Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 08-29-2007, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gooch's dad

When presented with the simple facts supporting a HJ, I continue to see obfuscation and moving goal-posts. Most typical is nonsense such as "Paul wasn't an eyewitness, so he doesn't count", and, when dealing with the Josephus Ant 20.9.1 reference, the response "The Testimonium is a fraud!"

The authors of the Epistles did not present an HJ, they tried to establish a god-man, crucified and resurrected. This god-man has not been corroborated by any extra-biblical non-apologetic writer. And furthermore, the Epistles, as we have them today, may have been subjected to additions, interpolations and forgery.

The "TF" is of no historical value, the "TF" claimed Jesus was resurrected, and it was written when the Synoptics may have been already written. It is not an independent contemporary eyewitness account. It just does not help the HJ position, interpolated or not.

The HJ position is laughable and has no historical basis, it is completely faith-based, like the Creationist and IDers.

andrewcriddle · 08-29-2007, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Notes from Darrell Doughty's course BIBST 702S: Persecution and Martyrdom in Early Christianity: Doughty clearly implies that this letter is lacking in authenticity, since it neatly fits into the later Christian narrative.

Quote:

Reflections

Pliny's letter is problematic. We have already observed that the fact that we do not know where it was written or in what city the Christian problem surfaced is strange.

More problematic, however, is that, according to Pliny, there was a "great number" Christians, "of every age and class," not only "in the cities" [plural] "but in villages and rural districts as well" -- i.e., just about everywhere. This doesn't seem like a realistic scenario.

To some extent the 2nd point explains the first.

According to Pliny Christianity (and accusations sometimes bogus of people being Christians) was a widespread problem in Bithynia which he has brought to Trajan's notice because the issue keeps coming up.

In Pliny's correspondence with Trajan he specifies the city where the problem is occurring when it is a problem confined to one or two cities. In the case of widespread problems (such as the controversies over rules for membership of city councils) he usually does not provide a long list of all the cities involved.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874 · 08-29-2007, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Notes from Darrell Doughty's course BIBST 702S: Persecution and Martyrdom in Early Christianity: Doughty clearly implies that this letter is lacking in authenticity, since it neatly fits into the later Christian narrative.

To some extent the 2nd point explains the first.

According to Pliny Christianity (and accusations sometimes bogus of people being Christians) was a widespread problem in Bithynia which he has brought to Trajan's notice because the issue keeps coming up.

In Pliny's correspondence with Trajan he specifies the city where the problem is occurring when it is a problem confined to one or two cities. In the case of widespread problems (such as the controversies over rules for membership of city councils) he usually does not provide a long list of all the cities involved.

Andrew Criddle

Based on the Letters from Pliny on Christianity, these letters, if authentic, only confirm that there were believers or followers of the god-man called Christ. These letters, written early 2nd century, may have been composed after gMark, and provide no additional information with respect to the god-man Jesus.

It is well known in the 1st and 2nd century, there were followers and worshippers of the Greek and Roman Gods , yet the acknowledgement of these Gods by historians of antiquity do not in any way determine their historicity.

For there to be Christians, all that is necessary is a God called Christ, and that is all there is to the Letters from Pliny, authentic or not.

Toto · 08-29-2007, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

...
Yes. I disagree with your characterization of the NT (see above) but I agree that this is the big issue for HJers. I don't know of a completely satisfactory resolution, but I think Dunn has made a good start in Christology in the Making (or via: amazon.co.uk). (Anyone who hasn't read Dunn should be barred from discussing the MJ.)

...

G.A. Wells, in this essay and in his book The Jesus Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk), engages with Dunn.

Quote:

In my The Jesus Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk) I had to come to terms with apologists such as Professor J. Dunn, who holds that neither the Jewish Wisdom literature, nor the Pauline letters admittedly influenced by it, contain anything incompatible with the strictest monotheism. Dunn denies that, on the basis of Jewish accounts of Wisdom, Paul regarded Jesus as pre-existent (living in heaven, alongside God, before corning to Earth). This denial has naturally been welcomed in conservative quarters where, for instance, the veteran theologian John Macquarrie is 'grateful' for this attempt to free the sources from such obviously mythological ideas. The Jewish literature describes Wisdom as God's chief agent, a member of his divine council, etc., and this implies supernatural, but not, I agree, divine status. Dunn, however, supported by Larry W. Hurtado's discussion of Wisdom in his One God, One Lord (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Edinburgh: Clark. 1998), will not allow even the supernatural status, and regards the Wisdom of the Jewish literature not as an actual being in God's service, but as a mere personification of some of his attributes. Hurtado does not, however, dispute, as Dunn does, that Paul's Jesus was pre-existent.

I was not sure if it was fair to call Dunn an apologist, but Wikipedia describes him as a theologian:

Quote:

James D. G. ("Jimmy") Dunn was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham. Since his retirement he has been made Emeritus Lightfoot Professor. He is a leading British New Testament scholar broadly in the evangelical tradition. Dunn is especially associated with the New Perspective on Paul, along with Tom Wright and E. P. Sanders. He is credited with coining this phrase during his 1982 Manson Memorial Lecture.

youngalexander · 08-30-2007, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Among my crowd (physicists)

Well, why didn't you say so earlier. Makes all the difference. Welcome to reality!
We are a privileged bunch us physicists. Find a theory inadequate - send for more data. Regrettably that does not work in ancient historical research. Data tends to be finite. Cannot just conjure it out of endeavour - sometimes new data is found, don't hold your breath.

Gotta work with what there is.

Quote:

If you want to replace a generally accepted theory, you damn well better have a more convincing theory to replace it - one that explains the data.

Right on!
I see that Brother Daniel has mentioned Bayesian probability, amongst other matters. You might care to consider this argument
I am not suggesting that you necessarily agree, but perhaps it may give you a more refined perspective.

aa5874 · 08-30-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

As far as the Fathers you mention, I agree with you. But, as you push back into the earlier layers of the NT, you find a Jesus who is LESS mythical, not more. Mt's Jesus is less exalted than John's, Lk's less than Mt's, Mk's less than Lk's, Q's less than Mk's. You can explain that pattern with an original HJ who accreted myths (as religious leaders tend to do). You can't explain that pattern with an original MJ.

The trouble with this arises when you go back all the way to Paul. Would you consider Paul's Jesus to be "less exalted" or "less mythical" than Mk's? (Or even than Mt's or Lk's?) I wouldn't. Paul just screams MJ to me, though I admit that I read him only in English translation.

I think you mean 'mystical', not 'mythical'. The authors of the Epistles appear to believe or want the readers to believe that their Christ is real, non-myth, but with spiritual flesh, the mystical body of a god.

'Myth', AFAIK, refers to entities that do not exist, hence there is no such thing as a Christian who believes in a mythical Christ. However, there were Christians who believed in a 'mystical Christ'.

And in general, only non-believers regard Christ as mythical, never existing or legendary.

Brother Daniel · 08-31-2007, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think you mean 'mystical', not 'mythical'. The authors of the Epistles appear to believe or want the readers to believe that their Christ is real, non-myth, but with spiritual flesh, the mystical body of a god.

'Myth', AFAIK, refers to entities that do not exist, hence there is no such thing as a Christian who believes in a mythical Christ. However, there were Christians who believed in a 'mystical Christ'.

And in general, only non-believers regard Christ as mythical, never existing or legendary.

Both "mystical" and "mythical" can mean a lot of different things. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Paul didn't take his Christ seriously.

I didn't even mean to say anything about the nature of Christ as viewed by Paul, but rather the nature of Paul's knowledge of Christ. It does not appear to me to have been passed on by way of a chain of acquaintance, the way HJ advocates assume. His knowledge of Christ comes from visions, or through his idiosyncratic reading of the scriptures, or some other "mystical" (for lack of a better word) way of learning. His Christ was "unknown in previous generations" and revealed "only now, through the Church". His Christ-knowledge came to him (if I'm right) in a way that would lead us 21st-century people, very naturally, to call his Christ "mythical".

None of this is damaged in the least by Paul's occasional use of phrases that suggest he considered Christ to have lived on earth.

aa5874 · 08-31-2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

I think you mean 'mystical', not 'mythical'. The authors of the Epistles appear to believe or want the readers to believe that their Christ is real, non-myth, but with spiritual flesh, the mystical body of a god.

'Myth', AFAIK, refers to entities that do not exist, hence there is no such thing as a Christian who believes in a mythical Christ. However, there were Christians who believed in a 'mystical Christ'.

And in general, only non-believers regard Christ as mythical, never existing or legendary.

Both "mystical" and "mythical" can mean a lot of different things. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Paul didn't take his Christ seriously.

I didn't even mean to say anything about the nature of Christ as viewed by Paul, but rather the nature of Paul's knowledge of Christ. It does not appear to me to have been passed on by way of a chain of acquaintance, the way HJ advocates assume. His knowledge of Christ comes from visions, or through his idiosyncratic reading of the scriptures, or some other "mystical" (for lack of a better word) way of learning. His Christ was "unknown in previous generations" and revealed "only now, through the Church". His Christ-knowledge came to him (if I'm right) in a way that would lead us 21st-century people, very naturally, to call his Christ "mythical".

None of this is damaged in the least by Paul's occasional use of phrases that suggest he considered Christ to have lived on earth.

I think I am following you now, thanks for the clarification.

robto · 09-01-2007, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

G.A. Wells, in this essay and in his book The Jesus Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk), engages with Dunn.

I was not sure if it was fair to call Dunn an apologist, but Wikipedia describes him as a theologian:

Quote:

James D. G. ("Jimmy") Dunn was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham. Since his retirement he has been made Emeritus Lightfoot Professor. He is a leading British New Testament scholar broadly in the evangelical tradition. Dunn is especially associated with the New Perspective on Paul, along with Tom Wright and E. P. Sanders. He is credited with coining this phrase during his 1982 Manson Memorial Lecture.

I agree with Wells's criticism of Dunn. Dunn ignores the clear indications that, even before Xty, Jewish monotheism was breaking down. But Dunn is a careful scholar and in well worth reading nonetheless. In particular, he gives a convincing picture of how Wisdom language informed the development of the interpretation of who Jesus was. When you set this kind of careful scholarship against Doherty's few lines on pp. 181-182, there's just no comparison.

I'm still waiting to find out what Gnostic writings support Doherty's argument....

aa5874 · 09-01-2007, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by robto

Among my crowd (physicists), General Relativity (GR) is the accepted theory of gravity. If you come along and say, "Here are some problems with GR, and here's a new theory to replace it," you damn well better have an explanation for the bending of starlight, gravitational redshift, the orbit of Mercury, the expansion of the universe, etc. If you don't, you'll be laughed out of the room.

If you want to replace a generally accepted theory, you damn well better have a more convincing theory to replace it - one that explains the data. Mushy could-have's don't cut it. Doherty's theory doesn't pass the laugh test.

You appear to be in error. The HJ is the new theory, rejuvenated after being dead for hundreds of years. . This theory was developed to counter the 1800 year old god-man theory.

The authors of the NT and the Church Fathers promoted and established a god-man figure visually indistinguishable from that of the Docetist, that is, a figure that lived, teached, did miracles and ascended to Heaven.

In Against Heresies by Irenaeus, written in the 2nd century, Caprocates, Cerinthus, and the Ebionites propagated an HJ, but very little is known of this HJ theory after being mentioned by Irenaeus.

On the other hand, the MJ have always been the position of the pagan or non-believer ever since the god-man was fabricated over 1800 years ago.

So, in effect, the god-man theory is accepted universally by Christians and Christian apologists, very, very few of them accept this new HJ theory.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.