Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Joseph D. L. wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:33 am
But the overall point here is that across the years in which the Gospels were composed, there isn’t a trajectory from a “celestial being” with no earthly existence to a “historicized” man. If anything, the emphasis goes in the opposite direction.
Is not this precisely what the author of John is attempting to accomplish in his opening prologue? Maintaining that Logos was preeminent and preexisting long before becaming incarnate on the historical scene. That alone shows that, even if an isolated occurrence, such a trajectory DID take place.
What he means, I believe, is the trajectory from gospel to gospel. John, if late, is here adding a preexistent state to Jesus which he did not find in Matthew or Mark, for example.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

In one sense, I was impressed by Hurtado's post. At first glance it looked as if Hurtado is speaking as the High Priest of the Holy Grail of scholarship and I feared that he would mention DM Murdock and friends.
The overwhelming body of scholars, in New Testament, Christian Origins, Ancient History, Ancient Judaism, Roman-era Religion, Archaeology/History of Roman Judea, and a good many related fields as well, hold that there was a first-century Jewish man known as Jesus of Nazareth, that he engaged in an itinerant preaching/prophetic activity in Galilee, that he drew to himself a band of close followers, and that he was executed by the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate.

These same scholars typically recognize also that very quickly after Jesus’ execution there arose among Jesus’ followers the strong conviction that God (the Jewish deity) had raised Jesus from death (based on claims that some of them had seen the risen Jesus). These followers also claimed that God had exalted Jesus to heavenly glory as the validated Messiah, the unique “Son of God,” and “Lord” to whom all creation was now to give obeisance. Whatever they make of these claims, scholars tend to grant that they were made, and were the basis for pretty much all else that followed in the origins of what became Christianity.

The “mythical Jesus” view doesn’t have any traction among the overwhelming number of scholars working in these fields, whether they be declared Christians, Jewish, atheists, or undeclared as to their personal stance.
But then he tussled only with Carrier, currently perhaps the strongest opponent on scholarly level.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by neilgodfrey »

Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:40 pm Larry's best points were
But the overall point here is that across the years in which the Gospels were composed, there isn’t a trajectory from a “celestial being” with no earthly existence to a “historicized” man. If anything, the emphasis goes in the opposite direction.
......

But the first point was a bit interesting and doesn't seem much discussed.
The first point was a non sequitur. Carrier specifically spoke of a trajectory from Paul's letters to the gospels, not a trajectory within the gospels.

The irony is that much of Hurtado's work has been in publishing lengthy works arguing that the earliest Christians did indeed embrace a very high christology from the outset -- contrary to the common "evolutionary" view from low to high.

Jim West, likewise, sometimes posts or publishes an argument that employs sound historical method to show why we cannot assume any historicity behind the OT books, but he gets "upset" if one attempts to point out that the same method applied to the gospels produces the same results.

The trajectory within the gospels, anyway, is very much a matter of interpretation. Some scholars actually see a very high christology throughout the Gospel of Mark; a few have even thought the Gospel of John might be the earliest of the four. Certainly the Gospel of Luke (in its canonical form argued by some to be the last of the gospels) points to a low christology, so there is hardly a "trajectory" within the gospels; more of a roller coaster ride.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by John T »

From Neil's blog: "We [Vridar] are atheists but neither of us has any hostility to religion per se (we respect the beliefs and journeys of others) and I don’t see what difference it makes to any atheist whether Jesus existed or not."

:lol:

Your Honor (Peter), may I cross examine the witness under the grounds that Neil is not an atheist but rather simply anti-Christian?
Or will I be sent to the corn-field for daring to challenge the obnoxious, hypocritical claims by Neil and his ilk?

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Blood »

Hurtado's being an ass. The same old, same old might be good enough for his seminarian buddies in SBL, but critical thinkers are tired of the arguments from the seminarian consensus, and the conflation of evangelist-scholars with real ancient historians. Very, very few of the latter ever get into Biblical studies, Propp being among them.
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Peter Kirby »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:20 pm
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:40 pm Larry's best points were
But the overall point here is that across the years in which the Gospels were composed, there isn’t a trajectory from a “celestial being” with no earthly existence to a “historicized” man. If anything, the emphasis goes in the opposite direction.
......

But the first point was a bit interesting and doesn't seem much discussed.
The first point was a non sequitur. Carrier specifically spoke of a trajectory from Paul's letters to the gospels, not a trajectory within the gospels.
Uh, well, it's interesting because it's interesting, not as some syllogism contra Carrier.
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:20 pmThe trajectory within the gospels, anyway, is very much a matter of interpretation.
Like almost everything else in the field, no?
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by neilgodfrey »

Peter Kirby wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 9:18 pm
Uh, well, it's interesting because it's interesting, not as some syllogism contra Carrier.
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Dec 05, 2017 1:20 pmThe trajectory within the gospels, anyway, is very much a matter of interpretation.
Like almost everything else in the field, no?
Yes, though my point was, as indicated in your response, I guess, that trajectory arguments have the potential to be circular. How is the direction of a trajectory to be decided? If we interpret gospel X as high, etc....
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

After what I think was Hurtado's weakest point, I'd like to look at what I take as his second weakest point, from his follow-up post:
The scholarship that I point to has been shaped by the critical impulses from the Renaissance and “Enlightenment,” all texts, whether biblical or Christian or whatever, subjected to the same critical tests and procedures. In what other subject would a solid body of scholarly judgement be treated to such foolish disdain?
Astronomy, chemistry, medicine, ... just about any other progressive field animated by the "critical impulses from the Renaissance and Enlightenment." (BTW, Why was the capital-E Enlightenment placed in scare quotes?)

Jesus Study has come a long way since 1500. At any point in those five centuries, a traditionalist Jesus scholar might have objected "In what other subject would a solid body of scholarly judgement be treated to such foolish disdain?"

On issue after issue.

Trad: You say that Jesus' mother had sexual intercourse?

Rad: Obviously, but only after she gave birth to Jesus, of course.

Trad: Have you read even a single book by a Christian historian? In what other subject ...?

There's simply no argument being made there. It's not even a fallacy. (With thanks to Wolfgang Pauli)
User avatar
JoeWallack
Posts: 1594
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Contact:

Immovable Object Verses Resistable Force

Post by JoeWallack »

JW:
The basic problem with Hurltado verses Godfree interaction is that they both prohibit straight-forward interaction with the other:
  • 1) They both generally refuse to engage at the other's site.

    2) They both exercise strict moderation/censorship of the other's comments/positions at their site.

    3) They are both primarily critics of the other's position rather than defenders of their position.
This makes the interaction primarily indirect with both having a tendency to have a primary objective of proving the other wrong rather than evaluating the strength and weaknesses of the arguments.

Each is not outstanding in their own way. Hurtado is worse since his conclusions are not supported by the evidence. Godfree's problem is he is primarily a critic rather than a judge. This can be seen most clearly regarding his posts on Israel/Palestinians. His posts are dominated by criticism of Israel and he avoids criticism of Palestinians. I'd say the combination is remarkable since every major Palestinian political organization is currently a terrorist organization under International Law but again, Godfree is a critic of Israel.

The problem with Hurtado's supposed point that the Gospels show a trajectory from HJ to MJ (supernatural) is that, as CBS (Christian Bible Scholarship) is wont to do, it ignores the Separationism of GMark. GMark is clearly Separationist (right KK?) so it shows that Jesus was (literally) not worth mentioning before he received God's Spirit. Likewise GMark shows that Jesus was not worth mentioning after God's spirit left. So, the original Gospel narrative really only describes MJ. Sounds to me like the original Gospel Jesus was all MJ. Then, all subsequent Gospels, which very much want HJ, use as a base, a Gospel which only has MJ, which is evidence that they had no other source for HJ.


Joseph

Selective Reporting
Post Reply