Freethought & Rationalism Archive

chapka · 02-26-2004, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
This quote by James D. G. Dunn in his work Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, sums it up: 'Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels�The fact that 'myth' even appears here as a subject related to the study of Jesus and the Gospels can be attributed almost entirely to the use of the term by two NT scholars' [Bultmann, Strauss]

Great! Now tell us why he says this, what definition of "myth" he's using, and what his qualifications are.

Expert testimony isn't admissible without authentification, you know. And it's not admissible unless it's relevant. And it's subject to cross-examination.

All you've really said so far is, "Someone agrees with me." And you haven't even given us enough of a quote to establish that.

Cross Examiner · 02-26-2004, 02:50 PM

Not surprisingly, my point is being missed. It is apparent to me that y'all want to do away with the petty banter and have a full-fledged debate. Ok then, let's have one then. It is my understanding that Mageth wishes to affirm the proposition that the Gospels are rightly classified as 'myth'. I'll take the negative position. I'm possibly open to taking the affirmative position that the Gospels are rightly classified as 'Hellenistic Biography', or something parallel like 'Greco-Roman Biography', with Mageth taking the negative position. Either way, per popular demand, we'll assume no initial burden of proof. We�ll want to identify terms and procedure beforehand in addition to simple delineations like distinguishing John from the Synoptics, Historie from Geschichte, Form from Source criticism etc. Mageth, let me know your opinion on things. Once that much is settled, one of us will then open a thread at BC&H or FD&D, as agreement dictates.

Regards,
BGic

Mageth · 02-26-2004, 03:18 PM

Not surprisingly, my point is being missed.

I'm not exactly sure what "point" you're talking about, but in any case I (and others) have raised valid objections to your "points".

It is apparent to me that y'all want to do away with the petty banter and have a full-fledged debate. Ok then, let's have one then.

Well, an actual discussion, with both sides actually presenting valid arguments for their side, would be nice.

It is my understanding that Mageth wishes to affirm the proposition that the Gospels are rightly classified as 'myth'.

I thought I had made it clear that that is your interpretation of what I'm affirming. What I've actually affirmed is that "it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth". See my previous post for more.

Mageth, let me know your opinion on things. Once that much is settled, one of us will then open a thread at BC&H or FD&D, as agreement dictates.

Personally, I'd prefer if this discussion was just moved en masse to BC&H with the possible title "Is it correct to clasify the Gospels as myth?". I don't have the time or inclination for a formal debate, and input from others more versed in Biblical criticism than me would be nice. In fact, my work is really too busy right now for me to even be posting here. I'll be in deep shit if I don't hop to it. Plus, I think I've pretty much said what I want to say about the subject, but it would be nice to see what some of the BC&H denizens have to say.

Cross Examiner · 02-26-2004, 03:28 PM

Mageth,

Quote:

Personally, I'd prefer if this discussion was just moved en masse to BC&H with the possible title "Is it correct to clasify the Gospels as myth?". I don't have the time or inclination for a formal debate, and input from others more versed in Biblical criticism than me would be nice. In fact, my work is really too busy right now for me to even be posting here. I'll be in deep shit if I don't hop to it.

OK. I don't want you to get in trouble.

Quote:

Plus, I think I've pretty much said what I want to say about the subject, but it would be nice to see what some of the BC&H denizens have to say.

Sure. If not you, then another.

chapka,
You seem bright enough and you apparently have a vested interest. Do you want to pick up for Mageth and do this for real? It'd be the same deal. Let me know.

Regards,
BGic

Hedwig · 02-26-2004, 09:45 PM

I have to agree that this is a far better fit for BC&H. Good discussion, though.

Hedwig
Moderator M&PC

gsx1138 · 02-27-2004, 10:30 AM

I'm betting that unlike a lot of people here I've actually seen the movie. I thought it was very good. This movie is not going to change anyones mind; only reinforce already held beliefs. In fact, I really felt sorry for Jesus at the end because almost all of his followers now have turned into raving zealots which runs in stark contrast to him. I will admit that I teared up when they went to his mother and I felt the most connected to her throughout the movie (may be my Pagan side coming out).

Now, I don't mind violence in movies but this was bad. However, it ended up being a waste. By the time Jesus actually went up on the cross it had zero affect on me. In what could have been a very powerful moment it got turned to, meh. Superb acting and costuming. Overall, it was a good movie even if it did leave me with the belief that Jesus sacrifice wasn't that much of a sacrifice.

Toto · 02-27-2004, 10:45 AM

I think that it would be a consensus of the secular members of this forum, as well as many liberal Christians, that the gospels have very little if any historical material in them, and there is no methodology for extracting that historical material.

I have never seen an argument that the gospels are Hellenistic biographies - they do not look like biographies, they do not have clear dates, etc. The author of Luke appears to have tried to add some trappings to (his or her) gospel and to the Acts of the Apostles to make them look a little like Hellenistic history, but most scholars without a vested interest do not see them as history. Acts has been described as a Hellenistic novel-adventure story.

I think that most of us here have exhausted the topic. I think it is up to someone asserting that the gospels are history to make that case - it has not been made.

MortalWombat · 02-27-2004, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gsx1138
In fact, I really felt sorry for Jesus at the end because almost all of his followers now have turned into raving zealots...

You mean like Mel?

Family Man · 02-27-2004, 01:36 PM

Actually, as someone who studied history in college, Mageth is not far off. About the only complaint I have about his methodology in determining historicity is that contradictions in and of themselves do not make an event ahistorical. As Nomad once pointed out, there are a number of accounts of Caesar's murder that are contradictory. That doesn't mean he wasn't knifed to death.

Otherwise, he is pretty much right on. I've read quite a bit on historical reconstruction of Jesus's life, and scholars working in the critical historical tradition are quite blunt about the poor quality of historical material. The sources are late in date; they suffer from being written by believers who, demonstrably, added material to make their hero more impressive (consider the birth narratives and the flourishes added to the death scene), a common practice at the time. There's also the anonymity of the authors and some questionable historical details. Finally, add into the mix that history is about human events, not supernatural ones. The only reasonable conclusion is that it is much of the story of Jesus is mythological in character, along the lines that Mageth has laid out.

And, by the way, BGIC, there is a wealth of material to support the notion mentioned above. Aside from the Jesus Seminar (whose main crime appears to be actually -- gasp! -- voting on the authenticity of sayings) there are numerous other scholars -- E.P Sanders, Raymond Brown, John Meier, and Michael Grant who'll will tell you the same thing that Mageth and I are telling you. The gospel accounts are not history. Some history can be gleaned from them, but to say that they are trustworthy accounts of what happened simply ignores the methodology that historians actually use to make the claims that they do.

Mageth · 02-27-2004, 02:02 PM

About the only complaint I have about his methodology in determining historicity is that contradictions in and of themselves do not make an event ahistorical.

I agree, and of course do not use the contradictions in and of themselves to come to the conclusion that the gospels are ahistorical. I think I may have overstated the case for contradictions on the first page.

The most interesting thing about the contradictions, perhaps, is their use to illustrate the evolution of the "Jesus legend", if you will. In Resurrection: Myth or History?, Spong, I believe, points out how some of these contradictions (esp. in the resurrection account) may have ended up in the Gospels as the story evolved, and the possible reasons why the story was altered by the different Gospel writers (thus introducing the contradictions).

So it's perhaps a careful examination of the contradictions that are found in the Gospels, and consideration of the reasons the contradictions are there, that is what is convincing to me, not the contradictions themselves.

02-26-2004, 02:50 PM	#52
Cross Examiner Veteran Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Carlsbad, CA Posts: 1,881	OK, but I don't think you'll like the way this turns out Not surprisingly, my point is being missed. It is apparent to me that y'all want to do away with the petty banter and have a full-fledged debate. Ok then, let's have one then. It is my understanding that Mageth wishes to affirm the proposition that the Gospels are rightly classified as 'myth'. I'll take the negative position. I'm possibly open to taking the affirmative position that the Gospels are rightly classified as 'Hellenistic Biography', or something parallel like 'Greco-Roman Biography', with Mageth taking the negative position. Either way, per popular demand, we'll assume no initial burden of proof. We�ll want to identify terms and procedure beforehand in addition to simple delineations like distinguishing John from the Synoptics, Historie from Geschichte, Form from Source criticism etc. Mageth, let me know your opinion on things. Once that much is settled, one of us will then open a thread at BC&H or FD&D, as agreement dictates. Regards, BGic

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

02-26-2004, 03:18 PM	#53
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Not surprisingly, my point is being missed. I'm not exactly sure what "point" you're talking about, but in any case I (and others) have raised valid objections to your "points". It is apparent to me that y'all want to do away with the petty banter and have a full-fledged debate. Ok then, let's have one then. Well, an actual discussion, with both sides actually presenting valid arguments for their side, would be nice. It is my understanding that Mageth wishes to affirm the proposition that the Gospels are rightly classified as 'myth'. I thought I had made it clear that that is your interpretation of what I'm affirming. What I've actually affirmed is that "it is correct to classify the Gospels as myth". See my previous post for more. Mageth, let me know your opinion on things. Once that much is settled, one of us will then open a thread at BC&H or FD&D, as agreement dictates. Personally, I'd prefer if this discussion was just moved en masse to BC&H with the possible title "Is it correct to clasify the Gospels as myth?". I don't have the time or inclination for a formal debate, and input from others more versed in Biblical criticism than me would be nice. In fact, my work is really too busy right now for me to even be posting here. I'll be in deep shit if I don't hop to it. Plus, I think I've pretty much said what I want to say about the subject, but it would be nice to see what some of the BC&H denizens have to say.

02-26-2004, 09:45 PM	#55
Hedwig Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3,921	I have to agree that this is a far better fit for BC&H. Good discussion, though. Hedwig Moderator M&PC

02-27-2004, 10:30 AM	#56
gsx1138 Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Bremerton, Washington Posts: 379	I'm betting that unlike a lot of people here I've actually seen the movie. I thought it was very good. This movie is not going to change anyones mind; only reinforce already held beliefs. In fact, I really felt sorry for Jesus at the end because almost all of his followers now have turned into raving zealots which runs in stark contrast to him. I will admit that I teared up when they went to his mother and I felt the most connected to her throughout the movie (may be my Pagan side coming out). Now, I don't mind violence in movies but this was bad. However, it ended up being a waste. By the time Jesus actually went up on the cross it had zero affect on me. In what could have been a very powerful moment it got turned to, meh. Superb acting and costuming. Overall, it was a good movie even if it did leave me with the belief that Jesus sacrifice wasn't that much of a sacrifice.

02-27-2004, 10:45 AM	#57
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think that it would be a consensus of the secular members of this forum, as well as many liberal Christians, that the gospels have very little if any historical material in them, and there is no methodology for extracting that historical material. I have never seen an argument that the gospels are Hellenistic biographies - they do not look like biographies, they do not have clear dates, etc. The author of Luke appears to have tried to add some trappings to (his or her) gospel and to the Acts of the Apostles to make them look a little like Hellenistic history, but most scholars without a vested interest do not see them as history. Acts has been described as a Hellenistic novel-adventure story. I think that most of us here have exhausted the topic. I think it is up to someone asserting that the gospels are history to make that case - it has not been made.

02-27-2004, 01:36 PM	#59
Family Man Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Superior, CO USA Posts: 1,553	Actually, as someone who studied history in college, Mageth is not far off. About the only complaint I have about his methodology in determining historicity is that contradictions in and of themselves do not make an event ahistorical. As Nomad once pointed out, there are a number of accounts of Caesar's murder that are contradictory. That doesn't mean he wasn't knifed to death. Otherwise, he is pretty much right on. I've read quite a bit on historical reconstruction of Jesus's life, and scholars working in the critical historical tradition are quite blunt about the poor quality of historical material. The sources are late in date; they suffer from being written by believers who, demonstrably, added material to make their hero more impressive (consider the birth narratives and the flourishes added to the death scene), a common practice at the time. There's also the anonymity of the authors and some questionable historical details. Finally, add into the mix that history is about human events, not supernatural ones. The only reasonable conclusion is that it is much of the story of Jesus is mythological in character, along the lines that Mageth has laid out. And, by the way, BGIC, there is a wealth of material to support the notion mentioned above. Aside from the Jesus Seminar (whose main crime appears to be actually -- gasp! -- voting on the authenticity of sayings) there are numerous other scholars -- E.P Sanders, Raymond Brown, John Meier, and Michael Grant who'll will tell you the same thing that Mageth and I are telling you. The gospel accounts are not history. Some history can be gleaned from them, but to say that they are trustworthy accounts of what happened simply ignores the methodology that historians actually use to make the claims that they do.

02-27-2004, 02:02 PM	#60
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	About the only complaint I have about his methodology in determining historicity is that contradictions in and of themselves do not make an event ahistorical. I agree, and of course do not use the contradictions in and of themselves to come to the conclusion that the gospels are ahistorical. I think I may have overstated the case for contradictions on the first page. The most interesting thing about the contradictions, perhaps, is their use to illustrate the evolution of the "Jesus legend", if you will. In Resurrection: Myth or History?, Spong, I believe, points out how some of these contradictions (esp. in the resurrection account) may have ended up in the Gospels as the story evolved, and the possible reasons why the story was altered by the different Gospel writers (thus introducing the contradictions). So it's perhaps a careful examination of the contradictions that are found in the Gospels, and consideration of the reasons the contradictions are there, that is what is convincing to me, not the contradictions themselves.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.