT. I've read some others though. Summary: 1. Wright makes some very good points at times. 2. His canonical reconstruction of Jesus is, well, to put it simply, just too canonical. Vinnie

03-23-2004, 11:35 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	It's The Resurrection of the Son of God. Stephen Carr makes a point of posting nonsense statements here from the Bishop of Durham, which has made me a bit reluctant to invest the time in a 700 page work of apologetics from someone who knows what conclusion he has to reach before he starts. But other reviewers are more positive, so I might read Wright some day. Is there some point that you think is especially persuasive?

03-23-2004, 11:38 AM	#4
Layman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 2,635	I suppose that someone who is a JM is forbidden from reading both and finding Wright more convincing than Doherty?

03-23-2004, 11:47 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	That sounds like a challenge. I'll read it and let you know how convincing it is. (It might take me some time to find a copy and time to read it.) Unless, of course, Mr. Carr shows up and gives me a good reason not to waste my time and money.

03-23-2004, 12:58 PM	#9
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	Here's a link to 3 audio sermons by Wright I found. I doubt they do his actual scholarly arguments justice, but this is a start. http://home.hiwaay.net/~kbush/wrightpage.html Scroll down to the section marked "Wright Audio/Video" and you'll find 3 sermons on the ressurection. You might want to skip past the worship services at the beginning of the mp3's and get to the arguments. I haven't heard them yet myself, so I'll give them a listen with you. (I was linked here by a friend, but I never had time to look through the page). But to be clear on this, I was told that Wright throughly undressess the claim of Spong, Crossan et al that the apostles took Jesus ressurection to be a metaphor or some kind of event in the heavens and not a physical reality. I'm also told he goes into basically incredible detail about the social environment in which the Ressurection was preached (both in this book and the 2 500+ page books on Jesus which are previous to this book). I would imagine that this would also contradict Doherty. So I didn't start this thread with the intention of getting into arguments about the Ressurection, but just to see if anyone had compared Doherty's findings in this area with Wright's. (For the record, do you believe in the physical ressurection? If so, do you believe it can be argued for historically? )

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.