Blog Brawl: The Politics of New Testament Studies
It started with Michael Turton’s review of Tabor's Jesus Dynasty. Jim West dismissed the review (without linking to it or pointing out who wrote it), which in turn prompted Turton's open letter to Jim West. Then James Crossley jumped into the fray. Read all of these posts, but especially the last two which dig into the politics of New Testament studies. I think Michael makes a fair point that mythicists need to be acknowledged more in the guild (though I take Jesus' existence for granted), but I agree with James that we shouldn't get carried away with the idea that radical views of Christian origins are somehow politically liberating. Radical views often do us nothing but disservice (Baigent is an obvious example).
UPDATE: (1) Michael has removed his posts. (2) In comments below, I explain why I credit mythicist positions over most minimalist ones (though I'm neither).
posted by Loren Rosson III @ 5/19/2006
3 Comments:
Well, with the exception of James Crossley, that wasn't a pretty picture.The words overwrought and hysterical come to mind.
John
Ryan, see what I wrote months ago in Millenialism or Myth? I'm not a mythicist, but I credit the mythicist position over most minimalist positions.
I understand that you feel strongly about millenialism being key to understanding Jesus, but I think you go too far in asserting that mythicism as more right than minimalism.
Let me clarify what I'm getting at. I'm not saying that it makes more sense to believe Jesus never existed than to believe he existed but bears little resemblance to the character emerging from the NT. I am saying that on the assumption he bears little resemblance to such, the search is futile and that he may as well have never existed, or existed as a mere "cipher" who had little to do with the founding of the Christian movement.
As I understand Turton's mythicism, it asserts that Jesus did not exist - not just that there was alot of myth built up around the historical figure of Jesus.
Yes, and Arnal's mythicism is a bit different. He thinks Jesus was a cipher, and so he goes searching for different origins of the Christian movement (this gets into his views about "individuals" who supposedly found movements).
Isn't there also a Mythical Minimalism category that might be a more accurate designation for scholars who strip away much of the tradition and believe much is myth, but still affirm the existence of an historical Jesus - like that of Mack, Arnal, even Borg?
Mack and Arnal, yes; Borg, no. When I use the term mythicist, I'm referring to one of two breeds, those who deny he existed (Doherty, Turton) and those who think there’s little if anything we can say about him (Mack, Arnal). I should have made that more clear.
It seems like categorically denying that Jesus ever existed just has no footing at all in the world of academia. Am I wrong on this? Am I misconstruing Turton's views?
You're not wrong, but I do think this will change. My prediction is that we will see more Bill Arnals in the near future, and (yes, cough) even more Dohertys brought into the mainstream. That's my prophecy -- so remember where you heard it ten years from now. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home