Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 01-25-2008, 02:59 AM

Thought I would present some evidence for myth!

Christ of St John of the Cross

Icon of Jesus Christ the Lifegiver from Orthodox ministry services

Now, surely anyone arguing for a historical kernel has to be able to explain why we are not looking at a continuing growth of a fairy tale and why there is a historical kernel to start with - Ockham - if you have evidence of something, why wasn't it always like that?

Which raises an interesting question about the gospels.

What is this assumption that they are in some way historical documents?

If we have clear evidence of mythology later, why are not founding documents also in the mythological genre?

Instead of looking for a historic Jesus we should be studying Graeco Roman Judaic Persian Egyptian myth making and story telling!

Talk about looking in the wrong place, this is ridiculous!

GakuseiDon · 01-25-2008, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am listening to this Podcast. I think it clarifies things as far as the relationship between Price and Acharya.

What does it say?

Dr Price comes across as charming and erudite, as always, while Acharya... does not. It's like listening to a conversation between a scholarly professor and a knowledgeable fish and chips shop owner (for Australian posters, think Pauline Hanson -- speaking style, not political beliefs).

Dr Price is definitely fond of her. In the podcast, she seemed to be playing the role of student to his as supportive teacher. For example, at one point Acharya wondered out loud on how to pronounce "Septuagint", and he stepped in and helped her out.

Also, when Acharya said that the Gospel of John has an "almost Egyptian feel to it", and that the Gospel of Matthew "specifically has a more Indian feel to it, and in fact it appears that they used Buddhist texts or Indian texts to write part of Matthew", I wondered how Dr Price would react. Surprisingly, he backed her up, and even more surprisingly, his points made sense -- he said that Buddhist missionaries were sent west at a point before Christianity; he also pointed out some parallels, and said it would be unsurprising to find parallel ideas in religious books, but this didn't mean that they necessarily copied. Interestingly, he didn't really back up her claim as such, but he offered comment to make it sound more reasonable.

And that was a theme in the discussion, with Acharya making certain claims, and Dr Price pulling them back a little, and making them sound more reasonable. Now, I have to wonder how far along Dr Price would support Acharya if she made some "out-there" claim. But given his review of "Suns of God", and their relationship in the podcast, I think he would try to gently put her on the right track.

It's clear that Dr Price agrees with Acharya on many points, and that is undoubtedly the basis of their friendship. The big difference (other than their level of knowledge) is how they respond to their critics. I could never imagine Dr Price exploding at minor criticisms.

Jeffrey Gibson · 01-25-2008, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you could tell us Ted/Jacob, exactly what reviews of Sanders, Tabor, and other "fatuous" scholars published in JBL (SBL is an organization, not a journal) and elsewhere (CBQ, Biblia, NTS, JSNT, NovTest, etc.) you have actually read.

And why would I be interested in easing your purported wonder?

Why in Gods holy name, would I be interested in answering any question from you?

In other words, as I suspected, you haven't read any.

Thanks for clarifying.

Jeffrey

Johnny Skeptic · 01-25-2008, 08:39 AM

Since I am an acquaintance of Robert Price, I told him about this thread and asked him to send me some comments that I could post at this forum. Here is what he sent me:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Price

I am pleased and gratified at the balanced and restrained character of this board’s discussion of me and my work. I am used to more vitriol!

Rest assured, Acharya S has never threatened to sue me. No publishers or third parties have urged us to bury the hatchet. Nor is there any mythicist cabal fronting Acharya’s work as a means of pulling in the sheep for me and Earl Doherty to fleece them. Again, there has been no thought of producing or maintaining a united front for the Christ Myth. I personally do not care a whit about such matters. I am selfishly interested only in pursuing the questions that continually open up before me, beckoning my thinking down unaccustomed pathways, some of which have long been blocked by signs bearing the word “Forbidden.” I am not eager to convert anyone from Christianity or to Atheism. None of my business. I only want to present perspectives and evidence that many readers have perhaps never felt the need to take seriously. Let them come to their own conclusions. Doesn’t matter to me.

Now, what did happen between me and Acharya S? As I made quite clear in that notorious review, I felt that her book The Christ Conspiracy was not a scholarly work (which is no particular strike against it) and that, more importantly, she was ill-informed at numerous points. It did not surprise me that she did not turn the other cheek. I doubt I would have either. In retrospect, I don’t know what I was thinking when I blabbed her real name. I should not have done so. She was particularly angry at me, though, because someone told her I had also disclosed her address, and she had reason to worry about certain weirdoes knowing her location. Of course I did not reveal this, and I assured her of this as soon as she mentioned it. Indeed, I do not know where she lives even now. Maybe in Antarctica, maybe next door.

Mike Hofmann took me to task (not in an unfriendly manner, I hasten to add) over my dismissal (in my review of The Christ Conspiracy) of John Allegro’s claim that a famous catacomb painting depicted the Edenic Tree of Knowledge as a huge Amanita Muscaria mushroom. (Actually, I had been disappointed to read that it was a misinterpretation! How intriguing if true!) I replied and told him I did not know there was another side to the question and welcomed correction. (I am now publishing a piece about this by him in The Journal of Higher Criticism). The e-mails we exchanged went to a list of people, Acharya among them. She contacted me, saying she was surprised to be included. I hastened to reply, assuring her I had never borne her any ill-will. I also told her how sorry I was that my review had caused her such personal distress. I asked her to forgive me and said I hoped we might be friends. She graciously agreed.

Acharya also sent me her next book, which I told her I’d like to review. I found she had greatly improved and was much more careful in her assertions. As my published review made clear (I hope), I had not changed my mind on my original criticisms. I did at this time take down my review of her first book, simply because I felt it would continue to rub salt in the wound. That was my only concession to our newfound friendship. (She did not ask me to remove it, by the way; I just thought it proper to do so.) In view of the new book, the original criticisms were irrelevant, part of the past. She had cleaned up her act. She addressed the tricky question of possibly dubious sources like Kelsey Graves who never bothered to supply documentation. Her assertions were properly nuanced. She laid much more emphasis on comparative astro-mythology, and I found this argument pretty impressive. I made the limitations of my convincement plain, and not in a derisive manner. As for she and I having merely intra-scholarly differences, I think this is a fair description, not a white-wash. I would say the same about the even wider differences I have with various Jesus Seminar colleagues. And I don’t accept everything Earl Doherty says, nor does he agree with everything I say. That’s the way it is. We are not some sort of a sect with an orthodoxy. And it benefits us all to pursue alternate approaches. Each of us has more to learn from the others in that way.

Anyone who heard that Infidel Guy show with Acharya and me will know that we two do indeed share a large area of agreement, and that neither of us that evening asserted anything incongruous with what we have said in our books. We just didn’t get into areas of disagreement.

I know what it feels like to be dismissed as a crank. Though I have enough confidence in my education and methodological competence that such dismissals do not trouble me, I am not eager to dismiss others in the same way. I am sincerely sorry I took that tone with Acharya’s original book. Had I first read Suns of God, I would not even have been tempted.

So, my friends, I hope this clarifies things. Thanks for your interest, and thanks to my buddy Johnny Skeptic who pointed me to this discussion and who has been so supportive of my work for these many years!

It pays not to jump to conclusions without having sufficient reasons for doing so. I will put the integrity, honesty, and methodologies of Robert Price up against the integrity, honesty, and methodologies of any fundamentalist Christian scholar.

Solitary Man · 01-25-2008, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

That there is genuine 'scholarship' amongst mainsteam NT scholars is a joke

Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1991), xxvii.

Hrm, first you say that the entire field is a joke, and claim that you can back it up, but Crossan only says that historical Jesus research is a joke. However, I will note that Crossan's theories are largely discredited and ignored. The Cynic Jesus isn't widely held. Do not think that he escaped with impunity for that statement.

Quote:

Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier[/URL]

Yes, I'm afraid you're correct. There are a lot of people doing "theology" in Biblical Studies. But Meier doesn't support your assertion that the New Testament field is a joke. In fact, if Meier did, than he would have been self-deprecating beyond normal limits...an outright dismissal of his own book. And I seriously doubt that those who favor the apocalyptic Messiah theory for Jesus (i.e. Jesus thought the world was going to end soon) are doing theology. It stretches the boundaries of the mind to think that Christians would want to discredit their own founder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.H. Goshen-Gottstein

However we try to ignore it — practically all of us are in it [Biblical studies] because we are either Christians or Jews

As quoted by Jacques Berlinerblau in The Unspeakable in Biblical Scholarship

He quotes an article that came out in 1975, and you use that for today? What you've done is equivalent of quoting someone from that time period that calls all college students hippies. The world has moved on...try to catch up.

Ben C Smith · 01-25-2008, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

I dont think they are really "weaknesses." Its just a case of tacit complicity in slothful scholarship. Its a matter of turning their backs when their colleages churn out manure instead of exposing it as manure.

Are you and I speaking the same language? Are you saying that tacit complicity in the churning out of manure is not a weakness?

Quote:

So, yes, I sorta agree. Let Archaya do her thing. At any rate, between Archaya's works and the work of James Tabor, none is better than the other they both are full of leaps of logic and inaccuracies and we dont help the MJ case by inordinately attacking Archaya yet people like Jim West have no stern words for Tarbor, yet Tarbor has published plain nonsense.

I cannot speak for all scholars; but Tabor has been roundly criticized from within the mainstream.

Letting Acharya do her thing is very, very different than endorsing her book with phrases like the learned Acharya has done it again and she is my teacher.

Ben.

ApostateAbe · 01-25-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

We are in agreement that Christianity is wrong. We are in agreement that the character of Jesus today is a myth. We are not in agreement that Jesus started as a myth. I don't agree with that position.

Which publications detail your position?

I wouldn't (like many here) give a rats ass about what people with Doctorates in Star Trek (Divinity and Theology) think regarding historical questions, especially when the bulk of that guild are strapped with theological commitments, and especially when one is appealing to them as an authority.

That there is genuine 'scholarship' amongst mainsteam NT scholars is a joke - very few amongst them are scholars in the sense of objective researchers who have no prior commitments. And NT scholars like JD Crossan and JP Meier have admitted as much. Do you want me to quote them?

I think its rather naive of you to even think opinions being peddled by Bede have any value in a discussion like this. Bede routinely slants evidence and misrepresents positions. Doherty has addressed all those alleged scholarly refutations on the Jesus myth. Thoroughly. Are you even aware of this? What is Bede's response to Doherty's treatsie on the same? Richard Carrier is a mythicist yet Bede purports to include him in that list. Have you been keeping up with discussions on these matters?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

And 20% to 40% of BC&H forum goers do not agree with it (see this poll). Normally, the rallying point for anti-religious activists is something that secular scholars generally agree with--evolution, old Earth, big bang, secular government, subjectivity of spirituality--but not the mythical Jesus.

I am a goer in this forum, yet I never participated in that poll. But regardless, you know that appeal to numbers is fallacious.

"Which publications detail your position?"

Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millenium (or via: amazon.co.uk), seems to match my own position.

I am not appealing to authority, and I am not appealing to numbers to make the point that Jesus started out as a human. You seem to be missing my point. I am saying that the Jesus-myth theory is a very bad rallying point for us, because we clearly are not united behind that position. It would be much better to unite behind a position that critical (not Christian) scholars generally agree with.

Bede's or Christopher Price's bias hardly matters (Chris Price wrote the article). He did the research and he dug up quotes that give clear indications of what mainline critical scholars think. That is not evidence about who Jesus was. That is only evidence on what critical scholars think.

Ben C Smith · 01-25-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since I am an acquaintance of Robert Price, I told him about this thread and asked him to send me some comments that I could post at this forum.

Thanks for posting that. Very helpful.

The internet is a wondrous thing, and I love it dearly, but one thing it allows is vigorous debate without ever actually facing the person one is running over with a Sherman tank. Talking with the person face to face often, though surely not always, inspires one to be more polite. Even Joe Wallack once implied that meeting me face to face at an SBL conference would probably compel him to treat me nicely... and that is saying something!

(The meeting never transpired; I was never planning to go to the San Diego meeting.)

So a change in tone between the reviews bothers me not one whit. My curiosity was more to do with the apparent change in perspective on her work. However, Price says that her second book is much better than her first, and as I have read neither I do not know otherwise.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 01-25-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

They became friends over time.

I should have bet you a beer, Ben. It would have been a fabulous Oak Aged Imperial Stout from one of my favorite local establishments.

Next time I am near Anchorage, let me pay you for that bet not taken anyway. Yep, the very next time I am near Anchorage....

Ben.

Zeichman · 01-25-2008, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

That there is genuine 'scholarship' amongst mainsteam NT scholars is a joke

Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (1991), xxvii.

Finding the Historical Jesus: An Interview With John P. Meier

Quote:

Originally Posted by M.H. Goshen-Gottstein

However we try to ignore it — practically all of us are in it [Biblical studies] because we are either Christians or Jews

As quoted by Jacques Berlinerblau in The Unspeakable in Biblical Scholarship

You, of course, are ignoring the fact that most of these are simply stating the assumptions of post-modern scholarship. You must be kidding me if you don't think you don't have a bias, also. Meier's quote applies at least as much to the MJ camp as it does to individual HJ scholars; anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Also, the Crossan quote isn't saying, as far as I can tell, that HJ scholarship is a bad joke, its that it almost sounds like a punchline to one. Nor, as it seems you seem to be implying, is the assumption of a historical Jesus a joke in Crossan's mind.

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

01-25-2008, 02:59 AM	#51
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Thought I would present some evidence for myth! Christ of St John of the Cross Icon of Jesus Christ the Lifegiver from Orthodox ministry services Now, surely anyone arguing for a historical kernel has to be able to explain why we are not looking at a continuing growth of a fairy tale and why there is a historical kernel to start with - Ockham - if you have evidence of something, why wasn't it always like that? Which raises an interesting question about the gospels. What is this assumption that they are in some way historical documents? If we have clear evidence of mythology later, why are not founding documents also in the mythological genre? Instead of looking for a historic Jesus we should be studying Graeco Roman Judaic Persian Egyptian myth making and story telling! Talk about looking in the wrong place, this is ridiculous!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.