Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 11-11-2009, 11:49 PM

Turning to Louis McBride's review of that book, I find some interesting curiosities.

Luke Timothy Johnson and Robert T. Price seem to converge on distinguishing a "Christ of faith" and a historical Jesus, and both seem to agree on treating the Gospels as literary efforts rather than documentaries. They are both skeptical about how much about JC that one can recover from the Gospels, though Price goes farther than Johnson.

Johnson even goes so far as to say that much historical-Jesus research has "a theological agenda wearing the external garb of history." A century ago, Albert Schweitzer noticed a tendency of HJ researchers to make the resulting HJ in their likeness, something that is all too true in general. Rev. Creflo Dollar's theology of the rich JC is only a recent example of that.

The responses to Robert Price's contribution was interesting. James Dunn was startled that

Quote:

Gosh! So there are still serious scholars who put forward the view that the whole account of Jesus' doings and teachings are a later myth foisted on an unknown, obscure historical figure.

Some of the others argued that Price tends to argue away anything that might be evidence of a HJ, including the Testimonium Flavianium, where Josephus supposedly mentions him. Louis McBride notes that

Quote:

Crossan further argues that the hero typology that Price points to with Jesus "no more negates his historical existence than the similar investment for Augustus negates that emperor's historical identity."

That's presumably Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile.

Augustus Caesar scores about a 10 there, but JC scores nearly 19 in it, close to the maximum of 22. Furthermore, both of those gentlemen fulfill various prophecies.

Dunn's objection to Jesus mythicism is

Quote:

the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really.

The section on Crossan mentions what Louis McBride describes as a distinction between a disease being cured and an illness being healed. The latter is apparently making sick people feel better about themselves rather than be truly cured, and Crossan apparently thinks that that's what JC did. Which seems like shifting the goalposts.

McBride notes that

Quote:

Price concludes that Crossan has “fallen into the trap of creating a liberal Jesus in his own image” and, tellingly asks, though it could have been said with less sarcasm, “can we picture Herod understanding (I’m not sure I do) what some guy organizing a soup kitchen for lepers has to do with hopes of overthrowing Roman and Herodian rule?”

Steven Carr · 11-11-2009, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

So why does Paul not deal with this 'offense' of Jesus? The only objection Paul has to deal with is the fact that this Jesus was crucified.He never deals with any charges brought against Jesus.

And why does Paul insist that the governing authorities hold no terror for the innocent, but are agents of God to punish wrong-doers?

What part of "putting aside the historicity argument" did you find particularly troubling? Let me know, and I'll make sure I phrase it even more carefully next time around. Thanks in advance.

As to Paul's position on the executing authorities, Paul believes he knows why Jesus was crucified, and does not believe the authorities had any control over it whatsoever.

So what reason does Paul give for the crucifixion of Jesus, and why does Paul never have to deal with the offense of Jesus that led to him being crucified?

And why does Paul never explain what Jesus could have done in his life that qualified him to be a Messiah?

Steven Carr · 11-11-2009, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I'm not actually a big proponent of the simple argument from silence. But no historian, comtemporary or later, writes about the Jesus movement until later Christians projected it back into history.

And no Christian in the first century ever put his name to a document stating he had heard of Judas, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, Lazarus, Mary Magdaelene, Joanna, Salome, Bartimaeus, Jairus etc etc

Why should anybody accept that these people ever lived when they vanish from history as soon as there is a public church in Acts 2?

They vanish as entirely as the Angel Moroni vanished, and yet Dunn would have no problem accepting that the Angel Moroni was an invented character.

Steven Carr · 11-12-2009, 12:14 AM

Amazingly, top Biblical scholars still use the analogy of the Gospels to independent witnesses in a court of law, and expect to be published and taken seriously when they do that.

Just look at page 119, where the 'convergence' of the Gospel accounts 'confirms' facts about Jesus.

I guess Biblical scholarship really needs to get back to basics, and realise that the convergence of facts in Rocky 1, Rocky 2, Rocky 3 and Rocky 4 do not confirm the historicity of Rocky.

aa5874 · 11-12-2009, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Amazingly, top Biblical scholars still use the analogy of the Gospels to independent witnesses in a court of law, and expect to be published and taken seriously when they do that.

Just look at page 119, where the 'convergence' of the Gospel accounts 'confirms' facts about Jesus.

I guess Biblical scholarship really needs to get back to basics, and realise that the convergence of facts in Rocky 1, Rocky 2, Rocky 3 and Rocky 4 do not confirm the historicity of Rocky.

And Biblical scholars need to understand that they cannot GUESS the historicity of Rocky or Jesus because Rocky 1, Rocky 2, Rocky 3, Rocky 4, or Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are fundamentally fiction.

If Biblical scholars want to find out what Rocky did in Rocky 1, they must watch Rocky 1 and report EXACTLY what they saw.

If Biblical scholars want to find out who Jesus was in Matthew, they must read Matthew and report EXACTLY what they read.

I must do the same for Homer's Achilles. I am NOT allowed to GUESS what Achilles did. I must read and report EXACTLY what I read.

Homer's Achilles was considered the offspring of a sea-goddess. I don't have to guess.

Matthew's Jesus was considered the offspring of the Holy Ghost of God. Biblical scholars don't have to guess who Jesus was. It is right there in the NT.

Who was the father of Jesus in gMatthew? Biblical scholars must know it was the Holy Ghost of God.

Solo · 11-12-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Evidently, the remark tickled personal incredulity in you, Jeffrey. You are not seriously asking me to compare the lionizing of Hillel and Bar Kochba, such at it was, with the breathtaking hagiography of the Galilean carpenter presently considered. Are you ? Because if you are, I can't be of service.

Jiri

Do you think you could beg the question even more than you do when you speak (presumably) of Gospels as "breathtaking hagiography"?

And how can you say that Bar Kochba

-- who was said to have blown burning tow from his mouth (Jerome, "Apol. ii. adv. Ruf.") and who was regarded as being able "to hurl back with his knees the stones discharged from the Roman ballistæ (Lam. R. ii. 2)", who was said to have tested the valor of his soldiers by ordering each one to cut off a finger; and when the wise men beheld this, they objected to the self-mutilation involved, and advised him to issue an order to the effect that every horseman must show that he could tear a cedar of the Lebanon up by the roots while riding at full speed, with the result that he eventually had 200,000 soldiers who passed the first ordeal, and 200,000 heroes who accomplished the latter feat (Yer. Ta'anit iv. 68d), who was reported to have performed miracles of valor, and who R. Akiba, who died for his cause, proclaimed him to be "the King Messiah" (ib.) and said "God: "We pray Thee, do not give assistance to the enemy; us Thou needst not help!" (ib.; Lam. R. ii. 2; Giṭ. 57a et seq.; Yalḳ., Deut. 946) --

was not also the subject not only of such hagiography as was given to Jesus , but of a sort even more resplendent than that given to Jesus?

Jeffrey

.....which testimonies alas do not come from a church erected to Bar-Kochba the Saviour. I remain hopeful that when you return to a reflective frame of mind you will recognize yourself the evidence you present here cannot be used to argue with the assertion that Jesus was lionized in the gospels against outside scorn or neglect, assuming you will have recovered your good sense sufficiently to set aside (pray not "leapfrog over") the highly controversial TF.

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-12-2009, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Do you think you could beg the question even more than you do when you speak (presumably) of Gospels as "breathtaking hagiography"?

And how can you say that Bar Kochba

-- who was said to have blown burning tow from his mouth (Jerome, "Apol. ii. adv. Ruf.") and who was regarded as being able "to hurl back with his knees the stones discharged from the Roman ballistæ (Lam. R. ii. 2)", who was said to have tested the valor of his soldiers by ordering each one to cut off a finger; and when the wise men beheld this, they objected to the self-mutilation involved, and advised him to issue an order to the effect that every horseman must show that he could tear a cedar of the Lebanon up by the roots while riding at full speed, with the result that he eventually had 200,000 soldiers who passed the first ordeal, and 200,000 heroes who accomplished the latter feat (Yer. Ta'anit iv. 68d), who was reported to have performed miracles of valor, and who R. Akiba, who died for his cause, proclaimed him to be "the King Messiah" (ib.) and said "God: "We pray Thee, do not give assistance to the enemy; us Thou needst not help!" (ib.; Lam. R. ii. 2; Giṭ. 57a et seq.; Yalḳ., Deut. 946) --

was not also the subject not only of such hagiography as was given to Jesus , but of a sort even more resplendent than that given to Jesus?

Jeffrey

.....which testimonies alas do not come from a church erected to Bar-Kochba the Saviour. I remain hopeful that when you return to a reflective frame of mind you will recognize yourself the evidence you present here cannot be used to argue with the assertion that Jesus was lionized in the gospels against outside scorn or neglect, assuming you will have recovered your good sense sufficiently to set aside (pray not "leapfrog over") the highly controversial TF.

Jiri

So far as I can see I have

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-12-2009, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Do you think you could beg the question even more than you do when you speak (presumably) of Gospels as "breathtaking hagiography"?

And how can you say that Bar Kochba

-- who was said to have blown burning tow from his mouth (Jerome, "Apol. ii. adv. Ruf.") and who was regarded as being able "to hurl back with his knees the stones discharged from the Roman ballistæ (Lam. R. ii. 2)", who was said to have tested the valor of his soldiers by ordering each one to cut off a finger; and when the wise men beheld this, they objected to the self-mutilation involved, and advised him to issue an order to the effect that every horseman must show that he could tear a cedar of the Lebanon up by the roots while riding at full speed, with the result that he eventually had 200,000 soldiers who passed the first ordeal, and 200,000 heroes who accomplished the latter feat (Yer. Ta'anit iv. 68d), who was reported to have performed miracles of valor, and who R. Akiba, who died for his cause, proclaimed him to be "the King Messiah" (ib.) and said "God: "We pray Thee, do not give assistance to the enemy; us Thou needst not help!" (ib.; Lam. R. ii. 2; Giṭ. 57a et seq.; Yalḳ., Deut. 946) --

was not also the subject not only of such hagiography as was given to Jesus , but of a sort even more resplendent than that given to Jesus?

Jeffrey

.....which testimonies alas do not come from a church erected to Bar-Kochba the Saviour.

So what?. The issue was whether he was the subject of hagiagraphy. And surely Akiva was a member of the church of Bar Kochba, the saviour. What else but that can his lionizing of Bar Kochba be interpreted as indicating?

Quote:

I remain hopeful that when you return to a reflective frame of mind you will recognize yourself the evidence you present here cannot be used to argue with the assertion that Jesus was lionized in the gospels against outside scorn or neglect, assuming you will have recovered your good sense sufficiently to set aside (pray not "leapfrog over") the highly controversial TF.

Jiri

Good gawd, Jiri. Look at the lengths you have to go to score some rhetorical points against me!

First you have to equivocate and present the point at issue here as something other than it was -- which, if you'll recall, was the validity of your claim that "there is realistically no chance" that figures who bear some resemblance to the "lionizing" portraits that their followers go on to paint of them would have then "escaped all historical attention of [their] time";

and then you have to present me as denying "the assertion that Jesus was lionized in the gospels" {??}, when I never did any such thing.

May we stick to the original point, please?

Jeffrey

PhilosopherJay · 11-12-2009, 02:04 PM

Hi Steven,

Good point.

Likewise, Gatien de Courtilz de Sandras wrote musketeer d'Artagnan in 1700, a fictionalized account of the life of Charles Ogier de Batz de Castelmore, Comte d'Artagnan, who was a musketeer and had died 27 years previously in the Franco-Dutch war.

Alexander Dumas wrote The Three Musketeers in 1844, Twenty Years After in 1845, and The Vicomte de Bragelonne in 1847. Paul Mahalin wrote the Son of Porthos in 1883. Tiffany Thayer wrote his version of The Three Musketeers in 1939.

While based originally on a living, historical person, D'artagnan, is now considered a fictional character and the convergence of facts in books written by Dumas and afterward cannot establish historical facts about him. Niether can convergences in the over twenty film versions of the The Three Musketeers.

For example, the motto "All for one and one for all" can only be traced to Dumas' D'artagnan and cannot be traced to the original historical figure, although nearly all subsequent works have used the motto.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Amazingly, top Biblical scholars still use the analogy of the Gospels to independent witnesses in a court of law, and expect to be published and taken seriously when they do that.

Just look at page 119, where the 'convergence' of the Gospel accounts 'confirms' facts about Jesus.

I guess Biblical scholarship really needs to get back to basics, and realise that the convergence of facts in Rocky 1, Rocky 2, Rocky 3 and Rocky 4 do not confirm the historicity of Rocky.

No Robots · 11-12-2009, 02:24 PM

Thanks, PJ. I find it fascinating that the real

Charles_de_Batz-Castelmore_d'Artagnan seems to be even more magnificent than the fictionalized version. Likewise, the Gospels in some ways diminish Christ's actual grandeur.

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

11-12-2009, 12:14 AM	#44
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Amazingly, top Biblical scholars still use the analogy of the Gospels to independent witnesses in a court of law, and expect to be published and taken seriously when they do that. Just look at page 119, where the 'convergence' of the Gospel accounts 'confirms' facts about Jesus. I guess Biblical scholarship really needs to get back to basics, and realise that the convergence of facts in Rocky 1, Rocky 2, Rocky 3 and Rocky 4 do not confirm the historicity of Rocky.

11-12-2009, 02:24 PM	#50
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Thanks, PJ. I find it fascinating that the real Charles_de_Batz-Castelmore_d'Artagnan seems to be even more magnificent than the fictionalized version. Likewise, the Gospels in some ways diminish Christ's actual grandeur.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.