ichabod crane

Hi folks,

Having done more reading and thinking about the issues debated in this esteemed forum, I'm increasingly coming to a "Jesus scepticism" position, rather than a "Jesus mythicism" position. Let me explain.

I'm coming to the conclusion that it just isn't possible to know anything much about whether Jesus existed or not, and what he was like if he existed. Sure, any given source used by the gospel writers might preserve a historical fragment, but the problem is we have no way of knowing which if any do. So rather than insisting that Jesus did not exist, I'd rather just say we just don't know. Maybe he did maybe he didn't. That's why people who study the evidence and are competent scholars nonetheless all come up with completely different pictures of Jesus.

Are the New Testament writings, then, not worth studying? Apart from their historical influence, I think they are. What I think we should be concerned with is not trying to evaluate the historical accuracy of the sources, which I am suggesting may be futile, but rather ask ourselves why those sources were selected and collated and formed into the gospels as we have them. What was the theology of the writers in each case. How did they see Jesus, rather than how was he in reality. Each of them is a powerful story, or, if you like, myth. Rather than endlessly speculating about the historical basis, if any, for the story, why not concentrate on what we have more chance of figuring out: why was the story put together in that way, what was the agenda of the final compiler/author? How did they view Christ? Forget about doing the Jesus Seminar thing of trying to figure out which bits are authentic. It's just impossible to know. There isn't sufficient evidence.

Which reminds me of a saying, "all the important decisions in life must be made on the basis of insufficient evidence".

Peter Kirby

It is my own impression that interpreting and contextuating the early Christian writings forms the bulk of scholarly work, and certainly the more defensible part. I might plug my study of the fourth gospel as an example of how that can be the basis of Internet discussion. (Hey, not only might I do it, I just did!) Also a number of threads on this forum.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Ichabod. I hold to your view too. I am currently writing a historical commentary on Mark. There is a first pass at Mark 11here. My plan is a pericope-by-pericope review, plus articles on several important historical issues. The commentary will proceed entirely by negative criteria, of which so far I have ten. That way one can avoid the problem of clashing criteria when positive criteria are used.

Vorkosigan