Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RUmike · 12-29-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doubtingt

The OP asks a great question.

It prompts the further quesion, do the "Jesus Seminar" and other historicists even have any specific and explicitly articulated criterion for what qualifies as an HJ, along with a detailed justification for why their criterion are reasonable?

Lack of a specified and justified criterion for the thing they assert exists would be damning evidence of the the unscholarly state of the field and anyone who asserts an HJ without having such criterion could not possibly have reached that conclusion on a rational basis.

It would be the equivalent of me claiming my wife is not human but an space-alien, while not having any specified criterion that differentiates a space-alien from a human.

Yea, it is a great question. So why don't you answer it? I don't see how this is relevant to the OP.

Jobar · 12-29-2005, 06:05 PM

Wouldn't this have to be answered by historicists, and not by mythicists? Perhaps those who are undecided might give a reasonable answer- but if they did, wouldn't that mean that they're no longer undecided, barring the discovery of new data?

Vorkosigan · 12-29-2005, 07:03 PM

Hmmmm....I think the lack of sound methodology on connecting particular texts to the HJ is more of a problem for the historicists than for the mythicists, but it is a problem for mythicists in that any mythicist claim must simply become a collection of auxiliary hypotheses. Having a specific set of criteria or a specific idea of what an HJ must look like would help considerably in that regard.

Vorkosigan · 12-29-2005, 07:16 PM

Quote:

That would only make sense if I shared some of your underlying views about, and animus towards, the NT text. That it is fiction, late, authorship claims are false, etc. Beyond that you work with the same psycho-mental-babble type of analysis this post that you have made many times before, in attempting to project your view of textual considerations over my consistent approach to scripture.

Prax, I don't have any "animus" toward the text. How could I hate a text? Christianity I find authoritarian, nihilistic and inhuman, and some Christians I definitely have a problem with. But I love the Gospel of Mark very much. May as well argue that I have an "animus" toward The Waste Land or The Language Instinct because I consider them to be products of human hand.

You are right in that approach is consistent. It is just not informed by any methodology -- they are just dictated by total affirmation of your particular interpretation of the text. Your "consistency" is just ideological rigidity, which you have underpinned with a narrow but deep selection of textual criticism.

Yes, my ideas are tentative, and subject to revision. That is real humility before the text, Prax, not the false elevation of interpretation of the text that is more important than the text itself. Essentially, you've decided that Christianity dictates to the text, not vice versa. What a strange belief to have in a text-based religion!

Vorkosigan

mata leao · 12-29-2005, 08:53 PM

vork, do you have any animus against Mao's little red book? or the ideas contained it it? or Mao, who murdered over 30 million of his own people? or the quasi-slavery in which so many milllions of Communist Chinese still live? do you find Christianity more authoritaRIAN, hihilistic, and inhuman than Mao's communism? yes or no? and if no, then why do you spend most of your time fighting christianity and not communism?

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-29-2005, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

vork, do you have any animus against Mao's little red book? or the ideas contained it it? or Mao, who murdered over 30 million of his own people? or the quasi-slavery in which so many milllions of Communist Chinese still live? do you find Christianity more authoritaRIAN, hihilistic, and inhuman than Mao's communism? yes or no? and if no, then why do you spend most of your time fighting christianity and not communism?

How is he "fighting Christianity?"

This is a rather tawdry debate tactic. This is a forum specifically designated for discussions of Biblical Criticism and relevant history. If you want to discuss the evils of Mao or debate whether Communism has historically been more destructive than Christianity (a close call, IMO) then take it to a more appropriate forum. Please try not to hijack discussions in this one with these kinds of rank appeals to emotion.

I'm writing this in black text because I'm asking you (this time) as a member rather than a mod. Try to stay on track Mata. If you have confidence in your scholarship then you should be fine.

John A. Broussard · 12-29-2005, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

vork, do you have any animus against Mao's little red book? or the ideas contained it it? or Mao, who murdered over 30 million of his own people? or the quasi-slavery in which so many milllions of Communist Chinese still live? do you find Christianity more authoritaRIAN, hihilistic, and inhuman than Mao's communism? yes or no? and if no, then why do you spend most of your time fighting christianity and not communism?

I'm sorry. Somehow I've lost you.

Could you please explain how the above has anything to do with the historic Jesus.

I look forward to your explanation.

Vorkosigan · 12-30-2005, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mata leao

vork, do you have any animus against Mao's little red book? or the ideas contained it it? or Mao, who murdered over 30 million of his own people? or the quasi-slavery in which so many milllions of Communist Chinese still live?

Mata. You have got to be kidding me.

Quote:

do you find Christianity more authoritaRIAN, hihilistic, and inhuman than Mao's communism? yes or no? and if no, then why do you spend most of your time fighting christianity and not communism?

Whatever makes you think I spend most of my time fighting Christianity? Christianity is a sideline occupation for me, big fella, a passion that I enjoy. But ultimately I "fight Communism" full time, and it isn't a hobby but life itself for me.

Do you know who I am, and where I live? Have a gander at my blog, Mata.

http://michaelturton.blogspot.com

Vorkosigan

Agemegos · 12-30-2005, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jobar

Wouldn't this have to be answered by historicists, and not by mythicists? Perhaps those who are undecided might give a reasonable answer- but if they did, wouldn't that mean that they're no longer undecided, barring the discovery of new data?

This is a definitional question. Historicists believe there was an historical Jesus. Mythicists believe there was none. This question asks both sides what they mean by 'historical Jesus'. How similar would an actual person have to have been to the character in the gospel accounts to be Jesus?

It will be really interesting it it turns out that some mythicists and some historicists actually agree on all substantive questions, and simply disagree on definition. To ask the historicists for their definition of an historical Jesus and not to ask the Mythicists for their definition would be very boring.

Agemegos · 12-30-2005, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

On the other hand, this isn't really a problem for mythicists. We don't believe what you are proposing is possible, inherently -- it is like asking what we'd believe if you presented us hard evidence of a man who had a night just like Holden Caulfield's. Maybe you should be asking it of the historicist crowd.

Yeah, but you are open-minded scholars: you would change you minds if new relevant evidence appeared. What kind would it take?

Or to look at it another way: you assert that there was no historical Jesus. What do you mean by that? What is the definition of this set that you assert is empty?

If you were arguing "No child can possibly have been born during a census that never occurred; no child can possibly have been taken to from Bethlehem to Nazareth directly after his birth, from Bethlehem to Jerusalem directly after his birth, and from Bethlehem to Egypt directly after his birth; no man can have two fathers with the same name but different fathers; no-one can lead four simulataneous lives with different sequences; no-one can call out three different last sayings; no man was born both before Herod died and while Quirinius was governor of Syria: and therefore there cannot be an historical Jesus" that would be pretty dull. On the other hand, if you (or one of you) and [one of] the historicists turned out to agree that a person might have existed with qualties A, B, and C, who did and said X, Y, and Z, but if you thought that such a person if extant would not count as an historical Jesus and the mythicist thought that he did, that would be progress.

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

12-29-2005, 06:05 PM	#22
Jobar Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: secularcafe.org Posts: 9,525	Wouldn't this have to be answered by historicists, and not by mythicists? Perhaps those who are undecided might give a reasonable answer- but if they did, wouldn't that mean that they're no longer undecided, barring the discovery of new data?

12-29-2005, 07:03 PM	#23
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Hmmmm....I think the lack of sound methodology on connecting particular texts to the HJ is more of a problem for the historicists than for the mythicists, but it is a problem for mythicists in that any mythicist claim must simply become a collection of auxiliary hypotheses. Having a specific set of criteria or a specific idea of what an HJ must look like would help considerably in that regard.

12-29-2005, 08:53 PM	#25
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	vork, do you have any animus against Mao's little red book? or the ideas contained it it? or Mao, who murdered over 30 million of his own people? or the quasi-slavery in which so many milllions of Communist Chinese still live? do you find Christianity more authoritaRIAN, hihilistic, and inhuman than Mao's communism? yes or no? and if no, then why do you spend most of your time fighting christianity and not communism?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.