Vinnie

[1] Jesus left behind him people, not parrots. Memory is not infallible and we do not even have any eyewitnesses material. We are stuck a few with second generation sources that tell us very little about Jesus (e.g. the silence of the Pauline corpus) and third generation sources (e.g. synoptic Gospels) that are filled with copious amounts of fiction and creativity. Against this we may note the only possible exception is the source material used by Q1 and Thomas (granting the existence of Q, the possibility of reconstructing its wording and extent, ability to identify layers, the early dating of Q1, and the independence and primitiveness of the Gospel of Thomas). Otherwise we use "criteria" to hope to get to an old genuine "core". Unfortunately, scholars can hardly agree on much here.

[2] Form critical analysis has shown the large amounts of material has been altered and changed in the early church. People created (even if there are limits) and transformed existing material to situate the current needs of their churches. Many examples of this could be easily highlighted.

[3] The context and exact wording of most of what is attributed to Jesus cannot be known. How is interpretation possible when the context and wording are two necessary requirements for interpretation?

[4] The written sources are textually unstable. We cannot put too much emphasis on the wording as found in extant reconstructed texts. Thomas may have had two layers, Q may have had three. 2 Corinthians may be two letters combined, John was heavily redacted, canonical Mark is not original Mark and so on and so on!

[5] The gospels and other works are filled with so much polemic and outright fiction that they must be "flitered" and "combed" by scholars for genuine datums. Outside of a few datums (e.g. synoptic paucity of gentile related material) there is little certianty or agreement here. Many view Mark as the first canonical Gospel but within this group there are those who think Mark wrote largely fiction and there are those who think that much of what Mark narrates is factual.

[6] The diversity of Christian origins requires stratification. Unfortunately many scholars do not recognize this necessity and on this point we may point out lacking methodologies (Crossan's has the best potential!). How could such diverse sources form so fast? Of course this point assumes a certian stratification and may itself fall victim to point 10!

[7] The dating of virtually every source is disputed to some degree. Dependence of virtually every source is disputed to some degree as well. Some think Mark came first. Others think Matthew did. Some think there was a written Q. Some do not think there was. Some think the stages of Q can be reconstructed and some don't. Some accept Markan priority without Q. Others offer much more complicated forms of synoptic dependence (e.g. Boismard).

[8] Given scholarly diversity in this area and the subjectivity of the quest, appealing to a "consensus" in this field is little more than a bad joke. Pretty soon there might be more Jesuses out there than Mcdonalds!

[9] Who really cares about the historical Jesus? Do we reconstruct him because we think Jesus has something to offer us today? If so, isn't this belief based upon reconstruction itself? Its a vicious circle. The study of the historical Jesus has no practical importance. He was not God-become man or none of that apologetical nonsense. There is no reason to invest so much time and money into a Jewish man (who may have been a great person ahead of his time!) who's been dead (AND REMAINED DEAD!) for the last 2,000 years. Or do we study Jesus simply because he is there? The good old insatiable desire for knowledge and truth inherant to human beings? This may be true for a few people but most of us are smart enough to catch on to the real reasons bored scholars reconstruct Jesus. *Cough*Jesus books sell*cough*--amongst other reasons of course.

[10] The Butterfly Effect. One has to list numerous presuoppositions about dating, dependence and so on and build a reconstruction based upon extremely detailed considerations of source material. This encompasses all the problems (all Nine!) outlined before this one. When one reconstructs earliest Christianity they do so based upon their conception of the sources, their development and relationship to one another, their tectual veracity, their interpretation and so on. It is commonly noted that if you are wrong in part it may and can hurt every aspect of your reconstruction! Presuppositions are key and we may cite the well known saying that "a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil may spawn a tornado in texas!" Building so much on so little is an exercise in stupidity.

End Thoughts: We may be able to know a few VERY broad things about the life of Jesus with a high degree of confidence (e.g. he had followers, was crucified (contra Mack), spoke using parables, etc) but this tells us next to nothing about the "real Jesus" whom cannot be reconstructed.

In the end we may conclude that searching for historical Jesus and Christian origins is a useless enterprise. Those who offer detailed reconstructions of Jesus (e.g. most modern Jesus scholars) are to be pitied and should be dismissed with a stern spanking on their behinds. They are misguided scholars wasting the most prescious thing we have: time. The uncertainty principle comes to mind here when watching what looks like children with college degrees playing hide-an-go-seek.

The work of historical Jesus scholars out there is absolutely useless for the advancing and embetterment of humanity. It offers us nothing and teaches us nothing. Don't shoot the messenger though. Consider me an alarm clock. The logic is there. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or historical Jesus scholar to recognize that building so much useless information on so little is an exercise in stupidity. What are we to call a person who makes a career out of such an activity? I'm sure you can figue that one out....

Vinnie

Toto

Welcome to Jesus agnosticism, I started to say until the last three paragraphs.

In spite of everything you wrote, you still cling to the idea that we can know something about the historical Jesus - which does not follow. (I don't know if know or something should be emphasized in that last sentence.)

You say:

Answer: a theologian.

Nevertheless, trying to study Christian origins is at least as useful as reading mystery stories, watching TV, or a host of other recreational activities. And it has to be at least as useful as any other study of ancient history. Perhaps if we knew how we got into this mess, we would stand a better chance of getting out of it.

Besides, Jesus is a major brand name in our society. Are you going to cede all that to the fundies who have taken over the Republican Party and want to use Jesus to promote free market fundamentalism and the next crusade?

Vinnie

My understanding of the sources doesn't allow Jesus agnosticism (against the historicity of the person behind the Q1 // THomas sayings material). But I am open to different stratifications and interpretations of this material that do. My comment assumes my own which I did leave open the possibility of the butterfly effect undercutting it. That is whay I said "we MAY be able to know".

I am not an agnostic in regards to the HJ. There probably was one behind all these early sources and traditions IMO but you might as well call me an agnostic in regards to reconstructing the HJ. To say that Jesus had followers says nothing. Its a tautology.

That would be one answer

Agreed. Some people find it "entertaining" to study the field. Knock yourselves out if you do. But most have theological ties in with the field so those who do it solely because they find it "an interesting hobby" are few and far in between.

Political fundamentalists aget me mad just thinking about them. I could care less what they do though. Infringe upon my freedoms with some theological biblical-Jesus-Christian based bullshit and I'll make sure I exercise my right to bare arms. Fortunately, society seems to be gettin more "liberal" where I live. One day hopefully this mythology will be put behind us.

Vinnie

MortalWombat

In Deconstructing Jesus, Robert Price devotes a whole 10 pages comparing the Q1 sayings with those of Cynic sages from the BCE/CE era.

Here's part of a review of Price's book by Doherty discussing the Q1/Cynic connection, from here

Xixax

I respectfully disagree. Were there not a large political and social movement based around this historical/mythical character, it wouldn't be important. However, there is a large movement of people whose religion based on this character is a major influence on what they do. This movement is filled with men in positions of great power. They have the ability to influence the raising of our children, the laws which govern our nations, and the general life and world in which we live.

To me, that adds a tremendous layer of importance to everything these scholars are doing. Not because knowing the actual Jesus is important, but because knowing that the actual Jesus wasn't a god-man is. If the evidence these men have gathered and presented is shown to someone with a rational and reasonable mind, there is hope that they will not make decisions of great value based on the theology surrounding this character.

Not only that, but the issue of faith is greatly important to many people who are, each in their own way, searching for answers. When I realized the religions of the world do not hold the answers to how to live life and what to expect from it, it was liberating. Not because I wanted to do things these religions found abhorent, but because they placed an expectation of some afterlife that would be vastly improved over the one I'm living now. With this expectation removed, I was compelled to make the most of the life I have, not of the one I'm going to have.

There is something amazing about looking at the world around you and realizing this, this life, is the only time you will get to experience it. Once it's over, there is no you any longer. Biology, history, all facets of science and queries for knowledge became more meaningful to me.

I can see this being similar to the emotions and thoughts of others who would find this information about the historical Jesus and have it be the catalyst that leads them away from such a limiting and destructive world view. Christianity is a religion that thrives on the self-abasement of it's followers. It makes them sacrifice what little life they have for the hope of some magical afterlife. Anything that would help open their minds and allow them to see the beauty of the world as it really is remains important to me. The work of these men is meaningful, whether or not their intentions are to make money or not.

Just my 2 cents.

Xixax

I think it would be better to confront their actions before it requires the use of arms. The best way to do this is with reasoned arguments based around facts and evidence. To leave this course of study to those with theological biases towards finding a real god-man would be a horrible step back.

I care a great deal what they do, as I would like to be able to think of a long and enjoyable future living in this nation. However, if it gets to a point where the moronic masses of fundamentalists start stripping my freedoms away for the sake of enforcing their antiquated religion on others, I will leave. I'd rather not have that be a decision I'm faced with.

With the rest, I agree for the most part.

Vinnie

I am aware of the Q1 cynic discussion here but I simply do not follow the last paragraph at all.

Why is it inconsistent?

This has nothing to with with some "inherant needs" of the material The fact is that this material is attributed to Jesus by various sources at a very early date (e.g. GThomas and Q1 INDEPENDENTLY and pieces by Paul and others). Further, information in blocks like the inaugural sermon are widespead and knwon early.

To me this widespread and early attestation favors a view which posits a historical figure behind this material. It by no means necessitates it but I consider it more likely. I'm not going to get into outlining all the overlapping material at this point though. Someone else may want to do that. I would be curious in knowing Doherty and Price's take on GThomas, its dating, relationship to the canonical gospels and its relationship to Q1. This would be important for the discussion (but think butterfly effect = point 10 above thought1).

Vinnie

Vinnie

FI care too since I have a lot of fundy friends but the political ones piss me off to no end. But it has been my experience that fundies like to deny the most obvious of things:

Biblial errors:
age of the earth:
Immorality of certain actions allegedly perfomred by God
idiocy and immorality of various biblical gibberish

They are blind to so many things and it has been my experience that there is no reasoning with fundamentalists. Otherwise I would agree entirely with your approach. I bother with them only when it would seem necessary in public arenas (e.g if they were trying to get genesis mythology taught in schools). It would be not so much bothering with them but trying to make the rest of the general public aware of their idiocy through "reasoned arguments based around facts and evidence".

But we should note that many many historians have long since dismissed the popular conception of Jesus in their studies. Why has this not filtered down yet to the masses? What good does the study do if they don't listen to it or aren't aware of it? Big waste of time!

Vinnie

Xixax

Because at one time I was one of these fundamentalists with whom there was no ability to reason. I held to an inerrant, literal Bible with eternal rewards and punishments handed out based on faith and works.

Even though someone handing me this information personally would have never worked, having the information available when I was searching on my own was enough to shift the balance towards reason for me. I know I can't be the only one that would find it necessary to accept that it's mythology in spite of my dearest wishes that it were true for various reasons. Once the possibility was opened in my mind that it was all rubbish, so many things became clear and evident that I am shocked I could have ever taken it seriously.

Being raised and trained from birth in Christianity can leave powerful constraints on a mind that can only be broken by solid, convincing arguments. I wouldn't expect to find people breaking away from Christianity as a common occurrence, but hopefully the momentum towards reason and away from mythology will continue to gain until we are all able to break ourselves away from its lobotomizing grasp.

I think the research into the basis for Christianity, and other religions with negative and widespread influences, will be helpful in keeping this momentum going in the right direction. I'm not trying to sound dramatic, but pulling the rug from underneath Christianity, Judaism and Islam could avoid a massive war and countless deaths. The schism between these religions is dangerous, and only because they take so much of the crap in their books literally that they feel destined to be in conflict with each other. I find it frightening that we have a president who believes in an inevitable Armageddon because of middle east tensions. The probability that such a belief could lead to a self fulfilling prophecy is more likely than I wish to acknowledge.

All research that could reduce such a possibility is worth it's weight in gold.

MortalWombat

Because he shows that the wisdom found in Q isn't original, but a product of many people over centuries of time, and this material is not like anything one would expect from an itinerant Jewish rabbi.I don't know why you are bringing Paul into the discussion about the source of Q material. Where exactly do you see Paul quoting or showing knowledge of sayings of Jesus found in Q?