Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-26-2008, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

...
Atheist writer Michael Arnheim: "... Jesus' execution was clearly the cause of acute embarrassment to his followers, so much so that it is impossible to believe that it could have been invented by any of them."
t

Is this the source of the alleged quote?

Is Christianity True? (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Michael Arnheim.

spamandham · 10-26-2008, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Please, before you continue, consider reading Talbert. If you do, I think you'll drop this argument.

That isn't what he says at all. His analysis of the hero biography describes the purpose of such works, and the motivations of the authors. The purpose and motivation had nothing to do with recording history. That doesn't mean they *can't* contain actual history, but it does mean there is no reason to suppose that they do.

So analyzing them as if they were legends, which is what you are doing, is not going to work, because you've started with the wrong genre. To the extent the Gospels contain any actual history, it's just dumb luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

As a non-Christian, I simply propose that the NT be analyzed like any other set of human documents promoting an agenda.

We do not analyze poetry the same way we analyze chemistry texts. To analyze a text, you must first know and understand the genre. That's the failure you're making here. You've started by assuming the authors were attempting to record history. They flat out weren't.

teamonger · 10-27-2008, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

There is no reason to suppose he was recording an oral tradition. Considering the depth of OT allusions used within Mark - that vast swaths are constructed from the OT - an oral tradition is almost out of the question.

I don't know why an oral tradition would necessarily exclude allusions to supposed OT prophecy. If his followers thought he was the Jewish messiah, the development of such allusions in the tradition would be inevitable. Such allusions could grow over time, as we see in the more overt Matthew. And if Jesus thought of himself as the messiah (debatable), he might have been the first to promote the idea of finding himself in the OT.

Quote:

Talbert is not a mythicist. He's very much mainstream.

Okay. Well I've learned that he certainly isn't recent either. I found his online Google book which I'm perusing. I find him a tough read so far; seems highly intent on categorizing, on placing the gospels into a genre. I see no reason to think the gospels have to fit any preconceived genre; they could easily be a wholly new one. Further, even if gospel accounts were consciously adapted to the form of a known genre, that would not of necessity make them completely invalid as history.

But I'll keep reading Talbert as long as I can stand him...
t

teamonger · 10-27-2008, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

I'm not sure why you get to define what a NT historian is.

As far as I can see, there is no such thing as a "NT historian". The new testament is a literary text that has been ascribed as having information that refers to events that actually happened. Except for a few frills, none of it has been shown to represent anything that happened. What we have with historical Jesus people is merely text manipulation. (I don't like this bit... Hmm, but that bit's still ok.)

A historian is someone who tries to clarify what happened in the past based on evidence a more or less objective audience can verify.

That's a fair definition, and seems to me that's what most NT historians do (with the exception of those who spin their own tales). I suppose if one has decided already that nothing in the NT happened, one might find historical analysis useless. But I think it pays to be open-minded about these things.

Quote:

Grant, in dealing with classical subjects was a historian. One of the verifiable sources he tended to use was numismatic data. (I don't know why Grant bothered to leave his comfort zone and meddle in the historical quagmire surrounding the nt.)

Perhaps he was just being a brave fellow...

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

But if you think Grant is, here's what he says on this topic:

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth .... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms .... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary. -- Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels"

Relevance? I merely commented on who was and who was not a historian.
spin

Well, this thread is about whether Jesus was a myth; this is one historian's view on the matter.
t

teamonger · 10-27-2008, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

No, you have it backwards. I accept that Jesus existed, because that's what the evidence indicates to me.

Atheist writer Michael Arnheim: "... Jesus' execution was clearly the cause of acute embarrassment to his followers, so much so that it is impossible to believe that it could have been invented by any of them."
t

It is NOT true that you have accepted the Jesus of the NT.

The information provided by the NT and Church writers indicates that Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews, conceived through the Holy Ghost, and ascended through the clouds when he was supposed to be dead.

All you have done is accept as true whatever you think is plausible and have rejected whatever you think is implausible.

But, what you have continuously failed to understand is that every event with respect to Jesus was regarded as plausible or entirely credible when it was written.

The conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost was just as plausible or believeable as the crucifixion or the Last Supper.

The transfiguration of Jesus was just as plausible or credible as preaching in a synagogue.

You have identified fiction in the NT, and you are using your imagination to fabricate another Jesus not found anywhere in the NT that cannot be supported by the NT, Church fathers or external non-apologetic sources.

Your Jesus is not in the NT.

You have rejected the plausible and credible conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost, the credible and believeable temptation story of Jesus, the credible baptism where the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like doves, the credible transfiguration, the credible miracles of Jesus, the most credible ressurection and ascension of Jesus, and the truth that Jesus is in heaven.

It is not true that you have accepted the Jesus of the NT.

Never said I did "accept the Jesus of the NT". That's what fundamentalists do. As you say, I have accepted some things as plausible and rejected other things as implausible. I find things like the crucifixion far more epistemically probable than the transfiguration, or the virgin birth. If you say all these things are equally plausible and credible, I find your view mystifying. Why must it be all or nothing?

No, I have not used my imagination to fabricate anything about Jesus; some authors certainly do, but I mostly find their speculations tedious.
t

teamonger · 10-27-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

I accept that Jesus existed, because that's what the evidence indicates to me.

What evidence? All that exists are the self-serving documents of his fan club and even these have been edited down through the ages.

Like most mainstream historians, I happen to think those documents can be critically evaluated using careful criteria, so that some valid evidence can be extracted.
t

aa5874 · 10-27-2008, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

It is NOT true that you have accepted the Jesus of the NT.

The information provided by the NT and Church writers indicates that Jesus was the son of the God of the Jews, conceived through the Holy Ghost, and ascended through the clouds when he was supposed to be dead.

All you have done is accept as true whatever you think is plausible and have rejected whatever you think is implausible.

But, what you have continuously failed to understand is that every event with respect to Jesus was regarded as plausible or entirely credible when it was written.

The conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost was just as plausible or believeable as the crucifixion or the Last Supper.

The transfiguration of Jesus was just as plausible or credible as preaching in a synagogue.

You have identified fiction in the NT, and you are using your imagination to fabricate another Jesus not found anywhere in the NT that cannot be supported by the NT, Church fathers or external non-apologetic sources.

Your Jesus is not in the NT.

You have rejected the plausible and credible conception of Jesus through the Holy Ghost, the credible and believeable temptation story of Jesus, the credible baptism where the Holy Ghost entered Jesus like doves, the credible transfiguration, the credible miracles of Jesus, the most credible ressurection and ascension of Jesus, and the truth that Jesus is in heaven.

It is not true that you have accepted the Jesus of the NT.

Never said I did "accept the Jesus of the NT". That's what fundamentalists do. As you say, I have accepted some things as plausible and rejected other things as implausible. I find things like the crucifixion far more epistemically probable than the transfiguration, or the virgin birth. If you say all these things are equally plausible and credible, I find your view mystifying. Why must it be all or nothing?

No, I have not used my imagination to fabricate anything about Jesus; some authors certainly do, but I mostly find their speculations tedious.
t

Again, you have failed to understand that all the stories about Jesus in the NT were regarded not only as plausible but as true in antiquity.

Why have you chosen the crucifixion, it was no more plausible than the conception of Jesus or the resurrection and ascension?

You reject his birth, yet you imagine his crucifixion is true, and this you do without any evidence, knowning fully well that the authors wrote fiction about Jesus.

You can be mistaken for a fundamentalist, you believe Jesus was crucified by faith.

Petergdi · 10-27-2008, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

I see no reason to think the gospels have to fit any preconceived genre; they could easily be a wholly new one. Further, even if gospel accounts were consciously adapted to the form of a known genre, that would not of necessity make them completely invalid as history.

t

A generation ago there was a very common view that the Gospels were sui generis. In favour of this view is that nothing else really looks quite like the Gospels. But there is a big problem - if there is nothing quite like them, how was anyone supposed to know what to make of them? Thus there is discussion of what genre they most resemble.

If you look at particular parts of the Gospels, things get easier:

It is pretty easy to see what sort of thing a parable is - a parable is intended to teach a lesson and not to tell of an actual event (even though it may sometimes happen that an actual event inspired the parable).

The voice from heaven at Jesus' baptism is a fairly common feature of Jewish stories, and we never normally take the presence of the Bath Kol as indicating any lack of historical intent in telling the story in which the voice appears.

It is a bit harder to figure out miracle stories because it is quite clear that the writers really did see miracles as things that could happen. Even if we have really strong doubts about such things the writers may really have intended them as recording historical events. Many ancient works that we take to be mostly history include miracle stories. But Jesus has a lot of miracles ascribed to him in the Gospels and some of them seem to be intended to teach a particular lesson.

Peter.

spin · 10-27-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As far as I can see, there is no such thing as a "NT historian". The new testament is a literary text that has been ascribed as having information that refers to events that actually happened. Except for a few frills, none of it has been shown to represent anything that happened. What we have with historical Jesus people is merely text manipulation. (I don't like this bit... Hmm, but that bit's still ok.)

A historian is someone who tries to clarify what happened in the past based on evidence a more or less objective audience can verify.

That's a fair definition,

Fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

and seems to me that's what most NT historians do (with the exception of those who spin their own tales). I suppose if one has decided already that nothing in the NT happened, one might find historical analysis useless. But I think it pays to be open-minded about these things.

It doesn't work that way. You must start with known information. History cannot be built on total ignorance. So, if you can find a way of confirming some of the central material in the gospels, then you might be able to give a "more or less objective audience" something they can verify.

As of this date, nothing but assumption has been proffered -- from what I've seen. The historical Jesus movement is based not on evidence but assumption: there was a historical Jesus. The assumption may be true, but so far no way of knowing has ever been demonstrated. So, as far as we know it could all be a mountain of bunkum. Paul and his converts didn't need a historical Jesus. As a matter of fact, nobody needed one until the notion was devised relatively recently. Belief in Jesus was sufficient. Almost two millennia of belief is a substitute for historical evidence in most places except scholarly analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Perhaps he was just being a brave fellow...

Being brave usually cashes out to lacking anything better to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Quote:

Relevance? I merely commented on who was and who was not a historian.
spin

Well, this thread is about whether Jesus was a myth; this is one historian's view on the matter.

I.e. it had nothing to do with the problem of "who was and who was not a historian" and you took the opportunity to disseminate some of Grant's more questionable opinions. It might make sense to you, but it has nothing to do with what I said to you and is irrelevant to your response to me on the issue.

spin

neilgodfrey · 10-27-2008, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

I see no reason to think the gospels have to fit any preconceived genre; they could easily be a wholly new one. Further, even if gospel accounts were consciously adapted to the form of a known genre, that would not of necessity make them completely invalid as history.

Genre cannot ever by itself indicate the historical or factual truth of its contents. Genre is a medium, not the content. We'd like to think it happens no more often than the cases exposed, but the academic genre of the scholarly peer-reviewed publication has sometimes been used to perpetrate fraudulent content. The genre of biography, ditto. And there are histories that are known to have had no sounder basis than mythical tradition.

The medium only becomes the message when psychological tricks and manipulations, intentional or otherwise, are at play.

Neil

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.