Niall Armstrong

I see you've been having a good long discussion here, No Robots . Please excuse me while I peruse the posts at my leisure. I promise to return!

Meanwhile you could perhaps state your position on Daniel of said book: was he necessarily a true person, as the effects of his supposed prophesies have had great effect, or can the textual criticism as referred to in my previous post convince anyone that he didn't exist?

As to Brunner's arguments, am I right to see "equivalent cause" as the cornerstone in his argumentation? As far as I can see there is nothing else original about his textual arguments (perhaps apart from the focus upon the mental world of the Talmud). If this is so then this discussion should perhaps continue under the heading of Philosophy, not BC&H.
Do you have a more precise definition of "equivalent cause" than the one given early in this thread, quoted below?

No Robots

I shall wait.

I don't know enough to comment. Generally, I use Spinoza's TTP as my source for understanding the OT.

Yes.

Brunner's work is inherently interdisciplinary. I see nothing wrong with continuing here, but I am content to pursue this anywhere the modgods choose.

No, that's pretty much it in a nutshell.

Niall Armstrong

So far the appendix is quite enough. I’m afraid it does not inspire to furthering my acquaintance with Brunner. It does remind me, though, of why I originally bought Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” (though I didn’t get far in reading that either): A lot of 19th century thought is difficult to make sense of without Hegel.

Before we start discussing “equivalent cause” and other points of Brunner’s, I’d like to have your opinion upon the five points made in my original reply. We need not discuss them at length, as they are obviously of secondary interest for Brunner and for you. This also applies to Birger Gerhardsson, though I’d like to point out that those items of “tradition” may instead have worked the other way around: there is nothing in the epistles that necessitates that they have been spoken by any Jesus of Nazareth, this is merely an assumption found in the Gospels. The Last Supper is also specifically stated by Paul to have been shown to him by Christ (most likely in a vision) and not told to him by other apostles. Oh, and any attempt to get around the lack of tradition of any living Jesus in the epistles, has another spanner thrown in the works by Hebrews, which gives us two or three direct quotes of Jesus, that are not found in the Gospels but in the OT itself. The ad-hoc theories pile up….

But this is, as stated, of secondary interest here, and I will soon be ready to discuss Brunner.

(And, BTW, though Spinoza was seminal in the development of OT scholarship, other people have since stood on his shoulders, and seen farther. Please do not limit yourself to 17th (and early 20th) century scholarship!)

No Robots

I thought you said that you found Brunner entertaining? If you liked the Appendix, you'll be blown away by the book.

Absolutely. In Our Christ, Brunner has some wonderful things to say about Hegel, calling him at one point the greatest of the gnostics. Try Hegel's Philosophy of History. It's an easy read and really shows him using his approach in a clear way.

I have responded to those to the extent that I see necessary. Is there something in particular you want me to address?

Well, how about at least doing me the courtesy of reading what Spinoza says about Daniel?

No Robots

Oh, yeah, and, btw, before you go touting contemporary scholarship, you should remember:

No one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew. -The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity / William Arnal. (p. 5)

Niall Armstrong

Thanks! I hope still to have time to read Hegel someday.
As to my earlier 5 points, I'd just like to know what you agree with and what you disagree with.
From Spinoza's description, I presume you disagree with the idea of Daniel as being a piece of fiction (But I'm glad Spinoza at least recognizes that the hypothesized Daniel could not have written the first part of the book. That is a start)
For the 2nd point, do you recognize that the description of a public, miracle-working Jesus would lead us to expect a mention by contemporaries?
For the 3rd point, do you recognize that anyone confronted with Christian doctrine (after 70 AD) would neither have the opportunity or feel the necessity to try to prove the non-existence of Jesus?
For the 4th point, do you agree with Brunner that Suetonius and Tacitus are proofs of the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth?
For the 5th point, do you recognize that the Gospels, as later witnesses, are secondary to the Epistles in terms of reliability? And do you recognize the lack of mention of any Jesus of Nazareth in the whole collection of Epistles?

Must run!

No Robots

It is extremely anachronistic to apply the term "fiction" to biblical literature. The core of Spinoza's method is to examine what is said in the Bible for the truth that can be extracted from it.

I really think it would help you to look at Gerhardsson's The Mighty Acts of Jesus According to Matthew. He divides these acts into two groups: those that serve some interpretive function, and those that are about healing. The former are midrashic and the latter are small, localized events. There would have been no impetus by anyone capable of doing so to write anything down about this man.


Of course. Nor did anyone before 70 AD.

Two nearly contemporary Roman historians write about a man. This is evidence of that man's existence, but, of course, cannot be considered definitive proof.

I recognize that the Gospels provide a very good accounting of this man, which the Epistles further enrich. These are quite different sets of documents that have distinctly different objectives. Both, however, testify to the great man.

The Epistles do not mention Nazareth, but they do mention Jesus. I see no particular significance in this. I could speculate that it may have to do with the intention of the Epistles to uproot Christ from his fleshly background in order to accentuate his universal significance. Gerhardsson's work, I believe, puts paid to Doherty's thesis that the Gospels must be viewed as derivative of the Epistles. The existence of a tradition, whether oral or written, is clearly attested in the Epistles.

Niall Armstrong

My fault! I meant midrash, in the sense of creating a seemingly historical story based upon scripture (The 4 Persian emperors alluded to in Daniel is an amusing instance of how errors creep in by this method)

I suppose I'll have to read Gerhardsson, then. Still, I find the feeding of the multitudes, with related teaching, a strange thing to evade history. The cleansing of the Temple even more so. And almost all of Jesus' speeches in John are of course performed in Jerusalem, inviting comment by Jews and gentiles alike. And, because of the Gallilean aspect of much of the Gospel, even Origen was astounded that Justus of Tiberias didn't have any mention of Jesus (And what a shame that his works have not been preserved! It would have given us an astounding resource for understanding those times)

Good! But don't forget that according to MJ theory there was nothing to deny or disprove prior to the publication and spread of the Gospels

There is of course nothing in Suetonius to suggest that "Chrestos" was anything other than either a) a man in Rome, or b) a divine presence.

Well, here we disagree. I'll have to argue this point later

This is of course similar to the Christian idea of why the epistles are so void of the human Jesus. But don't you think that if they were trying to "uproot Christ from his fleshly background" that they still would have to make some mention of that fleshly background? Something like: "Those Jesus preached to did not see beyond his flesh, but we know he really is of heaven, and was always thus!" That would have been the kind of teaching people needed, to see that Jesus was not just another wandering miracleworking preacher. Another statement one could have expected is: "While the Gods of the Greeks walked this earth in some time unknown, relying upon dubious witnesses to testify, our Jesus walked amongst us, and his witnesses are everywhere.

As to Gerhardsson putting paid to Doherty, I'll have to await my reading of the former's work. But I cannot see how he'd avoid the problem of all the tradition found in the Epistles being unattributed to Jesus or the disciples (indeed occasionally being specifically attributed to visions instead). That there are oral traditions that surface (unattributed) in the Epistles, and then later, in the Gospels, are attributed to Jesus, should make us sceptical, not impressed.

Niall Armstrong

But let's get on with Brunner instead! I think I need your help to define some of his terms. Please correct my attempts, but I'd be grateful if this could be done without merely refering back to Brunner's statements, as I find these difficult to understand at times.
May "equivalent cause" be defined as: Any historical development of signifance is necessarily based upon the inspiring Genius of a single person?
And may Genius be defined as: The unique Spirit that is incomprehensible by anyone of lesser Genius?

Otherwise, do you agree that MJ theory's primary foundation block is that the Gospel's are unreliable? (I'm not asking whether you or Brunner agree with this.) If you wish we may discuss whether the Gospels are reliable or not a little later.

Doug Shaver

If the events in a narrative did not actually occur, and the author of the narrative knew they did not actually occur, then the narrative is either fiction or a lie, depending on whether the author of the narrative intended for his readers to think the events actually occurred.