Re: [XTalk] "Authentic Sayings vs. Fictive Creations"
- Brian Trafford wrote...
>[snip]Yeah, I think that I can safely say that I have been infinitely more
> >The impact Jesus had on his followers is certainly relevant for
>>those who actually had physical contact with the fellow. But
>>unfortunately nobody in the New Testament actually had such contact.
>Setting aside the disputable asserion at the end of your sentence,
>are you arguing that a person can only impact on people he or she
>meets? I would never make such a claim for Martin Luther King Jr.,
>or Ghandi, or a host of other historically influencial individuals.
>People impact on one another all the time, including on those with
>whom we never have any contact at all.
influenced by the stories that I have heard about these two men than
by their "historical selves". They were both part of movements, and
as such had influence. It is a combination of the impact of the
movements and the stories heard that I would say I have "experienced"
these two men.
Even if we were to expand that and to suggest they had an impact on
me in a more direct fashion, I think the comparison between them and
Jesus is weak. Both these two men are greatly respected, but neither
are eschatological savior figures. The stories I have heard don't
have the same "folk" quality as those about Jesus. The stories of
Jesus arose in a more overtly mythological world and thus the
"historicity" of the stories is more suspect.
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.
>We wouldn't be talking about him if a world religion hadn't sprung up
> >So now we must
> >put away any notions of any "impact he had on his followers", and
> >start talking about the impact that the **STORIES** of Jesus had
> >upon the early Xn Mvt. Only in this will we be talking about
>>anything for which we have actual evidence!
>Well, in the case of multiply attested stories, we can have a pretty
>good idea as to how the life of Jesus impacted on specific
>individuals and their readers. This is what redactional criticism is
>all about, for example. In any case, I would not draw the kind of
>distinctions you have presented here, since the impact we have on the
>lives of others comes from our actions, our words, and the reports
>passed on to others about what we have said and done. In the case of
>someone like Jesus of Nazareth, this is especially true. After all,
>how many other people could even hope to generate so much interest,
>discussion and debate 1900+ years after they have died?
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.
Vancouver School of Theology
If you get confused, listen to the music play...
-Robert Hunter From "Franklin's Tower"
- James Hannam wrote:
>think this may be a US/UK thing. Some of what Dr Arnal says soundsI think you've rather misunderstood my position, or jumped to a conclusion
>disturbingly like the worst excesses of post structuralism which made
>far more headway on his side of the Atlantic than mine. Over here,
about it. I'm not taking that nasty old lit-crit line that all we have is
the text and there's nothing behind it. I am not arguing that all writing
should be viewed as imaginary until proved otherwise. ALL I have been saying
is that a) the Gospels in particular appear to me to be imaginative products
(a view generally endorsed by nearly ALL NT scholars, and even endorsed by
Brian Trafford, against whose views I THOUGHT I was arguing); and b) the
(subjective) intentionality behind any given writing is massively
complicated, and one cannot take a simple a priori position that "people
believe what they write to be literally true" -- such a position obscures
more than it reveals. I don't how either of these positions is typical of
"poststructuralist excess." Which poststructuralists or pos6tstructuralisms
do you have in mind?
>something from the historians' side. Firstly, the basic facts aboutThis is an unfair and distorted characterization. It homogenizes disparate
>Jesus are surprisingly uncontroversial to most historians. They tend
>to state them without much commentary and move on to something more
>interesting because there is really not much we can say about HJ. EP
>Sander's gives a list; we can add some more to that if we follow
>historical method and don't mind offending a few theologians, but
>half a page will cover what we can know about Jesus. But what is odd
>is that theologians do seem keen to deny even these basic facts and
>often for no particular reason.
positions. Historians differ on HJ, and so do theologians. On the basis of
such a litmus test, I'd be a theologian! The historians that *I* know
*personally* (and the classicists too) tend to take it for granted that the
gospels are NOT historically reliable literature, even in their outlines.
They are as puzzled by a "quest of the historical Jesus" as they would be by
a "quest of the historical Asclepius."
I further note that the DENIAL of the historicity of specific episodes in
the gospels is -- as several posters, including Brian Trafford, have made
clear -- really just about the ONLY solid decisions that can be made about
the HJ. In other words, it's almost impossible to demonstrate that Jesus did
or said anything -- the best we can manage with any secuirty is to say, "he
certainly didn't do this." And so, really, the difference between me and E.
P. Sanders on, say, the baptism, is that he's asserting (in shorthand):
"there are no good reasons to see this episode as Christian embellishment,
so we'll have to take it as being historical," while I'm saying, "yes, there
are LOTS of good reasons to see it as embellishment." In other words we're
talking about the same things in the same way, but disagreeing in our
specific judgments. The difference between theologians and historians in
applying this approach is simply this: for the theologian the answer is
somehow normative (often in complex and indirect ways), and for the
historian it is not. That's it. So Crossan may find it important,
rhetorically or theologically or otherwise, if "the Jews" killed Jesus. I
couldn't care less. It has no bearing on my attitude to Jews in general. Or
again, it may be important to a liberal theologian to conclude that Paul did
NOT unequivocally condemn homosexuality, or at least to somehow relativize
the condemnation that's there; it may be importanbt to a conservative
theologian to determine that Paul DID condemn it. I'm just interested in
Paul, how he operated, what he said, how he tried to shape his ekklesiai. No
skin off my nose either way: he's just some ancient dude talking about his
views on a matter that I made up MY mind about many years ago, and without
I must confess, however, to being in agreement with much of the gist of the
latter part of your post, to the effect that the HJ i sless historically
accessible, and for a variety if reasons less historically interesting, than
he is generally taken to be.
Department of Religious Studies
University of Regina
Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.