Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jgoodguy · 06-01-2011, 07:29 AM

New HJ inquiry announced by Joseph Hoffmann.

Quote:

The Prospect is ready to rock and roll, minus a few squeaky wheels, organizational millstones and other wobbly things

.

Quote:

The name reflects the state of the question that the Jesus Project was trying to address: it is an historical issue. It is not a question that was going to be answered by men and women whose minds were made up, some of them laying out new documentary hypotheses, some of them assuming the essential historicity of the gospel story, and some of them fundamentally committed to the doctrine of a mythical Jesus. Here there be monsters. Or more precisely, here there be three different games being played, each with its own set of rules, but using the same all-purpose ball

Quote:

In fact, there is a good prospect that Jesus of Nazareth existed. It is the most efficient explanation for the gospels, the writings of Paul and the formation of gospels and the church. There is a possibility he did not. The thin possibility cannot be supported by sweeping away the gospels like so much Palestinian debris that occludes a master-theory, anymore than the uncertainty of who the Scythians were proves that Herodotus made them up. I am of one mind with April DeConick when I assay the work of the “mythers”–the born again pre-committed–a term I don’t like very much, but in an odd way one that points to the hollowness of many of the non-historicity arguments.

Quote:

But the savior the mythers begin with is not the historical Jesus, and perhaps the Jesus of the gospels has already achieved that status. Everyone (almost) agrees that most of Jesus is a myth of the church, and even the church trades on the mythical power of a name that is basically unhistorical. We don’t need to convince scholars of that. They know it already, and rather wonder why it’s such a big deal to mythers. It’s really a question of knowing where to begin.

aa5874 · 06-01-2011, 07:53 AM

"

Quote:

.....Everyone (almost) agrees that most of Jesus is a myth of the church, and even the church trades on the mythical power of a name that is basically unhistorical. We don’t need to convince scholars of that. They know it already, and rather wonder why it’s such a big deal to mythers......

Why is HJ such a "BIG DEAL"?

It is just SO PAINFULLY OBVIOUS that HJ is myth.

The Church PRESENTED a MYTH so one cannot reasonably expect to EXHUME a Man from Myth.

ApostateAbe · 06-01-2011, 08:13 AM

I imagine that the squeakiest wheel of the proposed Jesus Prospect would be its lack of support in either funding or membership. The Jesus Project found support, though plenty of trouble, from the "the born again pre-committed" mythers and Jesus-minimalists. That is the point of view encouraged by the atheist and secularist organizations, and I don't think they would be too happy about joining an organization that discourages such commitment. The scholars and organizations of the other camps would find the Jesus Prospect either blasphemous (among Christians) or unnecessary (the conclusion of HJ is already damningly obvious). There were not so many members of the Jesus Project, but I predict that the proposed Jesus Prospect would have members on their roster that you can count on one hand.

discordant · 06-01-2011, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The Jesus Project found support, though plenty of trouble, from the "the born again pre-committed" mythers and Jesus-minimalists.

Why do you have to slander those you disagree with? Isn't it enough to express your opinion, without pretending these people aren't as much in search of the truth as you are?

Quote:

(the conclusion of HJ is already damningly obvious).

One would think you'd be a little more humble after attempting "redaction criticism" on identical texts.

hjalti · 06-01-2011, 08:39 AM

Quote:

...after attempting "redaction criticism" on identical texts.

What are you refering to?

discordant · 06-01-2011, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

...after attempting "redaction criticism" on identical texts.

What are you refering to?

If you read this post, and keep reading, you'll understand.

Toto · 06-01-2011, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I imagine that the squeakiest wheel of the proposed Jesus Prospect would be its lack of support in either funding or membership. The Jesus Project found support, though plenty of trouble, from the "the born again pre-committed" mythers and Jesus-minimalists.

Nope. Most of the scholars participating were mainstream historicists. Opposition came from people who didn't want the issue investigated.

Quote:

That is the point of view encouraged by the atheist and secularist organizations, and I don't think they would be too happy about joining an organization that discourages such commitment.

American Atheists is the only atheist organization that has any position on the historical Jesus, and that is only because Frank Zindler is a staff member. The Center for Inquiry has no official or unoffical position.

Quote:

The scholars and organizations of the other camps would find the Jesus Prospect either blasphemous (among Christians) or unnecessary (the conclusion of HJ is already damningly obvious)....

Can you quote even one scholar who thinks that the existence of a historical Jesus is "damningly obvious" (as opposed to a conclusion that can be drawn from evidence after some analysis?)

jgoodguy · 06-01-2011, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by discordant

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

The Jesus Project found support, though plenty of trouble, from the "the born again pre-committed" mythers and Jesus-minimalists.

Why do you have to slander those you disagree with? Isn't it enough to express your opinion, without pretending these people aren't as much in search of the truth as you are?

Quote:

(the conclusion of HJ is already damningly obvious).

One would think you'd be a little more humble after attempting "redaction criticism" on identical texts.

I think most of that is from Hoffmann who is not shy about his opinion of JMers

Toto · 06-01-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgoodguy

...
I think most of that is from Hoffmann who is not shy about his opinion of JMers

Hoffman did not slander the original Jesus Project, which he led and which he knows was not supported by mythicists.

jgoodguy · 06-01-2011, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I imagine that the squeakiest wheel of the proposed Jesus Prospect would be its lack of support in either funding or membership. The Jesus Project found support, though plenty of trouble, from the "the born again pre-committed" mythers and Jesus-minimalists.

Nope. Most of the scholars participating were mainstream historicists. Opposition came from people who didn't want the issue investigated.

Quote:

That is the point of view encouraged by the atheist and secularist organizations, and I don't think they would be too happy about joining an organization that discourages such commitment.

American Atheists is the only atheist organization that has any position on the historical Jesus, and that is only because Frank Zindler is a staff member. The Center for Inquiry has no official or unoffical position.

Quote:

The scholars and organizations of the other camps would find the Jesus Prospect either blasphemous (among Christians) or unnecessary (the conclusion of HJ is already damningly obvious)....

Can you quote even one scholar who thinks that the existence of a historical Jesus is "damningly obvious" (as opposed to a conclusion that can be drawn from evidence after some analysis?)

Joseph Hoffmann and some fellow, Carrier, that is going to get us mathematical proof.

IMHO the concept of a HJ as far as an effective founder or source of inspiration for the NT Christianity is dead.

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

06-01-2011, 08:13 AM	#3
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I imagine that the squeakiest wheel of the proposed Jesus Prospect would be its lack of support in either funding or membership. The Jesus Project found support, though plenty of trouble, from the "the born again pre-committed" mythers and Jesus-minimalists. That is the point of view encouraged by the atheist and secularist organizations, and I don't think they would be too happy about joining an organization that discourages such commitment. The scholars and organizations of the other camps would find the Jesus Prospect either blasphemous (among Christians) or unnecessary (the conclusion of HJ is already damningly obvious). There were not so many members of the Jesus Project, but I predict that the proposed Jesus Prospect would have members on their roster that you can count on one hand.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.