On another thread, turtonm has consistently implied that there exist "scholars of myth, comparative religion, psychology of religion, cognition and religion, etc" who do not believe in a historical Jesus, but has repeatedly avoided the demand to support this statement.

He cites Joseph Campbell as an example but has nowhere presented evidence that J. Campbell does not believe that an historical Jesus existed.

So I ask again: Where's the beef? Who are all these scholars of myth, psych. of religion, cog. and religion, compar. religion, etc.?

SecWebLurker

Ah, SWL, do apologists develop reading problems when they become apologists, or do you all go to a special school where they teach you how not to think or read?

The claim was made by apologists -- "all scholars believe X." Since apologists made this claim, I pointed out that they have not investigated all scholars by pointing to disciplines where some scholars do not believe literal historical intepretations of the gospels are possible or even desirable.

Now, as I have already advised you, go back and read what Campbell has to say about historical literalism and myth in the interview I posted. You might also read his remarks on the topic in his Masks of God series.

You can run along and play now, because I don't have anything further to add to this. When apologists demonstrate that all NT scholars across all disciplines, share their views, they may have a case to say "all scholars."

Michael Turton

Meta =>No, I think most of us argued that the overwhealming consensus accepts Jesus' historicity so completely that even atheists who are secular historians consider the Christ myther position to be on a par with Big foot and flying saucers. We have presented examples of many scholars who argue this. But you have yet to present a single exmaple of any real academic scholar in any field who is willing to domatically and categorically deny the historicity of Jesus. It is your burden of proof to demonstrate that mythogrphers accept Dhortey's view because you imtimated that they do.

Meta =>More ciruclar reasoning. your reasoning runs something like this:
1) Campbell says x about myth
2) The NT has to be myth becasue that's my assumption
3) Therefore Campbell beleives x about the NT.

But you have yet to show that the he does. I can tell you it is higly unlikely. I don't think he ever really said, but since he does accept that King Arthur was a real guy he probably is willing to accpet that Jesus was. He beleived in syncratism not in conscious barrowing. So it is ture that the probably thought the dying rising savior god was syncratic, but that is not to say that he ruled out the histoircal existence of Jesus of Nazerath.

You can run along and play now, because I don't have anything further to add to this. When apologists demonstrate that all NT scholars across all disciplines, share their views, they may have a case to say "all scholars."

Michael Turton[/b][/QUOTE]

Meta =>We have demonstrated the consensus, it's your burden to show that a sizeable counter trend exists. You can't. I've read more Campbell than you have I bet and I don't think you understand him.




[This message has been edited by Metacrock (edited May 24, 2001).]

Meta,

You should add,"...bigfoot, flying saucers, a non-geocentric universe, a spherical Earth and an imperfect Moon with mountains and craters"

[This message has been edited by joedad (edited May 24, 2001).]

More bunk from Michael

turtonm:
Ah, SWL, do apologists develop reading problems when they become apologists, or do you all go to a special school where they teach you how not to think or read?

SWL: Har har. Let's see what you wrote...

Bede asked:

turtonm responded:

So obviously you ARE claiming that Campbell as well as other scholars of myth and comparitive religion do not believe Jesus existed. Either that, or your response is simply a red herring.

turtonm: Now, as I have already advised you, go back and read what Campbell has to say about historical literalism and myth in the interview I posted. You might also read his remarks on the topic in his Masks of God series.

SWL: Now we see turtonm being a little slimy and shifting the goal posts. There is NOTHING in that interview in evidence of Joseph Campbell's alleged belief that Jesus did not exist - not a thing - and that is the subject of Bede's question and my repeated requests of turtonm on the other thread.

turtonm: You can run along and play now, because I don't have anything further to add to this.

SWL: So we see that turtonm has not answered Bede's question:

Turtonm has failed to demonstrate that this is the belief of Joseph Campbell or any other scholars of myth, comparitive religion, etc.

SecWebLurker




[This message has been edited by SecWebLurker (edited May 25, 2001).]

This is the best you can do, SWL?

SingleDad: This is the best you can do, SWL?

SWL: LOL, what is this? A playground? I write up a post asking for someone to back up their claims and in comes his buddy with an "Oh yeah? You ain't so tough!"

Respond to my points or don't, man. I don't want to shove around with you...

SecWebLurker

Toto

Do you have any evidence that Campbell did believe that Jesus was historical? I can't find that he took a firm position on the matter, but it seems like the mythicist position would be compatible with everything that he has written.

Of course, the actual existence of a human Jesus would also be consistent with everything you guys have produced so far by Campbell.

I'm sure you've done plenty of internet searches by now. Yet, you still haven't found a statement from him saying Jesus didn't exist?

In “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” Campbell argues explicitly for a “mythicist” reading of the Gospels at least to the extent that he clearly states that to argue about the historicity of Jesus (either for or against) is to completely miss the point of the Gospels’ story. Near the beginning of part five (“Master of the Two Worlds”) of Chapter III Campbell discusses the transfiguration passages from the Gospels. I’ll quote enough to give the flavor (this is definitely someone interested in the story as MYTH) and then get to the meat of the quote:

QUOTE: “’...And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be again risen from the dead.’
“Here is the whole myth in a moment: Jesus the guide, the way, the vision, and the companion of the return. The disciples are his initiates...It should be observed that this eternal moment soars beyond Kamar al-Zaman’s romantic realization of his individual destiny. Not only do we have a masterly passage, back and forth, across the world threshold, but we observe a profounder, very much profounder, penetration of the depths. Individual destiny is not the motive and theme of this vision; for the revelation was beheld by three witnesses, not one: it cannot be satisfactorily elucidated simply in psychological terms. Of course, it may be dismissed. We may doubt whether such a scene ever actually took place. But that would not help us any; for we are concerned, at present, with problems of symbolism, not of historicity. We do not particularly care whether Rip Van Winkle, Kamar al-Zaman, or Jesus Christ ever actually lived. Their stories are what concern us: and these stories are so widely distributed over the world-attached to various heroes in various lands-that the question of whether this or that local carrier of the universal theme may or may not have been a historical, living man can be of only secondary moment. The stressing of this historical element will lead to confusion; it will simply obfuscate the picture message.” END QUOTE

I’m not claiming that this passage exhausts Campbell’s thought on the subject of a historical Jesus, nor am I trying to claim that his comparison of the historicity of Jesus with the historicity of Rip Van Winkle in the above passage is anything more than a rhetorical flourish. Elsewhere in the “Hero” it could be argued equally that he traces a “primitive” Christian movement that followed an ascetic master who had achieved some sort of visionary transcendence. (Note that I said “it could be argued”. That’s as far as I’ll go). I think it is clear though that to contemporary Christians who base their faith at least in part on a belief in the historicity of Jesus, and to skeptics like myself, he says loudly “A plague on both your houses!”