youngalexander

I had the impression that the anti-semitism position was fairly standard? With KvD being resolved I really must get back to that book-list.

yalla

lex
Direct anti-semitism may not be standard but I have perceived, and I don't think it's just my perception as such, that when scholars are analysing who said what in the canon they frequently comment along the lines that the Jews were ''blind'', even ''wilfully'' so, in their reaction when JC said this or that whatever.
Lots of comments that go along with the concept of Judaism/"the Jews'' as a sterile, yesterday's religion as compared to the vibrant one true faith of Xity type of thing.
Iv'e come across some pretty strong stuff within commentaries. If I searched really hard I could probably find some examples.
Crossan's book, IIRC, was a rebutal of some scholar who appeared to rationalise the view of "Jews" as god killers and Dom. objected.
Know what I mean?

GakuseiDon

I can assure you, it isn't. I recently tried to get an Acharya devotee to actually examine Acharya's claims, and all he did was quote from her website. He didn't want to know anything about it. I know you think that Doherty is in front of the herd, but until he brings his ideas to scholars' notice, he isn't going to be distinguished from the herd.

How should Crossan know to spend time on Doherty rather than Acharya, Carotta, Freke & Gandy, Harpur, etc? Do you think he should spend time reviewing all their books?

TedM

Very true. No one should expect scholars to take Doherty's ideas seriously until they have a reason to consider them in the first place. Just the fact that he has made many interesting observations isn't enough. Just the fact that he has published a book and has a website isn't enough. The ideas need to be presented in a "proper" way, whatever that is. Maybe I missed this on the "$5,000" thread, I wonder how he is supposed to bring it to their attention in a way which creates a professional obligation to respond? Is there an appropriate journal or organization he can appeal to?

jakejonesiv

This is a very revealing response. Crossman's fourth point is the most important and determinative one of his position.

He states that it is "crucially important for me that Jesus sent out companions...". That is quite an emotional and subjective admission. He rejects the Christ myth because it would undermine a previously held conclusion, one that was reached without questioning the assumption Jesus' historical existence.

Jake Jones IV

TedM

I don't think it is a matter of not questioning the assumption of Jesus' historical existence. I think he is saying this is one of the evidences he has FOR the existence. It sounded to me like he concluded it on the basis of the the logical assumption that if people were emphasizing the "ways of the Lord" it was because someone (Jesus) had set an example for them of what those ways were. The fact that the "ways" were tied in with the "words" strengthens the point:

jakejonesiv

Hi Ted,

I think you are missing the nuance in Crossman's reply.

Crossman has shown a desire not to discuss the question of the historical existence of Jesus in any depth. His response to Neil Godfrey is equivalent to making the stop gesture and saying, "talk to the hand." I have read better responses from Josh McDowell.

His fourth point does nothing to address the primary issue. It is a conclusion derived from other considerations and is hence secondary. Nor does Crossman examine other explanations of "the ways of the Lord" that do not depend on a Historical Jesus. (Not to mention that the question of the existence of Q is far from settled).

No indeed. Crossman's fourth point is emotional and subjective, "It is crucially important (emotional) for me(subjective) that Jesus sent out companions and told them to do exactly (both) what he was doing..." (emphasis added).


That is a weak argument against the Christ Myth theory, and one that can easily be countered. From a psychological perspective it is a plea to be left alone, to not have his life work overturned by a pesky alternative. The word exactly in his quote is further evidence that he is defending his own work, not countering the CM theory.

Jake Jones IV

TedM

Jake it seems to me that you are assuming that he doesn't examine other explanations for the ways of the Lord. That may be the case, but we can't know that from his answer, which clearly is not a full description of how he came to his conclusion. It is quite possible that he has examined other explanations and found them to be lacking.

Crossan doesn't try to argue the validity of his conclusions. He is simply stating the reasons he concludes Jesus was historical. It would surprise me to think that he never once has examined in his own mind the question of whether Jesus had lived or not. He has been around a long time, and surely is aware of that as a possibility.

ted

RUmike

I would agree. But so what? Is he obligated to do so?

GakuseiDon

That's a good question, Ted. In fact, I'll make it the topic of a new thread.