Layman

Actually I'm glad to hear that. Do you remember where you heard it?

Layman

I've given these arguments before. Both here and elsewhere. But right now I'm busy with Kirby. Of course, those threads are at least related to the issue.

But yes, when atheist scholars like Grant, very liberal scholars like Bultmann, secular humanist scholars like Durant, and top-notch scholars like Stanton completely reject the Jesus-Myth hypo as unreasonable then I believe I'm reasonable in giving some credence to such a broad consensus.

Vorkosigan

Nobody claims you're being unreasonable, Layman. Only that you use awfully strong words which neither you nor any other scholar can back up.

"I do not think, after two hundred years of experimentation, that there is any way, acceptable in public discourse or scholarly debate, by which you can go directly into the great mound of the Jesus tradition and separate out the historical Jesus layer from all later strata."

Vorkosigan

Layman

Hmm. Some might think that using terms that no one on earth could back up might be "unreasonable."

Vorkosigan

Again, I do not consider you "unreasonable" to use strong words in situations that are emotionally charged for you.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Layman
But yes, when atheist scholars like Grant, very liberal scholars like Bultmann, secular humanist scholars like Durant, and top-notch scholars like Stanton completely reject the Jesus-Myth hypo as unreasonable then I believe I'm reasonable in giving some credence to such a broad consensus.
Its never reasonable to parott something senselessly and when asked to give your reasons why, you respond "X is a scholar, and he said it!"

aikido7

To be sure of anything
Would be a fine thing
--Paul McCartney

Ted Hoffman

One thing I'd like you guys to understand is that I havent always been a Christ myther. I always thought that Jesus was misquoted or that Jesus was simply mistaken about who he was(like David Koresh who said that if the Bible is true then he is Jesus). So, when a theological professor provided me with Josh McDowells book and challenged me to refute the "evidence", I started my research with a skeptical mind (I have never beleived in the resurrection) but all along, the idea that Jesus might never have existed never crossed my mind. I just set forth to refute McDowells argument using biblical exegesis, philosophy and logic.
When he advanced historical and archaeological arguments, I had to foray into history and archaeology and thanks to the information age, I could dig up a lot from the internet. I familiarised myself with Josephus' works and the writings of 1st century writers and as I dug deeper, I came across higher criticism as opposed to textual criticism. I was having my first glimpse at biblical scolarship.
I am still very green at this field but my impressions are that the inertia of our formative years as christians is the one that keeps us from shedding the idea that a historical Jesus might never have existed. I also know that there are scholars who have built their whole careers on the bedrock that a historical Jesus existed. And sneering at the Jesus myth idea seems to be the safest reaction for them because confronting the arguments dead on or advancing arguments that establish the existence of a historical Jesus might expose them to a truth they are not ready to countenance.
I dont deny the idea that it might be wrong. Heck, Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells, Quentin Iaison, Robert M. Price might all be wrong about this, but UNTIL that is proven, we have no basis for claiming the idea is loony just because we feel uncomfortable about it. That is the hallmark of fundamentalism - to label people or ideas, instead of evaluating them on their own merit.

I believe that as far as the argument from silence is concerned, Earl Doherty has perfected it and made it "positive" and provided arguments that have immense explanatory power for the paucity of the historical documents mentioning Jesus and for the alterity of christian beliefs and how christ got eheumerized. All other scholars need to do is advance trenchant arguments and construct a plausible and reasonable picture about what happened in the first century while taking every existing shred of evidence into account.

I did not wake up one morning and decide "ah, Jesus never existed" it took an amount of research. So, I am confident that Layman and other detractors wont just wake up one day and forge solid argument that can shatter the christ myth idea. The best I can see them muster is sneer and lamely say "loony". As far as I can tell, its loony because its discomfitting to some.

Its nice to know there are people like Layman and Bede who keep laymen like me on our toes and Its good to know there are people like Peter Kirby, Crossan and Vorkosigan who are neutral over this issue and then of course there are Doherty, Wells and others on this side (I know I have mixed scholars with laymen but what the heck) Its a playingfield. The best idea will always come on top in the end.

Vorkosigan

I am NOT nuetral.

Vork

Vorkosigan

He does not SEEM to have the intellectual prowess to create a fictional hero of the type that Jesus obviously is. Jesus COULD be a mythical character. BUT, I think it very possible that he is not.

Let's get our terminology straight. Jesus is most certainly a mythical character. Your position is that he is probably not a wholly fictional one.

V: Rodahi, I think this argument is weak. You are confusing Mark's lack of presentation skills in Greek with a lack of creativity.

Nope. No confusion here. I think that good fiction requires more than an ability to use one's creative imagination. Also, in Mark's narrative we see a very human protagonist who possesses numerous negative characteristics. Why CREATE a hero who does the things Jesus does?

We'll take this on below.

I find it unreasonable to attribute to the writer the intellectual sophistication and literary ability to CREATE out of thin air a fictional character of Jesus' complexity.

I am sorry, I was not clear. My fault. I doubt Mark created Jesus out of thin air.

I don't think any of my students are capable of creating a fictional character such as Jesus. However, it would be easy for them to recount stories they may have heard about someone like Jesus.

Yes, but the fact that they are Jesus being nasty does not make them true...

V: Mark is facing the multiple problems of creating stories in a region he knows little about, from scratch and some OT writings, some things he'd heard, and some legends, making a passable story that must satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends.

I do not automatically presume that the writer of Mark created a story out of thin air. I agree that it is possible. I just don't think it is probable. I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation for WHY an unsophisticated writer would create a story using a setting he is unfamiliar with "to satisfy multiple and sometimes conflicting ends."

below.......

V: The snarky peasant magician represents a series of literary compromises, not reality.

R: You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

We both are; but as Tacitus warns us: "Adulation bears the ugly taint of subservience, but malice gives the false impression of being independent."

Here are some answers I might look at for your questions:

*Jesus' rejection of his family represents a political assault by the Pauline faction of Christianity against the Jamesian.

*Christian authors looked for proof of Jesus in the OT, not in the present, when writing about Jesus, especially in the first century when the legend was still taking shape. Many of Jesus' reactions may refer to events or prophecies or lines in the old testament. As OT prophets were often rejected, so was Jesus.

*Mark may be trying to set up Jesus for his execution. Why would the Jews want a nice, gentle, harmless, compassionate guy whacked? So create someone not very likable for plausibility....

*Mark may have been trying to harmonize conflicting versions of stories he'd heard. Or the message of the stories is now lost to us or difficult to recapture. For example, in Isaiah, as I recall, there is a reference to Israel as a fig tree. Jesus' withering of the fig with the words "May you never bear fruit again!" may relate to that, an anti-Jewish remark, with Jesus cursing Israel.

*You have not pursued your questions far enough. For example:

• Question: Why would a person write an account about a great fictional exorcist AND include the part about people begging him to leave their area?

You think this is historical!? Question: why would any sane ancient people, convinced that a powerful magical healer is in their midst, ask him to leave?

Answer: No sane community would do that. As evidence, I submit the widespread reverence for Appollonius of Tyre, and the popularity of magical healers today. Your question defeats itself; what it depicts is obviously unnatural and fictional. Obviously, we do not need a motive if we can prove the crime.

Do this for me. Pick the five or six best examples you think show a "human" Jesus and we'll discuss them. I think that would head off a lot of unnecessary jawing.

Vorkosigan

[ August 02, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>