Gamera

The man says so. He states that the narrative is false, claims Jesus rotted on the cross and was eaten by dogs, and that the apostels, in a kind of religious shock, were stuck with ignoring the truth.

Have you actually read his works or what.

Gamera

It's not an ad hominem attack. Haven't you read, Crossan. He states unambiguously that he concludes the gospel narratives are fundamentally false hagiography, the result of the witnesses suffering from the psychological trauma of having seen their leader tortured to death and thrown to the dogs.

You don't have to look far in his writings to find this, but start with his Jesus, A Revoluitonary Biography. I'm looking at it right now.

I'm not saying he's attacking Christianity. He's not. He thinks Chrisitianity isn't dependent on the historicity of the gospel narrative. But to say he hasn't rejected the gospel narrative and Paul's take on it, is ludricrous. It's what his career has been about.

Toto

Those are his conclusions. You need to support your claim that Crossan set out with the aim of discrediting the historicity of the gospel narratives.

Gamera

Because it's a gnostic text, which rejected those concepts in favor of Jesus as a "guru" with secret knowledge, which he would share with those who show their adeptness through various religious practices. This is the structure of gnosticism, which is utterly contrary to Christianity's notion of a revealed religion, announced through a kerygma to everybody.

However, by the 2nd century, Chrisitanity had become "hot," and was making converts. So gnosticism glommed onto the figure of Jesus (much as Islam did 400 years later) colonizing him with gnostic ideas.

Gamera

In biblical studies, the aims drive the conclusions, since there is little substantial evidence of any of gospel narrative outside the NT.

To construct an historical Jesus for use to rebut the gospel Jesus makes absolutely no epistomological sense, since there is no other historical Jesus outside the gospel texts.

The valorization of the Gospel of Thomas as prior to the gospel is just one more example of this agenda, since there is no paleographcial reason to assume GOT's earlier origin (or at least, the evidence is dubious at best). So it's no cooincidence Crossan "concludes" GOT is earlier. It's part of a larger agenda.

rlogan

Doesn't follow. The aims drive the conclusions when the researcher is biased.

In substantial agreement there.

Does not follow.

Gamera

It does. There is no reason to date the GOT early and the NT gospels late. Yet, predictably, Crossan does just that. Not coincidently, the gist of his entire analysis is that the NT "got it wrong" -- Jesus was an itinerant preacher who was killed and eaten by dogs (he likes to dwell on that).

Of couse there is zero evidence that Jesus was an itinerant preacher since all the evidence we really have of Jesus as an historical figure comes from the gospels and Paul. Paul, who was closer in time than the gospel writers, most definitely did not conceptualize Jesus as an itinerant preacher.

The point is, the type of tendentious arguments that can transform what evidence we have of Jesus (i.e., basically the gospels) into an intinerant preacher, can be applied to the GOT and transform that Jesus into a messianic Son of God, referencing the NT gospels. The methodologies are fully reversable.

So the conclusions you reach in this field indicate your agenda.

By the way, that's exactly the argument the historical/critical analysis applies to Paul and every other subsequent Christian apologist. The claim is not only that they had an agenda, but that they ruthlessly promoted it by suppressing alternative sects and destroying and doctoring mss. So again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you assume Paul had an agenda, why not conclude Crossan has one?

Clivedurdle

Did gnosticism start with Basilides, or is this a specific formulation?

http://religiousmovements.lib.virgin...nosticism.html

Clivedurdle

The Nine Billion Names of God: The Collected Stories of Arthur C. Clarke, 1951-1956 (or via: amazon.co.uk)


(Arthur C Clarke - Nine Billion Names of God!)

Julian

I just want to raise a small protest against the start of gnosticism with Basilides. Valentinus can be placed slightly earlier and E. Pagels would place gnosticism even earlier than that. Seeing how gnosticism draws much from platonism it is reasonable to assume that gnosticism has been around since the beginning but probably not wearing christian clothes from day one.

Another issue regarding the Syriac tradition and GThomas. It would seem, based on peculiar similarities, that one must either have Tatian know of GoT or postulate an earlier shared source, possibly the Gospel to the Hebrews. I don't remember the specifics of this argument but I will dig it up if it becomes more relevant. Either way, I am favoring an early dating of the first version of GoT.

Julian