Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gstafleu · 10-12-2007, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

What has been the lasting impact of the Jesus Seminar? It seems it's already relegated to inconsequentiality (scholarship already knew that 3 quarters of the sayings attributed to Jesus were likely not genuine, even if they didn't admit it publicly, and we didn't need the Seminar to tell us that Jesus' physical resurrection was a product of later development)

I suspect that there may be a lasting influence, in the sense that it was a public forum in which a number of religious scholars openly came to the conclusion that not only was most of what Jesus is supposed to have said (the three quarters) not genuine, but also that a central tenet of Christianity (the resurrection) is not factual. The importance of that is simply this: a revealed religion cannot survive such an admission, particularly not a religion structured as Christianity is. While it doesn't particularly matter for Buddhism if there was a historical Buddha, of for Confucianism if there was a historical Confucius, Christianity is structured such that an HJ is essential to its mythical structure. So if that gets undermined to the extent that the Jesus Seminar did...

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle · 10-12-2007, 08:11 AM

I do not see an hj as necessary for xianity - in fact I would prefer they took thou shalt not bear false witness and their creeds about godmen - fully god and fully man - seriously.

Zeichman · 10-12-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Indeed, if solely for the fact that I don't find a compelling reason to think otherwise [than an HJ], and, as stated before, historicity is assumed at many points. Multiple attestation of sayings and deeds would similarly seem to indicate an antecedent tradition in a single individual, or at least in a single small group. I concede the latter because the ideas of Jesus are more or less indistinguishable from those of his immediate followers to us now for various reasons.

Isn't there a bit of begging the question here: you take historicity as a prerequisite because "I don't find a compelling reason to think otherwise"? But apart from that, aren't Jesus's thoughts and sayings also more or less indistinguishable from preexistent and generally extant thought at his time (the "Jesus didn't say anything original" argument)? That is what Price argues fairly extensively (and to which I try to make a minor contribution in this thread).

No, I assume historicity because the a lot of the texts and their sources seem to. Additionally, I haven't felt compelled by the cases against historicity so far.

The issue of the orignality of Jesus' message becomes somewhat sticky. If his preaching finds parallels in roughly contemporaneous documents where there might be mutual genealogical roots (e.g., Pharisees, Saducees, Qumranites), then he was one among many, who might have gained a crowd because of a combination of ideas, or a unique way of expressing them, etc. However, contact with and controversies which we KNOW related to early tradition resulted in reformulation, reinterpretation, reframing, embarassment, etc. means that the way they survive (if at all) is probably fairly different. If his teaching was unique, then any attempt to expose it as such by a Christian scholar would inevitably lead to "uniqueness" claims about Christianity and its superiority over Judaism, paganism, etc. This latter point has happened before. I don't really know that there is a way to resolve this. It certainly doesn't necessitate or even suggest the ahistoricity of Jesus, though.

Quote:

I hope it's clear that my interest in the historical Jesus is largely oriented around meta-scholarship, subtexts, veiled language, etc. and not reconstructing this individual's message.

I'll immediately recognize my laymanship here, but aren't things like subtexts and veiled language dependent on the image the originators of the texts and language had of their subject? IOW, if early christians did indeed have a mythical Christ in mind, wouldn't that change the interpretation of the subtext and veiled language?

Gerard Stafleu

I meant subtexts, veiled language, etc. in the work of academics (i.e., meta-scholarship). E.g., what are scholars really talking about when they "discuss" the historical Jesus; what do they mean when they talk about his Judaism, etc. Only recently has the political dimension to these things been taken seriously by scholars. I realize I wasn't clear about this in the first place, and I apologize for that.

Toto · 10-12-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

.... However, contact with and controversies which we KNOW related to early tradition resulted in reformulation, reinterpretation, reframing, embarassment, etc. means that the way they survive (if at all) is probably fairly different. If his teaching was unique, then any attempt to expose it as such by a Christian scholar would inevitably lead to "uniqueness" claims about Christianity and its superiority over Judaism, paganism, etc. This latter point has happened before. I don't really know that there is a way to resolve this. It certainly doesn't necessitate or even suggest the ahistoricity of Jesus, though.. . .

Could you clarify this, which is clear as mud? What is it that you KNOW? How exactly do you KNOW it?

What is the relevance of "uniqueness" claims about Christianity?

EarlDoherty · 10-12-2007, 03:58 PM

Quote:

As quoted by Toto:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle
Hoffmann wrote an interesting introduction to the 2006 new edition/re-issue of Goguel's Jesus the Nazarene.

He gave the impression of tending in principle towards disbelief in historicity, while being rather hostile in practice towards specific alternatives.

(Note 31 to the introduction is rather disparaging of Earl Doherty.)

I'd be interested to know what this "disparaging" note consists of, and whether it is directed specifically at myself. It might cast light on the Jesus Project's attitude toward mythicism, and what sort of voice they will allow it to have.

Earl Doherty

Toto · 10-12-2007, 04:49 PM

I would not put too much weight on a comment in a footnote. If you read other pieces by Hoffmann, (he has short pieces on Butterflies and Wheels and on the Secular Humanism website), he can sound sarcastic at times, almost snarky. His advantage here is that he has no confessional interest in Jesus, and, while he is a certified, Harvard trained, NT scholar, his work has centered on the heretics, not Jesus.

Zeichman · 10-12-2007, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

.... However, contact with and controversies which we KNOW related to early tradition resulted in reformulation, reinterpretation, reframing, embarassment, etc. means that the way they survive (if at all) is probably fairly different. If his teaching was unique, then any attempt to expose it as such by a Christian scholar would inevitably lead to "uniqueness" claims about Christianity and its superiority over Judaism, paganism, etc. This latter point has happened before. I don't really know that there is a way to resolve this. It certainly doesn't necessitate or even suggest the ahistoricity of Jesus, though.. . .

Could you clarify this, which is clear as mud? What is it that you KNOW? How exactly do you KNOW it?

What is the relevance of "uniqueness" claims about Christianity?

Sorry about the consistent lack of clarity. I think the claim is pretty modest: the early strands of the Jesus movement made controversial claims about various things, often relating to Jewish halakah. Furthermore, these claims were reformulated, reinterpreted, etc. in early Christianity. The variety of controversies in the biblical narratives and in some epistles testifies to the former; we know that they were reformulated because they appear differentlly in different documents (e.g., GJohn's temple = Jesus' body, Mark's "opponents" libeling Jesus about Temple claims, Luke's omission of some of these, whatever interpretation one cares for saying #71).

In short, whatever Jesus may have said was reinterpreted, reformulated... by early Christians to domesticize, make more relevant, etc.

EarlDoherty · 10-12-2007, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I would not put too much weight on a comment in a footnote. If you read other pieces by Hoffmann, (he has short pieces on Butterflies and Wheels and on the Secular Humanism website), he can sound sarcastic at times, almost snarky. His advantage here is that he has no confessional interest in Jesus, and, while he is a certified, Harvard trained, NT scholar, his work has centered on the heretics, not Jesus.

OK, but this doesn't tell me what he said. Or perhaps you don't know. (Or are you trying to spare me?

)

Earl Doherty

Chris Weimer · 10-12-2007, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

It's just another academic circus Earl.
The HJ still cracks a whip in the minds
of the like of Christ Weimer.

Heh. Surely Toto caught this one and let it slide.

Regardless, as far as I can tell, your degree of rigor is 100x that of Chris'. It isn't obvious he has any credentials whatsoever, earned formally or in practice.

My degree of rigour? You mean like making up things (Constantinian potestas), ignoring context (Julian quote), and completely disregarding accepted academic scholarship (palaeography)? You mean that academic rigour? Obviously, spamandham, you must be in the upper echelon yourself - how many degrees in Biblical studies or a related field do you have again? Where are you published papers again? I'm sure I saw them around somewhere... "In Defense of Doherty and the Sub-Lunar Realm" by spamandham, some anonymous guy posting some anonymous crap at some crappy board.

Bravo.

Chris Weimer · 10-12-2007, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Chris is a scholar in training, an undergraduate.

Thus - we absolve him.:angel:

Absolve me for what? Not rambling on over and over again about how Julian thought (incorrectly, I might add) that the Galileans was a "fiction" even though it had been point out over and over again just how wrong that statement is? Absolve me for what?

I don't even pretend that everything I do, write, etc... goes through IIDB. IIDB is the home of crackpots and amateurs - please, like I'd share half of the stuff I want published. It doesn't even belong on my blog, on my forum, on e-lists. It barely exists in confidential conversations over a beer and some Mexican food.

You'd think that IIDB was some sort of peer review journal. It's a bunch of atheists, half of whom have an inflated ego.

Absolve me for what?

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

10-12-2007, 08:11 AM	#82
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	I do not see an hj as necessary for xianity - in fact I would prefer they took thou shalt not bear false witness and their creeds about godmen - fully god and fully man - seriously.

10-12-2007, 04:49 PM	#86
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I would not put too much weight on a comment in a footnote. If you read other pieces by Hoffmann, (he has short pieces on Butterflies and Wheels and on the Secular Humanism website), he can sound sarcastic at times, almost snarky. His advantage here is that he has no confessional interest in Jesus, and, while he is a certified, Harvard trained, NT scholar, his work has centered on the heretics, not Jesus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.