squiz

I have asked this question in other threads, but have been ignored. What level of scholarly standing does Robert Price have? He has expressed agnosticism as to the existence of an historical Jesus.

Hex

(Emphasis added)

Exactly my point Chris. 'The War of the Worlds'' effect on the populace of New York (my mother-in-law remembers being there for the original broadcast, so I have an ear/eye-witness authority to fall back on here) came out mostly in where it caused terror for people working to flee the city and escape the ravages of the menace from New Jersey, and then, after, caused people to be skeptical of mass media reports. It also had ramifications for Welles' Mercury Theater on the Air and several other radio productions that Welles was involved with. Media executives started to think of him as being a 'loose cannon' who could have been more trouble than he was worth. (And we know all of this through documentation of Welles, the Mercury Theater on the Air, and the hype of 'The War of The Worlds'. (Some web sources here and here, listen here)



If you are using it as a parallel for Christianity, do you imply that for 'The War of the Worlds' to have been conceived and to have an effect, Martians needed to exist? :Cheeky:



Again, discarding the OP, I'd say that folks like Paul and Augustine had much more effect on the history of/shaping of Western culture than Jesus did.

gurugeorge

The really solidly apposite comparative religious case here is "Lao Zi" (Lao Tzu), the traditionally-supposed author of the Daodejing (Tao Te King). From my amateur gleanings of the scholarly consensus on this subject, there is now a fair degree of respectable scholarly doubt that he even existed. And this is despite a putative "biography" of him written a few hundred years after his supposed life, by an otherwise reliable historian. (Philological analysis has come to the tentative conclusion that the Daodejing looks more like a miscellany that started off life as a collection of "wisdom sayings" of an ancient kingdom called Chu, with roots going back to the Late Neolithic, a kingdom that was overwhelmed and destroyed during the Warring States period - the term Lao Zi might originally have meant "old folks", i.e. it was originally a few "old folks' sayings" - which was then glossed by proto-Daoist gymnosophist types and given a somewhat mystical turn, and slightly later again glossed by scholar-warriors - who were perhaps connected either with the now-lost state and/or with the gymnosophists - and given a political turn. Of course this is only one construction, and the debate is still lively.)

And yet there is a whole multifaceted religion (Daoism) that reveres him, and has for centuries revered him, as anything from a founder figure to an out-and-out divinity.

It's actually quite instructive to note the difference in how scholars and interested laypeople react to the "Laozi" debate as compared with the situation re. "Jesus". There's passion and scholarly mud slinging of course, but there doesn't seem to be quite the same degree of vitriol and desperation as there is with the "Jesus" case. It's also interesting the way the scholars are positioned: in the Chinese case there seems to be a kind of "politically" functional distinction between native Chinese scholars and foreign scholars of course (with each occasionally viewing the other with some disdain), but there are "mythicists" and "historicists" in both camps. More importantly, there's no specifically "Daoist studies" people jealously guarding "Laozi"'s historicality and pretending that they are the only ones qualified to give a scholarly opinion on the matter. There are scholars who passionately defend "Laozi"'s historicality, but they have no privileged position.

What's also instructive is how this debate affects Daoists "on the ground". Most Daoists still seem to believe in "Laozi" as a historical character, and the scholarly news has hardly filtered through (about the same extent as it has in the Christian case). But when it does filter through, there doesn't seem to be as much fuss and pother - since the "meat" of Daoism is in the ritual practices, the meditation practices, the way of life, etc., whether or not the founder was historical isn't really that important. And since the Daodejing is, after all, a profound book, it hardly matters who wrote it anyway.

It's different with Christianity however, because of the matter of "Apostolic Succession". The claim of authority for the Roman Catholic Church, at least, is based on a supposed living chain of tradition going back to a founding figure who was literally God on Earth at a historical time and place. If that chain of connection is hokum, then there is, at the very least, some explaining to do. "Oops" won't be good enough.

Also, passions are understandably higher, because that chain is supposed to go back not just to a divinised human being, or a human being so "at one" with God that he's a representative of God (as "Laozi" is supposed by some, but as anybody is allowed to be in Daoism to some extent), but to a one-shot Avatar of God, the very God of God (comparable to the Dao itself in Chinese thought).

(The study of Christian roots, btw, could benefit a lot from being embedded in comparative religion. This business of "leaving it to Biblical scholars" who supposedly know what they're doing, has really done no good at all.)

(Forgot to add: actuallly Confucius is probably the most historically assured religious founder of those you mentioned; the only problem in his case is that very little is known of what he originally said, perhaps only a few phrases of those we have now are authentic. What's usually thought of as Confucianism, as a school of thought, is believed to be a later invention that itself developed into several forms in the course of time.)

gurugeorge

Yes this is true, you are quite correct. And the argument is over whether he was real or imagined, and if real, what kind of real, whether the full-blown God-man of the Gospels, at one extreme, or some two-bit preacher blown out of all proportion at the other.

What always puzzles me about Christians who defend tooth and nail the slightest shred of possibility that there might even have been a real Christ of the latter kind, is: what benefit is gained? Is such a "Christianity" worth defending at all?

But on the other hand, if it comes to the God-man, the debate has already been lost - there is no scholarly consensus at all (as Toto has already pointed out) that such a character ever existed, and there is no independent contemporary evidence of his existence, biography or deeds whatsoever. (Bearing in mind that, as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", it would have to be quite good proof anyway.)

The comical thing is: the gospels were themselves supposed to be that kind of historical proof. For centuries Christians believed that they had these special eyewitness accounts of the doings of this marvelous entity.

So that "historical proof" having been found wanting roundabout the 18th-19th centuries, now we have the "search for a historical Jesus" of the latter kind described above - some more or less remarkable but still somehow obscure preacher roundabout that time. But as I said - how is something based on such a character still supposed to still be "Christianity"?

There are several subtle layers of irony here.

Chris Weimer

So your point was the exact opposite of which you said before?

No. That's the point. The Martians didn't exist, there was no invasion, but even as you agree, the impact was felt. So Jesus, whether or not he existed (which you continue to miss that important qualifier), still had an impact, and continues to do so to this day.

People today are converted not by Augustine's Confessiones nor Paul's debates on the law, but by simple words of the Gospels. The Gospels are mass movers - the whole populace tries to quote Jesus over and over again. It was the death of Jesus that hung in every cathedral; his cross is the symbol of every church. Where's Paul or Augustine in a Christ-central religion? Important, but not anywhere near as importance as the figure Christ.

Chris Weimer

Gurugeorge,

A simple analogy I always liked to state:

Lao Zi : Ebion :: Kong Fu Zi : Jesus

Chris Weimer

Why are we now talking about what Christians do?

The rest of what you mentioned, that Christ the Godman was not historical, nolo contendere.

Hex

Sooo ... Which Martian was the critical one for 'The War of The Worlds'?:Cheeky:


The "Christ figure" is just the vehicle to get the ethical aspects to the populace. The "Christ figure" didn't start witch trials or inquisitions or bloody purges of heretics in Europe. The "Christ figure" didn't give special dispensations to Crusaders so that they could blatently 'sin' against the very rules of Christianity whilst on the campaign trail.

I agree, Christ is the 'poster child' for Christianity, but the thing that ~M~ was talking about, being a great influance on Western Society, isn't Christ, or even the "Christ Figure". It's the administration of the Church (RCC, for most of Europe's history from the Roman Empire on); the popes, bishops, preists, all of those who teach, preach and direct the populace of Europe (who, up until the vernacular Bibles, couldn't know all about the "Christ figure" themselves) and tell them what to beleive and how to act.

Paul and Augustine were working to direct people's actions and understandings. Inevitably, they direct how people are converted, what evidence is used, and what arguements build on what. I still contend that they have had more impact on Western culture than the "Christ figure" who they have both wielded toward their own aims.


I haven't missed the arguement. I already answered ~M~'s OP question above. I go with scholars, even for lay people. But ~M~, in clarification, widened the bounds:

And, if that's really the crux of all this debate over whether there was or was not a historical Jesus is about? Then, it really doesn't matter, does it? Christ's actual influance (if he ever existed) stops, what, within a year of his crucifixion? After that, other people carry the ball.

Chris Weimer

None in particular. Depending on the region, I suppose, those Martians probably had more of an affect. I would only assume the closer something is to you which can kill you, the scarier that certain one become.

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that all of history was merely defined by mauraders and purges.

Just because group A has such and such influence doesn't mean that person B has none. If there was no Christ, as I've stated before, there wouldn't be the Church. What there would be in its stead I do not know, but that doesn't negate the foundation of the church.

If this is your contention, please be so kind to provide evidence for it.

There were two conversations - one tied to the OP, and one ~M~ defending the cultural impact of Jesus. They're not really all that related.

The Quest for the Historical Jesus and the anthropological study of the impact of Christ on the populace are two totally different things.

Toto

Price has 2 PhD's, one in NT studies, another in systematic theology. I gather he is regarded as a maverick in the profession.