Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-11-2003, 03:01 PM

Is anyone familiar with David Flusser?

Eisenbrauns is having a special on his Jesus

Quote:

Flusser is not only brilliant, and thoroughly familiar with all classical sources, Jewish sources, and later Christian sources that bear on our understanding of Jesus; he is also passionately concerned that the historical Jesus be taken seriously. He readily admits that he, an observant Jew, personally identifies himself with the worldview of Jesus, both moral and political: 'The content of his teachings and approach of Jesus has the potential to change the world and prevent the greatest part of evil and suffering.'

I've looked him up on Amazon, and reviews are mixed.

godfry n. glad · 07-12-2003, 06:58 AM

Well, I've never heard of him. But that doesn't mean much.

However, I read the statement you included to my non-observant Jewish wife and her response was, "If that's what he thinks about Jesus, he's no 'observant Jew'. He's a fraud."

Just one opinion.

godfry n. glad

Toto · 07-12-2003, 10:22 AM

The historical Jesus is a Rorschach test in which a variety of scholars see their own images or hopes. This includes some Jews, who see Jesus as the embodiment of the Hellenistic Pharasees or as a Jewish holy man who never claimed to be God or wanted to start a new religion (and Paul as a fraud).

Among these are Hyam Maccoby and Geza Vermes.

Doctor X · 07-12-2003, 10:26 AM

Toto:

THANK YOU!

On another board I have been dealing with someone praising the Jesus Seminar . . . it is clear he only looked at reviews rather than what they "conclude."

Anyways, it seems to confirm what Schweitzer noted a long time ago that scholars searching for a historical Jesus tend to find the one they want. Of course, even he cop'd out and declared him "an immeasurably great man."

--J.D.

Greg2003 · 07-12-2003, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Toto:

THANK YOU!

On another board I have been dealing with someone praising the Jesus Seminar . . . it is clear he only looked at reviews rather than what they "conclude."

Anyways, it seems to confirm what Schweitzer noted a long time ago that scholars searching for a historical Jesus tend to find the one they want. Of course, even he cop'd out and declared him "an immeasurably great man."

--J.D.

But didn't Schweitzer conclude that the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus of the scholars was not historically true? I seem to recall that his statement left open the possibility for a historical character behind the biblical character, but a conclusion that the biblical character was not acurately historical. Or am I just confused about what Schweitzer was saying?

godfry n. glad · 07-12-2003, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greg2003
But didn't Schweitzer conclude that the Jesus of the gospels and the Jesus of the scholars was not historically true? I seem to recall that his statement left open the possibility for a historical character behind the biblical character, but a conclusion that the biblical character was not acurately historical. Or am I just confused about what Schweitzer was saying?

My memory of Schweitzer is that he concluded (in addition to the above mentioned "mirror effect") that the historical Jesus was most likely a failed apocalyptic prophet who predicted that the impending eschatological moment would be brought on by his own self-sacrifice. It didn't happen.

godfry

Peter Kirby · 07-15-2003, 07:34 PM

Toto, did you find out anything on David Flusser? Does this seem like a book I should include in my "Historical Jesus Theories" survey?

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 07-15-2003, 08:00 PM

I haven't found out anything. I gather his approach is as much religious as historical.

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

07-12-2003, 06:58 AM	#2
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	Well, I've never heard of him. But that doesn't mean much. However, I read the statement you included to my non-observant Jewish wife and her response was, "If that's what he thinks about Jesus, he's no 'observant Jew'. He's a fraud." Just one opinion. godfry n. glad

07-12-2003, 10:22 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The historical Jesus is a Rorschach test in which a variety of scholars see their own images or hopes. This includes some Jews, who see Jesus as the embodiment of the Hellenistic Pharasees or as a Jewish holy man who never claimed to be God or wanted to start a new religion (and Paul as a fraud). Among these are Hyam Maccoby and Geza Vermes.

07-12-2003, 10:26 AM	#4
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Toto: THANK YOU! On another board I have been dealing with someone praising the Jesus Seminar . . . it is clear he only looked at reviews rather than what they "conclude." Anyways, it seems to confirm what Schweitzer noted a long time ago that scholars searching for a historical Jesus tend to find the one they want. Of course, even he cop'd out and declared him "an immeasurably great man." --J.D.

07-15-2003, 07:34 PM	#7
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Toto, did you find out anything on David Flusser? Does this seem like a book I should include in my "Historical Jesus Theories" survey? best, Peter Kirby

07-15-2003, 08:00 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I haven't found out anything. I gather his approach is as much religious as historical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.