Peter Kirby

I don't know exactly who Jesus was, and I couldn't convince you even if I had a particular belief. So let us just talk about Crossan's Jesus; I guess the discussion was about whether Crossan's human Jesus was just as well as about whether Crossan's Jesus is the real Jesus.

You are right that Crossan's Jesus did not seem to be ridiculously far ahead of his time with a concern for social justice. Child labor, hereditary kingship, and pollution do not come into question. But that does not mean that Crossan's Jesus was unconcerned for social justice as he understood it.

Crossan's Jesus reached out to women in his ministry -- as well as to prostitutes and publicans, who were despised for good reason. Crossan's Jesus speaks out against divorce, although an exceptive clause is added in Matthew. Crossan's Jesus seemed to be concerned with wealthy barons who were amassing land and marginalizing the peasantry. According to the index, Crossan doesn't touch the "give to Caesar" saying in Mark 12:14, but Horsley argues that a Jewish interpretation would imply that Caesar has no right to make a claim next to God, an implicit criticism of taxation. Horsley also says that Jesus was not strictly anti-family but was certainly anti-patriarchal; the passages proclaiming division of the family show this well enough. (Okay, so I have amalgamated Crossan and Horsley; both proclaim a Social Gospel.) I don't think that the portrait of a Jesus concerned for social justice finds no foundation in the gospels.

But, in a land with liberty and justice for all where enlightened justices can question the propriety of forcing children to make insincere theological confessions, the social justice concerns of Jesus seem out of date and primitive. Surely video killed the radio star. Perhaps radio killed the literary star. Jesus as known in the good book has lost his edge.

best,
Peter Kirby

Berean

Having waded through Freke and Gandy at the request of an atheist on another forum, I had decided not to waste any more time on Christ-mythers. This forum has made much of Carrier's article on Doherty of late, so I figured, hey, if I'm not going to read the book, I can at least read the review. And having read the review (along with a few others at Amazon and elsewhere), I'm definitely not going to read the book.

Carrier makes much of his knowledge of Greek, and his CV certainly bears this out, but he seems to rely far too much on strict grammatical analysis as opposed to evident contextual meaning. Consequently his defense of Doherty's loopy "Sublunar Incarnation Theory" based on kata sarka is silly. He is quite correct in saying the literal translation is "down through flesh" but apparently fails to realize (and, so I assume, does Doherty) that the two uses of this phrase with reference to Christ refer to his genealogical link to David. "Down" thus describes a figurative motion through time, not a literal motion. Kata sarka is used five other times in the NT, all referring to humans, once of Paul's membership in the Jewish race, twice of slaves' physical bond to their masters, and twice with the figurative "sinful nature" sense of sarx]. The idea of some mythical heavenly incarnation is not supported. If this is the cornerstone of Doherty's case, then it is weak at best.

Carrier makes a couple of other odd remarks in this vein in Appendix 12, in items iv, v and vi. In iv he may be right about epi being better translated as "in the time of", but I hardly see how this can be extrapolated to mean "visions of Christ to Peter and others". Why would it not more likely mean that Christ gave his personal testimony during the time Pilate? In v Carrier completely ignores the fact that all five other instances in the NT of ek deuterou plainly mean "a second time". And in vi although he is right about the more literal translation of the Greek, about 75% of the twenty or so translations I checked have that literal translation, so his comment "most other translations" appears false. And in any event, I don't see that there is much difference between "propitiation in his blood through faith" and "propitiation through faith in his blood". Professional theologians might disagree, but nonetheless it seeems a quibble.

I also find the argument for ahistoricity unconvincing.

Fnally, I doubt that Carrier's review will change scholarly attention on Doherty at all, if only for the fact that I doubt many NT scholars frequent the SecWeb.

Peter Kirby

Berean, dollars to donuts that Doherty will give you a free signed copy of his book if you promise to publish (in print or online) a book review. That's what he did for me.

Heck, I'll put your review on the front page of Early Christian Writings for at least a month. And you can tell that to Earl.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I fixed the link above so it will give credit to Internet Infidels, although I am not sure why anyone should buy it. I haven't read it, but I have read a book on a similar debate between Craig and Luedemann. From the pages I could read on Amazon, it looks like Craig is making exactly the same (lame) arguments as he did with Luedemann. He argues that Jesus' bodily resurrection is the best explanation of certain "facts" that he claims a majority of historians agree on.

Craig likes to debate academics who don't know how to debate, and who tend to come off looking inept beside him. I would not want to use the debate format to define anyone. Debates are an artificial environment, and do not usually allow for sublety.

Peter Kirby

All of Craig's arguments are regurgitated and paraphrased ad nauseam from Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus. If you care, ask about it at your university library.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Does Craig advocate inerrancy?

Peter Kirby

Craig won't point out any error in the Bible, but Craig won't commit to defending inerrancy as true.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

So he concedes errors but just won't point them out?

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: ilgwamh ]</p>

Vorkosigan

This forum has made much of Carrier's article on Doherty of late...

Yes, one whole thread. Wow! That certainly sounds like "much" to me.

Finally, I doubt that Carrier's review will change scholarly attention on Doherty at all, if only for the fact that I doubt many NT scholars frequent the SecWeb.

No, but one occasionally sees references to articles in the library in other forums where scholars do pop up.

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby

I think that Craig refuses to concede errors and refuses to commit to inerrancy.

best,
Peter Kirby