mikem

I agree that we can know that a given account is unreliable (inaccurate?, dishonest?) without knowing what actually happened. However, in the case of the arrest and execution of Jesus, I think we can have a pretty good idea of the sequence of events, even if it is coloured by theological considerations. I suppose by unreliable you mean that had we been there we might have seen a different set of events, heard different words spoken? Probably. Who else was there when Pilate spoke to Jesus, or when the High Priest interrogated him? There is no doubt that the whole sequence is theologically motivated, but that something like it happened I have no doubt. Does this make it unreliable or dishonest? That would depend on who the account was written for, and why it was written. If it was written to provide a police report, it would not do. If it was written to inspire faith in Christ, and provide object lessons in faithful behaviour it would fit the purpose I think.

My problem with the mentality that judges these writngs solely by measuring them against contemporary standards of scientific objectivity, and finding them wanting, is that this is to miss the point of what the gospels are about. In short, are the gospels historically accurate? Not by our standards, they are not, but not all all Christians think that the authority of scripture rests on it's historical accuracy.

Chris Weimer

It's not an illegitimate argument from silence. It's an argument from silence for sure, but it's not illegitimate considering that the Bible depicts Nazareth as a rather large town and Josephus who mentions towns in the nearest vicinity fails to mention it at all. What it rather says that if Nazareth existed, its nothing like its depicted.

John A. Broussard

The most startling aspect of making Jesus the Messiah is the complete lack of the core beliefs of Christianity in that construction.

There is no indication that the OT or any Jewish tradition predicted that the Messiah would rise from the dead, ascend into heaven, be god (or the son of god.)

Why?

Amaleq13

Before I respond, I want to be clear that I am setting aside any consideration of mythicism because that will only distract from point I hope to ultimately get across to you.


Beyond the logical assumption that an arrest would necessarily precede a crucifixion of Jesus, what other "sequence of events" can be established? How can the influence of "theological considerations" be identified? If we cannot identify what has and has not been influenced by something other than historical accuracy, how can we consider any claim reliable?

That and 'did the author create this scene from his own imagination or external sources like the Hebrew Scriptures?'

Why do you accept the claims of a personal interview with either man as historically reliable?

Would you consider a public arrest followed by immediate crucifixion but no trial "something like it"? After all, the entire trial provides more than sufficient theological (as well as political) motivation to create such a scene.

With this as the primary intent, can historical accuracy be anything but a secondary consideration?

mikem

Good question. The earliest Christians were Jews, and the idea of a Messiah or "anointed one" (Grk Christ) was a familiar one, which they applied to Jesus. Also the term "son of God" was a familar Jewish concept - as Geza Vermes showed in "Jesus the Jew", and was a title given to anyone who was considered to be on intimate terms with God. Also anointed (Jewish)kings were considered to be sons of god, so it was a term applied to kings as well. Kings were also "anointed ones" or Messiah, so there was a close link between Messiah and son of God. In the hands of the early christians both terms underwent development.

Jesus was considered to be a son of God, and anointed by God, as well as messiah. His idea of how an anointed messiah behaved, was not the same as the more popular conception of messiah as a political hero. It was this misconception that got him crucified. However there is another Old Testament concept that is more crucial to understanding the Christian belief in resurrection.

You are right that there is no reference in the Old Testament to messiahs coming back from the dead. However, one of the key motifs in the gospels is the idea of Jesus suffering on behalf of his people, and it would appear that he saw himself in the role of Isaiah's suffering servant, and especially in terms of Isaiah 53, which is quoted frequently in the gospels. And there is more than a hint in Isaiah that this "suffering servant" would be vindicated at the last. The early Christians saw in this a reference to the resurrection of Jesus. Not that the idea of Jesus as suffering servant gave rise to the belief in a resurrection - but they saw in this profound notion a confirmation of what they be already believed.

It would have been interesting to see how Christian theology might have devleloped if it had not come under the influence of Hellenistic philosophy, and instead stayed more closely in touch with it's Jewish roots.

mikem

Thanks Amaleq I only noticed your response after I had posted one in response to John. I do want to deal with your questions in more detail, but I'm going to have to get back to you in a day, possibly two. (More like two actually - entertaining relatives tomorrow!)

A quick response though to the first and last point. Mythicism does not enter into it. I believe that Jesus existed, and that what we have in the four gospels are four portraits. I call them that because they are not biographies. I have called them theologically inspired portraits. There migh be a better term, but if it suits you for the purposes of further discussion, I'll continue to use it, or an abbreviation like TIPs.

That leads naturally to the second point. Yes, I think historical accuracy was a secondary consideration for the authors. I'd go further. I'm not sure that it was a concept that would have ben familiar to them. They had at their disposal traditions about Jesus, which they further shaped to fit their message. I suppose one of the questions this poses is what continuity there is between their finished works and the original Jesus. You have mentioned the problem of finding the joint line between reportage and theological interpretation. These are matters we can come back to yes?

Vorkosigan

I'd like to see that too. The problem for your viewpoint is that there is no contradiction between "fiction" and TIP.

Vorkosigan

mata leao

did "anyone" in ancient times ever tell the truth about anything? Professional skeptics might do well to check their motives. a priori bias exerts a very powerful magnetic deviation of the compass.

Vorkosigan

Your point is unclear. What exactly is it?

John A. Broussard

A very profound comment, I'm sure. Does it mean anything?