Skrbina's view about Jesus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
maryhelena
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

Jax wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:25 am


OK - since the kindle book is only £3.11 - maybe I'll give it a look....

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Hoax-Pau ... B07MTLGLJ5

Image
I doubt that anyone here who follows the subject is going to find this material very compelling or interesting. It's like he built his thesis off of Wikipedia entries. No depth here.
Indeed....it's just the hoax argument that made me buy the book.....and £3.11 is no great loss.....
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1203
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by Jax »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:41 am
Jax wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:25 am


OK - since the kindle book is only £3.11 - maybe I'll give it a look....

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Hoax-Pau ... B07MTLGLJ5

Image
I doubt that anyone here who follows the subject is going to find this material very compelling or interesting. It's like he built his thesis off of Wikipedia entries. No depth here.
Indeed....it's just the hoax argument that made me buy the book.....and £3.11 is no great loss.....
Oh I hear ya, lite read at any rate. I think he bases the hoax on Paul's hatred of the Romans. Would be interesting what proofs that he uses to support that. :D
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:38 am
The difference is fundamental.
I don't see a fundamental difference. I have fixed your view as fully ascribed under the term: Rumor Thesis. As described by Skrbina:

Rumor Thesis: Stories of an exceptional but mortal man, an historical Jesus, got exaggerated and embellished over time through oral retellings. After some 40 years, “Mark” heard the stories, innocently believed them, and wrote them down as literal truth.

Skrbina is completely right when he writes, about Bob Price:

Perhaps the most vociferous and prolific Jesus skeptic today is Robert Price, a man with two doctorates in theology and a deep knowledge of the Bible. ... I find some truth in all these claims, as I will show. But there is much more to the story than Price is willing to entertain. Perhaps this relates to his personal situation. Price seems to rely heavily on book sales and speaking fees for income; he is very much in “the Jesus business.” I can’t help but think that this affects what he says and writes.

(my bold)
https://www.jesushoax.com/

Against Jax's criticism of Skrbina, at contrary I think that Skrbina is only another proof that what is necessary in primis is insight, not at all "deep knowledge", when it deals with the study of Christian origins. That makes all the difference of this world.

About chronology and other matters, Skrbina may be wrong. But his insight is evident.

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:38 am There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Jesus b. Sapphat.
Josephus was a propagandist, not a liar. The difference is subtle, but it is there. Jesus b. Sapphat existed beyond any doubt and he is surely more titled to be defined a Zealot than any past asmonean king.
maryhelena
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by maryhelena »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:58 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:38 am
The difference is fundamental.
I don't see a fundamental difference. I have fixed your view as fully ascribed under the term: Rumor Thesis. As described by Skrbina:
You don't see the difference between a man for which there is historical evidence, as King and High Priest - and an unknown, unnamed man....... :banghead:

Rumor Thesis: Stories of an exceptional but mortal man, an historical Jesus, got exaggerated and embellished over time through oral retellings. After some 40 years, “Mark” heard the stories, innocently believed them, and wrote them down as literal truth.

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 7:38 am There is no historical evidence for the Josephan figure of Jesus b. Sapphat.
Josephus was a propagandist, not a liar. The difference is subtle, but it is there. Jesus b. Sapphat existed beyond any doubt and he is surely more titled to be defined a Zealot than any past asmonean king.
Methinks it's not wise to give Josephus a blank check......
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 8:11 am a man for which there is historical evidence, as King and High Priest
so exceptional, so extraordinary, so powerful... ...that even a thiny Paul (sic) could completely eclipse him. :lol:
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

On a precise point, Skrbina has all the reasons of the world:

Furthermore, the Rumor Thesis cannot account for Paul.  He was too close to actual events to have innocently believed any such stories, which in any case could not likely have become so incredibly exaggerated in a few years.  Paul was a clever man; could he really have fallen so completely for a bogus tale of a Jewish messiah, that he would dedicate his life to spreading the story?  It seems highly dubious, to say the least.

(p.90, my bold)

Once you assume that:
  • Jesus existed;
  • Paul was too close to actual events about Jesus;
...then: Paul could only be a liar.

This is true independently from any chronology. This is what I call "sound sight".
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:34 am A disturbing note of the book is that, without the following precisation, I would have defined the book as an Anti-Semitic libel:
I kinda feel the opposite way. Before reading this, I had no opinion on the author and anti-semitism. After, though...
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:34 am
Question:  “The Jews come off looking pretty bad here.  Isn’t all this terribly anti-Semitic?” Answer:  Not at all.  Just because I claim that a handful of Jews lied to the public two thousand years ago, this has no necessary connection to Jews in general or Jews today.

He could have stopped there and it would have been more or less fine.
Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 5:34 am
People are overly sensitive these days, particularly about Jews, probably because we hear so much about them and anti-Semitism in the media.  It can’t reasonably have anything to do with World War Two or the Holocaust, since that ended more than 70 years ago and nearly all the actual victims are now gone—despite the fact that the media and Hollywood are working hard to continually remind the public of Jewish suffering during the war and of the evils of Nazism.  I see no good reason why Jews should continue to merit special sensitivity.

These allusions to the media and the attempt to diminish the relevance of the Holocaust might not necessarily be anti-semitic... maybe the author is naive and clumsy with the way they express themselves... but it's also exactly what someone who is anti-semitic would say. These are two of the biggest tropes in the anti-semitic repertoire.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8993
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by Giuseppe »

At contrary, I think that by these words the author is going to neutralize in advance the too much "easy" possible 'confutation' of the his thesis on the basis of the 'fact' of a his presumed anti-semitism.

His thesis is not that the only few Jews (Paul et company) lied. His thesis is clearly not even that all (sic) the Jews of all the ages are inclined to lie.

His thesis is that in that particular historical period, a lot of Jews (with the same ideas of Paul), had a formidable interest to lie.

Skrbina criticizes other Mithicists just because they can't assume an identical interest as motive/impulse behind Paul et alia.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

Giuseppe wrote: Fri Apr 30, 2021 9:30 am At contrary, I think that by these words the author is going to neutralize in advance the too much "easy" possible 'confutation' of the his thesis on the basis of the 'fact' of a his presumed anti-semitism.

His thesis is not that the only few Jews (Paul et company) lied. His thesis is clearly not even that all (sic) the Jews of all the ages are inclined to lie.

His thesis is that in that particular historical period, a lot of Jews (with the same ideas of Paul), had a formidable interest to lie.

Skrbina criticizes other Mithicists just because they can't assume an identical interest as motive/impulse behind Paul et alia.
There's nothing inherently wrong with the thesis.

It's his paragraph and its allusions to the influence of the media and the unimportance of the Holocaust. That's a little off.

He also points out that "the media and Hollywood are working hard to continually remind the public of ... the evils of Nazism."

Kind of a weird way to put it if you're also someone who believes Nazism is clearly evil, worth remembering for the purpose of opposition.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5575
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Skrbina's view about Jesus

Post by Peter Kirby »

I was wondering why someone would even ask the professor a pointed question like that.

https://canarymission.org/professor/David_Skrbina
Skrbina is a supporter of the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. ...

Skrbina has been pushing BDS among faculty at the university since as early as 2006.

On December 15, 2016, Skrbina said that he twice introduced BDS resolutions to the UM-Dearborn Faculty Congress (FC), which meets once a year. Both times, the resolutions were rejected and Skrbina faced opposition from the university chancellor. Skrbina also spoke on behalf of a faculty BDS resolution at the FC in 2014. Skrbina said he plans on introducing another BDS resolution at the FC meeting in April 2017.

Although the UM-Dearborn student government passed BDS resolutions five times since 2005 — most recently in 2014, when Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) at UM-Dearborn authored a resolution — Skrbina expressed his "disappointment" that student-led anti-Israel BDS activity had declined on the campus in recent years.

Skrbina also condemned the "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016," embraced by both Republicans and Democrats in response to the rise of anti-Semitic incidents attending BDS activity.

Skrbina said: "For my part, I will probably accelerate my efforts. If it becomes a law, I should probably be prepared to get arrested because I might do something that is considered 'illegal.' And I will test them and see if they are willing to test me."
He's clearly anti - anti - anti-semitic, given his opposition to a bipartisan bill to raise awareness about anti-semitism. That's pretty close to being in some way anti-semitic, even if (for a philosopher) not exactly the same.
Post Reply