Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-21-2012, 10:29 AM

Jesus the Jew (or not)

“What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus” by Anthony J. Saldarini originally appeared in Bible Review, Jun 1999, 17.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony J. Saldarini

When I was growing up in St. Kevin’s Parish in the Dorchester section of Boston in the 1940s and ’50s, Jesus was unquestionably a Christian. Even more strangely, in Germany during the Nazi era Jesus was an Aryan Christian. How did a first-century Galilean Jew become a Christian and, for some, an Aryan Christian at that?

Before we laugh at this foolishness from the supposed superior viewpoint of the late 20th century, we should remember that we have not one word written by Jesus and not one contemporary account of his activities. Instead, we have four late-first-century interpretations of Jesus: the Gospels. Each demands and has received constant reinterpretation. Though the risk of misinterpreting Jesus is great, every generation has no choice but to try to make sense of the Gospels.

...

All religious traditions seek to present themselves as somehow special, better or primary, as irreplaceable or unique. For Christians this means that either Jesus as a person or his teachings and actions must stand out from his historical setting. For centuries the theological claim that Jesus is divine sufficed. In our empirical world of science and history, many Christian scholars take another tack; they seek to make Jesus dissimilar from the Judaism of his day and from the Greco-Roman world in which it was set.

The reference is, of course, to the "criterion of dissimilarity," part of Bart Ehrman's toolkit of methods to find the historical Jesus.

outhouse · 05-21-2012, 10:52 AM

yes people are confused by biblical jesus, with all the mythology involved written long after the fact.

do you have anything valid to debate?

sotto voce · 05-21-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto quoting Anthony J. Saldarini

In our empirical world of science and history, many Christian scholars take another tack; they seek to make Jesus dissimilar from the Judaism of his day and from the Greco-Roman world in which it was set.

That's got nothing to do with empiricism (or Christianity). The gospels report a Judaism barely recognisable as the Israel of Moses, of Joshua, Samuel, David and Hezekiah. Non-biblical evidence does nothing to dispel this conclusion. So a claimed messiah could not have been a genuine messiah if he had not been dissimilar from the prevalent culture. There is absolutely no need to make Jesus dissimilar. The dissimilarities are plain for anyone to see.

Toto · 05-21-2012, 11:07 AM

If there really is a valid historical methodology that can discover the historical Jesus, you would expect some agreement among historicists. But this is continually missing in action.

The gospels are a sort of Zen puzzle, a challenge to make some sort of sense out of the story and the church that claims to be based on them. All the solutions are speculative at best, whether historicist or mythicist, but the historicist solution to the puzzle is looking more and more contrived and ideologically based.

The Christian church has survived by continually reinventing itself every generation, or every decade. I fully expect a mythicist branch of Christianity to pop up, if it hasn't already.

outhouse · 05-21-2012, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If there really is a valid historical methodology that can discover the historical Jesus, you would expect some agreement among historicists. But this is continually missing in action.

The gospels are a sort of Zen puzzle, a challenge to make some sort of sense out of the story and the church that claims to be based on them. All the solutions are speculative at best, whether historicist or mythicist, but the historicist solution to the puzzle is looking more and more contrived and ideologically based.

The Christian church has survived by continually reinventing itself every generation, or every decade. I fully expect a mythicist branch of Christianity to pop up, if it hasn't already.

well it requires a historicist and a mythicist to understand HJ

of course a good scholar already understands how all ancient people understood mythology.

You wont get agreement when there is so little historicity to the subject.

like creationist fighting over the facts of evolution, thing still evolve

or Gravity, the apple falls yet we dont understand it completely and science is still argueing trying to understand the missing components

JonA · 05-21-2012, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jesus the Jew (or not)

“What Price the Uniqueness of Jesus” by Anthony J. Saldarini originally appeared in Bible Review, Jun 1999, 17.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anthony J. Saldarini

When I was growing up in St. Kevin’s Parish in the Dorchester section of Boston in the 1940s and ’50s, Jesus was unquestionably a Christian. Even more strangely, in Germany during the Nazi era Jesus was an Aryan Christian. How did a first-century Galilean Jew become a Christian and, for some, an Aryan Christian at that?

Before we laugh at this foolishness from the supposed superior viewpoint of the late 20th century, we should remember that we have not one word written by Jesus and not one contemporary account of his activities. Instead, we have four late-first-century interpretations of Jesus: the Gospels. Each demands and has received constant reinterpretation. Though the risk of misinterpreting Jesus is great, every generation has no choice but to try to make sense of the Gospels.

...

All religious traditions seek to present themselves as somehow special, better or primary, as irreplaceable or unique. For Christians this means that either Jesus as a person or his teachings and actions must stand out from his historical setting. For centuries the theological claim that Jesus is divine sufficed. In our empirical world of science and history, many Christian scholars take another tack; they seek to make Jesus dissimilar from the Judaism of his day and from the Greco-Roman world in which it was set.

The reference is, of course, to the "criterion of dissimilarity," part of Bart Ehrman's toolkit of methods to find the historical Jesus.

How exactly is this related to the criterion of dissimilarity? And what is wrong with people knowing more now than they did then?

Jon

steve_bnk · 05-21-2012, 11:35 AM

The HJ would probablyy have been short, wiry, and looking like the people of his race. Duie to calorie availability people were smaller. Look to North Korea.

He would not have been blonde, white clear skinned, blue eyed, and tall with flowing hair. He'd have been weather beaten from all that wandering.

Based on the NT, the JC of the gospels kept kosher so to speak. He invoked Moses and the Jewish prophets.

It was Paul who urbanized and watered down Judiasm for the masses.

sotto voce · 05-21-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If there really is a valid historical methodology that can discover the historical Jesus, you would expect some agreement among historicists. But this is continually missing in action.

The gospels are a sort of Zen puzzle, a challenge to make some sort of sense out of the story and the church that claims to be based on them. All the solutions are speculative at best, whether historicist or mythicist, but the historicist solution to the puzzle is looking more and more contrived and ideologically based.

The Christian church has survived by continually reinventing itself every generation, or every decade. I fully expect a mythicist branch of Christianity to pop up, if it hasn't already.

It came, it went.

Godfrey · 05-21-2012, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

If there really is a valid historical methodology that can discover the historical Jesus, you would expect some agreement among historicists. But this is continually missing in action.

The gospels are a sort of Zen puzzle, a challenge to make some sort of sense out of the story and the church that claims to be based on them. All the solutions are speculative at best, whether historicist or mythicist, but the historicist solution to the puzzle is looking more and more contrived and ideologically based.

The Christian church has survived by continually reinventing itself every generation, or every decade. I fully expect a mythicist branch of Christianity to pop up, if it hasn't already.

It came, it went.

The Gnostics, you mean?

Toto · 05-21-2012, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonA

..

How exactly is this related to the criterion of dissimilarity?

This is a description of the criterion of dissimilarity - whatever appears to be dissimilar to Judaism is assumed to be more likely to be historical.

Quote:

And what is wrong with people knowing more now than they did then?

Jon

Where is there any implication that this is wrong? Unless, of course, you look to ancient theological writings for a solution to contemporary problems.

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

05-21-2012, 10:52 AM	#2
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	yes people are confused by biblical jesus, with all the mythology involved written long after the fact. do you have anything valid to debate?

05-21-2012, 11:07 AM	#4
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If there really is a valid historical methodology that can discover the historical Jesus, you would expect some agreement among historicists. But this is continually missing in action. The gospels are a sort of Zen puzzle, a challenge to make some sort of sense out of the story and the church that claims to be based on them. All the solutions are speculative at best, whether historicist or mythicist, but the historicist solution to the puzzle is looking more and more contrived and ideologically based. The Christian church has survived by continually reinventing itself every generation, or every decade. I fully expect a mythicist branch of Christianity to pop up, if it hasn't already.

05-21-2012, 11:35 AM	#7
steve_bnk Contributor Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle Posts: 27,602	The HJ would probablyy have been short, wiry, and looking like the people of his race. Duie to calorie availability people were smaller. Look to North Korea. He would not have been blonde, white clear skinned, blue eyed, and tall with flowing hair. He'd have been weather beaten from all that wandering. Based on the NT, the JC of the gospels kept kosher so to speak. He invoked Moses and the Jewish prophets. It was Paul who urbanized and watered down Judiasm for the masses.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.