Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 05-04-2003, 07:36 AM

Quote:

So what you need are justifications for your assumption of historicity, not for your methodology of doing the gospels.

Vork, just for clarification, when you say "gospels" you are not referring to the canonical four are you? I am thinking you include GThomas, Q Gospel and so forth in this statement?

Vinnie

Roland · 05-04-2003, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
The biggest divide is between people who think that the Gospel of Mark was written with a pre-existing belief in an earthly Jesus (so Ellegard, Wells, and perhaps Doherty now) and people who think that the Gospel of Mark was written purely as an allegory and not to be taken as an expression of a belief in an earthly Jesus (so Freke, Gandy, and perhaps Doherty in the past). (I say "perhaps" because this is based on my memory of conversations with Doherty on Jesus Mysteries and in private correspondence.)
[/B]

Wow, Peter, this is interesting. I had not heard that Doherty was wavering in his position. That would be a big change for him since he's spent so much of his time making the very case that the New Testament makes more sense from a non-HJ viewpoint. Is there any way you could elaborate on this possible change in Doherty's position?

Thanks.

Peter Kirby · 05-04-2003, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Thanks, Peter, for all the effort you put into that. It's hard for me to formulate a response that would be as lengthy as your post! I'll get back to it tomorrow!

Vork, I'm a bit frightened. I wrote that lengthy post so you didn't have to pick up Crossan. It's an explanation, not an argument. Well, it's an argument that Crossan is explicable. I will read your response but don't think of it as necessary, except of course to the degree that you disagree with Crossan, who is not here to read it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 05-04-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
Wow, Peter, this is interesting. I had not heard that Doherty was wavering in his position. That would be a big change for him since he's spent so much of his time making the very case that the New Testament makes more sense from a non-HJ viewpoint. Is there any way you could elaborate on this possible change in Doherty's position?

Thanks.

I did not say that Doherty is wavering in his position. Doherty continues to maintain that the best interpretation of the New Testament and early Christian writings is that the early Christians did not believe in a HJ.

Here is a quote from Doherty's book.

"It would be interesting to know how long Mark outlived his moment of creation. Was he around to see his symbolic character and story take on a life of their own? Might he have come in contact with men like Ignatius who insisted to his face that yes, there was a Jesus Christ born of Mary and crucified by Pilate? Would he have set them straight? Perhaps he even came to believe it himself." (The Jesus Puzzle, p. 223)

Here is a quote from a message to JesusMysteries on Friday, July 6, 2001.

"I am increasingly adopting the theory that Mark may have believed in an HJ, in the sense of a founder of the Kingdom movement as developed in later-stage Q, and decided to 'expand' this figure to include a basic savior dimension, within the ethos of the Christ cult. To give this concrete form, he invented (perhaps as an allegory) a 'death and resurrection' for him on earth, set in Jerusalem."

You can draw your own conclusions on whether this is a change of opinion and how significant it is.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman · 05-05-2003, 04:24 AM

Quote:

It says we should reject the argument because we don't like the conclusions. That's not an academic position.

In relation to this, Metacrock earlier argued that our arguments would render everything historical to be myth.
which is simply an emotive argument/ emotional appeal as you correctly pointed out.

Beautiful thread. Thanks Vork - this thread is a veritable example between minds that are analyzing and those that are synthesizing.

Its important to realize when we are moving (progressing) and when we are rocking (success). I think Vork has cut across the beautiful veil that we so elegantly call the stratum to expose the creature that lurks beneath it. What lurks beneath is a rocking chair - keeps you busy but takes you nowhere.

Quote:

The assumption is that if you can stratify and inventory properly, somehow you can get to some history. But all you do with that is construct the first iteration of the legend. Just look at Tolkien again.... Likewise, no matter how perfectly you stratify and inventory the Jesus material, you aren't anywhere. the Gospel Jesus' historicity is an assumption you have to bring to your process of stratification and inventorying. You can never discover that in the text; you have to bring it to the text. So what you need are justifications for your assumption of historicity, not for your methodology of doing the gospels.

Vorkosigan · 05-05-2003, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Vork, just for clarification, when you say "gospels" you are not referring to the canonical four are you? I am thinking you include GThomas, Q Gospel and so forth in this statement?

Vinnie

Well, yes, in fact any of the early Christian writings. Crossan is clear on that in tBoC, where he points out that even if you have the earliest stuff, all you have is....the earliest stuff. There is some other criterion that we bring to the table, and that is simply the axiomatic belief that Jesus is a historical figure currently prevalent.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman · 05-05-2003, 08:24 AM

IOW, being "the earliest" does not in itself confer historical veracity to the documents' contents.

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

05-05-2003, 08:24 AM	#27
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	IOW, being "the earliest" does not in itself confer historical veracity to the documents' contents.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.