mike_decock

-Mike...

Vinnie

My understanding is that Jesus' historicity should not be doubted on historical grounds. That, seemingly, is why virtually all historians accept it as axiomatic. The evidence seems beyond reasonable dispute. Though some sincere amatuers think otherwise and only an extremely small number of credentialed historians. Its seems like nothing more than extremely bad history to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus.

The only problem I see with this distinction deals with the limitations of history. John Meier might be in the "middle ground" when "prescinding from faith" and doing history (see Marginal series) but that does not mean a person cannot believe Jesus performed non-psycosomatic healings and that he rose from the dead. I say non-psycosomatic because it seems widely held that Jesus was a miracle worker (see Sanders). But historians may simply believe that historical methodology is limited in this regard. It cannot reconstruct non-faith or non-placebo type miracles. That doesn't mean they didn't happen though. But some academic Christian historians who try to reconstruct the historical Jesus feel a need to "prescind from faith" when doing so (e.g. Meier's "unpapal conclave".)

I must say that this question seems flawed to me. There cannot be a "Jesus of the Gospels" seeings how the Gospels represent "different Jesuses" to a certain degree. How about a Jesus resembling the figure behind the synoptics? Or a Jesus resembling the advanced sayings material in GJohn? A "Jesus of the Gospels" would have to account for both portraits but unfortunately the law of non-contradiction does not allow this.

I believe the same historical Jesus stands underneath both the Synoptics and GJohn but the HJ is not reconstucted through an uncritical harmonization of the details of the canonical Gospels. Fundamentalists and evangelicals do that. Not serious historians.

I find myself in the middle-ground.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

My understanding is that Jesus' historicity should not be doubted on historical grounds. That, seemingly, is why virtually all historians accept it as axiomatic. The evidence seems beyond reasonable dispute. Though some sincere amatuers think otherwise and only an extremely small number of credentialed historians. Its seems like nothing more than extremely bad history to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus.

They used to say that about Mohammed, and Buddha, and so on. The trouble is that, as you well know, t'aint no historical methodology out there that can rescue the figure from under the story, except independent vectors. And we don't have any. Can't see how we are going to get any, either.

Vorkosigan

Vinnie

Yeah, we all know academic authority is not full-proof but this sounds similar to the young earth creationists claim: "Science was wrong before".

Actually I don't know that. I've been doing a little reading on methodology and I find your reliance on that chapter by Crossan in BoC to be extremely weak. If you would like to summarize some of Crossan's arguments or any other problems with HJ methodology feel free to do so and I'll do my best to address them. I think there are several bedrock facts about Jesus that are beyond dispute.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

False analogy. Since science discovered it was wrong, it has changed its methodology and investigative methods BEYOND what was earlier conceivable.

In Biblical scolarship, there is still no clear methodology in sight. Inertia (call it childhood indoctrination coupled with social pressure) is still having a lot of influence in the assumptions scholars make when addressing the question of historicity of Jesus. Consensus is mostly for social than academic reasons.

Please list them.

Vinnie

I don't see how its a false analogy. Jesus research has changed as well over the years. We are now in the "THRID quest".

But what is your point? Virtually all scientists accept the age of the earth as being 4.6 bya. Those few who don't do not do so for scientific reasons. Its a very simply analogy here. I know the evidence for the age of the earth is solid but even if I did not know that would it be valid to accept it on shcolarly authority?

Who is discussing biblical scholarship? I thought we were talking specifically HJ research? So, do you mean historical Jesus research or theology? If the former I would point you to Crossan, Meier, Sanders etc. They have all laid out "methodologies". Crossan decided to critique Meiers but he didn't do too good of a job and they have similar methodologies anyways. I extend the same offer to you as I did Vork. Feel free to critique their methodologies (assuming you actually know what they are). But if you are referring to the latter then I guess I have to ask you if you ever read a systematic theology text? A good one should include a method or a lay out of the sources used for obtaining a systematic theology.

Inertia (call it childhood indoctrination coupled with social pressure) is still having a lot of influence in the assumptions scholars make when addressing the question of veracity of evolution. We could all hand-wave and dismiss scholarly views if we want to but they command a little more respect than that. I've always felt that this borders on an ad hominem fallacy. Would you agree that yecism is one big ad hominem fallacy?

But regardless of social pressure. Jesus' historicity is secure.

I "socially" appeal to consensuses because I don't have the mathematical or scientific know-how to understand certain scientific things which I naturally accept on authority as does everyone else. The consensus does not make the view correct but when virtually all scholars of various faith positions and stances all hold to a position like this, there must be a good reason why. But I personally don't need to appeal to a "consensus" in Jesus research.

These shouldn't need to be listed for those who feel "educated" enough to doubt the consensus view. I'm not here for historical Jesus research 101. If someone doubts the consensus but doesn't know this basic list then they can find a fundamentalist to argue with. I'm not interested.

Vinnie

joedad

"The Wreck of the Titan" was published fourteen years before the Titanic sank. It is a fictional account with fictional characters in fictional situations. As far as I know, there is nothing supernatural in the story, nothing that would compromise its believability.

I do not know how one goes about extracting historical fact from such an account without first assuming that such an event and its characters are somehow historical. We might be able to learn something factual about maritime practices and late 19th century shipbuilding from such an account, just as we can understand a bit of life in 1st century Palestine from the gospels. But although there were ships like the Titan, there was no Titan AFAIK.

Isn't an HJ the same as HT (Historical Titan) in this sense, meaning of course, that both are fictional? Even if one strips away the fantasy and magic, one is still left with fiction. The Titan didn't fly above the water, a claim we could readily dismiss. But the Titan is still fiction. There were ships and situations very similar to the Titan. Is this to say the Titan is "historic?"

I am very interested to see Vinnie's list, only so that I may follow its construction in light of the above analogy, not to dis Vinnie.

joe

Vinnie

born near the time of the death of Herod the great (4 bce)

Jesus of nazareth spent his childhood and early adult years in Nazareth

was baptized by JBap

he called disciples

he taught in the towns, villages and countryside of Galilee

he preached "the kingdom of God"

about 30 ad he went to jerusalem for Passover

he created a disturbance in the Temple

he had a final meal with his discples.

he was arrested and interrogated

he was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Some scholars might dipute a single element here or there but this list is generally beyond dispute to scholars. See Sanders in Historical Figure of Jesus, pp. 10-11.

Vinnie

Ted Hoffman

<chuckle><chuckle> Relax Vinnie, why dost thou protest too much?
I just asked a simple question - Jesus! why do I have to get my head bitten off just because I asked a simple question?

But thanks, for listing them for Joedad.

Its an unassailable list I see

atrahasis

So far, i have not accumulated enough evidence to really really get convinced of either. still agonostic on the issue.

BUT, i think, if my senses tell me right, i'm edging towards an MJ.

Thanks,
Xisuthros