Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 08-25-2009, 12:32 PM

I think this blog post deserves wider attention:

Letting Go of Jesus

Quote:

...

Like the empty tomb story, the story of Jesus becomes the story of the man who wasn’t there.

What we need to be mindful of, however, is the danger of using greatly reduced, demythologized and under-impressive sources as though no matter what we do, or what we discover, the source—the Gospel–retains its authority.

It is obviously true that somehow the less certain we can be about whether x is true, the more possibilities there are for x. But when I took math, we seldom defined certainty as the increase in a variable’s domain. The dishonesty of much New Testament scholarship is the exploitation of the variable.

We need to be mindful that history is a corrective science: when we know more than we did last week, we have to correct last week’s story. The old story loses its authority. Biblical scholars and theologians often show the immaturity of their historical skills by playing with history. . .

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think this blog post deserves wider attention:

Letting Go of Jesus

Quote:

...

Like the empty tomb story, the story of Jesus becomes the story of the man who wasn’t there.

What we need to be mindful of, however, is the danger of using greatly reduced, demythologized and under-impressive sources as though no matter what we do, or what we discover, the source—the Gospel–retains its authority.

It is obviously true that somehow the less certain we can be about whether x is true, the more possibilities there are for x. But when I took math, we seldom defined certainty as the increase in a variable’s domain. The dishonesty of much New Testament scholarship is the exploitation of the variable.

We need to be mindful that history is a corrective science: when we know more than we did last week, we have to correct last week’s story. The old story loses its authority. Biblical scholars and theologians often show the immaturity of their historical skills by playing with history. . .

One possible translation: its too difficult to reconstruct Jesus so we should give up.

Vinnie

No Robots · 08-25-2009, 12:44 PM

You're right. Thanks, Toto.

Toto · 08-25-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I think this blog post deserves wider attention:

Letting Go of Jesus

One possible translation: its too difficult to reconstruct Jesus so we should give up.

Vinnie

Read the whole essay. Jesus can be reconstructed in so many different ways that we cannot have confidence in any particular reconstruction.

If you want to reconstruct Jesus as a literary or imaginative exercise, go ahead, but don't think you are doing anything approaching history.

Steven Carr · 08-25-2009, 03:17 PM

Mark Goodacre has a similar piece

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/goodacre1.shtml

Apparently Jesus had some association with John the Baptist, and this is practically the only secure fact.

And this 'fact' is based on an anonymous work who wanted to create a scene where Jesus could be announced as the Son of God.

aa5874 · 08-25-2009, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark Goodacre has a similar piece

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/goodacre1.shtml

Apparently Jesus had some association with John the Baptist, and this is practically the only secure fact.

And this 'fact' is based on an anonymous work who wanted to create a scene where Jesus could be announced as the Son of God.

It is not a fact at all that Jesus of the NT had an association with John the Baptist.

Josephus mentioned John the Baptist but did not claim that John met or was associated with any character called Jesus Christ.

In Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.2, where John the Baptist is mentioned, the words Jesus Christ cannot be found at all.

Toto · 08-25-2009, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Mark Goodacre has a similar piece

http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/goodacre1.shtml

Apparently Jesus had some association with John the Baptist, and this is practically the only secure fact.

And this 'fact' is based on an anonymous work who wanted to create a scene where Jesus could be announced as the Son of God.

Actually Goodacre claims:

Quote:

Bultmann's notorious claim that “I do indeed think we can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus” is on one level overstated and easy to dismiss. There are lots of things that we can know about the life of Jesus with a degree of confidence, his healing activity, his proclamation of the kingdom, his connection to John the Baptist, the call of disciples who continued the movement after his arrest and crucifixion, and so on. Beginning from this kind of secure information, one can produce a good sketch of the life of Jesus, and E. P. Sanders has illustrated how much one can do with this kind of data when we integrate them into an informed understanding of Jesus' historical context.

How large would that degree of confidence be? 50%?

Paul seems not to have know about the healing activity or John the Baptist.

Vinnie · 08-25-2009, 04:54 PM

The Jesus of historical reconstruction is not the real Jesus but a limited fragment.

That saves a lot of time and wear and tear on the eyes....

spin · 08-25-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

...The dishonesty of much New Testament scholarship is the exploitation of the variable.

I get jack of such imputations. They're found here on this forum far too often.

What Hoffman is talking about has nothing to do with honesty.

When two people engage in an argument it usually stems from the fact that both believe they are right. Hoffman's "dishonesty" is certainly an erroneous analysis of what causes one side to perceive that they are right, when they are wrong. It may be cause by a brain fart or self-, or group, delusion. The only reason I can think of to justify using such an analysis is that the writer is attempting to shock their interlocutor into thinking.

That said, Hoffman is usually interestingly provocative...

spin

aa5874 · 08-25-2009, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

.....Actually Goodacre claims:

Quote:

Bultmann's notorious claim that “I do indeed think we can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus” is on one level overstated and easy to dismiss. There are lots of things that we can know about the life of Jesus with a degree of confidence, his healing activity, his proclamation of the kingdom, his connection to John the Baptist, the call of disciples who continued the movement after his arrest and crucifixion, and so on. Beginning from this kind of secure information, one can produce a good sketch of the life of Jesus, and E. P. Sanders has illustrated how much one can do with this kind of data when we integrate them into an informed understanding of Jesus' historical context.

How large would that degree of confidence be? 50%?

Paul seems not to have know about the healing activity or John the Baptist.

Once the veracity of the NT authors are questioned about the life of Jesus, then the same NT cannot be a source of knowledge about Jesus.

Goodacre's argument is so completely flawed, and so easily discarded. Any knowledge of the life of Jesus must be corroborated by another credible source external of the NT and the Church.

When will people like Goodacre ever adnit that there is just no way that the life of Jesus can be known, if he actually lived, since there are no known corroborative sources for the NT and the Church writers anywhere?

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

08-25-2009, 12:44 PM	#3
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	You're right. Thanks, Toto.

08-25-2009, 03:17 PM	#5
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Mark Goodacre has a similar piece http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/goodacre1.shtml Apparently Jesus had some association with John the Baptist, and this is practically the only secure fact. And this 'fact' is based on an anonymous work who wanted to create a scene where Jesus could be announced as the Son of God.

08-25-2009, 04:54 PM	#8
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	The Jesus of historical reconstruction is not the real Jesus but a limited fragment. That saves a lot of time and wear and tear on the eyes....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.