Vinnie

That there is a Jesus behind this group who was like a cynic. Reconstructing the text of Q, which Mack calls the most reliable, ancient, and mythology free remembrance of Jesus whose portrait is also attested to by preMarkan announcement stories, the preMarkan miracle story sets, the Gospel of Thomas, and the parables and so on. THis is what you claim does not exist in Mack's book.

Doherty attempts to erase this by showing Q1 had non-Jewish nonJesus roots or some such thing. It is clear Mack does not agree with Doehrty here.

And Macks book has "The Lost Gospel" and "Q" in huge letters next to it and a little "and" symbol thats hard to see if you read quickly. Its a simple conflation on my part (Q The Lost Gospel) of The Lost Gospel Q). If you have the same covered one as me look at it.

spin

Crossan got his wallpaper from 1) an Irish seminary and 2) the Istituto Biblico in Rome. I couldn't find Burton Mack's. So, you have the books. Cite a few instead of being supercilious, and tells us all that your boys didn't get their degrees out of a cornflakes packet, but have real serious history degrees, seeing as they are attempting to do history. You have given no indication that you know what history is, playing with texts.


spin

spamandham

Ok, thanks for the link.

spamandham

Well, we can attempt to read between the lines, or we can simply see what Mack has explicitly said on the subject:

It would seem he's agnostic on the subject of a historical Jesus. Not that it matters much, I didn't bring him up as a supporter of a purely mythical Jesus premise, but rather to inject his work debunking the mythical NT Jesus. It appears you already agree with that, so it's not necessary to persue it further.

I read through much of the link you provided, and have begun exploring your web site as well (which appears outstanding from a cursory perspective). It seems something that's missing is the following. Given the two conflicting premises, (1) that Jesus is a early/pre-first century myth arrising from Cynic traditions, and (2) that there was an historical Jesus, are the writing of Josephus inconsistent with either of these? If not, then isn't Josephus irrelevant to the discussion?

What in Josephus' writings would you say is inconsistent with the pre/early-first century purely mythical Jesus premise?

Amaleq13

Amaleq13 asked:Do Crossan or Meier "publish regularly in peer reviewed journals"?

It was your criterion for what constituted an actual scholar. I was simply wondering whether all the folks you quote as scholars would qualify. Apparently not.

I think this confirms my initial impression that your criterion is unnecessarily and unrealistically strict.

I consider both these men to qualify as "scholars" but I think your criterion is more appropriate for identifying professional scientists rather than scholars.

Vinnie

It would seem he's agnostic on the subject of a historical Jesus.

Do others who have read Mack get the same incorrect impression?

Mack is pro-historical Jesus. His comments referenced already assume this and make the obvious connection. Earlier he writes of "a mentality to which Jesus may have appealed" (p.62) and so on.

There is no reading between the lines. Its simply an issue of comprehending what you do read. Saying that Jesus was remembered as a cynic sage before the mythology began (p.47) to develop obviously puts him in the pro-Jesus camp.

"As for Jesus , it would mean that he would probably have been more the sage, less the prophet." p. 37

"If Robinson was right, those who collected the sayings of Jesus in Q and the Gospel of Thomas." p. 35

You still are at 0 for 1. Mack accepts a historical Jesus beneath the Q, || Thomas sayings, parables and so on.

If mythicism was such an important minority as was falsely stated at the beginning of this thread I'm sure someone would be able to substantiate that claim. They obviously cannot. The best they can do is what spin does: cast doubt on Crossan. Horrible choice as this does not help his case in the least.

As stated, Mark without Q is an important minority. Jesus did not exist is not.

Vinnie

The Evil One

Well I was the one who said that, and I wasn't intending to make any claim about the academic credentials of Jesus mythologists. I was just trying to convey an impression of the overall consensus for Jinksy, who was unfamiliar with the issue.

Academic credentials are important, and so are publications, but they're not the be-all and end-all.

My personal stance is that the importance of the Jesus mythologists - and the reason why I said they were an important minority - is not necessarily that they're right, but rather that they remind us just how sparse the evidence for any aspect of this guy's life and teachings are.

In other words, if we are allowed to blithely assume an HJ, then it keeps us from being properly sceptical of the documents that purport to inform us about things he said or did. The MJ theories have gone a long way to counter this. This is why I'm willing to argue the mythicist position sometimes, even though I don't entirely agree with it, because no one can really be an informed HJer until they have thought through the arguments for and against historicity - and that means addressing the mythicists. Thus why they are important.

Toto

Mack is not agnostic on the HJ, but his position is so close to Doherty's on all of the evidence that it appears that Doherty is taking the step that Mack refuses to in saying that there was no Jesus at the beginning of Christianity. (See Doherty's review of Mack.)

Even Doherty thinks that there might be a cynic sage behind the sayings that ended up in Q. But Doherty does not identify this person with the beginnings of Christianity and does not assume that this person was crucified under Pontius Pilate. (And if he did not do those things, how can he be called Christ?)

The Evil One

The main problem with HJ discussions is, "what do you mean by a historical Jesus"?

Does it mean, a guy called Jesus?

Or, a guy called Jesus who got crucified?

Or, a guy called Jesus who was a radical Jewish preacher?

Or, a guy called Jesus who was a radical Jewish preacher, who got crucified?

Or, a guy called Jesus who was a radical Jewish preacher, who got crucified by Pilate?

Or, a guy called Jesus who was a radical Jewish preacher, who had apostles, who got crucified by Pilate?

Or, a guy called Jesus who was a radical Jewish preacher, who had apostles called Peter, John, Andrew, Judas, etc. etc., who got crucified by Pilate?

Or, a guy called Jesus who was a radical Jewish preacher, who had apostles called Peter, John, Andrew, Judas, etc. etc., who preached roughly the teachings attributed to him in the Gospels, who got crucified by Pilate?

Or, a guy called Jesus whose biography was roughly that attributed to him in the Gospels in all respects, including birthplace, family, apostles, teachings, and crucifixion?

Or, a guy called Jesus whose biography was exactly that attributed to him in the Gospels in all respects?

Toto

I think that a HJ would have to be a real person who inspired the early Christian movement.

It is Doherty's claim that the earliest Christians worshipped a spiritual savior entity, probably based on Joshua son of Nun (Joshua = Jesus), and that all references to a real person were later historicizations.

Most people assume that there was some individual who inspired the movement, even if there is no firm historical record of him.

When you get down to that level, it's hard to choose, except that Doherty's theory makes Christians very upset, but for some reason they can live with the second theory.