Toto

I have no idea what you are talking about here. It doesn't sound like you have read either Doherty or Carrier. Carrier did not accuse Doherty of bias, and none of his suggestions would lessen any impact of Doherty's argument. In fact, he even came up with some new arguments in favor of the mythicist approach.

But I'm more concerned about your rotten attitude. Atheism is supposed to make people feel free and happy. Your friend may have shattered some Christian myths, but evidently he left some residue of muddled Christian thinking, which you do not even realize is Christian or at issue.

King Arthur

I have read quite a few books on the subject, Ryan, and his name has never pooped up in a footnote. Not once.

Professional? I thought he was a doctoral candidate. The scholars who currently have had their doctoral degrees for quite some time would probably take issue with some of Carrier's works.

Frankly, I don't think apologists will listen even if your historian had a doctorate since there are plenty of others with well-established credentials who tell them this stuff is bunk.

Yeah well, he goofed there, huh? I'm sure he'll take it back.

Nope. I'm saying he puts a spin on it. You ever watch politics?

Carrier was very generous to Doherty in his words. However, Carrier's criticisms were damning (even with the nice words) and took much of the bite out of Doherty's work. Sure Doherty's got some arguments, but nothing that most scholars don't already know about. It's Doherty's hyperbole and ambiguity in delineating between fact and his own theories that provides the unlearned atheist with the information he so desperately craves.

King Arthur

Really, Peter? Have you read Copan?

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801021758/qid=1026531614/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/104-9316988-9343157" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801021758/qid=1026531614/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/104-9316988-9343157</a>

Read that and you'll pretty much decide that he has a hard time quite explaining his Christianity. Before anyone criticizes the book as being written by a Christian, just read the darned thing. It is a debate in which Crossan's words are printed.

Every interview that I have seen with Crossan, he wriggles out of any theological question. He doesn't believe in the resurrection (a major part of Christianity, btw) or just about any other doctrine. I've never really understood why he insists on calling himself a Christian. It is obviously nominal. He should "come out".

Meier? Aw phooey! I thought I'd type it all out, but I'll just let you look it up! Ha!

Marjinal Jew page 6 (among other places that I'm too lazy to look up). "what I hold by faith"..."what we know and affirm by faith"..."of course not denying the relevance of investigations into the historical Jesus for faith and theology"

Yeah, I do think Meier is closer to being a Christian than Crossan.

King Arthur

Carrier did not accuse Doherty specifically of bias, but he does criticize him for quite a bit of hyperbole and clouding of fact and theory. Maybe Carrier believes some of the stuff he says, but it sounds like sugar coating of a poor work to me. After all, it makes atheists "feel good"!

There's something about reading the works of someone who is about your age as well. I'd much rather listen to those scholars with more experience and knowledge that can only be gained with time. Of course, who do atheists have to choose from there??? An atheist who won't admit he's an atheist (Crossan) and then some maverick scholars like Eisenman. Ok, there's more than that, but they don't seem to amount to much.

Ever wonder why there is a book for nearly every part of the Bible by some atheist somewhere that says it's myth? Man, if I only had a dollar for each one! Can't we come up with anything better? It starts to look rather suspicious when you can pick up a book by an atheist and it's on the Myth of the NT, the Myth of the OT, the Myth of Islam, the Myth of the Budda, the Myth of Vishnu, well, you get the point.

Bah, humbug. Free and happy? Yeah right! I will not tell anyone for fear that they *are* right and I will drag them into the eternal firepit of some God along with me! No! I'm responsible for myself alone. I won't shatter anyone else's world! Let them have their dream(?). I don't want them to hate me.

Peter Kirby

Craig I know, and Crossan I know, but who is Copan?

Arthur writes: Every interview that I have seen with Crossan, he wriggles out of any theological question. He doesn't believe in the resurrection (a major part of Christianity, btw) or just about any other doctrine.

Crossan does believe in the resurrection, just not in the same way that Raymond Brown (or Meier) does. Raymond Brown, by the way, does not believe in the resurrection in exactly the same way that Bill Craig does. Christians disagree on a major part of Christianity. Here is Crossan's take on the resurrection, printed in his scholarly tome:

"The couple were leaving Jerusalem in disappointed and dejected sorrow. Jesus joined them on the road and, unknown and unrecognized, explained how the Hebrew Scriptures should have prepared them for his fate. Later that evening they invited him to join them for their evening meal, and finally they recognized when once again he served the meal to them as of old beside the lake. And then, only then, they started back to Jerusalem in high spirits. The symbolism is obvious, as is the metaphoric condensation of the first years of Christian thought and practice into one parabolic afternoon. Emmaus never happened. Emmaus always happens." (The Historical Jesus)

I think that sometimes we allow theology to pass under the radar because it is liberal theology. John Meier couldn't get away with printing his view on the resurrection without getting lambasted by his critics. So Meier will not be talking about the resurrection at all in his series. Sure, Meier's theology is more conservative. But Meier doesn't express his theology as often in his books as Crossan does.

Crossan's book The Birth of Christianity has an epilogue on "The Character of Your God." Crossan emphases that justice is the essence of the divine.

When Crossan is questioned about the historicity of Jesus in an online seminar, Crossan raises a theological issue.

"In all those cases you are dealing with historical beings who were divinized, but whose historicity was not thereby negated. The example I have very specifically in mind at the moment is the case of Augustus Caesar who was so super-divinized that he was hard to beat. He was divine by ancient descent from Anchises and Aphrodite/Venuus at the time of the Trojan War (i.e., in that Bible of paganism, the Iliad). He was divine by birth, from Atia and Apollo, according to Suetonius and Dio Cassius. He was divine by adoption: since he had declared Julius Caesar, who had adopted him, to be divine (a little circularity there, but better not to emphasize it while Augustus was alive). Finally, he was divine by Senatorial decree as soon as he had died. Over against such claims, all of which would have made sense to millions of people who looked at the peace and prosperity brought by the Pax Romana and the Augustan boom, stands the claims of a small pip-squeak sect within a small pip-squeak nation (I speak from the Roman point of view) that their Jesus was every bit as divine as Caesar (in fact, in your face, Caesar). He was divine from ancient prophecy, conception, baptism, transfiguration, resurrection, ascension. We can stop there because Caesar is already trumped before we even get to a second coming. In that world, and against that cultural background, the debate is very clear. Which is the truly divine and truly historical being, Caesar or Jesus? Or, as I would put it in more abstract language, is the basis of life power or justice?"

So, if you were wondering about the content of Crossan's Christianity, there you have it right from the horse's mouth.

Unlike Crossan, Meier makes a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Meier, along with his Protestant colleagues, states that there are things about Christ's history that can only be known by faith. However, and this is important, Meier in his historical work prescinds from inquiring into the things which are known by faith. In this sense, Meier is strictly anti-theological in intent.

Crossan seems to reject that distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith as invalid. In _The Search for Jesus_, a person asked Crossan: "I got the message twice, once from Hershel Shanks and once from you, that the Christ of faith and the Jesus of history are two different things. But if they are, then the Christ of faith must be false because, if the Christ of faith is based on the Jesus of history, and if they are different, then doesn't that rule out the Christ of faith, even though there is a Christ of faith?" Crossan's reply is revealing:

So, yes, Meier is closer to orthodoxy than Crossan. But that does not mean that Meier's work is more religious than Crossan's.

Arthur writes: Yeah, I do think Meier is closer to being a Christian than Crossan.

If it matters, that's for God to decide. If God doesn't exist, then it doesn't matter.

best,
Peter Kirby

[edited for spelling, clarity, and italics]

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: peterkirby ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Or, as I would put it in more abstract language, is the basis of life power or justice?"

"Will you have the love of power, or the power of love?"

Crossan's thoughts are beautiful, but his historical Jesus is built out of his own prejudices.

Vorkosigan

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Really? As a human, I don't think of a historical Jesus as a particularly unjust person -obligatory disclaimer: if he existed. It's hard for me to fault a guy who got murdered for his message.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

There's something about reading the works of someone who is about your age as well. I'd much rather listen to those scholars with more experience and knowledge that can only be gained with time. Of course, who do atheists have to choose from there??? An atheist who won't admit he's an atheist (Crossan) and then some maverick scholars like Eisenman. Ok, there's more than that, but they don't seem to amount to much.

Art, atheists have every kind of scholar, from right-wingers like NT Wright to mavericks like Eisenman. We can choose from them all. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you have to believe any particular position. Atheism means lacking a belief in gods. It does not commit one to any particular position on the HJ, except perhaps that he wasn't the Son of YHWH.

You seem to be working with a caricature of atheism that implies atheists are just dumb robots latching onto whatever theory is the most recent. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are plenty of atheist scholars out there who believe in some sort of HJ, and plenty of people on this site who do.

Ever wonder why there is a book for nearly every part of the Bible by some atheist somewhere that says it's myth?

Lots of liberal believing scholars say this too. Do you think the only choice is Fundie vs. Atheist? In fact, you pick practically any event from the gospels and find a believing scholar who says it is a myth. What does that mean? Nothing, except that scholarly methodologies are suspect.

Can't we come up with anything better? It starts to look rather suspicious when you can pick up a book by an atheist and it's on the Myth of the NT, the Myth of the OT, the Myth of Islam, the Myth of the Budda, the Myth of Vishnu, well, you get the point.

If we had good data on these people and events, perhaps there wouldn't be so many scholars of all faith positions who felt they were religious fictions of one kind or another. Or do you think only atheists write books saying religious beliefs are myths.

Good grief! Do you think Vishnu was real? Do you think the legends about Mohammed accurately reflect the early spread of Islam? Cut me a break!

...some God along with me! No! I'm responsible for myself alone.

Then why do you keep writing "as atheists, we must...."?

How's that, Vorkosigan? Did I pass your little litmus test??

No.

I've read it, thanks. His remarks on methodology are not much different than those of his more religious counterparts like John Meier.

Huh? He rips Meier to shreds. Crossan and Meier differ greatly on methodology. See the section on methodology. It's an entire chapter.

In other words, all that is being said is that we just can't know anything for sure. Duh! BTW, if you cite a book, page quotes are good...

Read it again -- I told you "page 149."

In other words, all that is being said is that we just can't know anything for sure. Duh!

If it is a DUH! that we can't know anything for sure, how can you call people who think there was no Jesus at all "stupid" and "brain-dead." Those are awfully strong comments for someone who thinks it's not possible to know anything for sure.

Why don't you put up your own list of reasons to think there was an HJ? Surely you've compiled a list that will absolutely devastate us robotic, unthinking, faddish, brain-dead, stupid and silly people who think there is good reason to believe that the Jesus of the gospels is almost entirely myth.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

That would depend on who he was. Do you think he was concerned with social justice? Or just led an anti-Roman rebellion?

Further, we do not know if the guy who preached was the one who got executed. Multiple traditions come together in these stories.

I don't see any real concern with real social justice in the gospels, Peter. Probably my modern bias, but Jesus seems unconcerned with social justice. What about the status of women? Child labor? Land distribution? Agrarian reform? The aristocracy? Hereditary kingship? Slavery? Taxation and business? Divorce and child custody? The institutional structure of human relationships -- government, the church, the organization of communities? Pollution and economic marginalization? Relationships between Jews and outsiders? All of these things that concerned later social justice reformers are absent from Jesus' agenda.

What do you think "Kingdom of God" means? Is it a state of perfect love for others and striving for justice? I think that's how Crossan sees it, as a sort of anti-colonialist movement with strong economic and social strivings. Such are common throughout history. But what if it was some kind of ritual purity combined with ascetism, prayer and religious practice a la John the Baptist? Or an enlightenment movement, like Buddhism?

Vorkosigan

Toto

King Art - I do not think you read Carrier's article. The appendix says "Doherty occasionally falls into hyperbole", which Carrier thinks he needs to avoid because Doherty is proposing so radical a theory. This is not the same as "quite a bit of hyperbole and clouding of fact and theory".

And why would Carrier want to sugar coat anything? It's not necessary to make atheists feel good. Carrier himself was an atheist who thought there was a historical Jesus before reading the book, and in some ways it would simplify things if he could have kept that stance.

Let me quote a few sentences:

(emphasis added)

I don't get the point. What's wrong with writing about myths behind various religions? I think you will find a lot of books written by Christians about the myths behind religions other than their own. There are even books by Christians about the mythical elements in their own religion. So what is your point?

I don't know your age, so I don't know what age you are looking for. And I really think you're making this up as you go along. Why don't you start off with what you have read?

Are you for real? Or are you pretending to be an atheist so you can set a negative example for theists who wander through here? Nothing you say rings true.