Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 09-23-2009, 09:57 PM

Here is a brief exchange I found online by two Jewish scholars for your edification:

Quote:

Subject: What Jesus Actually Said (Heilman)
Date Posted: Fri, 21 Jan 1999 19:55:35 -0500

With regard to the entire discussion of what Jesus "actually said," particularly as Mark Stoll presents it, I have a simple question. How do we even know that there WAS a Jesus who said anything? The evidence for the existence of the Jesus whom the New Testament describes is problematic at best. Hence the effort to get at his actual words seems at best an exercise in imagination -- no? Or am I being hopelessly naive?

Samuel Heilman

(Emphasis added -- spin)

Quote:

Subject: What Jesus Said (Goodman)
Date Posted: Tue, 25 Jan 1999 22:02:15 -0500

In answer to Samuel Heilman's comment regarding the historicity of Jesus and Jesus' words, I do not know what the writers Heilman was referring to had in mind, but it seems to me that the question regarding Jesus is a general meta-historical (philosophical) one -- and it can be asked in other contexts as well. In short: Discourse regarding historical figures might be interpreted in naive historical terms, but also as a figure of speech (a short way of saying something but meaning something else -- leaving aside any philosophical explications). Thus:

1. The historical Jesus? : Given the various sources -- some of which are independent of each other -- regarding a person named Jesus at that period, it does seem legitimate to speak about what that person actually said.

2. The historical traditions regarding Jesus? Given the doubts we have regarding the various traditions attributed to this person, it is still legitimate to talk about this or that words claimed to be his final words.

3. The constructed Jesus?: Given the doubts we have regarding the historical, realist existence of such a man, it is still legitimate to inquire what are the words, or meaning of which, were put into his mouth by the creator(s?) of such a myth, legend or tradition (at certain historical period(s) which we can also try to identify).

4. Jesus in History?: Given the immense historical and cultural importance of the traditions and beliefs attributed to Jesus (or better in this context, to his figure), it is legitimate to ask what were the words this person, or again, this created figure, used when he (or so the narrative says) was dying.

Yehuda Goodman

Do you find Goodman's response reasonable?

(This thread is not an opportunity to rehearse one's position, but to analyse the validity of Goodman's response as an indicator for proceeding with the issue of the historicity of Jesus.)

spin

ApostateAbe · 09-23-2009, 10:02 PM

Yes.

mountainman · 09-24-2009, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodman

1. The historical Jesus? : Given the various sources -- some of which are independent of each other -- regarding a person named Jesus at that period, it does seem legitimate to speak about what that person actually said.

2. The historical traditions regarding Jesus? Given the doubts we have regarding the various traditions attributed to this person, it is still legitimate to talk about this or that words claimed to be his final words.

3. The constructed Jesus?: Given the doubts we have regarding the historical, realist existence of such a man, it is still legitimate to inquire what are the words, or meaning of which, were put into his mouth by the creator(s?) of such a myth, legend or tradition (at certain historical period(s) which we can also try to identify).

4. Jesus in History?: Given the immense historical and cultural importance of the traditions and beliefs attributed to Jesus (or better in this context, to his figure), it is legitimate to ask what were the words this person, or again, this created figure, used when he (or so the narrative says) was dying.

Do you find Goodman's response reasonable?

(This thread is not an opportunity to rehearse one's position, but to analyse the validity of Goodman's response as an indicator for proceeding with the issue of the historicity of Jesus.)

Goodman appears to accept as a given that there was an historical Jesus, and then finds that is a legitimate exercise to make assertions based upon that premise. The response is thus not saying anything new. We can make the hypothesis that the HJ existed, and we can then attempt to determine the legitimacy of that hypothesis. But I am not sure that this was Goodman's intention. It is possible that the response was indicating that there is a causal chain between (1) the given hypothesis and (2) the legitimate theories based on that hypothesis, and the author was aware of the causal chain.

dettus · 09-24-2009, 06:04 AM

No.

show_no_mercy · 09-24-2009, 07:34 AM

Quote:

1. The historical Jesus? : Given the various sources -- some of which are independent of each other -- regarding a person named Jesus at that period, it does seem legitimate to speak about what that person actually said.

All of his assumptions rise and fall on this "given". What is the nature of these "various sources"? Are they really writing about a person who lived, or an ideal hope for the future? What is their supposed independency? What if it's interdependency? Aren't there various independent sources for Ned Ludd?

Amaleq13 · 09-24-2009, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you find Goodman's response reasonable?

Setting aside what the "sources" say and whether they are credible and/or truly independent, IMO, his first point is reasonable.

If there are independent, credible sources about a figure, it is reasonable to refer to that figure as historical.

The second seems to beg the question. Either that or it joins the rest in simply avoiding it.

And I think avoiding such an unanswerable question does seem reasonable, if one wishes to engage in discussion of the character described in the texts.

jakejonesiv · 09-24-2009, 10:13 AM

No, the response is not valid. Even if the bare existence of Jesus is presumed, there is an additional hurdle to demonstate we have his actual words. This is even more important, considering that the Pauline epistles attribute almost no sayings to Jesus, just a handful of sayings of the Lord which could just as well be ecstatic utterances of pneumatic prophets.

avi · 09-24-2009, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you find Goodman's response reasonable?

no
Certainly not
Ehh, what about the Gold tablets, huh? What, you suppose those are imaginary too?
blathering foolish non-believers...
They'll sure be sorry when that day of judgement comes....hahaha, TOO LATE THEN....
umm.
NO.

spin · 09-24-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you find Goodman's response reasonable?

no
Certainly not
Ehh, what about the Gold tablets, huh? What, you suppose those are imaginary too?
blathering foolish non-believers...
They'll sure be sorry when that day of judgement comes....hahaha, TOO LATE THEN....
umm.
NO.

What is one to do with this post? I'm at a loss. Could you put your own thought together into sentences to explain what you intended?

spin

gurugeorge · 09-24-2009, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Do you find Goodman's response reasonable?

The first guy is querying about "what Jesus actually said". Goodman's response is all about "what 'Jesus' said".

It seems to me that he's sliding past the point in order to advance his own "sophisticated" philosophical agenda.

Of course it's perfectly legitimate to talk about what "Jesus" (the character in the narratives) said (in the narratives), what "Jesus" meant to the writers and commentators, etc. But as soon as you insert the word "actually" in there, you're playing historical hardball, it's no longer an exercise in fey post-modernist deconstruction (which is basically exercise of the jawbone at the public's expense).

So what Goodman is saying is internally consistent, and has its own intrinsic interest (especially for jawbone-exercisers), but seems to avoid the really interesting point (which is only dealt with cursorily in 1) ).

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-23-2009, 10:02 PM	#2
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	Yes.

09-24-2009, 06:04 AM	#4
dettus Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: where apologists for religion are deservedly derid Posts: 6,298	No.

09-24-2009, 10:13 AM	#7
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	No, the response is not valid. Even if the bare existence of Jesus is presumed, there is an additional hurdle to demonstate we have his actual words. This is even more important, considering that the Pauline epistles attribute almost no sayings to Jesus, just a handful of sayings of the Lord which could just as well be ecstatic utterances of pneumatic prophets.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.