No Robots

I appreciate greatly the common decency that you have consistently displayed, Niall. If all mythicists were like you, maybe I wouldn't see the whole thing in such a bad light. Nonetheless, I cannot say that I find your arguments persuasive in the least. I won't bother rebutting them: there are many others here who are more than able to engage you.

My reason for coming to this board was to spread the word about Brunner. Your willingness to read him is all I really desire. That he has left you unmoved is unfortunate, but I accept it with equanimity.

I have profited in many ways from the discussions that I have had on this board. My discussion with you has reaffirmed in my mind that Brunner provides a very simple remedy for all of our most grievous social ills. He writes:

One thing is certain: if society is once more to be set in motion in an essential way, the future will be just like the past: it will be in the hands, not of the learned, but of the ammé haaretz!

It was your contention that in your analysis the ammé haaretz "disappear" that made me reflect once again on Brunner's words. I believe that the social order of the future will be one founded on the mass of society's "losers" in alliance with the spiritual few against the perverted thinking of our institutional leadership. The fact is that neither the masses nor the spiritual few will ever embrace the idea that Christ is a mere myth. That leaves only the institutional leadership, ie., the academics, for the myth-peddlars to appeal to. But the more that the academics embrace this idea, the greater will be the polarization between them and masses. This is a dangerous situation for academics, and is probably the reason so few are willing to even address the issue. So the mythicists do serve a purpose in that they constantly remind the institutional élites of how precarious is their relationship with the great unwashed.

Niall Armstrong

Thank you for your kind words! A polite discussion has seldom done anyone any harm.  We’re all plagued by our own arrogance, but it should be disciplined for our own good.
I’m very sorry that you will not take the time required to argue against my statements. It could only be of benefit for the both of us. If you want a job done, it’s best to do it yourself. For my part I believe that if you truly set your mind to it, you’d see it my way. But then my arrogance is only bounded by politeness. :devil1: :angel: It’s up to you to set me right.
I hope, btw, that you realize that I’ve not been arguing FOR the MJ-theory, as that is best done by analysis of the Epistles, but AGAINST a specific argument against MJ-theory. The difference is vital, especially when it comes to persuasiveness.

Reading between the lines in the Appendix I see some premonition of Feyerabend’s theories of the practice of science, as well as a perspective on politics in science worthy of Foucault. If I was still studying philosophy I might have pursued these trails, but for the moment this is not so pressing. I do hope to come across him more often!
But if this was your only reason for coming to the IIDB, I have to, in all friendliness, say shame on you. This is a place for open debate, which should be done in a spirit of curiosity and (let’s be frank) vindictiveness. If the texts of Brunner have become sacrosanct for you, then you cannot expect to gain anything here. I can see Brunner has many qualities, but I don’t think even he would have thought the growth of knowledge ended with himself (though, what with his Hegelian background, I’m not certain of this.)
If you are able to be critical of Brunner when he makes mistakes, it might make it easier for the rest of us to accept that the other parts are worthy of notice.
But I’ve been wondering about one thing: How much of Doherty have you read?

Curious quote. Sympathetic, what with the bottom-up approach. But in one sense as contradictory as Marx-Leninism. By the mere necessity of stating this, he may recruit an elite who see it as their duty to bring forth the revolution. The avant-guard of the amme-haaretz, if you will. And that wouldn’t be a proper revolution, would it now. The origins in Hegelianism is certainly not coincidental!
In part I must agree with you: MJ-theory is a hard sell. In fact, I can hardly see how any Christian would be convinced by it, as their faith makes any miracle more likely than anything that contradicts that faith. But we have other means to deconvert Christians. And many other truths out there have struggled likewise (Imagine how hard it must have been to overcome the prejudices against a heliocentric cosmos!). Education works wonders, and even quantum mechanics is gaining ground in popular culture. The relationship between academia and the great unwashed, troubled as it necessarily may be, is in the long run not served by untruth.

I believe you (and perhaps Brunner) may be guilty of a sin Bertrand Russell detected in Plato: In order to support a moral foundation any arguments against that moral system had to be wrong. But truth must necessarily come before morals (and thereby also social issues), because if you base morals on untruth, not only will the system inevitably lead to contradictions, but when those contradictions become apparent, the morals will be demonstrably hollow.
Thankfully philosophical moral systems of today are, in general, not based on universals, but on relatives (having to do with relations, between human and human, human and animals, human and earth, human and society, society and society, etc). Of which “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you” is probably the earliest established principle (and should be seen as in no sense Christian!). This means that we can pursue truth in history independently of morals, and if this impinges on moral and social issues, then it doesn’t override the moral argument. So your social argument is in no sense dependent upon there being a Christ. And Brunner’s deflation of racist arguments against a Jewish Jesus is valid independently of the probable fact that there was no Jesus. (Nice to end with a little paradox!)

Niall Armstrong

And we never really got to grips with "Equivalent Cause"!

No Robots

The truth of thinking is not teachable--Brunner

I just can't see anywhere that he is wrong. There are of course foibles, but nothing that touches the truth of his thought.

I've tried. I really have. But the crapola mixed with the horrible style makes it impossible for me to read. I did make a special effort with the footnote on the Ebionites, who are the remnants of Christ's original amme haaretz followership. Doherty's contorted argument that these are "rejudaizers" is just unspeakably dumb.

The problem with Marxist revolution is that it tends toward absolute materialism, losing sight of the crucial role of the spiritual elite. The true avant-garde of the Russian revolution were the mystics, artists and philosophers; not the party apparatchiks.


The academics of every age tend to serve whatever seems to have popular assent. One hundred years ago it was scientific racism. We are now in an interregnum between cultural delusions. My intention is to block any attempt to reimpose any such delusion. I see Christ mythicism as the most dangerous of these attempts.

Have you looked at anything Brunner says about morals? In his view, Christ is absolutely crucial to human welfare precisely because he presents the one absolutely incontravertible critique of morals.

I didn't mean that our whole discussion is necessarily over. I just don't want it to descend into the usual Doherty-centered debate that fills so many threads around here. If you absolutely insist that I go over that whole "markdidit" crapola, I will. But I am curious about one thing. You wrote:

Ok, let’s say that all the speeches in Q are spoken by Jesus, even when he is talking of the coming of the Son of Man.

Is this actually what Doherty says, what mythicists in generally support? If so, we're not so far apart it seems.

No Robots

I guess the time has come for me to say exactly why I do not find Doherty's arguments regarding Christian origins at all convincing. The reason is that I have seen precisely the same phenomena as described in the standard accounts of Christian origins at work in the sphere of Brunner's followership.

First off, there has been from the outset much splintering among Brunner's followers. Yes, there is a greater unity, but there are still acrimony and divisiveness. There are even "heretics." And this all while Brunner still lived.

Now, as far as Paul is concerned, I can totally identify with his experience. Finding Our Christ and reading it was my vision on the road to Damascus. It completely changed the direction of my life. I recognize in none of Brunner's followers a better understanding of his thought than mine. He and I are of one mind. Some of Brunner's disciples, by translating and publishing his work, allowed me to hear his voice. But it was his voice that I heard, not that of his disciples.

I could not care less about the details of Brunner's fleshly existence. It is his thought that consumes me. Others may write his biography, but I just want to communicate his thought.

When I communicate with my fellow Brunnerians, I have no interest in Brunner per se, but only in his historical significance. For evidence of this, see my presentation to the International Constantin Brunner Institute. One of those "who were esteemed to be pillars" asked me, "Where is Brunner in all this?" And indeed, anyone who read that paper could ask the same question. My response is that Brunner himself is the "given" of our shared life, and that, among us, we need not tarry on the details of his life or even of his thought.

So I do see the standard interpretation of Christian origins as consistent with my lived experience.

(Btw, if anyone is interested, I have completed a schema that maps the key events in intellectual history as I understand them.)

jakejonesiv

You are a True Blue Brunner believer!!

No Robots

Yup. It's a problem for us Brunnerians. We appear very uncritical. But every time I think about criticizing Brunner, I just have to laugh. He's got me beat. When I'm reading him, it's like I'm reading a diagnostic report about... me. The only way to wriggle out would be to say, "Well, this is all bullshit. This doesn't ring true with me at all." But that, my friend, would be a lie; and I know it.

jakejonesiv

Best wishes to you!

Niall Armstrong

Got to have sympathy with that, as the :banghead: symbol seems very prevalent on these pages.... But that statement does, in itself, make us wonder what this (supposed) Jesus was thinking, relying on his (supposedly) stupid disciples to pass on his .... teaching.
I suppose I in one sense agree with this. It's true in the sense that a teacher cannot do the job on his own. The pupil has to have some ability, and, more than anything, a will to learn.

I suppose I'll just have to find out for myself if I agree with this....

The Ebionites are a tricky phenomenon. There's so many theories and possibilities and so little source material. I'm not sure if Doherty has got it right yet. But it doesn't really impinge on his argument (which is, surprise surprise, based upon the soundest historical material in the NT: the Epistles). This is not the place to discuss style, but... so I won't!

Well, it was you that challenged Doherty himself to answer Brunner's points. So I'm afraid he kind of has to be dragged up once in a while. Kind of like Brunner, too
As to the quote above, try reading it again, in context! I'm sorry if it disappoints you, but my advice is to make lemonade.

I see Jake has already taken you to task regarding being a Brunner-believer. I thought I'd add another quote from one of my favourite philosophers, Bertrand Russel:

"In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held."

I think both Brunner and Doherty (though no philosopher) deserves this treatment.

Niall Armstrong

But let’s get back to Brunner’s “equivalent cause”!
In one sense it is impossible to argue with EC, since he insists that however little evidence exists he still would believe that there was an originator of Genius. What’s the point of discussing evidence, then? This in itself should make people wary of Brunner’s concept. But let’s try to make it work!

Now I find the concept of Genius attractive (Don’t we all find this aristocratic notion indicative of our own powers. ), and for the sake of the argument I’ll go along with it (though in our democratic times it is generally not so popular).
Since Brunner brings forth Wilhelm Tell (whom I believe is mythical, but this is of course pointless to discuss as well) I’ll try to bring up the founding mythology of another great state. Others may disagree with me that the USA is a state of Genius (though I expect no-one will argue about Switzerland….), but I’ve always at least found its founding myths attractive, perhaps due to their historicity. But there I find not a single man of Genius, but many. Thomas Jefferson may stand as the (foremost) writer of the Constitution, while George Washington is not merely the military hero, but also the first president, who functioned as a unifying figure during a difficult period. Benjamin Franklin, Madison, Addams: the list goes on, and I’m probably forgetting some. The most mythological hero is probably Paul Revere. I’m not sure how Brunner would relate to this exposition, but I imagine his theories might be compatible with it. Why shouldn’t the equivalent cause be a collection of individuals? Cannot a partnership of Genius arise, much like the partnership of Romulus & Remus, The Dioscuri, Coleridge & Wordsworth, Lennon & McCartney, Nixon & Kissinger (best stop there :devil1: )?

Now then, how about the misattribution of Genius? Norway’s medieval laws were frequently attributed to the Saint-King Olav, which was natural considering the “perfect” nature of the laws. But historical records show that he was no law-giver, and the laws were both older and younger than him. Should then the myth of the laws be used as proof of Olav’s Genius? Or should we abandon the search for the true law-makers?

And lastly: the creation of a person to fulfill the role of Genius. Is this even a possibility according to Brunner?