I wrote:
>>
>>Nice to meet you in Toronto.  Maybe the SBL group and the new journal ought
>>to change their names, eh;)?  "The Historical Jesuses Section" and its
>>journal (or will there be several;)???).

Steve wrote:
>Nice meeting you also!! Did you see Horsley and Allison HJesus
>presentation? Allison argued that Jesus believed in "hell", which
>might be something to think about. There is multiple attestation
>involved, but it does imply a Apocalyptic Jesus, so there is plenty
>for everyone to argue
>about... ;-)

Hi Steve,

Yes I went to that section... and what can I say?  ...something of the
experience of hell;)?
I think they are both wrong on several scores... one... I think that their
favored quotes are from  redaction [all the while both of them were
bemoaning choosing sayings;)!], two: that the earliest layers of sayings are
wisdom forms of communications, three: that in such forms... like the Rich
Man and Lazarus (and BTW that gets a gray vote from the J.Sem).... such
metaphorical (storied) imagery may be drawn upon to arouse ethical
reflection and not necessarily at all denote "an apocalyptic theology."
[folks are always telling each other "to go to hell:)!" and one can hardly
figure out one's metaphysics of the structures of eternity from that:)!!!]
And besides I think the whole argument: John was an apocalyptic prophet,
Paul was apocalyptic so Jesus in the middle was, too, is bogus.  A. I think
the speeches of John in Q are authorial creations to cast him in the role of
a prophet of judgment and redemption.  I think Historical John is better
understood in line with the wisdom and "Classical Prophetic" tradition as
well.  B. I think Paul is a writer who works off all sorts of Hebrew
Scripture materials, apocalyptic being one, but also Royal, Priestly and
Classical Prophetic theology... as well as dabbling in some of the wisdom
heritage.  Setting up this "gotta be" apocalyptic argument flies over
sensitivity to questions about layers of writing, redaction, story
development and care about the use of genres of thought.

So... can you tell that I wasn't impressed;)?  "Hell" to say the least, is a
rich image matrix for all sorts of storied play.  If you want to see a great
modern usage watch some of "the South Park" episodes!  "Hell" can be a very
amusing backdrop for some serious "this worldly" reflection!

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

Zeb wrote:

>In all this talk (not a new thing, mind you)
>HJ criteria, there appears now and
>again the idea that the very quest for the HJ
>is invalid, or unnecessary, or any number of
>things...we have multiple portraits of Jesus
>and different versions of his sayings. If we
>hope to distill anything resembling the HJ,
>then the application of criteria is necessary.
>It is interesting to me that the debate
>rarely has to do with altering or adjusting the
>criteria, or introducing new ones, but instead
>too often with whether the whole quest is invalid.

I too scratch my head when encountering this
mentality, whether in an academic or lay environment.
The application of criteria for studying historical
figures is something responsible historians do all the
time. This is why (contra Brian Tafford) it's hard to
take seriously the likes of Luke Timothy Johnson --
though Johnson's attitude can be found outside the
ranks of so-called conservative Christian scholars.
Geza Vermes, for instance, is known for "seeing red"
at the mere thought of criteria, preferring instead to
"muddle through" the data. But we obviously need
**some** criteria, lest the quest become an open
license to massage the textual evidence however we
please.

>The HJ criteria may be flawed; they may not
>result in the actual portrait of the HJ...
>It doesn't mean the entire enterprise is
>flawed, much less unnecessary.

Not only that: "objective" criteria may be a mask for
an aggressively subjective agenda. Then too, criteria
can be overrated. Crossan leans far too heavily on
that of multiple attestation; others have used
dissimilarity as an almost guaranteed map to HJ. I
suppose there must inevitably be a significant amount
of "muddling through" the data even while laboring
under the constraints of criteria. It's not hard to
think of reasons why some "dissimilar" sayings could
have cropped up after HJ's death and been preserved,
despite their dissimilarity. Stranger things in life
have happened. Multiply attested sayings may point to
authenticity (especially apropos oral tradition), but
they may also reflect simply how widespread they were
at the time(s) set down in writing. This all makes
things pretty messy...but that's life ain't it? Zeb's
post is a good reminder that we hardly need to throw
in the towel on account of the quest's murkiness.

Now, Andrew Lloyd wrote:

>On the wider question of criteria I think that
>historical Jesus scholars operate with some measure
>of bad faith...The criteria that Jack obliquely
>refers to in his responses in this thread I find
>unconvincing. Anthropological, historical and
>sociological criteria can only produce generic
>results and so their (much vaunted) use is blunted.
>Jesus was not a 1st century clone, he was an
>individual. Its like my describing the
>Americans on this board according to my generic
>view of Americans.

You tar with one hell of a broad brush and thus
somewhat discredit your statements in advance. What
you're getting at applies more to the anthropological
approach than the historical one. Allow me to paint my
own broad brush in saying that anthropology/sociology
seeks the generic, while history seeks the unique. For
instance, members of the anthropologically-focused
Context Group (Malina, Rohrbaugh, Neyrey, Oakman)
focus on the common denominators of Mediterranean
cultures; i.e. they seek the generic, which
admittedly, when unqualified with other approaches,
can result in the "clone" portrait you worry about.
The anthropologist asks what's common about all
temples in the ancient Mediterranean. The historian
asks what's unique about the Judean temple in
first-century Palestine. You need to ask both
questions, nest-ce pas?

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

At 05:11 AM 12/03/02, Andrew Lloyd wrote:

>Zeba,
>
>...One way that HJ study is NOT like text criticism (although, then
>again, maybe not) is that we are assuming there was an "original"
>text we can get back to in textual criticism. An "original" Jesus
>would be an entirely different thing since its not the "bare matter"
>we are concerned with there so much as what that might be construed
>to mean.

Andrew,
There are probably some on the list who would disagree, and who would argue
that the search for "meaning" is secondary, and has often gotten in the way
of research on the historical Jesus. Admittedly, one's preconceptions often
shape one's search for the data of history, but one goal of 20th century
critical scholarship was indeed that very "bare matter" to which you refer.
It may not interest *you,* but it was their professed concern.

>....I would argue that
>a discipline of historical Jesus studies which searches for
>an "original" Jesus (a non-hermeneutic Jesus) is missing the point.

Whose point? Certainly the evangelists would agree with you. But it that
non-hermeneutic Jesus has been, indeed, the overt goal.


>...On the wider question of criteria I think that historical Jesus
>scholars operate with some measure of bad faith. Many do indeed
>follow the "original Jesus" paradigm. However, they never tell us
>how they would know when they had the "original" Jesus. What is
>their measure? The criteria that Jack obliquely refers to in his
>responses in this thread I find unconvincing. Anthropological,
>historical and sociological criteria can only produce generic
>results and so their (much vaunted) use is blunted. Jesus was not a
>1st century clone, he was an individual. Its like my describing the
>Americans on this board according to my generic view of Americans.

This criticism is not fair, and reads as if you have not understood the
methodology of critical scholarship. Indeed, the search for original
sayings of Jesus has been guided not by what passes for First Century
Jewish norms (or any other norms), but what stands out *against* those
norms. The uniqueness of Jesus was very much on point. I'd suggest that you
(re-?)read the introduction to The Five Gospels.

On the other hand, Crossan often mixes normative research (e.g.,
anthropological norms for particular kinds of societies under particular
conditions) with the use of criteria to determine the unique aspects of
Jesus' words and deeds. Indeed, Crossan and some fellow questers on many
matters employ what I have called the tyranny of the normal, according to
which nothing unusual can ever happen. So, for example, if it was normal
for the bodies of crucified people to be left to scavengers and then the
remains buried unceremoniously in a shallow dirt grave, then "therefore"
the same "must have" happened to the body of Jesus. There does seem to be
some inconsistency between the methodology applied to Jesus' words and
deeds, to discover the voice that is truly his (and not that of the authors
of the Gospels), and the imposition of normative practice on other aspects
of Jesus' life and death.

>That wouldn't be what I wanted if seeking to describe any particular
>one. So, one important context is his specific life and I question
>how close our criteria can get us to that.

Again, I suggest that you review (again?) the Introduction to The Five Gospels.

>Indeed, I follow the pragmatic assertion that you cannot "method" or
>"criteria" your way to Jesus.

You will find a lot of company among evangelical Christians and
fundamentalists, who will be quite happy with your assertion.

>  Of course, people don't like to take notice of these
>things since it discourages them from what they are wrapped up in.
>However, I nonetheless have some scepticism of the ability of our
>discipline's criteria if we are going to follow an "original Jesus"
>paradigm. In fact, so much is this so that I would rather see
>historical Jesus studies reconfigured along different lines.

Such as Wright's Critical Realism?

Bob

--- Andrew Lloyd <a.lloyd2@...> wrote:

(Frank McCoy)
> > I suggest...that Mark wrote 3:19b-35 at a time in
which relations between the Markan community and the
Jerusalem Church (where Jesus' mother and brothe[r]s
resided after the crucifixion--see Acts 1:14) were
highly strained, perhaps even ruptured, because the
members of the Jerusalem Church, led by Jesus' brother
James, were, in accord with the injunctions of the
scribal authorities in Jerusalem, strictly adhering to
the dietary ordinances of the Law; while the Markan
community believed these scribal authorities in
Jerusalem are evil people whose opinions, thus, should
be rejected and that God's will is that these dietary
ordinances ought to be ignored.   Perhaps it was
around the time of the incident at Antioch, i.e., c.
50 CE--for this would fit in with other evidence,
which I have outlined in some earlier posts, that Mark
wrote his gospel around that time-frame.
> >

> Frank,
>
> are we to take it then that you don't believe Mark
records  historical incidents, i.e. an occasion in
which some of Jesus'  family come to restrain him and
an occasion in which "the scribes  who came down from
Jerusalem" accused Jesus of being demon  possessed,
something we can posit without the interesting but
largely unprovable assertions you have made? It seems
to me that your response, some of which I have
appended above, says more about  gospel writers and
their assumed situations than the historical  Jesus.
Of course, there is no case to be made for
insensitivity to  an author's situation or his (or
her) purposes.  However, how does  the type of
reconstruction you have provided impact upon
historical  Jesus study as opposed to avoiding it?
>


Andrew:

In historical Jesus study, ISTM, evaluating the
reliability (or lack thereof) for each source is a
necessary and integral part of the process.  Further,
it also STM, in evaluating the reliability of a source
for Jesus, the author and his/her perspective is an
important consideration and so is the sitz im leben in
which he/she wrote it.

I apologize for giving you the impression that I do
not think that Mark records historical incidents.  I
think, rather, that many (indeed, probably most) of
the incidents he relates are historical.

For each incident we find in Mark, ISTM, we need to
evaluate the evidence to determine whether or not it
is historical.  For example, we need to evaluate the
evidence for whether or not there was a historical
incident in which Jesus was baptized by John.
Further, for each incident that we conclude is
historical or, at least, probably historical, we need
to futher evaluate how accurately (or inaccurately)
Mark records it.  So, if we decide that Jesus really
was baptized by John, then we must evaluate of the
degree to which Mark's narration of this incident is
accurate.  For example, after evaluating the evidence,
we might decide that Mark is incorrect in saying that
the Spirit descemded like a dove and that there was a
voice from heaven.

Now, in Mark 3:19b-35, Mark records three incidents:
(1) some close to Jesus, likely family members, try to
seize him and declare him to be crazy, (2) Jesus has
an exchange with some scribes from Jerusalem over
whether he casts out demons by Beelzebul, and (3)
Jesus' mother and brothers seek to see him, but he
declares that those who follow the will of God are
true family.

My evaluation is that the first incident is not
historical, but that the other two incidents are
historical.

The beginning to Mark 3:19b-35 reads, "And he goes
into a house and assembled again the crowd, so that
they were not able to eat bread."

The location is not given, although the general
context suggests Capernaum or a near-by town in
Galilee.

I take the crowd that has re-assembled to be the
multitude mentioned a few verses earlier in 3:7-8,
"And Jesus, with his disciples, went away to the sea.
And a great multitude from Galilee followed him; also
from Judea and from Jerusalem, and from Idumea; and on
the other side of the Jordan (i.e., Perea); and around
Tyre and Sidon: a great multitude heard everything
that he was doing (and) they came to him."

If this is accurate information, then Jesus was
attracting the attention of  people of means residing
outside Galilee--the kind of people who could afford
the costs of a major trip and could afford to not work
for an extended period of time.   Being people of
means, it is likely that they would be educated as
well.

If this is accurate, then, the people present from
Jerusalem would not have been your average
Jerusalemites, but people from the upper educated
strata of  society.  Indeed, a little later (3:22)
Mark indicates the presence of scribes from Jerusalem.
  So, Mark is telling a tale with internal consistency.
  That doesn't necessitate that it be historically
based, but does lend this idea a certain degree of
credibility.

The same is true of the people from Tyre.  The
expectation is that, again, we are dealing with
educated people of means.  Even further, although
there was a Jewish minority in Tyre, the expectation
is that they were Gentiles.

Is there, then, any evidence that there had been upper
class educated Gentile Tyrians with Jesus at the time?

Well, I have done some research on GThomas and have
tentatively concluded that it can be divided into
three strata.  The earliest of these postulated strata
can be called Proto-Thomas and there is evidence
suggesting that it reflects the perspective of upper
class Gentile Tyrians.  There is an eight part posting
regarding it in the GThomas e-mail group (posts
4987-94) and the first is found here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/gthomas/message/4987
Now, these are the words that Mark attributes to Jesus
in 3:19b-35:
1. "How can Satan cast out Satan?  If a kingdom is
divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
And if Satan his risen up against himself and is
divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end.
But no one can enter a strong man's house and plunder
his goods, unless he first binds the strong man; then
indeed he may plunder his house." (RSV)
2. "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the
sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but
whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has
forgiveness, but isguilty of an eternal sin." (RSV)
(2) "Who are my mother and my brothers?....Here are my
mother and my brothers!  Whoever does the will of God
is my brother, and sister, and mother." (RSV)

While the first three sentences are not to be found in
Proto-Thomas, versions of ALL the remaining sentences
are.  See 35, "It is not possible to enter the house
of the strong man and take it by force unless he binds
his hands; then he will [be able to] ransack his
home.", and 44, "Whoever blasphemes aginst the Father
will be forgiven, and whever blasphemes against the
Son will be forgiven, but whosoever blasphemes against
the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either on earth
or in heaven.", and 99, "These here who do the will of
My Father are My brothers and My mother.  It is they
who will enter the Kingdom of My Father."

Further, there are enough differences between these
three passages and their Markan parallels to make it
unlikely that the author of Proto-Thomas learned of
them from reading GMark.


So, I think, there is a historical basis for 3:19b-35,
at least to the extent that a crowd, including at
least some scribes from Jerusalem and some upper class
Tyrian Gentiles, did collect at a house and at least
two incidents occurred there--one being the Beelzebul
incident and the other being the incident with Jesus'
mother and brothers.  (That there is an apparently
independent Q tradition account of the Beelzebul
incident increases my confidence that it did happen).
Further, there were, in fact, some upper class Gentile
Tyrians present in the crowd--with some of their
recollections of what Jesus said there being later
written done by one or more of them and eventually
making their way into Proto-Thomas and, beyond it,
into GThomas.

Andrew,  note that, above, I do *not* say that there
is historical basis to the incident where some close
to Jesus, likely family members, try to seize him and
declare that he is crazy.  There is no mention of it
in the Thomas tradition.  There is no mention of it in
the Q tradition.  Both Luke and Matthew omit it from
their own gospels.  Mark, and Mark alone, records it.
My opinion is that, most likely, it is either a bogus
tradition that came to Mark or else a Markan
invention--perhaps designed to slander the relations
of Jesus.

Andrew, also note that, above, I do *not* say that
Mark has accurately recorded what happened during the
Beelzebul incident and during the incident with his
mother and brothers.  To say that they have a
historical basis is one thing.  To say that Mark has
faithfully recorded what happened during them is
something else altogether.

Indeed, as a source on these two incidents, I think
that Markan tradition is inferior to both the Q
tradition and the Thomas tradition.

I think that all this material on these two incidents
is perhaps as early as 50 CE.  As mentioned in the
previous post, I think GMark was written c. 50 CE.  It
wouldn't suprise me if Q or, at least the part of it
containing material on the Beelzebul incident, was
written about the same time.  Ditto for the Thomas
tradtion material on these two incidents--which are
found in the postulated Proto-Thomas that, if real,
was written quite early..

I place the Q community in Galilee--most likely in the
region around Capernaum.  Since this is where these
two incidents occurred,  I think that there were
people in the Q community who had witnessed these two
incidents.

For reasons stated above, I think that the Thomas
tradition material regarding these two incidents is
based on the testimony of some upper class Tyrians who
had witnessed these two incidents.

I am more uncertain as to the location of the Markan
community.  At the current time, I am leaning towards
Caesarea Maratima.  In any event, I can think of no
reason to suppose that any members of the Markan
community had witnessed one or both of these
inciedents.

So, while I think that the material in the three
traditions regarding these two incidents might be of
about the same age, I also think that, while both the
Q and Thomas tradition material is likely based on
eye-witness testimony, this is not the case with the
Markan tradition material.  So, I think that the
Markan tradition material is inferior to the material
in the other two traditions.

Andrew, this is *not* to say that the material in the
Q and Thomas traditions faithfully reflects what
actually happened during these two incidents. This is
patently not true--for they radically differ on the
wording for the pronouncement regarding blasphemy
against the Spirit.  Too, even if the material was
written down as early as 50 CE, how many eye-witnesses
would still have been around?  Also, after a twenty
year lapse, how accurately could any still-surviving
eye-witness recall what was said and done?

Now, as to the Beelzebul incident, this is how I judge
the historical accuracy of the Markan account:
(1) I think that Mark omits that it was precipitated
by a dumb person starting to speak after allegedly
being freed of a demon by Jesus--which event is part
of the Q tradition and I think historical because I
think the Q tradition is based on eye-witness
testimony
(2) I think that the longer reply of Jesus found in
the Q tradition is closer to what Jesus actually said
than is the shorter reply of Jesus found in GMark
(3) I think that, as respects the saying about
blasphemy against the Spirit, Mark makes a gross error
in that he has Jesus speak about the sons of men
(i.e., human beings) where the Q and Thomas traditions
have Jesus speaking about himself as the Son--the Son
of Man in the Q tradition and the Son (of the Father)
in the Thomas tradition.

Now, as to the incident with his mother and brothers,
I judge the Markan account to be less accurate than
the Thomas account because I think that the Thomas
account is based on eye-witness testimony.

One of the conclusions I come to is that, even at this
early stage in his ministry, the historical Jesus
probably was by innuendo, implication and even, at
times, direct statement, claiming to be a divine Son
(of God).  His likening of himself to Mot, the one
mightier than Beelzebub (i.e., Prince Baal), implies
this.  Both the Q and Thomas traditions (each likely
based on eye-witness testimony) have him declaring
himself to be a divine Son--the Son of Man or Son (of
the Father).  In the Thomas version of the incident
with Jesus' mother and brother, again likely based on
eye-witness testimony, he speaks of God as "my
Father".  This certainly explains why people like the
scribes from Jerusalem and the upper class Tyrians
were making long journeys just to see and listen to
him--with some, after listening to him and watching
him, concluding that he was demon-possessed and others
believing in him.  Possibly, Mark knew this and
suppressed most of the evidence for this from his own
version of these two incidents for literary reasons,
e.g., the messianic secret motif in his gospel.

Frank McCoy
1809 N. English Apt. 17
Maplewood, MN USA 55109







__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Andrew Lloyd wrote:

> --- In crosstalk2@y..., zeba.crook@u... wrote:
> >In all this talk (not a new thing, mind you) HJ criteria, there
> >appears now and again the idea that the very quest for the HJ is
> >invalid, or unnecessary, or any number of things. But how is the HJ
> >quest not like text criticism (the quest for the text of the NT)?
>
> Perhaps the problem is that even if HJ studies were like textual
> criticism (and I think it is and it isn't) what is valid in one case
> is not thereby valid in another. You would have to give reasons for
> the validity of the various processes in each as an individual case.
> One way that HJ study is NOT like text criticism (although, then
> again, maybe not) is that we are assuming there was an "original"
> text we can get back to in textual criticism.

It's my understanding (and hope) that no text critic believes we are
reconstructing the 'original' texts of the NT.  Of course we are not; that's why
I
think it useful to remind people who reject hypothetical reconstructions (be
they
Q or the HJ) that the text they are using to make whatever arguments they would
is
itself hypothetical.

> An "original" Jesus
> would be an entirely different thing since its not the "bare matter"
> we are concerned with there so much as what that might be construed
> to mean. The text critic is happy to have all the "jots and tittles"
> in order. However, knowing Jesus said saying A or did deed B still
> leaves us the (inbuilt) leeway to interpret these things in
> accordance with our proclivities.

The text critic reconstructs a text, and people argue about what it means.  An
HJ
scholar distills some possible authentic snippets using agreed criteria, and
people argue about what they mean.  These are not that different.

> What they mean is as much the
> point as having a chronology of Jesus' life. Our job would not be
> complete without this. Not least for this reason, I would argue that
> a discipline of historical Jesus studies which searches for
> an "original" Jesus (a non-hermeneutic Jesus) is missing the point.
> In textual criticism "original text" is exactly the point. Thus, I
> disagree when you say "I think the two enterprises are perfectly
> analogous".

I meant that they are perfectly analogous, not in how they are carried out
(though
there are some interesting parallels), but in the necessity of them.  If you
want
to say anything about the Bible, you need a text to work with; if you want to
say
*anything* about Jesus, you need to apply some criteria in order to attempt to
distinguish between historical and redacted material.  They are analogous in
that
they are both necessary enterprises.


> However, they never tell us how they would know when they had the "original"
> Jesus. What is their measure?

How could anyone do this anyway?  Are we not safe to assume that Jesus was both
like and unlike his cultural peers, as we all are?  There is something useful in
knowing the ways in which Jesus was exactly like his peers (which is was
anthropological models can give us) and ways in which he may have been quite
different (which is was dissimilarity gives us).


> The criteria that Jack obliquely refers to in his
> responses in this thread I find unconvincing. Anthropological,
> historical and sociological criteria can only produce generic
> results and so their (much vaunted) use is blunted. Jesus was not a
> 1st century clone, he was an individual.

On another matter, this is a distinctly 20th century sounding assumption. Yes
Jesus was a single person, but a dyadic personality structure offers little
leeway
for rugged individualism.  People in the ancient world knew others through
stereotyping.  Just about all one needed to know about Joseph of Arimathea is
that
he was from Arimathea.  What you object to in terms of knowing modern Americans
is
perfectly fair, but it's not a standard we can use of first century people.

Zeb

Gordon,

Can I just clarify... the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus has
no formal connection with the Historical Jesus Section of SBL. The journal
is an independent, refereed, academic journal published by Sheffield
Academic Press. It is not affiliated with any academic body.

The SBL Historical Jesus Section was gracious enough to give a few minutes
to bring to the audience's attention the launching of a journal that is
focused on its own subject.

Hope this clarifies matters.

Bob Webb.


At 06:10 PM 02/12/02 -0500, you wrote:

>Hi Steve,
>
>Nice to meet you in Toronto.  Maybe the SBL group and the new journal ought
>to change their names, eh;)?  "The Historical Jesuses Section" and its
>journal (or will there be several;)???).
>
>Gordon Raynal


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the clarification.  BTW... I heard a bit of news that Bob Funk
and some of the J.Sem members might be invited to the H.J. section on the
10th anniversary of the pub of the 5 Gospels next year.  Any truth in that?

Gordon Raynal

>The SBL Historical Jesus Section was gracious enough to give a few minutes
>to bring to the audience's attention the launching of a journal that is
>focused on its own subject.
>
>Hope this clarifies matters.
>
>Bob Webb.

On Tue, 03 Dec 2002 10:20:13 -0500 Zeba Crook <zeba.crook@...> wrote:
> It's my understanding (and hope) that no text critic believes we are
> reconstructing the 'original' texts of the NT.  Of course we are not; that's
why I
> think it useful to remind people who reject hypothetical reconstructions (be
they
> Q or the HJ) that the text they are using to make whatever arguments they
would is
> itself hypothetical.

Well, maybe Westcott & Hort's THE N.T. IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK is mistitled,
then. ;-)  Seriously, the standard T.C. position (e.g. Maas) is that the
reconstructed critical text is as close as possible to the original.  Of
course, all our historical reconstructions are merely better and worse
approximations of what really happened, so I don't think that pointing out
such a trivially true fact is particularly helpful to the debate.

The major difference between T.C. and H.J. studies and source criticism (e.g.
Q) for that matter is in the nature of the transmission process.  In T.C., the
transmission of manuscripts, copied by scribes who are for the most part
trying to be faithful to their examplar, is fairly well understood and known
to be quite reliable.  Large parts (> 95%) of the text are simply not in any
reasonable doubt.

This is not true for source criticism and H.J., where the tradents and
transmission process in the first century are poorly understood and not
thought to be as textually reliable.  In source criticism, our access to Q (if
you believe in it) is mediated solely through Matthew's and Luke's rewritting
of it without any intent of being verbally faithful to it.  Similarly, the
Jesus material that is found in our sources is mediated through a process of
oral tradition, which is thought to have shaped the original material in
various ways.

Stephen Carlson

--
Stephen C. Carlson,
mailto:scarlson@...
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

Steve Black says:

>>I am not sure this model really does much for us. It might be helpful on a
personal level in sorting out personal motivations in attempting to achieve
greater personal honesty intellectually. It might provide a window into why
some scholars *might* reject and affirm what they do. But it certainly
doesn't provide any thing that will help us actually evaluate any given
argument.<<

Actually, I can also see its practical application in the study of the
psychological aspects that might have driven the progression of historical
events. For instance, it has been used to illuminate the process of
reinterpretation of prophesies in Jewish scriptures (_When Prophecy Failed:
Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament_, by
Robert P. Carroll, Seabury Press, 1979, no review located; "Ancient
Israelite Prophecy and Dissonance Theory," Robert P. Carroll in _Theology
and Sociology : a Reader_, edited by Robin Gill, Cassell, 1996_, pp.
238-253; "Christian Missions and the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" John G.
Gager, ibid, 276-292).

While Carroll applied it to prophetic literature proper, I can see it
employed in the analysis of the psychological motivations for mass religious
re-identifications, such as appears to have happened in the time of the
Maccabee rebellion against Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and that which occurred
again within Judaism, including early Christianity, after the destruction of
the Temple and defeat of the Jewish rebellion between 66-73 CE. Grad
students looking for a dissertation subject might want to take note that
such concepts are wide open for future research.

>>Cognitive Dissonance can be generated by faulty (or at least questionable)
ideas as well as by sound ones. As Peter Berger said, 'imaginary sticks can
draw real blood'. An emotional reaction may tell us about
social/intellectual location, but it will tell us nothing about factuality
or non-factuality.<<

Cognitive Dissonance is generally studied from the point of view of a
subject *after* s/he has made a decision between alternative views (either
as a practical necessity, or due to the acceptance of a doctrinal system, or
due to imposition by authority figures). It is true, though, that the truth
value of the available choices is irrelevant to the issue of what behaviors
are employed to reduce the resulting dissonance.

>>An example ... I might experience Cognitive Dissonance when I hear about
alien abductions, the shroud of Turin, out of body experiences, and so
forth. My reaction doesn't say anything about the reality or non-reality of
any of these. To say something regarding that, I will need *arguments*. Why
I draw the arguments that I do might (or might not) reflect an attempt to
deal with Cognitive Dissonance, but that still says nothing about the actual
arguments.<<

But for most people accounts of alien abductions or the existence of the
shroud would not cause much in the way of dissonance. First of all, most
people do not feel compelled to choose alien abductions in opposition to
less extreme alternative explanations (astrophysical or psychological,
etc.). Now if you woke up one morning and had the unshakable feeling you had
been abducted, that would cause dissonance because the previous explanatory
complexes that might have mitigated against choosing an abduction hypothesis
might seem insufficient to explain a personal experience. It has become
*personal* and hence emotionally charged.

>>other example ... I suspect that NT Wright comes to his conclusions
because of theological commitments - that he suppresses what is essentially
Cognitive Dissonance to achieve his construction. Now if this is true (and
it may not be - it is merely my hunch) it still doesn't say anything about
what he says. The only relevant question is if he makes a good case or not.
Because he never says anything like "this is true because I want it to be" -
but proceeds upon evidence and interpretation, we can now look at his work
and judge whether he has made his case or not. His motivations might be
interesting, but hardly significant to our "verdict".

So it seems to me that the Cognitive Dissonance model might help us achieve
better honesty, but beyond that, I am not sure it has much more to offer.<<

Now you are talking. If we believe the biblical accounts are "true" but also
know that the everyday world casts doubt in the miraculous world the bible
is steeped in, we *should* experience dissonance. The difference between N.
T. Wright and a snake-handling fundamentalist of the Appalachian mountains
is that N. T. Wright has developed many relatively sophisticated, and
essentially rational, approaches in order to reconcile his complexes of
belief and those related to his acceptance of historical-critical method.

But I am more concerned with examining the means by which dissonance can be
reduced. Because they are essentially practical solutions, they can have a
distinctly Machiavellian aura about them. Approaches can range from very
reasoned to very knee-jerk or reactionary. For example, the theory predicts
that forced or accidental exposure to new information that tends to increase
dissonance will frequently result in *misinterpretation and misperception of
the new information* by the person thus exposed *in an effort to avoid
dissonance increase*. This is *serious business* if employed by a
professional critic or anyone who professes to employ the
historical-critical method. My opinion on this matter is that such
misrepresentation or misperception is more likely to occur in an emotionally
charged atmosphere than a rationally charged atmosphere.

Also, dissonance introduced by disagreement expressed by other persons may
be reduced by changing one's own opinion, or by influencing the others to
change their opinion, and by rejecting those who disagree. The first option
could be applicable if the alternative position proves persuasive, but also
if the compliance is induced. The second option can be as innocuous as
presenting a reasoned response, to as reactionary as immediately raising a
rallying cry against the opposing position. The third option is also
problematic, especially if the disagreeing opinion contradicts some sort of
consensus, since immediate marginalization of the proponent of the new
opinion arbitrarily cuts off criticism at the knees.

If anyone remembers it, A. Powell Davies provided some very interesting
observations on the early DSS controversies, including the sometimes
bitterly intense opposition to them on many grounds and the generally
extreme rejections of suggestions for their interpretation that went against
the hitherto prevailing consensus regarding the nature and theology of
Judaism around the turn of the Christian era (_The Meaning of the Dead Sea
Scrolls_, 1956, Mentor Books paperback).

It goes the other way as well. Galileo had one heck of a problem bucking the
consensus, but partly because he refused good advice to publish his theories
as hypotheses rather than matters of fact, and when forced to do so (on the
advice of his friend, the Pope) he did so by publishing his theory using a
fictive dialogue, in which the other party was a sarcastic parody of the
Pope as the embodiment of irrational dogmatism (who was not that way at all
in real life, and who henceforth refused to speak to Galileo after officers
of the Inquisition informed him of the parody).

Having chosen the Copernican model, which appealed to him on account of
reason, Galileo would have been experiencing dissonance since many of his
contemporaries, who he needed to interact with everyday but who were not
ready to let empirical evidence overrule accepted dogma, were quite opposed
to this kind of idea. While many of his astronomical ideas were quite right,
Galileo let his emotions rule the means he chose to propagate his theory,
and forced his opponents to react in an equally emotional manner, thus
guaranteeing his condemnation by the Inquisition.

The theory states that the effectiveness of efforts to reduce dissonance
will depend upon the resistance to change of the cognitive elements involved
in the dissonance and on the availability of information which will provide,
or of other persons who will supply, new cognitive elements which will be
consonant with existing cognition. Yet it is also proposed that the presence
of dissonance can lead to seeking of new information which will provide
cognition consonant with existing cognitive elements as well as to avoiding
those sources of new information which would be likely to increase the
existing dissonance.

Since the major sources of resistance to change for a cognitive element are
the responsiveness of such cognitive elements to "reality," as well as the
extent to which an element exists in consonant relations with many other
elements, it seems to me that the best way to approach new theories and
hypotheses is to emphasize the free availability of a variety of reasoned
opinions on any one topic. This is because the maximum dissonance which can
exist between two elements is equal to the resistance to change of the less
resistant of the two elements, the less resistant cognitive element will be
changed in order to reduce the dissonance when the dissonance exceeds this
magnitude. In time, the more reasonable opinions will tend to be adopted.

However, toleration of reactionary and knee-jerk evaluations of these new
ideas, not matter how authoritative the evaluator may otherwise be, is
counter-productive and actually dangerous to progress in any particular
field. It is not enough to assert that it is the logical fallacy of "Ad
Hominem Tu Quoque" to reject an opinion on these kinds of grounds alone. It
may be true that inaccurate or inconsistent opinions expressed by a
proponent of an idea do not invalidate the idea, it is not true that we
*have* to accept all ideas as of equal value. Is anyone here ready to place
J D Crossan or N T Wright on the same level as a Christian fundamentalist
apologist or a new age channeling theory proponent?

In summary, I would assert that an understanding of Cognitive Dissonance and
the ways that individuals or groups attempt to reduce dissonance can and
will help us be better critics, both in the way we look at historical
processes as well as how we evaluate the actions and reactions of critics
(including ourselves) in relation to the critical work they or we express.

I am aware of a more recent book on the subject of CD that should bring the
theory up to date for those interested: _Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a
Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology_ (Science Conference Series) by Eddie
Harmon-Jones (Editor), Judson Mills (Editor) (Hardcover, March 1999).

Respectfully,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA

>Steve Black says:
>
>>>I am not sure this model really does much for us. It might be helpful on a
>personal level in sorting out personal motivations in attempting to achieve
>greater personal honesty intellectually. It might provide a window into why
>some scholars *might* reject and affirm what they do. But it certainly
>doesn't provide any thing that will help us actually evaluate any given
>argument.<<
>Dave Hindley wrote...
>Actually, I can also see its practical application in the study of the
>psychological aspects that might have driven the progression of historical
>events. For instance, it has been used to illuminate the process of
>reinterpretation of prophesies in Jewish scriptures[snip]

Thanks for the clarification. I think I misunderstood you as saying
something you were not saying. This above example is an excellent one
showing how this theory CAN be useful.
[snip]

>
>So it seems to me that the Cognitive Dissonance model might help us achieve
>better honesty, but beyond that, I am not sure it has much more to offer.<<
>
>Now you are talking. If we believe the biblical accounts are "true" but also
>know that the everyday world casts doubt in the miraculous world the bible
>is steeped in, we *should* experience dissonance. The difference between N.
>T. Wright and a snake-handling fundamentalist of the Appalachian mountains
>is that N. T. Wright has developed many relatively sophisticated, and
>essentially rational, approaches in order to reconcile his complexes of
>belief and those related to his acceptance of historical-critical method.
>[snip]

To paraphrase (and simplify) what I hear you saying here... We live
in a world with many "contrary" thoughts and ideas to our own - no
matter what our ideas might be. How we "deal" with these "contrary"
ideas reflects the integrity of our intellectual processes and will
determine the value of our "results".

>
>I am aware of a more recent book on the subject of CD that should bring the
>theory up to date for those interested: _Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a
>Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology_ (Science Conference Series) by Eddie
>Harmon-Jones (Editor), Judson Mills (Editor) (Hardcover, March 1999).

I'll put this on my ever growing "to read" list.


--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

If you get confused, listen to the music play...
-Robert Hunter From "Franklin's Tower"

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Steve Black <sdblack@t...> wrote:
>It seems we are close in some ways and yet very far apart. Because I
>am very much not sure what the HJesus was really like, I try to stay
>with what I do know (to a degree anyways) and that is what the early
>church thought.  It seems to me that you make a rather easy jump
>from what the church thought and confessed to what actually was. I
>see no grounds for doing this.

I am not saying that what the early church said happened was what
happened.  From an historical critical point of view this is very
nearly impossible to establish.  My argument is that all we have is
found in the documents produced and preserved by this "church."  From
this I find efforts to reconstruct that Jesus said "X" or Jesus
did "Y" to be a bit of a game where the individual scholar picks and
chooses those things he finds most congenial to his beliefs about
this "reconstructed" Jesus figure.

So it would seem that we are quite close in this.  I do believe that
some of the "big" details in the life of Jesus are recoverable to us
(like the name of his parents, that James was a brother, and he had
other siblings, that he was raised in Nazareth and spent most of his
life in Galilee, his death by crucifixion, his baptism, burial, and
the belief in his resurrection, for example, but I do not believe we
can go much beyond this with any degree of historical certainty.

>We wouldn't be talking about him if a world religion hadn't sprung
>up around him. Or if we did, it would be with the same antiquarian
>interest we might show in the "Teacher of Righteousness" of the DSS.
>The impact Jesus had is due to many factors, not the least being
>that he became the central figure in a network of symbols and myths
>(mostly originating well before the time of Jesus) which eventually
>became what is now known as Xnty. The HJesus was all but lost under
>all these symbols, and is not nearly as important in any event as
>the Christ of Christology as far as "impact" goes.

I agree broadly with what you have said above, though I am not
certain how deeply you go with the Historical Jesus being "buried"
under the layers of myth and legend.  Certain details about his life
do seem recoverable, but as to specific sayings being "authentic"
or "inauthentic," I just do not see that historical and literary
studies can bring us to a point where we can say yes, he definitely
said "X" and no, he definitely did not say "Y".  At most, we can say
that specific groups and individuals from among his earliest
followers believe he said "X" or "Y".  From this we can then learn
more about these individuals and groups, because this is, after all,
where the evidence happens to be.

Peace,

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

--- In crosstalk2@y..., zeba.crook@u... wrote:

>Is this not an unnecessarily sweeping condemnation of HJ
>scholarship?

I do not see it so much as a condemnation, as a request for some
humility in our quest for the historical Jesus.  Jesus never wrote
anything down that we have found, and it seems extremely unlikely
that we will ever find such a document in the future.  Thus, what we
have is a carefully selected set of sayings and deeds preserved by
the earliest followers of Jesus.  From this set of facts, it seems
prudent to me to admit that we can only know what these people
believed about Jesus.  To go beyond that would be to over reach.

As an example, imagine trying to reconstruct the "authentic" words of
Socrates from the writings of Plato.  How would we really know, and
how could they be separated from the "inauthentic" or "fictive
creations" (assuming Plato would even understand what we were talking
about when we used such expressions). I think that this kind of
effort would be highly question begging and ultimately circular in
its reasoning, and do not doubt that we would have at least as many
reconstructions as we would have scholars making the attempt.

>Do you have anyone particular in mind?

Not really.  I have read a good number of reconstructions, each
carefully reasoned, explained and defended from the evidence
available to us.  The pattern I have seen emerge from this is that
Jesus looks a lot like the scholar making the reconstruction, and
this has led me to my conclusion.

> If one were to confine one's portrait of the HJ
>to multiply attested material and material that was dissimilar to
>later Xity, how would this amount to scholars picking and choosing
>what was congenial to them?

Well, if we did confine ourselves to such a reconstruction, we would
have to assume that the Historical Jesus shared nothing with later
Christian beliefs, and this does not seem to be likely.  In any case,
it would be a very incomplete reconstruction in which the Jesus of
history never really said anything interesting at all.  Given the
impact the man's life had on our history, this strikes me as
implausible in the extreme.

>I'm not suggesting there is no room within these for debate and
>interpretation (like over what constitutes independent witnesses),
>but were not these and the other criteria devised as a way of trying
>to eliminate the influence of the modern times and wishes of the
>modern reader?

I do not doubt that this was the intent.  But the fact remains that
highly gifted and intelligent scholars of every stripe have examined
the same evidence, and drawn radically different reconstructions of
the historical Jesus.  For better or worse, it appears that we
moderns will never escape our personal prejudices and beliefs in our
studies, and the Jesus we find from our studies is going to look an
aweful lot like what we want him to look like.

The tools may be there to produce an objectively "real"
or "authentic" Jesus, but if they are, we have yet to succeed in
using them correctly.  This has led me to a general pessimism in this
matter. I am more confident that we can reconstruct some of the
details of his life, as well as the impact that he had on the lives
of his earliest followers than that we can say Jesus definitely
said "X" but did not say "Y".

Peace,

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

Brian,

Brian Trafford wrote:

> I do not see it so much as a condemnation, as a request for some
> humility in our quest for the historical Jesus.  Jesus never wrote
> anything down that we have found, and it seems extremely unlikely
> that we will ever find such a document in the future.  Thus, what we
> have is a carefully selected set of sayings and deeds preserved by
> the earliest followers of Jesus.  From this set of facts, it seems
> prudent to me to admit that we can only know what these people
> believed about Jesus.  To go beyond that would be to over reach.

I agree.

> >Do you have anyone particular in mind?
>
> Not really.  I have read a good number of reconstructions, each
> carefully reasoned, explained and defended from the evidence
> available to us.  The pattern I have seen emerge from this is that
> Jesus looks a lot like the scholar making the reconstruction, and
> this has led me to my conclusion.

I'm sorry; I mean no disrespect, but this makes me laugh.  Do you imagine that
Crossan's Jesus looks like him?  I think this is a criticism that was better
levelled at the "Lives" of Jesus done by late 19th c. German and French writers.
I think it holds little authentic criticism for Crossan, Sanders, Borg, and the
like.  It also seems too strongly steeped in the post-modern maxim that modern
scholars are incapable of not reading their own selves into everything they do.

> Well, if we did confine ourselves to such a reconstruction, we would
> have to assume that the Historical Jesus shared nothing with later
> Christian beliefs, and this does not seem to be likely.  In any case,
> it would be a very incomplete reconstruction in which the Jesus of
> history never really said anything interesting at all.  Given the
> impact the man's life had on our history, this strikes me as
> implausible in the extreme.

The criteria, almost all of them are positive criteria - they are designed to
signpost "authentic" material, not to reject material as inauthentic.  It is
recognised that singly attested material and material in conjunction with the
early church could be authentic, but it brackets it since we cannot tell
authentic
material in this category from inauthentic.  HJ scholars build their portraits
on
this bank of "authentic" data.  The reason works like this:  assuming that some
of
what we have is closely related to authentic material (and I accept your
position
that there might be none of this in the gospels), these criteria help us to
delineate material that has the greatest chance of being authentic.  From there
they do their work of interpretation.

> The tools may be there to produce an objectively "real"
> or "authentic" Jesus, but if they are, we have yet to succeed in
> using them correctly.  This has led me to a general pessimism in this
> matter. I am more confident that we can reconstruct some of the
> details of his life, as well as the impact that he had on the lives
> of his earliest followers than that we can say Jesus definitely
> said "X" but did not say "Y".

Again, I agree; but I don't think this is what the criteria are really meant to
give us in the first place.  It's a relationship of probability , not of
concrete
reconstruction.

Cheers,

Zeb

--- Brian Trafford <bj_traff@...> wrote:

> I agree broadly with what you have said above,
> though I am not
> certain how deeply you go with the Historical Jesus
> being "buried"
> under the layers of myth and legend.  Certain
> details about his life
> do seem recoverable, but as to specific sayings
> being "authentic"
> or "inauthentic," I just do not see that historical
> and literary
> studies can bring us to a point where we can say
> yes, he definitely
> said "X" and no, he definitely did not say "Y".  At
> most, we can say
> that specific groups and individuals from among his
> earliest
> followers believe he said "X" or "Y".  From this we
> can then learn
> more about these individuals and groups, because
> this is, after all,
> where the evidence happens to be.

Brian, I am in agreement with you that much of the
deeds and words of Jesus are not recoverable. I also
agree that there are certain deeds (perhaps not words)
that are recoverable (i.e. He lived and died by
crucifixion). However, where I would differ with you
is that I believe we can reasonably deduce what Jesus
did NOT say and do once we discover the gospel
authors' intentions/genre, which may be possible via
discovering their sources (i.e. midrash of OT
passages). I do not think we should assume, as you
seem to do, that just because a gospel author wrote
that Jesus said and did thus and thus, that they
actually believed He did say thus and thus. In other
words, I do not think we should assume that the gospel
authors' intentions were to write literal-historical
events of the sayings and deeds of Jesus. We cannot
say, "at most", that Jesus' disciples believed Jesus
said and did this because we are not yet sure of what
their intentions were in the writing of those stories.
What say you?


=====

Matthew Estrada

113 Laurel Court

Peachtree City, Ga 30269


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

--- In crosstalk2@y..., "Robert M. Schacht" <r_schacht@y...> wrote:
> At 05:11 AM 12/03/02, Andrew Lloyd wrote:
>
> >Zeba,
> >
> >...One way that HJ study is NOT like text criticism (although,
then
> >again, maybe not) is that we are assuming there was an "original"
> >text we can get back to in textual criticism. An "original" Jesus
> >would be an entirely different thing since its not the "bare
matter"
> >we are concerned with there so much as what that might be
construed
> >to mean.
>
> Andrew,
> There are probably some on the list who would disagree, and who
would argue
> that the search for "meaning" is secondary, and has often gotten
in the way
> of research on the historical Jesus. Admittedly, one's
preconceptions often
> shape one's search for the data of history, but one goal of 20th
century
> critical scholarship was indeed that very "bare matter" to which
you refer.
> It may not interest *you,* but it was their professed concern.

Bob,

I am aware of the "professed" concern of many scholars, including a
number from the 20th century. I'm also interested in what they
profess as their concern in order to see if it matches up with their
output. My mention of "bad faith" in the post you quote from is a
very general summary of my response to such profession. (I am happy
to debate specifics if you want to suggest some.) I also doubt the
existence of the category "bare matter" and only used it previously
as a rhetorical tool to set up the debate. I think that historical
Jesus study is a hermeneutic enterprise tout court.

[Andrew]
> >....I would argue that
> >a discipline of historical Jesus studies which searches for
> >an "original" Jesus (a non-hermeneutic Jesus) is missing the
point.

[Bob]
> Whose point? Certainly the evangelists would agree with you. But
it that
> non-hermeneutic Jesus has been, indeed, the overt goal.

My point and those who would agree with me. I would consider a "non-
hermeneutic Jesus" an impossibility since ANY interpreter
involvement to my mind produces a hermeneutic Jesus (and this is not
a matter of degree but of either/or) and thus I argue that those
searching for such are banging their heads against the proverbial
brick wall.

[Andrew]
> >...On the wider question of criteria I think that historical Jesus
> >scholars operate with some measure of bad faith. Many do indeed
> >follow the "original Jesus" paradigm. However, they never tell us
> >how they would know when they had the "original" Jesus. What is
> >their measure? The criteria that Jack obliquely refers to in his
> >responses in this thread I find unconvincing. Anthropological,
> >historical and sociological criteria can only produce generic
> >results and so their (much vaunted) use is blunted. Jesus was not
a
> >1st century clone, he was an individual. Its like my describing
the
> >Americans on this board according to my generic view of Americans.

[Bob]
> This criticism is not fair, and reads as if you have not
understood the
> methodology of critical scholarship. Indeed, the search for
original
> sayings of Jesus has been guided not by what passes for First
Century
> Jewish norms (or any other norms), but what stands out *against*
those
> norms.

Am I to take it then Bob that you are looking for the "stand out"
Jesus? Does everything about Jesus stand out (which would seem to
make Jesus a lunatic by psychological criteria and an oddity by
social-scientific criteria)? Now, just because this material stands
out why, ON THAT ACCOUNT, does it make it Jesus? That seems flawed
reasoning to me. Further, it sounds like manipulation of your own
creations.

[Bob]
>The uniqueness of Jesus was very much on point. I'd suggest that
you (re-?)read the introduction to The Five Gospels.

You suggest I read The Five Gospels? I have in fact done this more
than once (as well as trawling through the Seminar's premises and
rules of evidence as provided on Stevan Davies' webpage) and I have
reserved a space in my PhD thesis to criticise this work. However,
is this the same book that regularly disbars sayings of Jesus since
the putative saying was "common lore"? Is this the same book that
disbars sayings of Jesus because there is a methodological bar on
Jesus quoting the scriptures? Is this the book written by the
scholars who want to counter fundamentalist Christianity and
televangelists (thus not producing scholarship that such would, or
could, support, this, in turn, affecting their picture of Jesus)?
Finally (for now), is this the book that searches for the "real"
Jesus (p. 8). Do you have another, less controversial, text I could
consider?

[Andrew]
> >Indeed, I follow the pragmatic assertion that you cannot "method"
or
> >"criteria" your way to Jesus.

[Bob]
> You will find a lot of company among evangelical Christians and
> fundamentalists, who will be quite happy with your assertion.

Maybe I will but will they want to follow me through pragmatic
theory and on into brushes with poststructuralism? I'm not sure what
the relevance of your comment here is, especially when we would not
be ending up in a similar place for anything like similar reasons.
If you want me to outline why "method" or "criteria" do
not "guarantee" anything, however, I will be happy to do so on
request.

[Andrew]
> >  Of course, people don't like to take notice of these
> >things since it discourages them from what they are wrapped up in.
> >However, I nonetheless have some scepticism of the ability of our
> >discipline's criteria if we are going to follow an "original
Jesus"
> >paradigm. In fact, so much is this so that I would rather see
> >historical Jesus studies reconfigured along different lines.
>
[Bob]
> Such as Wright's Critical Realism?

Only in part. So that you are aware, I'm actually critical of Wright
for being too "realist" and not enough "critical". His is but a
halfway house. So I am not his champion, though I seriously applaud
him for putting "theory" up there as well as his historical Jesus
research. In fact, there is no historical Jesus scholar I'm aware of
whose theory I would endorse. Indeed, compared to the theorists of
other fields (literary, philosophical, cultural) the historical
Jesus field seems rather theory-less. I regard this is as a bad
thing since it rather suggests we don't really know what we are
doing since we are desperate for the results of our (uncritical)
endeavours.

Andrew Lloyd
Nottingham, England

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Zeba Crook <zeba.crook@u...> wrote:
> Andrew Lloyd wrote:
> > The criteria that Jack obliquely refers to in his
> > responses in this thread I find unconvincing. Anthropological,
> > historical and sociological criteria can only produce generic
> > results and so their (much vaunted) use is blunted. Jesus was
not a
> > 1st century clone, he was an individual.

[Zeb]
> On another matter, this is a distinctly 20th century sounding
assumption. Yes
> Jesus was a single person, but a dyadic personality structure
offers little leeway
> for rugged individualism.  People in the ancient world knew others
through
> stereotyping.  Just about all one needed to know about Joseph of
Arimathea is that
> he was from Arimathea.  What you object to in terms of knowing
modern Americans is
> perfectly fair, but it's not a standard we can use of first
century people.
>
> Zeb

Zeb,

I was not referring to "rugged individualism". I was referring to
the more general generic/specific distinction. A 1st century Jew is
the generic and Jesus would be the specific. I agree that in some
ways the generic is relevant to Jesus - he was part of the genus
concerned. However, its only through the lens of the specific that
we get JESUS. And I have skepticism we have criteria to get that.

Andrew Lloyd
Nottingham, England

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...> wrote:
  > Now, Andrew Lloyd wrote:
>
> >On the wider question of criteria I think that
> >historical Jesus scholars operate with some measure
> >of bad faith...The criteria that Jack obliquely
> >refers to in his responses in this thread I find
> >unconvincing. Anthropological, historical and
> >sociological criteria can only produce generic
> >results and so their (much vaunted) use is blunted.
> >Jesus was not a 1st century clone, he was an
> >individual. Its like my describing the
> >Americans on this board according to my generic
> >view of Americans.
>
> You tar with one hell of a broad brush and thus
> somewhat discredit your statements in advance. What
> you're getting at applies more to the anthropological
> approach than the historical one. Allow me to paint my
> own broad brush in saying that anthropology/sociology
> seeks the generic, while history seeks the unique. For
> instance, members of the anthropologically-focused
> Context Group (Malina, Rohrbaugh, Neyrey, Oakman)
> focus on the common denominators of Mediterranean
> cultures; i.e. they seek the generic, which
> admittedly, when unqualified with other approaches,
> can result in the "clone" portrait you worry about.
> The anthropologist asks what's common about all
> temples in the ancient Mediterranean. The historian
> asks what's unique about the Judean temple in
> first-century Palestine. You need to ask both
> questions, nest-ce pas?
>
> Loren Rosson III
> Nashua NH
> rossoiii@y...

Loren,

how about "history seeks to present the specific" instead of what
you have said? As to the historian as opposed to the anthropologist,
it seems to me they both use general categories and, the historian
concentrating on difference and the anthropologist on similarity.
There's some more broad brush for you. And if you want a paint job
done quickly you use that one first and the finer brushes later on.

Andrew Lloyd
Nottingham, England

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Zeba Crook <zeba.crook@u...> wrote:
> Brian,
>
> Brian Trafford wrote:
>
> > I do not see it so much as a condemnation, as a request for some
> > humility in our quest for the historical Jesus.  Jesus never
wrote
> > anything down that we have found, and it seems extremely unlikely
> > that we will ever find such a document in the future.  Thus,
what we
> > have is a carefully selected set of sayings and deeds preserved
by
> > the earliest followers of Jesus.  From this set of facts, it
seems
> > prudent to me to admit that we can only know what these people
> > believed about Jesus.  To go beyond that would be to over reach.

[Zeb]
> I agree.

It could be seen as a pedantic point, but on what basis do we say
that it is "extremely unlikely" that we will ever find anything
written by Jesus"? I know of know way we could gauge this plausibly.
That said, the earliest evidence for Jesus is, of course, evidence
for what people believed about him. However, on what basis
the "only" in Brian's comments with which you agree? This could be
conceived as sheer unwillingness to work out ways to go beyond such
a conservative resting place. I would rather say that its reasonable
that people believed some true things about Jesus and the problem is
working out which they are.

[Brian]
>The pattern I have seen emerge from this is that
> > Jesus looks a lot like the scholar making the reconstruction, and
> > this has led me to my conclusion.

[Zeb]
> I'm sorry; I mean no disrespect, but this makes me laugh.  Do you
imagine that
> Crossan's Jesus looks like him?  I think this is a criticism that
was better
> levelled at the "Lives" of Jesus done by late 19th c. German and
French writers.
> I think it holds little authentic criticism for Crossan, Sanders,
Borg, and the
> like.  It also seems too strongly steeped in the post-modern maxim
that modern
> scholars are incapable of not reading their own selves into
everything they do.

If you have a problem with this "post-modern maxim" Zeb I'd be happy
to hear it. I'm writing a PhD thesis (title: "The Posthistorical
Jesus: Historical Investigations, Autobiographical Opportunities")
pretty much based on it! Of course, I'm not so vulgar as to suggest
that the Jesuses scholars produce are mirror images. Its more a
matter of the pervasive influence of personal experience and a
redescription of the historical study of Jesus. Our historical
Jesuses grow out of our lives as branches off trees.

[Zeb]
> The criteria, almost all of them are positive criteria - they are
designed to
> signpost "authentic" material, not to reject material as
inauthentic.  It is
> recognised that singly attested material and material in
conjunction with the
> early church could be authentic, but it brackets it since we
cannot tell authentic
> material in this category from inauthentic.  HJ scholars build
their portraits on
> this bank of "authentic" data.  The reason works like this:
assuming that some of
> what we have is closely related to authentic material (and I
accept your position
> that there might be none of this in the gospels), these criteria
help us to
> delineate material that has the greatest chance of being
authentic.  From there
> they do their work of interpretation.

To designate material "authentic" is to designate that not so
designated "inauthentic". One ineluctably carries the other with it.
It may sound nicer to put it your way (historical Jesus scholars
being nice, positive people) but my way covers it as well does it
not?

Andrew Lloyd
Nottingham, England

In a message dated 11/26/2002 7:46:21 PM Central Standard Time,
seandutoit@... writes:

> Ed Tyler wrote: >>It is emphatically *not* a precept or any such thing of
> postmodernism that there is no "external reality" and no "objective truth."
>
> As Fish put it, if that's what postmodernist academicians teach, then
> they'd
> be "not so much dangerous as silly."  And as Rorty likes to put it,
> "Objectivity is what we (academicians) do." <<<
>
> Almost.  However, I think you're right when you say: >>The epistemological
> question postmodernism poses is rather the negotiation of that which is
> true
> and that which is believed to be true in a world of variable "reference
> groups."<<<
>
> With regards to the historical Jesus the question is which interpretive
> community has got it right?  Fish argues in his essay, "Interpreting the
> Variorum," the fact that readers both agree and disagree on the meaning of
> texts is evidence for the existence of interpretive communities (Is There a
>
> Text in this Class? 171).   These communities are based solely on the fact
> that some readers share with other readers the same “strategies,” as he
> calls them, for understanding texts.  Fish contends that "these strategies
> exist prior to the act of reading and therefore determine the shape of what
>
> is read rather than, as is usually assumed, the other way around" (171).
> He
> then goes on to claim that what we "see" in a text is not inevitably the
> same as what is "there" in the text; and what is "there" in the text may
> simply be, and cannot be differentiated from, what we "see" in the text.
> Thus, the whole question of priority (Which came first, the text or the
> interpretation?) is a bogus question to Fish because the two (text and
> interpretation) cannot be separated.
>
> Hence, there is no ONE right interpretation or "objective Truth" in the
> text.  This is the issue at hand.  It's not about denying "external
> reality"
> you're right.  But it is about denying that one's truth can be superior to
> another because there is not "objective meaning" which we can grasp in the
> text.  Thus, with regards to the Historical Jesus, all portraits are
> legitimated.  Thus, Rorty's axiom, "truth is what my peers will let me get
> away with" makes much sense of this understanding.
>

This is another instance that illustrates why Fish began the lengthy
paragraph I cited with the words "I would not be misunderstood."  It's true,
of course, that it is in practice impossible to produce a definitive,
"objective truth" reading that will be universally agreed upon.  But it's a
misunderstanding of Fish to say that therefore "all portraits are
legitimated."   It might (or might not, depending upon the subject) be
appropriate to say that "A plurality of portraits are legitimated."  (But
that's far from "all.") That statement seems to me to be an accurate
assessment of the state of HJ scholarship.  Probably, Fish is correct when he
attributes such a plurality to differing antecedent strategies; I don't think
this is the only cause in this case.

I think Fish makes it quite clear that, yes, one does hold one's truth to be
superior not only to "another" but to "all others."  And one does so "with no
epistemological reservations."  The question he raises is how one is to
negotiate this truth in an arena populated by strategies that produce
competing, equally legitimated readings.  That question is especially cogent
in HJ studies.  This forum is, it appears to me, proof positive of the
general truth of the notion of "interpretive communities."  If Fish lurked
here for a couple of weeks, he'd write another book.


> Thus, my proposal is that we engage with a Critical Realist epistemology
> that avoids these pittfalls and allows us to judge which portrait or the
> Historical Jesus is superior.  We'll obviously never reach a complete
> consensus, but that is the ideal to aim for.  If however, we adopt such an
> approach there can never be any debate about the historical Jesus because
> all opinions are relative.  Thus Crossan and Wright's portrait are both
> correct, even though I suggest they are diametrically opposed on nearly
> every point.
>
>

They are diametrically opposed, more or less.  Arguably, they are both
legitimate.  But they are not both "correct," nor could they possibly be; and
it would misrepresent Fish to ascribe such a conclusion to his writings.

Ed Tyler

http://hometown.aol.com/leeedgartyler/myhomepage/index.html


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Zeba Crook <zeba.crook@u...> wrote:
I wrote:
> > Not really.  I have read a good number of reconstructions, each
> > carefully reasoned, explained and defended from the evidence
> > available to us.  The pattern I have seen emerge from this is that
> > Jesus looks a lot like the scholar making the reconstruction, and
> > this has led me to my conclusion.

Zeba replied:
>I'm sorry; I mean no disrespect, but this makes me laugh.  Do you
>imagine that Crossan's Jesus looks like him?

Once again I am not leveling my criticism against any one specific
scholar, but in the case of Crossan, there can be little doubt that
the reconstructed Jesus of his work is very congenial to his own
personal theology and ideology, especially visa vie Crossan's
socialistic beliefs.  Typically what is encountered is a good deal of
special pleading (not just with Crossan BTW, but with any scholar
examining the life, words and deeds of Jesus) where some evidence is
accepted, and others rejected based upon how well it supports the
construction of the Jesus desired.  Hence the maxim that studies in
the life of Jesus allows one to do a good deal of theolgy and call it
history, or autobiography, and call it biography.

> I think this is a criticism that was better
> levelled at the "Lives" of Jesus done by late 19th c. German and
> French writers.

If I saw more universal agreement on what Jesus is thought to have
actually said and done, I might agree with you.  As it stands today,
the evidence of modern works still tends to produce radically
different pictures of the historical Jesus, and yet all of these
works are based upon more or less the same evidence, albeit with
different emphasis.

>I think it holds little authentic criticism for Crossan, Sanders,
>Borg, and the like.

Actually, I think it is appropriate for these and a good many other
scholars as well.  Nor do I leave out of this list those scholars
with whom I am in the greatest agreement.

>It also seems too strongly steeped in the post-modern maxim that
>modern scholars are incapable of not reading their own selves into
>everything they do.

I would not limit this phenomenon to scholars.  It has been my
experience that when one reads (myself included) something I find
convincing, one tends to consider it to be objective and rationally
based.  Yet when one encounters something antithical to one's
beliefs, it is most common to reject it as implausible or poorly
argued.  Interestingly, people of equal intelligence, resources and
ability will still draw radically different conclusions as to what
seems plausible and rational, suggesting that we may need to be
cautious in what we call objective.

>The criteria, almost all of them are positive criteria - they are
>designed to signpost "authentic" material, not to reject material as
>inauthentic.

Actually, I began this discussion after reading a post from Ted
Weeden in which he did exactly this.  Also, it is typical to hear
scholars refer to both "authentic" and "inauthentic" (or "fictive
creations" of the evangelists) in their writings and discussions.  It
was against this tendancy that I first expressed my concerns.
Perhaps if we could confine our discussions to what we consider to
be "authentic," and the remainder to "disputable," or "unverifiable"
we could make some progress.  But my experience is that as soon
as "X" is authentic, the natural result is to say that "Y" is
inauthentic, or fictive.

>It is recognised that singly attested material and material in
>conjunction with the early church could be authentic, but it
>brackets it since we cannot tell authentic material in this category
>from inauthentic.  HJ scholars build their portraits on
>this bank of "authentic" data.

If this were so, then I would be in full agreement with you.  Again,
this is not my own experience however, and was why I began the thread.

Peace,

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

--- In crosstalk2@y..., Matthew Estrada <matt_estrada@y...> wrote:
> Brian, I am in agreement with you that much of the
> deeds and words of Jesus are not recoverable. I also
> agree that there are certain deeds (perhaps not words)
> that are recoverable (i.e. He lived and died by
> crucifixion). However, where I would differ with you
> is that I believe we can reasonably deduce what Jesus
> did NOT say and do once we discover the gospel
> authors' intentions/genre, which may be possible via
> discovering their sources (i.e. midrash of OT
> passages). I do not think we should assume, as you
> seem to do, that just because a gospel author wrote
> that Jesus said and did thus and thus, that they
> actually believed He did say thus and thus. In other
> words, I do not think we should assume that the gospel
> authors' intentions were to write literal-historical
> events of the sayings and deeds of Jesus. We cannot
> say, "at most", that Jesus' disciples believed Jesus
> said and did this because we are not yet sure of what
> their intentions were in the writing of those stories.
> What say you?

Hello again Matthew

I would have to see your methodology and rules of evidence that would
demonstrate that the authors of the gospels (and presumably their
readers?) did not believe that their stories were reports of actual
events and sayings of Jesus.  For example, John's Gospel goes out of
its way to say that what is reported is true and factual events.
Luke prefaces his own Gospel in much the same way.  If we are to
reject their claims, what would be the means by which you would
demonstrate that the author were knowingly making it up even as they
said that they were not?

Brian Trafford
Calgary, AB, Canada

Quoting Andrew Lloyd <a.lloyd2@...>:

> >It also seems too strongly steeped in the post-modern maxim that modern
> > scholars are incapable of not reading their own selves into everything they
> > do.
>
> If you have a problem with this "post-modern maxim" Zeb I'd be happy
> to hear it. I'm writing a PhD thesis (title: "The Posthistorical
> Jesus: Historical Investigations, Autobiographical Opportunities")
> pretty much based on it! Of course, I'm not so vulgar as to suggest
> that the Jesuses scholars produce are mirror images. Its more a
> matter of the pervasive influence of personal experience and a
> redescription of the historical study of Jesus. Our historical
> Jesuses grow out of our lives as branches off trees.

Andrew,

here then, in a nutshell, is my sense of post-modernism (I'm assuming what this
nefarious term represents is clear enough - I don't actually want to define it
strictly).  I accept and welcome the criticisms that post-modernism has leveled
against historical empiricism and modernistic historiography.  Humility in one's
claims is, however, the most this collection of methods has offered, I believe,
to historiography.  I see its primary contribution as having been a warning of
sorts against assuming too great a degree of objectivity.

My concerns with it, and which I see in action at times, are mostly that I
thinks it's contributions can be taken too far.  And let me say as clearly as
possible that I make no assumptions whatsoever that your work does any of this.
I'm speaking of what I have seen, and I have not seen your work.  The primary
post modern maxim that we are all incapable of pure objectivity can result in
the corrolary statement that all historical claims are therefore equal (or
equally invalid).  This I believe to be going too far.  I for one am not willing
to let go of the hope for objectivity.  Those things that do not come easily, or
that must be borne in mind constantly in order to work towards should not result
in their being abandoned.  And, I believe there are some things we can know
objectively, and not *all* historical enquiry or interpretation is lost to our
own subjectivity.

Finally, if all our work grows off of us like branches off a tree, then it seems
the most post modernism has offered is the awareness that this is so (and like I
said above the necessity of humility), but it has not offered us a way out.

What I fear most is that the post-modern revolution will result in another "No
Quest" along the lines as that inaugurated by Schweizer and carried on by
Bultmann.  I am most moved by a couple quotes from "The Jesus Controversy" by
Crossan, Johnson and Kelber.  First, Crossan says, "History is possible because
its absence is intolerable" (p. 4).  He also says, "Even if all history is
story, not all story is history" (p. 5).  Kelber makes much the same point on p.
105 in a very moving "speech."  Now, these words were not leveled against the
"threat" of post-modernism, but against the claim that history doesn't matter.
I see them as appropriate also as a response to my concern that post-modernism
can be used to support the claim that all history is equally subjective, so any
one's history is as good the other's.

That's probably enough for now.  I'm sure there's plenty here to chew on (and
spit out!).

Cheers,

Zeb

At 09:39 AM 12/03/02, David C. Hindley wrote:
>...For instance, it has been used to illuminate the process of
>reinterpretation of prophesies in Jewish scriptures (_When Prophecy Failed:
>Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament_, by
>Robert P. Carroll, Seabury Press, 1979, no review located; "Ancient
>Israelite Prophecy and Dissonance Theory," Robert P. Carroll in _Theology
>and Sociology : a Reader_, edited by Robin Gill, Cassell, 1996_, pp.
>238-253; "Christian Missions and the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" John G.
>Gager, ibid, 276-292).

David,
Thanks for these references.


>If we believe the biblical accounts are "true" but also
>know that the everyday world casts doubt in the miraculous world the bible
>is steeped in, we *should* experience dissonance.

Who sez? <g>
Dissonance will be experienced mainly(?) by those rationalists who are
bothered by anything that they can't rationalize.
I was educated in logical positivism, and as such, I often experienced
cognitive dissonance, because the world refused to accommodate itself to my
preconceptions. But as a graduate student, I read a book by Robert McC.
Adams, who later became director of the Smithsonian. In the introduction to
one of his books, he wrote, "We must be able to develop a tolerance for
ambiguity," or words to that effect. I think what he meant  was not that we
should become irrational, but that when two apparent facts existed in
contradiction with each other, we should hold that contradiction as a
reminder of the work remaining to be done.

Do physicists experience cognitive dissonance over the issue of whether
light is energy observed in waves, or a particle?

>...But I am more concerned with examining the means by which dissonance can be
>reduced. Because they are essentially practical solutions, they can have a
>distinctly Machiavellian aura about them. Approaches can range from very
>reasoned to very knee-jerk or reactionary. For example, the theory predicts
>that forced or accidental exposure to new information that tends to increase
>dissonance will frequently result in *misinterpretation and misperception of
>the new information* by the person thus exposed *in an effort to avoid
>dissonance increase*. This is *serious business* if employed by a
>professional critic or anyone who professes to employ the
>historical-critical method. My opinion on this matter is that such
>misrepresentation or misperception is more likely to occur in an emotionally
>charged atmosphere than a rationally charged atmosphere.

"Rationally charged"? Can you provide an example of a "rationally charged"
atmosphere that is not emotionally charged?

>...Having chosen the Copernican model, which appealed to him on account of
>reason, Galileo would have been experiencing dissonance since many of his
>contemporaries, who he needed to interact with everyday but who were not
>ready to let empirical evidence overrule accepted dogma, were quite opposed
>to this kind of idea. While many of his astronomical ideas were quite right,
>Galileo let his emotions rule the means he chose to propagate his theory,
>and forced his opponents to react in an equally emotional manner, thus
>guaranteeing his condemnation by the Inquisition.

Isn't this an example that Kuhn used as an exemplar of paradigm shift? I
thought you weren't going to go there.
(On the other hand, if we decline to discuss controversial theories, what
will we have left to discuss?)

>Since the major sources of resistance to change for a cognitive element are
>the responsiveness of such cognitive elements to "reality," as well as the
>extent to which an element exists in consonant relations with many other
>elements, it seems to me that the best way to approach new theories and
>hypotheses is to emphasize the free availability of a variety of reasoned
>opinions on any one topic. This is because the maximum dissonance which can
>exist between two elements is equal to the resistance to change of the less
>resistant of the two elements, the less resistant cognitive element will be
>changed in order to reduce the dissonance when the dissonance exceeds this
>magnitude. In time, the more reasonable opinions will tend to be adopted.

An irony of the Copernican revolution is that, from the perspective of ship
navigators, the system of epicycles was more "realistic" than the
Copernican model, because they were able to navigate more precisely using
it (I don't remember why; perhaps the details of Copernican orbital models
were not yet refined enough to provide better results.)

>...In summary, I would assert that an understanding of Cognitive
>Dissonance and
>the ways that individuals or groups attempt to reduce dissonance can and
>will help us be better critics, both in the way we look at historical
>processes as well as how we evaluate the actions and reactions of critics
>(including ourselves) in relation to the critical work they or we express.

Actually, I agree (except that I still want to use Kuhn's idea of paradigm
conflict.)


>I am aware of a more recent book on the subject of CD that should bring the
>theory up to date for those interested: _Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a
>Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology_ (Science Conference Series) by Eddie
>Harmon-Jones (Editor), Judson Mills (Editor) (Hardcover, March 1999).


Thanks for this reference, too.
Bob

At 01:20 PM 12/03/02, Andrew Lloyd wrote:

[snip]

>[Bob]
> > This criticism is not fair, and reads as if you have not understood the
> > methodology of critical scholarship. Indeed, the search for original
> > sayings of Jesus has been guided not by what passes for First Century
> > Jewish norms (or any other norms), but what stands out *against* those
> > norms.
>
>Am I to take it then Bob that you are looking for the "stand out"
>Jesus? Does everything about Jesus stand out (which would seem to
>make Jesus a lunatic by psychological criteria and an oddity by
>social-scientific criteria)?

Again, this makes me wonder if you really understand critical scholarship.
Their position is not that Jesus is to be understood ONLY by the things
which stand out about him, but that the only attributes of Jesus we can be
most sure about are those attributes that stand out. They do not (nor do I)
pass judgment on the Jewish things that Jesus may have said or done that
were very typical of his cultural context. I tend to buy into more of those
typical Jewish things than the JSem is willing to do, but the problem is
that we don't have a very good methodology for distinguishing *which*
typically Jewish things Jesus did, from those typical Jewish things that he
did not do. Thus, your query about Jesus'  "lunacy" are off target because
they are based on a false premise.

>  Now, just because this material stands out why, ON THAT ACCOUNT, does it
> make it Jesus? That seems flawed
>reasoning to me. Further, it sounds like manipulation of your own creations.

Again, this makes me wonder how well you understand critical scholarship.
Isolating the things that stand out is part of the process. But the next
step is to establish patterns among those "stand out" materials that form a
coherent pattern. The idea is that if the parts of this coherent pattern
come from independent sources, then where else would it come from?


>[Bob]
> >The uniqueness of Jesus was very much on point. I'd suggest that
>you (re-?)read the introduction to The Five Gospels.
>
>You suggest I read The Five Gospels? I have in fact done this more
>than once (as well as trawling through the Seminar's premises and
>rules of evidence as provided on Stevan Davies' webpage) and I have
>reserved a space in my PhD thesis to criticise this work. However,
>is this the same book that regularly disbars sayings of Jesus since
>the putative saying was "common lore"? Is this the same book that
>disbars sayings of Jesus because there is a methodological bar on
>Jesus quoting the scriptures?

You appear not to understand the book you claim to have read so thoroughly,
by your choice of the word "disbar," which is your word, not theirs. You
appear not to understand that "common lore" sayings cannot be attributed
with any confidence to Jesus, which is not at all the same as "disbarring"
them. I think they would agree that Jesus may well have said many "common
lore" things, but how would we know *which* common lore things he said, and
which he did not say?

>  Is this the book written by the
>scholars who want to counter fundamentalist Christianity and
>televangelists (thus not producing scholarship that such would, or
>could, support, this, in turn, affecting their picture of Jesus)?

Well, actually the book was written by Funk and Hoover, reporting (with
their own spins) on the work of the Jesus Seminar. And I am not the one to
defend Funk, who I agree does not seem to be an impartial observer, given
the body of his published work. I defer to others (Mahlon Smith? Ted
Weeden?) who actually know Funk first hand.

>Finally (for now), is this the book that searches for the "real"
>Jesus (p. 8). Do you have another, less controversial, text I could consider?

You want a non-controversial book about the historical Jesus? <G>  When you
find one, let me know. It would not be, however, a book written by
N.T.Wright, for he is as controversial as any of the others.

>
>[Andrew]
> > >Indeed, I follow the pragmatic assertion that you cannot "method" or
> > >"criteria" your way to Jesus.
>
>[Bob]
> > You will find a lot of company among evangelical Christians and
> > fundamentalists, who will be quite happy with your assertion.
>
>Maybe I will but will they want to follow me through pragmatic
>theory and on into brushes with poststructuralism? I'm not sure what
>the relevance of your comment here is, especially when we would not
>be ending up in a similar place for anything like similar reasons.
>If you want me to outline why "method" or "criteria" do
>not "guarantee" anything, however, I will be happy to do so on request. ...

Method may not "guarantee" anything, but if I ever have the opportunity to
go on a voyage to Mars, I would not choose you, or anyone with your
disregard of methodology, as Chief Engineer. If it might be said that
methodology is not the be-all and end-all of everything, it does not follow
that the answer is to abandon methodology as irrelevant.

>[Bob]
> > Such as Wright's Critical Realism?
>
>... So that you are aware, I'm actually critical of Wright
>for being too "realist" and not enough "critical". His is but a
>halfway house. So I am not his champion, though I seriously applaud
>him for putting "theory" up there as well as his historical Jesus
>research. In fact, there is no historical Jesus scholar I'm aware of
>whose theory I would endorse. Indeed, compared to the theorists of
>other fields (literary, philosophical, cultural) the historical
>Jesus field seems rather theory-less. I regard this is as a bad
>thing since it rather suggests we don't really know what we are
>doing since we are desperate for the results of our (uncritical)
>endeavours.

You will find that Crossan is as frustrated by this as you are. One of the
reasons he wrote The Birth of Christianity was to try to engage the field
in some critical debate about methodology. He specifically complains that
criteria do not make for good theories (I am away from home and I don't
have the book handy.) Have you, by chance, read the methodological chapters
of that book?
My chief regret about his book is that he does not really attempt to
respond to Wright's Critical Realism, except to criticize Wright for not
adequately dealing with Text Criticism, Source Criticism, etc. etc.

Bob

I've got a question.  I've been reading about the 3 temptations and I
was wanting to get some additional information.  Specifically, what
are the current theories for its inclusion in the narratives, and,
what theories are there about the 3 specific things Jesus was tempted
with.  Of all the things that could be temptations, why were those
significant enough to be used.  I have my own theories, but I'm
curious what the experts think.

Thanks in advance for any / all replies.


Peace,


Dave

dwlemen wrote:

>  I've got a question.  I've been reading about the 3 temptations and I
>
> was wanting to get some additional information.

What have you been reading?

>  Specifically, what
> are the current theories for its inclusion in the narratives,

I suggest you look at Chris Tuckett's article in the Neyrinck
Festschrift on the Temptation Narrative in Q.

> and,
> what theories are there about the 3 specific things Jesus was tempted
> with.

You'd be better off in thinking of these things as "testings" not
"temptations". The Greek terms do not bear the meaning that has come to
be associated with "temptation".

>  Of all the things that could be temptations, why were those
> significant enough to be used.

The brief answer has to do with the fact that in the story Jesus is
being presented as undergoing the same experience that the wilderness
generation underwent when it was led for forty years in the wilderness
and tested.

> I have my own theories, but I'm
> curious what the experts think.

Very important to read is B. Gerhardssen's _The Testing of God's Son_.
My own _The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity_ surveys the
various views on the nature and content of the testing, and provides a
pretty full bibliography on the story up to 1995.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson (who hears a collective sigh of relief from List Members
who thought I was going to be long winded on this one!)

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
           Floor 1
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail jgibson000@...
           jgibson000@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- Brian Trafford wrote to Matthew:
> I would have to see your methodology and rules of evidence that
> would demonstrate that the authors of the gospels (and presumably
> their readers?) did not believe that their stories were reports of
> actual events and sayings of Jesus.  For example, John's Gospel
> goes out of its way to say that what is reported is true and
> factual events.  Luke prefaces his own Gospel in much the same
> way.  If we are to reject their claims, what would be the means by
> which you would demonstrate that the author were knowingly making
> it up even as they said that they were not?

Reject their claims that what they wrote WAS true and factual, or
reject their claims that THEY BELIEVED that what they wrote was true
and factual? You seem to be conflating the two. Luke's infancy and
childhood temple scenes, for example, _could be_ just stories that
he had heard that he was passing along - together with his own
interpretations. Did he believe that the stories were true? Maybe,
but to accept that he might have believed them is not the same as to
accept any implied claim that they were true. In other cases, such
as John's little doubting-Thomas story, it's pretty clear that it
was an authorial invention, though it can't be conclusively proven.
Notice that with respect to the Gospel of Thomas, you reject the
authorial claim that the sayings were written down by Thomas, even
though that is what the author claims. But how would you go about
proving that the author didn't BELIEVE that the words were written
by Thomas and/or spoken by Jesus? Such claims count for nought in my
book, whether uttered canonically or not, but I'm curious why it is
that canonical claims of that type count for much in your book, but
similar non-canonical claims are routinely pooh-poohed? What is your
methodology for showing, for example, that the author of "Thomas the
Contender" knowingly made up the reported conversation between Jesus
and Thomas which he claims to have witnessed?

Mike Grondin
Mt.Clemens, MI

[Brian]
>>>I have read a good number of reconstructions,
>>>each carefully reasoned, explained and defended
>>>from the evidence available to us. The pattern
>>>I have seen emerge from this is that
>>>Jesus looks a lot like the scholar making the
>>>reconstruction,

[Zeb]
>>I'm sorry; I mean no disrespect, but this
>>makes me laugh. Do you imagine that Crossan's
>>Jesus looks like him?

The Jesus emerging from Crossan's 1991 publication
certainly looks a lot like the author: an egalitarian
cynic. In fact, this work probably stands as one of
the most obvious cases of the scholar finding himself
in Jesus.

[Zeb]
>>I think it holds little authentic criticism
>>for Crossan, Sanders, Borg, and the like.

[Brian]
>Actually, I think it is appropriate for these
>and a good many other scholars as well.

Brian, I agree with you about Crossan and Borg, but
could you explain how the Jesus reconstructed by
Sanders (the misguided eschatological prophet
believing he would soon reign as God's viceroy in the
coming kingdom) is somehow like Sanders himself (the
social gospel Protestant)?

Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

Loren Rosson wrote:

> The Jesus emerging from Crossan's 1991 publication
> certainly looks a lot like the author: an egalitarian
> cynic. In fact, this work probably stands as one of
> the most obvious cases of the scholar finding himself
> in Jesus.

Loren,

Again, I mean no disrespect, and I know you meant none either, but there is
something about claims like this I find really insulting.  But I must admit I'm
unsure why.  Perhaps because it borders on the ad hominem (which I assume you
didn't intend), by which I mean that you assume that as a professional,
thoughtful
and self-critical scholar he is unable to bracket his own interests, to set
criteria and apply them regardless of how he may feel about the outcome.  Yes
yes
I know that the selection of criteria will be a reflection of the scholar, but
resulting in a one-to-one relationship?  Maybe I find it insulting because it
assumes you know Crossan so well that you can get inside his head and really
know
that his Jesus is just like him (maybe you do know him, but I doubt any
relationship short of possibly therapist would give you the insight to make such
a
huge claim).

Cheers,

Zeb

>Loren Rosson wrote:
>
>>  The Jesus emerging from Crossan's 1991 publication
>>  certainly looks a lot like the author: an egalitarian
>>  cynic. In fact, this work probably stands as one of
>>  the most obvious cases of the scholar finding himself
>>  in Jesus.
>
>Loren,
>
>Again, I mean no disrespect, and I know you meant none either, but there is
>something about claims like this I find really insulting.  But I
>must admit I'm
>unsure why.  Perhaps because it borders on the ad hominem (which I assume you
>didn't intend), by which I mean that you assume that as a
>professional, thoughtful
>and self-critical scholar he is unable to bracket his own interests, to set
>criteria and apply them regardless of how he may feel about the
>outcome.  Yes yes
>I know that the selection of criteria will be a reflection of the scholar, but
>resulting in a one-to-one relationship?  Maybe I find it insulting because it
>assumes you know Crossan so well that you can get inside his head
>and really know
>that his Jesus is just like him (maybe you do know him, but I doubt any
>relationship short of possibly therapist would give you the insight
>to make such a
>huge claim).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Zeb
>

I think its more an issues of the *values* that Crossan endorses and
how his Jesus *does the work* for him. I too think that Crossan, like
*most* scholars reconstruct a Jesus that embodies something of their
values. So it isn't so much a one to one equivalence between scholar
and their Jesus, but rather the deeply held values of the scholar.
This therefore doesn't require personal knowledge of the scholar as
these values are usually not that hard to pick up in their writings.
None of this happens on an explicit level, or rather intentional
level - rather on a deeper implicit/unconscious level, so I would
*never* accuse these scholars of a lack of integrity!

Why do ask ask questions about the HJesus in the first place? Why not
some other 1st century Jew? I think the fact that we even ask the
question in the first place implies some pre-existent
commitments/values/assumptions/etc. Even the question therefore
implies implicit values of some sort. Otherwise we'd be just as
interested in Joe the baker who lived down the street from Jesus.
--
Steve Black
Vancouver School of Theology
Vancouver, BC
---

If you get confused, listen to the music play...
-Robert Hunter From "Franklin's Tower"