Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9200 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Allysum Global
Post Volume: Total: 919,258 Year: 6,515/9,624 Month: 93/270 Week: 6/83 Day: 0/6 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17894
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 46 of 560 (464519)
04-26-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Buzsaw
04-26-2008 8:31 AM


Re: Blind Assertions
The thread for reporting problem posts is a thread for requesting administrator action.
My responses are not such a request.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Buzsaw, posted 04-26-2008 8:31 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5698 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 47 of 560 (464578)
04-27-2008 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
04-25-2008 9:23 PM


Re: Plausables and Probables
But then there comes the skeptical generation who regard political correctness above factuality as we find happening in the history classes of our times. As a result it can be documented that history students today know little about the historical George Washington and other founders of the Republic and much of which they do get can be proven to be false. The same applies relative to the Jesus skeptics to the point that the Historical Jesus Book is outlawed in the schools.
HI Buzz,
We are having a clash over world views rather than the historical method. This is going to be inevitable as our world views are based on the presuppositions we bring to the table when analyzing the subject.
Your presuppositions is that God exists and what is contained in the writings of antiquity is inerrant in relating facts and telling us about the nature of God and his interaction with the corporeal world. It is natural then that you are going to approach this subject by using the manuscripts of antiquity as self-validating tools to form conclusions about the Historical Jesus. All of your responses have been a direct result of this presupposition and are not a result of an objective analysis.
I need to bring up a couple of things here that I have already offered:
In order to retain objectivity, Historians are supposed to be skeptics and they must approach the subject under study with the eye of a skeptic. The only way to go about this is by assuming guilt until innocence is shown to be plausible.
History is not Deductive and it is not Philosophy - the methods employed are incapable of establishing deductive truths and falsehoods. The goal of Historians is to reach a consensus as to the most plausible conclusions. Plausible certainly does not equate to fact. The only expression of absolute certainty so far has come from you.
I have no animosity towards you or your beliefs and I recognize the importance that your faith has for you and others. The only agenda I have is the one motivated by my personal interest in the subject. My agenda is only to look objectively at the material and offer the conclusions I personally see as most plausible. You don't have to accept these conclusions and I am not naive enough to state that these conclusions represent historical facts.
Finally, believing Christians tend to see the Historians interest in this subject as being motivated by animosity or an agenda to quash people's faith. The historian is not motivated by a sinister desire to gather children in a circle and then proceed to skin and eat the Easter Bunny and follow it up with an end zone dance over the discarded entrails.
I will be pretty busy this week and won't have much time to work on this thread. My response to any further objections might be slow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 04-25-2008 9:23 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by IamJoseph, posted 05-02-2008 8:20 AM Grizz has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5698 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 48 of 560 (464579)
04-27-2008 12:14 PM


Stanford Podcast
Just an FYI for iPod owners with an interest in this subject:
itunes U has an excellant podcast on the subject of the Historical Jesus. The podcasts can be found under the Stanford University listings in the Arts and Humanities division. So far, there are ten lectures of about one-hour length.

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3895 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 49 of 560 (465043)
05-02-2008 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Grizz
04-27-2008 12:08 PM


Re: Plausables and Probables
In a sense it is astonishing that there are no writings from Jesus, or any Hebrew NT scriptures. This is one pivotal reason for suspicion and doubt of the Gospels. In the period upto 70 CE, Hebrew was not banned, and we have a vast archive of Hebrew writings [Dead Sea Scrolls]; this was a time when writings was commonplace [Josephus, Philo and numerous Roman and Greek writings]; there is no Jewish prophet who did not write scrolls in all of Judaism's then 2000 year past history - almost all are contained in the scrolls package.
What this does, is cast a view the Gospels was a fully European scripture, made far from its space-time, and is closer to European antisemitism than inspired scripture: we have such examples as the Protocols, a highly deceiteful work with fictional contracts, names, dates and events, and one which people believed as true and history till recently: so why not the Gospels, which is in the same vein?
Further, the charges made in the Gospels does not reflect history or the culture of Jews: where has there been an example of Jews revelling over the death of one - outside of the Gospels? In fact, this was not seen even with the nazi mass muderer Eichmann - because it is a violation to abuse one sentenced to death - the Gospel story becomes all the more compounded by its depiction Jews conspired with the depraved Romans who were massacreing and crucifying Jews in the 1000's. The Gospels defies logic and history. The factor of Rome NOT crucifying jesus on their own, with the charge of heresy, and having nothing to do with Jews, is also a blatant contradiction of this historical period. Paul and many other early christians were crucified or murdered by Rome - along with the Jews, and with no proddings from the Jews.
The most telling ubsurdity is the depiction of Jesus as flaunting the Jewish laws; the alledged prophesy of Jesus saying the temple will be destroyed - factors which are seemingly hailed by the Gospel writers! This does not sound like a Jew but of Europe - as is illustrated by history. The point is, it is very plausable to have been a lie, with a belief in God being very easy to exploit - specially in the space-time when Christianity emerged. The lack of any outside writings of affirmation, and the lack of any proof the Gospels was penned by Judeans in that contemporary time - poses a huge question mark.
But the most astonishing factors are that the Gospels was taken at face value without questioning of it, and that of the conclusion it made concerning Jesus. This is a mystery.
Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Grizz, posted 04-27-2008 12:08 PM Grizz has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5698 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


(1)
Message 50 of 560 (465269)
05-04-2008 4:13 PM


I have been pretty busy lately. I have not abandoned this project/discussion and don't intend to unless it gets shut down.
I thought I would change gears and shift the emphasis away from the raw presentation of opinions to a focus on methods. I was going to jump into inferences but I am a bit hesitant as I believe it will be counter-productive. Some of these inferences would be those I have personally formed, others would be a result of what I have learned through my own personal academic interest and would reflect the scholarly opinions of the professional historians who devote their careers to this subject -- the real experts. I can simply parrot these out, but I won't. Firstly, it will do no good, as to do so without presenting how and why I subscribe to these inferences and conclusions would result in confusion and a rush to judgement. Also, there is simply not enough time or space here to have an academic discussion with the requisite rigor and depth. Like any historical reconstruction, this one is quite complex and involves material from many other disciplines such as linguistics, archeology, anthropology, philosophy, and literature.
As we have already seen here, the complexity of this subject is compounded by the fact that many of us have emotional attachments or deep-rooted personal opinions, whether positive or negative, that are formed by our interaction with modern Christianity. I will paraphrase Thomas Sheehan here and state that our biggest impediment to objectivity is due to the fact that the story of Jesus is a bit too familiar to us in the West. For many, it strikes a chord too close too home and at times it is indeed an impossible task to engage in an objective and scholarly discussion of the subject.
For many of us in the West, particular in America, our exposure to the subject of Jesus began early in our childhood. It was at this time, before we have had the chance to form a world-view, before we possessed even a rudimentary understanding of the world, that we had certain ideas concerning this figure thrust upon us. These ideas have become so thoroughly engrained in our psyches that for many, objectivity is an impossibility.
When confronted with the subject of the Historical Jesus, or when presented with a plausible inference that contradicts the pre-packaged account, many will simply opt-out or revert to a sub conscious mode of denial. Anything a secular historian would offer up that does not fit neatly into the die-cast mold will be immediately dismissed as an illusion, or worse yet, a secular conspiracy. There is safety in numbers and many would prefer to stick with the status-quo so as to further empower the conviction that they indeed possess the holy grail of absolute truth.
There are also those who's interaction with modern Christianity has led to contempt or animosity and they too would be prone to replace objectivity with a rush to judgement that results in dismissing the historical Jesus as a figment of the collective imaginations of superstitious first-century Jewish mystics.
Regardless of our viewpoints. if you really want to take a shot at getting close to the truth, you will not find it by taking short cuts or by circumventing those things that are potentially unappealing. It is all too easy to look only at the material that fits a pre-formed conclusion. This is why it is always important to listen to opposing viewpoints and judge these on their merits, rather than our emotions or a desire to see our view championed in the public square. History is not a popularity contest.
In this subject particularly, often one's conclusions are formed based on a cursory familiarity with the material. Many will then proceed with a conclusion and only then will they delve into the minutia and detail. The goal then is to siphon out conflicting material and keep only those things that will serve to justify and rationalize the conclusion. The plan of attack should be to work from the ground up and reach a conclusion about what is most plausible based on an unbiased appeal to the empirical evidence available.
Outside of academia, it is extremely rare to see a presentation on this subject that proceeds from the ground up. With few exceptions, most popular authors who write about this subject start with a conclusion then work their way backwards trying to find those bits and pieces that fit neatly into the slots that were pre-drilled. The odd-shaped pegs that don't fit the mold simply get tossed into the garbage can of history. The end result is usually something that is very appealing to the majority reader but lacks any rigor or consistency and certainly does not stand up to serious academic scrutiny. This is what historians refer to as "The Cafeteria."
Bookshelves are full of this type of material. If so inclined, one can go grocery shopping for the view that fits your preferences and pre-formed conclusions. If you want to hear a 'historical' account of how Jesus traveled to India or how the Gospels were written by the apostles shortly after the death of Jesus, you certainly can find such an account to empower your pre conceived conclusions and stroke your convictions. There are also plenty of radio shows and other public forums where one can find an accommodating and safe environment where this approach is employed and all opposing views are simply dismissed as secular conspiracy. However, if you really want history, there are no short cuts and there is life outside of the Gospel manuscripts.
The 'mythification' of popular figures that have captured the public imagination is a staple of history, regardless of the period or the subject. Historians, of course, do not actually hold the view that Isaac Newton obtained the impetus for the idea of gravitation by watching an apple fall from a tree and they certainly do not infer from the extant writings of the period that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree. These are simply Urban Legends and are literary devices used by contemporaries to answer the questions on people's minds or elevate the social status of a figure to the next level. Likewise, when browsing the literature of antiquity, we would naturally expect to see lots of cherry trees and falling apples, especially in the extant religious literature of various periods. There is no plausible or rational reason why one should expect early Christian literature to be any different in this regards.
The historian seeks to makes a distinction between who Jesus was, what early Christian communities wrote about Jesus, and what people of various historical periods thought about Jesus. In the next thread, it will be made clear why the Gospels should not be read as a historical record. Everything presented in the Gospels serves a specific theological purpose with the goal of proselytization. The numerous Gospel manuscripts were written by numerous authors writing to specific communities with varying needs and in different geographical locations. It is neither rational nor plausible to accept the fundamentalist Christian presupposition that the Gospels made it into our hands with the word HISTORY implicitly engraved on the front.
For the Historian, there is no plausible reason to conclude the historical figure of Jesus was simply a myth. The most plausible conclusion is that Jesus was an actual historical figure that walked the landscape of first-century Palestine and was later elevated to the status of deity by a community in the midst of a crisis. For the Historian, this figure would have been known as Yeshua ben Josaphat bar mariam ha-galil -- Joshua, the son of Joseph and Mary from Galilee.
........

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2008 4:36 PM Grizz has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 293 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 51 of 560 (465270)
05-04-2008 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Grizz
05-04-2008 4:13 PM


I for one.....
I have not abandoned this project/discussion and don't intend to unless it gets shut down.
I for one have been reading with interest.
I appreciate that this thread has lacked responses but I think this is because many cannot compete with your level of detail and knowledge.
Don't let that stop you presenting your thoughts.
I don't think your thread will be closed. But for the record nor do I think it should.
If I feel informed/qualified enough later I may join in more constructively but at the moment I am just happy to observe.
Don'tlet the lack of participants lead you to necessarily believe that no-one is reading your well constructed analysis.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Grizz, posted 05-04-2008 4:13 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Grizz, posted 05-04-2008 10:15 PM Straggler has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5698 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 52 of 560 (465297)
05-04-2008 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Straggler
05-04-2008 4:36 PM


Re: I for one.....
I for one have been reading with interest.
I appreciate that this thread has lacked responses but I think this is because many cannot compete with your level of detail and knowledge.
Don't let that stop you presenting your thoughts.
I don't think your thread will be closed. But for the record nor do I think it should.
If I feel informed/qualified enough later I may join in more constructively but at the moment I am just happy to observe.
Don'tlet the lack of participants lead you to necessarily believe that no-one is reading your well constructed analysis.
Hi Straggler. Thanks for the reply and vote of interest. Jump in at any time with your opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 05-04-2008 4:36 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 05-05-2008 7:52 PM Grizz has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 53 of 560 (465365)
05-05-2008 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Grizz
05-04-2008 10:15 PM


Different view points
Hi Grizz
I also have been following along but I am one of those that don't have the breadth of knowledge to discuss this in any depth. I have read both Crossan and Borg and also viewed a video series by Ehrman. In contrast to their views I also read N.T. Wright. The primary difference in my view is that Wright accepts the possibility of the miraculous whereas the others don't.
For example, in my view Wright makes a strong case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus on historical grounds. To make that case though you have to accept the possibility that the miraculous is a possible explanation. Those from the "Jesus Seminar" don't accept the possibility, so as a result the possibility of a bodily resurrection is actually an impossibility. Wright comes to the conclusion that from the available evidence the most logical explanation is that the bodily resurrection is historical, whereas the others come to the conclusion that the most logical explanation is that the resurrection is metaphorical.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Grizz, posted 05-04-2008 10:15 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2008 5:30 PM GDR has replied
 Message 57 by Grizz, posted 05-07-2008 7:48 PM GDR has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 293 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 560 (465502)
05-07-2008 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by GDR
05-05-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Different view points
For example, in my view Wright makes a strong case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus on historical grounds.
Hmmm. On what evidence does he conclude this? How reliable is this evidence? Is Wright a Christian whose objectivity regarding this matter might be questionable? In other words did he fit his evidence to the conclusion he had already made or did he derive his conclusion solely from the available evidence?
Conclusive evidence for the resurrection seems unlikely (I am sure it would be more widely known if genuinely reliable or even remotely likely) but I am interested to hear more. Do you have any links for this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 05-05-2008 7:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 05-07-2008 6:30 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 56 by Granny Magda, posted 05-07-2008 6:47 PM Straggler has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 55 of 560 (465504)
05-07-2008 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Straggler
05-07-2008 5:30 PM


Re: Different view points
Nobody is able to come to this completely objectively. As I mentioned earlier. Borg, Crossan etc. start out assuming that the miraculous is an impossibility. Wright assumes that it is possible. Is it conclusive? No. But I still maintain that Wright makes a better case than those from the "Jesus Seminar".
This particular talk centers on the vocation of Jesus and then gives a cursory summary of a small part of the historical evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus at the end.
The Historical Jesus by NT Wright
More on the resurrection
Evidence of the Resurrection
This is a follows the previous lecture.
Part 2
This site has a link to the debate between Crossan and Wright
Wright and Crossan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2008 5:30 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2008 1:09 AM GDR has replied
 Message 64 by Straggler, posted 05-08-2008 8:57 AM GDR has replied

Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 265 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 56 of 560 (465506)
05-07-2008 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Straggler
05-07-2008 5:30 PM


Re: Different view points
Is Wright a Christian whose objectivity regarding this matter might be questionable?
Darn tootin'. He's the Bishop of Durham.

Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Straggler, posted 05-07-2008 5:30 PM Straggler has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5698 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 57 of 560 (465508)
05-07-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by GDR
05-05-2008 7:52 PM


Re: Different view points
Hi Grizz
I also have been following along but I am one of those that don't have the breadth of knowledge to discuss this in any depth. I have read both Crossan and Borg and also viewed a video series by Ehrman. In contrast to their views I also read N.T. Wright. The primary difference in my view is that Wright accepts the possibility of the miraculous whereas the others don't.
For example, in my view Wright makes a strong case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus on historical grounds. To make that case though you have to accept the possibility that the miraculous is a possible explanation. Those from the "Jesus Seminar" don't accept the possibility, so as a result the possibility of a bodily resurrection is actually an impossibility. Wright comes to the conclusion that from the available evidence the most logical explanation is that the bodily resurrection is historical, whereas the others come to the conclusion that the most logical explanation is that the resurrection is metaphorical.
Hi GDR, thanks for joining the discussion.
There are two approaches to the story of the Historical Jesus -- the secular and the theological. These two approaches overlap at times and the conclusions are not always mutually exclusive. It should come as no surprise that the major disagreements revolve around claims of the miraculous. NT Wright is associated with the latter school and his work is certainly well-respected in the field of NT scholarship, among both secular and religious. As a Christian, his interpretations of the texts is liberal enough to make the fundamentalist Christian cringe but also Conservative enough to not offend the traditional sensibilities of the mainstream Christian.
The only parties who really work themselves into a furor over the secular activity in the field are those in the fundamentalist camp who adhere to a literalist tradition of scriptures. They are a but irked by the explosion of secular interest in the subject and would rather they get off the swing set and find their own place to play
Also, you bring up a good point about faith and it mirrors the one I made earlier regarding presuppositions. Which side of the story you are on depends on the presuppositions you bring to the table. Ultimately, a belief in the existence of the miraculous will depend on your world view and whether or not your subscribe to the notion of the supernatural.
As I discussed earlier, the inhabitants of antiquity possessed a world view very far removed from ours today. Everything and anything about this existence is so foreign to us that we cannot comprehend the true context of the period in which these stories took place. If we say we can, we are only fooling ourselves. We simply cannot fathom what it would be like to inhabit a world without physics, astronomy, chemistry, universities, TV's, cars, books, telephones, magazines, radio, newspapers, and so on . For the majority of those in the first-century, an appeal to divinity or supernatural forces was the only rational and plausible explanation for the mode of operation of the world and man's place within it. Most first-century inhabitants of the Empire explained things via superstition by appealing to unseen forces and deities. God(s) were in control of all facets of existence and the miraculous was not a rare exception, rather it was the norm.
Furthermore, anything out of the ordinary, whether an epileptic having a seizure or the sudden appearance of a comet in the night sky, had something to do with the unseen supernatural activity of these disembodied spirits or gods. This was true whether you were a Pagan, Jew, or Christian. Claims of supernatural events might be met with fear, but rarely, if ever, with outright rational skepticism. Someone might believe a story was fabricated but it would be rare to find someone who would hold the view that it would be unreasonable to conclude such things being claimed were irrational and unbelievable. Outside of some of the early Greek schools of Philosophy of the period, such as epicureanism, this type of rational skepticism is found only in more modern times. Within the cosmological view of antiquity, miraculous events were expected to occur and indeed the literature of antiquity is filled with claim after claim of the miraculous.
Now, if we were to look at such claims as recorded in antiquity, a Christian would likely dismiss the miraculous events attributed to Mohammad on the same grounds that a secular Historian would dismiss the miraculous events early Christian authors have attributed to Jesus. They would likely put on the hat of the secular historian and by employing the same methods would likely state such claims were either the result of superstitious urban legend and folk tale or outright fabrications. Likewise, a modern Orthodox Jew would dismiss the claims in a like manner, most likely seeing them as outright fabrications. The same would hold for a Muslim evaluating the Jewish and Christian literature. The only time they would agree would be when claims of the miraculous overlapped with each respective religious tradition.
Everyone approaches history with the eye of the secular historian, unless of course, it is their own dogma under scrutiny. As Joseph Campbell stated, "Mythology is always defined as the other guys religion." It naturally follows that miracles are always defined as those things that occur only within the confines of 'my' own personal orthodox dogma. Belief in the validity of ones convictions is further emboldened by the number of believers who have accepted the claims and the fact that these beliefs have survived for many centuries and made their way into the hands of contemporaries. It is my opinion that it is the deep-rooted emotional attachments and group prejudices that is the real force of argument that reinforces ones personal convictions in these matters, not the historical veracity of the religious literature.
The Christian scholar has the even more arduous task of concluding how and why specific cases of the miraculous should be accepted. It is interesting to note that among many liberal Christian biblical scholars who accept Christian dogma on faith, there is debate about which miracles attributed to Jesus occurred and which were inventions and literary devices. Some believe the resurrection is the only miraculous event; others, like NT Wright, believe many of the 'nature miracles' should be considered inventions. It is only the most conservative of biblical scholars that believes everything recorded in the New Testament literature represents a factual recalling of historical events. There is a plethora of views and opinions on the miraculous among the faith-community and these views span the spectrum.
Whether or not you accept the miracles depends entirely on your beliefs. I certainly cannot scientifically demonstrate or deductively prove that miracles do not occur nor can I demonstrate from the documentary evidence available that such things as written in the Tanahk, the New Testament, or the Koran did not occur. In light of all that I have mentioned so far, I simply have no valid or plausible reason to suspect that the miraculous claims contained within any religious writing of antiquity should be given any credibility. I am skeptical of claims of the miraculous in the here-and-now and I am certainly skeptical of any claim regarding the miraculous that has arrived to us from the periods of antiquity, regardless of the source or how many times the claims were subsequently recorded or how well subsequent authors later succeeded in integrating the stories into an intelligible theological or prophetic framework.
Regarding the claim that the miracle-accounts as recorded in the synoptic gospels are to be justified by their historical veracity, we can conduct a mini thought-experiment that will hopefully force us to evaluate this claim objectively:
Suppose one of the many competing Christian sects which rivaled the traditional Christian views, such as Marcionism, made the final cut and made its way to us today. Or suppose Christianity simply died out and some other obscure apocalyptic sect like the Essene Qumran community made its way into the hearts and minds of the Empire. Instead of digging up the Dead Sea Scrolls, one day a shepherd boy stumbles upon a cache of documents containing all of the christian texts of the Gospels we posess today.
Using these newly discovered documents and our understanding of Judaism and the historical framework of the first century, how would we and how should we answer the following questions?:
Who was Yeshua ben Josaphat? Was he real? What did people think of him? When did he live? When did he die? Why did he die? What was he really preaching? Would we conclude that it was a historical fact that this man really was resurrected as is claimed in these documents?
In short, if you divorce yourself entirely from the familiarity with the dogma and cut off any emotional attachments and biases, what would be the most plausible and unbiased answers to these questions?
This is really my goal for this thread. I am not trying to to counter any claims or opinions and I am not attempting to disprove any assertions. I am presenting what I see as the most plausible and objective answers to these questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 05-05-2008 7:52 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by GDR, posted 05-07-2008 11:49 PM Grizz has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 58 of 560 (465544)
05-07-2008 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Grizz
05-07-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Different view points
Grizz writes:
There are two approaches to the story of the Historical Jesus -- the secular and the theological. These two approaches overlap at times and the conclusions are not always mutually exclusive. It should come as no surprise that the major disagreements revolve around claims of the miraculous. NT Wright is associated with the latter school and his work is certainly well-respected in the field of NT scholarship, among both secular and religious. As a Christian, his interpretations of the texts is liberal enough to make the fundamentalist Christian cringe but also Conservative enough to not offend the traditional sensibilities of the mainstream Christian.
I agree that Wright isn't fundamentalist in that he doesn't always read the Bible literally in the way that you would a science text but he does take the Bible very seriously and does believe that it is the book that God wants us to have. As a matter of fact, he suggests that by reading it literally one is taking too low a view of scripture. I think that the best term for Wright is orthodox.
Also, you bring up a good point about faith and it mirrors the one I made earlier regarding presuppositions. Which side of the story you are on depends on the presuppositions you bring to the table. Ultimately, a belief in the existence of the miraculous will depend on your world view and whether or not your subscribe to the notion of the supernatural.
Just my own thought on this. Anyone who considers themselves a Theist has to believe in the miraculous. We exist. As Theists we accept that there exists some form of intelligent designer. This ID'er might have used an evolutionary process or instant creation but there still remains the fact that something exists instead of nothing. So in the end to not accept the miraculous for a Theist means that you believe in a creator that only produced one miracle which is the one that kicked everything off. (Deism)
As I discussed earlier, the inhabitants of antiquity possessed a world view very far removed from ours today. Everything and anything about this existence is so foreign to us that we cannot comprehend the true context of the period in which these stories took place. If we say we can, we are only fooling ourselves. We simply cannot fathom what it would be like to inhabit a world without physics, astronomy, chemistry, universities, TV's, cars, books, telephones, magazines, radio, newspapers, and so on . For the majority of those in the first-century, an appeal to divinity or supernatural forces was the only rational and plausible explanation for the mode of operation of the world and man's place within it. Most first-century inhabitants of the Empire explained things via superstition by appealing to unseen forces and deities. God(s) were in control of all facets of existence and the miraculous was not a rare exception, rather it was the norm.
I doubt that there is anyone who surpasses Wright's knowledge as an historian of 1st century Judaism.
What you say may be true but I would be inclined to accept the miraculous if I were to meet someone, in the flesh, that I had viewed being killed just days earlier. Either the miracles as told in the NT happened or they didn't, and if they did, then it is logical to assume something very much out of ordinary or natural.
Furthermore, anything out of the ordinary, whether an epileptic having a seizure or the sudden appearance of a comet in the night sky, had something to do with the unseen supernatural activity of these disembodied spirits or gods. This was true whether you were a Pagan, Jew, or Christian. Claims of supernatural events might be met with fear, but rarely, if ever, with outright rational skepticism. Someone might believe a story was fabricated but it would be rare to find someone who would hold the view that it would be unreasonable to conclude such things being claimed were irrational and unbelievable.
The claims weren't universally accepted. Even amongst the disciples there was disbelief initially.
Now, if we were to look at such claims as recorded in antiquity, a Christian would likely dismiss the miraculous events attributed to Mohammad on the same grounds that a secular Historian would dismiss the miraculous events early Christian authors have attributed to Jesus. They would likely put on the hat of the secular historian and by employing the same methods would likely state such claims were either the result of superstitious urban legend and folk tale or outright fabrications. Likewise, a modern Orthodox Jew would dismiss the claims in a like manner, most likely seeing them as outright fabrications. The same would hold for a Muslim evaluating the Jewish and Christian literature. The only time they would agree would be when claims of the miraculous overlapped with each respective religious tradition.
Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that some things are historical and some aren't. Mind you, even Josephus agreed that Jesus did miraculous things.
In short, if you divorce yourself entirely from the familiarity with the dogma and cut off any emotional attachments and biases, what would be the most plausible and unbiased answers to these questions?
Nobody can divorce themselves entirely from their dogma, be it Christianity, Islam, Atheism or whatever.
There were any number of would be messiahs in that period and some with a much larger following than Jesus. Look at Judas Maccabeus around 150 BC or Simeon ben Kozibah (sp?) around 135 AD. They had much larger followings than Jesus but when they were put to death by the Romans their movements came to a grinding halt. When Jesus was put to death his followers went back to their fishing etc, but then something changed everything. All of a sudden they were even more committed to the movement than they had been prior to the crucifixion. It seems to me that it isn't at all illogical to think it reasonable the best explanation is their own account.
The same goes for Paul. There he was with position and presumably wealth in his community. All of a sudden he makes a 90 degree turn, in a way that in secular terms can only be described as an extremely poor career move. Once again, it seems sensible to believe his own account even if it does sound implausible.
None of this follows if the miraculous is impossible, but we have no way of knowing if that is true or not. I believe that if a god can create all that we know that he can also intervene within his creation whenever it suits him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Grizz, posted 05-07-2008 7:48 PM Grizz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Perdition, posted 06-02-2008 1:43 PM GDR has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17894
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 8.2


Message 59 of 560 (465546)
05-08-2008 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by GDR
05-07-2008 6:30 PM


Re: Different view points
quote:
Nobody is able to come to this completely objectively. As I mentioned earlier. Borg, Crossan etc. start out assuming that the miraculous is an impossibility.
Do you have any evidence that this is the case ? Or is it like the case where critics of the book of Daniel "assume that prophecy is impossible" ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by GDR, posted 05-07-2008 6:30 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by GDR, posted 05-08-2008 2:02 AM PaulK has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6223
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 60 of 560 (465554)
05-08-2008 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by PaulK
05-08-2008 1:09 AM


Re: Different view points
Here is information on the "Jesus Seminar". It doesn't say that they had decided from the outset of their quest that they had ruled out the miraculous, but it is clear from their findings that this was the case.
Jesus Seminar
The closest they get to the miraculous is that they suggest that Paul Peter and Mary Magdelene saw some form of apparition. They suggest that this is the same experience that people still have after losing someone that they are close to.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2008 1:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2008 2:16 AM GDR has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024