Bernard Muller

Yes, I heard him. Price thinks Jesus, as a rural preacher/healer from Galilee with a fifteen minutes fame, in an age with no media to speak of, and a lot of disappeared writings, should have been as well known as Adolf Hitler, George Washington and Bill Clinton!!!

Sheshbazzar

There was no accusation involved.

You made the pronouncement regarding every single thing you had posted, as though not one word or sentence of it were open to any further examination or consideration on your part;
And yes, I did consider it to be a tongue in cheek humorous summation.

But pointed out the ramifications if one really were of such a fixity of opinion that they would be compelled to 'stick with' a previously expressed opinion irregardless of any new understanding or knowledge that might otherwise lead one to modify perhaps a word or sentence here or there to bring it into line with a latter and improved understanding of the subject matter.

This is in no way an accusation.

It does however illustrate the standing tendencies of certain writers on religious subjects to ever thereafter, be unwilling to ever admit to, or to undertake the correcting any past errors they may have presented under the guise being 'good scholarship' or an authoritative and 'correct analysis' of the texts.

The "I wrote a book, and the book I wrote is my final word on the subject. Go buy my book" answer is one that becomes more and more irrelevant every day, as new evidence, views, and considerations are introduced and brought forward.

The scholar that is concerned about 'losing face' and feels compelled to 'stick with' their theories, does no favor either to themselves nor their readers.
All that happens is that human knowledge and comprehension of these texts expands and marches on without them. As the tens of thousands of dusty old outdated and now irrelevant writings on religion now testify.

This post obviously does not address your various claims made in that post, neither is it intended to. It is only aimed at that flippant closing remark. With a sincere hope that it is not expressive of an unwarranted arrogance towards the immutability and infallibility of ones own opinions and theories.


Sheshbazzar






.

Toto

Talk about missing the point.

Price was offering a rebuttal to Ehrman's argument, which was based on the idea that myths are created around real people so just because there are supernatural events in the Bible doesn't show that Jesus was supernatural (aa's argument.)

Even if no evidence is expected for a minimal Jesus, you are still left with no evidence of his existence, and no reason to be anything other than agnostic on his existence.

Steven Carr

There are very few myths around Jesus in Paul's letters, or the Epistle of James.

Apart from Jesus speaking directly to Paul, that is.

GakuseiDon

Can you explain a little more about that? How is Rom 8:29 talking about "God's brother"? And in what way is it the only mythicist argument that has any legs?

Those passages seem to be to be talking about God's sons, with Jesus as the "first-born", with the rest of us "predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son". I've high-lighted Ron 8:29 below in blue:

Rom 8:
18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.
20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope;
21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now.
23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.
24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees?
25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
26 Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose.
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
32 He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?

tanya

Thank you mary helena, for a thoughtful and detailed explanation. I appreciate your effort. Your posts on the forum are a joy to encounter.

To demonstrate more carefully why I dispute your argument, (which from my perspective, is identical to Bart Ehrman's use of "myth", and spin's, and Earl's, though I am sure that all four of you would deny my assessment!!!) let me provide some examples.

First a rehash: spin, Bart, Earl and maryhelena all believe that a "myth" can include a variety of parameters and attributes. I dispute this.

For me, "myth" is juxtaposed to "genuine", and differentiated from "legend" by virtue of the latter's possessing an historical aspect, perhaps unverified, and probably exaggerated, but nevertheless, falling within the range of human ability/experience. "Myth" is applicable to any situation/text/artifact in which superhuman attributes must be acknowledged. Simple "fiction", not true, is a broader category, exemplified by the existence of imaginary plot/characters, without obligation to invoke supernatural conditions.

Which is it, and WHY? M = Myth, L = Legend; G = Genuine; F = fiction; T = no idea?

A. John put his 3 month infant in a rocket, and sent him to planet Earth, from their home on Gliese 581c, 20.3 light years from Earth. The child arrived the following day, tired, but eager to begin life in his adopted home.


B. Mark put his 3 month infant in a stroller, and set off for a morning jog, around the lake. En route, Mark collapsed, but a passerby called paramedics and he was rescued. The child had disappeared, but, after the sirens had stopped, and the crowd dispersed, a little boy, 8 years old remained behind. He informed the investigating police that an invisible force had taken the baby and the stroller, both of which flew through the air, and disappeared.

C. Luke put his 3 month infant boy in a stroller, and set off for a morning jog, around the lake. Upon returning home, he was quite astonished to discover, as he changed the soiled diaper, that his son had changed gender, and become a little girl.

D. Matthew put his 3 month infant in a stroller, and set off for a morning jog, around the lake. An elderly gal accidentally slipped and fell into the lake, as they passed by her, and his son leaped out of the stroller, ran to the lake, swam to the lady, and helped her back to shore.

These are all four, mythical vignettes. All of them describe a violation of the laws of physics, i.e. they are all "supernatural", not genuine. None of them can be legendary, for no amount of investigation can change the speed of light, or the time needed to accomplish gender transformation, or attain physical maturity sufficient to swim in the ocean.

Notice that none of these four have anything to do with religion, or stories, or fables, or folklore, etc, etc....

For spin, and maryhelena, and probably Bart and Earl, as well, a "myth" embraces some quality relating to religion. My definition embraces no such feature. My definition trumps theirs, in view of its increased breadth of scope, and counterintuitively, reliance upon far fewer words to explain it: myth :== supernatural attribution, implied or elaborated, within some text, illustration, cinema, monument or artifact.

There is no need to clutter the definition of "myth" with "fables", folklore", or "religion". But, the definition of Bart, maryhelena, spin, and Earl is not simply too elaborate, it is also TOO LIMITED, for it fails on application to modern era mythical situations, having no relationship to religion, for example, the story of Superman, as Philosopher Jay has explained, many times, for our benefit.

I understand Bart Ehrman's objection to my terse definition of "myth". Armed with that simple description, ("myth" :== supernatural attribution) it is clear that one is not obliged to invoke "new" interpretations of the gospels to prove that Jesus was a mythical creature, as he has argued. Jesus' mythical behaviour, with my definition of myth, is exposed already in the first verse of the first chapter of Mark.

Finally, it is worth noting that a far simpler, yet more potent definition will serve us well, in the forthcoming engagement with the forces supporting Bart Ehrman. That mythicists need such a defensive advantage is seen in this exchange:

No, you both err. Your visions of "myth" are distorted. A myth is not a story, and has nothing to do with religion. One could easily create a religion based on NON-mythical tenets. Myths relate exclusively to supernatural attribution.

stephan huller

Gd

How could rom 8:29 be about a human jesus?

Bernard Muller

to Toto,
This is not what I heard. Sure, prior to making that remark, Price agreed with Ehrman about people can be attributed myths (as for Hitler, Washington and Clinton), but that does not mean they did not exist. He then said there are zillions of (external) evidence the threesome existed but none about Jesus. Of course, Jesus was not some chief of state in modern times!

There is evidence for his existence, starting in Paul's epistles. And, considering the context of his last year of his life & crucifixion and looking at early Christian letters, it is easy to follow how the earliest Christianity started.

stephan huller

The way the argument about the historical nature of Jesus develops is unproductive IMO. The real question is whether the gospel was written (a) as a historical narrative or (b) as a basis to new liturgy. If (b) then it becomes difficult to avoid seeing that it will be impossible to get at 'real history' per se because the narrative was almost designed from the beginning to supplement the daily function of the nascent religion. This becomes even more problematic if we accept the legitimacy of the Letter to Theodore. Here the connection between text and liturgy is absolutely explicit.

Yet even without this text western readers just have to look at the traditional interpretation of Jesus's salvatory mission to see that at the core the liturgy only needs a divine Jesus. The 'historical Jesus' as a concept divorced from the demands of the traditional liturgy is something artificial and wholly created by white people in the last four hundred or so years. It is a Trojan horse for Protestantism. Nothing more, nothing less. Even most of the atheists and agnostics who battle over these terms (Ehrman and Price) are essentially reprobate white Protestants. They're fighting over the shadow of an ass IMO. Living in the artificially created world of their ancestors.

Diogenes the Cynic

I haven't listened to this particular podcast yet (though I intend to very shortly), but my impression of Price's past opinions is not that he thinks a figure exactly like you describe couldn't have existed, but that if he did, he is completely unrecoverable from Christian mythology - that it would have been a person so far removed from the character of the Gospels as to be (in Price's view) unidentifiable as a substantive HJ.

I believe Burton Mack takes a very similar view (basically, even if you find a real person at the end of this rainbow it won't be "Jesus" in any meaningful way, but almost an unrelated bystander).

This does raise the question of what kind of minimal characteristics would a historical figure have to possess to be identified as a "Historical Jesus."

I sometimes use the analogy of Santa Claus and the historical St. Nikolaos of Myra. is it fair to say the real Nikolaos was the "historical Santa?" I think a fair argument could be made either way.

Price and Mack (to my understanding), don't say there couldn't be a Nikolaos back there somewhere, just that they think that such a figure is both unrecoverable and virtually irrelevant to the Christ myth.