Thanks rodahi, I appreciate your tone.

I am very interested to see your evaluation of Meier's works.

I do hope that whether you think his conclusions are biased or not, that you will note that he is not afraid to include many references to opposing views. I have not seen very many books that are this well researched and documented. I imagine you stand to gain at least some new knowledge from his book, though I'm sure you'll also find some of its weaknesses.

BTW, I agree with your statement that some are more biased than others. However, I think that non-Christians can be just as biased in their approach to the Bible. Perhaps you do not feel you are as biased, but I wouldn't be too comfortable with that assumption.

Anyway, like I said, I'm interested to see your review.

Ish

Originally posted by Layman:
Take your time [reading Meier's A Marginal Jew], I have plenty of work to keep my occupied.

I am still reading. Thus far, I agree with some of Meier's conclusions. For example, on pages 22 and 23, he states, "The real Jesus is not available and never will be. This is not true because Jesus did not exist--he certainly did--but rather because the sources that have survived do not and never intended to record all or even most of the words and deeds of his public ministry--to say nothing of the rest of his life...With the exception of a relatively few great public figures, the 'real' persons of ancient history--be they Hillel and Shammai or Jesus and Simon Peter--are simply not accessible to us today by historical research and never will be." These words echo what historian Charles Guignebert wrote many years ago and probably reflect the opinions held by most historians today. Jesus existed, but we will never know who the real Jesus was.

I also agree with Meier's dating of the Synoptics. He says, "I accept the standard view in NT research today: Mark, using various collections of oral and possibly written traditions, composed his Gospel somewhere around A.D. 70. Both Matthew and Luke, working independently of each other, composed larger Gospels in the 70-100 period (most likely between 80 and 90) by combining and editing Mark..." (P. 43) I have no problem with this.

With respect to Meier's commentary on the narrative attributed to John, I disagree, to some degree, with his opinion. He states, "The question of historical value plagues the material from the Fourth Gospel even more, and some critics simply ignore John. Nevertheless, contrary to the tendency of Bultmann and his followers, John's Gospel, in my opinion, is not to be rejected en masse and a priori as a source for the historical Jesus." (P. 45) I tend to agree more with Rudolph Bultmann and less with Father Meier. While the narrative may have a few historical elements embedded in it, the bulk of the material reflects the theological beliefs of the writer's particular community. Furthermore, it is not improbable that the writer of the Fourth Gospel knew of the Synoptic tradition.

I generally agree with Meier's assessment of the allusions to Jesus in Josephus's Antiquities. In my view, the so-calledTestimonium may have contained derogatory remarks about Jesus BEFORE it was tampered with by a Christian interpolator. That fact would make the passage much more compatible with the context of Josephus' commentary.

At this point, I have to admit that I have not found much to quarrel with in Meier's book, but I have quite a few pages to go.

I will offer additional general commentary on Meier's A Marginal Jew, Vol. I as I continue reading the book. (I would be willing to discuss a specific issue, as time and energy allow.)

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited April 28, 2001).]

Rodahi, since Meier is fresh on your mind, do you remember seeing anything in the first half of the book about Earl Doherty and The Jesus Puzzle? I was almost sure I had read a very small blurb about it, but I can't seem to find it.

Perhaps I am thinking of G.A. Wells. I was able to find the reference to Wells' work on Jesus as myth.

Thanks,
Ish

Meier doesn't mention Earl Doherty, but he is dismissive of G. A. Wells in note #59, on page 87.

rodahi

Rodahi,

I agree with Meier on the dating of the Gospels too, give or take 5 years here or there.

Have you come to a conclusion as to how much he succeeds in his quest to be objective?

I will share my thoughts about Meier and his success or failure "in his quest to be objective" AFTER I finish reading A Marginal Jew, Vol. I.

rodahi

Fair enough.

But since you were willing to assert that he wasn't even claiming to be objective before you read much of the book, I thought you might be willing to give us at least a preliminary assesment now that you have read a large part of it.