freigeister

But saying that X does not exist, even if true, does not help solve the politico-religious problem. It is like saying that we must stop this horrible veneration of Shakespeare, which is having such a deleterious impact on literature, and so we're going to say that Shakespeare didn't actually write those plays; yet people continue to venerate Shakespeare and the plays attributed to him. So, as politico-religious strategy, JM doesn't work. In fact, as strategy, it actually protects the more virulent aspects of religion. Metafilter has a discussion about the two Christianities. Basically the two can be distinguished by their attitudes toward miracles: one Christianity is supernaturalist, the other is naturalist. These two streams have always been in conflict. The naturalist orientation was supressed for centuries, but with the rise of science it has been largely freed from persecution. It is now in a position where it can actively and openly challenge the supernaturalist orientation. But the naturalists first have to fight a rear guard action against the JMers.

Amaleq13

It has been my impression that the majority of the research that has undermined notions of history in the Gospel stories has, in fact, come from Europe (specifically German scholarship). While this is not the same as directly questioning whether Jesus existed, it seems to me to support the general point Vork is arguing.

Celsus,

Excellent post! :notworthy

Vorkosigan

JM isn't a politico-religious strategy, but a conclusion resulting from certain data and interpretations. Naturalism doesn't have to fight a rear-guard action against the JMers, the two are not related.

Vorkosigan

freigeister

People who hold to a naturalistic view of Christ face opposition on two fronts: from those who hold a supernaturalistic view of Christ, and from those who deny that he ever lived.

Vorkosigan

It doesn't, Celsus. But narratives come in a great variety of forms. Some are better at representing realia than others.

And I disagree with your statement about archaeology. It provides a broad background against which a narrative must function, and which it must draw on. Think about Pompeii, which provides a rich look at life in a particular Roman city, and how it died. There's a lot more there than "boundary conditions."

Celsus, that is the bedrock foundation of his analysis. His point about silence has no force without the recognition that it must be interpreted in terms of a particular narrative -- that of the post easter Big Bang and the Church Triumphant. In other words, at heart Doherty's thesis is an analysis of the very conditions you claim he is ignoring.

Even if the correspondence theory of truth is dead (and I do not disagree) that hardly means that narratives cannot represent the past. It merely means that correspondence is the wrong way to think about it.

No Celsus, it is replacing a narrative whose theopolitical purpose is to function as an interpretive framework, with an interpretive framework which, like all good frameworks that marshal evidence in a framework of understanding, generates a narrative. In the first case, one is reifying theology, in the second one is doing history.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Freigeister, "Christ" is a religious term. Pointing out that Jesus probably never lived is a naturalistic approach that is common in historical studies of other historical figures both famous and not. There's no conflict between naturalism and JM; the conflict is between HJ (whether supernatural or natural) and JM.

freigeister

There are people who believe:

1. that a man whom we call Christ lived and;

2. that this man was not endowed with supernatural powers.

On point 2 we are opposed by most who call themselves Christian. On point 1 we are opposed by JMers.

I use the title Christ rather the name Jesus following the lead of the man who best articulated this notion of a non-supernatural but real Christ, Benedict Spinoza.

Chili

Yes, but Christ never entered the story until Jesus died and that is where it all ends. Jesus never was addressed as Christ in the gospels for the simple reason that Jesus was not Christ or the Jews would have never condemned him to be crucified.

It doesn't help to bring Spinoza in because that just means that he was wrong too.

Now if you are telling me that Christians are followers of Jesus we should see more crucifixions these days because that is where, when, and how Jesus became [the first] Christian.

freigeister

Allow me to quote from Constantin Brunner (Our Christ, p.52):

That's good enough for me.

Chili

Oh, but I do not disagree with the genius of the non-human Christ. It is just that 'we' never knew him until Jesus died and that is about where the gospels end.

Remember when Peter said: "aren't thou the messiah, the one who was to come?" to which Jesus replied, "Peter, no one has told you this but my father in heaven and upon this [keen insight] I will built my church."

This 'keen insight' is the rock of revelation and the same enigma that it ever was. Nothing has changed and therefore those followers of Jesus will be the very ones that crucify the Christ every time they get a 'heads up' on him.