Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 04-20-2005, 03:18 PM

On ANE:

ANE Apr 2005

Speaking of The Messiah Myth and the new pope, there actually is a connection. Thomas Thompson, author of The Messiah Myth, had an unfortunate encounter with Ratzinger, then a professor at Tubingen, when Thompson was a graduate student at Tubingen. Thompson had written his dissertation arguing the then minimalist, now mainstream, position that the patriarchal stories of Genesis did not reflect an historical patriarchal period. Ratzinger prevented Thompson from receiving his degree, which resulted, along with the separate phenomenon of the Albrightean and Cross networks' negative reaction to Thompson's minimalist patriarchs argument in the U.S., in Thompson's famous expertise at house-painting in the U.S. where he returned without degree and labored to earn his living, frozen out of the job market because of his ideas on the patriarchs being literary fictions. Thompson's argument on the patriarchs went from radical to conventional, in the perception of mainstream scholarship, over a ten-year transition period (van Seters' 1975 volume along with Thompson's 1974 volume caused this) so resoundingly that today one can read statements that "we always thought this" and so on, concerning the lack of historicity of the patriarchal period which Thompson argued so long ago in the early 1970's when virtually no one thought this. Thompson's experience led him to take me under his wing and is how I ended up in Copenhagen and met my lovely wife who is with me now. All of this can be traced, in the way narratives are constructed out of the immense reservoir of accidental and chaotic happenings that make up raw history, from the day long ago when, according to Thompson, Ratzinger told Thompson, the PhD candidate, that he, Thompson, had written a dissertation which no Catholic could write. Ratzinger subsequently failed Thompson in the required oral exam in systematic theology. The rest is history: Thompson's 1971 dissertation making the minimalist argument on the lack of historicity of the patriarchs' period is mainstream; Thompson ended up in Copenhagen; Ratzinger has ended up pope.

So The Messiah Myth does, indeed--at least in the background of
the author--have something to do with the new pope.

Greg Doudna
Bellingham, Washington

Marxist · 04-20-2005, 03:21 PM

Interesting. I need to get back to reading The Messiah Myth. It is a very interesting book so far.

Marxist · 04-20-2005, 03:32 PM

I had an email exchange with Thompson about a week ago. I was trying to find an early draft of his book, and Jim West had forwarded my email address to Thompson himself. Nice guy, but he hasn't read Wells, Doherty, or Price.

Anyway, it just reminds me of the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon thing.

Marxist · 04-20-2005, 03:41 PM

Found some interesting essay by Thompson:

http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/myth.html

Vorkosigan · 04-20-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marxist

I had an email exchange with Thompson about a week ago. I was trying to find an early draft of his book, and Jim West had forwarded my email address to Thompson himself. Nice guy, but he hasn't read Wells, Doherty, or Price.

Fascinating. Should be a totally different take, then. I ordered it last week.

Peter Kirby · 04-20-2005, 08:30 PM

I too ordered a copy of Thompson's book.

Vork, one of us should write a review of it and try to get it published. I know it would get into the JHC (Journal of Higher Criticism), but why not try for HTR (Harvard Theological Review) or JBL (Journal of Biblical Literature)? Or... what are the journals that have been publishing minimalist papers?

best,
Peter Kirby

John A. Broussard · 04-20-2005, 10:31 PM

Can someone give me a quick rundown on the meaning of "patriarchal period" and the past and present stand on it by the Catholic Church?

Google coughed and sputtered when I tried searching, giving me random thoughts from Swedenborg and a mishmash of irrelevant sites.

I'd buy Thompson's book, but my TBR pile is toppling over already.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-20-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John A. Broussard

Can someone give me a quick rundown on the meaning of "patriarchal period" and the past and present stand on it by the Catholic Church?

Google coughed and sputtered when I tried searching, giving me random thoughts from Swedenborg and a mishmash of irrelevant sites.

I'd buy Thompson's book, but my TBR pile is toppling over already.

The Patriarchal refers to the stretch of Genesis which covers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It's now pretty well established that these were entirely mythical characters. I believe that RCC still maintains historicity but allows for some possibility of legendary elements in the stories.

John A. Broussard · 04-20-2005, 11:16 PM

Thanks. I'll check the Catholic Encyclopedia now that I have a few reference points to work with.

GakuseiDon · 04-21-2005, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Thompson's argument on the patriarchs went from radical to conventional, in the perception of mainstream scholarship, over a ten-year transition period (van Seters' 1975 volume along with Thompson's 1974 volume caused this) so resoundingly that today one can read statements that "we always thought this" and so on, concerning the lack of historicity of the patriarchal period which Thompson argued so long ago in the early 1970's when virtually no one thought this...

Greg Doudna

Some quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, c 1910, on that period:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01051a.htm

Quote:

The first principle enunciated by the critics is that the accounts of the primitive ages and of the patriarchal times originated amongst people who did not practise the art of writing. Amongst all peoples, they say, poetry and saga were the first beginning of history; so it was in Greece and Rome, so it was in Israel. These legends were circulated, and handed down by oral tradition, and contained, no doubt, a kernel of truth. Very often, where individual names are used these names in reality refer not to individuals but to tribes, as in Genesis, x, and the names of the twelve Patriarchs, whose migrations are those of the tribes they represent. It is not of course to be supposed that these legends are no older than the collections J, E, and P, in which they occur. They were in circulation ages before, and for long periods of time, those of earlier origin being shorter, those of later origin longer, often rather romances than legends, as that of Joseph. Nor were they all of Israelitish origin; some were Babylonian, some Egyptian. As to how the legends arose, this came about, they say, in many ways...

When we try to discover the age of the formation of the patriarchal legends, we are confronted with a question of great complexity. For it is not merely a matter of the formation of the simple legends separately, but also of the amalgamation of these into more complex legends. Criticism teaches us that that period would have ended about the year 1200 B.C. Then would have followed the period of remodeling the legends, so that by 900 B.C. they would have assumed substantially the form they now have. After that date, whilst the legends kept in substance to the form they had received, they were modified in many ways so as to bring them into conformity with the moral standard of the day, still not so completely that the older and less conventional ideas of a more primitive age did not from time to time show through them.

What is the difference between what Thompson was saying in 1975 that the CE wasn't saying 65 years before?

04-20-2005, 03:18 PM	#1
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Greg Doudna: New Pope and "Messiah Myth" author On ANE: ANE Apr 2005 Speaking of The Messiah Myth and the new pope, there actually is a connection. Thomas Thompson, author of The Messiah Myth, had an unfortunate encounter with Ratzinger, then a professor at Tubingen, when Thompson was a graduate student at Tubingen. Thompson had written his dissertation arguing the then minimalist, now mainstream, position that the patriarchal stories of Genesis did not reflect an historical patriarchal period. Ratzinger prevented Thompson from receiving his degree, which resulted, along with the separate phenomenon of the Albrightean and Cross networks' negative reaction to Thompson's minimalist patriarchs argument in the U.S., in Thompson's famous expertise at house-painting in the U.S. where he returned without degree and labored to earn his living, frozen out of the job market because of his ideas on the patriarchs being literary fictions. Thompson's argument on the patriarchs went from radical to conventional, in the perception of mainstream scholarship, over a ten-year transition period (van Seters' 1975 volume along with Thompson's 1974 volume caused this) so resoundingly that today one can read statements that "we always thought this" and so on, concerning the lack of historicity of the patriarchal period which Thompson argued so long ago in the early 1970's when virtually no one thought this. Thompson's experience led him to take me under his wing and is how I ended up in Copenhagen and met my lovely wife who is with me now. All of this can be traced, in the way narratives are constructed out of the immense reservoir of accidental and chaotic happenings that make up raw history, from the day long ago when, according to Thompson, Ratzinger told Thompson, the PhD candidate, that he, Thompson, had written a dissertation which no Catholic could write. Ratzinger subsequently failed Thompson in the required oral exam in systematic theology. The rest is history: Thompson's 1971 dissertation making the minimalist argument on the lack of historicity of the patriarchs' period is mainstream; Thompson ended up in Copenhagen; Ratzinger has ended up pope. So The Messiah Myth does, indeed--at least in the background of the author--have something to do with the new pope. Greg Doudna Bellingham, Washington

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

04-20-2005, 03:21 PM	#2
Marxist Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: US Posts: 301	Interesting. I need to get back to reading The Messiah Myth. It is a very interesting book so far.

04-20-2005, 03:32 PM	#3
Marxist Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: US Posts: 301	I had an email exchange with Thompson about a week ago. I was trying to find an early draft of his book, and Jim West had forwarded my email address to Thompson himself. Nice guy, but he hasn't read Wells, Doherty, or Price. Anyway, it just reminds me of the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon thing.

04-20-2005, 03:41 PM	#4
Marxist Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: US Posts: 301	Found some interesting essay by Thompson: http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/myth.html

04-20-2005, 08:30 PM	#6
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I too ordered a copy of Thompson's book. Vork, one of us should write a review of it and try to get it published. I know it would get into the JHC (Journal of Higher Criticism), but why not try for HTR (Harvard Theological Review) or JBL (Journal of Biblical Literature)? Or... what are the journals that have been publishing minimalist papers? best, Peter Kirby

04-20-2005, 10:31 PM	#7
John A. Broussard Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,629	Can someone give me a quick rundown on the meaning of "patriarchal period" and the past and present stand on it by the Catholic Church? Google coughed and sputtered when I tried searching, giving me random thoughts from Swedenborg and a mishmash of irrelevant sites. I'd buy Thompson's book, but my TBR pile is toppling over already.

04-20-2005, 11:16 PM	#9
John A. Broussard Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Hawaii Posts: 6,629	Thanks. I'll check the Catholic Encyclopedia now that I have a few reference points to work with.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.