Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 09-28-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

On-topic: Goodman asks us to consider the text given the historical impact, but doesn't seem to establish any kind of methodology or criteria for what would be authentic from a HJ if one existed. This seems to be a pretty general problem: I don't know of a solid methodology to figure out what, if anything, would have been said by the "original Jesus" in the Gospels and what was incorrectly imputed to him by later authors. You could build up any number of interesting speculative cases, but wouldn't they all be just speculation? (BTW I would consider Doherty-style mythicism one of several speculative cases that I think are interesting but not definitive.)

I think this is the most obvious problem when trying to reconstruct a historical Jesus. In order to find him, you have to assume the type of Jesus that you're looking for and simply ignore what you assume is inauthentic. It is hopelessly circular, which is why I think it's actually pretty useless to try to find any sort of "historical" Jesus.

With the dearth of evidence and this type of circular reasoning, the best we can say about any sort of "historical" Jesus is "who knows". Because of this circularity, people have come up with a multitude of "historical" Jesuses - like hippy Jesus, apocalyptic prophet Jesus, messiah claimant Jesus, social revolutionary Jesus, Pharisee Jesus, Essene Jesus, ad nauseum.

The "historical" Jesus is really anything that historical Jesus proponents want him to be.

dog-on · 09-28-2009, 08:38 AM

Since these scholars take the historical existance of Jesus as a given, I suppose it is not a big stretch for these same scholars to also assume some, (or all), of the reported sayings were said by this historical person.

In fact this is a similar position that I, as a mythicist, take.

I have no doubt that the quotes ascribed to the character Jesus were actually uttered by the Jesus of the story.

We simply differ when it comes to genre.

spin · 09-28-2009, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

I don't know of a solid methodology to figure out what, if anything, would have been said by the "original Jesus" in the Gospels and what was incorrectly imputed to him by later authors.

I don't think this is a problem for anyone familiar with Judaism. The whole Talmud is constructed on the basis of a basically faithful record of the sayings of the rabbis.

A faithful record called "Chinese Whispers".

spin

No Robots · 09-28-2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

A faithful record called "Chinese Whispers".

The whole Talmud is a game of "Chinese Whispers?!!!" All oral culture is based on "Chinese Whispers?!!!"

graymouser · 09-28-2009, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

I don't think this is a problem for anyone familiar with Judaism. The whole Talmud is constructed on the basis of a basically faithful record of the sayings of the rabbis.

So...you're saying his methodology is to assume everything attributed is basically faithful and correct? And that he's right in doing so? Or am I missing the point you're making?

spin · 09-28-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Since these scholars take the historical existance of Jesus as a given,

This certainly doesn't seem to be the case for the first. The second I can't tell whether it is simply convenience or not.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I suppose it is not a big stretch for these same scholars to also assume some, (or all), of the reported sayings were said by this historical person.

spin · 09-28-2009, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

A faithful record called "Chinese Whispers".

The whole Talmud is a game of "Chinese Whispers?!!!" All oral culture is based on "Chinese Whispers?!!!"

You're falling over your gullibility level.

spin

dog-on · 09-28-2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Since these scholars take the historical existance of Jesus as a given,

This certainly doesn't seem to be the case for the first. The second I can't tell whether it is simply convenience or not.

spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I suppose it is not a big stretch for these same scholars to also assume some, (or all), of the reported sayings were said by this historical person.

I actually was not referring to the first gentleman. I guess that i wasn't clear.

No Robots · 09-28-2009, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graymouser

So...you're saying his methodology is to assume everything attributed is basically faithful and correct? And that he's right in doing so? Or am I missing the point you're making?

I am saying that one should apply the same interpretative technique to the NT that one applies to the Talmud.

No Robots · 09-28-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You're falling over your gullibility level.

Guns off the table, in hand, and firing wildly.

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

09-28-2009, 08:38 AM	#22
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Since these scholars take the historical existance of Jesus as a given, I suppose it is not a big stretch for these same scholars to also assume some, (or all), of the reported sayings were said by this historical person. In fact this is a similar position that I, as a mythicist, take. I have no doubt that the quotes ascribed to the character Jesus were actually uttered by the Jesus of the story. We simply differ when it comes to genre.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.