Toto

I'm going to call it a night.

I will just note that Alan Dundes appears in Brian Flemmings "The God Who Wasn't There," so I don't know that he agrees with your interpretation of his work.

And if the oral tradition could pass on a virgin birth narrative, why not a crucified savior? (I assume that Luke read Matthew, so there's no need to postulate some oral transmission.) There's still no necessary historical core.

Solitary Man

You'll need to show that Luke read Matthew. Exploring the Farrer-Goulder-Goodacre theory even more in depth, I've actually been dissuaded of literary dependence. How are your synoptic studies? And what particular interpretation of Dundes do you think, if he were alive, he'd dispute?

gurugeorge

These have all been seriously questioned as to validity and even relevance.

Judging by your degree of vociferousness, I think I see what you are doing. My guess is that you are a rationalist who is afraid that the rationalist/atheist line of argument will get tainted by what you see (perhaps) as a distraction foisted by the "woo woo" people who support mythicism.

But only some of the people on the mythicist side could be classed as "woo woo". There are also rationalist humanists like Doherty, rationalist Communists like R G Price, even rationalist "neocons" like Robert Price, etc. And before that, in the late 19th century, when the idea first arose in the NT studies camp itself (and a lot of those guys' stuff still hasn't even been touched by orthodox scholarship - I'm talking about the Tubingen and Dutch "Radicals"), it wasn't connected with the "woo woo" either.

The mythicist idea is not something that just comes from the "woo woo" camp (although it does come from that camp too); it's something that people of all sorts of intellectual persuasions and levels have noticed and are investigating.

I can only think that something like this must be behind the degree of vehemence you have about this. I've noticed it before with other rationalist atheist HJ-ers, like Chris Weimer. It's not enough for you guys to just have a bit of fun arguing about it - something deeper is going on, one has the sense that you think there's a lot at stake.

aa5874

The Jesus in Josephus was some kind of a supernatural being, he raised himsellf from the dead after three days. There is no iinformation about his other real death, he must have ascended to heaven or just vanished wihout a trace. And when was this Jesus born, how old was he when he was resurrected and on which day was he crucified.

In Josephus, this Jesus did ten thousand other wonderful things, that is, in addition to his resurrection, yet there is no mention of one real wonderful event of history with this being called Jesus in the entire works of Josephus.

And if this Jesus is the same as the Jesus of the NT, his father is the Holy Ghost.

Doug Shaver

That depends on whom your answer is intended to educate.

Solitary Man

I have no idea what "woo woo" is.

ktsai

I'm very new to this and am still doing my own studies on it, but I was referred to some articles written by R.G. Price by a member of this board. Price has written a very well thought out piece on the Jesus Myth I thought might be of some interest to people that have not read it.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

gurugeorge

It means nutty, eccentric, believers in oddball ideas, that kind of thing, it's a term commonly used on rationalist and sceptical boards like this so it's surprising you haven't come across it.

So, my point is, not all the people who believe MJ are as "woo woo" as, say, Freke and Gandy or Acharya S, who have their own axes to grind. Doherty himself is a straightforward humanist rationalist, etc., etc. - so no need to fear that good arguments against religion will be derailed by bad arguments that are tainted by association with crazy people (as one might say).

aa5874

Well, tell us about your Yeshua or Jesus. How old was he when he resurrected according to the "TF"?

Amaleq13

That is simply false. All versions of the story quite explicitly set the story in history and depict the characters interacting with a known historical figure. At the very least, that constitutes an effort to "pretend to be history". The author of Luke goes beyond that and explicitly copies the style of histories.