Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 11-11-2009, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Here is, again, where I become confused:

Why is this a "fatal flaw"?

Because Dunn is incredulous that such a thing could happen.

And if Dunn simply cannot believe something can happen, that is a fatal flaw to the idea that if happened.

This is exactly the reason I have such a hard time with many biblical scholars. It almost seems like they must have some secret information that the rest of us are simply not privy to.

Solo · 11-11-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Why is this a "fatal flaw"?

Because Dunn is incredulous that such a thing could happen.

And if Dunn simply cannot believe something can happen, that is a fatal flaw to the idea that if happened.

That's kinda true but trite casting of the issue. Dunn exaggerates the "fatal" part. In fact there is nothing fatal about the myth theory. Even if it was theoretically impossible, and it is not, there is still God who does miracles of all sorts. Why would a theologian be opposed to the revelation from God that there was in fact no historical Jesus ? The only reasonable answer I can think of is, 'because the theologian is committed to a different doctrine'. :huh:

Now, on the merit of the argument: The mythical Jesus seems improbable given the sudden historical appearance of sects where a leader by the same name was idolized despite his apparently humiliating execution by the authorities. So the burden on the mythicist is not just to show the source of the myth and its pristine form, but how the myth became the object of sharp controversy in its earliest stages of development, a controversy about the nature of divine intervention it declared.

Jiri

lintrap · 11-11-2009, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I found the following review online - - nothing of note by the reviewer. I just had a chuckle with the reviewer's quote from Crossan - who seemingly wrote, in regard to Robert Price's contribution to the book: "...John did not say, "God so loved the world that God sent us a story.".....

http://bbhchurchconnection.blogspot....-review-3.html

But, didn't John say" In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.....And the Word was made flesh....

It is most alarming when so-called scholars use the very sources that presented Jesus as a God who created heaven and earth, and turn around and claim he was just a man.

The entire NT is fundamentally about a GOD/MAN, not a man.

Aside from that one line at the begining of the book of John, where else is it claimed that Jesus is God? And why didn't Jesus claim it?

aa5874 · 11-11-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Here is, again, where I become confused:

Why is this a "fatal flaw"?

Methinks, the “fatal flaw’ lies with Dunn’s interpretation of the Jesus myth - at least with what his above comments reflect.

“..total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors....”

Inventing a Jesus of Nazareth that actually lived in their own generation - now that would be no better than the imaginary friends that children like to invent. And, as with children, those early Christians would have had a hard time trying to convince others that their ‘friend’ - friends - really are real. And, surely, if that would have been the case 2000 years ago - it hardly needs saying that it’s not going to be an idea that will sell today!

But, what Dunn purports is indeed the "fatal flaw".

He assumes he knows the inventors, their generation, even when and where the inventors lived.

No such things can be confirmed.

Who actually wrote the Gospels, when were the Gospels written and where were they written and distributed?

And what source show that Jesus was living within any generation?

The fatal flaw of Dunn is exposed.

Jesus could have been invented many years after his purported death and in a country many hundreds of miles away from Judaea.

Toto · 11-11-2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Here is, again, where I become confused:

Quote:

Dunn says the fatal flaw with the Jesus myth boils down to this: "the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really."

Why is this a "fatal flaw"?

I think that Dunn is referring to the "legendary development" chestnut. It has been argued that there must be some historical core to the gospels because legends take genrations to develop, and no one back then was smart enough or inventive enough to create an instant legend. That's why the Jesus Project considered the case of Mr. Ludd, to show that legends can develop in a much shorter time frame.

This is a very useful review - more an extended book report than a review. Other parts can be found at: Review of the Introduction, Luke Timothy Johnson, Crossan and Responses to Crossan, Price, with more to come.

From the review of the Introduction, there is this comment on the elusive consensus:

Quote:

Though differences abound Eddy and Beilby assert that while a "consensus in Jesus studies is elusive, it is not entirely absent." (47) Chief on the consensus list is one major item--the Jewishness of Jesus. "One of the most scathing critiques that a contemporary scholar can receive today is that he has ignored or even underappreciated the Jewishness of Jesus." (49) But, again, the harmony of opinions quickly stops. What that "Jewishness" looked like is the spark of a whole new debate. They point again to Arnal who says the entire discussion is a "'red herring,' since within a radically diverse Judaism, Jesus could turn out to be just about anything and still potentially qualify as 'Jewish.'" . . .

What has the third quest produced? Here's a sample of the reconstructions the third quest has produced of Jesus: "an eschatological prophet, a Galilean holy man, an occultic magician, an innovative rabbi, a trance-inducing psychotherapist, a Jewish sage, a political revolutionary, an Essene conspirator, an itinerant exorcist, an historicized myth, a protoliberation theologian, a peasant artisan, a Torah-observant Pharisee, a Cynic-like philosopher, a self-conscious eschatological agent, a socioeconomic reformer, a paradoxical Messianic claimant and, finally, as one who saw himself as, in some sense, the very embodiment of Yahweh-God."

maryhelena · 11-11-2009, 12:28 PM

From the Review of the Introduction,

Quote:

"What has the third quest produced? Here's a sample of the reconstructions the third quest has produced of Jesus: "an eschatological prophet, a Galilean holy man, an occultic magician, an innovative rabbi, a trance-inducing psychotherapist, a Jewish sage, a political revolutionary, an Essene conspirator, an itinerant exorcist, an historicized myth, a protoliberation theologian, a peasant artisan, a Torah-observant Pharisee, a Cynic-like philosopher, a self-conscious eschatological agent, a socioeconomic reformer, a paradoxical Messianic claimant and, finally, as one who saw himself as, in some sense, the very embodiment of Yahweh-God."

So, the consensus seems to be that Jesus of Nazareth can be all things to all people. A one size fits all Jesus. An everyman. A nobody, anybody - a take-your-pick Jesus. At least Johnson is being pretty honest with this comment:

Quote:

For Johnson then typical historical Jesus research is not historical research at all but rather “a theological agenda wearing the external garb of history.” (167)

Johnson review

Clivedurdle · 11-11-2009, 12:42 PM

I see the above Jesi missed the teacher of righteousness - and Solo, I believe the depth of soil of the Christ is much much deeper - back to the main prophets and the Septaguint translators in Alexandria.

The grafting of a Jesus to the root stock Christ was probably started unconsciously by Paul, and then Mark wrote a Greek play in Alexandria.

Made in Egypt?

aa5874 · 11-11-2009, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

From the Review of the Introduction,

Quote:

"What has the third quest produced? Here's a sample of the reconstructions the third quest has produced of Jesus: "an eschatological prophet, a Galilean holy man, an occultic magician, an innovative rabbi, a trance-inducing psychotherapist, a Jewish sage, a political revolutionary, an Essene conspirator, an itinerant exorcist, an historicized myth, a protoliberation theologian, a peasant artisan, a Torah-observant Pharisee, a Cynic-like philosopher, a self-conscious eschatological agent, a socioeconomic reformer, a paradoxical Messianic claimant and, finally, as one who saw himself as, in some sense, the very embodiment of Yahweh-God."

So, the consensus seems to be that Jesus of Nazareth can be all things to all people. A one size fits all Jesus. An everyman. A nobody, anybody - a take-your-pick Jesus. At least Johnson is being pretty honest with this comment:

Quote:

For Johnson then typical historical Jesus research is not historical research at all but rather “a theological agenda wearing the external garb of history.” (167)

Johnson review

So the HJ can be called the IMAGINATION JESUS or IJ. Jesus was whatever you imagine him to be.

Rick Sumner · 11-11-2009, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I found the following review online - - nothing of note by the reviewer. I just had a chuckle with the reviewer's quote from Crossan - who seemingly wrote, in regard to Robert Price's contribution to the book: "...John did not say, "God so loved the world that God sent us a story.".....

http://bbhchurchconnection.blogspot....-review-3.html

This is one of those things that is never going to help Price, Doherty or anyone else get a fair hearing. The type of rhetoric (or as Earl has called it, "colorful language") Price is employing will only serve to incense those opposed to him, and appeal only to those sympathetic in the first place.

Unsympathetic reviewers of Price fairly consistently remark on his rhetoric, which serves only to inspire in-group backslapping, but convinces no one.

It might be good for a chuckle. But it's bad scholarship.

Clivedurdle · 11-11-2009, 12:50 PM

Quote:

there is still God who does miracles of all sorts

The historicist error can't be as simple as that can it?

If someone has a god starting point, the five impossible things before breakfast becomes very easy.

They will pare away all or most of the legendary accretions - most do not actually - but because of the default god position they still think a person is required to start it all.

But actually it is a new idea - a god becoming man to save us all and bring a new heaven and earth.

And they all lived happily ever after (well some did...).

(Is it John Lennon who says before or after a track of a Beatle's Album "And all the angels sing")

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

11-11-2009, 12:42 PM	#17
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I see the above Jesi missed the teacher of righteousness - and Solo, I believe the depth of soil of the Christ is much much deeper - back to the main prophets and the Septaguint translators in Alexandria. The grafting of a Jesus to the root stock Christ was probably started unconsciously by Paul, and then Mark wrote a Greek play in Alexandria. Made in Egypt?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.