UV2003

What I immediately noticed was how much sense it made when he talked about how authors would transvalue things. One need only look to today's media to see such things. Why should we assume that authors were that much different in the past in their basic human nature?

Imagine someone 2000 years from now watching Charlies Angels or something and seeing women jump and kick in the air in slow motion.

One person says, "Hey, that's been done before, in the Matrix" (I don't know if I"m getting this right, but humor me.)

The other says, "No, it is unique, it came from Charlies Angels, and we believe it truly happened."

I admit, I'm still hovering around a basic presupposition of anti-supernaturalism I guess. We do not witness supernatural events today, do we? Does anyone have definitive proof of supernatural events today? If so, I'd like to see it. I'd love to see it actually.

If not, then why do we suppose they happened 2000 years ago in a time when people did not adhere to a scientific method of inquiry and thus had no way to determine physical truth from improbably exaggeration.

-UV

UV2003

Correct, in the first few pages, if not the jacket, he says it was a vast improvement in many ways, especially in the character traits of the hero Jesus, a one-up so to speak. The same is seen today in movies.

Do we seriously for one second assume that movies do not attempt to one-up and build upon earlier films. often time we see more radical and superfantastic stunts and exaggerations. Why should we assume just because of years of tradition that accounts in a book were historical when they contain such things, when we easily reject similar accounts from other traditions as mythical and superstitious.

It is impossible to say with a straight face that walking on water, multiplying food, raising people from the dead, calming storms, etc is not far-fetched.

If I told a Christian that Buddha or someone else did this, I am met with skepticism, if I say Jesus, oh of course that was history.

Layman

Scholars who have reviewed MacDonald's book have not found it all that persuasive.

Sharyn Dowd, "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. Washington: Jan 2001. Vol. 63, Iss. 1; pg. 155.

Margaret M Mitchell, "Homer in the new testament?" The Journal of Religion. Chicago: Apr 2003. Vol. 83, Iss. 2; pg. 244

There is another critical review here by Morna D. Hooker in
The Journal of Theological Studies Volume 53, Issue 1, April 2002. It is available online: http://www3.oup.co.uk/theolj/hdb/Vol...pdf/530196.pdf

Nom

Yes, and let's take a look at their reasoning, which you so kindly highlighted...

MacDonald's thesis, once propounded, is theoretically incapable of invalidation....

Second, many of MacDonald's interpretations of particular passages are forced or contorted, rendered on the basis of inconsistent application of interpretive principles....

Third, the overall argument is based on unconvincing and unexamined assumptions about ancient authorial practice and procedures.

Okay, so we have a scholarly biblical review complaining about a book that's "theoretically incapable of invalidation," is based on "forced or contorted" interpretations and "inconsistent application of interpretive principles," and is based on "unconvincing and unexamined assumptions"?

Anyone else's irony meter reading off the scale here? :banghead:

UV: in case you're interested, I remembered a chat on about.com McDonald did about the book. Here's a link to the transcript: http://atheism.about.com/library/boo...DonaldChat.htm

Toto

Of course.

Vorkosigan

Just on a hunch, I checked into their backgrounds:

Dowd

Morna Hooker:
Morna Hooker-Stacey is the Lady Margaret Professor Emirita at Cambidge University. She is a widely published author in the field of New Testament studies, and is much in demand as a Methodist preacher.

Mitchell

Let's see, three divinity school graduates who are oath-sworn to believe in the HJ and the Christian legends. One is a preacher! Hmmm...I am sure they are very objective reviews. LOL.

I admit I have to laugh too at a Christian complaining about someone else's "have your cake and eat it too" methodology. But more seriously, this passage below strikes me as the usual problem when one confronts NT scholars who do not catch the point when it is not in their interest to do so: are they stupid, or malicious?

McDonald's point is that the divergences -- which are reversals -- run in the same direction, showing how Jesus exceeds Odysseus. In other words, there is a particular pattern, which she either misses or ignores. McDonald's thesis, contrary to her assertion, is capable of invalidation (I mean, that's what she does in her next to points, right? So in effect, she cuts her own throat here).

But thanks for the refs, Layman.

BTW, the journal of theological studies, where Hooker published -- is online from 2002. Kudos to them for sharing their work.
http://www3.oup.co.uk/theolj/contents/

Vorkosigan
PS I just read Hooker's entire review. It is nothing but one long collection of patronizing ad homs, and ends in a line of complete comprehension. There doesn't seem to be an argument in the entire review.....take note, if you will, of the large number of questions "Why if......" the Eric Van Daniken style of "argument." If she had substance, instead of style, there would be more analysis and fewer questions.

Layman

Since the only people I've read who have taken McDonald's ultimate conclusion seriously are Secular Web regulars, Jesus Mythers, or Jesus Myther sympathizers, I could recite the usual ad homs about bias as well.

He asked for info about the book. I provided them. From real scholars published in respected publications. You can ignore them if you want.

GakuseiDon

There may be no definitive proof of supernatural events today, but the world abounds in reports of such. Ghosts, exorcisms, miracle healings, raising the dead; just last year a fish at a fish market started speaking Hebrew, before it was carved up(!) I don't know that we are that different from 2000 years ago.

Toto

I wouldn't ignore them, but I would like to know more about them before taking them as the last word. Sharyn Dowd, the preacher now teaching at Baylor, wrote Reading Mark. The pages available on Amazon start:But then by page 17, she is comparing Jesus to Socrates and talking about other Hellenistic elements in Mark. Sounds interesting.

Morna Hooker also has a book on The Gospel of Mark, recommended here:

From the few pages on line, she seems determined to take the middle road between those who see Mark as historical and those who view it as pure theology.

Vorkosigan

Who ignored them? I READ at least one. Hooker's review is a collection of patronizing ad homs, without argument at all. No bias either way necessary, read it for yourself. Clearly she either didn't like or didn't get McDonald's ideas. What else can be said?

Vorkosigan