Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 06-26-2013, 03:23 PM

I have been reading the Jesus Blog (historicaljesusresearch at blogspot com) maintained by Anthony Le Donne and Chris Keith. This is the cutting edge of the mainstream academic work on the Historical Jesus, but it is full of post modern, sardonic jokes. It is sometimes not clear what is serious.

But I thought this was an interesting observation:

A Sea Change in Jesus Studies: Fare Thee Well, Ipsissima Verba! - Le Donne

[Ipsissima verba Jesu = the very words of Jesus himself]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Donne

At this stage in Jesus studies (for some), it was still perfectly acceptable to argue that a dominical saying contained the very words of Jesus, or the ipsissima verba Jesu. (I also took my first Latin class in 1994; volo condeco fervens puella… seemed like a good idea at the time.) In other words, some of the words in red, translated rigidly, conveyed what Jesus said word for word. As the popular narrative goes, the Jesus Seminar didn’t employ many of those red beads. But it wasn’t like the red beads were untouched. Ipsissima verba was a live possibility in 1994.

But here in 2013, this is not the case.

In one of my favorite books, Stories with Intent (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2008), Snodgrass writes that “as virtually anyone studying the Gospels grants, we do not have the ipsissima verba, the very words of Jesus” (p.33ff). Here Snodgrass (crediting James Dunn) is simply reflecting a contemporary consensus. Similarly, Dale Allison’s recent successes have heralded the triumph of ipsissima vox. In other words, we can (in some cases) hear the “voice” of Jesus in those red letters. The crucial difference is that the vox position points to the red letters and says that Jesus probably taught something like this at some point.

outhouse · 06-26-2013, 03:30 PM

Anthony Le Donne's classes were a joke at the price of admission. They were talking of discounting it when I told him to stop sending me emails regarding his classes.

I only view the above as his personal shifting consensus within apologetics, more so then tried and true historical criticism.

stephan huller · 06-26-2013, 04:03 PM

I don't even think Clement believed he had the very words of Jesus. The Marcionites too. How accurate could Paul's gospel by revelation have been - especially when we hear in De Recta in Deum Fide that NONE of the disciples wrote a gospel. I think Christians ever since the third century had an increasingly vulgar understanding of their own tradition. The disintegration of the Empire only made things worse.

arnoldo · 06-27-2013, 07:44 AM

Anthony Le Donne writes in Historical Jesus: What Can We Know and How Can We Know It? (or via: amazon.co.uk) that “social memory” determined what words attributed to Jesus eventually became written down in the gospels. Le Donne gives the following example in Mark 14:58 of false witnesses misquoting Jesus.

Quote:

We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

Le Donne's hypothesis is that social memory can be “triangulated” by comparing it to another account in a separate source of the same event. Le Donne gives such a comparison in John 2:18-22 . In this account the destruction of the temple is given to be understood in metaphorical rather than literal terms.

A modern day analogy from popular culture would be if Roger Waters had been tried in an East Berlin court for the crime of advocating the destruction of the Berlin Wall sometime in the early 80's. A false witness account would perhaps claim that Waters was attempting the use of force to tear down the Berlin wall. However another witness may just claim that Waters was speaking of the destruction of a metaphorical rather than a physical wall .

Toto · 06-27-2013, 11:12 AM

..

andrewcriddle · 06-27-2013, 12:24 PM

Since Jesus taught in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) and our texts are in Greek there is a sense in which we clearly do not have preserved the literal words of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

outhouse · 06-27-2013, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Since Jesus taught in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) and our texts are in Greek there is a sense in which we clearly do not have preserved the literal words of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

If there was such a man, are you saying cross cultural oral tradition could not record a single phrase even semi accurately over generations in illiterate cultures?

andrewcriddle · 06-27-2013, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Since Jesus taught in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) and our texts are in Greek there is a sense in which we clearly do not have preserved the literal words of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle

If there was such a man, are you saying cross cultural oral tradition could not record a single phrase even semi accurately over generations in illiterate cultures?

I'm saying that what we have is a Greek translation of teachings originally given in Aramaic.

Andrew Criddle

MrMacSon · 06-27-2013, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

If there was such a man, are you saying cross cultural oral tradition could not record a single phrase even semi accurately over generations in illiterate cultures?

I'm saying that what we have is a Greek translation of teachings originally given in Aramaic. /Andrew Criddle

"Teachings" allegedly given in Aramaic.

Nobody knows the origins of the narrative: as discussed briefly, recently, in other threads on this board, it may be midrash or "

Aggadah" http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....95#post7489595 and http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....97#post7489697

It may have involved transliteration & translation across a number of languages.

outhouse · 06-27-2013, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

If there was such a man, are you saying cross cultural oral tradition could not record a single phrase even semi accurately over generations in illiterate cultures?

I'm saying that what we have is a Greek translation of teachings originally given in Aramaic.

Andrew Criddle

In a religion and in a geographic location known for multi cultural acceptance and the ability to easily translate proficently

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

06-26-2013, 03:30 PM	#2
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	Anthony Le Donne's classes were a joke at the price of admission. They were talking of discounting it when I told him to stop sending me emails regarding his classes. I only view the above as his personal shifting consensus within apologetics, more so then tried and true historical criticism.

06-26-2013, 04:03 PM	#3
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I don't even think Clement believed he had the very words of Jesus. The Marcionites too. How accurate could Paul's gospel by revelation have been - especially when we hear in De Recta in Deum Fide that NONE of the disciples wrote a gospel. I think Christians ever since the third century had an increasingly vulgar understanding of their own tradition. The disintegration of the Empire only made things worse.

06-27-2013, 11:12 AM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	..

06-27-2013, 12:24 PM	#6
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	Since Jesus taught in Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) and our texts are in Greek there is a sense in which we clearly do not have preserved the literal words of Jesus. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.