Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View "Historical Jesus" -- How Many ARE There ... ???
4 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2010 - 10:58AM #1
teilhard
Posts: 51,045

A very long Time ago in my Theological Seminary Days, we used to enjoy tossing around Jokes about the apparent ARROGANCE of some of The Scholars ...


For Example, we noted that while Prof. Dr. John Bright had written a very nice Book, "A History of Israel," Prof. Dr. Martin Noth wrote, "THE History of Israel" ...


Over the Course of many Years, it became obvious to THIS ( very SERIOUS ) Student that while ALL of the ( so-called ) "Historical Jesus" Scholarship ought to be taken SERIOUSLY -- most importantly, not OVERLY seriously ...


ALL of the Historical - Archaeological - Linguistic - Cultural - Comparative Information is both useful and helpful in understanding The Historical Lord Jesus ( The Christ ) of Nazareth -- but is NOT in any respect "Definitive" ...


The Contributions of Prof. Dr. Crossan and Prof. Dr. Schillebeeckx, e.g., are VERY significant -- and at Variance ...


ALL of the CONCLUSIONS drawn by The ( so-called ) Historical Jesus Studies are essentially "Experimental" ... "Hypothetical" ... ( therefore, tentative ) ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2010 - 2:35PM #2
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

The same ""Experimental" ... "Hypothetical" ... ( therefore, tentative ) ... " paradigm extends also to the various beliefs of the average Christian... except that there is absolutely no cognitive effort on the part of the average Christian to examine his or her views, whether on the basis of Judaism or any of the other religions (for instance Eastern religions) of the world. The trademark, therefore of Christianity, is ignorance. A recent Pew Research poll clearly showed that, with atheists showing more religious knowledge than their Christian counterparts.


One cannot really think about calling "some of the scholars" arrogant, when one is so arrogant they don't see past their faith. That, it seems, is as arrogant as it gets... As we say, it's like "the pot calling the kettle black."





Nov 8, 2010 -- 10:58AM, teilhard wrote:


A very long Time ago in my Theological Seminary Days, we used to enjoy tossing around Jokes about the apparent ARROGANCE of some of The Scholars ...


For Example, we noted that while Prof. Dr. John Bright had written a very nice Book, "A History of Israel," Prof. Dr. Martin Noth wrote, "THE History of Israel" ...


Over the Course of many Years, it became obvious to THIS ( very SERIOUS ) Student that while ALL of the ( so-called ) "Historical Jesus" Scholarship ought to be taken SERIOUSLY -- most importantly, not OVERLY seriously ...


ALL of the Historical - Archaeological - Linguistic - Cultural - Comparative Information is both useful and helpful in understanding The Historical Lord Jesus ( The Christ ) of Nazareth -- but is NOT in any respect "Definitive" ...


The Contributions of Prof. Dr. Crossan and Prof. Dr. Schillebeeckx, e.g., are VERY significant -- and at Variance ...


ALL of the CONCLUSIONS drawn by The ( so-called ) Historical Jesus Studies are essentially "Experimental" ... "Hypothetical" ... ( therefore, tentative ) ...





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 08, 2010 - 2:42PM #3
teilhard
Posts: 51,045

Actually, especially in THESE Days of Pluralism and Ecumenism, MANY People of Faith of MANY Traditions do indeed engage their own Received Traditions in DEEP Dialogue with "Others" ...


People of Faith DO often REJECT Authoritarian Pronouncements and Requirements -- EVEN when The self-anointed Authority is some Scholar or Group of Scholars ...


Nov 8, 2010 -- 2:35PM, Dennis wrote:


The same ""Experimental" ... "Hypothetical" ... ( therefore, tentative ) ... " paradigm extends also to the various beliefs of the average Christian... except that there is absolutely no cognitive effort on the part of the average Christian to examine his or her views, whether on the basis of Judaism or any of the other religions (for instance Eastern religions) of the world.





Nov 8, 2010 -- 10:58AM, teilhard wrote:


A very long Time ago in my Theological Seminary Days, we used to enjoy tossing around Jokes about the apparent ARROGANCE of some of The Scholars ...


For Example, we noted that while Prof. Dr. John Bright had written a very nice Book, "A History of Israel," Prof. Dr. Martin Noth wrote, "THE History of Israel" ...


Over the Course of many Years, it became obvious to THIS ( very SERIOUS ) Student that while ALL of the ( so-called ) "Historical Jesus" Scholarship ought to be taken SERIOUSLY -- most importantly, not OVERLY seriously ...


ALL of the Historical - Archaeological - Linguistic - Cultural - Comparative Information is both useful and helpful in understanding The Historical Lord Jesus ( The Christ ) of Nazareth -- but is NOT in any respect "Definitive" ...


The Contributions of Prof. Dr. Crossan and Prof. Dr. Schillebeeckx, e.g., are VERY significant -- and at Variance ...


ALL of the CONCLUSIONS drawn by The ( so-called ) Historical Jesus Studies are essentially "Experimental" ... "Hypothetical" ... ( therefore, tentative ) ...









Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 09, 2010 - 6:32AM #4
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

... Your last post was humorous but inaccurate, Teil! Still, the humor was something.

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 09, 2010 - 10:35AM #5
teilhard
Posts: 51,045

One of the interesting intended ongoing Effects of The Reformation Movements, beginning most strenuously in The 16th Century, and continuing today, is DEEP Appreciation and concerted Study of Scripture ...


Ironically, The Reformers, such as ( The Very Late ) Rev. Fr. Prof. Dr. Martin Luther, OSA, hoped that Study of Scripture would encourage The UNITY of The Church, while the actual Effect has INITIALLY been ever-greater-deeper FACTIONS and Sectarian Division ...


However ... Especially during the last several Decades, The Ecumenical Movement has initiated essentially a "kind" of New "COUNTER-Reformation," in which Study of Scripture sans Ideological Cant and Sectarian Spirit has s-l-o-w-l-y  begun to re-knit the unravelled Garment ...


The distinctly EXPERIMENTAL Discussions of The Historical Lord Jesus ( Christ ) of Nazareth has been a useful and helpful Aspect of that  AS  LONG  AS ( to the Extent that )  The Sectarian-Authoritarian Impulse is kept "at bay" ...


Unfortunately, SOME of The Scholars haven't gotten The Message ( yet ) but remain STUCK in The Old Nineteenth Century "Certainty" Games ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 09, 2010 - 1:46PM #6
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

You really should get out of the box, Teil, and read some of Martin Luther's anti-Semitic garbage. Then, you wouldn't have such reverence for him.

Moderated by Beliefnet_community on Nov 10, 2010 - 12:47AM
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2010 - 12:23PM #7
teilhard
Posts: 51,045

"Facts not in Evidence" ...


I HAVE read PLENTY of Luther's Writings ... and I am NOT especially "reverent" toward him ...


Nov 9, 2010 -- 1:46PM, Dennis wrote:


You really should get out of the box, Teil, and read some of Martin Luther ...


Then, you wouldn't have such reverence for him.





Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 10, 2010 - 12:33PM #8
teilhard
Posts: 51,045

But anyway ... BACK to The Topic ...


There are probably as many various IDEAS  -- and CLAIMS -- about "The Historical Lord Jesus of Nazareth" as there are "'Jesus' SCHOLARS" ...


And that's fine ...


Note, though, how the WAY one WRITES about these Questions -- choice of Terms -- reveals one's underlying Assumptions ...


John Dominic Crossan, e.g., Titled his Book, "THE Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant." ...


Edward Schillebeeckx, OTOH, Titled his, "Jesus: An Experiment in Christology." ...


The Distinction between "Definitive" and "Tentative" is NOT a SMALL Thing here ...


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 11, 2010 - 9:51AM #9
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,870

Teil, Both Crossan and Schillebeecx (spelling?) recognize that they are painting pictures of Jesus, trying to get at the historical person (for Crossan) and/or the mythological person (for Schillebeecx).  Both know they are trying to piece together the best reconstruction they can given the available evidence.  One difference however is that Schillebeecz was forced to defend his views several times from the long arm of Rome, and although he was fairly successful at this, it very definitely limited him on how he could talk about Jesus. Crossan not being currently a priest with jurisdiction has much more latitude and exercises it.  I think that is good.  Though I will say Schillebeecx did an amazing job given Rome's penchant for censure, and in so doing he greatly expanded many Catholics (like me) view of what Catholic Christianity could and should be.


Dave

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 11, 2010 - 2:36PM #10
Dennis
Posts: 1,433

Dave, Dom Crossan is now happily married and living in Florida... He did a seminar a few miles from here a month back... I doubt that he'll be a Catholic priest at this point. It's interesting that you mentioned him. This morning I quoted from The Birth of Christianity, in a thread on the new translation of the Paulines on Facebook.


The best scholarship should come from secular sources. Alas, when one chooses a field of study, bible studies don't rank among the high interest level of many secular folks. Most who go into the field are extremely religious. Many times, their zeal for "all things Christian" wanes, thankfully, and they become excellent scholars. All, however, tend to look at the historical Jesus and Paul in terms of their own history... They reconstruct the past, but tishis reconstruction is influenced by their zeitgeist. They also acknowledge this - or most do. Crossan is one of the most honest, speaking in one of his books, one of the thin ones, about how his life as a poor Irish boy probably influenced his portrayal of the Jesus "kingdom of nobodies," a Jewish peasant Jesus. Ehrman does the same in one of his books. I have a book of essays by scholars discussing how their life experiences influenced how they decipher the historical Jesus of literature. A scholar at a seminar I was at ate lunch at the table with Anne and me one day and his Congregationalist background and how he came to where he is was the major topic of conversation. When one thinks that scholars don't realize this, it is clear and plain that the person hasn't read the literature and doesn't know the scholars.


Dennis

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook