Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Killer Mike · 03-12-2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

First, Wells claims this to be a misunderstanding of his actual position:

"Some recent scholars (such as Freke and Gandy in their 1999 book and Early Doherty, whose book was also published in 1999) hold that the earliest Christian writers did not believe Jesus to have come to Earth as a man at all. I have never maintained this view, although it has often been imputed to me by critics who have been anxious to dispose of my arguments without troubling to see wherein they consist." (Can We Trust The New Testament?, p4)

Second, his actual position does not appear to be similar to your own (ie a Galilean preacher gets blown out of proportion by later mythologizing). In fact, he spends several paragraphs describing his agreements with Doherty. If I understand him correctly, a historical figure is likely to exist as the basis for Q but this figure has had the theology of Paul grafted onto him rather than being the inspiration for it. Wells appears to be open to the possibility that Paul's Jesus was assumed to have been killed at some unknown point in the past and/or that, in agreement with Ellegard, "earliest Christian ideas about him were to some extent shaped by imprecise knowledge about the Teacher of Righteousnes".(p.8)

I agree that this notion is more simple but that doesn't make it any more likely to be true and, IMO, it is too simple to account for all the evidence.

And the other part of the problem is that the existing evidence has no information that can be reliably identified as historical.

The case is not without its flaws and the conclusion is contrary to centuries of accepted assumptions. Even if the argument was rock-solid (ie sufficient to convince someone like Richard Carrier rather than just intrigue him), I would be shocked if it didn't take a considerable amount of time to overturn the existing assumptions/conclusions.

Do you really expect scholars to immediately embrace the notion that their own numerous scholarly efforts have been seriously misguided? That said, Crossan's The Birth of Christianity has generated almost as much doubt in my mind about the "traditional view" as the efforts of men like Price, Wells, and Doherty. He openly acknowledges and discusses, though failing to explain, the "great divide" between the apparently separate traditions in earliest Christianity (ie Life and Death).

On that note:

I find that to be a very compelling explanation but doesn't it require that the life being ignored was dramatically different from the one portrayed in the Gospels? It is consistent with Paul's depiction of the executed Christ as disguised and without reputation but that seems inconsistent with the sort of man whose life would result in followers so devout that they continued to be faithful even after his death.

I would also repeat my earlier quote and question in case it was buried under subsequent discussions:

I've seen this forumula before and I wonder why this doesn't require an earth-bound "Jesus" even if we assume that Paul, et al believed the true Jesus existed in a heavenly sphere? Doherty, IIRC, attributes this belief to the early Christians including Paul.

Darwin was able to convince scientists of his time their ideas were incorrect. In geology when continental drift was first proposed it was hotly debated, but scientists came to accept it. So I dont think we can attribute bible scholars unwillingness to accept the "mythical Jesus" to pride or ego. I mean they would want to be the first to shout about it!! Nothing gains notoriaty more then proving an alternative idea to the mainstream to be true. I mean what of Koester was able to convince the mainstrem of a "mythical Jesus"? He'd go down in history as the scholar who did this amazing thing, and be as big as Darwin is to biology.
For me, it seems more reasonable that the "mythisists" arguments are just not very convincing.
I also see no problem accepting the "great divide". Im sure as people discussed the meaning of his sermons there would have been much debate and disagreement. Also stories about him would have been handed down thru oral tradition (since most people were illiterate) and studies have been done showing how unreliable oral tradition is and how it leads to widely diverse stories. But then again Im no expert on the subject.

Amaleq13 · 03-12-2005, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

If the Historical Jesus and the early tradition about Jesus are seen in eschatological terms then one can connect this with Paul's teaching by emphasising the eschatological elements in Paul's teaching.

But the "divide" seems to exist even within the context of these assumptions since Paul's eschatological beliefs appear to derive from the death/resurrection of Christ but not from any teachings of a living Jesus.

Amaleq13 · 03-12-2005, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

Darwin was able to convince scientists of his time their ideas were incorrect. In geology when continental drift was first proposed it was hotly debated, but scientists came to accept it.

I don't think these are fair comparisons given the substantial difference in the nature of the evidence and relevant science but neither actually supports the notion that "radical conclusions" are readily accepted. It takes time even when the evidence is as unequivocal and objectively varifiable as it can be in the "hard" sciences. How much more time should be expected when one is dealing with evidence that involves so much subjective interpretation?

Quote:

For me, it seems more reasonable that the "mythisists" arguments are just not very convincing.

I agree that they are not currently convincing enough to compel scholars who have established careers based on completely different conclusions but that is far from establishing they have no validity. The "mainstream" views clearly leave many questions unanswered and many pieces of the puzzle unexplained so I think it is premature to dismiss the mythicists entirely.

Quote:

I also see no problem accepting the "great divide". Im sure as people discussed the meaning of his sermons there would have been much debate and disagreement.

The "great divide" isn't about disagreements about the meanings of sermons. It is about one "side" seeming to completely ignore any sermons or ministry to focus on a death that is, in turn, seemingly completely ignored by those who focus on teachings and a ministry.

[added later]I forgot to mention the most problematic aspect. The above apparently divergent views seem to have existed at the same time.

Vorkosigan · 03-12-2005, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Answer, because all our early Christian sources are strongly Jewish in one way or another.

(One could dispute this by claiming that Thomas is our earliest Christian source but IIUC neither of us would do so.)

Andrew Criddle

If you read the writings of the Taipings, they would be strongly Christian. Yet the Taipings were all Chinese. I think what we're really arguing about is what "Jewish" means.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby · 03-12-2005, 09:19 PM

Just a note that the version of Bernard Muller's essay on my site is out of date. For the current critique by Muller (which has been updated sometime in the past couple of months), go to his web page.

best,
Peter Kirby

ichabod crane · 03-13-2005, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vork

What makes you think Christianity began as a Jewish messianic movement?"

Because from the earliest Christian writings, the person of Jesus Christ, whether he is considered human, a divine spirit-being, a heavenly man, or a martian, is presented as being the messiah in terms of the Jewish Tanakh. From the earliest Christian writings, the Jewish Tanakh is quoted endlessly. However they thought of Christ, they were portraying him as the manifestation of Jewish messianic hopes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vork

Have you read Tolbert's Sowing the Gospel or Fowler's Let the Reader Understand?

No, but I've read Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vork

My own view is that Mark is allegorical or parabolic, and did not intend for his work to be read as history. It's full of sly jokes, irony, puzzles, etc.

But the fact that it might be full of sly jokes, irony, puzzles etc. just isn't evidence that it wasn't intended as history. It just doesn't follow! Literary construction is not incompatible with historical narrative. Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is full of high literary construction; but that doesn't mean that Julius Caesar was never Emperor of Rome, or that he was not assassinated, or that a subsequent struggle did not emerge between a Mark Antony faction and an Augustus faction, and so forth. We know all those things did happen in real history. Yes, there were embellishments and fictions; speeches were invented and so forth. Nobody really said "friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears". But that doesn't make the whole thing allegorical or non-historical!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I find that to be a very compelling explanation but doesn't it require that the life being ignored was dramatically different from the one portrayed in the Gospels? It is consistent with Paul's depiction of the executed Christ as disguised and without reputation but that seems inconsistent with the sort of man whose life would result in followers so devout that they continued to be faithful even after his death.

It's very hard to answer that question. Firstly, Paul presumably got his information about the life of Christ second-hand, so it may not be entirely reliable. Secondly, a person can inspire fanatical devotion in a small band of people without having much profile in the wider community. But who knows?

Vorkosigan · 03-13-2005, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Because from the earliest Christian writings, the person of Jesus Christ, whether he is considered human, a divine spirit-being, a heavenly man, or a martian, is presented as being the messiah in terms of the Jewish Tanakh. From the earliest Christian writings, the Jewish Tanakh is quoted endlessly. However they thought of Christ, they were portraying him as the manifestation of Jewish messianic hopes.

Yes, except that they do so quite freely. It's not so much that they portray Jesus as the manifestation of Jewish hopes, as they are trying to cast him as such. But is the early Christian reading of the Tanakh a "jewish" reading and if so, what kind of Jew? There wasn't one Judaism that we can measure the Jesus of early Christianity against, but many.

Quote:

But the fact that it might be full of sly jokes, irony, puzzles etc. just isn't evidence that it wasn't intended as history. It just doesn't follow! Literary construction is not incompatible with historical narrative. Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is full of high literary construction; but that doesn't mean that Julius Caesar was never Emperor of Rome, or that he was not assassinated, or that a subsequent struggle did not emerge between a Mark Antony faction and an Augustus faction, and so forth. We know all those things did happen in real history. Yes, there were embellishments and fictions; speeches were invented and so forth. Nobody really said "friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears". But that doesn't make the whole thing allegorical or non-historical!

You're equivocating here. Right here:

Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is full of high literary construction; but that doesn't mean that Julius Caesar was never Emperor of Rome,

you switched meanings on me. Sure Julius Caesar was historical, but that doesn't help us read Shakespeare's intention. We can't move from knowledge of history to knowledge of intention. Different things entirely.

It's difficult to credit that Shakespeare was writing history -- no doubt his strict regard for the facts compelled him to insert a striking clock in a story that took place a millenium prior to its invention! No, Shakespeare is illustrating something with his tale of Caesar, just as Mark is with his tale. Both writers have a taste for the dramatic. Both borrow from history to illustrate moral tales -- Shakespeare drew on Plutarch, who omitted or altered events as necessary to illustrate his points. (As an aside, the text of JC is not stable; it wasn't published until after WS's death, and there were many variants. The play, with its themes of regicide and political turmoil, would certainly have spoken to Shakespeare's own time.

But back to Mark.....Mark is not embellished. Mark is invented. Big difference. Maybe he had a real Jesus in mind, but the one he put down on paper is entirely a creation of his own.

Vorkosigan

andrewcriddle · 03-13-2005, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

If you read the writings of the Taipings, they would be strongly Christian. Yet the Taipings were all Chinese. I think what we're really arguing about is what "Jewish" means.

Vorkosigan

(This is basically an aside about the meaning of 'Christian'.)

I agree that the Taiping are only dubiously Christian, but the issue is the very unusual nature of their interpretaion of Christianity.

The fact that they were ethnically Chinese would not in itself pose any problem about them being unambiguously Christian.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 03-13-2005, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I would also repeat my earlier quote and question in case it was buried under subsequent discussions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Carrier
10. And as above so on the earth also; for the likeness of that which is in the firmament is here on the earth.

I've seen this forumula before and I wonder why this doesn't require an earth-bound "Jesus" even if we assume that Paul, et al believed the true Jesus existed in a heavenly sphere? Doherty, IIRC, attributes this belief to the early Christians including Paul.

There are some cases where a similar formula does indeed refer to a quasi-Platonic mirroring of one realm by another. (eg the 'Emerald Tablet' in late Hermeticism.)

I am rather dubious whether it has this sort of meaning in the 'Ascension of Isaiah' which is where this precise citation comes from.

I'll give the IMO relevant quotations from AoI in context
from section 7

Quote:

And we went up he and I into the vault of heaven and there I saw Sammael and his hosts and there was much strife there for the angels of Satan were all jealous of one another. And as it is on high so also is it on earth what happens in the vault of heaven happens similarly on earth. And I said to the angel, What is this strife and why this jealousy ? And he said to me It has been like this since the world was made till now and this strife will continue until the one you are to see comes and destroys him.

from section 10

Quote:

And again he descended into the vault of heaven where dwells the prince of this world and he gave the password to those on the left and his form was like theirs and they did not praise him ther instead they were all jealous of one another and were fighting one another (such is the power of evil there and of jealousy about things that do not matter). And I saw that when he descended and made himself like the angels of the air he looked just like one of them and he gave no password for each one of them was busy cheating and doing violence to his neighbour.

Taking together these two description of the realm of the bad angels, I think the point is not a general mirroring of one by the other but the idea that the bad angels are mean and petty just like bad people on earth.

Andrew Criddle

Killer Mike · 03-13-2005, 07:16 AM

Out of curiosity Im just wondering how "mythicists" explain the "great divide"?
The great divide apparently happened rather suddenly. I have a little skepticism in accepting people just out of the blue started telling such widely diverse stories about a non-existent man. Having said that, while Im not convinced of the mythicists idea I am at least open to the possibility.

03-13-2005, 07:16 AM	#80
Killer Mike Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,033	I Have A Question? Out of curiosity Im just wondering how "mythicists" explain the "great divide"? The great divide apparently happened rather suddenly. I have a little skepticism in accepting people just out of the blue started telling such widely diverse stories about a non-existent man. Having said that, while Im not convinced of the mythicists idea I am at least open to the possibility.

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

03-12-2005, 09:19 PM	#75
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Just a note that the version of Bernard Muller's essay on my site is out of date. For the current critique by Muller (which has been updated sometime in the past couple of months), go to his web page. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.