rlogan

In my own quest for the Historical Jesus, which I originally believed in, I picked up that wretched tome of Crossan's (The Historical Jesus).

It was like being forced to eat cardboard. I couldn't even bear to finish it. I'd rather read a telephone book. Volume is no substitute for quality of writing and evidence.

The book is a fraud as far as I'm concerned, in the respect that the "methodology" is kin to articulating the "Historical Easter Bunny" by looking for multiple attestations in Easter Bunny literature, reviewing rabbit dietary and life cycle literature, and examining brier patches.

In short, a pretense at some kind of critical approach where the fundamental question is merely assumed in the first place. I've been here long enough now to know what the key frauds are in the Christian paradigm, and Crossan manages to skirt all of them.


Crossan's statements are very interesting. On the one hand claiming he is not interested in proving historicity, that it can't be proved anyways because doubters are insane, but oh: here are my reasons.

This is the erection of a defense that his reasons are insufficient merely because he is not trying hard enough and the opposition would never be convinced in any case.

What the hell kind of excuses are these? Those who do not beleive in the moon landing are easily debunked by photos, moon rocks, the astronauts' testimony and thousands of others that worked on the project. That excuse does not hold a drop of water, and is merely a cunning means of smuggling in an assumption that the Christ myth is as proveable as the moon launch and an ad hominem argument.


In a few sentences one can cover the evidenciary ground for a positive belief here. Josephus, Tacitus, etc. The problem with doing this is that as soon as you have done this the opposing side can then take you on directly. Best to wave your hands and avoid anything specific.

The business about leaving disciples is no more credible than saying santa exists because he had elves.

Vorkosigan

Hahaha. Yes, I felt exactly the same way. It was one of the worst books on the HJ ever. I was really impressed with The Birth of Christianity, so I thought.....

Vorkosigan

hallq

There is a more charitable way to read Crossan's fourth reason: important to him in the sense of convincing, not emotionally important. The "for me" can be read as "other people find other things more decisive, but this is what I find decisive."

Imagine, if you will, how you would respond to a creationist jumping on a biologist for saying, "the most important reason for accepting evolution, for me, is that we can use it to make predictions in genetics."

Then go back and try to be more generous in interpreting opponent's statements.

Doug Shaver

I don't get worked up over the "for me," which I agree can be easily construed as you suggest. However, his fourth reason is: "Jesus sent out companions . . . ." That incorporates a blatant assumption of his conclusion.

jakejonesiv

Crossman wrote, "It is crucially important for me that Jesus sent out companions and told them to do exactly what he was doing..." (emphasis added)

I see no need for generosity to Crossman on this point. To counter the CM position, it hardly matters if Jesus' alleged companions did "exactly" as he did or just "sort of." So Crossman is concerned with salvaging his own work.

If this were to be the nail in the coffin of the Christ Myth, Crossman would need to account for the feasible alternatives; such acts and sayings that arose in the sitz im Leben of the church and were attributed back to the founder.

Jake Jones IV

rlogan

I try to avoid discussions regarding analogies because they have such outstanding capacity for misdirecting.

yes - Crossan is a scientist making practical predictions, under the scientific method, out of the Historical Jesus paradigm. This powerful model, among other things, has allowed us to levitate and transport souls through eternity.


Let's just stick with what he actually said. Where is the evidence for companions of Jesus? Oh, yes - in the bible.

So wehre does that leave us? With Crossan singing (out of tune)

"Jesus loves me yes I know
for the Bible tells me so..."

hallq

Um, no. Crossan doesn't assume the whole Bible is accurate, just that some traditions can be identified as accurate. The existence of Jesus as a historical person is perhaps better attested than anything - never denied, and only absent from Paul if you assume "the lord's brother" and "born of a woman" were meant figuratively.

Vorkosigan

Don't worry. If the TF isn't mentioned for three centuries, that is not a strike against it, but if mythicism isn't mentioned for three centuries, that IS a strike against it.

Sure.