Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 12-24-2010, 01:15 PM

Jesus Historians get an earful from Maurice Casey

Quote:

Maurice Casey is fed up. The emeritus professor of New Testament language and literature at Britain’s University of Nottingham—a scholar, that is, of the only sources we have for the life and times of Jesus Christ—knows that history is not done in his field like it is in any other. The stakes, and the passions, are simply too high, when those who study the central figure in Western history place him along a spectrum that ranges from God incarnate to mythic creation. What truly disturbs Casey, however, is the way the once vast middle ground in historical Jesus studies is being squeezed, just as it is in many aspects of the increasingly intense faceoff between religion and secularism in modern society.

A resurgence of conservative scholarship on one side, including historians (like Paul Johnson) who accept what Casey considers unbelievable miracles detailed in untrustworthy sources, and revisionism that stretches to outright denial of Jesus’s existence on the other, have led him to pen his own take, Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teaching (or via: amazon.co.uk). It’s less a full-blown biography than a vigorous defence of historical methodology—of the moral necessity of applying the same historical standards to the study of Jesus as we apply to, say, Julius Caesar. ...

... He believes that he can (“I do my best”) follow the evidence where it leads, something he says the great majority of New Testament scholars simply cannot do. Most are Christians who are incapable, consciously or otherwise, of absorbing the essential Jewishness of Jesus. Their scholarship blends seamlessly into what Casey calls their social function, their duty to create portrayals of Jesus that serve the needs of their religious communities.

... The traditionalists’ liberal Protestant counterparts, like the members of the Jesus Seminar—key players in “the appalling quality of American debates about Jesus”—are no better, in Casey’s opinion. They too end up with a Jesus they are happy with, usually some kind of cynic philosopher—that is to say, just as non-Jewish as the conservatives’ figure—also by mining documents of no historical value, including Gospels ascribed to the Apostle Thomas or Mary Magdalene.

The so-called mythicists, for whom Casey reserves an especial, if formally polite, contempt—his discussion is studded with terms like “most proponents are extraordinarily incompetent” and “a form of atheist prejudice”—also find the Jesus they want, a non-existent mythical figurehead for a new religion...

So much for scholarly consensus.

ApostateAbe · 12-24-2010, 01:36 PM

Strikes me as a book worth reading. The quote, "The emeritus professor of New Testament language and literature ... knows that history is not done in his field like it is in any other," wasn't stated by Professor Maurice Casey himself, but it is statement by the author Brian Bethune of macleans.ca. So, I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that scholarly consensus isn't worth a damn. But, yeah, I certainly would be exclusive of whose scholarly opinions to take seriously. The scholars whose opinions of Jesus just happen to support their activist ideological bent--the Christian Biblicists, the liberals of the Jesus Seminar, and the atheist Jesus-mythers--they can be hastily left out of any attempt to find intellectual authority worth trusting in Biblical scholarship. And, yep, there are more of those people in the field of Biblical scholarship than any other field.

ApostateAbe · 12-24-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

The so-called mythicists, for whom Casey reserves an especial, if formally polite, contempt—his discussion is studded with terms like “most proponents are extraordinarily incompetent” and “a form of atheist prejudice”—also find the Jesus they want, a non-existent mythical figurehead for a new religion. Mostly former fundamentalists, in Casey’s waspish summation, the mythicists reject everything, a reaction to traditional Christian claims so extreme as to make Dan Brown’s image of a married-with-kids Jesus seem almost pious. (Not that Casey has any time for The Da Vinci Code: “such nonsense that it is quite amazing that anyone should believe it.”)

Wow, that's formally polite? Maybe that's why I wouldn't place my trust in a book reviewer to get an understanding of the actual contents of the book.

Toto · 12-24-2010, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... The scholars whose opinions of Jesus just happen to support their activist ideological bent--the Christian Biblicists, the liberals of the Jesus Seminar, and the atheist Jesus-mythers--they can be hastily left out of any attempt to find intellectual authority worth trusting in Biblical scholarship. And, yep, there are more of those people in the field of Biblical scholarship than any other field.

Did you miss the point that Casey has ruled out practically every scholar except for Maurice Casey? This includes your favorites.

aa5874 · 12-24-2010, 01:57 PM

All we get are OPINIONS about Jesus but no evidence of history.

Virtually every piece of EXTANT text of Antiquity has been exhausted and there is SIMPLY nothing of history for Jesus.

The evidence of MYTH is ALREADY KNOWN and cannot be DENIED.

Where is the historical evidence of Jesus? In the NT it was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, that was crucified.

It is ALREADY known that no author of the EXTANT NT claimed he/she SAW Jesus as a mere man.

Where will Maurice Casey get any credible historical evidence of Jesus when it is ALREADY KNOWN that all we have are FORGERIES?

There is simply NO credible historical EVIDENCE that can CONTRADICT Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and John 1.1-3 and ALL so-called scholars know, including Maurice Casey.

The NT is about a resurrected MYTH.

ApostateAbe · 12-24-2010, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

... The scholars whose opinions of Jesus just happen to support their activist ideological bent--the Christian Biblicists, the liberals of the Jesus Seminar, and the atheist Jesus-mythers--they can be hastily left out of any attempt to find intellectual authority worth trusting in Biblical scholarship. And, yep, there are more of those people in the field of Biblical scholarship than any other field.

Did you miss the point that Casey has ruled out practically every scholar except for Maurice Casey? This includes your favorites.

Yes, sorry, I did miss that part. Where would Bart Ehrman be covered?

Toto · 12-24-2010, 03:17 PM

I assumed that Bart Ehrman was included in “the appalling quality of American debates about Jesus.” But Casey actually does not say anything bad about Ehrman. Dale Allison and Paula Fredriksen are the only other American scholars he can bring himself to mention without criticism. But without Aramaic, it appears to me that no one rises to Casey's standards.

ApostateAbe · 12-24-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I assumed that Bart Ehrman was included in “the appalling quality of American debates about Jesus.” But Casey actually does not say anything bad about Ehrman. Dale Allison and Paula Fredriksen are the only other American scholars he can bring himself to mention without criticism. But without Aramaic, it appears to me that no one rises to Casey's standards.

I think it is about time such a criticism comes from someone with high authority in the field. The ideological scholars won't care, but I hope many of the common people who have bought into the ideological garbage scholarship will take heed.

Toto · 12-24-2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I assumed that Bart Ehrman was included in “the appalling quality of American debates about Jesus.” But Casey actually does not say anything bad about Ehrman. Dale Allison and Paula Fredriksen are the only other American scholars he can bring himself to mention without criticism. But without Aramaic, it appears to me that no one rises to Casey's standards.

I think it is about time such a criticism comes from someone with high authority in the field. The ideological scholars won't care, but I hope many of the common people who have bought into the ideological garbage scholarship will take heed.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Casey is not the sort of "high authority" who will convince any of us commoners of anything. Neil Godfrey has already shredded his pathetic arguments.

ApostateAbe · 12-24-2010, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think it is about time such a criticism comes from someone with high authority in the field. The ideological scholars won't care, but I hope many of the common people who have bought into the ideological garbage scholarship will take heed.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Casey is not the sort of "high authority" who will convince any of us commoners of anything. Neil Godfrey has already shredded his pathetic arguments.

I don't know his specific arguments. I just appreciate his reprimanding of the ideological scholarship that crafts Jesus according to their wishful thinking.

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

12-24-2010, 01:36 PM	#2
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Strikes me as a book worth reading. The quote, "The emeritus professor of New Testament language and literature ... knows that history is not done in his field like it is in any other," wasn't stated by Professor Maurice Casey himself, but it is statement by the author Brian Bethune of macleans.ca. So, I wouldn't necessarily jump to the conclusion that scholarly consensus isn't worth a damn. But, yeah, I certainly would be exclusive of whose scholarly opinions to take seriously. The scholars whose opinions of Jesus just happen to support their activist ideological bent--the Christian Biblicists, the liberals of the Jesus Seminar, and the atheist Jesus-mythers--they can be hastily left out of any attempt to find intellectual authority worth trusting in Biblical scholarship. And, yep, there are more of those people in the field of Biblical scholarship than any other field.

12-24-2010, 01:57 PM	#5
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	All we get are OPINIONS about Jesus but no evidence of history. Virtually every piece of EXTANT text of Antiquity has been exhausted and there is SIMPLY nothing of history for Jesus. The evidence of MYTH is ALREADY KNOWN and cannot be DENIED. Where is the historical evidence of Jesus? In the NT it was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost, the Creator of heaven and earth, that was crucified. It is ALREADY known that no author of the EXTANT NT claimed he/she SAW Jesus as a mere man. Where will Maurice Casey get any credible historical evidence of Jesus when it is ALREADY KNOWN that all we have are FORGERIES? There is simply NO credible historical EVIDENCE that can CONTRADICT Matthew 1.18, Luke 1.35 and John 1.1-3 and ALL so-called scholars know, including Maurice Casey. The NT is about a resurrected MYTH.

12-24-2010, 03:17 PM	#7
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I assumed that Bart Ehrman was included in “the appalling quality of American debates about Jesus.” But Casey actually does not say anything bad about Ehrman. Dale Allison and Paula Fredriksen are the only other American scholars he can bring himself to mention without criticism. But without Aramaic, it appears to me that no one rises to Casey's standards.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.