Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 05-14-2005, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juliana

The reason Carotta's great work is mostly being ignored so far is a similar one, I guess.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Ted Hoffman · 05-14-2005, 08:04 AM

Yuri:

Quote:

But my point is very simple, until the Mythicists start producing some _positive_ results, it'll always be little more than hot air.

1. What, exactly, is a positive result?
2. Please list three "positive results" that HJ Scholars have produced.

freigeister · 05-14-2005, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Paul is arguably more of a genius than Jesus.

And I would have to accept that conclusion.

Paul is a great genius. But, no Jesus, no Paul.

Juliana · 05-14-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

Paul is a great genius. But, no Jesus, no Paul.

And no Caesar, no Jesus.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-14-2005, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I thought you said that there was no need to explain anything?

There's only a need to fill in details. The basic picture is already clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Obviously, I was befuddled. Even when we accept that there was a historical Jesus, that is just a factoid.

No, this is the basic foundation of the whole narrative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

It could be an element in an explanation. But it alone does not tell us why and how Christianity arose. That's why there are hundreds of books trying to explain that. Surely, if there were nothing worth explaining, there wouldn't be a need for all the attempts at explanation? I'm not sure how to interpret your previous statement now.

There are also hundreds of books on the history of the Mormon Church. But still, this doesn't really imply that there was no historical Joseph Smith... Or do you doubt that too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I think it is clear that there is both positive and negative work that would have to be done in order for mythicists to get wider acceptance. And I agree already that the present need is for more emphasis on the positive aspect, on understanding the remains of early Christianity in accords with a mythicist hermeneutic and in placing this trace evidence, in some kind of narrative, against the backdrop of the first and second century Mediterranean world.

That's for sure!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

[snip]

When we're talking about a model for explaining the origins of Christianity, we want to know not only what happened--of which we have only a slice of choice events--but also why these things happened, in a general way. You spoke of hundreds of books that apply themselves to this question. Let's just pick a couple. Your pick.

Definitely the two books by Loisy, THE BIRTH, and THE ORIGINS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

How does this book or few books manage to explain the origins of Christianity in its formative stage? (Prior to ~175 CE.)

Loisy is the only one who explains everything rationally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

What are the questions that are answered? What kind of shape does the model take? What's involved?

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

The strength of Loisy is that he rejects the early dating of the gospels, the authenticity of all of the Pauline letters, and he argues for the Hijacking of Christianity by the Gentiles ca 135 CE. He also postulates that, originally, before the Hijacking, the 4 canonical gospels were all Jewish-Christian documents.

And now, two such Jewish-Christian gospels _have_ been discovered -- the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and the Magdalene Gospel.

Best,

Yuri.

Amaleq13 · 05-14-2005, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freigeister

But, no Jesus, no Paul.

Wrong. No faith in a Sacrificed Savior, no Paul.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-14-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominus Paradoxum

And you have not addressed my points that 1) Jesus's teachings were not that revolutionary

How do you know that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominus Paradoxum

and 2) how such a mass of contradictory beliefs could have arisen concerning a historical figure in such a short time.

They didn't arise in a short time.

The canonical gospels are all 19th century products by Westcott and Hort. This gives you quite a long time to play around with their texts...

In any case, all religions are contradictory. This is no big deal.

Yuri.

Peter Kirby · 05-14-2005, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky

There's only a need to fill in details. The basic picture is already clear.

No, this is the basic foundation of the whole narrative.

The historical existence of Jesus is no more an explanation for the rise of Christianity than the historical existence of Christopher Columbus is an explanation for the 'discovery', conquest, and colonialization of the New World. Every textbook gives Columbus a prominent place in the narrative, but historical existence per se is not an explans. What would provide an explanation is the particular way in which such a bare existence is fleshed out, and certainly not just in the life of Columbus, but in all the historical factors that led him to make his voyage and that led others to respond to the news when he returned to Europe. The same is true in the case of Christian origins: "Jesus did it" may seem to be the centerpiece of an explanation, but it is just a naked datum unless the postulate is a particular Jesus, with a particular historical background, a particular narrative of events during and after his life, and a particular reading of the texts associated with Jesus.

In that respect, the Jesus doubter and the Jesus believer are in the same boat, except that the doubter's attempt will not link the narrative up to a person named Jesus who lived out an outline of the Gospel narrative.

Quote:

There are also hundreds of books on the history of the Mormon Church. But still, this doesn't really imply that there was no historical Joseph Smith... Or do you doubt that too?

Read what I wrote, please. My argument in the paragraph to which you responded above is that there is plenty of need in explanation (even if an HJ is postulated).

Quote:

The strength of Loisy is that he rejects the early dating of the gospels, the authenticity of all of the Pauline letters, and he argues for the Hijacking of Christianity by the Gentiles ca 135 CE. He also postulates that, originally, before the Hijacking, the 4 canonical gospels were all Jewish-Christian documents.

And now, two such Jewish-Christian gospels _have_ been discovered -- the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and the Magdalene Gospel.

If Loisy's two books qualifies as an explanation attempt for Christian origins, why doesn't Doherty's book qualify as an explanation attempt? Please justify your claim here, assuming you are familiar with his book.

best,
Peter Kirby

Clivedurdle · 05-14-2005, 11:38 AM

Vork, my apologies if an earlier posting was provacative - it was not my intention.

I am concerned about this proving negatives discussion, is it not for the historicists to prove positively that Jesus existed? - they have not so the reasonable position is in fact that it is a myth.

I think there is a lot of evidence that the concept of Jesus evolved into becoming historic, and the point I would take from Carotta is that the Roman connections are possibly the majority ones.

It looks like a group of vaguely similar Romano - Buddhist religions that probably grew separately in the various churches until an attempted forced merger under Constantine - that was not actually successful.

We play down all the various heresies, gnostics etc. What if we treat them all equally and see this ideal of the one true church as a later one?

An example, the Church in China in the seventh and eighth century ( Martin Palmer - Jesus Sutras) did not have a doctrine of original sin. That means they must have had a different view on the death and resurrection.

Many xians assume original sin is the point of xianity, but wasn't it invented by Augustine?

Why do we call some things heresies and not others? I'm sorry all the viewpoints are historicaly equal, the difference is that some holders of certain views had more power than others.

The Historicists really need to prove their viewpoint.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 05-14-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

The historical existence of Jesus is no more an explanation for the rise of Christianity than the historical existence of Christopher Columbus is an explanation for the 'discovery', conquest, and colonialization of the New World.

This is a very poor parallel, Peter.

First of all, nobody doubts the historicity of Columbus.

Second, the role of Columbus is highly controversial in numerous respects. Some people say that he was the _last_ to discover America. (My website explores the early history of the Americas, and various alternative views about the contacts between the early Americans and various ancient civilisations, such as China.)

So your comparison tends to confuse things more than it clarifies them...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

If Loisy's two books qualifies as an explanation attempt for Christian origins, why doesn't Doherty's book qualify as an explanation attempt? Please justify your claim here, assuming you are familiar with his book.

best,
Peter Kirby

Well, why shouldn't it qualify as an explanation attempt?

Sure, it's an explanation attempt. The question is if it's successful? I don't think so.

In particular, he fails to explain the problem of the earliest Christian martyrs (see my new discussion thread).

Best,

Yuri.

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

05-14-2005, 11:38 AM	#99
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Vork, my apologies if an earlier posting was provacative - it was not my intention. I am concerned about this proving negatives discussion, is it not for the historicists to prove positively that Jesus existed? - they have not so the reasonable position is in fact that it is a myth. I think there is a lot of evidence that the concept of Jesus evolved into becoming historic, and the point I would take from Carotta is that the Roman connections are possibly the majority ones. It looks like a group of vaguely similar Romano - Buddhist religions that probably grew separately in the various churches until an attempted forced merger under Constantine - that was not actually successful. We play down all the various heresies, gnostics etc. What if we treat them all equally and see this ideal of the one true church as a later one? An example, the Church in China in the seventh and eighth century ( Martin Palmer - Jesus Sutras) did not have a doctrine of original sin. That means they must have had a different view on the death and resurrection. Many xians assume original sin is the point of xianity, but wasn't it invented by Augustine? Why do we call some things heresies and not others? I'm sorry all the viewpoints are historicaly equal, the difference is that some holders of certain views had more power than others. The Historicists really need to prove their viewpoint.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.