Ted Hoffman

Doherty writes:

The recent demise of The Jesus Project, when it had barely gotten off the ground, has not been critical scholarship’s finest hour. I myself was not involved with the Project in any way (I was not invited to be), and I am not party to all of the factors that contributed to its collapse, but it seems to me that one of the principal difficulties it faced was in regard to the question of the historical existence of Jesus.

When the Jesus Project was still in the pre-natal stage, sponsored by the Council for Secular Humanism of Amherst (Buffalo) New York, it was clearly presented as a new investigation into Christian origins which would fearlessly encompass the very question of Jesus’ existence. Tom Flynn, in an Op-Ed piece “The Jesus Project” in a 2007 (I think it was) issue of Free Inquiry, of which he is the editor, said: “The mission will be to apply the most current scholarship and methodologies to the questions (which) the Jesus Seminar never confronted: Did the historical Jesus even exist? If so, what can we know of him?” He made it sound as though an important phase of the Project would be an addressing of the first question.

As it turned out, even before the opening meeting (delayed almost a year beyond the initially scheduled time) the possibility that Jesus’ existence would be questioned by the Project apparently created difficulties, leading to the refusal of some scholars to take part and to a degree of backtracking by those in charge, until it became reduced to little more than another “Quest for the Historical Jesus.” The only difference was that it was stated as part of its mandate that it would not assume the existence of an historical Jesus a priori, but adopt an “agnostic” stance on the question.

That opening meeting was devoted to a discussion of the methodologies that would be employed, but here again the same stumbling block arose. Since no scholars who were openly and actively mythicists were invited to take part, no methodologies applicable to the existence of Jesus question were presented for consideration. At the meeting itself, as I understand it from various reports, no objection was voiced to the missing dimension, but the question was raised on blogs and in subsequent discussion (not all of it entirely harmonious) by various people involved or on the sidelines, and it was clear that this was going to be a stickler in the future—an elephant in the room.

After all, media reports surrounding the announcement of the Project had, quite naturally, seized on the existence question as an important and high-profile element of the agenda, but the Project itself did not seem to be ready to follow through. It was apparently too controversial even among a group of scholars who were considered to be the most liberal and avant-garde in the field. Even its co-chair, R. Joseph Hoffmann, who had long been associated with CSH, was now remarking that there was ‘plenty of evidence’ for Jesus’ existence, and that Jesus mythicists were to be regarded as occupying one end of a spectrum of those who would find little or no happiness on the Project (the other end being staunchly conservative biblical exegetes).

More in the link below
http://www.jesuspuzzle.com/

Toto

Direct link: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/JesusProject.htm

Previous thread on the inauguration of the JP, from which Doherty quotes Chris Zeichman.

I think this "demise" was a combination of the economic downturn, a reorganization at CFI, and the difficulty of getting academics to cooperate. I think Hoffman was right in his most recent blog post on this when he said that the whole idea of a committee on this subject is unworkable.

ApostateAbe

The problem of "getting academics to cooperate" seems to be what Doherty finds most relevant. If Doherty is telling the truth, does this say anything about how fringe the MJ position really is? I ask, because I hate to jump to a conclusion.

aa5874

But, this is absolutely incredible.

Historicists have a perfect opportunity to publicly demolish the mythicists once and for all and they just back away?

I thought that it was claimed the HJ case was solid as a rock.

Now, I hear some suggestions of econonmic downturn and difficulty getting academics to co-operate.

But, why don't historicists just get together and present their evidence, they have information supposedly from the 1st bishop of Rome who walked or attempted to walk on water with Jesus?

What can be so difficult in setting up a simple project to examine historical evidence to support the HJ?

Perhaps, there is none.

jgoodguy

IMHO, the reason is the a the HJ material is simply very skimpy. The minimalist position that the HJ lived, preached and got killed by the Roman empire. That does not sell books or help with careers. What we end up with is a multitude of HJs each of which is jealously protected by his creator. Then there are the theists vs the non theists conflict. So there is no getting together.

The problem for the Mythical Jesus advocate is to have an MJ that is more probable and less complex than the minimalist HJ.

IMHO the simplest theory will win in the end.

Ted Hoffman

Unfortunately, one has to be very well instructed to know that the MJ theory is actually simpler.
MJers will have to find a means of making MJ theory appear to be a simpler theory to a layman.

jgoodguy

I am reminded of dealing with lay users and problems with the Linux Operating system. The local Linux proponents suggested that users with problems read a very lengthy essay(10,000 words or more) on how to ask questions of a Linux guru before they should be allowed to ask questions. That is not a good solution.

I suggest a simple theory requiring no special training of the lay person. Then anyone wanting a more detailed information can go from there. Simple is a bit vague, but consider anything that make's a lay person's eyes glaze over as not simple. That may not seem to be acceptable to an advocate, but putting a big burden on lay people is a recipe for failure.

dog-on

Paul discovered Jesus, the mystery hidden in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Mark used these same scriptures to create a bio.

The rest (using the same scriptures and the work of the first two) added their own two cents worth.

Some of these ideas were later integrated and some were rejected.

.....................................

Simple enough?

Solo

Good try, but....

Paul tells us that he had a different view of Jesus before God revealed him as his Son. So someone else had some ideas about someone (or something) called Jesus that engaged Paul. Paul used the LXX. (sometimes weirdly) to defend his revelations against them.

Are what's the guarantee that the sentence should not read: "Mark used these same scriptures when he created a bio" ?

...to rehabilitate the historical [or rival mythical] witness of Jesus and to push their theology.

Yup.

:constern01:

I'd go with Ted Hoffman: 'accept that MJ is complicated, available only to experts, and that it is therefore futile to question it. '

Jiri

dog-on

Paul says that God revealed his son in him. Of course, I doubt that this actually happened this way, for obvious reasons, but Paul does refer to scripture quite often.

As the case for Paul's Jesus can be twisted out of scripture, and Paul's denial of having learned this from anyone, I see the scripture possibility as the simplest explanation.

None, then again, it doesn't really add too much additional complexity, so whatever.

I'll stick to the 2 cents... (which was, of course, pushing their theology).