Rick Sumner

Wrote Schweitzer:

Perhaps Schweitzer's dichotomy is worded badly--I think scant few are genuinely motivated by true hate, but I am unable to think of a better way to phrase it.

Your website betrays a passion that simple curiousity does not. If you're not Christian, and not attempting to reconcile the "Jesus of History" with the "Christ of Faith," Schweitzer most certainly would have counted you among those whose "hate sharpened their historical insight."

Regards,
Rick

Bernard Muller

Peter wrote:
Bernard, you are neither a Christian nor a Mythicist. Help me understand that.
Why do you care about the historical Jesus?

Hi Peter, Hi Rick,

Because it is a great mystery of our ages, or maybe, as I have said to some of my friends, you do not choose your hobbies, they have a way to get you.
Passion, yes, I think so. Curiosity, that was the main motivation, believe me. You can be passionate on a hobby, or exceedingly curious, can't you?

Does my site show love or hate? Absolutely not.
HJ is a regular guy for me, who by some flukes got his 5 minutes of fame. I say nothing bad or good about him, more so because we know hardly nothing about his personality. Furthermore I consider him as just one element which started Christianity. Others were almost as important. And if HJ did not exist, then someone else, like JB, would have been the one.
Christianity was an accident ready to happen. From the scriptures, and within an hellenistic context, the deck was loaded. Only a spark was needed, and 'Christ/King executed' was good enough, more so when the one in question was neither Christ or King during his lifetime, opening all kind of religious speculations. Actually, the more little he was, the better.

Jews and Christians! I say nothing bad against them (I may even say something good about some of the ancient ones. Yes, I do). I had no email from irrate Jews yet (but fundies, yes).
Actually I had some good comments by Christians, and I am posted on Christian sites, which surprises me a lot.
As you may know, I have a tinge of dislike against scholars, because some are using HJ for apologism or for trying to renew Christianity. Or because of their background as theologians (for most), they should remove themselves as pretending to be unbiased historians. But my main beef is their many ill-evidenced & misleading theories are confusing the whole issue.

I am craving for more recognition, yes. I do not deny it.

In real life, I am very modest, down to earth and low key. And basically happy. And I must be one of the few on earth not to be prone to either love or hate.
But I can get very exited when mistreated, ignored or bullied (ask Earl).

Best regards, Bernard

Doctor X

It would prove a very cloister'd academic who, after finishing even the most obscure tome on the "Proto-Markan Influences of the PseudoPauline Rescension of the Q2 Layer in Spleenman's Stoichastic Paradigm" published as a "supplement" to the "Scholars Press" from the Isle of Man who does not sit back and wonder "what does it say about the real Jesus?"

Part of it is because ol' Junior is still believed. He has not passed into the general consciousness as myth--like an Achilleus, Thor, or Paul McCartney.

So that question will always arise. Part of it will, indeed, be curiousity. Also, the "problem" is intricate and, therefore, interesting. As Adams noted in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a philosopher squawks about what is the point of debating on the existence of God, "if you give us his phonenumber!"

If only Mk survived that would be the story. We could fight about it . . . wonder how "true" it is . . . but it would be simple.

Multiple sources decades after the fact provide the problem which, frankly, I doubt anyone will solve.

The problem always will be the historical Junior.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

I have some kind of love-hate relationship with everything. Even bugs. I am in entomology class right now, as well as both a "lab" and "lecture" for anthropology, and a "Western Civilization" class, and a "Cultural Geography" class.

What is your background for understanding life?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

I don't think any of this really addresses Ricki's original point, which was dead-on. The fictionality of the Empty Tomb presupposes an apologetic for the Resurrection, and has no bearing on the fictionality of the Resurrection.

Vorkosigan

Bernard Muller

J.D. wrote:
Multiple sources decades after the fact provide the problem which, frankly, I doubt anyone will solve.
The problem always will be the historical Junior.

I do not like "can't do" attitude.
My reconstuction shows that a coherent picture of the start & development of earliest Christianity can be done.
This is overly documented throughout. Even "counter evidence" is taken in account. Of course, my argumentation can be overwhelming in some case, and light in others. That's because of the nature of the evidence available for every turn of the road.
I cover more ground that any other study of that kind and in less words (the equivalent of a short book) than anybody else, which is a feat, I think. I do not believe in long arguments. I prefer a series of short evidence-based ones for each point, even if some of them might not be "killers". If I get five to make a point, even if only two (or even one) are hitting the mark, that's good enough.
I go very deep below the muck up to rock bottom, one step at the time. And yes, I look for motives to explain significant actions by the main players. I also explain from where come (historically) some of the main data I used about HJ, and why it got told (like other against the grain items).
I heard some rumblings about me being speculative. I have to wait and see, but I think I stayed very close to the evidence all the time, avoided assumption and never had to ask my readers for a leap of faith.

And like I said, HJ is a minor character in the big scope of things. Too many people think he had to be great in some way or never existed & therefore complete fiction (which made him great). So your "Junior" might be misleading. What about a fluky Galilean peasant?

Best regards, Bernard

Rick Sumner

That's what Schweitzer meant though, rather than any true animosity. It's also why I said "hate" was perhaps the wrong word. I just can't think of a better way to phrase it.

Schweitzer's dichotomy can easily be observed even today--there's a distinct difference in the underlying motivation of Marcus Borg, for example, compared to E P Sanders. Sanders would fall under Schweitzer's "hate" category, but I doubt he harbors any real animosity.

Those who Schweitzer viewed as "fuelled by hate" were those who would make Jesus nothing more than a man: Those who would ". . . picture Him as truly and purely human, to strip from Him the robes of splendour with which He had been apparelled, and clothe Him once more with the coarse garments in which He had walked in Galilee."

Regards,
Rick

Doctor X

Bernard:

I remain unaware of any extant sources that preserve a picture of "earliest Christianity."

I am certain, however, that the peer-reviewed literature would enjoy receiving it.

--J.D.

Bernard Muller

J.D. wrote:
I remain unaware of any extant sources that preserve a picture of "earliest Christianity."

I do not think police detectives, each time they are working on a crime, are presented with some extant sources giving them a "picture" of the case.
They have to work with clues, search for evidence, sort it out from the background, inquire from testimonies, find which ones are true and other false, put little by little a picture of the crime, involving suspect(s), sequence, clues, motives, evidence. They have to investigate & question everything.
If they go through dead ends, they have to reconsider and backtrack from time to time. But eventually, after a lot of work and going through all kind of situations, they have a case where everything fits, everything makes sense, everything can be explained, with all the available evidence along the way.
If they get to that point, how many times they would be wrong. Very few.
That approach requires a lot of work, but for many crimes, that's the only one possible.
'Investigative' and 'critical' are keywords here.

Another thing to consider, which I did: the gospelers wanted to have Junior look like Christ, but there are many items in the gospels, more so GMark, and even Paul's letters, which goes straight against that. Strangely, by putting these items together, a very coherent picture emerges, which is rather unexpected. There are also many clues from the gospels (and some other later sources) Christianity did not start as described in the first chapters of Acts ... etc. etc.

As far as sources I used, I show them all on my site, with analysis of course, so my readers can judge.

Instead of sitting on the fence, with "it cannot be done" attitude, I would like you to give me a chance by reading my website, as you said you would some time ago.

Best regards, Bernard

Amos

But the tomb wasn't empty. Mark 16:5 (given us the pagan view)tells us that "when they rolled away the stone they saw a young man dressed in white robes." This young man was crucified as son of man and has just matured alot in three days.