No Robots

Thanks for the correction. And here is what I have said elsewhere about the pericope (and specifically how Ehrman deals with it, btw).

gstafleu

That is a nice attempt at making it unfalsifiable, I knew I could count on you :devil1:! Mozart was original in what counted. For example, the fact that he wrote his 41st symphony in C major doesn't make it unoriginal just because other composers also wrote symphonies in C major. Musicologists (not me ) can tell you exactly how Mozart is original, though.

So for Jesus you would have to come up with a list of features that makes his repeating of known thoughts (if that is what he is doing) stand out from previous attempts. That list will have to be precise and well described. Just mentioning generalized "genius" for example does'n cut any but the most apologist of cakes.

Gerard Stafleu

Ray Moscow

Just to clarify: you think that the adultress story is historically authentic? Even with its (to me, huge) textual problems?

No Robots

Très bien, Gerard.

Brunner's book is wholly and completely directed at that precise objective. In fact, the original title of the book is "Unser Christus, Oder das Wesen des Genies," which translates literally as, "Our Christ, or the Essence of Genius." He spends a great deal of effort defining genius and originality and their relationship to each other, and demonstrating how this all then applies to Christ, and provides an accurate portrait of his character.

No Robots

Yes, of course. It is attested in the early manuscript history, its absence from many manuscripts is explained by early fathers as the result of moralizing censorship, and it bears the unmistakeable mark of Christ's personality. In fact, it may be the best evidence we have of a persistent oral Gospel.

Ray Moscow

I'm a bit taken back by your position. I thought the point of textual criticism was to get us closer to the original text, or at least to earlier versions of the text. If we're going to ignore that, we might as well just go with whatever we like, regardless of the evidence.

Tossing out textual criticism because you like a later insertion (if that's what it is) seems counterproductive.

You or I could write "gospel" stories that sound even more beautiful and profound than the traditional ones, but let's hope no one is going to accept them as authentic just because they are beautiful or profound.

Ray

No Robots

But, dude, that's what I'm saying. The pericope as it stands is somewhat of an anomaly in the text. How do we explain that? Well, we know that it was part of early manuscripts (Didymus the Blind), and that early church fathers (Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome) considered it authentic, explaining its absence in some manuscripts as the result of the fact that many Christians were uncomfortable with the passage's permissiveness. What is all this except textual criticism pointing toward the original?

Magdlyn

Yes, thanks very much, Ray. It's not like I cite Incredible Shrinking to someone or other every day on this board. In fact, I think I already did, right on this thread, as did others.

And Jesus' Pharisaical status has been discussed recently as well. I'm sorry you seem to have missed it.

Let's just try to stay on topic, No Robot. If your Jewish Klausner believed in and admired Jesus' genius to such an extent, he is dissimilar to most Jews I know of. And controversial, I'm sure. But if his credentials meet Antipope's criteria, he could be added to the list.

No Robots

Mentioning the Pharisees? Thought not.

I've seen it mentioned here and there. It's such total crapola that I can hardly wait 'til someone tries to start a thread on it.

You claim that the pericope and the struggle against the Pharisees are inauthentic and then, when challenged, tell your challenger to stay on topic?

He belongs to the State of Israel, I believe.

Maybe you should get out more. Or read more. Or something.

And denying the historicity of Christ isn't controversial?

Magdlyn

Ah, No Robots, at least I've got you to stop quoting Brunner! Nice to hear your real voice. I'm new here. I was wondering what you sounded like.