Vorkosigan

Yeah, I was thinking about doing that. There is almost no skeptical lit available in Chinese.

Wallener

Sounds like more than a few popes. Maybe that's why they think they're infallible.

Juliana

Has it ever dawned upon you that what you refer to as "scholarship" might not be so scholarly after all?

"[...]Albert Schweitzer, even in the sixth edition of his fundamental book in 1950, refused to update the second edition of 1913 opining that the historical investigation of the public appearance of Jesus which had begun in the last third of the eighteenth century ‘has reached a certain completion during the first decade of the twentieth century’ (l.c. p.29). Thus he had euphemistically dismissed all that had come later as futile elucubrations, including the teachings of the form-historical method and similar.
Couchoud had namely demonstrated with Kantian inevitability in the twenties that anything trying to go beyond textual criticism runs into emptiness, so that the ‘Life of Jesus research’ was history, to be filed away. Albert Schweitzer was spared the more or less esoteric and increasingly fanciful modern images of Jesus."

Isn't it strange that no actual scholar has come up with any valid objection to Carotta's work so far?
And you seem to be psychic too since you know - without having read the book - that Carotta doesn't focus on methodology.
Fotis Kavoukopoulos an actual scholar who has read the book writes: [...] the author’s contribution to any number of methodological presuppositions concerning philology, social psychology, ethnology and the connection of political history with theology [...]

There definitely is something fishy here...
Is it with Kavoukopoulos or with you?

Vorkosigan

Did you read this thread carefully?

Incorrect as I AM a published scholar, just not an NT scholar.

The former, I'm afraid.

Vorkosigan

Juliana

Actually no, it's you, sorry, you're full of it.

Chris Weimer

Juliana - is all you can do enflame the other side?

Amaleq13

Why are you again trying to confuse the scholarship Vorkosigan has referenced (ie relating to the origin/sources of Mark) with scholarship he has not referenced (ie relating to the historical Jesus quest)? You tried to make this switch in the Carotta thread and it was as disingenuous there as it is here. I'm pretty sure he would agree with you that the historical Jesus scholarship is less than convincing.

andrewcriddle

Schweitzer was 75 in 1950, he had been out of touch with NT research for at least 20 years, he had for many years been concentrating on other (humanitarian) issues, updating the 1913 2nd edition in 1950 was not a realistic option.

Andrew Criddle

Juliana

I'm not trying to confuse the one "scholarship" with the other. The quote was just an example for the HJ research but the same applies to the "scholarship" relating to the origin/sources of Mark. Sentences like "Mark is a thoroughly Jewish Gospel" are completely disingenuous and ridiculously so.
The Gospel of Mark is a rustic-naïve Greek retelling of a Latin vita of Divus Iulius.

Juliana

I'm not sure Schweitzer had been "out of touch with NT research", but ok given. Anyway, in 1956 Günther Bornkamm (he was 50 then) published a much read book 'Jesus of Nazareth'. This were the opening lines:
Has that situation changed since then, has anybody been able to write a life of a Jesus of Nazareth? And I don't mean the "Jesus for the tinkerer" kind of books.

Fortunately we can now learn about the historical Jesus because Francesco Carotta discovered him. During his lifetime he was called Gaius Julius Caesar then to the end of his life and more then ever after his murder and apotheosis (which was interpreted as his resurrection) he was refered to as Divus Iulius and many generations later he came back as Jesus, the Christ.

This is the state of the art in the 'Search for the historical Jesus', whether you like it or not.

Juliana