Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 04-25-2011, 10:58 PM

I am puzzled over this blog post on Le Donne: Jesus and His Dysfunctional Family based on Anthony Le Donne’s book, Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (or via: amazon.co.uk).

LeDonne appears to accept the details of the wedding at Cana as historical, based on the criteria of embarrassment, and goes on to spin a wild fantasy about Jesus' relationship to his mother, based on modern Jewish life in America? Certainly not on any valid historical sources.

Quote:

Why was Jesus’ poor relationship with his mother remembered? (51). Le Donne sketches the following reconstruction: Jesus’ father had died before Jesus began his ministry and his mother had carried the stigma that something scandalous had surrounded her conception of Jesus. With this background it would have been unlikely that she could have remarried, even if she were still relatively young at the time of her husband’s death. So “Mary knew that her own survival depended upon her ability to climb the social ladder” (51). She believed that her oldest son was destined for something great that was divinely inspired. Jesus thus grew up with a mother who could be overbearing at times.

:facepalm:

hjalti · 04-25-2011, 11:51 PM

Quote:

LeDonne appears to accept the details of the wedding at Cana as historical, based on the criteria of embarrassment,...

Really? I saw a certain NT scholar praise that book. Did you read the relevant portion yourself?

If I recall correctly, aren't there embarassing stories in the Infancy gospel of Thomas that would indicate that Jesus had trouble in school?

But then again, NT scholarship does tend to be a little, well, silly. :Cheeky:

hjalti · 04-25-2011, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Le Donne finds a memory pattern embedded in these three seemingly independent texts.

The foreword, p. xii. One of these textx being the miracle at Cana.

Toto · 04-26-2011, 12:39 AM

The strange thing about this line of argument is that Le Donne is careful to state that we are only dealing with memories that are a reflection of the actual events, and we can never be really certain. But then, having gotten that out of the way, he goes on to treat the statements in the gospels as actual facts, as long as he can come up with some rationale such as the COE.

For all the talk of memory, there is no discussion of the way memory actually works, or the ease with which fictional events merge into actual history without leaving a trace - at least from what I have read on Amazon. I don't see how anyone with any experience of false memory syndrome or urban legends could take the Criterion of Embarrassment at all seriously.

mountainman · 04-26-2011, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

If I recall correctly, aren't there embarassing stories in the Infancy gospel of Thomas that would indicate that Jesus had trouble in school?

The child Jesus has serious troubles which were not confined to school in the Infancy gospel of Thomas. Children in the hood were taken out. Parents in the hood were struck blind. Definitely a malevolent mythical child jesus in that text.

DCHindley · 04-26-2011, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am puzzled over this blog post on Le Donne: Jesus and His Dysfunctional Family based on Anthony Le Donne’s book, Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (or via: amazon.co.uk).

LeDonne appears to accept the details of the wedding at Cana as historical, based on the criteria of embarrassment, and goes on to spin a wild fantasy about Jesus' relationship to his mother, based on modern Jewish life in America? Certainly not on any valid historical sources.

Quote:

Why was Jesus’ poor relationship with his mother remembered? (51). Le Donne sketches the following reconstruction: Jesus’ father had died before Jesus began his ministry and his mother had carried the stigma that something scandalous had surrounded her conception of Jesus. With this background it would have been unlikely that she could have remarried, even if she were still relatively young at the time of her husband’s death. So “Mary knew that her own survival depended upon her ability to climb the social ladder” (51). She believed that her oldest son was destined for something great that was divinely inspired. Jesus thus grew up with a mother who could be overbearing at times.

:facepalm:

Why exactly would Jesus being curt with his Mom be embarrassing? And is it curt to ask your Mom "What is there between me (a man) and you (a woman)?"

She replies "The banquet manager didn't order enough wine! Can you help find some more on short notice? Being yourself a winebibber, surely you have contacts." "Oh mom! Can't you see I'm imbibing right now? Very well, since you nagged me, I'll see what can be done, but I'll need some help." Turning to the servants, she says "Go, do whatever he says." Sounds like virtually any ancient wedding.

It is embarrassing for the Son God to be frustrated by the worldly concerns of his own mother?

DCH

Vivisector · 04-27-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Why exactly would Jesus being curt with his Mom be embarrassing? And is it curt to ask your Mom "What is there between me (a man) and you (a woman)?"

She replies "The banquet manager didn't order enough wine! Can you help find some more on short notice? Being yourself a winebibber, surely you have contacts." "Oh mom! Can't you see I'm imbibing right now? Very well, since you nagged me, I'll see what can be done, but I'll need some help." Turning to the servants, she says "Go, do whatever he says." Sounds like virtually any ancient wedding.

It is embarrassing for the Son God to be frustrated by the worldly concerns of his own mother?

It's embarrassing for the Son of God to feel any of the petty emotions that humankind regularly experience (as opposed to forseeing her thoughts and taking care of the wine situation, or dealing with it more gracefully) and just as embarrassing for Mary (perpetual virgin, etc., etc.) to stoop to such a level as to raise something so trivial to the attention of the Son of God himself.

All that aside, I'd vote that the subject blogger of the OP has leaped three or four bridges of faith too far.

Cheers,

V.

Atheos · 04-29-2011, 07:01 AM

I wonder if there is any chance -- any chance at all -- that someone made this whole story up as a way to show that anything Dionysus could do Jesus could do better.

Nah... I must have been imbibing too much. Sorry.

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

04-26-2011, 12:39 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The strange thing about this line of argument is that Le Donne is careful to state that we are only dealing with memories that are a reflection of the actual events, and we can never be really certain. But then, having gotten that out of the way, he goes on to treat the statements in the gospels as actual facts, as long as he can come up with some rationale such as the COE. For all the talk of memory, there is no discussion of the way memory actually works, or the ease with which fictional events merge into actual history without leaving a trace - at least from what I have read on Amazon. I don't see how anyone with any experience of false memory syndrome or urban legends could take the Criterion of Embarrassment at all seriously.

04-29-2011, 07:01 AM	#8
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	I wonder if there is any chance -- any chance at all -- that someone made this whole story up as a way to show that anything Dionysus could do Jesus could do better. Nah... I must have been imbibing too much. Sorry.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.