Freethought & Rationalism Archive

newtype_alpha · 12-01-2004, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killer Mike

I think most scholars agree Jesus did exist but that Gospel writers incorporated many mythological themes into their stories. The Gospels are neither biographies nor historical narratives. They were written after the failure of the first Jewish revolt and are a reflection of how Christians were dealing with that (Christianity was still a part of Judiasm at the time) and the fact that the Kingdom of God had not come after his execution. The followers of Jesus were expecting the world would come to an end soon and God would come with all his glory shortly after his death. This is why Paul was so aggressive in his ministry teaching in so many places in such a short time. I guess my question is whether or not Professor Thompson believes that there never was an historical Jesus, or mearly that we can never discover the historical Jesus because there is so much mythology incorporated into the Gospels?

If most scholars agree to that, personally I agree with most scholars. "Jesus the man" is not the same person as "Jesus the legend," in fact even in modern times we seem to have some of that same mythological "hero worship" fudging facts with fluffly little rhetoric (I'm still running into people in their mid 30s who think that Christopher Columbus was the one who figured out that the world was round.)

Not to mention, the later in date a gospel was written, the more fanciful and mystical its interpretation of Christ.

2000 years from now they'll be saying that Neil Armstrong flew to the moon on a golden rocket chair that God built for him, where he landed and founded the Lunar Catholic Church with Saint Aldrin and the first Reverend Micheal Collins :wave:

Celsus · 12-01-2004, 08:04 AM

T.L. Thompson is picking some fine targets eh? It was bound to be covered eventually by him, after all, he's already fired off salvos against Plato and so on. Be carefuly though: he never explicitly denies the existence of anyone, but he will tell you that the stories about those people are certainly made up. Unfortunately, I feel Thompson is one of the least rigorous among the minimalists... It would have been a lot better if Lemche or Davies had a shot at it. Hopefully though, this book will at least have footnotes and references.

Joel

andrewcriddle · 12-01-2004, 08:35 AM

The claim about Thompson on Amazon

Quote:

Thompson argues that the quest for the historical Jesus is beside the point, since the Jesus of the Gospels never existed.

is so worded that it could cover a wide variety of positions from the trivially obvious (ie parallel to the claim 'The Emperor Tiberius of Tacitus never existed but is a literary construction ') to the highly controversial.

Is Thompson arguing that the historical facts underlying the Gospels cannot be recovered or that the most plausible reconstruction of those facts does not include any real-life equivalent of Jesus ?

Andrew Criddle

Intelligitimate · 12-01-2004, 09:52 AM

I tried emailing Thompson, but the email gave in the link isn't valid; I got a failure to deliver notification.

Toto · 12-01-2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intelligitimate

Very interesting! Now I feel compelled to take his Myth of Israel off the shelf and read it.

The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel

Ted Hoffman · 12-02-2004, 10:18 PM

You know, Celsus, on your provocation, I have abandoned my pet project for the past few days and have been reading about anti-reality, representationalism, Gustav Drosyen's Uberreste and Bericht, Lemche's take of topoi, circular logic and so on wrt the historical-critical method.

And damn, there is a lot of work to be done as Vork pointed out to Doherty in Jesus Mysteries in terms of historiography etc.

From your posts, it appears that you believe that David existed.
Lemche says:
a) The empire of David and Solomon is based on a fictional representation of the past.
b) The status of Jerusalem in 10 cent BCE, a village/small town, supports (a) above.

Do you agree with Lemche on this? If so, how do you separate David from the empire associated with him?

Chris Weimer · 12-03-2004, 12:43 AM

I guess I take the least radical part, I don't think that David/Solomon never existed, but nearly everything about them is fictional. Of course, I don't take the Stele as proof of David's existence, so right now I have zero proof. Of course, everything is based on something.

Alf · 12-03-2004, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

Y
And damn, there is a lot of work to be done as Vork pointed out to Doherty in Jesus Mysteries in terms of historiography etc.

Care to give a link to whatever vork wrote concerning Doherty?

I'd be interested. I read the Jesus Puzzle stuff that I found on the net and found it fairly convincing.

But then, I am no expert.

Alf

Celsus · 12-03-2004, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

And damn, there is a lot of work to be done as Vork pointed out to Doherty in Jesus Mysteries in terms of historiography etc.

Could I get a link to this? Of course I agree with Vork that there's a lot of work to be done.

Quote:

From your posts, it appears that you believe that David existed.

Where have I ever said he existed? As I've made clear, the Biblical David never existed, a David behind the redactions might have, or else he might not have. Barely anything can be ruled out except the most literal figure--that's the problem of underdetermination for you.

Quote:

Do you agree with Lemche on this?

Yes.

Quote:

If so, how do you separate David from the empire associated with him?

What empire?

Joel

Chris Weimer · 12-03-2004, 02:03 PM

There was never an empire.

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

12-01-2004, 08:04 AM	#12
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	T.L. Thompson is picking some fine targets eh? It was bound to be covered eventually by him, after all, he's already fired off salvos against Plato and so on. Be carefuly though: he never explicitly denies the existence of anyone, but he will tell you that the stories about those people are certainly made up. Unfortunately, I feel Thompson is one of the least rigorous among the minimalists... It would have been a lot better if Lemche or Davies had a shot at it. Hopefully though, this book will at least have footnotes and references. Joel

12-01-2004, 09:52 AM	#14
Intelligitimate Banned Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 464	I tried emailing Thompson, but the email gave in the link isn't valid; I got a failure to deliver notification.

12-02-2004, 10:18 PM	#16
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	You know, Celsus, on your provocation, I have abandoned my pet project for the past few days and have been reading about anti-reality, representationalism, Gustav Drosyen's Uberreste and Bericht, Lemche's take of topoi, circular logic and so on wrt the historical-critical method. And damn, there is a lot of work to be done as Vork pointed out to Doherty in Jesus Mysteries in terms of historiography etc. From your posts, it appears that you believe that David existed. Lemche says: a) The empire of David and Solomon is based on a fictional representation of the past. b) The status of Jerusalem in 10 cent BCE, a village/small town, supports (a) above. Do you agree with Lemche on this? If so, how do you separate David from the empire associated with him?

12-03-2004, 12:43 AM	#17
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I guess I take the least radical part, I don't think that David/Solomon never existed, but nearly everything about them is fictional. Of course, I don't take the Stele as proof of David's existence, so right now I have zero proof. Of course, everything is based on something.

12-03-2004, 02:03 PM	#20
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	There was never an empire.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.