jgibson000

Excuse me? Did I not say "Can you tell us ... what is wrong with Bousset's argument?"

And di I not follow this with"

"I asked for you to tell me what is wrong with the argument that Bousset mounted against the JM idea in his 1904 article."?

Where in what I wrote do you see any doubt or confusion on my part over who's argument it was I aked you to outline? Where did I apply the word "argument" to Betz? And how in the name of sweet Jebus can you even ask your question in the light of the words with which I ended my message, namely,

"Now back to Bousset -- what are the particular points against the JM idea that Bousset raised in his 1904 article and what specifically are your critiques of them?"?

Oh yes you did -- in message http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3570904#post3570904. where you simply named Delling, Conzlemann, Thackeray, Schmiedel, and Charlesworth and demanded that I deal with them.

Now who is holding the list to ransom?

In any case, if you examine several of my previous messages, I've already given you this data for quite a few of the scholars listed. Besides that, in the light of what you said in 3595834
are you not back pedaling now?

Actually, if you follow the link I've given above, you provided more than this (and curiously, it was a list in which several citations were plainly wrong and others did not say what you claimed was said within them).


Actually, in response to your request to do so, I provided:


John Chrysostom
John Calvin
T.C. Edwards
F.L. Godet
J.B. Lightfoot
G.G. Findlay
Robertson & Plummer
H.St. John Thackeray
R.A. Horsley
G. Miller
W. Carr
M. Pesce
G. Fee
A.D. Clark
T. Ling
C. Wolff
J. Schniewind
G. Ludemann

As serious as you were when you asked me to provide you with the data on Delling, etc.

Now look, Ted. If you don't want to admit that you can't give to me what you demanded I give to you, fine. But just say so. Don't pretend that you have some right to high dudgeon over being treated unfairly or that there isn't a certain levely of hypocisy underlying the way you are going about prescinding from what you said you would do.

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

Having a PhD does not have anything to do with being in proximity to a library, let alone that any library I may be in proximity to is well stocked.

Not any more. And I could be/have been on vacation at the beach, for all you know. So again, the fact that I am/was on vacation has nothing to do with the claim that you seem to be pressing here -- that I am better at looking things up than you are, let alone that having a degree is the qualifier for this "talent".

Any more excuses, Ted?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

No. I'm fairly certain that you have plenty more in store for us.

JG

Rick Sumner

I'll give you some, if only to see if you can manage to come up with any of them.

Richard Oster, 1 Corinthians (or via: amazon.co.uk), (The College Press NIV commentary Joplin, Mo.: College Press Pub. Co., 1995), 1 Co 2:8.

See also note 15 therein:

Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (Series title also at head of t.-p.; New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1911), 39.

Anthony C. Thiselton sees a multilayered meaning, of both human rulers and the demons behind them:

Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians : A Commentary on the Greek Text (or via: amazon.co.uk), ( Grand Rapids, Mich.: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000).

Note 65 therein reads:

John MacArthur, 1 Corinthians (or via: amazon.co.uk), (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996, c1984), 61.

Simon J. Kistemaker and William Hendriksen, vol. 18, New Testament Commentary : Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (or via: amazon.co.uk), (Accompanying biblical text is author's translation.;, New Testament Commentary Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953-2001), 82.

The UBS Handbook indicates your claim to a majority is false, at least so far as recent commentators go:

Paul Ellingworth et al., A Handbook on Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians (or via: amazon.co.uk), (Rev. ed. of: A translator's handbook on Paul's first letter to the Corinthians.;, UBS handbook series; Helps for translators New York: United Bible Societies, 1995), 53.

The related note reads:

This divide is also spoken of in:

Gerald F. Hawthorne et al., Dictionary of Paul and His Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk), ( Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 210.

Though that same text allies itself with the demonic powers interpretation (p. 948).

That should give you a good start.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

ETA All citations from Logos software. God I love this thing! I should have gotten it years ago.

Rick Sumner

The words you provide miss his qualifier to probability, however, which is really his point. Let me provide a more overt example, ignoring qualifiers to probability:

". . .apples might start to rise tomorrow"

That is an honest quote of Stephen Jay Gould. Now these words don't imply that he "denied" that apples will fail to rise, but they don't really capture his point either. Here's the full quote:

"In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."

It is the qualifier to probability that makes his point, and omitting it is misrepresenting him. He doesn't think apples will rise, he doesn't even really think it's sustainable. Likewise Funk doesn't think the Jesus Myth is sustainable, because his point rests in probability.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

jakejonesiv

Hi Jeffrey,

I am late to the party on this one. Did Wilhelm Bousset indeed argue against the JM position? (I am asking because I don't know). If so, I will make every effort to track the article down in the German. That would make a very good article to review. I am assuming that the title under discussion is _Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter_. If so, there is a copy on microfiche at a not too distant theological seminary.

But by all means, if there is a copy on line, please so inform!

However, if W.Bousset is merely expounding a theory of the evolutionary divinization of Jesus by stages as gentile converts brought pagan concepts with them into the early churches, then I am not interested enough to go out of my way to read it. It was his theory and he is welcome to it.

Thanks for your consideration of this request,

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv

Hi Rick,

That is very good. I suspect there are quite a few research tools that are used by contributers to IIDB. I would like to come up with a definitive list of what everyone uses. That would certainly level the playing field and perhaps cut down on remarks about the alleged stupidity of other posters.

After all, if I have a tool that spits out 75 references to a Greek word, does that make smarter than the person who doesn't have it? Maybe not, but I could certainly give that impression if I didn't tell where my references came from.

Jake Jones IV

jgibson000

The title you refer to above is a book, not an article, and it was poublished in 1903, not 1904. Moreover, as its title suggests, its primary focus is not Jesus.

And while I'd very much like to help you see what this article is, I am going to prescind from doing so and suggest that you ask either Ted or Earl (or both) to provide you with the reference. After all, they are the ones who have been "quoting" Bousset and arguing that his arguments are incomplete and not a death blow to the MJ hypothesis. So they should readily be able to tell you where the quote comes from.

Yours,

Jeffrey

Chris Weimer

I use BibleWorks, my own personal library, the university library system (including JSTOR), and some investigative skill for digging up obscure references around the internet. Certainly I have no major advantage (BBW doesn't have but a few books, and those being Hebrew/Greek grammars) except for access to JSTOR and some common sense.

Toto

I can't find where Doherty has quoted Bousset. In his last refutation he tracks down a footnote in Michael Grant's Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (1977), p.200: