Vorkosigan

Which religious sensibilities and conduct norms? And if it did, so what? It doesn't mean anything either way.

Solo, the only thing at work is a vivid imagination. Even if you could demonstrate that the saying was dissimilar (and it certain is -- you can always point to something that it is dissimilar to!) it doesn't mean it goes back to Jesus. It simply means that you've demonstrated it is "dissimilar."

Here's another problem (so many!): the dissimilarity criterion confuses a fact (dissimilarity) with its interpretation (historicity). It says that when you've identified the fact, you've made the interpretation. That isn't how historical study works, and it certainly isn't how literary study works.

No, I don't have to. See, that's the problem here. I merely note that all throughout the texts of early Christianity the followers of Jesus are referred to in terms of family -- hardly surprising, since in honor/shame cultures the family is the template for social classification. This is something I encounter all the time here in the honor/shame society in Taiwan where I live. No need to go any further. In Mark the sequence in Mark 3 is clearly a definition of what "family" is for new disciples of the cult.

Yes, that's right. He would grasp the risks -- Which is why he chose that portrayal -- one mode of enlightenment is shock. The writer of Mark went right for the problem and exposed it, and held up the solution. Who is my family? The Jesus cult is my family now.

Solo, you raised several examples, I was explaining one, the sequence in Mark 3. But the "Let the dead bury their dead" comment is so clearly an example of another "drop everything and follow Jesus" Chreia construct that it is hard for me to imagine how you can believe it is historical. That is how it is explained in dozens of analyses by Christians: it shows how following Jesus requires dropping everything. The "shock effect" is well illustrated here.

Dissimilarity is dissimilarity. What mechanism allows you to confuse it with historicity?

Sure, it is blatant. Is is dissimilar? What measurement method are you proposing for dissimilarity? How much "blatancy" is enough to trigger the criterion?

Because, as Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm all aver, the family can betray you, but the Lord never can, so you should put your trust in him. I suggest you take a gander at Micah 7.

• 1
  Alas! I am as when the fruit is gathered, as when the vines have been gleaned; There is no cluster to eat, no early fig that I crave.
  2
  The faithful are gone from the earth, among men the upright are no more! They all lie in wait to shed blood, each one ensnares the other.
  3
  Their hands succeed at evil; the prince makes demands, The judge is had for a price, The great man speaks as he pleases,
  4
  The best of them is like a brier, the most upright like a thorn hedge. The day announced by your watchmen! your punishment has come; now is the time of your confusion.
  5
  1 Put no trust in a friend, have no confidence in a companion; Against her who lies in your bosom guard the portals of your mouth.
  6
  For the son dishonors his father, the daughter rises up against her mother, The daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's enemies are those of his household.
  7
  But as for me, I will look to the LORD, I will put my trust in God my savior; my God will hear me!

Of course, Micah 7:1 is one of the texts that is often identified as lying behind the fig tree scene. Catching all the interconnections is often difficult. But anyone who saw the fig tree scene and returned to Micah 7 for enlighenment would see the remarks about the family -- and understand further.

So -- here's a surprise LOL -- Jesus' position is obvious similiar to an OT text. And that in a collection of texts constructed off of the OT.

See, here's the problem I noted before -- dissimilarity is in the eye of the beholder, Solo. The reality is I can find textual support for it in the OT. Hence, it is not dissimilar.

Abandoning dead bodies is merely a striking way of conveying a truth about Christianity and the family that was also a Cynic ideal. Epictatus noted:

• Behold God hath sent you a man to show you in act and deed that it may be so. Behold me! I have neither house nor possessions nor servants: the ground is my couch; I have no wife, no children, no shelter--nothing but earth and sky, and one poor cloak. And what lack I yet? am I not untouched by sorrow, by fear? am I not free? . . . when have I laid anything to the charge of God or Man? when have I accussed any? hath any of you seen me with a sorrowful countenance? And in what wise treat I those of whom you who stand in fear and awe? Is it not as slaves?

If there was a coherent criterion of dissimilarity, I might have an interest in declaring it bogus. But since it is simply an apologetic fantasy -- and a very obvious one at that -- I need simply note how its users have failed to go far enough in placing the saying in the context of (1) the nascent cult's social context (2) existing sayings and attitudes in Hellenistic society and (3) the construction of the NT tales off of the OT. Ultimately the dissimilarity criterion lacks the requisite depth and understanding. It is simply another way in which scholars declare the writers of the text too dumb to have made stuff up.

Vorkosigan

Vincent Guilbaud

the Criteria of Dissimilarity/Distinctiveness according to the Jesus Seminar:
This is the law of Non Uniformity:
if it doesn't fit a Palestinian Jewish environment in 30 CE, it is true.
Why? would you ask
"Because no one would attribute anything really odd or eccentric to him, and therefore it is so.
Its very oddity and eccentricity are testimony to its truth or to its historical veracity."
Shaye J.D. Cohen (an ordained rabbi)

Did the Jesus Seminar heard about the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ?
Using their criterias how much authenticity would it get ?

or what about Joseph Smith book of Mormon and its famous prophets
Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Ether, Moroni.
The first one Nephi even crossed the Mediterranee sea and Atlantic Ocean
to start two civilizations Nephite and Lamanite who, for the last one,
is the ancestors of american indians.

All these look very eccentric to me.

Unfortunately for NT scholars, it appears that, except little details like Jesus said 'Amen'
at the beginning of a saying instead of the end as it was the custom,
there is nothing new or original in the NT that you canno't find in the scriptures or elsewhere.

Solo, your examples from Q1 fit perfectly cynism.
See Robert Price and Gerald Downing...

*****************************
Hope E.Doherty (and R.Price & others) will forgive me, I am currently rewritting
what I understood from their books:
http://www.FromChristToJesus.org
(be indulgent for my spelling, I am French)

Doug Shaver

By "authority," I take it you mean "somebody's permission." Your point might be well taken, but it's still irrelevant. In that region of the world during the first century, there were lots and lots of literate people who emphatically rejected the notion that they needed anybody's permission to say or to write whatever they felt like saying or writing.

Ted Hoffman

Vincent, when you write "Adapted from a post of Ted Hoffman on the infidels board" it would be nice to provide a link. I have written many incorrect things on this boards so dont rely on me without checking.
What does the title of your site, "From Christ to Jesus" mean? Or did you just pull it from a book title?
You also seem to mean Historical Jesus theories whe you write NT theories.
Otherwise, thats an interesting site. A lot of work needs to be done on the presentation.

Solo

I don't mean it quite as "permission". By authority, I mean, something more like "weight" and the ability to make binding decisions for the group(s). We are mammals and the homo sapiens male hierarchy operates in religious groups the same way as outside of them. Today as two thousand years ago. Groups do not form themselves by committees but by leaders who impress on them their vision and character. Counter-cultures conform in non-conformity.
Paul's letters gives a lot of information about the movement, in that respect. He scoffs at the authority of the "pillars". He plays James the Just against Peter. He declares himself the only spokesman for the outlaw leader in heaven to whose mind he, Paul, has exclusive access.

But, of course, you are free to believe that the early Christianity operated on the same posting rules as BC&H.

Jiri

Vincent Guilbaud

Tedd, with the line below:
"Or How Christian Faith evolved from a Mythical Christ to an Historical Jesus"
I thought it was obvious.
Christians were first only believing to a divinity, the Messiah,
only later did they create a story on earth about him, and believed it was what started the movement.

No.
Just took the opposite of Paula Fredriksen's book "From Jesus to Christ"
and the famous pbs documentary of the same name.

Do you have the same problem with this title from current scholarship ?

Thanks for saying it's interesting.
Too bad for me!!! :frown:
The main reason I do it is to give a more friendly presentation than Jesus Puzzle or all the other web sites...

But you didn't see the real content yet...

Did you watch my SVG presentation?
(IE is better)

Doug Shaver

If all humans, including early Christians, are compelled by some biological imperative to conform their thinking to some hierarchical authority, how do you account for the posting rules on BC&H?

Solo

I invoked no 'biological imperative' or at least not one that would not admit two thousand years of cultural development, differences in education, general purpose of the organization, and differing levels of tolerance to dissent. Organizations mimick in their social psychology the mentality and behaviours of their leaders. No matter what you think of the value of psychoanalysis, you would have to agree that Freud's Vienna society and IPA were a quite tolerant culture. (Although Freud's frown carried a clout, I am not aware of any purges in his ranks. Most notable dissenters left on their own to become gurus of their own movements. The only notable exception, Wilhelm Reich, was expelled because of his general unpopularity - Freud maintained strict political neutrality. Reich was a Marxist who wanted to politicize the theory, which given the Jewishness of the org and its locale was felt unnecessarily provocative. At any rate, Anna Freud was more involved than Sigmund). By contrast, Marx'es movement was psychologically marked by his prominent character traits: generosity, pomposity, hostility, vituperative rhetoric, and a habit to attach to one's opinions the aura of universal truths. His bullying copied socially. By the year 1900, the "echt-Marxist" culture was in deep decline in the West (replaced by a milder social-democracy as a mass movement) but was enthusiastically embraced in backward Russia, and later in Asia, more attuned culturally to absolutist forms of social organization. So, to answer your question, my guess for the origins of liberal attitudes of BC&H, is that it either does not have charismatic founder, or has one who is open-minded.

Jiri

Doug Shaver

My own lifetime of observations does not support that generalization. Human beings might be credulous, but there is a difference between credulity and mindlessness.

Besides, even if your observation were true, it would be irrelevant. Chrisitanity during the first century was not an organization and it had no leader, notwithstanding orthodox dogma to the contrary.

youngalexander

I also found it interesting. However,
Attempted to, but I have a marked aversion to sites where I must hit Ctrl+Alt+Del to get rid of the bloody window.