jakejonesiv

SGreek, that must be what I am missing!

Thanks to you Jeffery.

Jake Jones IV

Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey,
The scholarly construction here comprises a series of HJ scholars parrotting each other one after the other like dominoes so that something that does not exist can be thought to exist.
Just like synagogues as architectural edifices in first century Palestine as Kee has noted.

No Jeffrey, please do not expect this from me. At least not anytime soon. I really am not able to get time to track the books.
One recent howler is you assuming incorrectly that Doherty was arguing that Funk was a mythicist.
I think I am done here. Thanks everyone for the discussion.

jgibson000

If this is true, you've failed to show it. In fact, if anyone is parroting anything, it seems to be you with this claim about what HJ scholars do.

Well then, in the meantime, would you state clearly -- yes or no -- whether I am correct, as the above indicates I am, in thinking (1) that you have no hard evidence to back up your claim that those who argue that the ARCONTES spoken of in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are earthly rulers do because they have imported "gospel assumptions" into Paul and (2) that you claim is based only on a supposition?


And until you do track these books (and articles BTW) down and provide us with the relevant material from within them, would you please cease making claims about what it is that has motivated the authors of these works to say what they have said on the ARCONTES of 1 Cor 1 2:6-8?

Can you actually provide some evidence -- an actual quote perhaps -- that I I assumed such a thing?

You mean you are not going to answer the questions I put to you about Bousset?

Jeffrey Gibson

Ted Hoffman

Jeffrey,
I am done here. I have made my point and you have made yours. Sorry I am not answering your questions on Bousset. I probably will some other day but not on this thread and not anytime soon. This is not to mean I do not appreciate the citations you have provided. We have discussed archontes to death and I have nothing to add to it at the moment.
If you are leaving the discussion with the firm belief that I "have no hard evidence to back up [my] claim that those who argue that the ARCONTES spoken of in 1 Cor 2:6-8 are earthly rulers do because they have imported "gospel assumptions" into Paul", I am willing to live with that.
Please feel free to assume that my "claim is based only on a supposition".
I have no problem at all with that.
Feel free to believe any other thing you want to assume about me. If it works for you, by all means go ahead.

jgibson000

Actually we haven't, since we have not discussed what those I have listed as arguing that ARCONTES means eartly rulers actually do say on the mater, let alone whether their reasons for saying what ever it is they say are any good.

But you promised, out of the obligations that fairness entails, to provided us with the quotes from the scholars whose names I listed.

I'm not leaving anything. It's you who is "running away".

But can you not answer "yes" or "no" to the question of whether my belief and my assumption are true? That, after all, doesn't take any research or tracking down of books and articles or typing out qoutations.

Nor does providing something else I asked you to give -- the quote of mine in which I allgedly said that Earl assumed that Funk was an MJ proponent.

So will you not give me these things at least?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

In reply to my message in post 3605145

Earl wrote:

There were a number of minor authors and works I did not read, and I made that clear in my article. The only "relevance" I claimed about the essay was in regard to Betz's use of it, his claim that no one since Bousset had dared to mount a denial of the HJ, a patently ridiculous and unfounded claim. I made no claim as to the worth of Bousset's article itself. As usual, you have deliberately misrepresented what I say, since it is quite clear in the article:

Quote:

Betz claims that since Wilhelm Bousset published an essay in 1904 exposing the ‘Christ myth’ as “a phantom,” “no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.” This ignores many serious presentations of that very idea since Bousset, and evidently relies on defining “serious” as excluding anyone who would dare to undertake such a misguided task.

He also wrote in post #3605090

And the response on this thread is limited to a discussion of a supposed minor misunderstanding of an irrelevant interpretation of one phrase??? (Other than Jeffrey's demand for the skinny on an obscure 1904 essay

So yesterday in my reply to all of this I observed:

Well. one might object (and I think rightly) that this isn't, as your quote of your own words shows, what Betz (according to you) actually says. He makes no such global claim and he actually admits that some people have mounted a denial of the HJ. So if anyone has done anything here, you've "done an Earl" and claimed, as you have with Van Voorst and as you have with Burton, that a particular author has made a claim that is far more restrictive than his "actual" words show his claim to be.

And then asked:

But perhaps your orginal quote of Betz was not accurate? To help us see, I wonder if you'd be good enough to provide us with the whole text of the relevant passage that you say appears on p. 9 of Betz's "What Do We Know"?

I was hoping that by now Earl would have been good enough to provide us with the whole text of the relevant passage so that we can see that he says appears on p. 9 of Betz's "What Do We Know" actually does. But alas, my hope has been in vain.

So I've hunted it up myself. Here's what Betz writes:

"People such as Kalthoff, Drews or Jensen has maintained that there had never been a real Jesus of Nazareth and that the basis of the Christ of the NT was a mythical, suprahistorical figure to whom Christians had subsequently given a time and place, thus artificially historicizing him. It was not difficult for NT scholars like Bousset, Julicher or Klostermann to expose the 'Christ myth' as a phantom, and since that time no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."

With this now before us, a couple of observations are in order.

1. Earl's quote isn't exactly exact.

a. He leaves out Betz's references to Julicher and Klosterrman

b. he obscures the fact that Betz is saying that it is not "since" 1904, but since the time that all three of these scholars published their works (Julicher, Hat Jesus gelebt_ in 1910 ) and Klostermann (Die Neuesten Angriffe auf de Geschictlichkeit Jesu in 1912) that exposed the Christ Myth as proposed by Kalthoff (Das Christus-Problem. Grundlinien zu einer Sozialtheologie & ]Die Entstehung des Christentums. Neue Beitrage zum Christus-Problem), Drews (Die Christusmythe) or Jensen (Hat der Jesus der Evangelien wirklich gelebt?) as a "phantom", no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus.

This is curious, especially coming as it does from someone who once noted as he was chiding me for leaving one word out of something of his I was allegedly quoting that

"it is not wise in a quoted phrase to leave out any words of an ‘opponent’ which lend nuance to the statement and which softens the meaning of what one is trying to rebut; it looks possibly deceptive."

(see post 3029219)


2. Betz nowhere mentions the date of the "essay" published by Bousset ot that what Bousset published was an "essay".

3. What Bousset published under the title of Was wissen wir von Jesus? (a compilation of lectures delivered before the Protestantenverein at Bremen) -- and what Betz references -- was a book, not an essay which then (see Kalthoff; Schweitzer) as now (see Van Voorst and obviously Betz) was never considered obscure.

So one wonders whether Earl has actually read Betz.

More importantly, I think it's safe to claim that we now have more evidence of misquotation, misreading, and misrepresentation on the part of a JM proponent.

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

Yeah, yeah...but to make that discovery you had to squeeze out the following logical connector to complete the mythicist-atheist-Soviet link:

Nice try, Jake, ...maybe you'll catch me some other time ...btw how is your research into the matters medical going ? Did you find yet what "black bile" problems were to a Greek ? :wave: