Julian

That's a really long piece. I won't be getting back to you right away on this. I will read it, though.

Julian

Julian

Okay, I read about a quarter of it. I cannot be bothered to waste more of my time on such shit. What utter and complete crap. He is condescending, bloviating and completely dishonest. The whole thing reads like a sermon on how incredibly fantastic Jesus is and how we should never question him. Then he misrepresents an opponents position badly and uses insulting language to do so, all the while he says that he will do no such thing.

He is no scholar and I hope his book is better than this appendix which is far too long considering that he says next to nothing useful. He is simply an asshole...

Julian

RPS

The idea that the Jesus-myth hasn't been considered is silly. A secular example is here [Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels]. A Christian example is Prof. I. Howard Marshall's I Believe In The Historical Jesus (1972). The Jesus-myth idea is also mentioned and dealt with inferentially here and here. A history of refutations is provided here.

What you mean is that you don't like or agree with the evidence offered or that you interpret it differently. Such is your right.

And I'm not remotely curious about the clarity and consistency of scholars on this subject because (a) there's no good reason to think otherwise; (b) there's no evidence or consistent motive for an Oliver Stone-ish conspiracy against the Jesus-myth idea; and (c) there's so much disagreement about what Jesus did and said and about who He was among Christian and non-Christian scholars alike.

Julian

Thank you, I shall review although I don't have the books you link to but I see that the final link has some summaries. I am not very comfortably with Chris Price, who is a bit of an apologist.
That is not what I mean. The fact is that we have no direct evidence. There. Done. No direct evidence, keyword here being direct. We have circumstantial evidence but that doesn't tell us much since it is not very good and it has been tampered with. Any conclusion we arrive at regarding a historical Jesus will always remain conjecture, nothing more.

I am on the fence about Jesus when it comes to historicity or myth. Frankly, I don't care either way, I just would like to know the facts as far as possible so you cannot reasonably accuse me of being biased in this particular question.

Julian

freigeister

Thanks for taking the trouble to comment. Don't worry, you're not the first or the most prominent guy to hate Brunner's guts. He'd probably be happy to know that he was still irritating people. Anyway, the document is historically important as the first and to date only sustained attack on the "Jesus is a myth" proposition. You may want to look at it again at some point. And don't forget that some people feel the same way about Doherty that you do about Brunner.

Julian

But while Doherty's opinions might be controversial and invoke the ire of some, he is not the arrogant prick that Brunner is.

There are actually other attacks on the MJ position as I have just been informed in message #73 in this thread. These I shall review at some later time.

Julian

freigeister

RPS:

It seems that Case (1912) predates Brunner (1919). In any case, I don't know why Kirby doesn't mention Brunner. Brunner's book on Christ as whole is sadly neglected.

Clivedurdle

I wonder - if senior clergy and theologians did take the myth concept seriously I think it would reinvigorate their religion! It sorts so many conflicts out, people would be able to develop their own imaginary friends based on a mythical figure. They could dump all the wierd stuff about sexuality for example.

If you look at the words currently used in the various liturgies, they can still be used without a historical layer, and in fact fit better with the writing of Paul.

The psychological aspects of this very powerful idea - the bringing together of heaven and earth - might be properly developed in enabling us all to live in peace with each other. Treating myth as myth is probably a very good thing! Without a vision the people perish!

Toto

Grant assumes without adequate proof that the gospels contain historical material.

Says it all.

You don't have to be so coy, hiding the name of the book in an Amazon link.

Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Studying the Historical Jesus)

According to a review, the author spends a lot of time trying to refute the mythicist position, but "Seminary professors will want to consider assigning this book, but those looking for revelations about Jesus of Nazareth will be disappointed, since after much scholarly muckraking the author himself concludes that the New Testament is our best evidence after all."


You link to The Gospels and Jesus (Oxford Bible Series) (Paperback)
by Graham N. Stanton and an essay by Chris Price, who used to post here but never convinced anyone.

Julian

That all sounds very reasonable, atheist to atheist. Now, try and find a christian who would agree with this...

(I won't be holding my breath.)

Julian