Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zaphod · 08-21-2008, 06:29 PM

Great post, PJ. Enjoyed that, thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Celine,

This is an excellent point. I think modern/postmodern literary/texual criticism has an incredible amount to offer us regarding Jesus. What we have is both a failed character and a failed narrative. John fails to bring the kingdom of God, Jesus fails to learn from John's mistakes. Jesus fails to convince his followers, Jesus fails to convince the Jews and fails to convince the Romans/Pilate.

Only the ghost Jesus succeeds. But the Ghost Jesus is just the God-ex-machina of botched play narratives that even Aristotle recognized as authorial failure. The only advice that Jesus can give to his apostles is to carry on the same mission of failure that he himself went on. One day soon the world will end for everybody else, but will continue for them. God will turn failure into victory. But since God can do anything (another way of saying) anything can happen than the failure just remains a failure. Keep on failing and one day you'll get lucky and succeed. This is a message of hope in the same way that "Buy a lottery ticket" is a message of hope. Kingdom of God rained out today, here's a raincheck for the game if it ever comes.

While the gospels included in the Bible are narrative failures, it is interesting that some gnostic gospels are not. The gospel of Thomas contains no narrative plot, just a listing of bullet points. The Gospel of Mary apparently shows Mary's triumphs over the skepticism of the other apostles regarding her primary position in the story as the beloved of Christ. The best explanation for this is that the gnostic gospels are closer to the successful original source material. The later gospels come from too many mixed contradictorary sources and therefore are narrative failures.

We have seen this type of thing happen in comic books over the last 30 years with "retcons." Retcons are the rewriting of comic book origin stories to create retroactive continuity, to make later character and plot developments match earlier ones. This has generally resulted in more confusion not less.

Far more successful are reboots, where the same character is given a whole new origin story and the old one simply disappears. This is what happened in the 1950's with super-hero comic characters from the 1930's and 40's.

The Gospels are like retcons. The writers fix one problem only to find that two more problems have sprung up. For example, an author of the gospel of Matthew apparently wants to respond to the charge that Jesus' body was taken by his followers. He solves the problem of the disappearance of Jesus' body by having a squad of Romans watch the body from Friday Night to Saturday Morning. But this creates the problem that the Romans didn't tell anybody about Jesus' rising. He solves this by adding that they were bribed by the Jews into saying that Jesus' body was taken by Jews. The author does not see that he hasn't solved the problem at all. If the guards accepted bribes to say that Jesus' body was taken away, how can we trust that they actually saw the angel of the lord saying that Jesus has risen. The writer of Matthew has created new witnesses, but has been forced to impeach their credibility himself. Again another narrative failure; this time it is because the characters are driven solely by desire for money and thus cannot be considered credible witnesses. At the same time that the narrative impeaches their credibility, the credibility of the author of Matthew is also impeached. It is obvious that he has neither witnessed or created the material about which he writes. He is only "fixing" it, possibly for the very same reasons as his guards -- money.

In any case, I think that we really need to apply the lessons that postmodern literary theory have taught us and apply them to these texts.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Zaphod · 08-21-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

There are many things he says that I -- and the vast majority of humanity -- don't like.

Quite true. But that doesn't stop some us from liking everything he says, or at least recognizing that if we don't like something, it is probably because we don't adequately understand it.

??

That came out like you are saying that you like your KoolAid, even the bitter stuff, because you like your KoolAid.:crying::huh:

No Robots · 08-21-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaphod

??

That came out like you are saying that you like your KoolAid, even the bitter stuff, because you like your KoolAid.:crying::huh:

Sorry 'bout that. Hmm. How better to express myself? Basically, I mean that I like so much of what he says and does that where I find myself baulking at something, my first instinct is to question my own understanding. So, I try to find exegesis that will help me see the thing from all possible angles. The main thing is to assume that whatever comes from him has the highest possible meaning, and that it is up to me to try to discover what that meaning is. This is in keeping with the Jewish literary technique known as Mashal:

In the Hebrew tradition, a mashal is a broad, general term including almost any type of figurative language from short riddles to long, extended allegories. It denotes "mysterious speech." Some of the Psalms, for instance, are designated as meshalim. The New Testament Greek often translates the term as parabole or "parable." This translation, however, causes some problem. In Greek, parabole are always allegorical and open to point-by-point interpretation. Parabole were often used as a simple method of teaching by example or analogy. The meshalim in Hebrew, however, was often intentionally confusing or deliberately obfuscating in nature--much more like the Greek enigma (riddle). We can see this confusion in the New Testament, where Mark interprets the purpose of the parables as Hebrew meshalim. In Mark, Jesus tells his disciples: "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, 'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise, they might turn and be forgiven'" (Mark 4:11-12). The common, modern idea that Christ uses parables for simple pedagogic purposes (i.e., "so that even a child could understand the secrets of heaven") is a creation of the medieval period, much later.

rizdek · 08-21-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScuzzBuster

Really for being the only true tangible root of Christianity, it's amazing the belief is as prevelant as it is.

It is clear, from reading history that christianity didn't succeed because jesus was such a great guy or because everyone wanted to be a christian. It succeeded because throughout most of European history after ~300 CE, christianity was the state religion and in most cases, rejecting the state religion got you tortured and/or killed. Threat of torture and death is a great incentive to accept a mythical belief system.

No Robots · 08-21-2008, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

I'm not sure how you conclude that because Klausner says that that the parables/proverbs in the Synoptic Gospels bear the stamp of a single personality that Klausner thinks, let alone has asserted, or would agree with the claim that there is in the Gospel's portrayal of him a single coherent personality. This is a non sequiteur.

Well, my only point here is that that Klausner does assert that the Gospels do present a single personality. That they present different aspects of this personality is true, yet nevertheless the one coherent personality of Christ is present in all four Gospels. In the same sense, Einstein says:

No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

Quote:

And it's certain that you've never actually read Klausner's Jesus of Nazareth (or if you have, you seen only what you wanted to see). For there he asserts, just as C.G. Montiefiore did in his work on the Synoptic Gospels, that the Gospel portrait of Jesus and his personality in GJohn is radically different from that of the Synoptics -- so different in fact, and so theologically imbued, that it must be rejected as a source for determining what Jesus was like.

I will certainly have to look again at Klausner and at Montefiore in order to be certain that what you say is accurate. If it is, then I would disagree with them. I suspect, however, that it is more likely that they would say that John's presentation of Christ differs to some extent from that of the Synoptics, which is simply an obvious truism. But I think they would maintain that John simply takes a different approach in presenting the same personality. I mean, how many great men have biographers who take radically different approaches? Although there are differences, there is also a fundamental unity binding all four Gospels, as Brunner makes clear:

So far as the essential mystical characterization is concerned, the Gospels speak with four voices and yet in unison, but the Synoptics have pride of place. For it is precisely in the non-learned, uneducated Synoptics that the mystical self-awareness and the mystical foundation of Christ's entire life stands out. Here it is far more credible, fresh and magnificent than in John, who manifests his rabbinic and halakhic training and at the same time engages in Philonic and Gnostic religious philosophizing.

...

For the most part they are all Synoptics, and all four of them present the same synoptic reality. Whether one has more or less passages than another is neither here nor there, it is simply due to the particular agents of transmission, the scribes, the redactors. But this mystical, synoptic reality must be there, without any gradation in its essence, as the centre of the personality, the centre of the whole range of ideas. And this is the case, both with the Synoptics and in John.

You can read the above in context here.

Quote:

BTW, Brunner is never mentioned by Klausner in this book, let alone as one who should be consulted if one wants to know anything about Jesus, even though Klausner was intent to note in detail the major Jewish contributions to Leben Jesu research and our understanding of the teaching and Jewishness of Jesus.

Why is that?

I am myself in pursuit of the answer to this question. While Brunner's book on Christ was published in 1921, only one year before Klausner's book was published, Brunner had been writing outspokenly about Christ since 1893. One of the things that intrigues me most is the extent to which Brunner's work, and in particular his book on Christ, meets with silence. There are notable exceptions, of course.

Joan of Bark · 08-22-2008, 03:15 AM

Why didn't Jesus, in his infinite wisdom, realize that there could be all kinds of conflicts and arguments over what He was saying and therefore make sure He stated everything as explicitly as possible?

Sorry, No Robots, it still sounds like you're arguing backwards. You want to like everything Jesus says, so if He says something you don't like, you simply assume you must interpret it in such a way as you will like it. You could apply this kind of logic to anyone in history. "Everything Hitler said was wonderful! You just have to interpret his statements in the correct way."

No Robots · 08-22-2008, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Why didn't Jesus, in his infinite wisdom, realize that there could be all kinds of conflicts and arguments over what He was saying and therefore make sure He stated everything as explicitly as possible?

I think he did know that there would be conflict over him:

I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.--Mt. 10:35

Anyone who wants to shake people free from their illusions is going to create conflict.

He also knows that no matter how he expresses himself, the vast majority will misinterpret him.

Quote:

Sorry, No Robots, it still sounds like you're arguing backwards. You want to like everything Jesus says, so if He says something you don't like, you simply assume you must interpret it in such a way as you will like it. You could apply this kind of logic to anyone in history. "Everything Hitler said was wonderful! You just have to interpret his statements in the correct way."

It's like art, Picasso say. Hideous at first glance, the more you try to understand it, the more beautiful it becomes. There is a process of cultivation. But one definitely does need some primal receptivity, an intuitive response that says, "Wow! I don't understand it, but I love it!"

aa5874 · 08-22-2008, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Well, my only point here is that that Klausner does assert that the Gospels do present a single personality. That they present different aspects of this personality is true, yet nevertheless the one coherent personality of Christ is present in all four Gospels. In the same sense, Einstein says:

No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.

This statement can hardly be true. Many millions of people have no regard for the Gospels or Jesus.

bacht · 08-22-2008, 08:57 AM

Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights;
I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations.
He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street;
a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench;
he will faithfully bring forth justice.
He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth;
and the coastlands wait for his law.
Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out,
who spread forth the earth and what comes from it,
who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it:
"I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness,
I have taken you by the hand and kept you;
I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations,
to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon,
from the prison those who sit in darkness."
Isaiah 42

You will find the character of Jesus in OT prophecies, where Paul and the other apostles found him

No Robots · 08-22-2008, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

This statement can hardly be true. Many millions of people have no regard for the Gospels or Jesus.

True, true. Einstein is guilty of the all-to-familiar error of believing that everyone sees things the way he does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

You will find the character of Jesus in OT prophecies, where Paul and the other apostles found him

Well, at least you aren't trying to fit him into some Greco-Roman mythology.

I would say, though, that the evangelists had a heck of time trying to fit Christ into Jewish expectations. I mean, this guy, the Messiah? Some schmuck running around stirring up the rabble rather than leading the nation to victory over the hated Kittim (Romans)?

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

08-22-2008, 03:15 AM	#36
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Why didn't Jesus, in his infinite wisdom, realize that there could be all kinds of conflicts and arguments over what He was saying and therefore make sure He stated everything as explicitly as possible? Sorry, No Robots, it still sounds like you're arguing backwards. You want to like everything Jesus says, so if He says something you don't like, you simply assume you must interpret it in such a way as you will like it. You could apply this kind of logic to anyone in history. "Everything Hitler said was wonderful! You just have to interpret his statements in the correct way."

08-22-2008, 08:57 AM	#39
bacht Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 2,305	Behold my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights; I have put my Spirit upon him, he will bring forth justice to the nations. He will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street; a bruised reed he will not break, and a dimly burning wick he will not quench; he will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not fail or be discouraged till he has established justice in the earth; and the coastlands wait for his law. Thus says God, the LORD, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people upon it and spirit to those who walk in it: "I am the LORD, I have called you in righteousness, I have taken you by the hand and kept you; I have given you as a covenant to the people, a light to the nations, to open the eyes that are blind, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, from the prison those who sit in darkness." Isaiah 42 You will find the character of Jesus in OT prophecies, where Paul and the other apostles found him

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.