|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Reconstructing the Historical Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Two problems here. Firstly, Paul's according to the Bible, Paul's alleged turnaround has nothing to do with the resurrection as such. Secondly all the alleged turnarounds come from the Bible, mostly from the Gospels and Acts. We can't know how accurate they are on that point. I can't prove how accurate they are. How can you prove how accurate Josephus or any other ancient text is? I realize that you don't accept this but I also believe that the writers were inspired by God. (I mean this in a general sense, not that God dictated it word for word.) Actually if you think about it, if the resurrection is not historical then it is obvious that the writers weren't inspired. If however the resurrection is an actual historic event it isn't a stretch at all to believe that the writers were inspired by God.
All we can really say is that the early Christians made some sort of turnaround, focussing their messianic expectations on a resurrected Jesus after the living Jesus failed and died. Do we really have sufficient information to assert that that was impossible without a literal resurrection ? It is clear from the texts that they had no messianic expectations after the crucifixion. They just went back to their fishing etc. Most of them didn't even hang around for the crucifixion. No we don't have sufficient information to say that it was impossible without the resurrection but in my view I agree with Wright that it seems to be the most reasonable explanation. In the end though, it still remains an issue of faith.
The early Christians also saw their apocalyptic expectations fail. Most of the apocalyptic expectations seem to have resolved around the destruction of the temple. I think that Paul believed that "New Creation" would happen in the relatively near future but Jesus made the point that no one would know the hour or the minute. Nobody as far as I know was suggesting any particular day or year. Here is the web site of "The Jesus Seminar". You can make up your own mind whether or not it had a liberal bias from the outset.
The Jesus Seminar I contend it does but feel free to disagree. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi Grizz
I'd just make the point that no one comes to any of this with a completely objective POV, whether it be Wright or those from the "Jesus Seminar". I think that one thing that would allow us to consider the state of mind and thus the veracity of what was written is to compare what was written to what we would expect if it were to be a fabrication. I suggest that one of the things about the gospels is that they aren't what you would expect. The disciples never seem to understand what's going on all through Jesus' ministry. Their faith is weak, they argue about who's going to get the top position, and there is even one who betrays him. Heck nearly all of them couldn't even show up for the crucifixion. By that time they just believed he was another failed Messiah. There is certainly no self promotion of anyone in the Gospels. Also, the stories surrounding the resurrected Jesus aren't what you would expect either. There is no radiant body. He just appears. They don't always recognize Him right away. It doesn't make sense that they would write it the way they did unless it was as they observed. It is like they are saying - I know this sounds really improbable but this is what we saw. One other point that Wright makes is that if the gospel writers were just making up something and wanted it to be credible they wouldn't have had women as being the first people at the tomb. In that society women were not considered to be credible witnesses. A second consideration would be to look at what would be the motivation for fabricating the stories. I can't see how any of the writers of the NT would have had anything to gain. It does seem that most of them had a great deal to lose. Another consideration is that much of the NT, such as Paul's letters and Mark, was written while there were many eye witnesses still alive.There would certainly be enough people around to be able to say that isn't what happened at all. Even at the time of the resurrection all anyone had to do was produce the body. The Bible is an historical book. It isn't like science where events are repeatable. We are always dependent on the writers for truth. So, you are correct, it becomes a faith issue. Are the writers truthful people? Are they inspired by God? Of course the NT was culturally conditioned so how do we apply it to our lives today? Is our thinking influenced by the Holy Spirit as is claimed in the N.T? These are faith issues but, although I imagine you would disagree, I don't believe it is a blind faith. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Grizz writes: In such a case where a new documentary discovery is made, the first thing we would do is consider all natural explanations for the events and claims contained with them. As with any new documentary discovery from antiquity, we would expect to encounter some things that are a bit puzzling and mysterious. Of course, we would question how such a movement got started and what social and political factors had a hand in its popularity and expansion. We would then infer what is plausible fact and what is plausible fiction. In other words, having just discovered these documents, we would proceed by using the same approach as employed by the secular historian. Hi Grizz The point is that certainly this book cannot be studied this way. The claim is made that the book was written by men who were divinely inspired. If the claim is true then it would have to be researched in a manner that would be entirely different than other historical books. I'm not suggesting that God dictated the wording but that they were given the wisdom to understand fundamental truths.
As already stated many times, we must not brush off the fact that the period under scrutiny is totally foreign to our present existence. The world view of the inhabitants of the first-century, whether pagan, Jew, or Christian, was ruled almost entirely by superstition and an appeal to unseen sprits and divine forces. We cannot use the same type of approach to this genre of literature as we would when evaluating documents that are more contemporary to our time. Unfortunately, many theologians do just that; it is quite obvious that many theologians appear to approach the documents with an implicit presupposition that the authors of the documents were not in any way influenced by popular sensibilities or prone to superstitious reasoning. I agree and it seems to me that Christians have been remiss in taking this approach for too long. (I would even include one of my heroes CS Lewis in this.) This is however one of the reasons that I enjoy reading Wright, (who is a first century Jewish historian), so much. Stories like the "Prodigal Son" take on an entirely new meaning when seen through the eyes of a 1st century Jew.
When using the word "Fabrication", we need to be very careful of exactly what we mean. Fabrication is a very strong word with specific connotations. Fabrication implies a specific intent which involves outright fraud that is knowingly perpetrated upon an audience. I agree. I intended to use the word fraudulent as in that the gospels were written falsely with intent. As you said that is not the same thing as someone misconstruing what it was that they witnessed. I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable as you on this subject but I don't agree with your argument concerning "the slaughter of the innocents". We know Herod was capable of it. He killed his favourite wife, sons and other family members. He killed many Jewish citizens at his death so that there would be mourning among the people. From what I know of that period the Romans wouldn't have any problem with any of this. They wanted someone who would rule with an iron fist as well as do their bidding. Josephus wrote extensively on Herod but didn't mention this particular incident. Bethlehem was a pretty small place and what would be construed as the surrounding area is anyone's guess. The point being that we don't know how many babies would be involved and it did happen almost a century before Josephus wrote about it.(Of course Matthew wasn't a whole lot earlier.) You inferred that Matthew put in the "slaughter of the innocents" knowing it to be false. I frankly can't see what the motivation would be.
Basically, what the historian infers from all of this is that the authors of the Gospels were working overtime to force a story to conform to popular prophetic tradition. As the Gospels developed in sophistication over the next few decades you will see more and more of these types of interjections in the story. For example, Mark never mentions the virgin conception. A decade later, Matthew first mentions the virgin birth and does so in a manner that appeals to prophetic sensibilities: I accept that some of the gospel writers wrote in a way that would fit the prophetic vision. Your rationale for them doing that makes sense. However it seems to me that before they made minor adjustments for their Jewish readers they had to believe the major points in the story such as the resurrection. Based on what they knew, (rightly or wrongly) to be true they then assumed that the prophesies had been fulfilled. It is interesting that you can have people of such knowledge, intelligence and good will as Crossan and Wright come to such fundamentally different conclusions about the same material. In a strange way though, if the Christian story is true that is what we would expect. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Grizz writes: Such discussions are often beneficial simply because they cause one to research things on their own or perhaps learn a bit from what others have to say. I always come away knowing a bit more about my own positions and in the process I also end up understanding more about the position of others. Well Grizz. I have wound up in a gun fight armed with a tooth pick. You obviously have a strong background in this area and I am enjoying the discussion, but I have no theological background at all. My secondary education all had to do with airplanes which doesn't qualify me as being knowledgeable about anything else. I have been a Christian for nearly 30 years after being agnostic for a number of years. I readily agree that I am not reading the literature objectively. I very definitely have a bias. The thing is, as a Christian I have had experiences that don't seem to have any likely explanation other than something that is outside the normal. (Nothing earth-shaking but profound from my point of view.) I have been heavily influenced by first, CS Lewis and more recently by Wright. I enjoy reading the debates between the "Jesus Seminar" adherents and Wright. I keep Josephus as a reference manual but haven't read it through. I also enjoy McGrath and Polkinghorne. (They are all Brits. Go figure. ) I strongly believe that the Bible is the book that God wants us to have, just the way it is. I understand that it consists of metaphor, mythology, history, and spiritual guidance. I believe that God speaks to us through all of these literary vehicles. I don't find any aspect of science incompatible with my Christian faith. I only mention these things so that I'm being completely open about my particular bias. Frankly, I could go on arguing about what Herod did and didn't do but I would only make myself look foolish. I don't have anything like your knowledge of that era. You have a very good grasp on the subject and it has been a very interesting learning experience for me. The good news is that whether the "slaughter of the innocents" was historical or not it doesn't really affect the essential message of the NT. I understand what that your point is if that isn't true then what else isn't as well. Essentially Wright, who is an expert on the subject, does have a logical and coherent argument concerning the NT. After that it does become a matter of faith. I agree with Wright in that the Bible is to be read as a meta-narrative. Creation-fall-Israel-Jesus-resurrection-church-new creation. I see that approach as being the historical story of God and his image bearing creatures. I wish that I had a better grasp on the subject so that I could challenge you more effectively. Edited by GDR, : sp
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Grizz writes: I can certainly understand the person of faith taking this position; however, such a position does raise further issues. This position presupposes knowledge of the nature of revelation, its goals and aims, and it never addresses the obvious limits we see in the revelation itself. If one is going to presuppose that the texts were divinely inspired and this involved a supernatural act whereby general wisdom was implanted into the minds of the authors, why did this revelation not go deeper and involve the divine implantation of the information content of the entire story into the minds of the authors? This would be just as easy for an omnipotent being and this approach would certainly leave out any potential for subjective inferences, misunderstandings, or additions. If the goal of revelation is to transfer accurate information to humanity, why limit revelation and leave everyone in the future hanging on points of contention that are not clear? Having given my disclaimer I'll do the best I can. It is clear from a Christian perspective that we have free will. Our whole life is made up of choices. I imagine God could have created us a robots designed to have no other choice than to do the right thing. He doesn't seem to have made that choice. I suggest that the concept of a Bible written and redacted by men who were inspired with enough of the truth to give us the Bible we have today, but to still be subject to their humanity would be consistent with what we experience in life. Sort of like looking through a glass darkly.
We get most of our popular ideas about Rome from Hollywood or the extravagant stories about Nero and the Colosseum. Rome wanted someone who could exude power but they also required a ruler who would bring peace and stability to the region. You do not obtain peace and stability by having rulers who indiscriminately execute the infants of the citizenry. Rome would never have overlooked an act which would serve no purpose but to bolster the personal ambitions of an appointed ehtnocrat and inflame the public sentiment. As I stated earlier, the Romans were brutal in their administration of Justice but they did whatever was necessary to keep the peace and keep the people from rebelling. They did not and would not tolerate a self-centered and gratuitous acts of violence that would lead to dissent, anger, and instability. I again point out that your grasp of this far exceeds mine but from the little I know the Romans were reasonably happy with anything so long as the local guy in charge could maintain control of the population and keep those tax dollars flowing. The general population didn't like or respect Herod but they feared him which was enough to keep him in control. (The whole thing reminds me a lot of Hussein in Iraq.) I'm not completely convinced that Rome would care. Again I question how many infant boys would be born in the immediate area of Bethlehem in that period. The historical outline that you have provided is fascinating. Thanks
On a side note, there are Christians who will reject the claim simply on moral grounds. Some theologians find the story totally incompatible with Christian ethics. Why would God send an angel to warn Mary and Joseph but not also warn other parents of the imminent danger? Essentially, the angel is telling Joseph that, "I was sent to warn you that a bunch of infants are about to be massacred. You better leave before the killing starts." Why did Mary and Jospeh neglect to warn others of the imminent danger to their children? If the story is factual, it appears that their primary concern was their own safety. John Polkinghorne has written a great book called Quarks, Chaos & Christianity: Questions to Science and Religion I can't quote it exactly as I have lent it out. John theorizes that God has created this world in such a way that although he is all knowing he does not know the future. Polkinghorne suggests that God has created a world with nearly infinite possibilities so although He knows the present and the past He only knows of future possibilities. God may very well only have known that it would be a strong possibility that Herod would try and kill Jesus but not have known that Herod would go as far as he did. Here is a talk given by Polkinghorne on the subject of God's interaction with the world. John Polkinghorne Such discussions are often beneficial simply because they cause one to research things on their own or perhaps learn a bit from what others have to say. I always come away knowing a bit more about my own positions and in the process I also end up understanding more about the position of others. The main reason I hang around here is to learn, primarily by reading but secondarily by having to explain just what it is I believe. Thanks again. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Scientific Bob writes: Because there no other source besides the bible to be found about this jezus character, that's why. The Bible isn't one book. It's a collection of books by several authors so it isn't true that there is only one source. Also I don't find it at all surprising that there isn't a huge amount of literature as Jesus throughout most of His career had no contact with people in authority but travelled around the country, but not in Jerusalem, with a small rag tag group of followers, reaching out to the marginalized. It was only for a period of a couple of days that He really got the attention of the authorities. He wasn't leading a revolutionary movement trying to overthrow Roman rule or Herod's puppet government. The writings at the time pretty well all had political objectives. Josephus' writings were about politics and revolutionary movements. Philo was all about representing Jewish interests to the Romans. Read today's paper. I read a lot of stories about revolutions, disasters, governments falling etc. If there is some guy wandering around in the back country somewhere promoting the idea that we should all love each other we aren't likely to read about him even with modern mass media. It was only decades later that Jesus' followers actually started to have a large enough impact to be noticed. Also, it was until the war in 66 - 70 AD that what Jesus said had would happen actually transpired, giving the movement more credibility. Quick question. Why do you find it necessary to spell the name of Jesus as jezus? Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
frako writes: Yea like those who followed David Koresh, or those who follow Scientology lol The only reason they had was they where gullible. I suppose we are gullible about some things. The followers of David Koresh were few and presumably there are none left today. Scientology is largely a self help group that has some supernatural beliefs but as far as I know doesn't worship any particular deity. The Islamic faith has the same Abrahamic roots as Christianity, recognizes Jesus as a prophet and as the Jewish Messiah. (Which incidentally is another document that attests to the historical nature of Jesus.) It is my belief that Mohamed misconstrued the faith in much the same way as the people who preach the "prosperity gospel" as Christianity do today.
frako writes: So you are saying a person who rose from the dead, preformed miracles... would not peak the interest of any scholar? It seems that it did in the writers of the books of the NT. There is no reason at all for others that weren't followers to write about Him. Read Josephus in which Jesus only gets a passing reference. It is all about war and power struggles. Jesus' followers were about peace, love and forgiveness. Not really newsworthy. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
