Freethought & Rationalism Archive

squiz · 05-12-2008, 11:56 PM

Solitary Man suggests that Richard cover Maier - Marginal Jew:
http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...34#post5319434

Toto · 05-13-2008, 12:21 AM

Marginal Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk) bears the imprimatur, so you can be sure that nothing challenges Catholic doctrine.

I finally tracked down what I vaguely remembered: on p. 68, Meier bases the case for the existence of Jesus on Josephus. Nothing very profound there.

Solitary Man · 05-13-2008, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Marginal Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk) bears the imprimatur, so you can be sure that nothing challenges Catholic doctrine.

I finally tracked down what I vaguely remembered: on p. 68, Meier bases the case for the existence of Jesus on Josephus. Nothing very profound there.

Have you read the whole book? If so, then you'd know that's not true.

Toto · 05-13-2008, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Marginal Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk) bears the imprimatur, so you can be sure that nothing challenges Catholic doctrine.

I finally tracked down what I vaguely remembered: on p. 68, Meier bases the case for the existence of Jesus on Josephus. Nothing very profound there.

Have you read the whole book? If so, then you'd know that's not true.

No, I haven't read the whole book, just passages. It starts out (after the Imprimatur) with a lot of theological discussion of the "real" Jesus versus the "historic", versus the "historical" Jesus. My eyes glaze over. This is written by a theologian, not a historian. It's not clear that he cares about whether a metaphysically natural Jesus "existed."

If you want to point out exactly what Meier says on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus - if that is an issue that he deals with - please provide a page number or a summary, or some indication that the issue is actually discussed there.

Solitary Man · 05-13-2008, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

No, I haven't read the whole book, just passages. It starts out (after the Imprimatur) with a lot of theological discussion of the "real" Jesus versus the "historic", versus the "historical" Jesus. My eyes glaze over.

No wonder. It wasn't theological discussion at all. Anyone who actually read the chapter would have known this. He makes the same comparison of real v. historic with Nixon and Nero.

Quote:

This is written by a theologian, not a historian. It's not clear that he cares about whether a metaphysically natural Jesus "existed."

So says the person that couldn't even understand the first chapter. What is clear is that you don't even know history when it bites you in the face.

Quote:

If you want to point out exactly what Meier says on the issue of the historical existence of Jesus - if that is an issue that he deals with - please provide a page number or a summary, or some indication that the issue is actually discussed there.

I've yet to see form criticism discussed here.

Toto · 05-13-2008, 02:23 PM

"Form criticism" is not a tool that profession historians use. It is one of those devices that Biblical scholars use when they do theology and call it history.

Do you disagree with this:

Form_criticism?

Quote:

Form criticism operates on the premise that biblical text is derived from an oral tradition.

Is there any basis for that assumption, other than a desire that it be true?

Solitary Man · 05-13-2008, 03:29 PM

If Wikipedia says it, it must be true! 3 strikes, Toto, you missed them all.

Toto · 05-13-2008, 04:08 PM

SM -
I asked if you disagreed with the wiki statement. If you do, could you explain why form criticism might be a tool that is useful for history? Or are you just trying to derail this thread?

Solitary Man · 05-13-2008, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

SM -
I asked if you disagreed with the wiki statement. If you do, could you explain why form criticism might be a tool that is useful for history? Or are you just trying to derail this thread?

Here is a much better analysis of what form criticism actually is. You should also read Aune's (as ed.) work on genre.

Toto · 05-13-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

SM -
I asked if you disagreed with the wiki statement. If you do, could you explain why form criticism might be a tool that is useful for history? Or are you just trying to derail this thread?

Here is a much better analysis of what form criticism actually is. You should also read Aune's (as ed.) work on genre.

I was just reading that, actually, and it does nothing to change my opinion of the uselessness of form criticism to historical research.

Quote:

The earliest form critics based their study on several foundational presuppositions. All agreed that the teachings of Jesus and the narratives about his life which comprise the Gospels were transmitted orally over a considerable period of time before they were ever written down.....

...In recent years, however, many NT scholars are utilizing forms of literary criticism point to the carefully wrought unity of the Gospel narratives and calling into question many of the older axioms of traditio-historical development. ...

Writing the Tradition-History

This objective has perhaps been the focus of the greatest amount of scholarly energy, but it is also laden with the most pitfalls. Most scholars have recognized some of these pitfalls, but few have appreciated their cumulative effect in casting serious doubt on all hypotheses of the development of the tradition which assume that primitive forms underwent substantial modification prior to their inclusion in the written texts of the Gospels

...

All this from Intervarsity Press.

Nothing here, SM, that hasn't been raked over the coals many times before to show how pathetic the entire field of NT studies is.

Got anything else?

And this cryptic reference to Aune seems to be to D. E. Aune, "The Genre of the Gospels," in Gospel Perspectives II, ed. R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981). But what connection can you make between a genre and history?

05-12-2008, 11:56 PM	#1
squiz Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Munich Germany Posts: 434	Digression on Form Criticism split from Richard Carrier has an offer Solitary Man suggests that Richard cover Maier - Marginal Jew: http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...34#post5319434

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

05-13-2008, 12:21 AM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Marginal Jew (or via: amazon.co.uk) bears the imprimatur, so you can be sure that nothing challenges Catholic doctrine. I finally tracked down what I vaguely remembered: on p. 68, Meier bases the case for the existence of Jesus on Josephus. Nothing very profound there.

05-13-2008, 03:29 PM	#7
Solitary Man Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: ירושלים Posts: 1,701	If Wikipedia says it, it must be true! 3 strikes, Toto, you missed them all.

05-13-2008, 04:08 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	SM - I asked if you disagreed with the wiki statement. If you do, could you explain why form criticism might be a tool that is useful for history? Or are you just trying to derail this thread?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.