andrewcriddle

I think to call LT Johnson "conservative" may be misleading if it implies that he necessarily opposes the social agenda of the Jesus Seminar.

He does regard the Jesus Seminar as ideology presented as critical history but IMO one of the most interesting parts of 'The Real Jesus' is his argument as to how a liberal/radical social agenda can be more legitimately derived from the canonical gospels than from speculative reconstructions of a Historical Jesus underlying them.

Some of Johnson's specific criticisms of the Jesus Seminar are IMO justified eg 'The Five Gospels' gives the parable of the Good Samaritan a high authenticity rating despite the problems (Only in Luke hence no multiple attestation, not the sort of relatively short aphorism suitable for oral transmission, high compatibility with Luke's theological agenda). IMO it is fair comment to claim that the parable got a red for authentic, when most of the synoptic gospel material didn't, primarily because it was congenial to the Synod's view of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

Jehanne

The Jesus Seminar, IMHO, thinks "too highly" of the Gospel of Thomas, which was clearly a 2nd-century work.

Vorkosigan

I quite agree. If conservatives would quit attacking the JSem on ideological grounds and focus on some of the JSem's stranger judgments, they'd probably get farther.

Vinnie

No one has been able to demonstrate this. The opposite is rather difficult to demosntrate as well.

Vinnie

Vinnie

He accepts most all the same things as other scholars do despite his alleged critical tirade against extant scholarship he reasons that even the most critical historian can be confident in these:

a Jew named Jesus.
Was a teacher
and wonder worker
in Palestine
in first third of first century
was executed by crucifixion
under pontius Pilate

Confident other facts that are only a little less certain:
Limitd ministry to Jews,
Some form of Jewish Involvement in Death.

He also accepts:

Baptism by JBap.
Names of Jesus' parents
His hometown
birth near time of Herod...

Johnson decides to come up with his own criteria called "converging lines of evidence". If two sources disagree on a lot of points but agree on one that incident is probable. An application of this could be John and the synoptics and granteed their differences the agreement is good historical evidence. (see p. 109 for an application of this in the birth stories). Who would of thought. Contradictions in the gospels prove historicity

He simply has a variaiton of multiple attestation that he uses. He just qualifies it. Thats all his converging lines of evidence is and I think he admits so himself at one point.

Extra Christian witnesses can be combed for convergence as well (see pp 116-117). "The earliest outside reports contain consuiderable divergence, but there are also points of convergence. There is the appearance of the title Christos as a virtual name (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny), his location in Palestine//Judaea (Josephus, bT Sanh.43a, Tacitus, Lucian), his death by execution (Josephus, Tacitus, bT Sanh. 43a, Lucian) and the continued presence of a movement carrying his "name" (Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian)." p . 116

He goes on to note less well attested stuff:

Death under Pilate (Josephus and Tacitus)
Or Under Tiberius (Tacitus)
Involvement of Jewish leaders in death (Josephus, bT Sanh 43.a

In regards to ministry activities

he worked wonders (Josephus bT Sanh. 43a
Was a teacher (Josephus bT Sanh. 43a)

On pag 121 Johnson lists about 15 facts Paul has about Jesus and points out the seven of them are confirmed by non-Christian sources.

Jesus was Human
Jesus was a Jew
Jesus mission was to Jews
Jesus was a teacher
Jesus underwent a trial
Jesus before Pilate
Jesus' death involved Jews
Jesus was crucified.

Johnson discusses all these on 119-121 then poses the list.

He calls it striking that wonder working is absent in Paul then goes on to offer a reason why (since he sees Jesus as a miracle worker!) (p. 122)


In his conclusion he really drops the ball when trying to offer us The Real Jesus of the Gospel. He points out the the fur Gospels are "REMARKABLY" consistent on one essential aspect of the identiy and mission of Jesus (Johnson is doing theology now and pawning it off in his history book ) see p. 157 and surrounding pages in this chapter.

He finds this pattern in Paul as well:

Paul interested in the "story of Jesus" not facts of his life but hte pattern set by his selfless sacrifice and death... and he used this patern often for disciple teachings in his letters.

This is the same pattern given in al lfour gospels.

The use of the pattern by pual decades before the gospels and his ausmptions that his readers already know the pattern//story so early shows that it was not a late invention of the church but rather an early memory, "perhaps the earliest of formative memories, concerning the "real jesus". p. 162

Snippets from his conclusion (165-166):

"When the witness of the New Testament is taken a a whole a deep consistency can be seen under its surface diversity"

The real Jesus is first of all the powerful, resurrected Lord whose transforming Spirit is active in the community....

By looking at the "story of Jesus" not in terms of a collection of facts or in terms of a pil of discrete pieces, but in terms of pattern and meaning, we have found a deep consistency in the earliest Christian literature concerning the character of Jesus as Messiah."

For thosei nterested, one of Crossan's works (I think Boc) contains some responses to some of the charges leveled at him by LTJ in this work.

LTJ pretends to be critical, writes some good stuff and offers a healthy dose of skepticism here or there, but then reverts back into conventional theological choir preaching.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

I think he is a man who, in spite of his knowledge and good sense, is incapable of separating religious superstition from rational knowledge. He believes Jesus was actually a son of God who came to die from our sins. Kirby writes:
As such, he sometimes comes accross as full of crap.

andrewcriddle

IMO LTJ is quite upfront about what he is doing when he shifts from objective history into theology.

What he is claiming is that objective critical history provides a limited amount of information about Jesus. The available information is drastically limited by the way in which the post-Easter church retrospectively understood the events of Jesus's ministry. (There are limits to this reinterpretation, it is most unlikely for example that this produced the belief that Jesus was baptised by John, but it was still a drastic change in how Jesus was understood and remembered.)

For the objective critical historian it must be at least an option that this reinterpretation is a distortion, and hence as neutral history we can only make claims about the historical Jesus to the limited extent we can separate original experience from post-Easter reinterpretation.

However for the Christian believer it is not an option to hold that post-Easter developments were all a mistake. Hence, for the Christian believer but not for the neutral historian, showing that a particular pattern of selfless sacrifice and death runs through all the major early post-Easter understandings of Jesus is good evidence of what Christ meant and means.

The neutral historian would IIUC agree that this is how early post-Easter Christians understood Jesus but would be agnostic as to whether Jesus was really like that.

Andrew Criddle

Jehanne

"Just believe", they say! :Cheeky: But, check this out:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/1...r2_062797.html

For those who "just believe", how does Roswell compare with the Resurrection?