spin

Forgot: what good is an Arabic variant, when Eusebius has it all (H.E. 1.11.7ff)??


spin

spamandham

Sure, why not? James was known as 'James the Just' as well. He was obviously held in extreme esteem.

...or yet more religious titles. Why does that seem unusual to you, when Paul is obviously talking about men of great importance within the church? Sure, they could be the blood kin of 'the lord', but I see no reason to assume that all things considered.

If those are titles, then Paul is not raising them, he's merely referring to them by their well known titles. On the other hand if they are not titles, how could Paul possibly argue to be equivalent to a blood brother of Jesus? Such an argument would be deemed absurd. ...and no, Paul doesn't have to make it. He could simply argue for rights equal to the apostles without throwing in the brothers of the lord business.

That's what I would expect if 'brother of the lord' referred to a blood relationship. Is there a reason you wouldn't?

Right, but the point is, the rest of Paul establishes that 'brother' never refers to a blood relationship, unless it's these specific cases we're discussing. The default position should not be 'blood relationship', when that is never the case (in Paul) outside the passages in review.

Of course we know Christianity isn't new, just as first century Jews knew Judaism wasn't new. Paul thinks the gospel is derived from Jewish scriptures as you may recall.

Sure it would, considering that's exactly what he claims (in regard to his own importance)!

But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me...

Paul thinks he's something special, and he says it multiple times.

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to ... paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say.

To keep me from becoming conceited because of these surpassingly great revelations, there was given me a thorn in my flesh...

Paul sees himself as singly selected directly by god from all history and all mankind. The guy's a nut.

If you don't think Paul thought rather highly of himself - pivotal even, you haven't read the same Paul I have.

Yah, then there's 1 Cor 15. If that entire section is an interpolation, as I've argued, it makes a damn good ruse; all the answers to questions regarding Paul wrapped up in 1 convenient chapter, with baptism for the dead as an added bonus!

I don't want to bog this thread down in that discussion. Please join in over there if you find the idea interesting.

Paul explicitly sets himself asside. You can not use the overall picture of early Christianity to gleem Paul's thoughts. He is unique.

Fair enough, but it's still a letter to his followers, not an argument with the pillars. His goal is to re-establish his authority, not nit pick theology with the pillars.

...or alternately, all of it came from revelation (which implies 1 Cor 15:3-11 was added later as several qualified scholars argue).

We don't know exactly what the Jerusalem church was teaching, but we do know it was at odds with Paul. Paul goes out of his way to tell the Galatians he did not get his gospel from the Jerusalem church. This implies his gospel was unique in his eyes, because if it wasn't, the Galatians would probably know better.

That's why it streches the probabilities to argue that Paul is teaching the same ideas as the Jerusalem church...plus a little. The Jerusalem church was certainly related to Paul's church, in the sense it was his church's ancestor, but beyond that, Paul was teaching a new gospel altogether - something he derived from scripture/revelation.

In context, Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

The crucifixion Paul refers to doesn't involve miraculous signs (does that match the gospel tradition or your preconceptions!?), nor does it seem reasoned by Paul's own admission. This isn't embarassment, it's a claim of a new idea that neither Jew nor Greek had previoulsy heard.

Is Paul redefining crucifixion as a kind of spin? That would make sense if crucifixion was an 'oh by the way'. But since it isn't, the embarrasmeent argument falls flat.

It makes little sense that Paul on the one hand makes crucifixion (whatever he means by that) central to his theology, while simultaneously being embarassed by it and spin doctoring it through equivocation.

If the crucifixion refered to Roman crucifixion, and it were central to Paul's theology, he would embrace it head on rather than redefining it (unless he's just plain stupid).

Multiple qualified scholars set a later date for Paul's writings. We're right back to sqaure one again...where you uncritically accept the datings of the apologists masquarading as objective scholars, and I don't.

This is a discussion of whether or not Jesus was a myth. In such a discussion, it is invalid to simply assume he was historical. The whole point is to explore the relative strengths of the two positions, not simply assume them.

teamonger

I'm not going to have time to keep pursuing this, but I'll wave my arms one more time...

That a historical preacher named Jesus had followers and was later executed is supported by fairly massive prima facie evidence, most of which is contained in the New Testament. It is the myth position which amounts to a web of conjectures, providing insufficient rebuttal to that evidence. The most parsimonious explanation is still that an actual cult leader from Galilee existed. As cult leaders were rampant throughout history, there is nothing whatsoever improbable about this.

The guy was real, get over it already. Because at best, the myth theory is a strategic blunder in the bigger debate. It plays into the hands of purveyors of supernaturalist nonsense, who get to sound reasonable when arguing for the mere existence of their favorite preacher. They should instead be made to defend weaker ground: the extraordinary supernatural claims made for the guy.

The Jesus myth takes on the characteristic of ideology. Arguing with believers thus has the appearance of: “Jesus is Lord!”… “No, Jesus never existed!”. A wholly fruitless discussion, where observers get the impression that these are the only two viable options.

I agree with Jeffrey Lowder, that people can be "put off by just the sheer radicality of [the] hypothesis". The myth position can look almost as nutty as virgin birth and a resurrecting savior. When the "baloney detector" of an uncommitted young seeker gets activated, I would hope that would lead him/her towards being skeptical about religion, not skeptical about the fringe positions of some atheists.

When a religionist proclaims "everything I believe is true", it is not a correct stategy to proclaim back, "no, everything you believe is false". Avoiding such knee-jerk reactions will help to put secularism into the mainstream, where it belongs.

t

Toto

The NT cannot fairly be described as unimpeachable evidence; if it is evidence, it cannot be described as "massive." And calling it "prima facie" is just a covert way of shifting the burden of proof.

You would sound more reasonable if you could just deal with the fact that the evidence is scanty. There may be good reasons for this general lack of evidence, but it's still there.

And you do realize that spin is not a mythicist?

Nothing improbable, but that's not enough.

This is your real objection: you think that a merely human Jesus is a better tool against the religious right. And I can appreciate the intent. But that strategy has been tried and hasn't worked.

I have observed evangelical apologists come to this board and spend a lot of effort, not debating the case for a historical Jesus, but just throwing a lot of hot air around in an attempt to create the idea that the Jesus Myth is a fringe, crackpot idea that no one can seriously entertain. Unfortunately for them, it didn't work. But why are you joining them in their smear campaign?

No, the myth position is not as nutty as the virgin birth or the resurrecting savior. It is a completely naturalistic explanation of history. You are not doing anyone any service by just repeating the canards of the evangelicals.

Jeff Lowder is concerned about putting a point across in a debate format. He doesn't think that the JM hypothesis will work in a debate because it is too hard to explain in the limited time available. That doesn't mean that the hypothesis is either wrong or not worth considering.

Secularists have been proclaiming a historical Jesus for most of recent history, and where has it gotten us? The aggressive evangelical Christians have just adopted the historical Jesus as a starting point.

spin

I don't see many rushing to such conclusions with another collection of traditions based around the search for the holy grail. There is an enormous body of work. Some people even claim that there is a historical core to that tradition as well. How would they ever know?

I do get extremely tired of people who just will not read.

Here is a list of possible positions as to the origins of a tradition:

1. Historical
2. Mythical
3. Fictional
4. Error/misinterpretation-initiated
5. Dream/fantasy-initiated
6. Delusion-initiated

As you should see, we are not dealing with a binary taxonomy. The choice is much wider than historical/mythic. I don't think that there is any way of knowing what the historical content of traditions are by simply examining the tradition. It's patently absurd. And you, like all the others, should be ashamed of such woeful reductionism and arrogance.

Simply false. Paul didn't know any real Jesus. He didn't need a real Jesus. He claims to have derived his gospel through revelation. You for some reason need more than Paul did. There is no reasonable position more parsimonious than that of Paul. Paul of course was an actual cult leader.

As weird traditions were rampant through history, there is nothing improbable about them having an unhistorical core.

Does this rhetoric work on you?

You're talking to me, you know, not to someone born into thoughtcrime. Expedience is not a criterion for scholarly enquiry.

I don't say "Jesus never existed!", but I do say "How [the fuck] would you know?" This is the same basic question I pose to you and you cop out. You say, "I'll commit to what I don't know for expedience-sake."

I must admit I keep coming across people who find simple scholarly methodology radical.

Let me say this:
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.
I am not a mythicist.

Did you read at least one of these statements and understand it?

I have never advocated mythicism. Do you understand that?

At the same time, let me also say,
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.
I am not a historicist.

Does one have to make an irrational choice? The evidence on the topic is unfathomed. You don't know too much about it. In fact nobody has enough evidence to make a reasoned choice, as I see it from my long review of the data. One can guess, or one can use common sense without having anything common to work with, or one can be indoctrinated to choose, or one can do as you do, be expedient. Why does one have to commit on the subject?

Oh, the repetition is merely cut and paste, paste, paste, hoping that you might notice at least once.

The uncommitted young seeker is not the issue here. It's the need for uncommittedness when you don't have sufficient evidence. That's the topic. Making a choice in a position of ignorance, means that you have more likelihood of being wrong than not making a choice. This is an issue in which a choice isn't necessary. Jesus may have existed, though you wouldn't know. Jesus may not have existed. This is not a strange position: we can see numerous examples of traditions based on non-existent figures: the vampire, William Tell, Ebion, Paul Bunyon, John Henry, etc. There are traditions that we often don't know enough about to decide, such as Arthur, and Robin Hood. You cannot simply up and decide that a tradition must have had an eponymous founder.

Thanks for the rehearsal. Now, you cited my words at the beginning of your post:

I would love to see an honest piece of evidence for Jesus rather than just more of the same web of conjectures. The historical Jesus hypothesis as far as I've seen is a sham, which assumes its central conclusion. Press a supporter and they have no evidence at all.

but then, I don't think you dealt with them. You apparently have no evidence at all for Jesus, just an a priori commitment to historicity for expedience sake. If I can't make you understand what you are supposed to be dealing with in a conversation with me, can you deal with the uncommitted young person's questions without turning on the expedient overdrive? In the end, it is methodology that will allow a person to make reasoned choices. I'd rather teach a person how to think than what to think. They can do the latter by themselves.


spin

spamandham

That same prima facie evidence has this man performing miracles and being God's son. Do you accept that as well, or has your BSometer kicked in yet?

Ben C Smith

So... what are you trying to say, spin?

Ben.

teamonger

"Prima facie" is not a covert anything, just a statement of fact. At first appearance, there is a case for a historical Galilean cult leader. That case does tend to shift the burden of proof. The NT does not need to be "unimpeachable" to establish that case.

My objections to the myth theory are not based upon expedience; I read E. P. Sanders and Michael Grant long ago, and agreed with their methodologies. My passion for debating this does come from my experiences of discussions with believers, some of whom can see that, "prima facie", Jesus was a mistaken prophet of imminent end-times.

No, the myth position is not as nutty, but it appears almost as nutty, especially to an uncommitted observer with theistic preconceptions. That is Lowder's point. I seriously doubt he is a closet mythicist, as you seem to be saying.

Yes, secularists in the past generally accepted a historical Jesus. Such reasonableness has gained plenty, over the long haul. The more thoughtful religionists have become less dogmatic, more amenable to acceptance of historical criticism. I would like to see that trend continue.

Yes, aggressive fundies now take the historical Jesus as a starting point. That is exactly my point: they are allowed to stand on that firmer ground when arguing against the myth position. I would rather see them have to step forward again, into the quicksand of defending fanstastic claims.
t

teamonger

All right spin, you're not a mythicist... you're a non-historicist. But from my historicist perspective, this is a subtle distinction. I will continue to use the term mythicist, because that has become the popular term. In any case, my rant was not aimed at you in particular, I just used replying to your post as a starting point for my little soapbox.

I agree with you that methodology should be the primary focus of inquiry. We simply disagree on which methodologies are more important, or on how they are applied. I perceive sufficient evidence for a historical Jesus (and certain probable facts about him), while you do not.

The strategy for debating apologists is a separate issue. I say, the non-historicist strategy allows them a firmer footing, more than they deserve. This would be true even if the merits of our historicity positions were equal. As Lowder says, take on the resurrection first. Then pursue the myth (or whatever) theory if you must, but don't make that the starting point of the debate.

t

teamonger

Yep, sure has. The a priori improbability of miracles, virgin birth and resurrection makes these extraordinary claims. The NT is not sufficient evidence for such claims. But there's nothing improbable about the mere existence of a charismatic human cult leader. I see them on TV all the time

t