delusional

I think he has gone to the trouble of finding out how the professionals do their job. That's what I think. And if you are going to debar the NT texts from consideration without even trying to apply the methods of textual criticism or the historical-critical method, it is at least an open question whether you deserve to be taken seriously.

delusional

Given that he was Professor of History at Miami University, it doesn't seem an entirely unreasonable thing to do.

delusional

Off the top of my head, I can think of a rabbi who is a contributor to a Catholic periodical. That doesn't mean that he is a "friend" of Christianity, still less does it mean that he is about to sign up to the Nicene Creed, it only means:

a.) That he is on talking terms with Christians

b.) He has got no axe to grind in believing that there was a historical Jesus

Similarly with Paula Fredrikson.
==========================================
In case you are wondering, the rabbi is Lionel Blue, and the Catholic magazine is The Tablet (published in Britain).

Toto

Textual criticism leads to the conclusion that the gospels were midrash of the Septuagint, and are theology more than history - and there might not be much history at all.

You are new here, and you are rehashing issues that have been debated here for years. You are way behind the curve.

Ben C Smith

Textual criticism has nothing whatsoever to do with gospel sources, midrash, or theology. I think you are thinking of higher criticism. Textual criticism is lower criticism.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

TC does this? Really?? Would you be kind enough to produce a passage from the writings on the goals and aims and results of TC from the major NT text critics -- i.e., Metzger, Ehrman, Epp, Tiscehendorff ,Aland, Bengel, Hort, Housman, Grenfell, Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle, Scrivener, Tregelles, von Soden, and Westcott -- or, for that matter, any NT text critic, in which they claim that TC leads to the conclusions you claim it does?


Jeffrey

Toto

OK - Textual criticism has nothing to say about the historical value of the gospels. The higher criticism leads to the conclusion that the gospels were midrash of the Septuagint, and are theology more than history - and there might not be much history at all.

Are you happy now?

Or do you agree with mr. delusional that experts all agree with him?

Jeffrey Gibson

Which "higher criticism" are you speaking of? Source? Literary? Formgeschichte? Linguistic? Historical Critical, Socio-Scientific/Context? Redaction? Comparative Religions? Reader response?

I didn't know that my happiness was an issue. But thanks for your concern in this regard, even if it was out of petulance.

Jeffrey

fatpie42

But consideration of the gospels shows that they are often at odds with one another on major points, incompatible with known historical facts and sometimes even internally inconsistent.

Sure these texts might reasonably considered, but they cannot be used to affirm the existence of a historical person. Of course this is all quite irrelevant to the OP of this thread which has an entirely different point to make.

If you wish to assert that the historical Jesus (presuming there was one) was likely very different from the Jesus discovered in the gospels, you would need to have some criteria for deciding what the historical Jesus was like. If it has already been recognised that the Jesus in the gospels is not a good representation of this figure, what is meant to be used instead? There are no extra-Biblical sources to which we can turn. (Even if we decided to assert, contrary to good sense, that Josephus was a reliable source for talking about Jesus, we would still be unable to say anything about Jesus that would contradict the gospels.)

Of course, in spite of what I have said so far, there are reasons to say that any historical Jesus would be different from how he is represented in the gospels. For one thing, the real Jesus could not do two things at once so he could not both flee to Egypt and be brought up in Jerusalem at the same time. Modern scientific understanding allows us to recognise that walking on water or turning water into wine are impossible, so he could not have done those things either. Also we know that if we go into the sky we do not bump into heaven, but rather we exit the atmosphere and find ourselves in outer space, so Jesus' ascension into heaven could not be as described (and there is a possibility that the gospel writers also realised that heaven was not in the sky and were using a literary technique at this point). There are also points where the description of reality in the gospels does not tie in with what we know about history external to the gospels; such as the description of Quirinius' census which imagines that people all around the area were moving to completely different towns (which would cause complete chaos) rather than being registered where they currently lived.

The problem is that these issues only highlight problems with the gospels. They don't really indicate any historical facts about Jesus. What reason have we to say that Jesus didn't go to Egypt as a child? In the end all we are left with are guesses if not bald assertions. What we know, however, is that the story as it stands is mythical in character. What we don't know is whether there is any history involved. As such, the historical Jesus is an interesting theory, while the mythical Jesus is a fact.

I think it is a mistake to claim that if you believe in a mythical Jesus you are ruling out the possibility of a historical Jesus. That is to pose a false dichotomy. I can happily accept that the Jesus in the gospels is mythical without denying the possibility of a historical Jesus. I disbelieve in the historical Jesus because there is no good evidence for it. I have a similar stance when it comes to God. In both cases, were I to be presented with the evidence I would happily change my mind. Without evidence, however, there is little point in asserting anything.