Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 06-07-2007, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

And that's what Price is saying too: there's no HJ to distinguish. And you are quite correct that HJ-ers work on the assumption of an HJ (this is obvious to MJ-ers but something that is often hotly denied by HJ-ers). That's all it is. But it seems to me that Price, having at one timed worked with that assumption like every other Biblical scholar, is now not working with that assumption, and says that when you don't, there's no good reason to make it in the first place.

I disagree with your interpretations of Price, but it's frustrating to discuss the details when nearly every statement I make is getting misconstrued. For example, I didn't say or imply that "HJ-ers work on the assumption of an HJ."

Stephen

What does "The scholarly quest for the historical Jesus assumes that there was a mythology built up around Jesus" mean if not that there's the assumption of a person behind the myth - i.e. the assumption that there's a historical Jesus?

For a "mythology to be built up around" someone, that someone has to exist.

Or to put it another way, to call the Gospel mythologising rather than sheer myth, is to assume that somebody existed who was mythologised.

S.C.Carlson · 06-07-2007, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

True, he probably is. The essay that starts this thread was likely edited by government sources to make it look like it supports MJ. Happens every day.

He may support some aspects of it, but not bold enough to jump paradigms as Doherty is (and Wells used to be).

post tenebras lux · 06-07-2007, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Put me down for "probably" and not "certainly". Then again, that's how I view most of reconstructed history, and how most historians should view their reconstructed history.

Yeah, if you want certainty, there's always mathematics. History ain't math.

Which is why I said "(racing) certainty" rather than just "certainty". Or are all the races in the US fixed? Because where I come from "a racing certainty" just means being as sure as you can be.

So, how sure of a HJ are you Stephen? Are you a 'maybe' as you interpret Price to be saying, or are you more certain about it than that?

S.C.Carlson · 06-07-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I disagree with your interpretations of Price, but it's frustrating to discuss the details when nearly every statement I make is getting misconstrued. For example, I didn't say or imply that "HJ-ers work on the assumption of an HJ."

Stephen

What does "The scholarly quest for the historical Jesus assumes that there was a mythology built up around Jesus" mean if not that there's the assumption of a person behind the myth - i.e. the assumption that there's a historical Jesus?

For a "mythology to be built up around" someone, that someone has to exist.

Or to put it another way, to call the Gospel mythologising rather than sheer myth, is to assume that somebody existed who was mythologised.

Assuming that Y happened to X does not entail assuming that X existed.

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 06-07-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Yeah, if you want certainty, there's always mathematics. History ain't math.

Which is why I said "(racing) certainty" rather than just "certainty". Or are all the races in the US fixed? Because where I come from "a racing certainty" just means being as sure as you can be.

I'm not familiar with the phrase "racing certainty." Is that some sort of a British idiom? Also, I don't follow horse (or track) racing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

So, how sure of a HJ are you Stephen? Are you a 'maybe' as you interpret Price to be saying, or are you more certain about it than that?

:huh: I just said that certainty language is not the way to deal with historical inquiry. In historical inquiry, I'm never sure as I can be--I always want better evidence. And, IMHO, Price isn't really playing the certainty game either--he seems to be more like saying that an HJ is irrelevant.

wordy · 06-07-2007, 10:10 AM

One could get the background for Steve Hershey here http://www.brfwitness.org/BBI/BBIStory.htm

I find it most likely to be offtopic in this thread to mention them here.

Quote:

BRF had talked about a Bible Institute already in the 1960s. The goal was to provide training for young and old alike, in systematic Bible studies, and in some of the practical areas related to Christian service. The Brethren colleges and seminary had become very liberal in their theological direction. The Seminary once had a Bible School level of training, but that was discontinued in the early 1960s. Many potential workers in the church do not have opportunities to attend college--and even if they do attend college--courses in Bible are usually very much limited.

PURPOSES FOR BBI

The specific goals for the Bible Institute which BRF envisioned were spelled out in a six point outline, which was published in the BRF Witness:

1. To stimulate faith in the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God, and as the authority for Christian faith and practice.

2. To guide the student into a basic knowledge of the Bible and an understanding of biblical doctrines.

3. To awaken in individuals a greater love for Christ, and to emphasize commitment to the Lordship of Christ.

4. To encourage the development of wholesome Christian attitudes and values, and to urge continued spiritual and intellectual growth.

5. To instill appreciation for the heritage we have, and an understanding of the history of the Church of the Brethren.

6. To help students prepare for effective Christian service as Sunday School teachers, parents, ministers, evangelists, and lay workers.

Why would they have any relation to this thread? More likely is that they actually believe in a HJ and not a Mythical Jesus.

the writer of the book you mention is most likely same as the person referred to here

Quote:

TEACHERS AND COURSE OFFERINGS

The following is a list of teachers who have taught at BBI: ... Steve Hershey, ..., and ... .

Brother Daniel · 06-07-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Assuming that Y happened to X does not entail assuming that X existed.

Now that will take some explaining!

post tenebras lux · 06-07-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I'm not familiar with the phrase "racing certainty." Is that some sort of a British idiom? Also, I don't follow horse (or track) racing.

In that case, probably it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

So, how sure of a HJ are you Stephen? Are you a 'maybe' as you interpret Price to be saying, or are you more certain about it than that?

:huh: I just said that certainty language is not the way to deal with historical inquiry. In historical inquiry, I'm never sure as I can be--I always want better evidence. And, IMHO, Price isn't really playing the certainty game either--he seems to be more like saying that an HJ is irrelevant.

OK, then do you find a HJ more probable than just a 'maybe'? :huh:

Why does this feel like pulling teeth? If I'm still using the wrong word in my question (in your opinion), then please just substitute your own wording but - please - answer my questions. They're not that hard are they?

gurugeorge · 06-07-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Assuming that Y happened to X does not entail assuming that X existed.

Stephen

OK I see what you mean, but that would imply you were relying on separate proof of X's existence - the very thing that seems to be missing.

gstafleu · 06-07-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

True, he probably is. The essay that starts this thread was likely edited by government sources to make it look like it supports MJ. Happens every day.

He may support some aspects of it, but not bold enough to jump paradigms as Doherty is (and Wells used to be).

I suppose it comes down to your definition of an MJer. Reading his essay, and listening to the interview on pointofinquiry.org, I get the strong impression that Price thinks it much more likely that J was purely a myth as opposed to having some historical core (which one can of course never exclude). For me that is enough to put someone in the MJ camp.

My most broad definition of an MJer would be someone who thinks that the MJ hypothesis is a reasonable one. The more likely one thinks that MJ holds rather than HJ, the more of an MJer one is. There is, in other words, no black and white here. But In practice I would start calling someone an MJer if he/she favors the MJ hypothesis over the HJ one.

Gerard Stafleu

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.