Bob,

I have a little time this morning before I leave town,
so I'll try to address some more of your concerns.

[Allison]
> >"'What can historical Jesus research do for us?'
> Well,
> >maybe this will surprise everyone, but my view is:
> >very little. In the end, my historical Jesus is a
> near
> >relative of the synoptic Jesus, so he isn't really
> >anything radically different from what the Bible
> gives
> >us. This is as it should be: if our sources were
> >thoroughly misleading, we'd be out of luck. So
> there's
> >nothing revolutionary in my work. My further point,
> >however, is that too many expect too much from
> >historical Jesus research. I teach at a Seminary.
> We
> >also have ethics professors, theologians, and
> >philosophers here. How come? Why do we need them if
> >historical Jesus research gives us our answers? We
> >need them because it doesn't... I truly think the
> big
> >issues are best addressed by philosophers,
> scientific
> >theorists, theologians, poets, and novelists, not
> >historians. Cut my own throat there, didn't I?"

[Bob]
> What precisely in this is "the only appropriate
> approach, as far as I can tell, in doing
> justice to any historical figure"? I don't see much
> "approach" here, only
> conclusions drawn from that approach...I suspect
> that you read a lot into this paragraph.

All I am saying is that the only appropriate approach
to the study of any historical figure is to
acknowledge that he/she can only do so much for us;
can only offer so much inspiration until we must look
elsewhere -- that is, as Dale says, to other
historical figures, ethicists, philosophers, poets,
novelists, etc. And I'm encouraged that a sincere
Christian like Dale is comfortable going with this in
the case of Jesus.

[Loren]
> >And the "facts"
> >aren't too obscure, Bob. Jesus, by all indications,
> >was a mistaken apocalyptic.

[Bob]
> That label is "facts"? Excuse me. At best, its a
> reasonable hypothesis.

No, I'm comfortable with calling this "factual". Ed
Sanders has made lists of what he considers to be
"undisputable facts" (see Jesus and Judaism, and
Historical Figure of Jesus). If I were to make such a
list, I would include the statement, "Jesus was an
apocalyptic prophet." That he was mistaken follows
obviously. You may disagree with this -- just as many
disagree with various items on Sanders' lists -- but
that won't stop me (nor should it) from claiming this
to be the case. Presumably you have you own tally of
items you're comfortable with accepting as factual.

I think a fairly good case can be made for Jesus'
illegitimacy, but not a particularly strong one. I
think it's highly likely that Jesus was celibate from
the start of his prophetic career to the very end
(though who knows how sexually active he was
beforehand), though again, I wouldn't put this in the
"factual" category. And so on. But that he was an
apocalyptic prophet is one of the surest things I
think we can say about him.

[Loren]
> >If we can't be sure of
> >this, then the gospels are indeed almost entirely
> >worthless, and (as Dale says) we're out of luck.
> That
> >of course is a **possible** scenario, but not a
> >plausible one -- at least not based on a judicious
> >application of criteria in assessing authentic
> sayings
> >and deeds. In any case, there's nothing disingenous
> >about Dale's observation.

[Bob]
> What I meant by "disingenuous" (perhaps the wrong
> word) is that if there
> really isn't any significant difference between
> *his* "historical Jesus"
> and "the Bible", why does he pretend to be a
> critical scholar? Indeed, what
> use do we have for critical scholarship at all if
> the Bible tells us all we
> need to know about Jesus ("the whole truth and
> nothing but the truth").

All I can say is this: If you beleve the likes of
Allison, Sanders, Fredriksen, and Ehrman are
uncritical -- or merely have pretensions to be
critical -- because their diligent and carefully
considered reconstructions of Jesus are **close
relatives** (not Christological copies) of the
synoptic Jesus, then you and I live in different
universes!

[Bob]
> > >What, really, does "if our sources
> > >were thoroughly misleading, we'd be out of luck"
> > >mean?

[Loren]
> >Just that. We'd be out of luck historically, but
> still
> >free to "reinterpret" (as Dale acknowledges, we all
> do
> >this and can't avoid it) Jesus however we wish.
> It's
> >revisionism -- not reinterpretation -- that's at
> stake here.

[Bob]
> Its still not clear to me who is "we" (members of
> this list? Christians?
> thoughtful Christians? Fundamentalists?), and what
> it means in this case to
> be "out of luck" (wrong? misguided? delusional? or
> something else?)

"We" means everyone, believers and nonbelievers alike.
Dale's position has been clear. Regardless of how
accurate our reconstructions of the historical Jesus
are, everyone (including himself) engages in
"reinterpreting" that historical figure for
contemporary meaning. So Christianity is hardly in any
danger of being discredited here (as you were
suggesting).

But Dale does believe (as do I) that we should be
acknowledging the chasm between us and Jesus before
building bridges. Whether reinterpreting Jesus in the
interests of Christian belief (Dale) or in so far as
he engages secular modernity and provokes thought
(me), allow the man his flaws and glaring errors. Thus
the distinction between revisionism (which is bad) and
reinterpretation (which is natural and inevitable).

This may or may not clarify things; it may or may not
satisfy you. Probably not. But in any case -- Happy
New Year.

=====
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the social
sciences he is remembered for his worst."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...>
wrote:
> All I can say is this: If you beleve the likes of
> Allison, Sanders, Fredriksen, and Ehrman are
> uncritical -- or merely have pretensions to be
> critical -- because their diligent and carefully
> considered reconstructions of Jesus are **close
> relatives** (not Christological copies) of the
> synoptic Jesus, then you and I live in different
> universes!

I think I'm just making this up, the streetlight fallacy, but maybe
not. The fallacy label comes from the joke about the drunk crawling
around at night under a streelight when a cop comes up and asks him
what he is doing. Drunks says he's looking for his car keys that
he'd dropped. Did you drop them right here, cop asks. Drunk responds
that, no, he didn't drop them here, but here is where the light is.

If we rule out such sources as Paul and John and Thomas (Sanders,
e.g., ignores Thomas without explanation in his pretension to
critical work) and etc. we are left with the synoptics. It follows
that if this is the light, this is where we find whatever it is that
we find. Then we discover that the synoptics are essentially a
mostly fictional narrative created by Mark, ruling out any major,
maybe any whatsoever, contributions to historical knowledge of J via
Luke and Matthew. (And do we learn much from Q that isn't implicit
in Mark? There's more of it in Q, whatever it is, but what is there
that is supposedly historically reliable in Q that is significantly
not present in Mark?).

So we have Mark and that's basically it. And we know, or should
know, that Mark has cobbled together a bunch of sayings into a
narrative of his own invention featuring a progression towards an
execution that certainly wasn't the main feature of Jesus' life even
if he keeps saying it will be. Along with a bunch of miracles that
didn't happen, and a long passion narrative (for which the life,
famously, is an extended introduction) that recent authorities seem
to agree is midrashic fiction. Heck, dear Bill Arnal concludes that
even the baptism narrative is fictional. What the heck isn't
fictional in Mark?

So, when we find the likes of Sanders coming up with an historical
Jesus that is a close relative to the Jesus of Mark ( aka synoptic )
I think we have the streetlight fallacy. It's our only evidence,
really, and even if it is untrustworthy and mainly fiction that's
what we go with.

Gives me the creeps it does.

Steve

At 06:40 PM 1/1/2005 +0000, sdavies0 wrote:
>I think I'm just making this up, the streetlight fallacy, but maybe
>not. The fallacy label comes from the joke about the drunk crawling
>around at night under a streelight when a cop comes up and asks him
>what he is doing. Drunks says he's looking for his car keys that
>he'd dropped. Did you drop them right here, cop asks. Drunk responds
>that, no, he didn't drop them here, but here is where the light is.

I haven't heard it called the "streetlight fallacy" but it is a
vitally important concept that unfortunately gets ignored far too
often.  The hard part, however, is being able to realize when we're
looking in the wrong place.

>So, when we find the likes of Sanders coming up with an historical
>Jesus that is a close relative to the Jesus of Mark ( aka synoptic )
>I think we have the streetlight fallacy. It's our only evidence,
>really, and even if it is untrustworthy and mainly fiction that's
>what we go with.

I'd suggest to a certain extent the same thing is going with using
the Acts narrative to make sense of Paul's chronology and, for that
matter, using Josephus to understand Judean politics in the first
century.

Stephen Carlson
--
Stephen C. Carlson                        mailto:scarlson@...
Weblog:    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/hypotyposeis/blogger.html
"Poetry speaks of aspirations, and songs chant the words."  Shujing 2.35

With apologies for cross posting:

Just a reminder that out Seminar with Gerd Ludemann on his book _The
Resurrection of Christ_ begins on Monday, Jan 3rd.

We will accept and begin to review messages to Professor Ludemann from
5pm EST (USA) Sunday, January 2nd.

For details of the seminar,  including information on it's scope and
purpose and method for subscribing to it,  see the reposting below of
the Seminar's initial announcement (with subscription address
corrected).

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...

********
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
XTalk ONLINE SEMINAR WITH GERD LÜDEMANN

The moderators of the XTalk Discussion List
(http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/) are pleased to announce that Gerd
Lüdemann -- Professor of History and Literature of Early Christian at
Georg-August-University Göttingen,
Germany, Director of the Institute of Early Christian Studies,
Theological Faculty  Director of the Archive
"Religionsgeschichtliche Schule", Theological Faculty --  has agreed to
conduct a three week online Seminar
with XTalk members and other interested parties on the ideas and
arguments set out in his most recent book
The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Inquiry_ (Prometheus, 2004)

The Seminar will begin on Sunday, January 2nd, 2005, and run until
Saturday, January 22nd, 2005.

The Seminar's Home page is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ludemann_Seminar

So as to be managed effectively, the Seminar will be conducted on a
subscription only basis.

Questions and comments submitted to the Seminar by approved Seminar
members will be subject to
selection by the Seminar's moderators.

Posts sent to Professor Lüdemann  will be answered by him on a daily
basis.

Topics for discussion are the issues and arguments raised in Professor
Lüdemann's book _The Resurrection
of Christ_.  Therefore the major prerequisite for anyone wishing to
participate in the Seminar is familiarity with
the contents and theses of this work (for a précis of the book, see
below).

To apply for membership in the Seminar, send a blank e-mail message to:

                  Ludemann_Seminar-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

PLEASE NOTE that while applications for membership in the Seminar are
being accepted immediately,
posts to Professor Lüdemann via the Seminar ARE NOT.

Nothing should be sent in to the Seminar until 5pm EST on the eve of its
opening day, Sunday, January 2nd, 2005.

Questions or comments about the Seminar may be sent to the following
e-mail address:

Ludemann_Seminar-owner@yahoogroups.com

Yours sincerely (and on behalf of the entire XTalk administrative
staff),

Jeffrey Gibson

Co-moderator and List Owner of XTalk



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

Stephen Carlson wrote on Saturday, January 01, 2005 2:46 PM:
Subject: Re: [XTalk] The Streetlight Fallacy


> At 06:40 PM 1/1/2005 +0000, sdavies0 wrote:
>>I think I'm just making this up, the streetlight fallacy, but maybe
>>not. The fallacy label comes from the joke about the drunk crawling
>>around at night under a streetlight when a cop comes up and asks him
>>what he is doing. Drunks says he's looking for his car keys that
>>he'd dropped. Did you drop them right here, cop asks. Drunk responds
>>that, no, he didn't drop them here, but here is where the light is.
>
> I haven't heard it called the "streetlight fallacy" but it is a
> vitally important concept that unfortunately gets ignored far too
> often.  The hard part, however, is being able to realize when we're
> looking in the wrong place.

[TJW}

For some reason I did not receive Steve's original post.  But I think the
precursor to his joke is a sufi story, thus:
Once, a neighbour found Nasruddin searching for something on the ground of
the dustcovered street outside his house.  On being asked, Nasruddin replied
that he was looking for his key that got lost.  So his neighbour also joined
in the search, they searched together and searched - did find nothing - and
at last the man asked Nasruddin: "Hey, say me, where exactly did you drop
it?"  That one stopped his intensive searching, looked up towards him and
answered, seemingly bewildered by the man's question: "In my house!"  "Then
why in all the world are you looking HERE?" the man asked.   Almost offended
by this 'stupid' question - Nasruddin replied: "There is more light here
than in my house..."

Steve Davies continues

>>So, when we find the likes of Sanders coming up with an historical
>>Jesus that is a close relative to the Jesus of Mark ( aka synoptic )
>>I think we have the streetlight fallacy. It's our only evidence,
>>really, and even if it is untrustworthy and mainly fiction that's
>>what we go with.

Stephen Carlson replies: .
>
> I'd suggest to a certain extent the same thing is going with using
> the Acts narrative to make sense of Paul's chronology . . .

I agree.  And I would add any claim that Luke is a reliable historian,
accurately reporting historical "facts" about the historical Jesus or the
early Jesus movement(s), should be viewed with the hermeneutics of suspicion
until independent, historically reliable evidence can be produced to lend
validity to such a claim.

Ted Weeden
Ph.D (Claremont Graduate University)
Retired

For some reason, Steve Davies' original post (see below) appeared on my
computer after I just sent a post regarding it and Stephen Carlson's reply
to it.  That confounds me!

Ted Weeden

----- Original Message -----
From: "sdavies0" <sdavies@...>
To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 01, 2005 1:40 PM
Subject: [XTalk] The Streetlight Fallacy


>
>
> --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...>
> wrote:
>> All I can say is this: If you beleve the likes of
>> Allison, Sanders, Fredriksen, and Ehrman are
>> uncritical -- or merely have pretensions to be
>> critical -- because their diligent and carefully
>> considered reconstructions of Jesus are **close
>> relatives** (not Christological copies) of the
>> synoptic Jesus, then you and I live in different
>> universes!
>
> I think I'm just making this up, the streetlight fallacy, but maybe
> not. The fallacy label comes from the joke about the drunk crawling
> around at night under a streelight when a cop comes up and asks him
> what he is doing. Drunks says he's looking for his car keys that
> he'd dropped. Did you drop them right here, cop asks. Drunk responds
> that, no, he didn't drop them here, but here is where the light is.
>
> If we rule out such sources as Paul and John and Thomas (Sanders,
> e.g., ignores Thomas without explanation in his pretension to
> critical work) and etc. we are left with the synoptics. It follows
> that if this is the light, this is where we find whatever it is that
> we find. Then we discover that the synoptics are essentially a
> mostly fictional narrative created by Mark, ruling out any major,
> maybe any whatsoever, contributions to historical knowledge of J via
> Luke and Matthew. (And do we learn much from Q that isn't implicit
> in Mark? There's more of it in Q, whatever it is, but what is there
> that is supposedly historically reliable in Q that is significantly
> not present in Mark?).
>
> So we have Mark and that's basically it. And we know, or should
> know, that Mark has cobbled together a bunch of sayings into a
> narrative of his own invention featuring a progression towards an
> execution that certainly wasn't the main feature of Jesus' life even
> if he keeps saying it will be. Along with a bunch of miracles that
> didn't happen, and a long passion narrative (for which the life,
> famously, is an extended introduction) that recent authorities seem
> to agree is midrashic fiction. Heck, dear Bill Arnal concludes that
> even the baptism narrative is fictional. What the heck isn't
> fictional in Mark?
>
> So, when we find the likes of Sanders coming up with an historical
> Jesus that is a close relative to the Jesus of Mark ( aka synoptic )
> I think we have the streetlight fallacy. It's our only evidence,
> really, and even if it is untrustworthy and mainly fiction that's
> what we go with.
>
> Gives me the creeps it does.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
> crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> List managers may be contacted directly at:
> crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

On Jan 1, 2005, at 1:40 PM, sdavies0 wrote:

> I think I'm just making this up, the streetlight fallacy, but maybe
> not. The fallacy label comes from the joke about the drunk crawling
> around at night under a streelight when a cop comes up and asks him
> what he is doing. Drunks says he's looking for his car keys that
> he'd dropped. Did you drop them right here, cop asks. Drunk responds
> that, no, he didn't drop them here, but here is where the light is.
>
> If we rule out such sources as Paul and John and Thomas (Sanders,
> e.g., ignores Thomas without explanation in his pretension to
> critical work) and etc. we are left with the synoptics. It follows
> that if this is the light, this is where we find whatever it is that
> we find.

I don't think this analogy is on point.  The problem is that, in the
case of the drunk seeking his keys, there is no reason to think (and
good reason not to think) that the keys might be found under the
streetlight.   On the other hand, in my opinion there is decent reason
to suppose that the authors of the synoptics had at least some
knowledge of the Historical Jesus - even if their knowledge were
conceded to be derivative.  To put it back "in metaphor", those who
take the synoptics seriously are not looking their because that's where
the light is, but because the drunk was leaning on that lightpole,
playing with the keys, the last time he had it.

It is a mistake to suppose (as some regularly do) that the imperfect
accuracy of the Synoptics is equivalent to perfect inaccuracy.  Such
"critical" scholarship seems to me to be not so much critical as
perniciously incredulous.

Patrick

--
Patrick Narkinsky - patrick@...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I took the following comment from Gavin McNett to be a comparison of Brown
and Chick:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gavin McNett [mailto:gavin.1@...]
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 3:22 AM
>
> >  I've reached the point where I'm rather tired of the
> >  Da Vinci subject -- and thought we'd exhausted most
> >  avenues of Brown bashing
>
> Thanks for the review. I'm actually tired of the subject too -- if the
> list needs a new text to jar the collective sensibilities, I found
> this quite interesting:
> http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/

To which Jeffrey Gibson (no doubt reflecting the sensibilities of many of
us) responded:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
> Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 3:56 AM
>
> Interesting it may be -- but only as an example of execrable
> dogmatics, credulous
> creationism, and rabid anti catholicism determining both exegesis
> and translation
> theory.
>
> Let me stress this as strongly as possible: Jack Chick and his
> nonsense is NOT a
> topic to be discussed on XTalk.

I'm curious. Why is Brown (apparently) an appropriate topic for discussion,
but not Chick?  What's the essential difference between the two?  (For what
it's worth, I'm more surprised by the public response Brown has received
from the Academy than the lack of such a response to Chick.)

Chris McKinney
Claremont Graduate University

"C. McKinney" wrote:

> I took the following comment from Gavin McNett to be a comparison of Brown
> and Chick:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gavin McNett [mailto:gavin.1@...]
> > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 3:22 AM
> >
> > >  I've reached the point where I'm rather tired of the
> > >  Da Vinci subject -- and thought we'd exhausted most
> > >  avenues of Brown bashing
> >
> > Thanks for the review. I'm actually tired of the subject too -- if the
> > list needs a new text to jar the collective sensibilities, I found
> > this quite interesting:
> > http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/
>
> To which Jeffrey Gibson (no doubt reflecting the sensibilities of many of
> us) responded:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
> > Sent: Friday, December 31, 2004 3:56 AM
> >
> > Interesting it may be -- but only as an example of execrable
> > dogmatics, credulous
> > creationism, and rabid anti catholicism determining both exegesis
> > and translation
> > theory.
> >
> > Let me stress this as strongly as possible: Jack Chick and his
> > nonsense is NOT a
> > topic to be discussed on XTalk.
>
> I'm curious. Why is Brown (apparently) an appropriate topic for discussion,
> but not Chick?  What's the essential difference between the two?  (For what
> it's worth, I'm more surprised by the public response Brown has received
> from the Academy than the lack of such a response to Chick.)
>

Because Brown is making claims about the HJ and Chick is making claims about
Wescott and Hort.  Moreover, Brown's works is an international best seller. 
Chick
is -- thankfully -- known and given credence only in a relatively small circle
of
extreme right of center conservative. creationist,  KJV only (and primarily
California based?) "christian" groups.

Yours,

Jeffrey
--

Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
Chicago, IL 60626

jgibson000@...

On Jan 1, 2005, at 9:42 AM, C. McKinney wrote:

> I'm curious. Why is Brown (apparently) an appropriate topic for
> discussion,
> but not Chick?  What's the essential difference between the two?  (For
> what
> it's worth, I'm more surprised by the public response Brown has
> received
> from the Academy than the lack of such a response to Chick.)

Well, I'm just throwing this, out but I'd say the fact that Brown
presents his views as being the prevailing opinion in Academic circles
might have something to do with it.  Again and again, the characters in
the DaVinci code assert that every "Academic" has known about the
secret of the grail all along.

Patrick

--
Patrick Narkinsky - patrick@...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

At 06:16 PM 1/1/2005, you wrote:

>Well, I'm just throwing this, out but I'd say the fact that Brown
>presents his views as being the prevailing opinion in Academic circles
>might have something to do with it.  Again and again, the characters in
>the DaVinci code assert that every "Academic" has known about the
>secret of the grail all along.

Even worse, Brown's book, a fiction, is read by many as a factual
account.  I know, you know, pretty much everyone on list knows its fiction-
but the "am-ha'aretz" out there think its history and hence in genuine need
of refutation.  On the other hand Chick is directed to a devoted following
of like minded anti-catholic, anti-semitic, far right wing fundamentalists.

Jim


++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD

http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resources
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

At 12:12 PM 1/1/2005, Patrick Narkinsky wrote:


>I don't think this analogy is on point.  The problem is that, in the
>case of the drunk seeking his keys, there is no reason to think (and
>good reason not to think) that the keys might be found under the
>streetlight.   On the other hand, in my opinion there is decent reason
>to suppose that the authors of the synoptics had at least some
>knowledge of the Historical Jesus - even if their knowledge were
>conceded to be derivative.  To put it back "in metaphor", those who
>take the synoptics seriously are not looking their because that's where
>the light is, but because the drunk was leaning on that lightpole,
>playing with the keys, the last time he had it.

I knew someone was going to bring up this point. We can each provide our
own counter-metaphor-- mine is that the drunk dropped his keys next to his
parked car which was just down the street. There was light from the street
lamp there, but not enough...


>It is a mistake to suppose (as some regularly do) that the imperfect
>accuracy of the Synoptics is equivalent to perfect inaccuracy.  Such
>"critical" scholarship seems to me to be not so much critical as
>perniciously incredulous.

Agreed!
Bob


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

At 05:12 PM 1/1/2005, you wrote:

>I don't think this analogy is on point.

Actually it is only on point if one assumes that folk holding to something
resembling historical christianity are drunks stumbling along in the
dark.  Not exactly a complimentary image- nor is it legitimate.

Jim



++++++++++++++++++++
Jim West, ThD

http://web.infoave.net/~jwest Biblical Studies Resources
http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com Biblical Theology Weblog

On Dec 31, 2004, at 10:44 PM, Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

> The difference that most Christians would ascribe to
> Jesus is that he is divine, being one person of the
> triune Godhead, whereas everyone else who will be
> resurrected (whether physically or spiritually) is
> human, all too human.

I would take a different tack: that Jesus was the "first fruits" of the
general resurrection and that, by raising him from the dead, God has
promised to do likewise for those who are "in" Christ. I take this to
be Paul's take as well (see 1Cor 15.12-20).

However, I doubt that that this is the average pew-sitter's view, at
least in Evangelical circles.  In my experience, their emphasis would
be on Jesus' crucifixion resurrection as an act of atonement, and what
was unique about Jesus was his innocence.  That is, Jesus was a perfect
sacrifice, without sin, who could therefore atone for the sins of all
mankind.  Those who take this point of view tend not to think of
"heaven" in terms of resurrection, and even Jesus' resurrection would
be emphasized much less than Jesus' crucifixion.  Even the Left-Behind
crowd talks about the general resurrection of the dead as being "raised
up" or something, reserving the term "resurrection" for Jesus himself.

Patrick

--
Patrick Narkinsky - patrick@...

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
- Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan

At 04:50 AM 1/1/2005, Loren Rosson wrote:
>Bob,
>
>I have a little time this morning before I leave town,
>so I'll try to address some more of your concerns.

Thanks for taking the time, and Happy New Year!


>[Allison]
> > >"'What can historical Jesus research do for us?'
> > Well,
> > >maybe this will surprise everyone, but my view is:
> > >very little. ...
>[Bob]
> > What precisely in this is "the only appropriate
> > approach, as far as I can tell, in doing
> > justice to any historical figure"? ...
>
>All I am saying is that the only appropriate approach
>to the study of any historical figure is to
>acknowledge that he/she can only do so much for us;
>can only offer so much inspiration until we must look
>elsewhere -- that is, as Dale says, to other
>historical figures, ethicists, philosophers, poets,
>novelists, etc. And I'm encouraged that a sincere
>Christian like Dale is comfortable going with this in
>the case of Jesus.

Well, it gets us off-topic a little here, but to call oneself a Christian
implies priorities, and to reduce Jesus to the level of other "historical
figures, ethicists, philosophers, poets, novelists, etc." seems to rater
reduce the priority level. At that point, why call oneself a Christian?


>[Loren]
> > >And the "facts"
> > >aren't too obscure, Bob. Jesus, by all indications,
> > >was a mistaken apocalyptic.
>
>[Bob]
> > That label is "facts"? Excuse me. At best, its a
> > reasonable hypothesis.
>
>No, I'm comfortable with calling this "factual".

Well, the "facts" are in dispute.

>Ed Sanders has made lists of what he considers to be
>"undisputable facts" (see Jesus and Judaism, and
>Historical Figure of Jesus). If I were to make such a
>list, I would include the statement, "Jesus was an
>apocalyptic prophet."

But that's you, not Ed.

>That he was mistaken follows
>obviously. You may disagree with this -- just as many
>disagree with various items on Sanders' lists -- but
>that won't stop me (nor should it) from claiming this
>to be the case.

I can't stop you from making any claim, no matter how mistaken! <g>
Actually, however, I will only dispute the implication that he was
*totally* mistaken. I will grant that in the received tradition, he appears
to be mistaken about some aspects of timing or other details. To be
otherwise, he would not be human, would he? <g>

>Presumably you have you own tally of
>items you're comfortable with accepting as factual....

Well, yes, but the list is not long. On the other hand, there are lots of
things that I'd consider "likely".
I think you're abusing the word "fact", and since you're a librarian, this
surprises me.

>[Loren]
> > >If we can't be sure of this, then the gospels

You mean the synoptic gospels, don't you, since that's what your case is
built on?

> > >are indeed almost entirely
> > >worthless, and (as Dale says) we're out of luck. That
> > >of course is a **possible** scenario, but not a
> > >plausible one -- ...

Agreed

>[Bob]
> > What I meant by "disingenuous" (perhaps the wrong
> > word) is that if there
> > really isn't any significant difference between
> > *his* "historical Jesus"
> > and "the Bible", why does he pretend to be a
> > critical scholar? ...


[Loren]
>All I can say is this: If you beleve the likes of
>Allison, Sanders, Fredriksen, and Ehrman are
>uncritical -- or merely have pretensions to be
>critical -- because their diligent and carefully
>considered reconstructions of Jesus are **close
>relatives** (not Christological copies) of the
>synoptic Jesus, then you and I live in different
>universes!

I believe that there is an unhealthy emphasis on the Synoptics to the
detriment of other sources, as Stevan Davies pointed out today. I respect
the authors you cited. One of our issues is how close is the relative. It
seems to me a bit curious that these relatives are so close, but yet not
"Christological copies." Furthermore, if you examine all of the "critical"
scholarship characterizations of Jesus, they scarcely seem to be talking
about the same guy. In some ways they seem more like orphans than close
relatives, but perhaps that's going too far.

>... Regardless of how
>accurate our reconstructions of the historical Jesus
>are, everyone (including himself) engages in
>"reinterpreting" that historical figure for
>contemporary meaning. So Christianity is hardly in any
>danger of being discredited here (as you were suggesting).

If we are left only with the "Jesus of contemporary meaning", then the
historical Jesus is indeed lost to us, and Christianity has lost its
mooring. I agree that every generation must understand the relevance of
Jesus to its own issues, but I would like to think that those
understandings are built on solid historical footing, and I think that is
foundational for traditional Christian theology.

>But Dale does believe (as do I) that we should be
>acknowledging the chasm between us and Jesus before
>building bridges.

"Chasm" implies unbridgeable, doesn't it?

>Whether reinterpreting Jesus in the
>interests of Christian belief (Dale) or in so far as
>he engages secular modernity and provokes thought
>(me), allow the man his flaws and glaring errors. Thus
>the distinction between revisionism (which is bad) and
>reinterpretation (which is natural and inevitable).
>
>This may or may not clarify things; it may or may not
>satisfy you. Probably not. But in any case -- Happy
>New Year.
>
>=====
>Loren Rosson III
>Nashua NH
>rossoiii@...
>
>"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the
>social sciences he is remembered for his worst."
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
><http://my.yahoo.com>http://my.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>The XTalk Home Page is
><http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/>http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
>
>To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>----------
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>    * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>    *
>
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crossta\
lk2/
>
>    *
>    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>    *
>
<mailto:crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>crosstalk2-un\
subscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>    *
>    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Jim responded to Patrick:
>I don't think this analogy is on point.
Actually it is only on point if one assumes that folk holding to something
resembling historical christianity are drunks stumbling along in the
dark.  Not exactly a complimentary image- nor is it legitimate.


I refer you back to Ted's original - Nasruddin wasn't drunk.  There are lots of
stories in similar vein concerning Nasruddin, many of which are in a collection
called "The Song of the Bird" by Antony de Mello.  He functions like the
medieval fool, doing a stupid thing to show the rest of us that what we're doing
is really the stupid thing. In the re-telling of the story, the guy who's lost
his keys is drunk simply as a literary device to explain why he's looking for
something in the wrong place.  The drunkenness isn't a core element in the
story, but a piece of 'gift-wrapping'.  It probably draws on a commonplace in
modern Western society, so it's a reasonably good modern parable.  If we read
too much into the details, we're in danger of allegorising, aren't we?  So I
don't object to being compared to a drunk - I just smile and point to
Acts.2:13f.

Further, I agree with Patrick's original point.  The story is used in this
discussion to suggest that HJ studies are looking in the wrong place just
because there's more light.  I suggest a better analogy would be folks looking
for buried treasure, and examining the only place where there is disturbed
earth.  Whatever appears to be the literary and theological development of NT
traditions about Jesus, it is unreasonable to assume they are *not at all*
related to the historical figure who is claimed to be the source.  You might
wish to argue that we have to dig a long way down, or even that there will be
little remaining when we get down there, but I suggest that this patch of
disturbed earth is exactly the right place to dig.

Cheers,
Rev Tony Buglass
Superintendent Minister
Upper Calder Methodist Circuit
W Yorks

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

[Bob]
> Well, it gets us off-topic a little here, but to
> call oneself a Christian
> implies priorities, and to reduce Jesus to the level
> of other "historical
> figures, ethicists, philosophers, poets, novelists,
> etc." seems to rater
> reduce the priority level. At that point, why call
> oneself a Christian?

I'm afraid you'd have to ask a Christian like Dale. :)

> I think you're abusing the word "fact", and since
> you're a librarian, this surprises me.

I'm actually choosing the word very carefully, and I
stand my assessment -- the recent comments from Steve
Davies about "Mark the spin-doctor" notwithstanding;
people on this list know I don't take this approach to
the question of Mark's reliability seriously, though I
certainly ackowledge he makes things up to serve his
agenda -- that Jesus was factually an apocalyptic.

And what do you know? As I was reading Alan Segal's
new book on the history of afterlife (in preparation
for the Ludemann seminar), look what I ran across last
night. Couldn't believe the coinicidence:

"Jesus was an apocalypticist, at least in some of his
teaching, and that fact must be faced squarely." (p
388)

We errant fools crawl out from under every rock, don't
we, Bob?

Segal is right. It really is a fact which should be
faced squarely. The more I read material written by J
Smith, B Mack, and W Arnal, the more this "fact" is
reinforced in my mind.

Perhaps after the Ludemann Seminar we could get
Jonathan Smith to do a seminar on Drudgery Divine.

=====
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the social
sciences he is remembered for his worst."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

Hi Steve,
A pointed note.  A question and some comments below it:

>
>
> --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...>
> wrote:
>> All I can say is this: If you beleve the likes of
>> Allison, Sanders, Fredriksen, and Ehrman are
>> uncritical -- or merely have pretensions to be
>> critical -- because their diligent and carefully
>> considered reconstructions of Jesus are **close
>> relatives** (not Christological copies) of the
>> synoptic Jesus, then you and I live in different
>> universes!
>
> I think I'm just making this up, the streetlight fallacy, but maybe
> not. The fallacy label comes from the joke about the drunk crawling
> around at night under a streelight when a cop comes up and asks him
> what he is doing. Drunks says he's looking for his car keys that
> he'd dropped. Did you drop them right here, cop asks. Drunk responds
> that, no, he didn't drop them here, but here is where the light is.
>
> If we rule out such sources as Paul and John and Thomas (Sanders,
> e.g., ignores Thomas without explanation in his pretension to
> critical work) and etc. we are left with the synoptics. It follows
> that if this is the light, this is where we find whatever it is that
> we find. Then we discover that the synoptics are essentially a
> mostly fictional narrative created by Mark, ruling out any major,
> maybe any whatsoever, contributions to historical knowledge of J via
> Luke and Matthew. (And do we learn much from Q that isn't implicit
> in Mark? There's more of it in Q, whatever it is, but what is there
> that is supposedly historically reliable in Q that is significantly
> not present in Mark?).
>
> So we have Mark and that's basically it. And we know, or should
> know, that Mark has cobbled together a bunch of sayings into a
> narrative of his own invention featuring a progression towards an
> execution that certainly wasn't the main feature of Jesus' life even
> if he keeps saying it will be. Along with a bunch of miracles that
> didn't happen, and a long passion narrative (for which the life,
> famously, is an extended introduction) that recent authorities seem
> to agree is midrashic fiction. Heck, dear Bill Arnal concludes that
> even the baptism narrative is fictional. What the heck isn't
> fictional in Mark?
>
> So, when we find the likes of Sanders coming up with an historical
> Jesus that is a close relative to the Jesus of Mark ( aka synoptic )
> I think we have the streetlight fallacy. It's our only evidence,
> really, and even if it is untrustworthy and mainly fiction that's
> what we go with.
>
> Gives me the creeps it does.
>
> Steve

The question:  Why "the creeps?"

Comments:
1. If Mark is what we have, then in principle no historical research
can be done.  One has to have more than one source, eh;)?   All the
talk about "Mark's historical reliability" or "trustworthiness as a
historical resource" is simply an assertion without data to back it up.
   As you note, going on to Matthew and Luke is of no help whether they
derived their stories textually or from "oral traditions," for where
there is repetition, then it's Mark's basic story being repeated and
then for all those confounding changes that are either shared or unique
to each, we have no source materials for them.  We're single stuck with
   single sources and one can do no research beyond that!  I wouldn't use
"creeps," (and am interested in why you do) I'd just say that we should
stop pretending to do historical study.
2.  Despite all the assertions for those who want to claim to be heirs
of Schweitzer's reading of Mark, I'm not sure why they want to call
Jesus "an apocalyptic prophet."  Mark's Jesus is no such thing, he's
the suffering servant messiah who is glorified to heavenly rule.  This
is right clear from the first sentence, eh;)?  And the legacy of this
group is not best described as an apocalyptic community, but a cultic
community.  That the apocalyptic resources were utilized as **part** of
casting who this messianic figure was goes without saying, but Jesus is
more importantly cast in terms of classical prophecy, the Davidic
covenant, the role of new Moses and Solomonic wisdom (and let's not
forget Melkizidek:)!).  That some communities early on went a bit zoo-y
on "end times" ferment only tells us that some of those Gentiles didn't
quite get the ramifications of Jewish eschatological thought (this sort
of zoo-i-ness has a rather long history, itself).  All the Gospels,
yes, even Mark, are exegetical works meant for what they've been used
for for nigh onto 2 millennia now... feasting celebration, sermonizing,
scriptural reflection, etc.  If we want to peer underneath Mark's
messiah (and to do this one has to affirm some resources available to
us from such as Paul, Thomas, Q, the Didache, Josephus... so we have
more than one source to work with), well this goes to show, in my view,
that Mark didn't think Jesus was "an apocalyptic prophet" either:)!
One who "only speaks in parables" isn't doing prophetic utterances by
any definition from the Hebraic heritage!
3. Back to the other subject line about historical research and the
viability of Christianity hanging in the balance, folks would do well
to read a book like Jaroslav Pelikan's book about Christ across the
centuries.  That book rather nicely lays out the many view of Christ
that have been variously created and focused on across these 2
millennia.  They are numerous and they go to show the rich tapestry of
what reading the Gospels has led to.  Back to Schweitzer's rather stoic
picture of a failed, but courageous millennial figure this rather makes
much sense in light of the European world at the turn of the last
century.  And this is to say, that Schweitzer's characterization fits
nicely as one of the creative works of exegetical imagination.  Notably
he left the schoolhouse and went off to doctoring after this leaving
the growing nightmare world for a place where he could practice a bit
of human care.  If that's the legacy of his sort of portraiture, then
hey, not bad!  But, of course, the making of exegetical portraits isn't
doing history.
Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Bob Schacht <r_schacht@y...> wrote:
>>he [H Jesus] appears to be mistaken about some aspects of timing or
other details<<

In prep for the Ludeman seminar and as a part of my random walk
through the maze of Xtalk, I am reading Dunn, Christology in the
Making. I am intrigued by these basic questions from Bob and Liz and
Loren's well-read responses (though he and I differ on conclusions)-

There is a question being begged from this dialogue and the first
half of Dunn's book. Just what is the concept of 'time' in that first
century?  This has to do with our apparent confusion of eschaton with
apocalyptic - what is 'last' and what is 'to come'? How did
apocalyptic come to mean future when its primary meaning
is 'revealing'?

It is reasonably clear how our Turing-like perception of life easily
comes to a sequential explanation of our immediate perception of
time; but today with our realization of the limitations of knowledge
and the dilation of time in a relativistic framework, how is it we
allow ourselves come to such simple conclusions about completeness of
the eschaton in the death and resurrection of Christ?

The understanding of time in the first century is also related to
the 'denial of an implied pre-existence of Christ' in Dunn's
reasoning as I have read so far. It would seem to me that the first
century and earlier pre-BCE Jewish understanding was reaching for a
more complete expression of their life experience. So I think this
has also to bear on our understanding of resurrection. In many NT
expressions, the gift of the Paraclete is an 'earnest of our
inheritance' - like receiving the principal amount.  Life is more
extensive than the sequential explanation will allow.

(BTW does anyone have a read on the image on the cover of Dunn's
book - a 10th C Pantocrator Icon - I want to know the content of the
Cyrillic - maybe the first word is IEILLE?A. Looks like HEHLLHUA -
the U has an extension below the line)


Thanks

Bob MacDonald
researching in Cambridge - 01223 359 060 (if any listers would like
to meet)

--- Gordon Raynal wrote:
> That some communities early on went a bit zoo-y on "end times"
> ferment only tells us that some of those Gentiles didn't quite
> get the ramifications of Jewish eschatological thought ...

Don't know what "communities" you have in mind, but could they have
been any more zoo-y on end-times ferment than Paul? Or where do you
see him correcting them and/or toning down their expectations?

Mike

Gordon Raynal wrote: "The question: Why "the creeps?""

All of this effort going into a project that seems to be hopeless is
creepy. Or at least it seems hopeless given the set of questions
that are presently being asked.

If one asks different sorts of questions, such as
"what was the state of affairs vis a vis what became Christianity
before Paul's letters?" without presupposing that the answer
should necessarily principally include a person's biography, well
then some sort of progress might be possible.

GR "Comments: 1. If Mark is what we have, then in principle no
historical research can be done. One has to have more than one
source, eh;)? All the talk about "Mark's historical reliability"
or "trustworthiness as a historical resource" is simply an assertion
without data to back it up. As you note, going on to Matthew and
Luke is of no help whether they derived their stories textually or
from "oral traditions," for where there is repetition, then it's
Mark's basic story being repeated and then for all those confounding
changes that are either shared or unique to each, we have no source
materials for them. We're stuck with single sources and one can do
no research beyond that! I wouldn't use "creeps," (and am interested
in why you do) I'd just say that we should stop pretending to do
historical study."

Indeed so. In fact the movement for the past couple decades seems to
be toward doubting Mark's historical value. As I wrote before,
fairly reliable people argue that Mark's beginning is fiction,
Mark's conclusion is fiction, Jesus' basic self-presentation
(chapters 8 – 10, 13) is fiction, the nature miracles are fiction
and it is certainly not the case that there were in fact demons with
whom he discussed his identity issues. Who really thinks that the
individual incidents reported are ones that really happened? Jesus
and his disciples were walking through a field stealing grain
when… Jesus went back to Nazareth and then… and so forth.

Heck, people underestimate IMO the significance of the fact that
those who revised Mark, and I think I'll include John, disagreed
pretty profoundly with it. That's why they rewrote it, that's
why Luke made a preface denigrating those previous sources he was
stuck with. But they do not seem to have had anything else to work
with. They don't know anything biographical that's new or
different, just that they don't like the Mark's persepectives
on various matters.

It's also creepy how Mark must necessarily have relied, if his
history includes anything like actual factual reports, on sources
that it is his principal purpose to denigrate. The idiotic betraying
disciples and the family who thought him possessed or mad and who he
rejected, these are presumably the sources Mark relies upon for his
account, especially for the central chapters and chapter 13, and
etc. It's actually rather post-modern of him to write a book
showing the utter unreliability of the persons whose reporting is
purportedly the foundation of his text.

GR "2. Despite all the assertions for those who want to be
heirs of Schweitzer's reading of Mark, I'm not sure why they want to
call Jesus "an apocalyptic prophet." Mark's Jesus is no such thing,
he's the suffering servant messiah who is glorified to heavenly
rule. This is right clear from the first sentence, eh;)? And the
legacy of this group is not best described as an apocalyptic
community, but a cultic community. That the apocalyptic resources
were utilized as **part** of casting who this messianic figure was
goes without saying, but Jesus is more importantly cast in terms of
classical prophecy, the Davidic covenant, the role of new Moses and
Solomonic wisdom (and let's not forget Melkizidek:)!). That some
communities early on went a bit zoo-y on "end times" ferment only
tells us that some of those Gentiles didn't quite get the
ramifications of Jewish eschatological thought (this sort of zoo-i-
ness has a rather long history, itself). All the Gospels, yes, even
Mark, are exegetical works meant for what they've been used for for
nigh onto 2 millennia now... feasting celebration, sermonizing,
scriptural reflection, etc. If we want to peer underneath Mark's
messiah (and to do this one has to affirm some resources available
to us from such as Paul, Thomas, Q, the Didache, Josephus... so we
have more than one source to work with), well this goes to show, in
my view, that Mark didn't think Jesus was "an apocalyptic prophet"
either:)! One who "only speaks in parables" isn't doing prophetic
utterances by any definition from the Hebraic heritage!"

I agree for sure. Mark's Jesus is apocalyptic in pieces, but that
is not primarily Mark's main point by any means. The only time he
really gets off on God's impending slaughter of humanity is in
chapter 13, a discourse heard by 4 souls who are, if we accept the
overall narrative, pretty much guaranteed not to understand it. And
isn't it generally concluded that somewhere between little and
none of it was actually spoken by Jesus?

Paul is said to be quite the apocalyptic fellow and a firm Jesusite
and yet there is not a single time when we agree that Paul
accurately calls upon the sayings of Jesus to support his
apocalyptic views. If Jesus was mainly an apocalyptus why has this
been forgotten by Paul?  Of course, IF we want to say that Mark's
is a fictional Jesus, then the apocalypticism of Mark (cptr 13) will
have been retrojected there from the later apocalyptic groups.

Thomas, of course, is anti-apocalyptic, denying directly that Jesus
taught such stuff, perhaps in response to the growing tendency to
retroject apocalypticism onto Him.

While I do not agree for a nanosecond that the gospels are "works
meant for what they've been used for" nor that Jesus was, in
Mark, that host of things you say he was cast to be, I do agree that
he is the suffering servant messiah first and foremost. And, of
course, we can be fairly sure that he didn't, if he was an
historical figure, think that that was what he was.

GR "3. Back to the other subject line about historical research +
the viability of Christianity hanging in the balance, folks would do
well to read a book like Jaroslav Pelikan's book about Christ across
the centuries. That book rather nicely lays out the many view of
Christ that have been variously created and focused on across these
2 millennia. They are numerous and they go to show the rich tapestry
of what reading the Gospels has led to. Back to Schweitzer's rather
stoic picture of a failed, but courageous millennial figure this
rather makes much sense in light of the European world at the turn
of the last century. And this is to say, that Schweitzer's
characterization fits nicely as one of the creative works of
exegetical imagination. Notably he left the schoolhouse and went off
to doctoring after this leaving the growing nightmare world for a
place where he could practice a bit of human care. If that's the
legacy of his sort of portraiture, then hey, not bad! But, of
course, the making of exegetical portraits isn't doing history."

And since the Gospels are exegetical portraits, where does that
leave us? It sure does seem that everybody creates a Jesus to fit
their own selves, doesn't it? You can criticize Schweitzer for
this, and I keep noting that Crossan's Jesus is a fine American
liberal. Preachers figure Jesus and or the evangelists were mainly
interested in sermonizing and scriptural reflections, professors
know they were primarily teachers, and Mormons find them to be
prototypical of persons of the Mormon faith. But I guess this isn't
news. Yet isn't it creepy how everybody knows that people make their
image of Jesus like themselves and yet, having acknowledged this,
away they go doing it anyhow.

Maybe the non-paralleled sayings in Thomas reflect the Real Jesus
and He was, therefore, not anything like anybody in Christendom
today. or maybe not.

Steve Davies

Bob Schacht writes:
I'm not of a mind to suggest that Christianity would be *totally*
debunked if the historical Jesus turns out to be radically different
from the Jesus of the Gospels, or that it should simply be discarded.
-----------------------------------
Please pardon for a moment the observation of a non-scholar on this
topic.

I think it works the same way on the other end of the spectrum.

As an interesting experiment, ask non-Christians how they would react
if a compelling historical case could be made for the bodily
resurrection of Jesus.

I recently asked a Jewish friend how he would react to a compelling
historical case for the resurrection of Jesus.  He responded that he
would see it as an inexplicable, extraordinary event.  He said that it
would be difficult to understand the religious significance of the
event, and that it would not lead him to any particular conclusions
about Jesus. He said it would not lead him to see the New Testament or
Christianity as authoritative in any way, nor would it lead him to
believe that Jesus was the Son of God, Messiah, etc.  Interestingly,
he said that the biggest effect for him would that it would be much
more difficult to argue against the possible future resurrection of
the Lubavitcher rebbe Menachem Schneerson.  He said he would have to
conclude "well, it happened once before, so maybe it could happen
again!"  Interestingly, he said "suppose Lord Krishna were to appear
in the sky right now. . . . I really don't know what I would do with
that, but I certainly wouldn't be inclined to change religions.  I
guess I would conclude that the universe is a very mysterious place,
much more mysterious than I had thought."

So I think historical evidence functions in the same manner in many,
if not all, belief systems.  Religious (or non-religious) faith or
worldview has many components, only one of which is historical
evidence.  Other components include non-religious beliefs, personal
experience, devotional or other ceremonies, transformative spiritual
practices, the concensus or tradition of one's chosen community, and
so on.  Most important, in many traditions *mystery* plays a
tremendously important role.  In other words, many believers
acknowledge that the most important things cannot be rationally
demonstrated.  Historical evidence or argument is only one component
of faith, and not always a definitive component.

Another problem is that history often does not give us "smoking gun"
evidence or argument but rather *models* of how things "really were."
  To what extent is a rational person obligated to accept as definitive
the latest and greatest historical model, especially if the model
itself is questionable?

jim holman

Steve wrote:

> I think I'm just making this up, the streetlight
> fallacy, but maybe
> not. The fallacy label comes from the joke about the
> drunk crawling
> around at night under a streelight when a cop comes
> up and asks him
> what he is doing. Drunks says he's looking for his
> car keys that
> he'd dropped. Did you drop them right here, cop
> asks. Drunk responds
> that, no, he didn't drop them here, but here is
> where the light is.

No, you didn't make this up. Donald Akenson uses the
same "mashal", as he calls it, on p 174 of Saint Saul.
(He agrees with you that the synoptics are unreliable,
and thinks only Paul can serve as a good source for
HJ; I think when the synoptics are taken in tandem
with Paul, we can arrive at fairly reliable
reconstruction of HJ.)

Incidentally, Steve, I don't know if you've been
through Alan Segal's new book on the afterlife, but he
alludes positively to your Jesus the Healer (p 392,
footnote 41), saying that it's hard to imagine an
apocalyptic like Jesus who wasn't steeped in altered
states of consciousness and visions (he cites you,
Borg, and Witherington in the same footnote, which may
be somewhat misleading). An apocalyptic prophet is
readily compatible with your ideas about Jesus. I
doubt, however, you will ever be persuaded that Mark
is remotely reliable.

=====
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the social
sciences he is remembered for his worst."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Steve,

Thanks for your clarification of "creepy", but it brings up an interesting
question about your denigration of Sanders's view.  You wrote: "[I]sn't it
creepy how everybody knows that people make their image of Jesus like
themselves and yet, having acknowledged this, away they go doing it anyhow."
Since you seemed, in your original post, to connect your use of "creepy" to
something Sanders does (with respect to his use of the synoptics and non-use
of Thomas), I really don't understand your comment.  Yes, way too many
scholars reconstruct a Jesus of their own liking (with Crossan's being the
most incredible instance of this), but isn't one of the (methodological)
strengths of Sanders's reconstructed Jesus the fact that this Jesus *doesn't
at all* correspond to the type of liberal Christianity that Sanders believes
in?

Do you detect a hint of Sanders's own reflection in his own reconstructed
Jesus somewhere, or was I wrong to connect your use of "creepy" to Sanders's
method (or did you use "creepy" in two different ways)?


John C. Poirier
Middletown, Ohio

John C. Poirier wrote to Steve:

> Since you seemed, in your original post, to connect
> your use of "creepy" to
> something Sanders does (with respect to his use of
> the synoptics and non-use
> of Thomas), I really don't understand your comment.
> Yes, way too many
> scholars reconstruct a Jesus of their own liking
> (with Crossan's being the
> most incredible instance of this), but isn't one of
> the (methodological)
> strengths of Sanders's reconstructed Jesus the fact
> that this Jesus *doesn't
> at all* correspond to the type of liberal
> Christianity that Sanders believes in?

You're right, John. The eschatological prophet who
looked for the restoration of Israel, obedient to
Torah, does not square with Sanders' own breed of
Christianity -- that is, liberal social-gospel
Protestantism. This in itself does not validate
Sanders, of course, but is at least an indication that
he's not interested in justifying his own beliefs with
a revisionist portrait.

It's no accident that his basic portrait of Jesus the
eschatological prophet (harking back to Schweitzer)
has, and will, stand the test of time.

=====
Loren Rosson III
Nashua NH
rossoiii@...

"In the natural sciences a person is remembered for his best idea; in the social
sciences he is remembered for his worst."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

>
> --- Gordon Raynal wrote:
>> That some communities early on went a bit zoo-y on "end times"
>> ferment only tells us that some of those Gentiles didn't quite
>> get the ramifications of Jewish eschatological thought ...
>
> Don't know what "communities" you have in mind, but could they have
> been any more zoo-y on end-times ferment than Paul? Or where do you
> see him correcting them and/or toning down their expectations?
>
> Mike
>

Hi Mike,

With the note that I think individual communities were in themselves
diverse (note Paul dealing with at least four "I belong to" groups in
Corinth as an example) I was using the term in relationship to the
documents that give us a glimpse of the earliest years(communities that
produced/kept/ read/ utilized these documents for purposes of identity,
reflection and praxis).   As examples, Q, Thomas, the Didache, Paul's
"authentic letters," the Epistle of James, John and others, I believe,
contain those layers we chat about (Q1, Thomas 1, the credo and certain
praxis portions of the Didache, some versions (???) of Galatians,
Philippians, the Corinthian Correspondence, Philemon and Romans for
Paul and the Signs gospel in John) and I think these show the diversity
of theological bases that were extant in the various communities prior
to extant Mark's composition.  Regarding eschatology, there is a clear
diversity here and this is none to surprising as the Hebraic/Jewish
faith that is at the root of this has this diversity in its heritage(
the eschatology of Torah, Eccesiastes and Daniel aren't exactly the
same).  The developments within the documents and then in the later
literature show not a single unified dogmatics on eschatology, but
development of these earlier "voices."

As for Paul?  Well, if he did write I Thessalonians as the majority
holds (I lose no sleep either way) then that shows Paul dealing with
this community in a way to try to bring some order as regards
eschatology (so maybe toning down the Thessalonians a bit?).  I'm
really not interested right now in getting into the distinctions
between historical Paul, Canonical Paul and Luke's understanding of
Paul, but as regards the historical Paul I'm not sure the extent of his
actual influence in his own lifetime.  The reason for this is simple...
   looking at the above and other early resources and looking at Paul's
own writings his influence in the other literature appears to be
non-existent to minimal and his own letters aren't systematic works,
but rather occasional writings that show his own wrangling over working
out some coherence for what this new "movement" is all about.  Yes,
Paul does affirm "an end time" sort of apocalyptic vision.  But the
core of his thought is rooted in explicating Jesus in relationship to
Torah and the Classical Prophets.  And again, how much actual influence
did he actually exert in his lifetime?  Big  question.  To the
communities he started in parts of Asia Minor and Greece?  Pretty big
influence, probably, although reading Corinthians that's not altogether
clear.  But elsewhere... in Judea, Galilee, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome,
Spain?  Very much unknown.

A last aside: I think we need to be very careful with the terms
"apocalyptic eschatology/ apocalyptic prophecy."  In the last decades
such as Hal Lindsey to this current mania over "the Left Behind" series
is how masses of folks outside the scholarship circles first think
about their meaning.  I always want to note that in the first place "an
apocalypse" is "a revelation."  Second, "apocalyptic" is a genre of
writing.  And I think we need to be very careful about how such highly
symbolic writing was and is understood.  Because a given writer resorts
to the Apocalyptic genre and the resources from the Hebraic writings
does not necessarily mean that such recourse is based in "literalistic"
expectations.  Such resources have been used not to foment "end-time"
hysterics, but to metaphorically reflect upon crisis in the world,
issues of dealing with death personally and issues related to "end
times" (and there are lots of end times in human history. If scholars
are correct about the dating of Daniel, such writing helped deal with
the crisis of Antiochus Ephipanies IV with the result of a successful
resistance to the Seleucids and the establishment of a free Israel)
That this resource became a very important one in the era of the Romans
finally destroying Jerusalem as a Jewish capitol and the temple should
hardly come as a surprise.  "The little apocalypse in Mark 13" is a
really interesting creation, in this regard.  (I very much wonder when
it was inserted into extant Mark as the end of Chapter 12 leads very
nicely into chapter 14 and this whole thing looks like an insertion.)
But then as we look on to how Matthew, John and Luke respond to this,
we see wrangling and shifting emphasis going on.  And then we see
development in such as Thomas and other lines of thought as well.  I
think apocalyptic is a really cool genre!  Mel Gibson's good movies:
"Road Warrior" and "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" are really cool
examples of the modern use of the apocalyptic genre.  "The Twelve
Monkeys," "Blade Runner," and hey, I even like "Waterworld," are other
cool examples.  Apocalyptic is a very cool genre for dealing with the
great woes of life.  But such usage in no way implies "literalistic
expectation" as in some sense of a particular road map.  That
Christianity in its origins had a good number of folks wrapped up in
"end time" thinking is not in doubt.  But the literature shows no
singular unified dogmatics on this issue, but rather the above noted
diversity.  And as for Jesus, wisdom aphorisms and parables are not
apocalyptic speech.  The mission agenda is not an apocalyptic agenda.
The basic Hebraic theology of "God makes his sun to shine on the evil
and the good... love your enemies" isn't rooted in apocalyptic Hebraic
resources.  Mark's affirmation that Jesus "only spoke in parables" does
not point to a base apocalyptic understanding of Jesus in Mark.  And
even old Paul... well, the first thing he says of "the Christ" in I
Cor. 1:30 is that he was "wisdom come from above."  I'm not going to
lose any sleep, either, if Jesus also went off into "end time" scenario
thought and was just wrong.  But the real issue, as far as I'm
concerned, is what is at the core in these diverse literatures wherein
we can identify the basic elements that will allow us to call this a
movement and allow us to sketch out the unifying features thereof, and
then see the diversity, the wranglings, the outright catfights, etc,
and how they were dealt with overtime.  Apocalyptic is a portion of
this, but only that.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

Hi Steve,
Thanks for your response.  Below are some comments:
> Gordon Raynal wrote: "The question: Why "the creeps?""
>
> All of this effort going into a project that seems to be hopeless is
> creepy. Or at least it seems hopeless given the set of questions
> that are presently being asked.
>
> If one asks different sorts of questions, such as
> "what was the state of affairs vis a vis what became Christianity
> before Paul's letters?" without presupposing that the answer
> should necessarily principally include a person's biography, well
> then some sort of progress might be possible.

I agree that this is the meat of the matter.  But as for Jesus, looking
across the resources I think we can sketch out the core of his
contribution to this phenomena.  That's all, I think we can do, but I
think that is a worthwhile part of this study.
>
>
> GR "Comments: 1. If Mark is what we have, then in principle no
> historical research can be done. One has to have more than one
> source, eh;)? All the talk about "Mark's historical reliability"
> or "trustworthiness as a historical resource" is simply an assertion
> without data to back it up. As you note, going on to Matthew and
> Luke is of no help whether they derived their stories textually or
> from "oral traditions," for where there is repetition, then it's
> Mark's basic story being repeated and then for all those confounding
> changes that are either shared or unique to each, we have no source
> materials for them. We're stuck with single sources and one can do
> no research beyond that! I wouldn't use "creeps," (and am interested
> in why you do) I'd just say that we should stop pretending to do
> historical study."
>
> Indeed so. In fact the movement for the past couple decades seems to
> be toward doubting Mark's historical value. As I wrote before,
> fairly reliable people argue that Mark's beginning is fiction,
> Mark's conclusion is fiction, Jesus' basic self-presentation
> (chapters 8 – 10, 13) is fiction, the nature miracles are fiction
> and it is certainly not the case that there were in fact demons with
> whom he discussed his identity issues.

Shucks;)!  What cool conversations;)!  Being a pastor, I regularly
confront all sorts of "possessed persons" and thankfully in some cases
I have helped them to get to the psychiatrist's office!

>  Who really thinks that the
> individual incidents reported are ones that really happened? Jesus
> and his disciples were walking through a field stealing grain
> when… Jesus went back to Nazareth and then… and so forth.
>
> Heck, people underestimate IMO the significance of the fact that
> those who revised Mark, and I think I'll include John, disagreed
> pretty profoundly with it. That's why they rewrote it, that's
> why Luke made a preface denigrating those previous sources he was
> stuck with. But they do not seem to have had anything else to work
> with. They don't know anything biographical that's new or
> different, just that they don't like the Mark's persepectives
> on various matters.

Agreed, except I think some of the teaching scenes and meals scenes are
paradigmatic summaries of "times back in Galilee."  Matthew and Luke's
utilization of Q to fill out the content goes along with this, in my
view.
>
>
> It's also creepy how Mark must necessarily have relied, if his
> history includes anything like actual factual reports, on sources
> that it is his principal purpose to denigrate. The idiotic betraying
> disciples and the family who thought him possessed or mad and who he
> rejected, these are presumably the sources Mark relies upon for his
> account, especially for the central chapters and chapter 13, and
> etc. It's actually rather post-modern of him to write a book
> showing the utter unreliability of the persons whose reporting is
> purportedly the foundation of his text.

LOL;)!  He was ahead of his time as regard creativity, that's for sure!
>
> GR "2. Despite all the assertions for those who want to be
> heirs of Schweitzer's reading of Mark, I'm not sure why they want to
> call Jesus "an apocalyptic prophet." Mark's Jesus is no such thing,
> he's the suffering servant messiah who is glorified to heavenly
> rule. This is right clear from the first sentence, eh;)? And the
> legacy of this group is not best described as an apocalyptic
> community, but a cultic community. That the apocalyptic resources
> were utilized as **part** of casting who this messianic figure was
> goes without saying, but Jesus is more importantly cast in terms of
> classical prophecy, the Davidic covenant, the role of new Moses and
> Solomonic wisdom (and let's not forget Melkizidek:)!). That some
> communities early on went a bit zoo-y on "end times" ferment only
> tells us that some of those Gentiles didn't quite get the
> ramifications of Jewish eschatological thought (this sort of zoo-i-
> ness has a rather long history, itself). All the Gospels, yes, even
> Mark, are exegetical works meant for what they've been used for for
> nigh onto 2 millennia now... feasting celebration, sermonizing,
> scriptural reflection, etc. If we want to peer underneath Mark's
> messiah (and to do this one has to affirm some resources available
> to us from such as Paul, Thomas, Q, the Didache, Josephus... so we
> have more than one source to work with), well this goes to show, in
> my view, that Mark didn't think Jesus was "an apocalyptic prophet"
> either:)! One who "only speaks in parables" isn't doing prophetic
> utterances by any definition from the Hebraic heritage!"
>
> I agree for sure. Mark's Jesus is apocalyptic in pieces, but that
> is not primarily Mark's main point by any means. The only time he
> really gets off on God's impending slaughter of humanity is in
> chapter 13, a discourse heard by 4 souls who are, if we accept the
> overall narrative, pretty much guaranteed not to understand it. And
> isn't it generally concluded that somewhere between little and
> none of it was actually spoken by Jesus?

As I noted to Mike's note, it looks like 13 is a later addition to the
work.  I'm not against "Mark" whoever the heck the writer is, being the
one to add it.  But it really cuts into the flow of the story and is a
rather odd sort of intrusion.  And, per what you say, it's not really
"an apocalyptic prophetic" sort of railing, but a conversation with 4
folks... who as you've already notes are not the most reliable folks in
the world for Mark's story;)!  So, if Jesus was having this really bad
day and did say these sorts of things to his 4 rather oblivious
companions, one can hardly make a case that he is defined by being "an
apocalyptic prophet;)!"
>
> Paul is said to be quite the apocalyptic fellow and a firm Jesusite
> and yet there is not a single time when we agree that Paul
> accurately calls upon the sayings of Jesus to support his
> apocalyptic views. If Jesus was mainly an apocalyptus why has this
> been forgotten by Paul?

Exactly!



>   Of course, IF we want to say that Mark's
> is a fictional Jesus, then the apocalypticism of Mark (cptr 13) will
> have been retrojected there from the later apocalyptic groups.
>
> Thomas, of course, is anti-apocalyptic, denying directly that Jesus
> taught such stuff, perhaps in response to the growing tendency to
> retroject apocalypticism onto Him.
>
> While I do not agree for a nanosecond that the gospels are "works
> meant for what they've been used for" nor that Jesus was, in
> Mark, that host of things you say he was cast to be, I do agree that
> he is the suffering servant messiah first and foremost. And, of
> course, we can be fairly sure that he didn't, if he was an
> historical figure, think that that was what he was.
>
> GR "3. Back to the other subject line about historical research +
> the viability of Christianity hanging in the balance, folks would do
> well to read a book like Jaroslav Pelikan's book about Christ across
> the centuries. That book rather nicely lays out the many view of
> Christ that have been variously created and focused on across these
> 2 millennia. They are numerous and they go to show the rich tapestry
> of what reading the Gospels has led to. Back to Schweitzer's rather
> stoic picture of a failed, but courageous millennial figure this
> rather makes much sense in light of the European world at the turn
> of the last century. And this is to say, that Schweitzer's
> characterization fits nicely as one of the creative works of
> exegetical imagination. Notably he left the schoolhouse and went off
> to doctoring after this leaving the growing nightmare world for a
> place where he could practice a bit of human care. If that's the
> legacy of his sort of portraiture, then hey, not bad! But, of
> course, the making of exegetical portraits isn't doing history."
>
> And since the Gospels are exegetical portraits, where does that
> leave us? It sure does seem that everybody creates a Jesus to fit
> their own selves, doesn't it? You can criticize Schweitzer for
> this, and I keep noting that Crossan's Jesus is a fine American
> liberal. Preachers figure Jesus and or the evangelists were mainly
> interested in sermonizing and scriptural reflections, professors
> know they were primarily teachers, and Mormons find them to be
> prototypical of persons of the Mormon faith. But I guess this isn't
> news. Yet isn't it creepy how everybody knows that people make their
> image of Jesus like themselves and yet, having acknowledged this,
> away they go doing it anyhow.

Oh, I don't know... folks want role models or anti-role models;)!
Better than Paris Hilton or.... (fill in the blank for the countless
others that crop up across time);)!
I rather think such as Pelikan does a nice job tracing the serious
creative attempts as casting the figure of Jesus.  As this is an
important cultural phenomena (and I think about how such as MLK, Jr.
and Malcolm X have been variously iconized across my lifetime... and
right now I think about Malcolm in life and then 30 years later showing
up on a U.S. Postage Starmp) there are more and less helpful attempts
at doing this. What I have in mind is that attempts that help encourage
some virtuous behavior are on the good side of such human creativity.
But having noted that I think historical study is a value in its own
right and that honesty is an important (duh, huh:)!).  As one is
careful with any shards of the ancient past, a good dose of humility
and care is needed with these, relatively few, shards about Jesus and
his earliest compatriots.
>
> Maybe the non-paralleled sayings in Thomas reflect the Real Jesus
> and He was, therefore, not anything like anybody in Christendom
> today. or maybe not.

LOL... of such theories, there will be no end.  Completely off the
subject, but to end on an amusement.... a recent edition of the on-line
"Onion" had this hysterical story about "proof" of "skeleton people"
who lived in ancient Egypt.  Check it out.  A lot that has been written
about Jesus and all sorts of other folks is about on the same level.

Gordon Raynal
Inman, SC

--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "John C. Poirier" <poirier@s...>
wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Thanks for your clarification of "creepy", but it brings up an
interesting > question about your denigration of Sanders's view.
You wrote: "[I]sn't it> creepy how everybody knows that people make
their image of Jesus like > themselves and yet, having acknowledged
this, away they go doing it anyhow."
> Since you seemed, in your original post, to connect your use
of "creepy" to > something Sanders does (with respect to his use of
the synoptics and non-use > of Thomas), I really don't understand
your comment.

I'm sure the comment wasn't worth understanding. I have problems
with John Meier's attempt to argue Thomas away into nothingness in
his Marginal Jew 1, but I have to admit that the effort is a proper
one for an historian. Here we have a text, Thomas, that many think
to be of about equivalent value to the other historically useful
texts(Q, Mark) and of greater value than the rest (John, GPhilip)
and if you, as an historian, want to flat out ignore it, you must
come up with reasons to do so. Which Meier does. Bad reasons, but
reasons. (I don't want to get into that debate at this point
though). Sanders, however, just pretends Thomas doesn't exist. Poof,
he wishes it away and away it goes. I think Paula does too, but I
can't say so with certainty. Now that is just incompetent
historiography and not one bit above the level of Bible College
professors who wouldn't even think of making use of non-canonical
writings. Meier wouldn't think of doing it either but at least he
tries to justify himself.

Steve

--- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...>
wrote:

> The eschatological prophet who
> looked for the restoration of Israel, obedient to
> Torah, does not square with Sanders' own breed of
> Christianity -- that is, liberal social-gospel
> Protestantism.

I've heard this term before but I've never understood it. What does
the "restoration" of Israel mean? If someone can explain it, please
do so on the level of one peasant to another. Neither Jesus'
audiences nor I understand theological discourse. If Jesus told
people that he came to verb the "restoration" of Israel, what would
they have thought he meant by that? I guess you'll have to tell me
what "Israel" is too. Does it include Mayans? Galileans? Dead
people? Does it have boundaries or does it exist on the level of The
Idea?

Steve Davies

On Jan 3, 2005, at 12:02 PM, sdavies0 wrote:

>
>
> --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, Loren Rosson <rossoiii@y...>
> wrote:
>
>> The eschatological prophet who
>> looked for the restoration of Israel, obedient to
>> Torah, does not square with Sanders' own breed of
>> Christianity -- that is, liberal social-gospel
>> Protestantism.
>
> I've heard this term before but I've never understood it. What does
> the "restoration" of Israel mean? If someone can explain it, please
> do so on the level of one peasant to another. Neither Jesus'
> audiences nor I understand theological discourse. If Jesus told
> people that he came to verb the "restoration" of Israel, what would
> they have thought he meant by that? I guess you'll have to tell me
> what "Israel" is too. Does it include Mayans? Galileans? Dead
> people? Does it have boundaries or does it exist on the level of The
> Idea?
>
> Steve Davies
>

As a quick off the cuff answer - wouldn't it simply mean returning to
the country her sovereignty?
In other words getting those pesky Romans out of the land...

Of course other more "spiritual" answers likely exist, but I suspect
that they are derivative and that a "political" view point is the
foundation. In ant event, this seems to be what Luke had in mind in
Acts 1:6, which is the only occurrence I can think of right now of this
expression in the NT.

Steve Black
The Toronto School of Theology