Peter Kirby

Words are words and we can use them with whatever definitions we agree on. The problem is that "the supernatural is essential to the definition of a HJ" has been agreed upon by a few fundamentalists and a few "it's obviously" mythers. Most supernaturalists are able to separate the ideas of a man and a godman, and certainly most writers secular and religious have done so. But again, you can get away with it among a group of people who agree on your definition.

best,
Peter Kirby

the_cave

Well, some people do...isn't that enough?

Quote:

If so, isn't this belief based upon reconstruction itself? Its a vicious circle.

For some people, sure. It's fun to see whether we can piece the past together. Maybe it holds, maybe it doesn't--no way to learn unless we try.

Sometimes knowledge has no practical importance.

Think about all the "time and money" spent researching Plato, or the Caesars, or any number of historical figures. Is there anything wrong with that? If not, then why should Jesus be any different?

And even if a lot about him were made up, even that is worth investigating, I argue, the way you might research a novel, or poetry. Or any social phenomenon.

Even you yourself admit he "may have been a great person ahead of his time". Sounds like a great candidate for historical investigation to me!

I mean, our evolutionary ancestors have been dead for millions of years--it seems you'd have us give up on them, too.

You bet!

For all I know you're right, but personally I just can't share your cynicism.



Sure, you could conclude that. Nothing wrong with taking a stand.



Dude, if you don't like it, don't read their books!

I mean, look, I would agree that a lot of "reconstructions" of both the HJ and NT texts aren't noticeably more plausible than one another, and so there's no way to decide. Alright, maybe they're in some way deceiving their readership into thinking that their reconstruction is better than someone else's. But there's no way of knowing whether our efforts will be successful or not without trying--the idea that significant reconstruction is impossible is fairly new, and will take some time to be fairly considered by everyone.

Bernard Muller

There are no evidence whatsoever Thomas and Q is early. I provided detailed argumentation to the contrary. You, yourself, dated Thomas 70-110, that is the intra gospel period. That's not early and necessarily independant of the gospels.
Just because assuming Thomas & Q are early has been the trendy thing to postulate lately by scholars does not prove a thing. The research about HJ as a great sayer have become a confused jungle, a maze with no exit, except generating many doubts.
Best regards, Bernard

Koyaanisqatsi

While I aknowledge (and laughed at) the intent of what you said, I respectfully disagree with the content of what you said ("typed," actually, but why be pedantic on such a gloriously electrified--finally--night? ).

As you no doubt know, I find the origins of christianity particularly fascinating, albeit from a socio-political bent.

Somebody created the myth. Considering the overhwhelmingly negative impact that myth has had on the last two thousand or so years of Western practice and the lingering negative effects it has on millions of otherwise (hopefully) freethinking peoples, finding the historical bastard and posthumously keel-hauling him would be, personally, of the highest priority.

Think of it this way. Arguably, at that time and in that region, monotheism resulted in the most fanatically loyal fundamentalists in general the Western world had encountered, primarily because the followers were worshipping only one god and not the many different gods of the Pharoahs and pantheist cults. True, most other religions had one central "god of gods," but there was still a hierarchy; mirroring, of course, the hierarchy of totalitarian/monarchical rule.

Pantheist dogma reflects elements of mankind's socio-political existence in general, thus it is more fragmented as a tool for humanity to view itself; monotheistic dogma, however, reflects the "One True Man" in the ideal; a projected image given the name of "God." All people could (by extension) measure themselves individually against the ultimate expression of humanity; the idealized self.

That's quite a blow to hierarchical belief structures, enacted and/or maintained primarily to condition the proletariate to service the ruling elite, IMO.

Judaism was a slave's theology, however, borne out of centuries of oppression; Pantheism was a master's theology, borne out of centuries of conquest and egocentrism and bounty. Thus, a god of war, a god of lust, a god of love, a god of power, etc., etc. These are the victorious gods that all, in one way or another, reflect the varried aspects of human existence, not the god of the oppressed and downtrodden, reflecting the singular aspect of their human existence.

Yes, I know I'm simplifying, but I think you (in the general sense) see my point.

The reason the Jews have been an historically impossible tribe to obliterate (and many have tried) is precisely because of their monotheism, IMO; a monotheism borne out of having nothing of any material sense, because they were slaves. They had no rights, no priviledges, no land (hence the term "nomads"); none of the ego-gratifying accoutrements of being a conquering nation of some kind.

They suffered. For thousands of years. And out of that suffering was borne a god that transcended all earthly matters; a god that was mightier than all other gods and had chosen the slaves to be his most favorite of all of his creation, because they were so mistreated. A slave can't call upon a god of war or lust or love or strength or even hopeless causes. A slave is a hopeless cause.

Thus, if you struck a Jew, it was expected by the Jew. Not loved (as the NT perverts), but accepted as part of the necessity of their belief. God had made them in his image and chosen them to be his special chosen, so when you struck one of them, you were (in their minds) striking God. It was thus a defensive theology.

The self as God (though never fully taken to that logical extreme in any of the teachings, of course, hence the cryptic nature of the dogma, ever teatering on that logical extension). Strike me and you're striking God. Kill me and you're killing God. And boy won't you have to answer for that, you slave owning bastard!

But what would a pantheist say if you struck him? Probably nothing (at least nothing theological). He would have probably just struck you back and the two of you would have gotten into a fight that might result in both your deaths. Perhaps he would have called upon the god of war or the god of strength or the god of whatever, but what he wouldn't do is accept the blow; fanatically believing that you would get yours one day for striking him. After all, by extension of his beliefs, all you've done is struck him.

We even see this exact thing being co-opted by the author(s) of the Jesus mythology. "What you do to me..." and the like.

It's a remarkably powerful mindset, as history has demonstrated. But the key to it is that there is no intermediary between their god and themselves. It's a slave's theology; the self and god are one. Yes, there were Rabbis and elders who were more learned in the law (i.e., the dietary laws and hygiene laws, etc.) of Leviticus long after the theology was initially formed, but the core of Judaism is that nobody needs an idol or an altar or a synagogue or even belief to be a Jew. All one needs is to be borne of a Jewish woman and from that point on, you are Jewish.

Why is it that people still confuse Judaism with a race of people? Judaism is a religion, not a race, yet you almost always hear people say derogatory things toward Jews in the same context of "Blacks, hispanics and...." (not that those are elements of race, either, since there is only one race; the human race, but "you" see my point). "Jews" were actually just nomadic Middle Eastern inhabitants who were enslaved and out of that enslavement the Judaic cult was borne and understandably so.

But I digress...

The point is, that this was a powerful dogma that needed to be corrupted in order for the people who followed it to be conquered, IMO; hence, christianity, a failed attempt to corrupt Judaism that nonetheless showed the same kind of potential for fanatical devotion from otherwise less than fanatical individuals who still were theistically inclined. A means to marry the best of pantheism with monotheism by narrowing down the gods to three that are one.

So, it was put to a different use from what it was intended and in almost immediately detrimental ways. An empire that everyone thinks historically died with Nero's fiddling, actually grew exponentially stronger and thrives to this very day; without borders, without standing armies and without moral compunction for its actions or decrees. Hell, it doesn't even have to pay taxes .

So, the questions remain (that I want answered): who thought of it and at what point was it conceived?

It couldn't have been from Jews or even "reformed" or "radical" Jews, since even they weren't interested in changing the fundamentals of godhood/monotheism; they were just interested in the reform of dietary laws and the like. To strike a blow at the very foundation of Judaism (monotheism) meant it must have come from a non-Jewish source, IMO. Someone who had a motive to corrupt Judaism and enough understanding of the tenets and teachings of Judaism to see the "chink in the armor" (so to type) that would afford such an assault.

The only achilles heal of Judaism is that it prophesies a "Messiah;" a "savior" of the Jewish people that marks an end to oppression at the point when they are being most oppressed.

It wouldn't be too hard to imagine a Roman intelligence operative who recognized such a thing and recommended it be used against them in precisely the way it seems to have been done, given the available evidence and in my layman's opinion.

In other much shorter words, either it was a deliberate fraud created for a specific purpose, or it was borne naturally out of a logical extension of reformist Judaic thought in the region. Considering how poorly that thought is reflected in the surviving dogma, however, and trying to account for the axiom "the victor's write the history," I seriously doubt the latter and seek evidence of the former.

Yuri Kuchinsky

I agree with much of what you say, Vinnie, although I'm not nearly as pessimistic as you in regard to the possibility of learning _something_ meaningful about the Historical Jesus, eventually... Nevertheless, I certainly do agree with you that today's generation of HJ scholars have failed to contribute anything of substance, and that their whole project should be considered a dismal failure.

In general, I see the NT as primarily a record about the early Christianity, rather than a record about the Historical Jesus.

And if we still don't understand the history of early Christianity, then this means that we cannot really understand _anything_ about the Historical Jesus as yet.

But OTOH once the true story about the early Christianity is understood -- especially the idea that the movement was still predominantly Jewish-oriented even as late as 100 CE -- then this might open a possibility to understand something about who Jesus really was IMHO.

As I see it, the key to understanding who the HJ really was is that he was a disciple of John the Baptist.

Regards,

Yuri.

Vinnie

Actually, I would date Q1 early but you disagree with breakign Q into layers like this. YOu also seem to think Q was dependent upon canonoical Mark. THese would have been addressed in the second major section of my paper.

I date the torso of Thomas to this period assuming an earlier layer which has a core of earlier material. I said that without the two layers I would push the date of Thomas back further.

Since Matthew and Luke date to around ca 90 A.D. if THomas dates to the first half of my figure then it is impossible for it tp be dependent. If it is dated to the second half (90-110C.E.) you must must allow some time (a generation?) for popularity of Matthew and Luke's material and versions of existing material to bee known and used by the Thomas author. This is cutting it EXTREMELY close. If you date matthew to the 80s you might be able to sneak this one in but I see no compelling reason to date Matthew more precisely than sometime before 105 C.E.

Its not impossible. You are correct but you would have to fix Matthew early (closer to 80 C.E.) and maybe just slip in the proper required time for dependence. But I also argued Thomas probably dates closer to the lower half of the figure. I picked these dates for a reason in the section establishing the terminus a quo and the terminus ad quem of Thomas.

I've seen this opinion aired several times in my research on Thomas. Those who view Thomas as late and dependent constantly reiterate the notion that those who argue Thomas is early and independent never argue for their case but assume it. Building off of other works and earlier studies is a common practice in the field. The literature on Thomas is enormous and is certainly there. And I've hardly assumed Thomas is early and dependent in my study. You just never got to see section three which was going to buyild off of sections 1 and 2 and use Thomas and Q.

Thomas's overlapps with Q1 show that they used the same core material independently and that THomas preserves an earlier wordign than Q sometimes is what I base this early core of material on.

Its no more a mess than the Canonical Jesus of the third questers.

Vinnie

Vinnie

A few problems:

This is circular in that your understanding of first century "radical Jews" must be based upon present understandings of first century sources. Maybe some "radical Jews" were interested in changing the fundamentals. How could your study ever know if you exclude this possibility from the outset?! Your kind of like sawing off the branch that you are sitting on. To state it in its simplest form, that is a conclusion rather than an argument.

Further, were early Jesus peoples interested in changing monotheism? Did not Paul incorporate Jesus into his monotheism?THat is what N.T. Wright argues.

Dietary laws present a problem. The Torah expressly forbids the eating of things like shellfish and pork. This is not an issue of disagreeing with a competing interpretation but to say that the food laws no longer applied to to state that a clear mandate of God no longer applied.

This goes both ways though. If you think Paul never told Jews it was okay to eat violate this then it fits in with the notion that the Jesus movement started off mainly, Jewish. If not then you have a first century Jew (I could quote Paul boasting of his credentials) who decided he could alter a clear mandate of the Torah.

Christianity did exceptionally well in spreading in Gentile circles. There were already established communities by the 50s as is evidenced by the Pauline corpus.

Your understanding of earliest Xianity seems to be flawed and you also limit the options premaurely two what I would consider, two of the least likely options out there. I'd recommend Mack's 'Who Wrote the New Testament' for starters.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Virtually all scholars accept some form of continuity between Jesus and John since virtually all of them think Jesus was baptized by John the baptsist. But if this is granted we may note that some think Jesus had the same basic outlook as John and others (e.g. Crossan) think Jesus broke away from the viw of John (presumably) after John's death which itself may have triggered the change.

You seem to want to go the E.P. Sanders route and use the "indisoutable facts" of Jesus life to reconstruct him rather than sayings and so on.

Personally, I would favor Crossan's methodology. Start with stratification and multiple attestation in the first stratum. Then if later on you find the Jesus and John connection to be there incorporate it into your study. But to start with John and move from him to Jesus to Paul has been critiqued by many as being flawed. Jesus could have broken away from John's message and as Crossan noted, if you start with Paul you will not make it back to Jesus and if you start with Jesus, you will not make it to Paul. There is a 20 year period in between the death of Jesus and the extant Pauline corpus of the fifties.

But yes, any reconstruction of Jesus that hopes ot be thorough and address all the evidence needs to discuss his relationship to John the baptist. It also needs to reconstruct JBap himself though and we need to ask, do we have better source material on JBap than Jesus?

We have Josephus but don't most scholars think he watered down his baptist material given his audience? So his portrayal can't be taken at face value and needs top be filtered like all other sources.

Vinnie

Vinnie

You know, that isn't a bad idea! Just need to find a publisher! Do you think the title of this thread would be appropriate for the title of the book?

Vinnie

Doctor X

So long as you have Dudley Manlove on the cover with his Plan Nine from Outer Space costume . . . come to think of it . . . the film suggests another title regarding the Historical Junior:

J the Water-Boy: I have often wondered about that. Mk and the rest of the Synoptics subordinate J the B to Junior but not to the extent that Jn does. In Jn, he not only specifies he is inferior he demands that his followers recognize this. Why? Jn is a later gospel, of course. What tradition did he confront? Were their surviving "J the B" factions that he competed with . . . if they did they completely disappeared unless someone accidentally digs up a "Sayings Source" for him. Or did he have a tradition he had to deal with: "Wasn't he just a follower of another nutcase who felt the need to wash young men?" Or . . . is it in character of the rest of his work where Junior is in utter and complete control. I sure as hell do not know.

Anyways, Vinnie, no sense in throwing away the fruits of so much labor.

--J.D.