Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-21-2007, 12:43 PM

From what I understand, and from what I have seen of Joseph Hoffmann, the point of the Project is to take the question of whether Jesus was a historical person seriously and see what evidence can be applied. I believe that the Project was inspired by the current interest in the question, and the willingness of some financial donors to back it, rather than any desire to bash religion or disprove Christianity. From the speech I heard Hoffman give, I suspect that he leans at least a little towards historicity, but is open to arguments against it.

There are fellows of the project who are fairly historically minded, and some of the major critics of historicity are there. The results could be just interesting, or enlightening, or neither. We'll have to see.

wordy · 06-21-2007, 12:47 PM

I found Brian Flemming's comments to or about Susan Jacoby to be very interesting.

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian...es/002417.html

Quote:

I invite Jacoby to demonstrate that she's read Price, Doherty and Carrier on the subject (would that be too much to expect given her strong and unequivocal public stance?) and nonetheless come to her conclusion that Jesus existed. And I invite her to demonstrate where in their arguments those three authors in particular become blinded by their "dislike of religion" and stop drawing their conclusions from the facts.

I'm sure Jacoby could easily do this. Because she'd never have come to her conclusion by reading some crazies on the internet and pretending they represent the most credible arguments on this topic. Would she?

What is it about these people that think he is a HJ and not a MJ. Doesn't the overwhelming evidence point of a most likely Mythical Jesus.

Isn't Paul Kurtz the man behind CFI?

No Robots · 06-21-2007, 01:34 PM

It's hilarious to see Flemming wondering if Jacoby has been influenced by "crazies on the internet." This, from the father of Bat Boy? I thought teh Interwebs was where all the gnarly types were undermining the vast patriarchal conspiracy known as Christianity?

Zeichman · 06-21-2007, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

There are fellows of the project who are fairly historically minded, and some of the major critics of historicity are there. The results could be just interesting, or enlightening, or neither. We'll have to see.

Aye. But they seem to be pretty liberal when it comes to "necessary" credentials among the non-HJers, despite some protests to the contrary. M.D.? Ph.D. in philosophy? B.A.? Law degrees? I have a hard time seeing the relevance of those or why people holding them would be sufficiently credentialed for such a scholarly group.

I have a hard time shaking the feeling that their claim to a lack of sensationalism won't be undermined by many members. I strongly question how familiar some of those people (*cough*FrekeandGandy *cough*) are with mainstream scholarship. A lot of people on there who seem to lack credentials I've simply never heard of. Something like this would probably be far better if it were Hoffman, Price, Doherty, Carrier (maybe Zindler) and some relatively reserved, yet critical and well-read, scholars on the other side (e.g. Kloppenborg, DeConick, Robinson, Taussig). I'm honestly extremely surprised they did not ask William Arnal to participate; he seems like an ideal fellow to me. At least Acharya S isn't participating.

Chris Weimer · 06-21-2007, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

What is it about these people that think he is a HJ and not a MJ. Doesn't the overwhelming evidence point of a most likely Mythical Jesus.

No, no it doesn't. The MJ is a tortured meaning, and to achieve the MJ one has to resort to interpolations, fudge standard Greek language, make up beliefs for first century Jews and Pagans, or otherwise rely on critiquing the text instead of critically analyzing it.

Gamera · 06-21-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From what I understand, and from what I have seen of Joseph Hoffman, the point of the Project is to take the question of whether Jesus was a historical person seriously and see what evidence can be applied. I believe that the Project was inspired by the current interest in the question, and the willingness of some financial donors to back it, rather than any desire to bash religion or disprove Christianity. From the speech I heard Hoffman give, I suspect that he leans at least a little towards historicity, but is open to arguments against it.

There are fellows of the project who are fairly historically minded, and some of the major critics of historicity are there. The results could be just interesting, or enlightening, or neither. We'll have to see.

I wonder if this examination will raise larger issues about the meaning of historicity in the context of antiquity. Frankly, whatever method they use would, I submit, result in the disqualification of most historical personages from that period.

wordy · 06-21-2007, 05:34 PM

Chris, suppose you are right, for the sake of argument, I still think Jesus is 95% Midrash, but suppose he existed.

It still is the "living" Jesus Christ in the heads of the Believers that are the Jesus of faith. They care not much about the historical Jesus, they care about their inner Jesus who they feel in their hearts in their brain.

Chris Weimer · 06-21-2007, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wordy

Chris, suppose you are right, for the sake of argument, I still think Jesus is 95% Midrash, but suppose he existed.

It still is the "living" Jesus Christ in the heads of the Believers that are the Jesus of faith. They care not much about the historical Jesus, they care about their inner Jesus who they feel in their hearts in their brain.

So what?

Vorkosigan · 06-21-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

In one of the articles in CSER, James Robinson says, "The Jesus Project is not to launch into endless new, but ultimately unconvincing, arguments that Jesus never lived, but to understand better that oldest layer of tradition and how it can be made into a more influential force in our society today."

Interesting. Why does Robinson think Messianic Judaism would be good for our society?

spamandham · 06-21-2007, 11:24 PM

It would be awesome if the very existence of Jesus could finally be questioned seriously. For all I know, they may end up concluding that the simplest explanation is that some charismatic student of John the Baptist actually was unjustly rounded up and cricified, but I'd sure like to see that conclusion come from people who do not start of with "assuming Jesus existed, who was he".

BTW, this thread is probably better suited for secular lifestyle than BC&H.

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

06-21-2007, 12:43 PM	#31
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	From what I understand, and from what I have seen of Joseph Hoffmann, the point of the Project is to take the question of whether Jesus was a historical person seriously and see what evidence can be applied. I believe that the Project was inspired by the current interest in the question, and the willingness of some financial donors to back it, rather than any desire to bash religion or disprove Christianity. From the speech I heard Hoffman give, I suspect that he leans at least a little towards historicity, but is open to arguments against it. There are fellows of the project who are fairly historically minded, and some of the major critics of historicity are there. The results could be just interesting, or enlightening, or neither. We'll have to see.

06-21-2007, 01:34 PM	#33
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	It's hilarious to see Flemming wondering if Jacoby has been influenced by "crazies on the internet." This, from the father of Bat Boy? I thought teh Interwebs was where all the gnarly types were undermining the vast patriarchal conspiracy known as Christianity?

06-21-2007, 05:34 PM	#37
wordy Contributor Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Sweden, Europe Posts: 12,091	Chris, suppose you are right, for the sake of argument, I still think Jesus is 95% Midrash, but suppose he existed. It still is the "living" Jesus Christ in the heads of the Believers that are the Jesus of faith. They care not much about the historical Jesus, they care about their inner Jesus who they feel in their hearts in their brain.

06-21-2007, 11:24 PM	#40
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	It would be awesome if the very existence of Jesus could finally be questioned seriously. For all I know, they may end up concluding that the simplest explanation is that some charismatic student of John the Baptist actually was unjustly rounded up and cricified, but I'd sure like to see that conclusion come from people who do not start of with "assuming Jesus existed, who was he". BTW, this thread is probably better suited for secular lifestyle than BC&H.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.