gstafleu

There is something fairly rampant on this forum, and I have been as guilty of it as the next person: an unhealthy, unscientific and totally unproductive obsession with the historical person of Jesus.

Allow me to state the blindingly obvious: Jesus is a religious figure. By this I don't mean a figure like the Pope of your friendly neighborhood dispensationalist Premillenarianist doomsayer, but a figure like Buddha, or Odin, or Zeus or Hercules or ... you get the idea. The function of such a figure is religious, the stories told about him have religious significance. The critical questions regarding such a figure should therefore address this religious significance. The color of his eyes, is beside the point.

Let me give you some examples. Jesus is said to be born from a virgin. And just like throwing juicy grains into a flock of chickens produces a predictable amount of enthusiastic squawking, so produces the mention of the virgin birth in an atheist forum a predictable amount amount of postings pointing out, with amazing insight and perspicacity, that such a thing cannot happen. Bully for all these posters.

But such a response totally misses the point. The question is not: was Jesus really born from a virgin?" The question is: why does this religion say he was. What does it get the religion to do so? Of course we know he wasn't "really" born from a virgin, or any other person for that matter, because he is a religious figure, not a "real" one. So don't bother asking the question. Rather, ask the "why." An example of an answer--and I'm not claiming it is correct or complete--might be that the birth is seen in analogy with the yearly rebirth of nature: nature doesn't need intercourse with anyone to renew itself each spring. Never mind whether you think this is the right answer, it is the type of answer ("here is why") that is important here.

In addition to the "why" it can be useful to ask the "whence." Where did Christianity get the idea of the virgin birth? Did it produce it from scratch or did it crib it from somewhere else. If the latter, what did it mean in those religions, and how has Christianity changed its meaning (if it has done so). But the one thing that is not useful that ask is if it was real: don't be silly.

Staying with the birth, it is often pointed out with a certain amount of glee that the Bible does not provide a date for the birth. December 25 is specifically not mentioned. Rather than chuckling about this, the question should be: why is no date given, does that perhaps mean something? For example: the religious figure is seen as eternal, so pinning down his "birth" to a certain day would be rather silly.

Next we notice that these days the date has been pinned down to December 25. Again, why? What other religious types were born on December 25. What is the significance of that date? An answer to the latter could be: it is the winter solstice, the day upon which the days start to grow longer, and important event in those places of the world that have to suffer through winter. But why was it only later thought necessary to come up with a date? Did something perhaps change in the interpretation of the Jesus concept (from unreal to real, for example)?

So just to repeat the obvious: asking "was Jesus really born, and if so on what date" is pretty dumb. That was never the intention of the Jesus concept, and we shouldn't waste our time with it. Rather we should try to figure out the reason behind the various birth traditions, and whence they came.

A similar thing goes for everything else he is supposed to have said or done. He walked on water. Never mind that he couldn't really do that, that is old hat. Why does the tradition claim he walked on water. Is it just to impress the yokels and show what a super guy he was (a possibility of course), or was there something else behind it. What other religious people walk on water, and why?

Let's move on to his death. The question is not "was he really crucified?" It is "why does the tradition have him die at all, and why by crucifixion? Why not by chopping off his head?" The same for the resurrection. Of course that wasn't real, we know that. But why have it happen in the first place? Why after three days, and not some other prime number? Why was the empty tomb discovered by women in an otherwise male-centric story? What other religious figures were crucified, and why. Were their resurrected forms also first seen by women, and if so what is the relation between these women and the biblical ones? Robert Price gives some possible answers to these questions, and that is an interesting discussion. Babbling about whether the crucifixion was real is not.

That are things I think Biblical criticism and history should occupy itself with. Not these never ending and completely fruitless debates about whether a figure of whom it is blatantly clear that he was meant as religious and not as historically human really existed, or was based on some real template. Who cares, that is completely beside the point. The only interesting questions are: what is the religious significance of the traditions and where did they come from.

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

So, gstafleu, what do you think will be a modern parallel to the destruction of the Jewish Temple, what will shatter the World of Christianity?

Peter Kirby

*gerard tugs at a favorite chew toy*

*kirby growls, teeth clenched*

Go on with it then, give me something else to sink my teeth into. What would a discussion of Jesus look like when not considering aspects of historicity?

*kirby gives up the toy, goes to the backyard to unbury an old bone*

Might we not talk about literary criticism in a forum ostensibly about the criticism of a piece of literature, the Bible?

If I wanted to review some of the modern methods of biblical criticism, who would take an interest and contribute? (I'm thinking redaction criticism, rhetorical criticism, etc.)

--
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

Doesn't the question become "Was he really crucified?" as soon as anyone answers your second questions "Because that is how it really happened"?

Same as above. Unless you are simply assuming that nothing in the stories could possibly have been motivated by historical circumstances, I don't see how you can avoid discussing the historicity of them.

It is simply false that this is "blatantly clear".

gstafleu

A and Peter, I'll try to answer you both at once, since there is an obvious connection between your questions. The answer is three words: etiology, etiology and etiology. Let me tell you my Uri Geller story (taken from a book by Martin Gardner, if I remember well) to explain why.

Remember Uri Geller? He was the guy who could miraculously bend spoons. He would hold a spoon in his hand in such a way that it was immediately obvious to all observers that he was not doing anything to it, and the spoon would spontaneously bend. A miracle! Geller claimed it as such, or at least claimed it was caused by his supernatural prowess.

That was really the only new thing about it, that supernatural claim. Stage magicians had been performing similar tricks forever. But the Need to Believe being universal, people fell for it. And, scholars and scientists pay attention, that included quite a few scientists. "Hard" scientists like these unfathomable physicists.

Geller was eventually shown up, but not by a scientist: it was a stage magician (perhaps the Amazing Randi, I forget) who did him in, simply by repeating the trick and then showing how it was done. This convinced most people, including some sheep-faced scientists.

Randi (assuming it was him) afterwards remarked that no, he wasn't surprised the scientists fell for it: scientists are not used to dealing with deceit--mother nature may be mysterious at times, but she is never intentionally deceitful. For a stage magician on the other hand deceit is his daily bread, so he won't be taken in that easily. If you want to show up a fraud like Geller, hire a stage magician, not a scientist.

The moral here: people will only stop believing once you show them how the trick is done. That is why etiology is so important. So, A, if you want to bring down the Cathedral of Christianity (we have progressed from a temple ) you do that by showing how and why it was built. Familiarity, with how things work, breeds contempt.

And Peter, yes of course you can and should talk about literary criticism regarding the bible in this forum. But that criticism should focus on deconstruction: how and why were things put together as they are. Price didn't call his book "Deconstructing Jesus" for nothing. And history can help here, but mainly in the sense of: where did they get this idea. What did the idea mean to the previous bunch. How and why was the idea changed.

So here is an idea for your new Wiki. For every bible verse (start with the NT to keep even a semblance of manageability) do the following:

1) Point out which story (element) it belongs to if it doesn't stand by itself.
2) Point out what that story element is meant to achieve (of course not taking your standard Christian interpretation), and point out from where it was derived (going by Price you should in the end be able to come up with a derivation of almost every passage).
3) Point out similarities to pre-extant and contemporary religious thought.

In other words: deconstruct, show how and why the trick was done. That was my intention with the Christmas/Easter dates. The old sun worship may or may not be a complete explanation for these dates, but they at least make a start in understanding why they are as they are and where they came from.

Gerard Stafleu

gstafleu

No, because that is a "roll your eyes and throw up your hands" answer. Or, to put it more constructively (), the answer would be to show what the meaning behind crucifying is, how and why other religious figures were crucified. In other words, when someone answers "The spoon bends because Uri Geller has magical powers" you bring in your tame stage magician and say "now, let me show you how it is done..."

Well, let us say that it should be the purpose of this forum to make it blatantly clear .

Gerard Stafleu

Peter Kirby

*kirby focuses for a second on the new toy offered*

Wait, wat is dis 'should'? How does chasing after hypothetical origins of ideas become the normative way of interpreting texts?

*kirby scampers off to think about his John paper, which will have none of such speculations in it*

--
Peter Kirby

WishboneDawn

Great post. And let me say that atheists aren't alone in what you're accusing them of. So many christians tie themselves in knots trying to prove a virgin birth or uncover the historical Jesus that they also miss what you're talking about. This is a discussion I would love to have.

skinumb

Gets my vote.

Plus summaries of the most 'supported' secular explanations for how come Christianity kicked off, and how come the name Jesus got attached to it.

Rich

gstafleu

"Should" not in a normative way, but meaning that it would be more convincing when it comes to telling how the Jesus story came about. And no, it shouldn't just be "speculation." For example, my "dates/light" business is not just "speculation." For one thing, the actual dates are sort of hard to deny. Nor is the importance of the cycle of the sun on life before forced-air-heating and all-year-round supermarkets. The symbology I attach to the combination of date+event is maybe speculation, although it is pretty straightforward. I'm not a historian, but I'd think historians should be able to say something about the development of such ideas?

Gerard Stafleu