Peter Kirby

In the quoted work, Feldman suggests that an alternate possibility is that the passage was not mentioned by the epitomizer because it was a reduced form (without the juicy bits) and thus not as remarkable. You might be able to get more information from Layman, who wrote to Feldman and got a response saying that the table of contents was very rough. I think that the position Layman took is that the summarizer was likely to have been Jewish. Read all about it here:

The Great Layman-Kirby Josephus Debate

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Crossan is Catholic, but he doesn't exactly subscribe to Catholicism. When I say that a person is Jewish, I refer primarily to the way that person identifies herself or himself.

best,
Peter Kirby

Ted Hoffman

Even if they study 1 million years, I repeat:
Twaddling twerp!

godfry n. glad

Heh.... Does anyone else see the irony in this blast of hot air?

And, Crossan is not the "leader" of the Jesus Seminar, Robert Funk is. Warrented, Crossan seems to be the leading spokesperson of the Seminar scholars and was amongst the founders of the Jesus Seminar, but he's not the leader.

Crossan is also a former Roman Catholic priest. I don't think you can say he "doesn't exactly subscribe to Catholicism", as he seems to think he is still a Roman Catholic, per his autobiographical statement.

Note also that Meier and Brown are not just Catholics, but priests as well. I was surprised to hear that Luke Timothy Johnson is RC, too. His ill-conceived public temper tantrum, _The Real Jesus_ , seems to put him in the midst of the pentacostal protestants. I've been very impressed with the published work of both Meier and Brown (despite Meier's exceedingly disappointing treatment of Josephus), but Johnson, in my humble estimation, doesn't even deserve to be in this list. His whole approach is to assert that the search for the historical Jesus is misguided because the "true Jesus" is the theological Jesus of the gospels. Johnson is a theologian, not an historian. Meier and Brown are both.

Initially, I was amused at Whatacrock's attempt at labelling these scholars on a conservative to liberal scale. I read it as misreading the initial question. But on second thought, I think he has a valid point. It's one thing to designate these folks as belonging to one sectarian group or another, but doing so doesn't really get at what we're trying to delineate, does it? Witness the big difference between Crossan and Luke Timothy Johnson, both Roman Catholics. Also, Geza Vermes might be Jewish by birth, but his upbringing in a richly Christian environment during his formative years probably had a huge effect in determining his outlook on the Christian founding figure. Being Jewish allows a considerable amount of latitude on the question, for sure. I'd be interested in how Vermes viewpoint varies from Fredrikson's, from Pine's and from other Jewish scholars who have ruminated on the historicity of Jesus. Then, if NT Wright is a bishop in the Anglican church, he must be included in the same group as Shelby Spong; I'd say there is significant variance there, too. Delineating a sectarian connection doesn't go far enough...more information is needed.

Or... We could just consider each argument on its merits. (What a concept!)

I'm still trying to figure out how an initiated Christian priest (or invested minister) who has accepted the Nicean Creed (or any other Christian creed) as part of their life philosophy, and dedicated themselves to spreading its message, can be expected to set aside that wholehearted belief to ponder an issue that, if seriously considered, inherently includes a negation to their creedal position and have them demonstrate any objectivity about it....talk about cognitive dissonance.

Lastly, I'd point out that much of the debate in the "Quest" has not focused upon whether Jesus was historical or not, but what the historical Jesus might have been like. Such was the whole point of the Jesus Seminar musings. They accepted from the outset that Jesus existed and the point was to determine what he was really like and what he "really said". Such musings have lead to a proliferation of views of the nature of the original founder, which have been so aptly and succinctly illustrated in Peter's site. Most of these scholars have not addressed the historicity of Jesus...they assumed that at the outset. A priori. They then set out to determine what this historical Jesus was "really like". Precious few of these "historians" have honestly dealt with the issue of the historicity of Jesus. As such, any such scholars should be disposed of in the discussion of whether Jesus actually existed or not.


godfry n. glad

And... Why is it that Burton Mack has been left off of this list? Just curious.

Vorkosigan

I was surprised to hear that Luke Timothy Johnson is RC, too.

Me too!!!! I always thought he was some kind of Fundie nut.

Vorkosigian

godfry n. glad

Hmmm.... I'll take a stab at answering my own question here.

Could it be that Mack has not posited an opinion on the Josephus cites, one way or the other? Or, _has_ posited an opinion and it's not in alignment with our protester's position?

Gooch's dad

Vinnie, I think you brought up an excellent point regarding the appeal to popularity--if the 'great number of scholars' really are experts in the field, then it isn't an appeal to popularity at all. That is why creationists lose when they put up the 2 or 3 PhD geologists that are young-earthers against the entire field of geology.

However, there is a crucial difference in biblical scholarship and early Christian history--that of the Christian presupposition. Many conservative Christian scholars, for example, think that the Jesus Seminar scholars automatically disqualify themselves as biblical scholars, due to their not presupposing the bible to be divinely inspired.

So in discussing the HJ question, it is fair to try to qualify the presuppositions of any list of historians that is presented. It isn't a case of poisoning the well, if I could characterize a certain scholar as having a strong presupposition towards Christianity being true, regardless of any evidence presented.

Fair?

-Kelly

Vinnie

Hi Kelly. I agree but that itself does not constitute an argument. John Meier (presumably) has a strong presupposition towards Christianity being true but that does not mean he cannot prescind from faith and do history. John Dominic Crossan denies nature miracles along with Sanders and some others don't they? Does that look like a fundy bent on proving "Christianity true"?

But yes, sure a person's faith could influence them but that is the where the importance of methodology comes in during reconstruction. I personally do not think there is any real dispute over the historicity of Jesus so I do not entertain these arguments here. They are relevant only in reconstruction IMO, where people end up reconstructing themselves. They end up doing autobiography and try to pawn it off as Jesus research.

When I personally speak of a consensus I do so only for critical-mainline HJ scholars. Not for fundamentalist and evangelical scholars. Furthermore, Jewish scholars have no presupposition towards Christianity being true and numerous Jewish scholars affirm historicity of Jesus and the accuracy of a partially reconstructed TF. Even atheist historians have granted historicity have they not?

Vinnie

godfry n. glad

So... What happens if, in the process of his "doing history", Fr. Meier stumbles across some evidence that runs contrary to his confessional interests as a Roman Catholic priest?

godfry

Vinnie

That is something you need to ask Mr. Meier. I have faced tough issues which challenged my beliefs. Historically, it seems likely that Jesus was mistaken about the timing of his second coming. I now find it a lot less likely that Jesus claimed to be Messiah or used the term of himself. I think Jesus' ministry was somewhat exclusive and was conducted primarily to the Jewish people. I would much rather an open and inclusive Jesus but my wants don't dictate what the historical evidence tells us.

Vinnie