Quote:
Originally posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Well, Johann, I don't think these ideas are too unusual even in the context of N American scholarship. For example, Richard A. Horsley argues that Jesus was some sort of a social revolutionary...
|
As said before I have no idea if he existed or not. What I know is how the hebrew literature is elaborated. I tend to favour the idea of French geograph Elysée Reclus. That is: the figure of "Jesus" is the summary of different people who lived at that time (before the fall of the temple). "Social revolutionary"... not much more than the Machabeans...
Quote:
The whole N American NT scholarship today is basically a fraud. And especially the Historical Jesus scholarship...
1. The first step should be to describe honestly the early history of the Church.
2. Then, the history of early Christian writings must be outlined. What were the earliest texts? They were obviously very different from what we have now.
Of course, these two projects must go hand-in-hand, because they are related projects.
3. Then, on this basis, the third step is to describe the real teachings of the earliest Christian missionaries (some of whom presumably were the eyewitnesses and disciples of Jesus).
4. And only then should come the final step -- determining who was the real Historical Jesus.
But our modern NT scholars want to ignore these preliminary 3 steps completely, and so they jump directly to the most difficult question of them all!
That's why the whole thing is a FRAUD!
Loisy, OTOH has basically answered the first question conclusively, and he also advanced significantly in answering the second... That's why nobody reads him today! He's like Gulliver among the Lilliputians. 
|
Basically I agree with you except that I will put step 3 before steps 1 and 2. Why? Because the ideology is all what is left and it is what is evident throughout the "first" texts and confronted with the historical context will help to date them relatively. I find that the biggest fraud is to think that any text has only one layer written at one time. The first layer of the gospels is zealot, then came the other layers and the contradictions are beginning to spread.
And I will have a step 0: that is how the texts were transmitted or NOT transmitted, and which ones and why.
About step 1, we know very little, I am thinking. I shall still read Loisy of course. But so many texts have been destroyed that we do not know what was the first messianist (=christian) assembly (=ekklesia, = church). Too many texts destroyed or interpolated when they should have described precisely that assembly (Papias, etc.). Why? Because it was quite different from what it was said to be later.
I am very amazed every time I see scholars not able to understand the very simple meaning of words (it is true that you cannot force someone to see what he does not want to see - true too: it is happening even with scientific researchers).
Best Wishes,
Johann
12-10-2003, 05:07 AM
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets look at the specifics
