Horatio Parker

No I don't. And I'm not the least bit interested in those details. Though it sounds to me as if your two groups are actually the same.

If the life and death of Jesus as son of God has meaning, is there no other way to express that meaning except through history?

Myself, if I consider Jesus as the mythological expression of the Platonic Form of the Good, Jesus makes sense to me philosophically. That idea has nothing to do with the HJ; HJ is irrelevant.

I'm not suggesting that we replace one myth with another; I'm suggesting that the real issues are those that the myths represent.

Doug Shaver

We do have a couple of fruitcakes who do a lot of posting, but I wouldn't say they dominate the forum.

In any case, "widely believed" is not equivalent to "known." It's a distinction that seems to elude entirely too many historicists.

spin

The same as most people's. I'm not a mythicist. If you refer to Paul, he never met Jesus, who is a logical necessity for how he understands the world, so if salvation comes from Jesus that entails a real Jesus who lived in this world and suffered all the worldly temptations but did not sin, in order to be a suitable proxy sacrifice for all sinners. This doesn't mean that the person Paul believes to be real was in fact real.

I don't give a shit about mythicism. I care about scholarship and responsibility. Historical evidence means more than showing that the Jesus of early christianity doesn't seem to be mythical to you.

He identifies when he was writing, ie in the 40s and perhaps 50s. That is very early. He shows no knowledge of the complexity of earthly traditions that developed about Jesus. Most scholars date the gospels well after Paul's time. That is reasonable given that they reflect a lot of organization, as against the simple christian world of Paul.

Can you cite any non-christian analysts who have published evidence for a dating of Acts?

I don't see any evidence from what you've said.

Only if you don't want to read him in his context.

There were two questions. And your hedging is no response.

Only if one isn't interested in the reliability of one's sources.

Reading Paul requires an eye always on the maintainers of the text and their agendas.

You are supposed to deal with what is said to you rather than the old bait and switch.

You are overinterpreting the text. This is eisegesis, not exegesis.

And people believed that Zeus walked the earth, having intercourse with real women. Belief is not the basis of history.


So you're going to try to cite Human Psychology 101 here....

Well, you are with the baiting and shifting.

Actually the apostles didn't believe the classical sources preserved by christian scribes.

Exactly which views are you referring to?

It's very hard for you to respond without trying to change the topic, isn't it?

I responded to your post because you seemed to believe that there was more evidence for a historical Jesus than there actually is. You did not defend your earlier claims.

spin

This is what I call the black and white syndrome. People are blind to the possibility that conclusions often cannot be drawn and they have to decide one way or another regardless of the availability of evidence. I don't see much difference between archibald and the people he wants to attack. He's just as empty-handed.

But then, you have to read the text and understand it in its context. Try it some day.

The problems with 1 Cor 15:3-11 are many, but the biggest problem is that Paul argues in vv.12-19 as though there is no vv.3-11. Either he knew about the appearances that demonstrated the resurrection or he didn't and argued as he did in vv.12-19.

The word "unevidenced" is typical of those who will not contemplate any interpolation that doesn't appear in the manuscript tradition. He is unaware that many christian scholars have proposed interpolations in just such a situation. They have evidence: it's just that archibald refuses to look at such evidence and hence he gormlessly uses this adjective: "unevidenced".

As long as he refuses to contemplate the fact that the texts we are dealing with show a remarkable amount of text manipulation, he will continue to sound like Eric Idle's Stig O'Tracey responding "No. Never." to the claim that Dinsdale Piranha nailed his head to the floor.

This is just a lengthy strawman. archibald seems to have fuck all to say.

Just have a look at the way the gospel of Mark has been interpolated by those who created Luke and Matthew.

And archibald is an old hand at ad hominems. This post of his is full of them.

That should have helped archibald refrain from having to rehearse his tricks:

1) ad hominem (including accusing others of ad hominem).
2) drone on about mythers. (See the next for the necessity of this.)
3) offer nothing concrete for any other position. (He knows he can't.)

archibald

Again, I would not put this as strongly as you, but agree in principle.

I don't know why it is. Perhaps it's because Earl Doherty posts here?

I don't know the answer. But in a way, it's more fun when 'the gang's all here' as it were.

I have not yet seen a myther argument which stands up to scrutiny.

I might add that if I did I would not be disappointed. When I first encountered this topic, I was intrigued, and as an atheist, would have lapped it up merrily if the whole shebang was like a house of cards with no table. Unfortunately, it took me very little time to come to a different conclusion. And, for what it's worth, though this is really only a side issue, I am of the opinion that mytherism cheapens rational skepticism and possibly, by extension/association, atheism.

Toto

For those who are not up to speed, the case for interpolations in the Pauline letters is not unevidenced, and it is not the product of mythicism.

See the thread interpolations in Paul's letters? and the links there, especially William O. Walker's book, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk), also on google books.

spin

Neither have I. But it's still young as a more disciplined perspective. Give it time to get more organized rather than mainly single individuals without a large body of analysis behind them. I have not seen a jesus hystericist argument that stands scrutiny either. You just seem biased.

This is just more bias. I think it is worth noting that you provide nothing more than a vacuous screed embedding your mouthing off against "mytherism". Is this all that we can expect from you?

GakuseiDon

That's a powerful point, Jiri.

archibald

I'm not sure who it was that said there mightn't be interpolations in the Pauline letters. Did someone?

Anyhows, can you confirm something to me. What is the view on 1 Cor 15 in that book, do you happen to know?

I googled the book reviews, but it wasn't clear.

Toto

Someone referred to mythicists making convenient claims of interpolation without any evidence or methodology. This is clearly uninformed. Scholars recognize the possibility and the likelihood of interpolations in the Pauline letters.

Walker does not cover 1 Cor 15. He does lay out a methodology for identifying interpolations.