LegionOnomaMoi

Burridge didn't.


I quoted The Quest for the Historical Gospel in a recent post. I own it.

Bowerstock, Grant, Momigliano, Loveday, Aune, Bultmann, MacDonald, and more. Religious studies (like abstract algebras, climate science, or any number of other areas) is a hobby for me, but I actually have a degree in classics (classical languages, to be specific). I read Grant's The Ancient Historians, Bowerstock's Hellenism in Late Antiquity and similar works before I'd ever heard of Burridge.

Quite desperate. Because those who argue, from Bultmann to Loveday and MacDonald, that the gospel authors were either little or not at all concerned with recording history, conclude that we can know nothing about Jesus, even whether he existed. Oh wait. They don't. At all. Despite Bultmann's oft quoted remark, taken in context even he believed we could know a fair amount about the historical Jesus. So what "desperate attempt" are you referring to? Because the only desperate attempts I see in the literature are publications (mostly by amateurs) which attempt to argue that we can't know anything about the historical Jesus, including whether or not he existed (or, even more radical, that we can know he didn't).

Vorkosigan

There's nothing intellectually or methodologically 'radical' about arguing that Jesus did not exist and was historicized in the debates in the second century. That is, however, socially "radical."

Burridge didn't write that? Then what did you mean when you wrote that it was a "Paper...by Burridge."

So...what about Helms or Brodie or Tolbert, who basically reads the whole gospel as allegory?

Vorkosigan

LegionOnomaMoi

Sure. There's nothing 'radical' about arguing it. Just in thinking that any argument to date approaches probable. This is why Carrier's stance on the state of NT/historical Jesus studies still seems so strange coming from someone whose background is in ancient history and whose dissertation concerned classics. Historians outside of historical Jesus studies write papers and books about an individual which are so amazingly speculative it boggles the mind (e.g., the interpretation that certain Hittite texts refer to the same Achilles of Homeric myth, or the descriptions of Euripides' interpretation of women's plight based on a modern application of feminist understanding to his writings, or even the use of historians like Diogenes Laertius to understand historical persons who lived centuries before the author of the historical work in question was born).

Which explains why one finds the view all over the place on the internet and sensationalist works, but not academia. Because of social pressures. Did I mention that my other undergrad degree was Psychology and Sociology? (minor in cognitive science).

You stated "wish I could arrange to write a handbook entry." Burridge wrote the entry. He didn't "arrange" to write it. Like all the Oxford companion or Blackwell companion series, the authors are asked to write or submit a previously written paper because of their expertise in that particular topic.

"Basically"? Or even better, Tolbert? "No value-neutral position exists nor ever has. Feminist hermeneutics stands over against patriarchal hermenuetics, and advocacy position for the male-oriented, hierarchically established present cultural power system." from Tolbert's "Defining the Problem: The Bible and Feminist Hermenuetics." Semia. Sorry, but post-colonial and/or radical feminist literary theory holds about as much weight for me as W. L. Craig's arguments about jesus and god.

And Helms? Couldn't you at least use Price rather than an english Professor?

aa5874

Your assertion is just completely void of the fact that there is a Quest for an Historical Jesus by Scholars for the last 250 years.

The very fact that there is a Quest, a SEARCH, a PROBE for an historical Jesus MUST, MUST mean that the existence of an human Jesus cannot be certain right now based on the very NT Canon and apologetic sources.

The Probe, the SEARCH, the QUEST for an historical Jesus is Documented for the last 250 years.

Please, you must realize that people here know that NO credible evidence for an Historical Jesus has ever been found.

It is virtually a Consensus among all Scholars that the Jesus of the NT is a Jesus of Faith.

The Jesus of Faith is a Myth.

The Jesus of the NT NEVER did exist.

Now, gMatthew and gLuke are PRIMA FACIE evidence of Mythology. Their stories are blatantly non-historical and implausible. Virtually all of gMatthew and gLuke about Jesus could NOT even be accurate even if Jesus did actually live.

From the conception to ascension of Jesus, the authors of gMatthew and gLuke produced absolute fiction and provided "witnesses" to these non-events.

The witnesses in gMatthew and gLuke are essentially FALSE witnesses.

The claims in gMatthew and gLuke about Jesus are NOT corroborated by any Non-apologetic sources.

gMatthew and gLuke are Myth Fables that people of antiquity believed just like PEOPLE today, such as Fundamentalists, Christians and HJers.

HJers BELIEVE gMatthew and gLuke do contain some history of Jesus.

HJers CANNOT witness an HJ they MUST BELIEVE the Bible is somewhat historically reliable.

HJers are LIVING proof that the Jesus cult could have started SOLELY on BELIEF of a story and not on a known historical character.

Books which introduce their Main character as the Son of a Ghost cannot be accepted as history WITHOUT corroboration--but there is NONE.

gMatthew and gLuke are Myth Fables of a character called Jesus the Son of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Sheshbazzar

The STORY -as it is written- is the ONLY accepted story we have about Nicodemus and the nature of his relationship with Jebus,
An ancient human literary treasure that belongs to all of mankind. I wouldn't be pleased to see you attempt to paint a new and different nose on the Mona Lisa either.
You do not possess any rights to edit, to add to, nor to alter either the content, nor impinge upon the sense of that humanitarian STORY as it is preserved within our ancient literature, simply to give a false patina of credence to your johnny-come-lately whack-job conspiracy theory.

No, of course no one can prevent you from engaging in presenting such asinine flights of fancy, but like a bad case of halitosis, it is only present where you are.
Thankfully, when you depart, the stench of your libelous 'Nicodemus Conspiracy Theory' will soon enough blow away, and mankind will continue to appreciate the sweet NT humanitarian story of an honestly motivated, morally upright, and good hearted Nicodemus, just as they have these thousands of years before you came along with your lately devised text-twisting, self serving, and libelous character smear campaign.




.

Adam

By the same "logic", I should retain Matthew as the author of the canonical gMatthew and all four gospels as inerrant.

Basically all I was accusing Nicodemus of was of being a lawyer against Jesus, but who had the integrity to switch to what he realized was the truth. That makes him the original and primary Christian theologian. I would think that would upset you terribly!

There was no conspiracy by the high priests against Jesus?

Vorkosigan

Nothing radical about that either. What is the state of methodology in HJ studies? DOA.

Oh please.

Wouldn't it have been easier just to say that you haven't read Sowing the Gospel? It's probably the best book on Mark and is not exactly a feminist theory tract.

What's wrong with using a literary specialist to analyze literature? And again, couldnt you just say "No, I haven't read Helms."

Vorkosigan

Sheshbazzar

Whatever Fundy religious weirdness you wish to go about is your own problem.
The texts never even so much as suggest that 'Nicodemus was a lawyer against Jezus'.
In fact what few words are credited to Nicodemus, advise restraint, or are made on his behalf.

There is NO textual basis at all for your allegations of Nicodemus being a lowdown dirt gathering traitorous spy in the employ of his enemies.

You have no valid textual basis on which to be "accusing Nicodemus" of anything.

According to the STORY line there was. So what?

You cannot provide even one single verse that states, or even so much as implies that Nicodemus himself was in any way ever personally engaged in any form of conspiracy.

But you know that if you can not transform Nicodemus into your needed underhanded sneaky spy, your claim to Nicodemus being one of your principal 'eyewitness writers' is totally out on its ass. And with your plot now uncovered, it already is.






.

LegionOnomaMoi

Yes, that's true. But not because of apologetic concerns. Arguments about Antiphon or Andokides or Socrates or Pythagoras or any number of figures in ancient history go relatively unchallenged all the time because nobody is all that concerned. The scholarship on Socrates comes closest. Within modern academia, the "socratic problem" goes back at least as far as Garnier, who compared the depictions of Socrates in Xenophon, where (according to him) we can perhaps find "le grand principes de la morale Socratique", to Plato, whom he found far superior, as it is "dans Platon qu’il [Socrate] vit, qu’il respire…" (“Caractére de la Philosophie de Socrate.”, 1768). However, each and every source continued to be questioned until Joël , for example (after generations of scholarship and his own personal years dedicated to the issue of the historical Socrates), declared that all we can say of Socrates is "was er von sich selber bekannte: wir wissen, daß wir nichts wissen."

Yet, after centuries of critical historical scholarship on Socrates, and a minefield of academic works declaring that Xenophon is reliable but Plato is not, or vice versa, or neither (and that Aristotle or even Aristophanes had it right), or that they are all nothing more than fictions, do historians generally regard him as unknowable or possibly mythic (a literary device or some such thing)? After all, we have centuries of scholarship questioning the reliability of every single source we have on Socrates. And there's no "apologetic" reason for historians to affirm he existed. So why is it that not only do historians agree Socrates existed, but we even find those who simply ignore the 200+ years of scholarship devoted to the issue of the reliability of our sources and simply use them uncritically (e.g., Nails)?

Because, while Socrates is certainly of interest (enough that we have a comparable amount of scholarship seeking to reconstruct his historical existence), the kind of hyper-skepticism AND uncritical analysis (from apologists) to the historical person of Jesus isn't found anywhere else. The fact that a few skeptical scholars today will simultaneously argue that we have no reliable sources for Socrates and yet do not question his existence is because
1) They understand that sources can be problematic, even completely unreliable, but making up a figure treated as historical is something else

and

2) There aren't people like Carrier (who published a great deal before getting his doctorate, and continues to publish a great deal, yet suprisingly little that has anything to do with his specialty) or professors of German (Wells) or English who decide to devote the time and effort to publishing books/blogs/etc outside of their area of expertise (and primarly for popular consumption) arguing that "Socrates is a myth!"

Jesus is different. We have people (academics and laypersons alike) who have ideological reasons for arguing that the gospels are quite reliable eyewitness or close to eyewitness accounts, and the same when it comes to "it's all a myth and Jesus never existed."

So why is the state of research DOA? Because there has never been any other figure in ancient history subjected to as much scrutiny for as long a time as Jesus. Modern historiography (hell, even linguistics) started with biblical studies. The "historical Jesus" issue pretty much began with an ideological attempt to undermine Christianity.

If christianity had died out, we wouldn't have specialists claiming either that the gospels are quite reliable and probably at least dependent on eye-witness accounts or people claiming Jesus is a myth and was never a historical person.

Instead, we find blogs and even books about Greco-roman history, Jewish history, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. by people who can't read the languages, haven't even read many of the popular books let alone the academic publications concerning Jesus (or the hellenistic era) arguing that Jesus didn't exist (or that Paul didn't, a position I didn't know even existed until joining this forum).

It matters. I like the Oxford and Blackwell companion series, because they are usually either 1) a useful way to get a handle on the state of research in a particular topic (e.g., "case" in linguistics) or 2) a good place to find plenty of references for a topic within a field one is interested in (e.g., the use of Leibniz' (previously) unpublished work on symbolic logic within the development of 20th century formalism). The point of the series dictates who the editors decide should contribute, and it also means that (like journals) the papers are not simply accepted but are reviewed. The point is not (as is the case within a given journal article or monograph) for an author to espouse their view (although they usually will) but rather to outline the issue they discuss. In other words, it would be one thing if I used a work written entirely by Burridge, but using a paper in this series is different because of the purpose of the series and the editorial board. So if Burridge says X position is the consensus, it maybe an overstatement, but it is hardly very contentious.

It would have been easier, just not true. And it is not at all the "best book on Mark" by any stretch of the imagination. Scratch that. Certainly imagination would entitle one to conclude it is. Barring imagination though, the only reason to think it's such a great work is because it agrees with the view one was seeking to find in the first place.


Because I've spent a lot of time reading literary theory and it's development. I think the social sciences and humanities are riddled with problematic methodological approaches, theories, etc., but they have nothing on literary theory. At least psychology largely abandonded Freudian theory as anything more than a historical landmark. In literary theory, Freud, Jung, etc., are still gods.



I haven't. Happy?

spin

Just as a passing note, it seems inappropriate to me to ask for a distinction regarding ancient writers based on a modern concept. To ask whether gMt & gLk were intended as allegory or literal history is difficult enough regarding the notion of intentionality, given that you have no apparent way to test any intentionality, but to ask if the intention was "historical" requires modern thought, unless of course "historical" here is merely a highfalutin way of asking whether the writers may have thought their subject was real.

Something is historical because we can demonstrate a modicum of reality behind it through the use of tenable sources from the relevant period. For much of the past a writer of an account merely related the stories s/he received on a chosen topic. It was usually sufficient that the writer of the account believed the stories or their tellers to be true.

For me the thread title would be more meaningful if it were something along the lines of "GLuke and GMatthew - intended as allegory or to reflect reality?"