andrewcriddle

'the ruler (singular) of this age' (aiwn) is used by Ignatius as a title of Satan parallel to the Johannine 'ruler of this world' (kosmos), and Pauline 'God of this age' (aiwn) I'm not aware of another case where the plural is used in this sort of phrase.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

chapter 22 is a discussion of the views of Robertson Jensen Smith Drews and others. It may be mostly of historical interest now, but begins with an interesting discussion of the two options according to Schweitzer for dispensing with a historical Jesus. The symbolic and the mythical.

In a symbolic interpretation the NT accounts of Jesus are taken as parables about the early Christian community and its history beliefs and practices. (Eg Loman for whom the death and resurrection of Jesus is a metaphor for the decline of 'Israel according to the Flesh' (the Jews) and its replacement by 'Israel according to the Spirit' (the Christians))

In a mythical interpretation the NT accounts of Jesus are taken as the progressive historicization of an originally mythical narrative. Robertson et al are primarily mythical.

chapter 22 also includes a decidedly sceptical analysis by Schweitzer of the authenticity and/or historical value of the passages in Josephus Tacitus etc that this forum spends so much time discussing. Schweitzer accepts that there is no solid historical evidence of Jesus definitely independent of the Christian tradition and hence that dispensing with a historical Jesus is at least formally a legitimate historical option.

chapter 23 is a critical discussion of the ideas described in chapter 22.
It begins with a discussion of how far the historical Jesus is central to Christianity; in which it is suggested that the problem that defenders of a historical Jesus are reluctant to face is that any Jesus who can be defended by the methods of secular history may well not be serviceable for the needs of mainstream Christianity.

It then goes on to discuss the strictly historical question and argues that proponents of a mythical Jesus are
a/ misinterpreting the mythical philosophical and religious ideas of the 1st century CE In particular they are using Gnostic type ideas from a later period and using a dubious concept of a generic 'dying and rising god' as a supposed parallel to Christ.
b/ misinterpreting Paul; not only are they disregarding a few specific passages which appear to refer to a historical Jesus and might possibly be interpolations but the whole eschatological framework of Paul's thought is disregarded and Johannine ideas are illegitimately used to interpret Paul.
c/ misinterpreting the early Gospels, whose Jewish teacher discussing Halakhah with other Jewish teachers of the period is a most implausible historicization of a mythical figure.

Schweitzer concludes by arguing that the wide disagreements between different proponents of a mythical Jesus makes the enterprise still more dubious and that although the issues a/ b/ and c/ may not individually be insurmountable, taken together they render a mythical Jesus exceedingly unlikely even if formally possible.

Andrew Criddle

Peter Kirby

Thank you for this summary; I will have to get ahold of it sometime. Did you say that the English translation came out only in 2000?

best,
Peter Kirby

Richard Carrier

I am not familiar with it, so I can't comment. But the date would make me suspicious--that alone leads me to hope his work is updated in light of all the findings made since his day, before trusting his conclusions or claims unreservedly. That is, assuming his work is worth the attention, as you say.

Richard Carrier

(a) is obsolete now, since the treatment of ancient religion, sociologically and historically, has much improved, and theories like Doherty's are not so naive.

(c) doesn't seem to hold much weight, since portraying Jesus the way a rabbi was expected to behave is what we would expect in a historicization--the "type" was ubiquitous, probably even a common type embodied by the original believers themselves as their evangelists did exactly the same thing (see how Acts portrays Paul's mission), so it would be natural to cast Jesus in the type that was known--and regardless of what "seems" plausible to us, if there is evidence that these debates were invented using material previously separate from such contexts (e.g. if Matthew, John, and Luke construct this material differently), that argues for historicization--at least of the debates (which does not prove that the man was historicized from a myth). I say this only for the methodological point--whether such historicization of Jesus's debates has been or can be proved is a separate issue.

That leaves (b), and here I think stands the hardest nut for Doherty to crack. Doherty does not commit those errors regarding misinterpreting Paul (even if he makes others--that's open to debate), and does make a good Argument from Silence from Paul that comes pretty close to getting past hurdle (b), I think there are still "a few specific passages which appear to refer to a historical Jesus" that Doherty has not explained away to my satisfaction (a point I bring out in the Appendix to my critique of his book). If Doherty did better on this score, I think he would meet at least all three of these hurdles.

andrewcriddle

See Amazon

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

IMO there are problems with Doherty's analysis of Middle Platonism.

Did you see my suggestion earlier in this thread that 'Isis and Osiris' does not really involve a God incarnating and dying in the aer, and that the idea that it does may involve a confusion between Osiris in Plutarch as a daimon now apotheosized to a God and Osiris in Plutarch as an allegory of the Divine Creative Intelligence ?

Andrew Criddle

freigeister

First, I must congratulate and thank you, Mr. Carrier. You are, to my knowledge, only the second American scholar to EVER comment on Brunner in ANY way. (The other is the Spinoza scholar Errol E. Harris.)

As an historian, I know that you understand that it is important to assess a theory of history on the basis of a thorough examination. To that end, I would encourage you to read Brunner's complete work on Christ so that the appendix thereunto that you have just read can be seen in context. You may find that Brunner does, in fact, offer a serious rationalist alternative to the mythicist position.

Brunner's tone and style are definitely a stumbling block for many. Setting that aside, I wonder if there is any response to specific claims in his treatise.

I am afraid I now must introduce my own note of "bluster". The position that only recent scholarship has any validity is preposterous and demonstrates an appalling generationalist arrogance. An historian who so cavalierly belittles the contributions of the past he purports to study clearly cares, knows, and desires little with regard to his own profession. Your confidence in "perfected methods and secured facts" sounds a lot like the overweening confidence of many technocratic initiatives that ended with less than optimal results. Ask Robert McNamara, for example.

Let me be blunt. The battle between those who affirm Christ's historicity and those who refuse to do so is the single greatest social battle of our time. It is Brunner's virtue to have understood the importance of this battle and to have provided the fighting tools to the affirmative side. One wouldn't expect the negative side to embrace Brunner. But I would hope, for your own sakes, that you do seriously look at what he says, and the sooner the better. It won't be fading away.

Celsus

That isn't exactly what I'm saying. Clearly, rituals draw from a pool of myth (and here, we can think of "knowledge" is to us what "myth" was to the ancients). However, which myths are enacted in ritual are arbitrary, less so that a myth had to be associated with a specific type of ritual. This is what I mean that there is no connection: myths may or may not result in rituals, so it has to be demonstrated.
I'll defer to Andrew here, I'm not familiar with Hellenistic and Christian writing, but my understanding is that archons are normally earthly magistrates. "Rulers of this age" may well be a mythic derivation, but it is not clear that Ignatius' interpretation is what Paul had in mind (see signifiers and signfied above).

For those following the topic, I've tried to be more clear with an exposition here. My time is running short now, because I just got a new laptop and have to transfer everything over from the ailing one, so I may not be able to get back to this for a while.

Joel

Vorkosigan

Let me be blunt: Brunner's book is megacrap.

Just look at this mess.

• So this company of Jewish fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots is supposed to have invented all the qualities of this genius! And apropos of the hypothesis that religious syncretism was current at the time of Christ even among Jews, I attach no great importance to it; it is, of course, an assumption secundum ignorantium criticorum,e5 and it could only be made by someone with a frightening ignorance of the context of contemporary life and thought as reflected in the talmudic literature. And I put no weight whatsoever on the considerable bundle of hypotheses which attributes to these Jewish fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots the most detailed knowledge of the cults of Mithras, Adonis, Tammuz, Attis and Osiris, the nature myths and divinity myths of the entire world, including those of Buddhism; as well as Alexandrine philosophical speculation (which in part developed only subsequently).

Apparently it never occurred to Brunner that the stories in the Gospels might well be invented. For example, that the fisherman scenes were taken from the Old Testament. The relationship between Jesus and Elijah was known even prior to WWII. But I guess when you are a genius there's no need to slog through boring introductory material to the NT.

• How could the united efforts of these superstitious, stupid and illiterate people have brought into being such a highly-wrought literary work of art representing an undeniably unique and original genius?

It's easy: the writers were skilled individuals working within cultural idioms and literary conventions which they knew well. For example, a common conventional writing of post-Neronian literature was travel narratives. It is easy to see the Markan asides, like the one in Mark 7 on the Pharisees and handwashing, as explanations about Judaism to an audience of potential recruits. But they are also a topos of ancient writing: the author-as-guide-to-the-exotic.

• For he is both unique and uniquely important; his like has never been seen before nor since, and we cannot conceive what the world would have been like without him, for he has had an essentially determining effect on the history of the human race.

Nothing like a balanced, scholarly exposition, eh?

• Are we to suppose that Jewish novelists of this kind were able to work together and produce the primal phenomenon of such a Genius, putting into his mouth words which are Spirit-filled at every point, words of such wit and penetration, such pointed hyperboles (guzmot)?

As Carrier said, Brunner wrote too early, and thus is unaware of the massive recent scholarship into relations between Christianity and the "wisdom" of Stoicism, Cynicism, and Judaism. Almost all of Jesus' sayings can be located in the wider Hellenistic matrix. But even in his own day that information was available....

• Did they intend, with their portrayal of the disturbed relationship between Christ and Mary, to set forth an example of filial behaviour; or would they, with their own moral awareness, have forgiven the adulteress as she was forgiven by Christ?

It was basic Bible knowledge even in Brunner's own day that the pericope adultera was a later interpolation. But I guess when you're a genius you needn't bother with little things like text criticism.

• If we had nothing else but the polemical relationship between Christ and the Pharisees, these absolutely unique polemics of genius (polemos=war) would alone suffice as a striking proof of Christ's real existence.

Brunner seems unaware that many modern scholars believe them to be literary constructions.

• Everything that goes on around Christ bears the mark of authentic life, exhibits the living vitality, both manifest and hidden, of its organic structure; Christ is surrounded by an abundant wealth of individuality in his disciples of both sexes, all is in dramatic motion; around Buddha, by contrast, everything has an Indian rigidity and lifelessness.

Hey? What's a little prewar ethnocentricity among friends? Ironically, Brunner seems to have missed what the inferior scholars of our day know. After reviewing ancient literary conventions for how they can throw light on the Gospel of Mark, Mary Ann Tolbert (1989) concludes:

• "The illustrative characters of ancient literature are static, monolithic figures who do not grow or develop psychologically. They have fundamentally the same characteristics at the end as at the beginning. They may, of course, change state, from good forture to bad, from unknown to known, or from insider to outsider, for example, but such shifts are always implicit in the actions or principles the characters are illustrating."(p77)

I'm sorry....whose characters are wooden?

Well, I don't have all day to waste refuting someone whom fifteen minutes of work can show did not even know the scholarly literature of his own day, let alone ours.

Vorkosigan