outhouse

Its my opinion the above just gives us a glimpse of the sheer diversity of the movement during the second century when there was semi orthodoxy at best.

One of many views.


Its also my opinion the reason why most scholars, the vast and almost total majority follow a HJ, is because they see legends starting within decades of what these early followers for the most part, firmly believe to be, what once was a living man who died the most horrible way giving the people the most ultimate sacrifice of himself for others during Passover, fighting the corruption in the temple.

MrMacSon

Certainly Thomas Thompson opened up 'biblical scholarship' with the 1974 publication of The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (by De Gruter Press). It is interesting that work was the result of a PhD dissertation undertaken at the Catholic faculty at the University of Tübingen, but rejected by his examiner Joseph Ratzinger, then Tübingen's Professor of Systematic Theology ... as "not fitting for a Catholic theologian".

It is interesting that Thompson, and John Van Seters's Abraham in History and Tradition (1975) reversed a then consensus - developed over the previous three decades - that the "Patriarchal narratives had originated in a second millennium BC setting" - while there had been a previous "scholarly view [that] ascribed little historical value to the patriarchal narratives"¹

[1] J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel (A. & C. Black, Edinburgh, 1885), pp.318-319.

The shifting sands of 'biblical scholarship, eh?

Moreover, following Thompson's & Van Seter's books, there were further publications trying to counter them, then subsequent publications taking a more middle road - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblica..._and_influence

While this reflects shifting sands in OT "scholarship", and gives an insight in what could happen in NT scholarship, it seems things are yet to move there.

MrMacSon

"The ministry of Jesus"? You mean a human Jesus or a Marcionite ministry about a Jesus-god?

Isn't Dialogus de recta in Deum fide a work dubiously attributed to Origen ie. Origen Adamantius?

Of course, the tradition is historical; but, the basis of the tradition - an alleged human Jesus the Christ of Nazareth - may not be, and is without supporting documentation beyond theological texts.


That's a false dichotomy: there are other possible permutations - eg.

• more than one person was involved in 'developing' the stories
• the stories evolved and changed
  • over time; or
  • in different communities; or
  • both

stephan huller

ministry = διακονία

It doesn't necessarily denote something associated with human beings. Clement sees the seven angelic spirits as exercising a certain διακονία by which the Logos is imparted to the world.

So too the followers of Basilides who interpret the Epistle of Barnabas - "Let us become spiritual, a perfect temple to God; let us, as far as in us lies, practise the fear of God, and strive to keep His commands, that we may rejoice in His judgments" - as follows

stephan huller

Yeah so?

stephan huller

But since angelic beings aren't generally presumed to exist, it becomes a question of probability - one which I don't claim to have the authority to decide - as to whether a real person lies underneath this story.

MrMacSon

Yes, it is a question of probability (as to whether a real person lies underneath this story); but not necessarily one of authority.

It is also an issue of facts within sound deductive arguments or cogent inductive arguments producing true conclusions or likely conclusions, respectively.

There are few facts around the gospels or the extra-biblical information.

neilgodfrey

My original point was that NT historical criticism has its own rules and methods that are quite distinct from anything you'll find in use in other history departments. The reason, at least as far as I can see, is pretty obvious. They don't have any "historical facts" to begin with. History is normally about events we have some records for. But we have nothing comparable in NT studies for Jesus. I think it's Price who has said that there is not a single fact about Jesus on which all scholars can agree. Imagine the same being said about Julius Caesar: some historians say he did cross the Rubicon, others dispute this; some say he was a general, others say he was a philosopher. . . .

So NT "historical criticism" is mostly about trying to find rules and tricks that will help them come up with some raw data, some fundamental facts, upon which all can agree. And once they have a few of those, THEN they can start to behave like real historians and seek to explain them.

neilgodfrey

The most interesting thing I find about the work of these "minimalists" is that they were starting from first principles of historical methodology.

First, start with the primary sources -- that is, the artefacts physically present in the time and place under study.

Only then look at the secondary sources -- which as a rule will be of lesser value.

Niels Peter Lemche addresses this in his books, and draws upon the pioneers of modern historical methodology to justify his approach. Most NT scholars have never heard of any of these pioneers if Scot McKnight is right when he laments the historiographical naivety of his peers.

I've written a lengthy post on the relevance of the minimalist methods to NT studies -- or at least how they should be relevant. I look at the specific details of historical methodology of Davies, Lemche and Thompson. All they are doing is basic common sense-- what historians should do.

One NT scholar once chastized me for denying that NT scholars do history the same way as other historians and told me to read a certain book, "From Reliable Sources" by Howell and Prevenier. So I did. I wrote to him pointing out that he had apparently failed to read it himself and that it demonstrated just how different normal historical inquiry is from the what NT scholars do in relation to Jesus and the birth of the church. The reasons are detailed in that previous link.

DCHindley

You can download PDF versions of Schäfer's book at several websites, by permission of Princeton Univ. Press for classroom and individual research use.

A review by Ruth Langer (SCJR 2-1, 2007, R9-10) appears here:

Applying contemporary historiographical methods, Schäfer offers a
convincing explanation of the talmudic texts about Jesus. In doing so, he avoids what he criticizes as the excesses of previous discussions of this topic, especially the maximalism of R. Travers Herford in his Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (London, 1903) and the minimalism of Johann Meier in his Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überlieferung (Darmstadt, 1978). Where Herford presumed that every possible source referred to Christianity, Meier established doubt about the applicability of most of these sources to knowledge about the historical Jesus.

I did not get the impression that Herford "presumed that every possible [Rabbinic] source referred to Christianity" but rather he enumerated every possible source that he thought could refer to Jesus or Christianity.

WRT Mead's Did Jesus live 100 BC?, Schäfer covers much of the same ground.

Schäfer	Mead
1. Jesus' Family 15	IX. THE TALMUD MARY STORIES
2. The Son/Disciple Who Turned out Badly 25	VIII. THE TALMUD 100 YEARS B.C. STORY OF JESUS
3 The Frivolous Disciple 34	XI THE TALMUD BALAAM JESUS STORIES
4 The Torah Teacher 41	The Heresy of R. Eliezer 216, A Halacha of Jeschu ... . 217, etc
5. Healing in the Name of Jesus 52	Ben Dama and the Serpent ..... 220, The Story of James and the Viper .... 222, An Early Christian Mode of Healing . . .223
6. Jesus’ Execution 63	The Stoning of Jesus 176; The Hanging of Jesus 177, "Lud" Traditions 178, The Forty Days Proclamation before Jesus was Hanged 178, No Knowledge of Crucifixion . . . . .179, Jesus "near those in Power" 180
7. Jesus’ Disciples 75	XII. THE DISCIPLES AND FOLLOWERS OF JESUS IN THE TALMUD
8. Jesus' Punishment in Hell 82	The Disciples of Balaam inherit Gehenna . . . 198, The Age of Balaam-Jeschu ..... 199, A Chronicle of Balaam ...... 200, Phineas-Listaa . . ..... 200, Balaam the Lame Man . . . . . .201, The Necromancy of Onkelos ..... 202, Onkelos-Aquila ....... 203, Exegesis ......... 204, Boiling Filth 205
9. Jesus in the Talmud 95	VII. THE EARLIEST EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TO THE TALMUD JESUS STORIES
Appendix: Bavli Manuscripts and Censorship 151	V. THE TALMUD IN HISTORY

I suppose it wouldn't hurt to download J Travers Herford's book as well, as it is available at www.archive.org.