Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zeichman · 03-18-2008, 02:46 PM

Paul = "Anti-Semitic"? This sounds like a big step backwards in biblical studies to me. Especially since "race" didn't exist until the 19th Century. Anachronistic to say the least.

Zenaphobe · 03-18-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Welcome Zenaphobe. This board does not support HTML; I replaced your html code with the vBB code, and I replaced your Canadian amazon link with one to amazon.com (the Canadian link is here the book is not yet available in the US.)

The thesis sounds dubious to me, since there is little evidence of this early "Jesus Movement." but I can see how it could be argued. The author is highly qualified.

Thanks for the welcome.

I live in the U.S. and my local library is where I picked up the book.

I'll confess my ignorance about early Christianity right up front, it is an interest of mine, but I am not well versed in it yet. Do you think the Ebionites might possibly qualify as the Jesus movement? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites#_note-3

Zenaphobe · 03-18-2008, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Paul = "Anti-Semitic"? This sounds like a big step backwards in biblical studies to me. Especially since "race" didn't exist until the 19th Century. Anachronistic to say the least.

Perhaps it was a bad choice of words in the synopsis, maybe "anti-Judaism propaganda" was closer to what they meant?

Toto · 04-09-2009, 07:50 PM

I ran across a review of Boyd & Eddy by Ken Olson, and this seemed to be the best place to note it.

Quote:

The rhetorical strategy of the book is to advance the historical reliability of the New Testament traditions about Jesus as a default position and to call into question the reasons that have been given for doubting it. . . . The presumption appears to be that if one can show that there are problems in the skeptics’ arguments, then the New Testament reports must be accepted as reliable.

. . .

The authors frequently rely on very brief quotations selected to support the point being made, and they provide abundant parenthetical citations and footnotes to primary and secondary sources. In many cases it is very questionable just how much the references given actually support their points.

. . .

Readers relying on their representation of the issue might get the impression that there is broad interdisciplinary consensus that oral tradition is historically reliable, but anyone who consults the literature, even the literature cited in this book, will find that the issues are complex and that there are major disagreements among specialists. . . Eddy and Boyd’s readers will find it a very good practice always to verify their references. Unfortunately, many of the authors cited did not make it into the index, and there is no bibliography.

Also reviewed by Robert Price here, with a bit less reserve.

Quote:

This book takes, in the traditional style of historical apologetics, a completely deductive a priori approach, trying to nibble away at critical methods and conclusions with quibbling and caviling objections that are often beside the point. The authors appropriate the rhetoric of post-colonial critics to make it look like only Dead White Males would scruple to accept miracle claims. Like “Womanist” “theologians,” Eddy and Boyd have claimed the laurel wreath of “victim” for fundamentalism so as to dignify credulity as a method. It would be a Eurocentist, ethno-biased slur to “people’s religion” the world over if we did not broaden the analogy of present-day experience (with which to judge past event claims) to include that of various Pentecostals, Third World shamans, and New Agers. The viewpoint of such a “confederacy of dunces” the authors dub a “democratized epistemology.” That is just the sleight-of-hand that Intelligent Design Creationists employ to get their quack science included in public school curricula. In fact, the approach of Eddy and Boyd is reminiscent of Intelligent Design propaganda at a number of revealing points, as we shall see.

mountainman · 04-10-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Paul = "Anti-Semitic"? This sounds like a big step backwards in biblical studies to me. Especially since "race" didn't exist until the 19th Century. Anachronistic to say the least.

It existed to Eusebius who sought the history of the nation of christians amidst the history of the "gentiles" - the other nations. The nation and the tribe had special significance to Eusebius, and his interpolation into Josephus. Eusebius was anti-Semitic but far more importantly he was anti-Hellenistic, as was Constantine, and the identification of these characteristics in the founding members of the monotheistic state religion of the fourth century Roman empire is a modern advance in the field of ancient history, but often mistaken as a backward step by those in the field of Biblical Studies.

mountainman · 04-10-2009, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenaphobe

I'll confess my ignorance about early Christianity right up front, it is an interest of mine, but I am not well versed in it yet. Do you think the Ebionites might possibly qualify as the Jesus movement? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites#_note-3

There were some threads involving Ebion and the Ebionites some time back in regard to examining a "traditional" jesus in contrast to an "historical" and/or "mythical" by spin. Here is one such thread entitled Early heretics and gospels. Another more general one at Competing hypotheses: historical core to Jesus legend vs. mythicism.

Clivedurdle · 04-11-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

I consider faith to be a short circuit of the mind and hugely detrimental to achieving the full potential of human possibility. Faith is the lazy man's attempt at gaining knowledge, free from the rigors and risks of thinking.

Loved this from the blog!

I see several Jesi in the gospels expounding contradictory beliefs at the same time - jot and tittle is a zealot attitude, blessed are the peacemakers is Essene neo pythagorean, drinking with publicans and eating corn on the Sabbath is actually pragmatic spirit of the law Phariseeism although Jesus also condemns the scribes - the educated thinking literate Greek educated Jews - and the Pharisees - the anti slavery group!

This real confusion of attitudes is evidence that we are looking at a made up character confusing the real varieties of Judaism.

On anti semitism we must be very careful as these are much later ideas - as I posted earlier if you changed your location you probably changed your gods - everyone was religious to not offend the gods but you were not actually identified by the gods - if you went somewhere else of course you placated the local god. You gave as much concern to Zeus as you would to the Emperor - both of whom you never saw but it is a good idea to do whatever annually.

EarlDoherty · 04-12-2009, 08:42 AM

FYI, I am devoting a good deal of attention to Eddy and Boyd's book in my second edition of The Jesus Puzzle, in two areas: the alleged Pauline witness to an historical Jesus, and the non-Christian witness (Tacitus, etc.) By contrast, I devote exactly one end-note reference to J. P. Holding, which is a good comparison to their relative merits.

While the text of the book is undergoing a final fine-tuning (it stands at 800 pages), I have hit a snag in regard to the cover and to my publication of it. The latter, unfortunately, may yet be a few months, as an unexpected roadblock in my personal situation has arisen. Life can sometimes be a bummer, especially when you're dependent on other people.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

aa5874 · 04-12-2009, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The thesis sounds dubious to me, since there is little evidence of this early "Jesus Movement." but I can see how it could be argued. The author is highly qualified.

You give the impression that highly qualified authors can make good arguments for dubious thesis for which there is little evidence.

I would have thought that it was the quality of the evidence and not the qualifications of an author that make for a good argument.

Toto · 04-12-2009, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The thesis sounds dubious to me, since there is little evidence of this early "Jesus Movement." but I can see how it could be argued. The author is highly qualified.

You give the impression that highly qualified authors can make good arguments for dubious thesis for which there is little evidence.

I would have thought that it was the quality of the evidence and not the qualifications of an author that make for a good argument.

One can appreciate skill and creativity in an argument that tries to work with the available evidence.

If we had enough evidence, a simple theory would suffice as explanation. HJ would be obviously true or false. The evidence for (or against) Jesus is ambiguous and of low quality, which allows greater scope for creativity on the part of the theory.

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

03-18-2008, 02:46 PM	#11
Zeichman Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: USA Posts: 562	Paul = "Anti-Semitic"? This sounds like a big step backwards in biblical studies to me. Especially since "race" didn't exist until the 19th Century. Anachronistic to say the least.

04-12-2009, 08:42 AM	#18
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	FYI, I am devoting a good deal of attention to Eddy and Boyd's book in my second edition of The Jesus Puzzle, in two areas: the alleged Pauline witness to an historical Jesus, and the non-Christian witness (Tacitus, etc.) By contrast, I devote exactly one end-note reference to J. P. Holding, which is a good comparison to their relative merits. While the text of the book is undergoing a final fine-tuning (it stands at 800 pages), I have hit a snag in regard to the cover and to my publication of it. The latter, unfortunately, may yet be a few months, as an unexpected roadblock in my personal situation has arisen. Life can sometimes be a bummer, especially when you're dependent on other people. All the best, Earl Doherty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.