PhilosopherJay

Hi Ben,

Some philosophers, going back to the time of Plato, have felt that it the job of the philosopher to think more precisely about things and to define things more precisely.

If our historical Jesus bares only the slightest glancing resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels, then aren't we really saying that the commonly held concept of the historical Jesus is a myth? If we find that the historical Jesus is just some bald, drunken old fat Roman Senator who once said to his pals, "If someone strikes you on the left cheek, kick him in the right cheek of his ass," then aren't we really saying that the historical Jesus is a myth?

As Burton Mack wrote, "It is myth that makes the world go round, not the lackluster Jesus that I am defending."

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

mens_sana

Sounds rather like Burton Mack had a HJ in mind, does it not? By the way, for many years Burton Mack taught at the Southern California School of Theology at Claremont, latterly known as the Claremont School of Theology. This is the same school that hired the young James M. Robinson of Nag Hammadi Library fame — and it is my alma mater.

mens_sana

For several decades now, NT studies have used the terms Historical Jesus and Christ of Faith, to denote the HJ and the "MJ" figure of Church and Gospels. These terms became fully understood in the Bultmann-Brunner days, just as those here understand the HJ and MJ terms. Idiosyncratic use of the terminology contributes little other than confusion in discussions such as these.

Another perspective:

Ben C Smith

Yes. But saying that the Christ of faith or the Jesus of the gospels is a myth (legend might be better) does not have anything to do with what scholars routinely call the historical Jesus.

If you are saying that you do not like how that term has been applied (for quite a while now), fine, you can make your case and give your reasons, but then you would have to spell out specifically that you are now changing a definition. I do not see where you have spelled this out.

These humorous options lie at the far end of a broad spectrum of possible origins of the Jesus story. I do not know exactly where on this spectrum I would draw the line between an historical Jesus and something other than an historical Jesus; fortunately, I do not have to know.

(I sometimes liken this spectrum to what makes a car a car. The vehicle I drive to work is certainly a car. Is it still a car if I remove all the wheels, thus taking away the very purpose of a car, and prop it up on cinder blocks? I could still point to the thing and call it a car, and nobody would blink. Is it still a car if I further remove the windshield, the transmission, and the exhaust system? The engine, the doors, and the chrome bumpers? Somewhere in this process of breaking the thing down the car will no longer be a car; it will be car parts. I do not know exactly where that line is. But that does not render me incompetent to look at a car missing its wheels, propped up on cinder blocks, and still call it a car.)

It is certainly enough to note in this particular case that, wherever I would draw the line, it would certainly not exclude Burton Mack from the historical Jesus side. He has (IIRC) a distinct historical personage, a Jewish preacher actually named Jesus, as the purported source of at least part of the Q document. That is, when the sayings in Q are attributed to Jesus, Mack thinks they are being attributed to a real Jewish preacher in Galilee named Jesus.

Here you quote Burton Mack making a distinction between (A) myth and (B) the Jesus that he thinks existed. Yet somehow you think this places him in the Jesus-is-a-myth category. This is something I do not understand.

Ben.

Magdlyn

Not sure why he finds it satisfying, unless he was so uncomfortable being a "rebel." Now he feels tamer and safer. Good for him.

Not surprising that he and the rest of the JS find themselves more to the right than they expected, given their (overly loose and flabby) criteria for authentic sayings of their Historical Jesus Nuggetman.

from wiki:

Seems to me there'd have been plenty of preachers capable of having these qualities. Hillel. John the Baptist. Paul/Simon Magus? Even Pilate! They are all depicted as saying catchy quotable things.

Jesus was just a composite figurehead for a certain Jewish syncretistic movement. Why won't anyone admit they know this?

Biblical scholars know and admit this off the record. Young starry eyed guys enter seminaries as believers and after 4 yrs of study come out jaded and full of doubt. :devil: But, they've got a living to earn, and a willing gullible public to shill, under the guise of saving souls, so on they go, whited sepulchers indeed. It's a nice racket. They've got no oversight.

A parallel in a field of interest I have, doctors and breastfeeding. For decades they touted the superiority of formula, and separation of mother and baby at birth and in bed, and a drugged up birth. Now scientific research has shown the world that they were wrong. So, they give lip service to breastfeeding , natural birth, mother/child togetherness, but sabotage it all at the drop of a hat. It's so hard to admit you and your colleagues have been wrong for decades-- much less millennia.

Especially when the public honors both drs and pastors as demi-gods who know all and can do no wrong. The power is so corrupting.

mens_sana

Crossan resigned from the Jesus Seminar because he thought their criteria for the Jesus sayings weren't rigorous enough.

Perhaps because no one has presented convincing evidence for this in professional journals where peer-review is the norm — as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, mentioned two or three times in fact.

Antipope Innocent II

You were? Or were you responding to what I actually said:

So did I say simply "mythicists" or did I clearly specify "professional academics"? Because you seemed quite clear on which I had specified before you began compiling your list:

You then went on to compile your list, which included everyone from Atwill to Freke and Gandy. Then you tried to play around with what the definition of a professional academic was (as though there's some kind of doubt and as though people like Freke and Gandy qualified!)

(my emphasis)

What fanciful garbage. Now you're pretending that it's me who somehow narrowed the definition in reaction to your list. Talk about myth vs history!

It's quite clear what I was talking about from the start. You seemed clear about it a few days ago. Don't try to pretend otherwise now.

Yes, because that really needs clarification. Here's a hint - Zindler's qualifications in geology and biology aren't relevant. Nor are Wells' in German. Getting the idea?

Vivisector

C'mon, Jay. Either:

(1) You misunderstood Mack's position or
(2) You're proposing to revise the definition of MJ in a way differs markedly from common usage here and which is so broad as to include virtually all non-Christians.

If (1), hey, no blood, no foul. Just own up to it, and let's move on. If (2), then I'd respectfully suggest that your approach is generating more heat than light, and something along the lines of what spin shared earlier in this thread would be more likely to move us all toward a more meaningful way of categorizing our opinions. I, for one, would applaud a contribution in this area.

Cheers,

V.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Antipope Innocent II,

Accept my apologies for any misunderstandings or misreadings.

Philosophers generally have been looking at the question of what exists and what does not exist for over 2600 years. This particular question of whether a central figure in a religion existed is quite interesting to me precisely due to my academic background. I do appreciate any help you can give me in this area.

My problem is that I am not sure what academic fields are relevant to this issue. Now, we might be able to list them (e.g. Bible Studies, Archaeology, Sociology, Ancient history, Classics, Linguistics, Communications, Psychology) or give some type of criteria for them (e.g. only fields that examine ancient societies and texts). Right now the description seems be something like "relevant professional academics who are not biologists, geologists, or German teachers." I would like to see if we could agree on a set that is more objective either by listing most or all relevant fields or distinguishing a criteria by which we may know the relevant fields.

Once we have established the set we can better examine positions within them.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

[QUOTE=Antipope Innocent II;4918984]

Ben C Smith

Let me suggest the most obvious, basic qualification to be considered a qualified scholar in this matter. One has to be able to handle the ancient sources in their original languages. No exceptions. Period.

Ben.