Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dave31 · 06-06-2011, 07:29 AM

Quote:

ApostateAbe "The slander that I put in quotes was from Hoffman himself, and it was he who apparently thought that the Jesus-mythers killed the Jesus Project."

How so, Hoffmann didn't really have any serious mythicists on board in the first place? In fact, he refused to actually allow serious mythicists to even be apart of it.

Quote:

"As it turned out, even before the opening meeting (delayed almost a year beyond the initially scheduled time) the possibility that Jesus’ existence would be questioned by the Project apparently created difficulties, leading to the refusal of some scholars to take part and to a degree of backtracking by those in charge, until it became reduced to little more than another “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” The only difference was that it was stated as part of its mandate that it would not assume the existence of an historical Jesus a priori, but adopt an “agnostic” stance on the question.

That opening meeting was devoted to a discussion of the methodologies that would be employed, but here again the same stumbling block arose. Since no scholars who were openly and actively mythicists were invited to take part, no methodologies applicable to the existence of Jesus question were presented for consideration. At the meeting itself, as I understand it from various reports, no objection was voiced to the missing dimension, but the question was raised on blogs and in subsequent discussion (not all of it entirely harmonious) by various people involved or on the sidelines, and it was clear that this was going to be a stickler in the future—an elephant in the room.... "
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/JesusProject.htm

Quote:

"The Jesus Project, claiming to examine the mythicist case apparently had no intention of doing so at all. The Jesus Project turned out to be more an insult to mythicists than anything else. Not only were there no mythicists invited to take part but, they were purposely excluded!!!"
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/for...p=17782#p17782

jgoodguy · 06-06-2011, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I think, more than any other aspect of the life of Jesus, there is disagreement over the content of his teachings

Your earlier criticism was that mythicists "don't have nearly a consensus on the source of the myth nor how the myth came to be accepted among Christians". The HJ model substitutes the figure of Jesus to account for the origin of the cult, but gets bogged down in disagreements over what Jesus actually said and did. One would think these details are vital for explaining why people joined the cult to begin with and why it developed the way it did -- every bit as vital as mythicists explaining "the source of the myth" and "how the myth came to be accepted among Christians". I just don't see that historicists have any huge advantage here.

I agree. The HJers get together in the Jesus Seminar and claim to have a rational naturalistic methodology to find Jesus in the New Testament and a large number of possible Jesuses result. How can a valid methodology result in such variance.

Steven Carr · 06-06-2011, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The focused omission in the gospel of John is just one of the many lines of evidence that seems to strongly indicate the historicity of the baptism event.

Gosh. I had no idea arguments from silence were so strong.

If a source is silent, then it must have happened.

jgoodguy · 06-06-2011, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave31

Quote:

ApostateAbe "The slander that I put in quotes was from Hoffman himself, and it was he who apparently thought that the Jesus-mythers killed the Jesus Project."

How so, Hoffmann didn't really have any serious mythicists on board in the first place? In fact, he refused to actually allow serious mythicists to even be apart of it.

Quote:

"As it turned out, even before the opening meeting (delayed almost a year beyond the initially scheduled time) the possibility that Jesus’ existence would be questioned by the Project apparently created difficulties, leading to the refusal of some scholars to take part and to a degree of backtracking by those in charge, until it became reduced to little more than another “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” The only difference was that it was stated as part of its mandate that it would not assume the existence of an historical Jesus a priori, but adopt an “agnostic” stance on the question.

That opening meeting was devoted to a discussion of the methodologies that would be employed, but here again the same stumbling block arose. Since no scholars who were openly and actively mythicists were invited to take part, no methodologies applicable to the existence of Jesus question were presented for consideration. At the meeting itself, as I understand it from various reports, no objection was voiced to the missing dimension, but the question was raised on blogs and in subsequent discussion (not all of it entirely harmonious) by various people involved or on the sidelines, and it was clear that this was going to be a stickler in the future—an elephant in the room.... "
http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/JesusProject.htm

Quote:

"The Jesus Project, claiming to examine the mythicist case apparently had no intention of doing so at all. The Jesus Project turned out to be more an insult to mythicists than anything else. Not only were there no mythicists invited to take part but, they were purposely excluded!!!"
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/for...p=17782#p17782

From the Jesus Project swan song.

Quote:

Obviously I do not deny the existence of mythic materials entwined with a more or less historical memory of a real individual. But as I have written elsewhere, we cannot point to a stratum of ancient biography where such intertwining does not exist: it is a matter of degree, not genre, and a matter of guesswork, not reconstructive surgery. The fate of the Jesus Seminar and the potential fate of the Jesus Project had it continued—or rather, had it been advisable for it to continue—reveals more about the history of guesswork than about the “reality” of Jesus. The NT documents, especially the Gospels, are precisely the sort of literature we would expect to emerge from a time when the dividing line between the natural and “supernatural,” indeed, the divine and human, was not clearly drawn: the true miracle would have been for the NT to stand completely outside the limits of Hellenistic storytelling and the rudimentary historiographical interests of a religious community.

The purpose of the Jesus project was to find a historical individual not a mythical one.

Quote:

Such a conclusion had it ever been reached (as it would not have been reached by the majority of participants) would only have been relevant to the people April DeConnick ( a participant) has described as “mythers,” people out to prove through consensus with each other a conclusion they cannot establish through evidence. The first sign of possible trouble came when I was asked by one such “myther” whether we might not start a “Jesus Myth” section of the project devoted exclusively to those who were committed to the thesis that Jesus never existed. I am not sure what “committed to a thesis” entails, but it does not imply the sort of skepticism that the myth theory itself invites.

if JMers are unhappy with Hoffmann, one option is for a Mythical Jesus Project with a methodology, papers, seminars, press releases and the trappings of respectability.

mountainman · 06-06-2011, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The focused omission in the gospel of John is just one of the many lines of evidence that seems to strongly indicate the historicity of the baptism event.

Gosh. I had no idea arguments from silence were so strong.

If a source is silent, then it must have happened.

Faith is always sufficient. If we have no evidence, then faith is always sufficient.

ApostateAbe · 06-06-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The focused omission in the gospel of John is just one of the many lines of evidence that seems to strongly indicate the historicity of the baptism event.

Gosh. I had no idea arguments from silence were so strong.

If a source is silent, then it must have happened.

Arguments from silence are not always ill reasoned, in fact. I am of the opinion that all aspects evidence deserve a fitting explanation, even silences, and especially focused omissions--of elements that we otherwise very much otherwise expect. If all of the surrounding details are present but the central point as given in comparable narratives is not, then it is strongly indicative of a focused omission.

You may want to review my recent thread on the topic of arguments from silence, telling how to appropriately judge an argument from silence:

Default The silence of contemporary non-Christian writers (Doug Shaver's "difficulty" #3)

mountainman · 06-06-2011, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

if JMers are unhappy with Hoffmann, one option is for a Mythical Jesus Project with a methodology, papers, seminars, press releases and the trappings of respectability.

The Great Silence of the Evidence 000-312 CE

The unhappiness of the entire situation is as a result of the silence of the ancient historical evidence. Somebody told a big lie, many times, with a great forcefulness. Somebody else covered over the controversy caused by the big lie. Christian origins is pretty simple. It is a tenured industry of belief that stretches back from one authority figure to another.

jgoodguy · 06-06-2011, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

if JMers are unhappy with Hoffmann, one option is for a Mythical Jesus Project with a methodology, papers, seminars, press releases and the trappings of respectability.

The Great Silence of the Evidence 000-312 CE

The unhappiness of the entire situation is as a result of the silence of the ancient historical evidence. Somebody told a big lie, many times, with a great forcefulness. Somebody else covered over the controversy caused by the big lie. Christian origins is pretty simple. It is a tenured industry of belief that stretches back from one authority figure to another.

Lack of primary, tangible or even credible secondary evidence does make the enterprise of finding the HJ or JM difficult. That is if one want to understand the origins of gentile Christianity.

Could be or could be the accretion of many oral traditions as Christians visualized what the Christ would be.

Yes it is difficult for the JMers to create their own paradigm as opposed to the entrenched status quo.

Toto · 06-06-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...The Great Silence of the Evidence 000-312 CE

....

:hijack:

There is not a complete lack of evidence for Christianity before 312 CE.

You've had your chance to show this, no one buys it.

mountainman · 06-06-2011, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

Could be or could be the accretion of many oral traditions as Christians visualized what the Christ would be.

The first Christians visualised what the Christ would be by reading the Greek LXX. We must also understand that it is almost impossible to differentiate early christians from orthodox heresiologists. The heresiologists always had the power of authority over the vile and heretical gnostic dissidents.

When did the accretion happen?
Did it last 300 years or 300 months?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.