Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 01-12-2012, 01:42 PM

A new book has been announced and can be preordered on Amazom:

Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity (or via: amazon.co.uk) edited by Chris Keith and Anthony La Donne

There is also a conference at a midwestern Christian college:

Jesus Conference

Quote:

In the past five to ten years, historical Jesus research has taken a turn away from the traditional “authenticity criteria”. In previous decades, criteria such as Dissimilarity, Embarrassment, Multiple Attestation, Semitic Influence, Coherence, Multiple Forms, et cetera enjoyed a prominent place in Jesus studies. But what were once staples of the so called “Quest for the Historical Jesus” have fallen toward obscurity. Not only have several key studies in the field openly abandoned their use, those who include these criteria now do so with heavy qualification. The authors of this book target several criteria and show them to be in utter disrepair.

What makes this book most timely is that it undermines the foundation upon which much of historical Jesus study stands. The guiding thesis of this book is that the Quest for an “authentic” Jesus - one who is isolated and disconnected from the narrative representations of him - was launched with the presuppositions of historical positivism and the notion that an uninterpreted past can be recovered. Very few critical historians now think that facts from the past can be distilled from the packaging of human perception, bias, memory, and identity-invested reflection. ...

The forward to the book is available here

It's the beginning of the end for the historical Jesus.

No Robots · 01-12-2012, 01:59 PM

Semitic influence???

Here's a quotation from the forward:

If we want to understand Jesus, we must see him in his own context – very largely a Jewish one – and examine the impact that he made on those who followed him. If Jesus’ sayings echo teaching found in Judaism, that should tell us something about him. If his followers “invented” sayings and attributed them to Jesus, the important question to ask is why they did so.

Where's the end of the historical Jesus in that? Oh, maybe the end of the non-"Semitic" Jesus, sure.

Toto · 01-12-2012, 02:25 PM

The gospels are not historical documents, but the Quests for the historical Jesus have claimed to be able to extract historical data from them, nevertheless. If the extraction process is abandoned, what is left?

From earlier in the introduction:

Quote:

Contributors to this volume are divided between those who think that these “tools” still have a modest role, and those who are determined that they must be put aside altogether. Perhaps, however, the time has come to abandon the whole enterprise of trying to discover the “real historical Jesus.”

Christians can still believe in their Jesus, but they will no longer be able to claim that a secular, unbiased case can be made for his existence that even atheists much accept.

mountainman · 01-12-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

It's the beginning of the end for the historical Jesus.

On the hypothesis of the historical Jesus, from the forward:

Quote:

But whereas in the scientific world it is normally possible to continue testing an hypothesis ad infinitum - so producing what appears to be "facts" - the material in the Gospels is limited. The result was that hypotheses were assumed to be correct, and formed the basis for even yet more hypotheses.

About the pursuit of the HJ:

Quote:

For many this goal was fueled .... by the desire to find the truth about Jesus ....

This obviously assumes there is some form of positive truth about Jesus whereas the opposite may in fact apply.

Minimalist · 01-12-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Christians can still believe in their Jesus, but they will no longer be able to claim that a secular, unbiased case can be made for his existence that even atheists much accept.

I know fundies who still claim that the earth was flooded to the top of Mt Everest so their capacity for self-delusion should never be underestimated.

stephan huller · 01-12-2012, 07:01 PM

No I saw the end of Christianity on OWN last night. Oprah Winfrey 'crying' in rapture during one of Joel Olsteen's tacky religious services. I have always hated that peanut shape headed guy (although I may be biased here because I happen to have a rather large head relative to my body; indeed I am rather lucky because the rest of my family has the same pumpkin sized head on really small bodies). Things must be so bad at the network that she has to try and recapture some of the conservative evangelicals she lost when she helped Obama win the presidency. I don't know who is worse - Olsteen or Oprah? I was telling my wife that when you really thinks about it they represent different sides of the same 'American-new religion' crowd. The difference is that Oprah probably thinks its all bullshit. Her only religion is success

aa5874 · 01-12-2012, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I have always hated that peanut shape headed guy (although I may be biased here because I happen to have a rather large head relative to my body; indeed I am rather lucky because the rest of my family has the same pumpkin sized head on really small bodies)...

Please, do not promote hatred on BC&H.

stephan huller · 01-12-2012, 08:39 PM

Well I am glad aa didn't write:

Please, do not promote HATRED on BC&H

I hate when he does that

maryhelena · 01-12-2012, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The gospels are not historical documents, but the Quests for the historical Jesus have claimed to be able to extract historical data from them, nevertheless. If the extraction process is abandoned, what is left?

From earlier in the introduction:

Quote:

Contributors to this volume are divided between those who think that these “tools” still have a modest role, and those who are determined that they must be put aside altogether. Perhaps, however, the time has come to abandon the whole enterprise of trying to discover the “real historical Jesus.”

Christians can still believe in their Jesus, but they will no longer be able to claim that a secular, unbiased case can be made for his existence that even atheists much accept.

And that quote is perhaps the best position the gospel JC 'historicists' can make - opt for a real flesh and blood Jesus and ditch the claims and the effort to establish historicity. That is their only 'weapon' against the ahistoricist/mythicists - pull the rug out from under their feet by making no claims for historicity. Instead they can go with their assumptions, their gut, their beliefs, and have their very own real Jesus.

Bottom line is that the real issue is not the claimed historicity for the gospel JC (and there is no other....) but the origin and development of the gospel JC storyboard. If the gospel JC historicists are willing to change track - then perhaps time for the ahistoricist/mythicists also. Too much time is being spent upon the question of historicity verse non-historicity - while Rome continues to burn.....

aa5874 · 01-12-2012, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The gospels are not historical documents, but the Quests for the historical Jesus have claimed to be able to extract historical data from them, nevertheless. If the extraction process is abandoned, what is left?

From earlier in the introduction:

Quote:

Contributors to this volume are divided between those who think that these “tools” still have a modest role, and those who are determined that they must be put aside altogether. Perhaps, however, the time has come to abandon the whole enterprise of trying to discover the “real historical Jesus.”

Christians can still believe in their Jesus, but they will no longer be able to claim that a secular, unbiased case can be made for his existence that even atheists much accept.

And that quote is perhaps the best position the gospel JC 'historicists' can make - opt for a real flesh and blood Jesus and ditch the claims and the effort to establish historicity. That is their only 'weapon' against the ahistoricist/mythicists - pull the rug out from under their feet by making no claims for historicity. Instead they can go with their assumptions, their gut, their beliefs, and have their very own real Jesus.

Bottom line is that the real issue is not the claimed historicity for the gospel JC (and there is no other....) but the origin and development of the gospel JC storyboard. If the gospel JC historicists are willing to change track - then perhaps time for the ahistoricist/mythicists also. Too much time is being spent upon the question of historicity verse non-historicity - while Rome continues to burn.....

The QUEST for the historical Jesus had NOTHING whatsoever to do with ahistoricists/mythicists.

The QUEST for the historical Jesus was INITIATED by the Jesus stories FOUND in the NT CANON.

Nothing has changed. The QUEST will just be abandoned again.

The Jesus stories are "CAST in STONE" (documented) and they do describe Jesus as a the Son of a Ghost, God the Creator.

The Myth Fables, the Jesus stories, will NOT Magically disappear.

01-12-2012, 01:59 PM	#2
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Semitic influence??? Here's a quotation from the forward: If we want to understand Jesus, we must see him in his own context – very largely a Jewish one – and examine the impact that he made on those who followed him. If Jesus’ sayings echo teaching found in Judaism, that should tell us something about him. If his followers “invented” sayings and attributed them to Jesus, the important question to ask is why they did so. Where's the end of the historical Jesus in that? Oh, maybe the end of the non-"Semitic" Jesus, sure.

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

01-12-2012, 07:01 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	No I saw the end of Christianity on OWN last night. Oprah Winfrey 'crying' in rapture during one of Joel Olsteen's tacky religious services. I have always hated that peanut shape headed guy (although I may be biased here because I happen to have a rather large head relative to my body; indeed I am rather lucky because the rest of my family has the same pumpkin sized head on really small bodies). Things must be so bad at the network that she has to try and recapture some of the conservative evangelicals she lost when she helped Obama win the presidency. I don't know who is worse - Olsteen or Oprah? I was telling my wife that when you really thinks about it they represent different sides of the same 'American-new religion' crowd. The difference is that Oprah probably thinks its all bullshit. Her only religion is success

01-12-2012, 08:39 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Well I am glad aa didn't write: Please, do not promote HATRED on BC&H I hate when he does that

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.