boneyard bill

Magus 55 writes:

And there is not one eyewitness in all 66 books. Not a single gospel writer nor any writers of the epistles claims to have seen Jesus in the flesh. It is often claimed that the author John claims to be an eyewitness, but a careful reading of the relevant passage does not support that.

So aside from the non-Christian sources, even from the Christian sources we have no evidence for Jesus' existence beyond hearsay.

boneyard bill

the_cave:

Excellent point. But I would add one more problem I have with Doherty's thesis. How does Galilee get into the picture? If the gospels are Midrashic reconstructions based on O.T. scripture, where does Galilee fit in. It makes sense that the Messiah was born in Bethlehem. But why create a Messiah from Galilee who has to (somwhow) be born in Bethlehem? Why not have him born in Bethlehem and begin his ministry there?

I'm not aware that Galilee has any O.T. significance. From what I have read it wasn't even Jewish until it was forceably converted by the Maccabees a hundred years or so before Christ.

The simplest explanation is that there was a historical figure from Galilee and that the govpel of Mark, at least, was based partly on this figure.

Doctor X

Or . . .

one wanted to establish a link to the community which later became tradition.

I had thought there was a "deeper" Gallilee link, but I will have to check me notes.

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

I believe that Doherty currently favors the idea that the author of Mark believed in a historical Jesus and that the author of Mark drew this belief from an earlier Kingdom of God preaching movement with a founder figure placed in Galilee who spoke Q-type sayings. However, if you read his book, Doherty argues (though it's one of his weaker arguments) that the Q community evolved the notion of a founder as an etiological myth that shored up their claim to authority for the wisdom (which may have had Cynic sources--but that's not crucial) and that served as a mouthpiece for apocalyptic rage against rival communities ("woe to you, Bethsaida!").

best,
Peter Kirby, Dohertian exegete

peripeteia

Peter Kirby

Hello! Im just a little curious..Its obvious you enjoy Doherty, but I was wondering what you thought about some of the other main 'Historical Jesus' scholars. For instance J. D. Crossan, Marcus Borg Geza vermes, E P Sanders, Gerd Theissen[a favorite of mine], J.P Meier, and N. T Wright..I have several more but they are marginal figures[likeStephen J pattersonß-you have got to read his ‘The God of Jesus’ its phonemenal and Ben Witherington] But these—though they are widely used in certain religious departments-- do not have the wide scholarly attention they might deserve,, so I wont ask..

Though they each have their own versions of who Jesus was, they still nevertheless believe that their existed the ‘historical’ individual..

Im merely inquiring since these people more then set the standard for this area of research.

Peter Kirby

Trust me, I've read more HJ books than myther books, and I've enjoyed most of them. My top five would be Fredriksen, Crossan, Theissen, Meier, and Davies--for intellectual excellence if not truth correspondence--I guess if you were wanting something like that. For my synopsis of HJ views, see here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Although Theissen is an exception to some degree, most HJ scholars are ignoring Wells and his ilk. I think that at least some of them should set aside for a little while stuff like the function of the title "Son of Man" in Second Temple Judaism and start to address in detail some of the more foundational questions of Christian origins, like the characteristics of the epistolary record and the methodological framework of HJ reconstruction.

The computer scientist in me wants to write an algorithm to compute the HJ variable. That'll stop some debates.

best,
Peter Kirby

peripeteia

Hey not bad in fact not bad at all..It was also refreshing to see people i studied under..You mentioned one i totally forgot and that was Riley and his One J Many C..Great book highly recomend him..Anyway thanks for the quick response..

This is not disconnected from the subject but since you read Patersons books and notice that he takes a postmodern perspective to the search for the historical christ; what do you think about such a procedure? Do you believe that it would bring more perplexity or would it clarify certain fundamentals considered vacuous and myth-laden?

Peter Kirby

I will read The God of Jesus at a future time.

best,
Peter Kirby