Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-05-2012, 04:18 PM

Is This Not the Carpenter’s Son?¹ A Response to Bart Ehrman

Quote:

Apparently to him, the more than 40 years I have devoted to research in my study of the primary fields of Old Testament exegesis, ancient Near Eastern literature and ancient history—not least in regards to questions of historicity—leaves me unqualified and lacking the essential competence to address such questions because they also come to include a comparison of such an analysis with these same stereotypical literary tropes as they occur in the Gospels. I can understand that Ehrman may have some disagreement with my analysis and my conclusions. My introduction takes up the notoriously stereotypical figure of Jesus as (mistaken) eschatological prophet, which Ehrman—himself reiterating Schweitzer—asserts as, somehow, obviously historical. His lack of reflection on ancient forms of allegory, such as that reflected by Qohelet’s—and indeed Philo’s—principle that—in their world of theologically driven literature—there is little new under the sun, certainly provides adequate grounds for considerable disagreement, which I welcome. It is puzzling, however, that he seems sincerely unaware of the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern thematic elements which are comparable to those of the Gospels: pivotal motifs such as “the one chosen by god,” the “inaugural announcement of the divine kingdom,” and “the good news” of that kingdom’s saving reversals, which offer a utopian hope to the poor and oppressed, the widow and the orphan. He even seems to ignore the stereotypical implications of the royal figure of a conquering messiah—which historical kings have indeed used in their “biographies.” Such an ancient theme as “life’s victory over death” gets its first treatment in the Gospels in a reiteration of the stories of Elisha. Surely, this is not news to him—anymore than he can be unaware of the Gospel reiterations of the “eternal need to crush the head of the evil one,” so central to the St. George myth—though no less central to an understanding of Jesus in the Gospels. Such narratively embraced themes can hardly be understood as providing historical evidence for any figure of the ancient world; this has always been the stuff other than the historical. Why has he written such a diatribe as Did Jesus Exist? And having decided to write it: why didn’t he take his title seriously and attempt to give a reasonable argument concerning his conviction that he did?

stephan huller · 07-05-2012, 04:43 PM

i wonder if someone was honest enough to ask - could jesus not have existed? - whether the investigation would have led to a more satisfactory result. in other words, as with opinion polls, the original question matters

Duvduv · 07-05-2012, 04:46 PM

I am waiting for a heavy and serious scholarly debate as to whether the rest of the crew existed:
Did PAUL exist?
Did John the Baptist exist?
Did Peter exist?
Did the apostles exist........and.............
Did Irenaeus or Justin Martyr exist?

outhouse · 07-05-2012, 05:48 PM

Thompson threw weak junk towards Ehrman

it doesnt matter how long you study, if you cannot interpret the information in context.

outhouse · 07-05-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i wonder if someone was honest enough to ask - could jesus not have existed? -

I thought it, and researched it the best I could for quite a while.

common sense finally won over, with the compilation of weak evidence we have

aeebee50 · 07-05-2012, 06:16 PM

Seemed Thompson was upset with Ehrman. I would love to see a debate between them.

maryhelena · 07-06-2012, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Is This Not the Carpenter’s Son?¹ A Response to Bart Ehrman

Quote:

Apparently to him, the more than 40 years I have devoted to research in my study of the primary fields of Old Testament exegesis, ancient Near Eastern literature and ancient history—not least in regards to questions of historicity—leaves me unqualified and lacking the essential competence to address such questions because they also come to include a comparison of such an analysis with these same stereotypical literary tropes as they occur in the Gospels. I can understand that Ehrman may have some disagreement with my analysis and my conclusions. My introduction takes up the notoriously stereotypical figure of Jesus as (mistaken) eschatological prophet, which Ehrman—himself reiterating Schweitzer—asserts as, somehow, obviously historical. His lack of reflection on ancient forms of allegory, such as that reflected by Qohelet’s—and indeed Philo’s—principle that—in their world of theologically driven literature—there is little new under the sun, certainly provides adequate grounds for considerable disagreement, which I welcome. It is puzzling, however, that he seems sincerely unaware of the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern thematic elements which are comparable to those of the Gospels: pivotal motifs such as “the one chosen by god,” the “inaugural announcement of the divine kingdom,” and “the good news” of that kingdom’s saving reversals, which offer a utopian hope to the poor and oppressed, the widow and the orphan. He even seems to ignore the stereotypical implications of the royal figure of a conquering messiah—which historical kings have indeed used in their “biographies.” Such an ancient theme as “life’s victory over death” gets its first treatment in the Gospels in a reiteration of the stories of Elisha. Surely, this is not news to him—anymore than he can be unaware of the Gospel reiterations of the “eternal need to crush the head of the evil one,” so central to the St. George myth—though no less central to an understanding of Jesus in the Gospels. Such narratively embraced themes can hardly be understood as providing historical evidence for any figure of the ancient world; this has always been the stuff other than the historical. Why has he written such a diatribe as Did Jesus Exist? And having decided to write it: why didn’t he take his title seriously and attempt to give a reasonable argument concerning his conviction that he did?

It does not matter how many OT stories can be seen to have been used in the creation of the gospel JC figure. That fact does not negate the possibility that historical figures, of recent Jewish history, were also used in the creation, and the placing within a specific time context, of that JC figure.

One can shout down Ehrman until kingdom come re his attempt to discredit the ahistoricists/mythicists - and that needs to be done - but that is not the same thing as putting a nail in the coffin of the assumed historical gospel JC.

Indeed, Jewish history was not the focus of Paul's epistles. But that does not mean that Jewish history was irrelevant to Paul's theology/philosophy. All it suggests is that spiritual concerns, theological or philosophical, were his primary interest. Yes, Ehrman is wrong if he is attempting to demonstrate historicity for the gospel JC. It can't be done. The JC historicists need to shift gear from the gospel's pseudo-history to actual Jewish history. That shift is necessary for a search for early christian origins. And whatever the history they would find there is only of academic interest - it has no 'salvation' potential. The 'saving' potential lies within christianity's philosophical ideas - i.e. it's ideas, in and of themselves, that can have 'saving' potential. (no, of course not - theology is speculation). Our ability to think and to translate our ideas into life saving practices and benefits, is where our 'salvation' lies.

And that, bottom line, is at the root of Christian mysticism: The transforming power of thinking, of ideas.

And on that note - after following the above link - I came across this article by Sebastian Moll. He hits the Christian nail on its head....

Quote:

The Historical Jesus and Apologetics: Sebastian Moll.

“If the existence of the historical Jesus could be refuted, Christianity would lose much, but by far not everything.”

Who said it?

A: Rudolf Bultmann B: Paul Tillich

C: Albert Schweitzer D: Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The answer is C. In his famous work “Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung” (first published in 1906) Albert Schweitzer comes to the above stated conclusion.

<snip>

This is, again in daring brevity, the apologetic concept of Albert Schweitzer. As stated in the beginning, this is not the place to examine the sustainability of his system. But it is important to realize that even for a man like Albert Schweitzer, known as the incorruptible champion of the quest for the historical Jesus, it is not enough simply establishing historical results. He may have contributed to the ‘destruction’ of the traditional image of Jesus, but his real aim was to show that we do not really need it.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/mol368015.shtml

And 'Paul', undoubtedly would agree - 'salvation' is not rooted, does not spring, from historical figure. However, history, historical realities, can set the mind off on an intellectual journey; spur it on to develop means to overcome the problems reality confronts us with. Indeed, ideas can ensnare and trap us as well as liberate us - that's their danger as well as their beauty. The power of an idea - that is the contribution of christian theology to philosophy. As one idea hits the dust, dies - another one will surely take it's place. Life, death and rebirth - that's the story, the history, of ideas. 'Paul's' crucified savior, once and for all time, removed the dying and rising god mythology from a physical context to an intellectual, philosophical, context. What motivated 'Paul', what drew him to this conclusion, this new idea - Jewish history...

aa5874 · 07-06-2012, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

'Paul's' crucified savior, once and for all time, removed the dying and rising god mythology from a physical context to an intellectual, philosophical, context. What motivated 'Paul', what drew him to this conclusion, this new idea - Jewish history...

Please, maryhelena!!! Why do you PRESUME Paul was early based on Acts of the Apostles??

Paul was BLINDED like a BAT in Acts and heard from Jesus AFTER he had ascended.

Why is the Pauline writings history???

Listen to Paul when he EXPLAINS how he Met Christ.
Corinthians 12:2-3 NIV

Quote:

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.

3 And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--

God KNOWS Paul don't know what he was talking about. But God don't even exist.

Nobody knows what Paul is talking about. He MUST have DREAMT it all up.

It is time we FORGET about Paul because he cannot RECALL.

Paul PLEADS the FIFTH about Christ.

maryhelena · 07-06-2012, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

'Paul's' crucified savior, once and for all time, removed the dying and rising god mythology from a physical context to an intellectual, philosophical, context. What motivated 'Paul', what drew him to this conclusion, this new idea - Jewish history...

Please, maryhelena!!! Why do you PRESUME Paul was early based on Acts of the Apostles??

Paul was BLINDED like a BAT in Acts and heard from Jesus AFTER he had ascended.

Why is the Pauline writings history???

Listen to Paul when he EXPLAINS how he Met Christ.
Corinthians 12:2-3 NIV

Quote:

2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know--God knows.

3 And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--

God KNOWS Paul don't know what he was talking about. But God don't even exist.

Nobody knows what Paul is talking about. He MUST have DREAMT it all up.

It is time we FORGET about Paul because he cannot RECALL.

Paul PLEADS the FIFTH about Christ.

:hysterical:

aa, I think 'Paul' is about as historical as is JC. Both NT figures are composite figures - take a bit here, add a bit there - and presto - we have a great story-line that has kept millions enthralled for generations...

Paul as Jesus Reboot
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311968

aa5874 · 07-06-2012, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

:hysterical:

aa, I think 'Paul' is about as historical as is JC. Both NT figures are composite figures - take a bit here, add a bit there - and presto - we have a great story-line that has kept millions enthralled for generations...

Paul as Jesus Reboot
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=311968

Please, please. please, according to Diogenes the Cynic stories in the Bible about Jesus are "Akin to Bullshit Reenactments and UFO abductions..."

Why would you want to take SOME of the "Bullshit Reenactments" to make a "Great story".

Millions have NOT been enthralled---perhaps MAULED.

Examine "Against the Galilileans.

Quote:

.....you slaughtered not only those of us who remained true to the teachings of their fathers, but also men who were as much astray as yourselves, heretics, because they did not wail over the corpse in the same fashion as yourselves....

Never again should the MANKIND be forced under the threat of death to accept FICTION as the Truth--never, NEVER, NEVER again.

"Against the Galileans"

Quote:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. Though it has in it nothing divine, by making full use of that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, it has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth.

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

07-05-2012, 04:43 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	i wonder if someone was honest enough to ask - could jesus not have existed? - whether the investigation would have led to a more satisfactory result. in other words, as with opinion polls, the original question matters

07-05-2012, 04:46 PM	#3
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	I am waiting for a heavy and serious scholarly debate as to whether the rest of the crew existed: Did PAUL exist? Did John the Baptist exist? Did Peter exist? Did the apostles exist........and............. Did Irenaeus or Justin Martyr exist?

07-05-2012, 05:48 PM	#4
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Thompson threw weak junk towards Ehrman it doesnt matter how long you study, if you cannot interpret the information in context.

07-05-2012, 06:16 PM	#6
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	Seemed Thompson was upset with Ehrman. I would love to see a debate between them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.