Joe Hoffmann for President

The embarrassment for mythicists is that they are also implicitly pro-historical and show struggle within the early tradition over how to discuss the most inconvenient aspects of an unedited Jesus story.

here

So… maybe not for President, but the post is great.

You Might Also Like

10 Replies to “Joe Hoffmann for President”

  1. Good response from Jeff. Paraphrasing Shakespeare: “methinks the Historicists protest too much.”

    Why would parts of the NT insist on so pointedly telling us that Jesus is born of a woman? They must feel quilty about their assertion that Jesus was real; that’s why they insist on it.

    What were they feeling guilty about? The need for them to insist on the physical reality of Jesus, would hardly exist … if 1) there really were thousands of persons around who had seen him firsthand. Or 2) if the surviving oral traditions of such things, were as solid as advocates of the gospels insist.

    Where there is smoke, there is fire.

    Why is Paul suddenly so preachy, and … loud?

  2. Sorry to interfere with my presidential campaign, but Bob Price asks a very, very silly question.

    Of course it would be stupid to ask that question of Mitt Romney because it has nothing to do with the job description. Why (Option A) would a living, platitude-spouting rich guy need to defend himself against charges he was not born?

    Unless you think Paul was prescient enough to want to falsify twenty first century mythicists, it doesn’t make sense to choose option “B” either. But there is an analogy:

    Barack Obama doesn’t have to prove he was born but that he was born at the right place at the right time. The question matters, alas, for him in a way it doesn’t matter for Romney. Paul’s almost casual, argumentative insistence that Jesus was born of a woman under the law has to be seen against the background of people who are saying “No he wasn’t.” Paul isn’t arguing the virgin birth; he’s way early for that. But he is saying Jesus fits the job description: the right guy at the right time.

    To ask the question about the birth and legitimacy of any schmo doesn’t make sense. But to ask the question when it matters does.

    History is all about asking the right questions given the evidence we have.

  3. I see Garcia has migrated here too: He seems to be a spore of identities. Two things before I pass out: The “NT” doesn’t “tell us” anything or insist on anything; Paul who is the inadvertent beneficiary being in the NT does. It would be the wowser of all historical wowsers if Paul anticipated the controversy you are now invoking to challenge primary sources; it is the same as saying that God skewered the archaeological record with gaps to test our faith. I despair when I see you saying that sources close to the life of Jesus would need to defend his historicity by gratuitous assertions; if you had even a moderate grasp of Paul’s thought, you would know how silly you sound. –Do you need to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate too?

  4. I see Garcia has migrated here too: He seems to be a spore of identities. Two things before I pass out: The “NT” doesn’t “tell us” anything or insist on anything; Paul who is the inadvertent beneficiary being in the NT does. It would be the wowser of all historical wowsers if Paul anticipated the controversy you are now invoking to challenge primary sources; it is the same as saying that God skewered the archaeological record with gaps to test our faith. I despair when I see you saying that sources close to the life of Jesus would need to defend his historicity by gratuitous assertions; if you had even a moderate grasp of Paul’s thought, you would know how silly you sound. –Do you need to see Barack Obama’s birth certificate too?

  5. Hoffman certainly knows what he is talking about.

    The guy is a true expert, and one that mythicists should listen to

    HOFFMAN
    It is sometimes pointed out that Paul makes reference (Galatians 4.4) to Jesus having “been born of a woman, under the law,” but it is widely believed that these words are an insertion into the text of Galatians….

    HOFFMAN (continued in the same article)
    In Antiquities 20.9.4, a Jesus bar Gamaliel succeeds Jesus the son of Damneus in the high priesthood. Josephus does not mention – at all – the James known from New Testament sources. The James sentenced to stoning is a completely different man.

    CARR
    And just to rub mythicist noses in the facts (how mythicists hate having historical facts intrude on their fantasies) Hoffman continued….

    HOFFMAN

    The basis for the suggestion that James is the brother of Jesus depends on early references in Paul, especially Galatians 1.19.

    There is no doubt that James was regarded by Paul as a significant player in the Jerusalem community, together with Peter and John (Galatians 2.9, repeated in the legendary primacy-catalogue of Mark 9.2ff.).

    But his use of the word adelphos, as many scholars recognize, refers to James as a member of the brotherhood, as in Galatians 2.4; 3.15; 4.12, or as when he speaks of “false brothers” in Gal 2.4,5. James, according to Luke, uses the same language in calling Paul “brother,” (Acts 21.20) and the community the “brotherhood” (20.17).

    CARR
    No wonder Hoffman is praised. He is a true scholar.

      1. Well, I’m a bit slow sometimes , but Professor Hoffman’s article about Galatians 4:4 being an interpolation and brother of the Lord not being a family member was so well written and researched, that I managed to grasp what he was saying on only the third read through.

        Not bad for me!

        1. I’m not sure you are rational enough to have a conversation with.

          The same words aren’t used the same way all the time. Do you understand that concept?

          Will Will’s will have the house willed willingly?

          1. I get it!

            When Hoffman wrote ‘ The James sentenced to stoning is a completely different man.’ he meant that the James sentenced to stoning is a completely different man.

            And when Hoffman wrote ‘…but it is widely believed that these words are an insertion into the text of Galatians.’ , he meant that the words were an insertion into the text of Galatians.

            It is so obvious when you think about it.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.