D.H. Cross

I used the word “probably”. I am not taking anything for granted. I feel that the Jesus Seminar has done excellent work concerning the Q source. That association consists of hundreds of NT scholars who are not orthodox Christians and whose work I admire. But I do not take everything they say as “gospel” either because I don’t believe that we can find ultimate truth on the “real” Jesus.

I---personally---do not take the historicity of Jesus for granted. I think it is most probable that he was a man who existed, and who had a following that built him up as a legend after his death.

Yes, but not all NT scholars believe in the resurrection. If a bunch of NT scholars question the resurrection it is of a different magnitude than questioning the historicity of Jesus. Shorto explains (something I am almost certain you’ll agree with):

“...But it’s also true that to take such a conjecture [the non-historicity of Jesus] seriously would be professional suicide for any New Testament scholar; as much as any theologian or church official, these scholars have a vested interest in Jesus.”

I should have written “general consensus”. Sorry.


Mr. Shorto wrote a book on theories of the historical Jesus. He is a respected journalist, but he added nothing new to the debate, only related the most current developments on all sides of the issue. His book was praised by people such as Robert Funk, Marcus Borg and Luke Timothy Johnson, each of whom represented wholly different viewpoints on the whole debate. In it he speaks of G.A. Wells, a professor not of New Testament but of German. He writes, “Needless to say, mainstream scholars give little or no credence to Well’s argument. For one thing, it’s a kind of scorched-earth approach to history. ‘if you’re going to argue that, you’ll also have to throw out people of the caliber of Julius Caesar and Cleopatra,” says Robert Miller of Midway College.”

Regardless, he does not totally dismiss arguments such as Wells off-hand:

“But if one chooses to be an ultra-minimalist, if one is determined to undercut Christianity at its very roots, the meagerness of the records makes it theoretically possible. As with the conservative attacks, this radical one demonstrates that when the skeleton of the historical Jesus is exposed, it is found to be very frail in deed.” (Shorto)

His book looks similar to what Kirby’s website attempts to do. I am not familiar with Kirby, but it looks like something I would enjoy reading.


I didn’t mean to attribute to you any notion that you believe the man existed! How could I? You clear stated, “The historicity of Jesus is challenged”. I thought you’d agree with me that even if the historicity of Jesus were established, it would not make him God. Come on, you can read better than that!

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]</p>

Jobar

What Pompous said.

This is perhaps a bit crude, and I am certain some of our Christian posters may find it so- but I have always been fascinated by the concept of a son of God. Creation is one thing- but "son" implies sexual reproduction. I suppose all teenage boys who are taught Christian doctrine snicker when they realize that this implies God has a penis, and orgasms. Do you think Mary enjoyed it? Did God?

Jobar

Re historicity, and Wells (who is indeed G.A.- I once had a long discussion of him with a poster known as G.H. Wells. Confusion was unavoidable, and a bit still lingers...)- I am quite aware that the first argument always given against him is that he is not a professional Biblical scholar. My response to that is that it's an ad hominem argument. Read the man's works- his approach combining Biblical scholarship with the study of other mythologies is a delight (if you read it with a Bible beside you- there are huge numbers of Biblical references.) And I have seen no refutations of his actual work. The idea that his approach questions the historicity of such ancient personages as Caesar or Ramses II is nonsense- there are far too many references to such individuals, and said references are far more internally consistent than references to Jesus. Wells' opinion- which I share- is that there are no unforged contemporary or near-contemporary references to Jesus outside the New Testament. And the main thrust of his argument is that the NT follows precisely the pattern of myth formation exhibited by all legendary heroes.

And with this I will cease commentary on historicity, and will urge others to do so also. EoG is not the proper forum for it, true enough.

[ July 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Denshuu

Wait wait wait...
When did Jesus ever claim to be God?
I remember him saying a lot about being His son, but don't recall him ever claiming to be the omniscient creator of the universe.

Defiant Heretic

Interesting point. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that I can't prove I exist in the human form (e.g. I'm not just a brain in a jar or something), or that I can't prove anyone else exists outside my own imagination.(Although I think they do, because I would have to be pretty sadistic to imagine some of the people I know.)

Jayhawker Soule

Sorry. I read "As RD wrote" as an attribution.
My guess is that it stands closer to the concept of "chosen people" than its current Hellenistic interpretation. Geza Vermes suggests "son of God" was a relatively common designation having nothing to do with divinity. So, for example: [ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

D.H. Cross

Sorry about the confusion I have caused.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: D.H. Cross ]</p>