Mythra

woops. Seems to me that Mormonism is quite clearly based on mythological beginnings. Joseph Smith isn't really the object of worship. He's the founder, of course, but more than that - he is the creative author behind the religion. Much like whoever wrote Mark's gospel.

You have the whole intricate plot of the ancient tribes of the Americas - filled with details and sub-plots. And it is all accepted as historical by Mormons. In spite of the wealth of evidence to the contrary.

If people can fall for a story like the Book of Mormon without any evidence to show that the events actually happened, it's not hard at all to see christianity taking off 2,000 years ago in the absence of an actual Jesus.

Seems to me that Mormonism's beginnings are very similar to the JM model.

No Robots

So why not read the whole of Brunner's critique of mythicism?

But that is my point: Brunner is far greater than Einstein.

I won't go into your misreading of Paul. That has been done over and over here on this board. You remind me of a movie character. Did you ever see The Mission? Robert De Niro's character, as penance, carries a big bag of heavy items up a mountain. At one point, someone cuts the line, and the bag goes tumbling down. De Niro looks at the guy and then goes back down to get the bag. You remind me of that guy, carrying your sack full of arguments. I just want to cut it and let it roll away.

jgibson000

Such as?

I think it is important to note that in the above bifurcation you have --perhaps unintentionally, though still most definitely -- engaged in both petitio principii and in a serious equivocation of the use and meaning of the title "Son of God" that ends up leading you into a false dichotomy that is as invalid as it is unwarranted.

Contrary to the hidden assumption that stands behind your 1st "possiblity", in first century Judaism, the labeling of someone as "Son of God" is neither an expression of belief, nor a declaration, that that person is divine (especially in the Nicean/Chalcedonian sense of "divine"), let alone not mortal or not a "marginal Jew".

I think that before you go any further with this (not to mention before someone you publicly lecture on this topic to, who is better grounded in first century Judaism and New Testament Christology than you are, publicly takes you to task for your equivocation), you need first to take some time to look at what is said about the the meaning and function of the title in question in some of the standard works on the Christology of the NT. A good place to start, despite its age, would be Oscar Cullmann's The Christology of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), though you will not want to miss the articles on "Son of God" in the ABD or on hUIOS TOU QEOU in TDNT or the sections on "Son of God" in F. Matera's New Testament Christology or M. de Jonge's Christology in Context, among many other works by Brown, Moule, Jimmy Dunn, etc.

JG

jgibson000

I think you would do well to have a look at A. Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus to see that your claim that the scholarly view that Jesus (do you really need to use the affectedly pious, confessional title "Christ" when you are referring to the HJ?) was a Jew arose only a century ago is pretty much nonsense. Reimarus (d. 1768) and his detractors accepted it as a given. So did J.J. Hess, writing in the late 1700s. So did K.F. Bardt and K. H. Venturini, Strauss, Schliermacher, B. Bauer, and many others, all writing in the early to mid 1800s.

Actually it arose from no such thing. It arose out of, and in the light of the "discoveries" made by, the Religiongeschichteschule, and had little to nothing to do with the "scholarly conclusion" that Jesus was a Jew.

May I suggest -- if only to avoid having the charge of uniformed apologist leveled against you -- that you review the history of the origins and development of late 19th-early 20th century Jesus "Mythicism" that Schwietzer provides? You will also want to look at Colin Brown's Jesus in European Protestant thought, 1778-1860 (or via: amazon.co.uk).

JG

jgibson000

It should be noted that the edition of Schweitzer's work that one will find by clicking on the link Toto has added above is neither the latest (or best) translation of Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung nor the full text of what Schweitzer wrote.

For this you must consult the 2001 Fortress Press (First Complete) edition (or via: amazon.co.uk) that was edited by John Bowden.

JG

Niall Armstrong

Will try! Hope to answer soon.
Thanks for the reference, anyway!

No Robots

Thank you very much for pointing out the importance of Schweitzer. Why he gets such short shrift is beyond me. I wasn't aware that he commented on Drews. I will make it a priority to get hold of the integral translation and give it a thorough read.

"Christ" is a title that I use out of respect, and devotion. Would you ask me to say "Lord Siddharta" in place of "Buddha"?

The whole chronology of the historical Jesus is intensely interesting, particularly when seen in the light of the Jew/myth polarization. It is certainly true to say that there are antecedents to the "Jewish Christ." In fact, we would have to say that Spinoza really presents the entire case in the 1670's. My point is that it reaches the awareness of the general public toward the end of the 19th century. And while there are also antecedents to the "Mythic Christ", this outlook, too, reaches its popular audience in the early years of the 20th century. I would still maintain that there is a correlation here, and that the mythic Christ theory, at least in its popular form, was largely a reaction against the only viable alternative: the Jewish Christ.

The Religionsgeschichteschule certainly had a hand in all this. Protestant theology has attempted to save itself by proposing a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. In effect, it tries to walk the knife edge between the Jewish Christ and the Mythic Christ. This balancing act will not save it.

For me, an apologist is someone who defends an unpopular point of view against hostile authority. I see hostility, but no authority.

Niall Armstrong

Now I have tried reading the 88 pages long appendix. It’s entertaining, but hardly original. One must sympathise with Brunner, as with Burton Mack and the Jesus Seminar: Having spent vast time and imagination grasping after an authentic Jesus, the idea of there being no such figure is naturally anathema. Hell, I’ve been in the same situation myself! Everyone brought up as a Christian, whether or not they are able to maintain that belief, invest a lot of feeling into the figure of Jesus of Nazareth, and realizing there was no such figure is almost like realizing your sweetheart has been lying all along. No one could want to believe such a thing. Truth hurts, and not all are prepared to face it. (Sorry if I got a bit self-indulgent there…)

Brunner may have many charming qualities, and his philosophy of science could even be construed as anticipating post-modern ideas, but he is no biblical scholar. He is also longwinded, so I must apologise for being longwinded in discussing him. But I hope you may show the same patience as I have done.

But let’s look at the arguments that are there:

1) “…the Gospels are not imaginative literature, and because they are not, but rather are naïve portrayals of the most extraordinary human character, which cannot be compared to any other”

A fond argument, often related to the argument from embarrassment. (Which maintains that the Gospels portray the disciples in such an embarrassing manner that no followers of Jesus would have invented such self-calumny.) But we must look at the Gospels (or rather, just Mark, as the others are primarily based on this portrayal) in context of their genre. The “Jesus-mythers” claim that the genre in question is midrash, which would create fiction based on scriptural precedence. There are many examples of this genre in the Bible (Esther, Job, Susannah, etc), but the most famous, and my favourite, is Daniel. Until recently I’d seen no reason to question the veracity of the Book of Daniel, as its portrayal is believable, the characters distinctly human, the circumstances not beyond plausibility, and the story unfolds in a historic setting. But watch as the whole story is torn apart: http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/b...t/daniel.shtmlThe book was actually written 400 years after the purported dating, filled with historical misunderstandings and anachronisms, and having a distinct purpose in its time: to inspire the Jews during their tribulations under Antiochos Epiphanes. Now, we can see the same thing happening in the Gospels (though, being written only some 50 years after the proposed events, the anachronisms are more difficult to spot). These aren’t naïve portrayals, but sophisticated historical fiction (though, being based on scripture, thought of as truth by the writers), of a kind both popular and efficient in its time. (Another issue is that Jesus’ “unique personality” is actually multiple. The divine, unabashed exclaimer found in John contrasts starkly with the questioning, parable-reciting ambiguous figure found in Mark. This is not a matter of the actual philosophical Absolute, but rather the usual human attempts to portray the same, which inevitably slips up in the details.

2) “The greater the genius, the less effect he will have directly on his age, the less attention he will attract from those who would be in a position to record interesting details about his life.”

Max Stirner was a genius, but unfortunately he’s still very much forgotten. Until his thoughts again become popular, I think perhaps Shakespeare could make a better example of a genius of whom almost no personal knowledge is available. But these are both writers, presumably constrained to their garret producing their astounding thoughts, seldom venturing among men, and definitely not themselves men of action. The Gospels present Jesus as a very public man, speaking and working miracles before many thousands. Such activities would warrant a mention, at least by his own followers (when discussing various miracles and teaching in their letters), if not by non-believers. But then Brunner may believe that Jesus was, like Stirner and Shakespeare, a shy retiring fellow, not like him in the Gospels at all, who’d rather spend his time in thought than action. I’d certainly find such a Jesus sympathetic, but other inconsistencies arise from such an argument. (Why was he then crucified? Why didn’t his apostles describe these thoughts, or protest his innocence in the epistles?) Such inconsistencies demand further ad hoc explanations, all the while diminishing the explanatory power of the Historical Jesus theory.

3) “Thus the Talmud does not yield a single proof of the real historical existence of Christ, in which the Jews believed as naturally as Christians did.”

The actual and proposed references to Jesus in the Talmudic literature are confronted better elsewhere: Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schafer (or via: amazon.co.uk). Suffice to say that the references are late and there is nothing in them of consequence (as Brunner above seems to recognize). These are not independent testimonies of Jesus’ existence, but are based on what Christians themselves proclaimed. Why should opponents of Christians try the near impossible task of proving that some man didn’t exist, when the Christians themselves provided the ammunition of claiming that this man has executed (and born with uncertain parentage)? Unfortunately such a strategy back-fired, as it let the Christians believe in their own fables.

4) “No less weight (indeed, far more) attaches to the testimonies of Suetonius and Tacitus, which can hardly be dismissed as interpolated falsifications, as the critics would suggest.”

There is of course no need to postulate these testimonies as interpolations, as they do not testify to the existence of Jesus. The first merely states that there were people in Rome that believed they were commanded to certain actions by a “Chrestos”, while the second is probably based upon Christian testimony, as Tacitus would not have bothered or been able to find out whether such self-incriminating beliefs were valid. (Oh, and we may be pretty certain that some Christians in Rome held such beliefs, as Ignatius probably did not stop insisting on these matters on his way to his martyrdom). Attaching any weight at all to these testimonies, in the discussion of the historicity of Jesus, is in itself a sign of incompetence.

5) “In Paul, however, we have a witness of an entirely different calibre, whose historicity is beyond all criticism. His historical existence cannot be doubted, and the whole meaning of his life is based on the historical existence of Christ. Or are we really to imagine that Paul would have accepted from the Jews what the critics would like us to fall for about the Jews, namely, that they actually believed this [….]? This is what our critics believe, and there are many stupid and easily deceived people today who believe them. But did the Jews of that time believe it? No. It is merely an invention of the critics' brains, the ammé haaretz against Jewishness. They can believe that Jews of that time believed it—but in fact the latter would have been totally unable to believe it.” (Brunner is seemingly arguing against some anti-Semitic ideas, which I cannot imagine are related to modern Jesus-mythicism, as the latter also deconstructs central anti-Semitic these.)
Much of Brunner’s subsequent argument is based on the Talmud (and the claim that Jesus-mythers do not know the Talmud). Now I have not read the Talmud, arguments from which are therefore best answered by others, but instead I’ve read works like the Ascension of Isaiah and various other early Christian non-canonic works. Anyone wishing to understand the mindscape of the creators of the Gospels would do better to peruse these than the later Talmudic writings (though these too are evidence of reactions to Christianity). Naturally Brunner’s discussion of Drews claim of Mandean influence need not be discussed, as this does not pertain to modern theories, as far as I know. Freke and Gandy are probably closer to the facts.
But let’s get back to Paul, the great witness! I myself thought of him that way once, as the obvious proof of an historic Jesus. His testimony of Jesus is almost contemporary with the (believed) events, perhaps 14 years later, according to traditional chronology. Paul would not have dedicated his life to a fiction invented in his own lifetime by those he himself had persecuted. He couldn’t have written letter after letter about Jesus to people who could point out that he hadn’t actually been crucified in Jerusalem. But then these aren’t the claims of the Jesus-mythers. Paul is actually describing another religion entirely, one not needing any earthly Jesus. As there is nothing in the epistles, any epistles, witnessing to a living Jesus on earth (Doherty’s two suggested interpolations have been shown by Richard Carrier to be comprehensible in a mythic interpretation), and the few suggested terms referring to an earthly Jesus actually perform the opposite function (“Born of a woman”, anyone? Not something we normally would say of someone to all appearances human! ;-) And Zion was already then a term for Heavenly Jerusalem, as stated explicitly so in Hebrews 12:22), we may hypothesize such a community. (The lack of any mention of Nazareth, for example, hooks up nicely with a recent discussion on the IIDB http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=190156. ) For the rest of this discussion see www.jesuspuzzle.com

Brunner has done the same mistake as most readers of the Bible since 200 AD: He read the Gospels first, and then interpreted the epistles in light of these. An easy mistake to make, since the NT is organized this way, and the Gospels are not only more entertaining, but proposes to give us a portrayal of the divinity. Reading the epistles is normally reserved for the faithful, looking for confirmation and interpretation of the Gospel story. Still, since the epistles were undeniably composed before the Gospels, anyone wishing to investigate the documents to find out what actually happened should consult the former first. (Any suggestion of oral transmission of Gospel stories would benefit from some evidence of the existence, which is not to be found in the epistles)
Doherty has done this (not as the first, but probably as the most comprehensive and accessible), and found a different Paul, a different James, etc. These all proclaim different Christs (though perhaps not as different as Appolos’, but somehow this testimony wasn’t kept for us…), but none of them proclaim anything regarding Jesus as they or others knew him on earth. Strange, that! The claim that this wasn’t necessary is bogus, as this life was supposedly the origin of their faith, and would have been essential for the many discussions about the character of this budding religion. This is of course only the starting point for Doherty, who has shown that the idea of a descending deity, without any distinct earthly career, explains the known facts and theories better. But don’t take my word for it: read it yourself.

Otherwise, this was slightly more enjoyable than I thought, so I wouldn’t mind discussing Brunner further, even if most of his statements do not apply to current Jesus-mythology. If you disagree, and I certainly expect you do, you’re welcome to follow my example and bring the references or quotes to the Debating Board. But let’s not hassle people who have better things to do.

No Robots

Niall, I have reposted your message here. I will reply there.

ApostateAbe

Mr. Doherty, I did not mean to say or imply that you have much to do with the parallel saviors propositions. I apologize for that error.