Peter Kirby

Greetings, Bultmann! "We can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary."

Here's the value of HJ research: people who grew up with Christianity have a deep need to believe something about who Jesus was. So give them a "plausible Jesus" to which they can find relevance and that offers an alternative to the fire-and-brimstone fundy version.

Yes, it also keeps a surfeit of academics employed.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie

Me too.

I realize the need to refute apologetics. I really do but i am not advocating a cease-fire in this area. I separate Historical Jesus research and Christian origins researh from apologetics because when I study both I did so on a historial basis. Even Christians should prescind from faith when doing history!

But do you realize my reasons on why HJ research should be stopped assume "powerful arguments" against the conservative version of Jesus? Show me that early Christian writings are textually stable and I will have to dismiss point four of my paper. My arguments assume what critical scholars have long known, the gosp4els are late anonymous documents with numerous contradictions and so on. I never advocated not pointing this out but feel that withibn the confines of cruitical scholarship, scholars should quit attemtping to reconstruct Jesus.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Who ever said Jesus was the originator of much or any of what he said!? He certianly could have spun existing material. And saying this material is not like anyhing we would expect fropm an itinerant Jewish rabbi is a conclusion rather than an actual argument. Crossan comments on dissimilarity in the birth of Christianity are certainly relevant to the discussion here.

I bring paul up because to the best of my understanding Paul shows knowledge of several Q sayings. I cannot say that Paul knows Q but he does know some of the material as "Jesus material". I don't have my sources at this point nore the desire to enter a full blown arguments. I could simply refer you to Koester in ACG. He discusses several instances throughout the work.

I would say this early core of material is attributed to Jesus by various groups (THomas, Q and Paul) at such an early date that without detailed argumentation to the contrary, it is special pleading to not call these core datums "Jesus material". They are Jesus sayings, not "vynic sayings ripped and attributed to Jesus." Did numerous Christians early on in the first stratum independently rip from the same cynic core of mateial and ascribe it to the historical Jesus or does it actually go back to the HJ and this fact was widely known? My view favors the latter as them ore probable of them. There wa an HJ behind it. But if you think Paul shows no knowledge of Q1 material and Thomas is late and dependent upon the canonical Gospels we will naturally disagree.

Vinnie

Family Man

To take a contrary view, HJ studies has done us a great service by demonstrating that, on historical grounds, the evidence for the truth of Christian ideology is practically non-existent.

Consider this thought experiment. Consider what we know of any other historical figure (Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, Henry VIII, Madame Curie, etc) and make a mental list. Then consider the importance of those figures. You'll find that much of what we know of these figures points towards their significance in history.

Now consider what HJ proponents say we can "know" about the HJ. If you compare that list to the real significance of Jesus, you'll find practically no correlation at all. What is historical about Jesus is mundane; that which is important is legendary.

It sort of reminds me of what I was told about experimentation. Even if your experiment fails to produce the expected results, you've still learned something. HJ research has provided us with the same benefit: the demonstration that historical analysis can't penetrate the legend that is Jesus, and can't really answer the really interesting questions that abound about the figure that Christians believe is Christ.

Vinnie

:notworthy

:notworthy

:notworthy

Vinnie

Vinnie

That view is not contrary to my own. I simply state that the academic discipline of reconstructing the HJ is an exercise in stupidity. My own view assumes that the truth of "Christian idealogy" cannot be found on "historically grounds". There is no need for this bifurcation when my view assumes that these texts cannot be used to reconstruct much of anything. If historical arguments cannot be found Xians need to make theological one. So meet Xians on their own grounds. But if they want to use historical arguments they need to get around the reasons enumerated in the OP of this thread against Jesus research.

Vinnie

Peter Kirby

Perhaps any attention to Christian origins is an exercise in stupidity?

best,
Peter Kirby

CX

Well said.

FYI the plural of "datum" is "data"

Ted Hoffman

Vinnie,
You give up too soon. Be a sport . At least, write a book as a culmination of all the time and money you have put in HJ studies etc. Can't just drop it and say bah! its a waste of time.

It indeed could be a waste of time. It cant be a waste of time simply because its difficult.

Like Morpheus would say: Show us.

joedad

Was HJ a godman or not? If HJ is not a godman than there is no HJ. HJ scholars should define their alleged HJ first, and then present their evidence for composition. We're going to have to call a unicorn a horse if we're ever going to find the one horse that is the alleged HU.

Presently, people aren't "reconstructing" an HJ, their "constructing" one in the same fashion that one was originally constructed and institutionalized centuries ago. That's my take.

So, Vinnie, I agree with you in large measure, though based on hard evidence, I am convinced there is neither an HJ nor an HU.