jakejonesiv

:thumbs::thumbs:

Sheshbazzar

Putting in a good word here for aa.
Although many of his posts do rub me the wrong way, and I have had some long disputes with him, In my view aa as contrarian and cantankerous as he is, has provided a great many positive contributions and food for thought to these threads.
Just his contrarian nature, disagree -or agree- with his statements and he's ready argue with any and all over anything at all.

But all in all, I really have to give my :thumbs: to my 'ol buddy aa.
Hang in there aa and give us all HELL!

Chocky

Thanks all. I think the issue with "Jesus atheism" is that it's a flippant label given by Eddy & Boyd who are mainly writing for an audience that agrees with their standpoint already. I don't think they intended to equate the position with atheism itself (I certainly didn't) - it just implies to me that people holding to position 1a believe there was no Jesus, as opposed to having an "agnostic" stance on his existence. But yes, this terminology is pointless if it causes misunderstanding.

Solo and DCHindley, thank you, some great points. I think we do have two main brands here but it's pretty clear that the distinctions need to be clearer. Outsiders tend to understand both categories on a simplistic level, lumping writers all together as "mythicists" - but also, some writers I'd think of as "mythicists" like Robert Price have put themselves firmly in 1b). Ironically for the term "Jesus Deconstructionists", I'm pretty sure Price called it "Jesus agnosticism" himself in 'Deconstructing Jesus'.

(sorry sotto, didn't notice your post earlier)

sotto voce

No probs.

DCHindley

Chocky,

"Deconstructionist" perhaps is not exactly what I intended to convey. Perhaps the Demythologizing of Rudolph Bultman, so Jesus Demythologizers.

Technically, Derrida's Deconstruction analyzes narratives by stripping the narrative elements of their primary meaning and analyzing the way they are used as symbols, comparing them to similar symbols found in other traditions, texts and life experiences the author had been exposed to.

Bultman's Demythologizing, on the other hand, seeks to strip the narrative of mythical accretions.

So, of the categories that you adopted:

1a [Jesus Athiests = Jesus Mythers] seeks to explain Jesus tradition as entirely a myth, which has been historized.

1b [Jesus Agnostics = Jesus Demythologizers] tries to separate mythical (secondary levels of symbolic) elements from any facts that may be recoverable.

I am not so sure that Price meant postmodern Deconstruction as much as "taking apart" the Jesus tradition preserved in text.

DCH

mountainman

It appears to exclude the mythical view of the Jesus who was deliberately and piously forged, as outlined in R.G Price's Myth Spectrum.

Samples of this include Joseph Atwill's Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (2005), and Francesco Carotta's Jesus was Caesar - On the Julian Origin of Christianity – an investigative report (2005).

Chocky

mountainman, thanks. I have come across them but it's such a niche compared to all the other categories that I thought best to leave it out. R.G. Price's table is useful for making distinctions, but - correct me if I'm wrong - it seems that Atwill and Carotta don't really represent the position, they pretty much are the position, including a couple of others like yourself. By comparison, the writers noted in the other categories are a small samping.

DCHindley, I gather that's what Price was doing too. Mind you, sections of Biblical Studies are so enamoured with poststructuralism (as escapism from the problems of historical criticism as far as I'm concerned) that someone could put together a "mythicist" case using Derrida and Foucault. Roland Fischer has done something similar outside the discipline.

Sheshbazzar

I believe there is something that lies between any wholesale either 'this' or 'that' explanation.
The Jewish rabbi's of the 2nd and 1st BCE commonly engaged in midrashing the Tanaka texts, and were inclined to invent fanciful stories and imaginary situations and settings in which to present their 'explanations' (the meaning of 'mirashim' -'that which is explained')
There are extensive Jewish midrashic writings, and it is to be expected there would have been a considerable body of pre-christian Jewish Midrashic literature regarding 'Joshua' the Deliverer.

A J-S Mythicism that began in pre-christian Jewish religious circles, 'explaining' the Tanaka's sometimes obscure 'sayings' regarding Joshua, as for example "I will require it of him", was apparently to some schools of thought within Judaism, an indication that 'Joshua' or a future Joshua type figure would become the 'ga'al' ('redeemer-avenger-deliverer') of all of Israel.
When the events of the first century CE had quite effectively smashed the Jewish expectations of any immediate temporal kingdom on earth where the Jews themselves would be at the top of the hierarchy, there was a turn by these Jews toward heightened messianic expectations, and further development of these midrashic stories along the lines of popular Greek tragedies.
Meanwhile, the Greeks and other gentiles were becoming increasingly intrigued by these Jewish generated 'Saviour' stories, and that inclusionary message they conveyed (unlike the old Judaism's exclusionary and separatist themes)
When these 'messianic' 1st through 3rd century CE Jews saw how willing and eager their gentile neighbors were, to 'buy into' this 'new' form of religious belief, they naturally increased their propaganda campaign, so 'feeding the beast'.
But of course The Gentiles held the power, and it soon became apparent that these messianic Jews would be marginalized and supplanted by a Gentile 'Babylonian system' of religion, that 'Whore' and her daughters' so vilified in the 17th and 18th chapters of The Book of Revelation.

The Qadowsh'eem 'Saints /Holy Ones' reconciled themselves to the fact that the Gentile gainsayers and false religionists must be allowed their season to 'gain the say' and to prevail, and that this was the will and the working of their Elohim, Whom in due time would appear to rebuke, put to open shame, and destroy the works and religion of all perverter's of His doctrine.

aa5874

I DO ADMIRE your bravery and integrity. Some, it would seem, would rather go to "HELL" than acknowledge my contribution.

Now even Experts disagree on any matter.

This is NOT "Facebook".

I did not come here for friends. I came here looking for evidence for an Historical Jesus and NOBODY has FOUND any.

ZERO.

Every "STONE" has been turned for the last 1800 years.

Every EXTANT readable SOURCE and SCROLL has been read.

We still have ZERO for HJ. Nothing has changed.

Sheshbazzar

Agreed. There was no such person. There is none to be found. The 'man' and the tales are all religious myth.