The Historical Jesus

[zealot66]

OK. I was having problems with the site yesterday. Im new to this forum and its HUGE.

Any body here interested in the historical jesus. Ive read widely from NT wright to JD Crossan. I cant get enough of it. It certainly can throw wrenches in alot of pure fundamentalist doctrine but it has become my passion to uncover the real jesus in his context to paint a more brilliant portrait of the social/ political/ religious climate from which the Gospels emerged.

I do not believe that the Gospels were written as history as WE define it. Yet the core message of jesus teachings are still there. I think we too often get doctrinalized and miss out on the opportunity to understand his story and how to tell it again today in our context.

It brings up hard questions that can rattle a person but I dont think that God fears hard questions nor judges us for asking them .

 

[heymikey80]

I guess I get a bit =roll-eyed= impatient with Crossan and Pagels, I haven't been able to spend too much time with a page or two of them before I start picking at the presuppositions. Wright ... less so. He's offered some insights (like identifying and focusing on the pronouns in exegesis) that've fired up some ideas in my mind.

Reality is quite important. I'm not sure what you mean by fundamentalism, but if you mean by that something reflected in the first scene in "Life of Brian", I can relate.

 

[KTB]

OK. I was having problems with the site yesterday. Im new to this forum and its HUGE.

Any body here interested in the historical jesus. Ive read widely from NT wright to JD Crossan. I cant get enough of it. It certainly can throw wrenches in alot of pure fundamentalist doctrine but it has become my passion to uncover the real jesus in his context to paint a more brilliant portrait of the social/ political/ religious climate from which the Gospels emerged.

I do not believe that the Gospels were written as history as WE define it. Yet the core message of jesus teachings are still there. I think we too often get doctrinalized and miss out on the opportunity to understand his story and how to tell it again today in our context.

It brings up hard questions that can rattle a person but I dont think that God fears hard questions nor judges us for asking them .

Hey man,

I am currently writing a book on the historical Jesus and I was hoping to get your input. I am slowly uncovering the real historical Jesus bit by bit and maybe we can help each other out.

Give me a shout if you can.

 

[Resha Caner]

There is nothing new under the sun. Wright, Crossan, and Pagels are snake oil salesmen.

 

[Yekcidmij]

OK. I was having problems with the site yesterday. Im new to this forum and its HUGE.

Any body here interested in the historical jesus. Ive read widely from NT wright to JD Crossan. I cant get enough of it. It certainly can throw wrenches in alot of pure fundamentalist doctrine but it has become my passion to uncover the real jesus in his context to paint a more brilliant portrait of the social/ political/ religious climate from which the Gospels emerged.

I do not believe that the Gospels were written as history as WE define it. Yet the core message of jesus teachings are still there. I think we too often get doctrinalized and miss out on the opportunity to understand his story and how to tell it again today in our context.

It brings up hard questions that can rattle a person but I dont think that God fears hard questions nor judges us for asking them .

They're all interesting to read, I have Wright, Dunn, Sanders, Meier, and Witherington on the bookshelf (and I've read Crossan), but author's conclusions will always be dependent on the assumptions made before the analysis begins, which is why they come to different conclusions. I think it's useful to read and study, and they almost always disclose their assumptions in the opening chapters.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is nothing new under the sun. Wright, Crossan, and Pagels are snake oil salesmen.

I probably wouldn't place N.T. Wright with Crossan and Pagels.

 

[Resha Caner]

I probably wouldn't place N.T. Wright with Crossan and Pagels.

Does that mean you would place him above or below the others?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Does that mean you would place him above or below the others?

Above. He does work with BioLogos, so I'll say that he's at least doctrinally robust enough to remain on the mainstream list of Christian scholars. But Crossan and especially Pagels aren't really close at all.

What portion of Wright's work do you have a grievance about?

 

[Resha Caner]

What portion of Wright's work do you have a grievance about?

That's a fair question, but my reaction was a sort of lethargic apathy. It's like when people ask if maybe the world is flat, and I think, "Really? This again?" I know that sounds bad, so I'm sorry. You're always so patient with me.

Wright is someone I left behind long ago, so I'm rusty on specifics, which isn't a good answer to your question. So, I'll say this: If the "historical Jesus" quest had any merit in terms of method, the effects would be rippling through the historical community. We'd see "historical Buddha", "historical Caesar", and "historical George Washington" efforts. But we don't. Because there's nothing to it.

One might counter with: That's because historical method is calcified and resistant to change. But that's not true. Thomas Bender's "A Nation Among Nations" has upended both the study of World history and American history.

One might also counter: That's because professional history is a closed good ol' boys club and Wright is criticizing history from the outside, so they won't listen. Also not true. An outsider that made historians sit up and take notice is Jared Diamond with "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

So, Wright, Crossan, and Pagels may have made a splash in pop history, but as far as I can tell, their impact is almost undetectable among professional historians. I've been involved with historians from probably a dozen universities across the U.S., and I've read works by probably a hundred more. I just don't see it. So much so that I once asked an expert in Ancient History from Western Michigan about Pagels. His response was to laugh ... and I mean literal out loud laughter.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a fair question, but my reaction was a sort of lethargic apathy. It's like when people ask if maybe the world is flat, and I think, "Really? This again?" I know that sounds bad, so I'm sorry. You're always so patient with me.

Wright is someone I left behind long ago, so I'm rusty on specifics, which isn't a good answer to your question. So, I'll say this: If the "historical Jesus" quest had any merit in terms of method, the effects would be rippling through the historical community. We'd see "historical Buddha", "historical Caesar", and "historical George Washington" efforts. But we don't. Because there's nothing to it.

One might counter with: That's because historical method is calcified and resistant to change. But that's not true. Thomas Bender's "A Nation Among Nations" has upended both the study of World history and American history.

One might also counter: That's because professional history is a closed good ol' boys club and Wright is criticizing history from the outside, so they won't listen. Also not true. An outsider that made historians sit up and take notice is Jared Diamond with "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

So, Wright, Crossan, and Pagels may have made a splash in pop history, but as far as I can tell, their impact is almost undetectable among professional historians. I've been involved with historians from probably a dozen universities across the U.S., and I've read works by probably a hundred more. I just don't see it. So much so that I once asked an expert in Ancient History from Western Michigan about Pagels. His response was to laugh ... and I mean literal out loud laughter.

To tell you the truth, N.T. Wright isn't a big name on my list of 'go-to' scholars. I only have one book on my shelf by him, and what little I know of his teaching comes from a few things I've heard spoken by him on youtube. From those scant sources, I haven't drawn the impression that he's somehow 'off' the grid.

Now, Crossan and Pagels, on the other hand, they're both obviously 'off' the grid, and my reading of them has only been taken up for the purpose of being familiar with their ideas so I can be grappled with on occasion.

As for my own interaction with 'historical thought,' I lean more toward looking at the nuances of issues within the field of the Philosophy of History more than I look at the actual historical 'bits' by supposedly tell us something 'factual' about the past of our reality. However, I'll add your suggestion of Thomas Bender as an additional voice to add to the list of other scholars I look at...

Thanks for the recommendation, Resha Caner!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's a fair question, but my reaction was a sort of lethargic apathy. It's like when people ask if maybe the world is flat, and I think, "Really? This again?" I know that sounds bad, so I'm sorry. You're always so patient with me.

Wright is someone I left behind long ago, so I'm rusty on specifics, which isn't a good answer to your question. So, I'll say this: If the "historical Jesus" quest had any merit in terms of method, the effects would be rippling through the historical community. We'd see "historical Buddha", "historical Caesar", and "historical George Washington" efforts. But we don't. Because there's nothing to it.

One might counter with: That's because historical method is calcified and resistant to change. But that's not true. Thomas Bender's "A Nation Among Nations" has upended both the study of World history and American history.

One might also counter: That's because professional history is a closed good ol' boys club and Wright is criticizing history from the outside, so they won't listen. Also not true. An outsider that made historians sit up and take notice is Jared Diamond with "Guns, Germs, and Steel".

So, Wright, Crossan, and Pagels may have made a splash in pop history, but as far as I can tell, their impact is almost undetectable among professional historians. I've been involved with historians from probably a dozen universities across the U.S., and I've read works by probably a hundred more. I just don't see it. So much so that I once asked an expert in Ancient History from Western Michigan about Pagels. His response was to laugh ... and I mean literal out loud laughter.

Here's another question: I don't see you over on the Christian Apologetics section much, if at all. What gives?

 

[Resha Caner]

As for my own interaction with 'historical thought,' I lean more toward looking at the nuances of issues within the field of the Philosophy of History more than I look at the actual historical 'bits' by supposedly tell us something 'factual' about the past of our reality.

My own interests tend toward the philosophical as well. Since my graduate work focused on the history of education, I took a course in educational issues. I read a great study on high school mathematics education that uncovered a concern where many high school students leave thinking they know all there is to know about math. Very far from the truth.

Facts are to history what arithmetic is to math - just the rudimentary fundamentals.

And my experience is that many, many people leave high school thinking they know all there is to know about history - not in the sense of knowing all the facts, but rather in thinking that history is only about the facts.

Here's another question: I don't see you over on the Christian Apologetics section much, if at all. What gives?

I guess it doesn't interest me. Why? Is there a particular topic grabbing the headlines at the moment?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My own interests tend toward the philosophical as well. Since my graduate work focused on the history of education, I took a course in educational issues. I read a great study on high school mathematics education that uncovered a concern where many high school students leave thinking they know all there is to know about math. Very far from the truth.

From the sound of it, you and I have had some similar lines of study. My graduate work likewise focused on education, although my area was in social science, and I found some similar studies related to how students in high school (and also in college) often lack a deeper understanding of philosophical issues involved N.O.S. and they therefore often carry along superficial understandings of what and how scientists actually do what they do.

Facts are to history what arithmetic is to math - just the rudimentary fundamentals.

Yep. Facts are facts, kind of.

And my experience is that many, many people leave high school thinking they know all there is to know about history - not in the sense of knowing all the facts, but rather in thinking that history is only about the facts.

Yep. And the same can be said for science; but of course, I know that you already know this, so I won't preach to the choir about it.

I guess it doesn't interest me. Why? Is there a particular topic grabbing the headlines at the moment?

Not really any particular topic, no.

 

[Of the Kingdom]

I have a copy of "The Birth of the Messiah" by Raymond E. Brown. I find it a useful book, but I don't want to spend a lot of time reading it. At every turn the suggestion is made that a writer "made up" or "augmented" a story to suit the needs of his audience.

The book is helpful, in many cases it demonstrates that even if the writer did "make up" or "add to" the story he told, there is a kernel of truth in the story that we can be confident of. Unfortunately, if I keep reading about all the "made up" stuff, I think my faith would eventually be weakened, and I would start to subconsciously think maybe some of the writers really did make stuff up to suit their convenience.