Toto

Jesus is a big cultural icon. But when the President can say that Jesus is his favorite political philosopher and then wage war, does he really care about the historical Jesus? When Jesus is invoked as the latest management guru or personal lifestyle coach, is anyone interested in an accurate historical reconstruction? I suspect not.


Without the gospels, there isn't enough material to work with.

I didn't quite finish the thought, but it's past my bedtime.

You can read Vork's Markan material. I doubt that the author of Mark thought that he was writing history at all, any more than George Lukas did, although later gospel writers might have mistaken his work for history. I don't think that the actual facts of history were really important to them.

gurugeorge

But the matter of whether this character was historical or not is important. The religion is based on the concept of a real person in space and time supposedly having been at the same time the literal Son of God: the fleshly embodiment of God is part of the concept of atonement for Original Sin, which is the "point" of the religion according to most orthodox forms. If the historicity is doubtful, the entire basis of the religion is dubious too.

Vinnie

a good start.

Toto

I would say that the entire basis of the religious is dubious, if it requires a certain historical set of events that cannot be shown.

Buddhism does not require a historical Buddha, and Judaism survives in many forms that do not require a historical Moses or a historical Exodus. Freke and Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries attempted to recreate a version of Christianity that did not require that history to exist.

But in any case, Peter Kirby has abandoned that religion. If this is an exercise in history, it has to be based on historical data and rational interpretations of that data, not the requirements of a religion. And the historical data just do not prove (or necessarily disprove) a historical Jesus, and do not lead to any real conclusions about him if he existed

Toto

Another historicized metaphor might be the crucifixion itself. The accounts in the gospels of the trial and crucifixion are based on literary references and have various improbable elements. But if there is no crucifixion, is there a historical Jesus as most people would understand him?

Peter Kirby

Is anyone interested? Judging by the book sales of works containing assiduous scholarship, such as Meier and Crossan, yes. Or, are you asking, is anyone disinterested in the subject matter? Not really, no more than anyone is truly disinterested in the question of the origins of life, or the relative merits of Windows, Macintosh, and Linux platforms. Further, anyone truly disinterested in these subjects could not hope to do them justice in a proper monograph, without first becoming invested in them. Disinterest breeds malaise and insubstantial, sloppy work when it comes to a complex subject. Genuine interest is necessary, but not sufficient, as those with an interest may also have no integrity, willing to disregard the data or bend it all to a predetermined end. For a serious study of any difficult subject, what is necessary is both drive and discipline, the former to fuel the fire, and the latter to temper. Lastly, one needs discussion with peers, with an aim to consensus-building. How many people have drive, discipline, and a desire for discussion in regards to HJ research? Not many at all, but enough for such dialogue to take place, mainly in academia.

Perhaps I was not clear. What I said was that the only two options are not "don't use the gospels or create a Jesus that is pretty much as the gospels describe" (not a quote). While I may not agree with their methods, Jefferson and the Jesus Seminar demonstrated that one can use the gospels and not create a Jesus reconstruction that is pretty much as the gospels describe.

You appear to have moved from a positive statement about what "probably" happened to a matter of doubt and non-belief.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Toto

I think that Jefferson and the Jesus Seminar have reconstructed a Jesus that is not out of line with the gospel Jesus, that could not be constructed without the gospels. The historical problem is why the Romans wanted to crucify this Jesus (but not his followers).

Perhaps Bart Ehrman has constructed a Jesus - the apocalyptic nut - that is not quite compatible with the gospel Jesus. That Jesus is not very satisfying and won't sell a lot of self-help books.

Where did I make a positive statement about what probably happened?

gurugeorge

You were talking about Jesus being a "big cultural icon" and President Bush and all that. My point is that the reason why he's such a big cultural icon is because of an often bloody history in which his historicity was the enforced orthodoxy, and because the vast majority of Christians living today believe he was a historical character. He's not a "big cultural icon" by some curious accident of linguistics or semiotics.

Peter Kirby

But not "pretty much as the gospels describe."

Sure, that's a question.

So?

"The gospels were written long after the events, and were probably literary / symbolic / artistic / liturgical compositions that turned metaphors into story elements."

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

Chili digression split here