Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zeichman · 02-02-2008, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Now, by definition divine figures are not historical figures. Historical figures dont incarnate and historical figures dont take the form of humans as the Philippians passage says because by definition, they are humans: they dont have a choice over what form to take. This is mythology. He [Mack] does not need to take a position on historicity for us to determine the implications of what he is saying as far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned. It is also very possible that a writer can unwittingly make statements that support a MJ but be unaware of it because he does not have an MJ in his sights, or fail to appreciate the implications of his statements because he espouses a different interpretive framework.

This sounds too much like aa####'s arguments about the holy spirit as Jesus' father for me to take it seriously. At the very least, you're interpreting this passage in a post-Enlightenment way; do you have any evidence that there was a strict dichotomy like such in antiquity? Again, you're simply asserting the point in controversy: "This is mythology." You need to turn this into an argument, or at least one with all of the premises and whatnot stated. The Philippians hymn only indicates that Jesus' TRUE form was that of a divine agent.

Also, do you really think that Burton Mack, of all people, would unequivocally assert the historicity of Jesus if he found reason to doubt it?

Quote:

Greek mythology tells us that the god Zeus assumed the form a swan and seduced Leda and even impregnated her and he also appeared as a bull to Europa. One would have to be pretty obtuse to argue that a source that is explaining this kind of mythology needs to be categorical about the historicity of Zeus.

What, pray tell, does this have to do with Philippians? This seems to be only related to issues relating to the birth and conception narratives of the gospels.

Quote:

Tell me Zeichman, what other historical figures transmogrify (to borrow a Kafkaean phrase - or is it metamorphosize?) into other forms?

You'll have to be more clear on this. Are you simply referring to historical individuals who were subsequently given divine status? Or something along the lines of the Philippians hymn: incarnation language used of an obviously historical figure? Or something else, as it seems that these two have already been proffered by SolitaryMan? I honestly have no idea what you mean, as you seem to be importing a confessional aspect into this discussion, which is totally irrelevant.

Quote:

Yes, Mack does not name the Christology manifest in Philippians 2:8. Brown does. Brown writes that “incarnational thought is indicative of pre-existence Christology (“emptied himself taking on the form of a servant; the word became flesh”)” Brown, The Death of the Messiah. Volume 1 & 2 (1994), p.141.

Pre-existence does not imply ahistoricity in the least, as far as I can tell. It's certainly not incompatible, but there is a large leap from one to the other.

Quote:

Adoptionist Christology is what is consistent with a HJ.

Certainly, but you've yet to show otherwise on pre-existence christology.

Quote:

I will be interested in the quote supporting the claim that "Mack argues the Philippians hymn presupposes a Jesus who was primarily known for teaching."

Page 92: "To be sure, the line about "obedient to the point of death" shows that the Christ myth was in the background and still in mind." Then read the discussion of the Christ myth on 79ff, which argues precisely that.

schilling.klaus · 02-02-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

At certain points, assuredly,

no, at any point,

Quote:

but you really cannot compare. Sanders has much better work elsewhere, and he was the one who really broke the chains on Paul.

no, as he deceives people into believing in genuine Pauline epistles,
which is unforgivable in any sense, secular or religious doesn't matter.

Klaus Schilling

Toto · 02-02-2008, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

In general, the more theologically conservative scholars are willing to attack the more liberal scholars, in particular those connected to the Jesus Seminar, and especially if the liberals threaten some item that bolsters the conservative view of history. Vernon Robbins was savaged for his article suggesting that the "we" passages in Acts could be explained as a literary device.

Could you point out where such "savaging" occurred?

You can search the archives, if you really care. There was a thread on the "we" passages, in which Layman quoted from a few evangelical scholars. (There was also an exchange on Crosstalk.) I emailed Robbins, and he remarked on the intensity of oppostion to his article. He also posted to the Crosstalk discussion, although he was not particularly interested in defending the article IIRC.

Quote:

But the liberals in general have not returned the favor.

And you know this how?

Jeffrey

Just my general impression from my reading, that the current crop of liberal scholars are involved in researching minute details and in literary analysis, and not in ideological debate. If you have counter examples, please provide them.

Jeffrey Gibson · 02-02-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Could you point out where such "savaging" occurred?

You can search the archives, if you really care. There was a thread on the "we" passages, in which Layman quoted from a few evangelical scholars.

A few? You gave the impression that there were more than that.

Quote:

(There was also an exchange on Crosstalk.) I emailed Robbins, and he remarked on the intensity of oppostion to his article.

From "conservatives" in particular?

Quote:

And you know this how?

Jeffrey

Quote:

Just my general impression from my reading, that the current crop of liberal scholars are involved in researching minute details and in literary analysis, and not in ideological debate.

Yes, but how wide is your reading? Do you really think it is wide enough to justify the global claim you made?

As to examples, have you looked at Witherington's The Problem with Evangelical Scholarship or Craig Hill's assault on evangelical eschatological schemes in his In God's Own Time?

Jeffrey

Toto · 02-02-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...

From "conservatives" in particular?

Yes.

Quote:

Just my general impression from my reading, that the current crop of liberal scholars are involved in researching minute details and in literary analysis, and not in ideological debate.

Yes, but how wide is your reading? Do you really think it is wide enough to justify the global claim you made?

Stop trying to derail this thread. And stop trying to play district attorney.

Quote:

As to examples, have you looked at Witherington's The Problem with Evangelical Scholarship or Craig Hill's assault on evangelical eschatological schemes in his In God's Own Time?

Jeffrey

Ben Witherington wanted to compare DNA from the James Ossuary with DNA from a blood sample on the shroud. Is there any reason I should read anything by a nutcase like that?

In any case, he a) is not a liberal (neither is Craig Hill) and b) has not written a book of that name. He has written The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism (or via: amazon.co.uk). You may have been thinking of some other book on the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind?

What were these examples supposed to show?

Jeffrey Gibson · 02-02-2008, 05:43 PM

[QUOTE=Toto;5130682]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

...

From "conservatives" in particular?

Yes.

Quote:

Stop trying to derail this thread.

You are the one who brought the issue up, not I.

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman · 02-03-2008, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

A few? You gave the impression that there were more than that.

<edit> I discussed Robbin's essay and scholarly responses to it here
The works include:
Barrett, C. K. 1987. "Paul Shipwrecked," in Scripture: Meaning and Method (ed. B. P. Thompson; Hull University Press), pp. 51-64.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. 1989. Luke the Theologian (New York: Paulist Press), pp. 16-23.

Hemer, Colin. 1985. "First Person Narrative in Acts 27-28," in Tyndale Bulletin 36 (ed. M. J. Harris; Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press), pp. 79-109.

Porter, Stanley. 2001. Paul in Acts (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson), pp. 20-24.

Praeder, Susan M. 1987. "The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts," in Novum Testamentum 29 (Leiden: E.J. Brill), pp. 193-218.

Is searching the archives so hard?

Jeffrey Gibson · 02-03-2008, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

A few? You gave the impression that there were more than that.

<edit> I discussed Robbin's essay and scholarly responses to it here
The works include:
Barrett, C. K. 1987. "Paul Shipwrecked," in Scripture: Meaning and Method (ed. B. P. Thompson; Hull University Press), pp. 51-64.

Fitzmyer, Joseph. 1989. Luke the Theologian (New York: Paulist Press), pp. 16-23.

Hemer, Colin. 1985. "First Person Narrative in Acts 27-28," in Tyndale Bulletin 36 (ed. M. J. Harris; Nottingham: Inter-Varsity Press), pp. 79-109.

Porter, Stanley. 2001. Paul in Acts (Peabody, MS: Hendrickson), pp. 20-24.

Praeder, Susan M. 1987. "The Problem of First Person Narration in Acts," in Novum Testamentum 29 (Leiden: E.J. Brill), pp. 193-218.

And out of these, how many are "conservative/evangelical" scholars? How many of them "savaged" Robbins?

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman · 02-03-2008, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I am beginning to think otherwise. But I am still skeptical because I have read the utter crap that people like NT Wright sometimes write. And nobody challenges him.

That, my friend, is simply untrue. Even Jim West, a Baptist preacher, bewails the evils of "Wrightianism". N. T. Wright is not seriously taken by mainstream scholars. He's a theologian, and that's where he'll probably stay.

Probably a bit of both.

What good will it do to harp on such a minor matter?

Quote:

This renders Sanders an apologist, no better than JP Holding.

At certain points, assuredly, but you really cannot compare. Sanders has much better work elsewhere, and he was the one who really broke the chains on Paul. If you read him through the biased framework of "Christian apologist v. scholar" then of course you'll find something (he is a Christian after all) which you'll harp on and accuse him thus of being an apologist. But Sanders is much more than that. And that sort of attack from you just shows that you really are ignorant (in the literal sense...sic tolle lege!) of his larger role and his better works.

Solitary Man, I think this was a balanced post from you. And I think Sanders has done a lot of good work. What I have never encountered (before you) is such an balanced view of him. Most historicists defend him wholesale or attack me for reviewing "pulp junk." Thanks anyway.

squiz · 02-19-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Take a squiz at Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths?

Hey, don't take my name in vain. :devil1:

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.