Larry Hurtado vs Neil Godfrey

[Giuseppe]

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.

(my bold)

Superb!!!

[iskander]

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.

Wallack is a malignant poster

[MrMacSon]

Wallack is a malignant poster

He’s grown on me, too

[robert j]

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.

Hurtado acknowledges GMark as commonly accepted as the earliest of the NT Gospels.

In the words of Professor Burton Mack, a published NT scholar, here using "the Christ myth" as referring to certain passages found in Paul's letters (p. 79) (Who Wrote the New Testament, HarperCollins, New York, 1995) ---

"Mark took the basic ideas from the Christ myth but dared to imagine how the crucifixion and resurrection of the Christ might look if played out as a historical event in Jerusalem …” (p. 152).

"Mark's story can be actually viewed as a mythmaking endeavor that worked with the prophet motif … Mark combed through these books for images he could apply to Jesus as a prophet, as if the prophets had somehow anticipated Jesus' coming … Without this story, one would have to say, the emergence of Christianity as we know it would not have happened." (p. 161).

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
Larry Hurtado
Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars

Neil Godfrey
Reply to Larry Hurtado: “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars”

Larry Hurtado
“Mythical Jesus”: The Fatal Flaws

Neil Godfrey
On Larry Hurtado’s Response

Larry Hurtado
Focus, Focus, Focus!
Philo of Alexandria and Early Christianity

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNiie_zmSr8

[stupid shit]

He’s grown on me, too

JW:
Just for the record ishcandor reads everything I write and I do not read anything that he/she/they/it write which is as it should be.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[robert j]

Today Hurtado wrote “Focus, Focus, Focus!”
(not necessarily in the following order):

“So, let’s stay focused, folks.”
“The Pauline question is whether his letters treat Jesus as a real historical figure, indeed a near contemporary, and the answer is actually rather clear …”
https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2017 ... cus-focus/

OK, let‘s focus on the claims Hurtado makes about Paul’s letters.

Hurtado: “… a near contemporary …”
Response: There is no clear-cut evidence in Paul’s letters that Paul considered his Jesus Christ as a near contemporary. Not that Hurtado mentioned it here, but certainly 1 Corinthians 9:1 is not even close to being enough in that regard with Paul’s own admission of revelations and the metaphorical use of the term Paul used there as mental sight, seeing with the mind’s eye, or seeing visions.

Hurtado: “Paul ascribes to Jesus a human birth …”
Response: OK

Hurtado: “… a ministry among fellow Jews …”
Response: I’m not sure where that comes from, but not a problem.

Hurtado: “… an execution specifically by Roman crucifixion …”
Response: No, Paul does not specify a Roman-style execution.

Hurtado: “… named/known siblings …”
Response: I’m not interested in debating this sticky and well-worn issue. “The Lord's brother” in Galatians 1:19 certainly could be a gloss, a marginal note that found its way into the text. But if we assume it original, there are reasonable arguments on both sides of the ‘biological brother/or not’ debate. Similar arguments can be made for 1 Corinthians 9:5. I would acknowledge a tie on debate points, but not nearly enough in the context of Paul’s letters to swing this investigator to think these references are to biological brothers.

Hurtado: “… other named individuals who were Jesus’ original companions (e.g., Kephas/Peter, John Zebedee)."
Response: Paul did not name these individuals as companions of Jesus. And Paul did not identify his single mention of a “John” as “John Zebedee”.

Hurtado has overplayed his hand with some inaccurate and exaggerated claims.

Hurtado: "Indeed, in Paul’s view, it was essential that Jesus is a real human, for the resurrected Jesus is Paul’s model and proto-type of the final redemption that Paul believes God will bestow on all who align themselves with Jesus. In Paul’s view, what God did to/for Jesus is what God will do for Paul and others who respond to the gospel."

Response: In human form, yes, I agree with Hurtado that much here. In Paul’s system, the salvific benefit for humans provided by his Jesus Christ was made significantly more relevant with the heavenly benefactor having taken on human form to suffer and die.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Neil Godfrey
Reply to Larry Hurtado: “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars”

My very friendly criticism on Neil's good defense would be that I think he missed the opportunity to show that mythicism, as his founders developed it, has enormous traction within current scholarship and that Hurtado himself is partially a mythicist in the good old sense of the word.

I think that mythicism was historically not a movement to question the historicity of the man Jesus, but a scholarly movement to question the historicity of assumed „biographical facts“ in the Gospels. This movement was directed against the historical imagination that took place in the scholarship of the 18th and 19th century. In 1835 David Friedrich Strauss wrote:

The new point of view, which must take the place of the above, is the mythical. This theory is not brought to bear on the evangelical history for the first time in the present work: it has long been applied to particular parts of that history, and is here only extended to its entire tenor. It is not by any means meant that the whole history of Jesus is to be represented as mythical, but only that every part of it is to be subjected to a critical examination, to ascertain whether it have not some admixture of the mythical.

The exegesis of the ancient church set out from the double presupposition: first, that the gospels contained a history, and secondly, that this history was a supernatural one. Rationalism rejected the latter of these presuppositions, but only to cling the more tenaciously to the former, maintaining that these books present unadulterated, though only natural, history. Science cannot rest satisfied with this half-measure: the other presupposition also must he relinquished, and the inquiry must first be made whether in fact, and to what extent, the ground on which we stand in the gospels is historical. This is the natural course of things, and thus far the appearance of a work like the present is not only justifiable, hut even necessary.

As an example, I think that although not all but many current Markan scholars would agree that John's „leather belt around his waist“ (Mark 1:6) is not a historical fact, but only a literary allusion to 2 Kings 1:8 which has a narrative function in GMark. Mythicism in this sense, as David Friedrich Strauss understood it, is a big deal in current scholarship, especially in literary and narrative criticism and has gained important influence among scholars. Mythicism was and is a scholarly movement and I surmise that it should not be too hard to show that Larry Hurtado is - not in many but - in some aspects a mythicist. In some fields mythicism is a winner and not the looser as Hurtado presented it.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
Larry Hurtado
Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars

Neil Godfrey
Reply to Larry Hurtado: “Why the “Mythical Jesus” Claim Has No Traction with Scholars”

Larry Hurtado
“Mythical Jesus”: The Fatal Flaws

Neil Godfrey
On Larry Hurtado’s Response

Larry Hurtado
Focus, Focus, Focus!
Philo of Alexandria and Early Christianity

Neil Godfrey
Focus, Focus, Focus — but Not Blinkered

[neilgodfrey]

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.

In what respect have I refused to engage with Hurtodo's arguments?

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

The only comments I ban are uncivil ones and racist ones, like the one you posted at https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula ... nt-1928946 -- I would never allow such a racist comment to remain on my site.

They are both primarily critics of the other's position rather than defenders of their position.

Most of my posts are all defences of my position. But people like Hurtado seem to expect me (they certainly accuse me) of having a view or position or agenda that simply does not interest me.

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.

I find your filthy racist slurs appalling as I do your accusations of anti-semitism directed to anyone who presents facts largely not heard in the mainstream narrative and who dares to utter a word critical of a certain state's policies and actions. I see you are still spreading your racist smears against an entire people: https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula ... nt-1928946

I ask you, Joe, to drop all your continual barbs against my views on a state's policy, not only because they maliciously misrepresent and distort what I have actually written, but because they are irrelevant to a discussion of Christian origins.

I am sure you will feel better as will I if you leave your tribalist and racialist views at the door. And that includes removing links in your signature that direct readers to your gross distortions of what I have written.