Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 03-14-2003, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman
No, the majority of scholars date Mark prior to the fall of Jerusalem.

Such Scholars obviously believe in prophecy otherwise they would not even consider the question.

As far as I am concerned Mk 13:19 gives it away

"For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.

Note the word "now"
Is "now" ~30 CE when Jesus suposedly spoke these words?

No! This is a case of "writer perspective"
The writer starts by projecting the event into the future "For those days will be .."
Then he stumbles ... makes a mistake ... reveals something which he was not suposed to reveal.
Instead of saying "until then" keeping the event in the future as Jesus would have said it, he writes "until now", thus betraying his belief that the tribulations had already started.
"now" is the time of the tribulation in question. The war with the Romans had already started when Mark wrote this. He may have guessed that the temple would be destroyed but a good prophet cannot take that chance. Therefore the earliest would be 70 CE.

Quote:

Layman
The idea that the lack of a references to "Jerusalem," "Calvary" and/or "Golgotha" has any relevance to the issue of whether the author of Hebrews is referring to earthly events or historical tradition is demonstrably false. Example after example of later Christian writings -- which even Doherty admits refer to an earthly Jesus -- discuss Jesus' death, crucifixion, or passion without ever mentioning "Jerusalem," Calvary" and/or "Golgotha." I will discuss some notable examples:

You seemed to have missed the point.
The verses Doherty quotes specifically speak of the location of the sacrifice yet fail to mention the earthly location. It matters not that a million letters talk about Jesus death and not mention Golgotha. Show us text which speak of location of the death without mentioning Jerusalem, Calvary and Golgotha.

Peter Kirby · 03-14-2003, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
Show us text which speak of location of the death without mentioning Jerusalem, Calvary and Golgotha.

Traditional Song...no, I'm not making an analogy!

Where you there when they crucified my Lord?
Where you there when they crucified my Lord?
O! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble!
Where you there when they crucified my Lord?

Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?
Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?
O! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble!
Were you there when they nailed Him to the tree?

Where you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
Where you there when they laid Him in the tomb?
O! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble!
Where you there when they laid Him in the tomb?

Where you there when He rose up from the dead?
Where you there when He rose up from the dead?
O! Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble!
Where you there when He rose up from the dead?

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 03-14-2003, 11:54 PM

I am trying to figure out what Peter means by that.

I found this commentary:

Quote:

The scripture and the catechism make it very clear. The actions at the Mass and Christ�s horrible death are the same events. This is indeed a great mystery. How can we be present now in our own parish church and at the same time be present at the sacrifice that occurred 2000 years ago in Jerusalem? Because God created time and exists outside of time. Since time and space were created by God it is not so much of a miracle for Him to create a means for us to be present spiritually at His sacrifice. He has created a spiritual "Time Tunnel".

After reading this, I wonder if the Catholic Church does in fact believe in a historical Jesus in the sense that a secular historican would use the term.

Ted Hoffman · 03-15-2003, 01:16 AM

Quote:

In another post, I demonstrated that Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 was very dubious, and that said verses clearly indicated that Jesus had already made one earthly appearance, and that he would appear again in a second coming.

You most assuredly did no such thing Layman.
At one point, you stated that your main argument was not that Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews is dubious, but that his "ek deuterou" argument could not stand alone. Your title was misleading. You cant use a title of a thread as a flag of victory as you are doing now, however ambitious and dramatic the title is. Where is the evidence that you demonstrated "that Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 was very dubious"? Your boastful claims?

You then reeled into a nitpicking tangent that the author of Hebrews seemed to have different platonic "flavours" but you could not refute the argument that the author expresses a dominant platonic way of thought/theology in the manner in which he wrote the relevant section(s) of Hebrews. You instead chose to quibble about the different "flavours" exhibited in Hebrews.

Doherty argues that if the author were drawing a parallel between a heavenly and earthly sacrifice, then it would be inconsistent to have the heavenly event being partly earthly. This is an incongruence you could not address convincingly.

How could the High priest's sacrificial act be a parallel to Jesus' sacrifice if Jesus was sacrificed on earth?
That in itself would have shattered the parallel in the platonic framework (in the platonic mindset, there were heavenly counterparts to earthly events). It would be incongruent to have the heavenly parallel being "contaminated" with an earthly event (Jesus' alleged earthly crucifixion).
Mythers hold that Jesus' "life", "death" and "resurrection" were wholly ethereal events that did not take place in the earthly realm just like that of sumerian Attis/Asherah. And this is consistent with the platonic ethos that the author of Hebrews displays throughout his epistles.

Doherty also asked the very unforgettable question: How could the author be talking about a second coming yet he had not accounted for or mentioned a first coming?
You have not addressed this question either and no amount of hand-waving and grandstanding will make these questions vanish.

More importantly, you were attacking a strawman by isolating his interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 yet you know very well that the interpretation is drawn from a number of other reasons and contexts and histo-cultural milieu which you conveniently chose to exclude. You instead chose to focus on "meta" and ek deuteurou" - when I pointed this out, you pouted that Doherty had said that it could stand alone.
And that is when I said your ambitious thread title was misleading.
Doherty's argument is not that his interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 can stand alone, but that the author was referring to the parousia. You chose to attack a claim about the argument and left the argument untouched. As I said, its a waste of time to argue that an item is not red when one is colourblind. If you reject Doherty's arguments, its a waste of time to argue that they cannot stand alone, so its worthwhile instead to focus on the arguments and your reasons for rejecting them.
You have started a new thread without clearly addressing Doherty's arguments other than asserting that "mainstream scholarly opinion is that the author was referring to the second coming". Which is in essence, an apop (argument from a position of preconception) and an appeal to numbers. Price and Carrier have endorsed Doherty's interpretation.

In a nutshell, Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28 is as sound as ever and has not been shaken one bit by your assertions and tangential arguments.

Now you have started another thread, with a dramatic, presumptuous title.

What you need to explain, as Toto points out, is why the authors chose, in their lengthy, preachy writings, not to mention "Jerusalem, Golgotha, and/or Calvary".

What is your explanation - that it doesn't matter that they didn't mention any historical facts? You want to wave it away?
It follows logically that if one is writing about a person but doesnt mention any historical entities, then the person(being written about) is not likely to be historical, or the text cannot be considered to be historical.
To argue that such a character is actually historical, the one making such an argument would then have to explain why the author(s) chose to omit historical references.
Until then, you are begging the question. From the writings of Ignatius, there is no reason to beleive that he/she was writing about a historical character. Apart from begging the question, I can see you resorting to special pleading - unless you have substantive arguments this time.

Sectarian selection of quotes from some scholars of your choice don't lend much validity to your argument(s). Because we have scholars that disagree anyway.
About Price's analysis in Deconstructing Jesus, Doherty says:

Quote:

Price recounts several myths and formulae of the mysteries that bear uncanny resemblance to the way the early Christians presented their Christ. He also provides a good grounding in the underlying meanings and sources of such cultic beliefs. And in the most effective and satisfying piece of counter-debunking I've yet seen on this subject, he thoroughly discredits that 20th century trend of scholarly apologetics which has sought to dissociate the Christian savior Jesus from the similar expression of the mysteries. Jonathan Z. Smith ("Dying and Rising Gods" in Encyclopedia of Religion) and Gunter Wagner (Pauline Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries) are only two of many offenders who have naively or arrogantly twisted, misread and misrepresented the Greek mysteries and Pauline Christianity in order to divorce Jesus from his fellow cultic saviors: Dionysos, Attis, Osiris & Co. No one can read these pages [88-91] and ever again allow such special pleading tactics any credence.

Only one original feature was introduced by Christians like Paul for their savior deity. Whereas the Hellenistic tradition of liberality and inclusiveness allowed for the side-by-side existence of many cult deities within the pantheon of saviors -- and many a pagan devotee hedged his or her bets by subscribing to the cults of several savior gods -- only Christianity claimed exclusivity for its version of the old tune, and regarded Jesus Christ as the sole existing source of salvation. Once political power was obtained, of course, that claim of exclusivity was ruthlessly enforced.

Maybe you can comment about Prices assesment of the areatological figures and the treatment the different writers gave them; figures like Pythagoras by Iamblichus, Alexander by Plutarch, Apollonius of Tyana by Philostratus and why Marks' Jesus should be treated any different from them. Special pleading is written all over your arguments about why an evidently mythical figure, per Hebrews and Ignatius' writings, should be given any special treatment. Before you mention Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus etc, Price says:

Quote:

Traditionally, Christ-Myth theorists have argued that one finds a purely mythic conception of Jesus in the epistles and that the life of Jesus the historical teacher and healer as we read it in the gospels is a later historicization. This may indeed be so, but it is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last. In the gospels the degree of historicization is actually quite minimal, mainly consisting of the addition of the layer derived from contemporary messiahs and prophets, as outlined above. One does not need to repair to the epistles to find a mythic Jesus. The gospel story itself is already pure legend. What can we say of a supposed historical figure whose life story conforms virtually in every detail to the Mythic Hero Archetype, with nothing, no "secular" or mundane information, left over? As Dundes is careful to point out, it doesn't prove there was no historical Jesus, for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionized, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype. But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. The stained glass would have become just too thick to peer through.

Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of the time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them. But is this the case with Jesus? I fear it is not. The apparent links with Roman and Herodian figures is too loose, too doubtful for reasons I have already tried to explain. Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."

About your tortured argument that the author was "forcing" what he knew about the historical facts of Jesus' death into Hebrew scripture, it has no validity. An analogy does not need to be exact - by its very definition. If its a perfect match, it must be a repeat of the same thing - or the same thing and NOT an analogy.

In fact, the only thing that makes it seem "forced" is if one is arguing from the preconceived position that a historical Jesus, as formulated in the Gospels, actually existed. Eheumerizing Christ [logos] is inconsistent with platonic philisophy which was pervasive in hellenistic Palestine.
This speaks volumes about the idea that a historical Jesus existed, because if we buy the idea, we will then have to explain what compelled the author of Hebrews to "force" interpretations into a framework that so obviously expels any attempt to fit motifs. What aggravates the quagmire you are in is the fact that you are arguing that the author deviated from his platonic leavings in the verses in question - which raises another question: what animus motivated him to force the analogy he was attempting to draw?

You have not explained the very fitting nature of the comparison when the author uses the word camp in 13:11-13:

Quote:

11Those animals whose blood is brought as a sin-offering by the High Priest into the sanctuary have their bodies burnt outside the camp, 12and therefore Jesus also suffered outside the gate, to consecrate the people by his own blood. 13Let us then go to meet him outside the camp, bearing the stigma that he bore.

Doherty notes:

Quote:

The first thing to note is that the name of Jerusalem is not used. Only the Gospel story would lead us to identify the author�s thought about a gate with that city. Nor does the name of Calvary or Golgotha ever appear.
Note, too, that the flanking verses above use the word �camp.� Here we need to look at the Greek word �parembole.� It means a fortified military camp, and it is used in Exodus and Leviticus to refer to the Israelite camp in the wilderness of Sinai. Hebrews, in its presentation of the cultic rituals of sacrifice, seems to have this ancient �historical� setting in mind rather than any contemporary Herodian Temple. The present passage, then, lies far from the site of Jerusalem in the writer�s mind; and all of it has the mark of symbolic significance. Jesus suffering �outside the gate� is an element which is dependent, not on some historical record, but on the idea in the previous phrase. Jesus did this because bodies of sacrificed animals were burned outside the camp.

For this writer, everything to do with Christ and his sacrifice must be modeled on the sacrificial cultus of the Jewish religion, as described in scripture.

I would like to remind the readers/lurkers that you have chosen to conveniently exclude the section I have highlighted above when you quoted Doherty above. After selectively quoting part of the write up that can serve your agenda (this is called "slicing"), you then stated:

Quote:

Doherty's claim that Jesus undergoes the "same thing" and is merely a "copy" of what happens to animal sacrifices in the Temple Cult as stated by Hebrew scripture is obviously false. The differences are obvious and significant.

The differences are not significant and the similarities and obvious. The word camp is used in Jesus' parallel and in the High Priests' case. This is a very beautiful and fitting analogy.
If differences do not exist, then it obviously cant be and analogy, its misleading to highlight the differences alone even as you selectively quote the author. The fact that you offer no link in your OP also seems sneaky and smnacks of devious argumentation. Thanks to Toto, the link is now readily available.

Quote:

First, there author changes his terminology. In Leviticus, after the sacrifice, the carcass of the animal is "taken outside the camp." Lev. 16:27. Once there, the carcass is burned. Lev. 16:28. The author of Hebrews faithfully reproduces the text in Hebrews v. 11, noting that the animal is burned "outside the camp." When speaking of Jesus, however, the author of Hebrews does not say that Jesus suffered "outside the camp."

Of course there have to be changes in terminology. Its a basic writing practice. Using the same terminology all the time makes for a tedious, boring writing. And it might make ana analogy be confused with the actual thing being described.
"Outside the gate" and "outside the camp" both mean "outside the camp"
Any living thing that is "burnt" "suffers" so the analogy is fitting.
You are engaging in semantic quibbles. And its a sorry sight.

Quote:

Doherty offers no explanation for the shift in terminology

Because its an analogy. Besides, the "shift" trivial, as I have indicated above.

Quote:

It is clearly incompatible with his claim that Jesus is merely the "same thing" or a "copy" that is based on Hebrew scripture

Another strawman. He doesnt say Jesus was the same thing - he says Jesus underwent the same thing (the sacrificial act). Its about the soteriology. You evidently cant see the trees for the forest. To be sure, Doherty says:

Quote:

then Jesus had to undergo the same thing, in a higher world mythic parallel to the earthly copy. The idea of "outside the gate" also provides a symbolic parallel to the experiences of the believers, as we see by the succeeding verse which suggests that the author saw both Jesus and his own sect as rejected outsiders, living �beyond the pale' with no permanent home.

earthly copy is used in reference to a copy of the event, NOT the actual beings involved - a perfect analogy.

Quote:

First, the reference to Melchizedek, along with other features about Hebrews, actually points away from a heavy reliance on Platonic thought here. The figure of Melch. is obviously considered to be historical, and hints at Qumran influence--and their belief in an earthly Messiah.

It does point away "from a heavy reliance on Platonic thought" if one presumes that there was indeed a historical Jesus. So this is a moot point. In the wider context of Hebrews however, and the glaring omission of mention of historical info, its evident the author was just pulling out any scriptural characters/ events and constructing heavenly analogies for them.

Quote:

It defies the majority of modern scholarship, without providing any adequate justification

Any statistics this time? Or shall we take you on your word again? You seem intent on making appeal to popularity fashionable.

Quote:

The author of Hebrews is not creating accounts about Jesus from the Hebrew scriptures, he is trying to "force" a fit between existing historical tradition and the scriptures available to him.

This "force" argument is not evident in the scholarly citations you've provided. Is it your own argument or does it have any scholarly support?
According to your quotations:

Luke T. Johnson, The Writings of the New Testament, says "The symbolism of Hebrews is complex..."
F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews says the parallel may seem inexact, but that its a parallel nevertheless.
Homer A. Kent, Jr., The Epistle to the Hebrews says "The analogy was not meant to be pressed"

You have cited them, purely for effect, then formulated your own tortured argument that the author of Hebrews just wanted to force things. Force them into what? since you argue that he had no Platonic persuasions, what would compel him to force things? What framework did he have in mind? What preconceptions/persuasions drove him into forcing analogies between incongruent (from your POV) entities?
Are there studies that have demonstrated that there are other scriptural authors who chose to force things into incongruent frameworks? If not, was this solely the style of the author of Hebrews?
Your tortured and tenuous argument strikes me as ad-hoc and the claim that he forced things seems entirely arbitrary and subjective.
Provide scholarly support at least.

If I may ask, why did you cite the scholars above?

Peter Kirby · 03-15-2003, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
I am trying to figure out what Peter means by that.

NOGO requested, "Show us text which speak of location of the death without mentioning Jerusalem, Calvary and Golgotha." Perhaps that request can be fulfilled. An objection to the example that came to mind may be that it is a song, not quite a "text."

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
After reading this, I wonder if the Catholic Church does in fact believe in a historical Jesus in the sense that a secular historican would use the term.

There is one thing that I have noticed among some mythicists and some Christians: they treat the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith as a package deal. So, if you think there was some kind of Jesus, blammo...Jesus rose on the third day. Or, if you don't believe in all the miracle stories, shazam, Jesus disappears. A good secular historian avoids such stark dichotomies.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman · 03-15-2003, 02:11 AM

Quote:

And why am I the only one who has to prove things around here, Toto?

Because you expect to be taken on your word.

Quote:

I don't think we need a theory as to why Ignatius does not mention Jerusalem. Or why Polycarp did not. Or the account of his martrydom did not. Or Barnabas did not. Or why so many other such writings do not. It's just a fact. Belief in a historical Jesus does not necessitate mentioning every possible detail about whatever aspect of his life you are writing about. Using such "silences" as evidence of a lack of a historical Jesus is unfounded.

If they did not write historical details, what then, would make us think that they beleived in a historical figure? How do you judge someones beliefs if they dont express them?

Toto wrote:

Quote:

So one month ago you challenged Doherty's translation of one phrase in Hebrews (I disagree with your assertion that you "demonstrated" much of anything). Now you are challenging his interpretation of two verses in Hebrews. At this rate, it might take you 3 years to work through what Doherty has written on Hebrews alone, before you tackle the rest of his web site, which could take you another 30 years.

I have been mildly disturbed by the prospect of an old man(a lawyer perhaps), back-bent, saliva drooling, fulminating about why Doherty's interpretation of one particular verse, out of thousands others, is incorrect. <shudder, shudder>

Quote:

One reason I chose Hebrews was because Doherty claimed it was a mini-but-complete model of his views on early Christianity:

But you arent tackling Hebrews: you first tackled Doherty's interpretation of Hebrews 9:27-28, and now, you have latched on Hebrews 13:11-13. Is Doherty's argument about Hebrews based on 3 verses only?
Like Toto said, 30 years. Are you ready?

Quote:

Are you and IM related? Sheesh.
We agree that Doherty believes that Ignatius believed in a historical Jesus. Right?

Who exactly is "we"? Ignatius had no opportunity to witness a historical Jesus. And his writings betray that fact.

Quote:

So what? Carrier is just as wrong as Doherty.

With all due respect, you are not qualified to pass such a judgement. A Layman (no pun intended) like you will have to stack up considerable evidence to refute what historians and eminent writers state on this subject.
But as usual, you expect to be taken on your word. You must be so special.

Quote:

I said nothing about it being "exactly" the same. It was substantially different. And the best explanation for the differences, is that there was a preexisting tradition that the author of Hebrews had to try and fit into Hebrew scripture.

Your "substantially different" assertion was spurious and you attempted to lead readers down a garden path. You excluded Doherty's emphasis on the common points and only highlighted the differences. You incorrectly beleive that an analogy is only fit if there are no differences between it and the actual thing in question. I can only feel sorry for you but I hope you will know better shortly.

Quote:

You say a lot. You actually discuss very little.

<beep>Ad hominem

Quote:

Sheesh. You and IM must be related. I never claimed Ignatius was an independent witness to the life of Christ. I was very clear. Ignatius writes as one who believes in a historical Jesus, but never mentions Jerusalem.

Whether Ignatius beleives in a HJ or not is as irrelevant as whether the Pope beleives in a HJ or not. Both of them never saw Jesus thus their beliefs would be simply expressions of faith. But more importantly, how can we know what Ignatius beleived if he never wrote about it?

Quote:

Now you are way off point. And way wrong too. The overwhelming scholarly consensus is that there was a historical Jesus. But I never mentioned that or relied on it anywhere in this thread.

As Vork says, the consensus is there for social reasons since there is no clear methodology for constructing a HJ from the layers upon Layers of Myth. Price, in Deconstructing Jesus, concludes:

Quote:

...Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."

For once, why not list these scholars? Keep an updated list since the vague "majority scholarly opinion" is a crutch you lean on quite heavily. Its beginning to crack.

Quote:

I'm not in a hurry. It's not like his theories are going anywhere.

He has been cited in respectable Journals and has got international acclaim. What more would any private scholar in Biblical scholarship want as a symbol of recognition? A gold medal?
In any case, whether his theories are going anywhere (assuming you can measure that) is irrelevant. We are only interested in its validity or lack thereof.

About Kirby's cryptic hymn, Paul beleived he died and rose with Jesus. Beat that.
More to the point, without specifying what text/book he is citing from, author, authour's animus and date of writing (socio-historical context), we cannot evaluate its value as far as writing versus beleiving a HJ is concerned. It would be charitable of him (Kirby) if he provided such information, unless he is simply being facetious.

Ted Hoffman · 03-15-2003, 02:19 AM

Quote:

A good secular historian avoids such stark dichotomies.

You mean IYHO? In any case, this is a situation where you cant have it both ways thus the dichotomy is inescapable.
I also think depends on whether the author/ historian is synthesizing or analyzing.

Toto · 03-15-2003, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
NOGO requested, "Show us text which speak of location of the death without mentioning Jerusalem, Calvary and Golgotha." Perhaps that request can be fulfilled. An objection to the example that came to mind may be that it is a song, not quite a "text."

Well, no, the objection is that the old Negro spiritual (what is the politically correct term for that these days?) does not in fact mention a location. It asks, "were you there?" not "were you there in Jerusalem?" or were you there at Calvary?"

It could well refer to "were you paying attention when the spiritual Christ was sacrificed in your heart?" or maybe it was a code word for some slave rebellion, saying let's all get together at midnight. More Christian mysteries.

And once I wrote that, I had to look into it:

Origins of the Spirituals

Quote:

Over time, southern slaves developed plantation songs that also carried coded messages. Only the slaves knew their meaning. It was through these songs that important information was passed along a system of communication throughout the South. Coded songs conveyed messages about rebellions or escapes through the Underground Railroad. They were also a way for the slave to "sass the Massa" without fear of retribution. The plantation owners and overseers never suspected their smiling chattel who sang such simple songs - or so they thought.

. . .

For a time, the slaves simply by-passed the New Testament, especially since their white taskmasters used it to justify slavery as an acceptable way of life. But there was something about the man Jesus, hanging there upon the hard, wooden cross. Here was a man who was beaten like they were. He was spit upon. He was falsely accused. He was imprisoned for a crime he did not commit. Finally, he was hung on a tree, a method of execution familiar to the slaves. Through all of these indignities, Jesus prayed, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

from a google cache of this dead webpage :

Quote:

When Black slaves could not congregate in groups, the Black preacher devised ways of preaching to the slaves. He would have the water boy announce the service by singing through the fields the words from the Negro spiritual: "Steal Away." All the slaves knew where to meet for that night's worship. Another slave would be stationed near the big house to make sure that the slave masters could not hear the service. The following morning he would sing "O, I couldn't hear nobody pray," through the fields. The slave preacher gave such a strong description of Jesus' life. The slaves knew he could not read, so they asked him, "Were you there when they crucified my Lord?"

So maybe this hymn was actually the anthem of the slaves skeptics society - how do you know this actually happened? Were you there?

Quote:

There is one thing that I have noticed among some mythicists and some Christians: they treat the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith as a package deal. So, if you think there was some kind of Jesus, blammo...Jesus rose on the third day. Or, if you don't believe in all the miracle stories, shazam, Jesus disappears. A good secular historian avoids such stark dichotomies.

best,
Peter Kirby

For the early church, the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith were a package. The enlightenment tried to separate out the Jesus of history as part of a reform effort against the Catholic church, but the quest has not been an ideologically free secular effort - it has been part of one or more causes. Freke and Gandy clearly are trying to revive Gnosticism. The Jesus Seminar wants to promote liberalization and save us from fundamentalism. These all may be good causes, but I don't see any secular historians approaching the issue in a truly disinterested fashion, perhaps because they don't have enough real historical material to work with and it doesn't sound like a good way to get tenure.

In any case, in my association with non-believers, I have been advised by one prominent atheist to just avoid the JM issue - say that there probably was someone behind the gospel stories, just not a supernatural being, as a tactical matter, because you can't prove that Jesus didn't exist and you'll waste a lot of time on the issue. Most secularists seem to prefer the enlightenment Jesus who was a wisdom teacher who had his simple ethical precepts perverted by Paul and the early church. The trouble is finding him.

Toto · 03-15-2003, 11:58 AM

I had originally posted, in regard to the location of the crucifixion:

Quote:

This piece of information is missing from all of the earliest Christian writings until after the fall of Jerusalem, and then it suddenly pops up. How did Mark know that detail? You can wave your hands and talk about "oral traditions", but it seems more likely to have been invented for theological reasons, like the rest of Mark's gospel.

Layman responded:

Quote:

Since Mark was the first person to write a biography of Jesus that we know of, it's not strange that he was the first person we know of to specifically mention the place of Jesus' death.

And Mark was written before the fall of Jerusalem.

The consensus is usually listed as Mark being written between 65 - 80 CE, either after the fall of Jerusalem or shortly before, in the heat of the warfare leading up to the fall. So the question is still there: where did Mark get this information? Was it floating around in the ether of alleged "oral tradition" or did Mark have a theological motive in adding that detail to his allegorical tale?

Peter Kirby · 03-15-2003, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
You mean IYHO?

No. It is irrational to assert that two extremes are the only options when there is a large middle ground inbetween.

best,
Peter Kirby

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.