FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-03-2006, 09:17 PM   #21
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby View Post
I represent the opposite tack, that mythicism to get off the ground will have to go route A, that of Doherty. That does indeed seem to be where it's headed anyway, if I can read the writing on the wall.
I disagree that this is a good route. Its much harder to prove, and frankly I find it unconvincing. Any passage that points to an earthly Jesus kills the whole argument. You have to explain away the natural conventional reading of dozens of passages, or offer them as interpolations, etc.

Quote:
To Malachi: Doherty would rightly state that he's interacted with this passage on more than one occasion. Why not interact with Doherty then?
Because I don't find his arguments very persuasive. He seems to try and avoid addressing things and glance around them rather than take them head on.

For example, let's see from his website:

Quote:
Some of the savior gods had instituted sacraments: Mithras, after slaying the bull as a salvific blood sacrifice, had dined with the sun god, and this supper became the Mithraic cultic meal, similar to elements of the Christian Eucharist. Here, then, is the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Paul is not referring to any historical Last Supper, but rather to the origin myth attached to the Christian sacred meal (at least in Paul's circle). The words are probably Paul's personal version of things, since he clearly identifies it as revealed knowledge, "from the Lord," not passed-on tradition through apostolic channels. The spiritual Christ himself, in a mythical time and place (including "at night"), had established this Supper and spoken the words about his body and blood that gave the meal its present meaning. The frequent translation "arrested" or "betrayed" in verse 23 is governed by the later Gospel story. The literal meaning of the Greek word is "to hand over" or "deliver up," a term commonly used in the context of martyrdom; it has no trouble fitting the context of myth. It can hardly mean "betrayed" in Romans 8:32 where God is the agent, or in Ephesians 5:2 where Jesus surrenders himself.
We also have more from here:

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp06.htm

Go down to "Learning of a Sacred Meal".

What he fails to do in every case is explain why this passage by Paul is so similar to that of the gospels.

Yes, I fully agree that it can be read in the way that he asks us to read it, indeed I could see that before even reading Doherty's commentary on it, but that doesn't explain the similarity between Paul and gospels on this.

There are possible explanations, but I want to hear what people offer for them.

Possibilities are:

1) Mark read the letters of Paul, and thus got the idea from there
2) Paul started this rite himself with these letters, and it caught on, becoming an oral tradition that influenced Mark
3) The wording of Paul is a later modification (in which case Doherty is wasting his time trying to explain it away, and in which case Doherty's argument actually counters the claim that its a later modification)

My point is, we don't need to just come up with an ahistorical reading of this passage to fit it into JM, we also have to explain how this rite appears in both Paul and the gospels, and as far as I can see, Doherty hasn't done that.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 06:46 AM   #22
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
I didn't realise there was such a thing as an historicist up to now, and even worse a 'manistream' historicist.
I think (and I could well be wrong) that the term historicist is a reaction to the term mythicist. Most historicists do not stroll around thinking of themselves as historicists... until they run into a mythicist.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 08:06 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
This forum is not about 'mainstream' or 'most scholars', my understanding is that it was step up for the opposite.
I will stop visiting this forum if it has established a criterion by which "most scholars reject this theory" is a good thing for a theory.

Naturally, this forum has adopted no such criterion. Some people may do so (no credit to them), but that's it.

(Hint: this forum has, for itself, stepped up for very little indeed.)

regards,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 12-04-2006, 11:21 AM   #24
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

I can state with some confidence that "the forum" has not adopted the position that mainstream rejection is a good thing for a theory.
Toto is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 12:09 PM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby View Post
I represent the opposite tack, that mythicism to get off the ground will have to go route A, that of Doherty. That does indeed seem to be where it's headed anyway, if I can read the writing on the wall.
I quite agree that it seems to be heading in that direction. And I think that it will hit a wall in that direction, and will never really enter the mainstream on those terms.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 12:37 PM   #26
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
I quite agree that it seems to be heading in that direction. And I think that it will hit a wall in that direction, and will never really enter the mainstream on those terms.

Ben.

Do you alone determine what becomes 'mainstream'? Or are you just a wall in that direction?

It appears to me that you would have probably advised Galileo to burn and destroy his instruments of astronomy so that he could avoid hitting all the walls of mainstream.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 01:15 PM   #27
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Do you alone determine what becomes 'mainstream'? Or are you just a wall in that direction?

It appears to me that you would have probably advised Galileo to burn and destroy his instruments of astronomy so that he could avoid hitting all the walls of mainstream.
To answer each inquiry in turn:

1. I have no power whatsoever to determine what is mainstream. My prediction should not be mistaken for a threat on my part to hold biblical studies hostage or such.

2. I am not a wall in that (or in any) direction, as far as I am aware.

3. While I cannot with very much certainty tell what I would have been like if I had been born several centuries ago, I can say that, judging by my current stances on contemporary scientific research, I seriously doubt I would have had anything to say against Galileo and his research.

Thank you for your questions.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 01:42 PM   #28
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,289
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aa5874 View Post
Do you alone determine what becomes 'mainstream'? Or are you just a wall in that direction?

It appears to me that you would have probably advised Galileo to burn and destroy his instruments of astronomy so that he could avoid hitting all the walls of mainstream.
Ah, finally, the Galileo card! Can we soon expect the Nazi book burning charge?

Please tell me who it was, even amongst Galileo's opponents (all of whom, by the way, admitted Galileo was right), who advised Galileo to burn and destroy his astromomical instruments?

Jeffrey Gibson
jgibson000 is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 01:47 PM   #29
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Please stay on topic and do not wander off into Galileo, Christian atrocities, etc. We have had other threads on the significance of the mainstream consensus, but feel free to start a new one if you care.

Toto
mod, BCH
Toto is offline  
Old 12-04-2006, 02:09 PM   #30
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Possibilities are:

1) Mark read the letters of Paul, and thus got the idea from there
2) Paul started this rite himself with these letters, and it caught on, becoming an oral tradition that influenced Mark
3) The wording of Paul is a later modification (in which case Doherty is wasting his time trying to explain it away, and in which case Doherty's argument actually counters the claim that its a later modification)

My point is, we don't need to just come up with an ahistorical reading of this passage to fit it into JM, we also have to explain how this rite appears in both Paul and the gospels, and as far as I can see, Doherty hasn't done that.
Doherty seems to hold that either #1 or #2 is possible: Mark either knew Paul or knew the Pauline traditions. I have found the following passage at this page on his website, and I recall this issue being addressed in his book (though I don't have his book at hand right now):

Quote:
Some time in the late first century, within a predominantly gentile milieu probably in Syria, some Christian scholar or circle combined the community and founder of Q with the mythical suffering Jesus of the Pauline type of Christ cult. Perhaps his community had a foot in both camps, an expression of classic syncretism. The result was the Gospel of Mark.
Edit: just keep in mind that for #2, if that is Doherty's view, he does not say AFAIK that Paul made up the rite himself; he holds simply that the Lord's Supper was a Pauline tradition that could have gotten to Mark by way of oral tradition.

Kevin Rosero
krosero is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:58 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.