ichabod crane

I like the idea of the new thread! I am not convinced by the Jesus myth theory, but it's certainly stimulated me to look at the evidence again very carefully in a new light. I think it has been very helpful at that level. And if it provides any satisfaction to Jesus-mythers, recently I had a long debate with my wife in which I argued for the Jesus myth position. That was very helpful for me to try and clarify it. I think there are some useful improvements that could be made to the theory. For example, I think we could see the gospel of John as an intermediate stage in the progression from Paul to the synoptics. Thus it seems to make more sense to me for Jesus-mythers to argue for the chronological order Pauline epistles -> gospel of John -> synoptics. This is because in many ways the gospel of John could be seen as a half-way house between the mythical Jesus and the human Jesus.

CX

That's really a matter of personal preference, but I would term him a cleric turned popularist. I dislike his work not because of his lack of academic standing but mostly because of it's speculativeness.

Magdlyn

Calling Spong popular is pushing it. He is quite unpopular and hated in many circles.

He quite definitely calls Jesus a spirit person. I have read this in his books.

He also thinks the nativity stories are obvious myths. He admits the non-historicity of much of Tanakh.

He is also anti-war and pro-gay. Not necc popular positions for a bishop to take in today's touchy society.

If one just reads the titles of his books, one can see he is unconcerned with literalism.

Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture

mod note - the original URL didn't work - Amazon URL's can be like that. I am substituting a link to one of Spong's books; click on his name for a full list of his books.

Speaking of "real" scholars, is Pagels considered one?

How about Borg and Crossan? I have read prety much all of Pagels but not the other 2 guys. If it is time for me to let go of speculators and move on to the big guns, I do not want to waste time stabbing in the dark.

Bede, "prat?" beware of PKB, old man.

CX

YOu misunderstand my use of the word "popularist". A popularist is one who writes on academic subjects, but for a lay audience. That is one who publishes popular books for the general public rather than say, monographs, journal articles and the like for the academic community.


Elaine Pagels has done outstanding work. All of it the highest caliber of scholarship. Crossan and Borg are both members of the Jesus seminar and as such there are some who would reject them on that basis alone, but personally I find their work to be middle of the road in terms of quality. For paragons of scholarship I'd recommend Udo Schnelle, Bart Ehrman, The Alands, Bruce Metzger, and William Dever if one is talking about Judeo-Xian studies and Manfred Clauss, Richard Gordon and Maartin Vermaseren for Mithras and other pagan cults of the Roman Empire.

Magdlyn

Ah, I guess Spong would be writing for me then. Just the average joe.

I wonder if they would be over my head? No more big words or odd technical terms that Pagels uses? Not too dry and boring? For examples of dry and boring, books I couldn't get thru were by Armstrong and Fox (Pagans and Xtians).

And what about say, ancient Egyptian and Sumerian type stuff? B/c I do have a crush on grandma Isis and grandpa Osiris. :notworthy Ishtar, Tammuz, Ba'al et al.