FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-24-2007, 11:25 PM   #1
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
I think that people should remember that this is what the Ignore list is for. Anyone who makes me cross goes on mine, for instance -- if reading someone's posts makes me angry or upset, do I need that? The answer is no, and on the list they go.
Roger, we don't seem to have much in common, but we do seem to share this much. :grin:
spamandham is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 03:46 PM   #2
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
Preached
Attracted followers
Was crucified

I think the "mainstream" agrees on at least those three details.
I think you'll find only the second one to be agreed upon among scholars, and it simply follows from the assumption that Jesus was historical combined with the observation that Christianity exists.
spamandham is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 05:31 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
I think you'll find only the second one to be agreed upon among scholars, and it simply follows from the assumption that Jesus was historical combined with the observation that Christianity exists.
No, I've found all three to be accepted by most scholars.

You know of "mainstream" scholars who deny that Jesus preached or was crucified? I don't believe that to be at all true but I would love to see some names.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 05-25-2007, 09:28 PM   #4
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13
No, I've found all three to be accepted by most scholars.

You know of "mainstream" scholars who deny that Jesus preached or was crucified? I don't believe that to be at all true but I would love to see some names.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeichman View Post
Depending on one's definition of preaching, any non-mute person would be a preacher. I'm also curious as to whom spamandham thinks denies this historicity of this.
I'm going by what Amy-Jill Levine has stated. I'm guessing she knows her peers better than we do. Here's a link to a podcast in which she discusses this issue. I don't have a transcript.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=66

So I've provided my source, Amaleq. Now it's your turn to provide yours.
spamandham is offline  
Old 05-26-2007, 08:44 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
I'm going by what Amy-Jill Levine has stated. I'm guessing she knows her peers better than we do. Here's a link to a podcast in which she discusses this issue. I don't have a transcript.
You don't know any specific names she mentions?

Quote:
So I've provided my source, Amaleq.
I didn't ask for your source. I asked for the names of mainstream scholars engaged in the alleged dispute of those bare facts. You haven't provided that.

Quote:
Now it's your turn to provide yours.
I already did. My conclusion is based on my own twenty years of reading relevant literature. Surely you aren't going beyond claiming the facts are disputed by mainstream scholars to claiming that they are not generally accepted by the mainstream? I would think it difficult to define "mainstream" without including those three points as agreed upon.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 05-26-2007, 09:33 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
I'm going by what Amy-Jill Levine has stated.
I listened to the entire interview and she never said anything about those three core facts being disputed by mainstream scholars. The closest comment she made was a paraphrase of Schweitzer's comment about scholars finding their historical Jesus in the mirror rather than the evidence.

If she is all you have, you've got nothing to support your claim.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 05-26-2007, 02:32 PM   #7
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
If she is all you have, you've got nothing to support your claim.
And yet, I've still presented more than you have regarding your claim.
spamandham is offline  
Old 05-26-2007, 03:46 PM   #8
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
And yet, I've still presented more than you have regarding your claim.
No, you haven't. You presented a link to a radio interview that offered no support for your claim.

I've offered a conclusion based on my personal experience with the relevant literature. Am I supposed to list every book I've read? My counterclaim is so mundane that even a vague familiarity with mainstream scholarship should make it obvious. With the already mentioned possible exception of Mack on the crucifixion, just about any scholar discussing an historical Jesus accepts those three core facts.

Funk
Davies
Horsely
Maccoby
Theissen
Borg
Crossan
Meier
Brown
Ehrman
Fredriksen
Vermes
Lüdemann
Sanders
Johnson
Wright

Even Levine should be on that list as it was clear from the interview that she accepts all three as true.

I have a hard time believing you truly aren't aware of this but I suppose it is possible that your knowledge is based entirely on misunderstanding what someone said about the books you should have read yourself.

As far as I know there is no dispute in "mainstream" scholarship about whether Jesus preached or attracted a following or was crucified.
Amaleq13 is offline  
Old 05-26-2007, 10:59 PM   #9
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 11,525
Default

In the Amy-Jill Levine interview, she makes a statement that there is no concensus among historians regarding Jesus, which is why I provided the link. She is not the only one in her field making that type of statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
As far as I know there is no dispute in "mainstream" scholarship about whether Jesus preached or attracted a following or was crucified.
In addition to mythicist proponents such as Doherty, and the mystic proponents Freke, and Gandy, who obviously do not hold either the idea that Jesus (as a real person) had a following, nor that he was crucified...

Regarding the crucifixion specifically,

(drawing from http://www.earlychristianwritings.co....html#eisenman)

Alvar Ellegård concludes that the story of Jesus of Nazareth, crucified by Pilate, was a fictional construction. "Jesus. 100 years before Christ"

G.A. Wells also argues Jesus was not crucified.

Gregory Riley argues Jesus was a real person with a religious following, who died and they raised him to legend status, but he does not contend the death was crucifixion.

E. P. Sanders finds it inconceivable the following:
1. He was one of the rare Jews in his day who believed in love, mercy, grace, repentance and the forgiveness of sin.
2. Jews in general, and Pharisees in particular, would kill people who believed in such things.
3. As a result of his work, Jewish confidence in election was 'shaken to pieces', Judaism was 'shaken to its foundations', and Judaism as a religion was destroyed.

There are others, but my job is merely to show a lack of concensus.

Regarding followers:

Robert Eisenman shows Jesus to be a minor figure in the insurrectionist movement of James the Just, and not someone who had his own following.

Gerd Lüdemann accepts teh crucifixion but sees Jesus an regular challenger of moral traditions - sort of a sleezball - without any followers per se.
spamandham is offline  
Old 05-27-2007, 08:14 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spamandham View Post
In the Amy-Jill Levine interview, she makes a statement that there is no concensus among historians regarding Jesus, which is why I provided the link. She is not the only one in her field making that type of statement.
I guess you missed where I already mentioned that (hint>it was the reference to her paraphrasing Schweitzer). I do not deny that many of the specific details about Jesus are disputed by mainstream scholars but I do deny that the three I mentioned should be included.

This may come as a shock to you but the scholars who champion the mythicist position are not mainstream and they generally acknowledge that fact when they present their case. I would never deny that they dispute any or all of the three I mentioned and, had that been your claim, you would have obtained no objection. But, as I mentioned with regard to Mack, a single voice hardly constitutes a "dispute" by the "mainstream" even if that scholar can be considered part of it.

Quote:
G.A. Wells also argues Jesus was not crucified.
What books by Wells have you read?

In what I believe is his latest (Can We Trust The New Testament?, 2004), he rather vaguely suggests, following Ellegard, that Paul's belief that Jesus was crucified might have been based on received traditions about the numerous Jewish holy men who suffered that fate over the prior two centuries or specific traditions about the Teacher of Righteousness.

Quote:
E. P. Sanders finds it inconceivable the following:
1. He was one of the rare Jews in his day who believed in love, mercy, grace, repentance and the forgiveness of sin.
2. Jews in general, and Pharisees in particular, would kill people who believed in such things.
3. As a result of his work, Jewish confidence in election was 'shaken to pieces', Judaism was 'shaken to its foundations', and Judaism as a religion was destroyed.
I don't understand why you bothered including this list since none of it appears to be relevant to supporting your claim. Filler to help hide your inability to support your claim? It didn't work.

Quote:
Robert Eisenman shows Jesus to be a minor figure in the insurrectionist movement of James the Just, and not someone who had his own following.
This is obviously another book you haven't read yourself. He acknowledges that Jesus had followers but argues there was a split when James took over:

“Whether James succeeded to this leadership by direct appointment of Jesus, or he was accorded it by the Apostles or ‘elected’ is disputed in the sources.” (James, the Brother of Jesus,p9)

Quote:
Gerd Lüdemann accepts teh crucifixion but sees Jesus an regular challenger of moral traditions - sort of a sleezball - without any followers per se.
You haven't read him, either, have you?

"For Jesus’s disciples, his death was so severe a shock that it demanded a process of reconceptualization—one that began in Galilee and was marked by visionary experiences." (What Really Happened?: The Rise of Primitive Christianity, 30-70 c.e., Free Inquiry, Apr/May 2007)

This is available online at http://wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/down...reeInquiry.pdf

Quote:
There are others, but my job is merely to show a lack of concensus.
Actually, your job is to support your claim that "Every detail of his life is disputed in the mainstream." but this post does neither that job nor does it support this new position adjustment you offer. What you have accomplished is to establish that very few scholars in general and fewer still that might qualify as "mainstream" dispute the three facts about Jesus I listed. You have also established that you are personally quite unfamiliar with the relevant literature and rely upon what others say about it.

So, you have not provided support for your original claim and you have not provided support for your revised claim. The claim you have supported is one that would have obtained no objection from me:

One can find at least one scholar, though not typically mainstream, who disputes even the details agreed upon by the majority of mainstream scholars: preached, attracted followers, was crucified.

Unfortunately, you didn't restrict yourself to the facts when you made your claim.
Amaleq13 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:14 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.