Anyway, before I do the next brass tacks I am going to ask you some questions which I think you (and that pious, pontificating Bishops Finger and others of that ilk) will have some real difficulty answering.
Sticks and stones may break my bones...
@James Boswell II , do be careful about chucking personal insults around. The Hosts and Admins don't like it.
<snip> (and that pious, pontificating Bishops Finger and others of that ilk) <snip> I am not going to do that for sheer spite (well, not entirely) but in a sincere attempt to clear some space here for better understanding.
Host hat on @James Boswell II the first part of your post which I have quoted looks very like a personal attack. At the very least it is ‘getting personal’ and addressing the person rather than the argument. Please don’t.
As to the second part of your quoted post it had better be entirely not for sheer spite. Posting for spite rather than actual discussion is disingenuous, and is generally called trolling. It is not welcome here. Host hat off
BroJames Purg Host
(I've been avoiding this thread, having had a nosey at the OP a little while ago, but am I alone in thinking "earlei in the morning" whenever the thread title flashes across the screen?)
@mark_in_manchester - that song was mentioned earlier in the thread - and if you saw the last season of Only Connect there was a much more entertaining explanation of the lyrics, given here
Martin, I'm beginning to feel a bit more friendly toward you. That may be a mistake, for I recall you once called me "enemy mine." Anyway, before I do the next brass tacks I am going to ask you some questions which I think you (and that pious, pontificating Bishops Finger and others of that ilk) will have some real difficulty answering. I am not going to do that for sheer spite (well, not entirely) but in a sincere attempt to clear some space here for better understanding. But now I'm off to church Stay tuned.
Enemy mine is a term of respect which goes too far in the light of that ad hominem. We are family here. There are those here who wouldn't cross the street to piss on me if I were on fire. We fight. But attack one attack all.
Ask anything you will: I will have no difficulty answering. What hubris that you should think that possible, like you know something we don't about Jesus, history, theology, epistemology. Unless you're Lacanian.
Martin, I'm beginning to feel a bit more friendly toward you. That may be a mistake, for I recall you once called me "enemy mine." Anyway, before I do the next brass tacks I am going to ask you some questions which I think you (and that pious, pontificating Bishops Finger and others of that ilk) will have some real difficulty answering. I am not going to do that for sheer spite (well, not entirely) but in a sincere attempt to clear some space here for better understanding. But now I'm off to church Stay tuned.
Enemy mine is a term of respect which goes too far in the light of that ad hominem. We are family here. There are those here who wouldn't cross the street to piss on me if I were on fire. We fight. But attack one attack all.
.
Now, now, Martin. I think I speak for all of us when I say that, were you on fire, we would most definitely piss on you.
First, I want to apologize to everyone here for coming across as one who is arrogant or thinks he knows-it-all, in so far as I may have done that. I will be trying to correct that impression.
Second, I want to apologize to Bishops Finger for personal attack. I meant it to be a bit more satirical, and in all honesty I felt he had engaged in some unkind comments toward me,
however--
a) looking back, I see that I totally misread some of the things he said, and apologize for that too. In the future I will try to read more carefully. I also saw that my contention that I had not been "nasty" while others had was not the case, or at least far less than I thought.
b) so now I want to turn over a new leaf.
That may seem impossible, seeing as how I recently indicated that I was going to ask some questions that many of you may find difficult to answer. I know that sounds totally in-your-face, but I do not mean it that way. In genuine humility, allow me to state that I say that only because those same questions were quite difficult for me to deal with as a youngster and a young man. Only for that reason do I think they may prove difficult for some of you.
Anyway, I don't think that I, for one, could have handled those questions very well without the help of churches and academic communities who encouraged me to use methods of historical and textual study, including higher criticism. Stay tuned.
Martin, I'm beginning to feel a bit more friendly toward you. That may be a mistake, for I recall you once called me "enemy mine." Anyway, before I do the next brass tacks I am going to ask you some questions which I think you (and that pious, pontificating Bishops Finger and others of that ilk) will have some real difficulty answering. I am not going to do that for sheer spite (well, not entirely) but in a sincere attempt to clear some space here for better understanding. But now I'm off to church Stay tuned.
Enemy mine is a term of respect which goes too far in the light of that ad hominem. We are family here. There are those here who wouldn't cross the street to piss on me if I were on fire. We fight. But attack one attack all.
.
Now, now, Martin. I think I speak for all of us when I say that, were you on fire, we would most definitely piss on you.
Dowsing myself in petrol as we speak, Arethosemyfeet.
First, I want to apologize to everyone here for coming across as one who is arrogant or thinks he knows-it-all, in so far as I may have done that. I will be trying to correct that impression.
Second, I want to apologize to Bishops Finger for personal attack. I meant it to be a bit more satirical, and in all honesty I felt he had engaged in some unkind comments toward me,
however--
a) looking back, I see that I totally misread some of the things he said, and apologize for that too. In the future I will try to read more carefully. I also saw that my contention that I had not been "nasty" while others had was not the case, or at least far less than I thought.
b) so now I want to turn over a new leaf.
That may seem impossible, seeing as how I recently indicated that I was going to ask some questions that many of you may find difficult to answer. I know that sounds totally in-your-face, but I do not mean it that way. In genuine humility, allow me to state that I say that only because those same questions were quite difficult for me to deal with as a youngster and a young man. Only for that reason do I think they may prove difficult for some of you.
Anyway, I don't think that I, for one, could have handled those questions very well without the help of churches and academic communities who encouraged me to use methods of historical and textual study, including higher criticism. Stay tuned.
Rudolph Bultmann influenced a lot of people to think that we can know almost nothing about Jesus, though he was himself convinced that Jesus was into apocalyptic thinking. There has been a tremendous amount of scholarly reaction since then, indicating that we can know quite a lot But that includes the Jesus Seminar aberration who, however, found the kind of Jesus they wanted to find (non apocalyptic, among other things).
Anybody here into N. T. Wright? Another aberration imho. Almost a preterist. Perhaps not almost.
A 'preterist'? Sounds rather naughty... As you might gather, I have read very little Theology, and, having been a hardline conservative until comparatively recently have certainly not come into direct contact with a book by Bultmann. Nor am I intending to read much theology, despite the ever-growing pile of theology books my wife is reading to do her LLM course.
The point is I like History more, and have tried to keep it up, including some of the philosophy which underlies it. It is from that standpoint I am particularly critical of our ability to understand a figure in the past where there are no primary sources. (If only the 'titilus crucis' could be verified …) That historians insist we have very little evidence about Jesus Christ must be extremely irritating for theologians, but it is as important as ever in the current cultural climate to be accurate about what we know, and don't know, in terms of the disciplines we use, even if it is awkward sometimes from the point of view of our Faith. It is that aspect of your enterprise - that you appear to have found some new historical facts - that I am concerned about.
@wabale
Before I "get on with it," I will say to you, wabale, that you might get a kick out of web-searching "preterists," a somewhat small splinter group of wantta-be fundamentalistic scriptural literalists. I say "wantta-be" because their literalism forces them to conclude that Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant, meaning that most if not all of his expectations were already fulfilled in 70CE (before that generation had passed away)!
Well, at least that keeps them out of trouble, repeating the constant mistake of predicting that "Jesus is about to return in our day!", a mistake that has cropped up again and again throughout the middle ages and on into recent times.
@wabale
I appreciate the way you admit what you do not know (or care about).
Let me point this out: You frequently mention theology, and it IS true that many "historical Jesus" questers did and do New Testament theology based on their research findings. But there are also some who pretty much limit themselves to the historical questions and consider their research to be a precursor or prelude to whatever use the theologians may or may not make of it.
Dale Allison is one such, modest in seeking to do the historical work.
That historians insist we have very little evidence about Jesus Christ must be extremely irritating for theologians, but it is as important as ever in the current cultural climate to be accurate about what we know, and don't know, in terms of the disciplines we use, even if it is awkward sometimes from the point of view of our Faith.
While historians love primary sources when they can get them, few historians have access to as many primary sources as they would like, and not many historians would restrict the term evidence to primary sources only.
I'll add that professional historians are not the same as Biblical source critics, and tend to treat Biblical evidence in a way that runs entirely counter to the instincts of Biblical source critics. For example, the atheist historian Robin Lane Fox, on looking at the New Testament, considered John to be of the greatest documentary value, then Luke, and treats Mark as merely confirmatory when it supports the other two; this being the reverse of the way Biblical source critics were accustomed to think of the three.
@wabale
Before I "get on with it," I will say to you, wabale, that you might get a kick out of web-searching "preterists," a somewhat small splinter group of wantta-be fundamentalistic scriptural literalists. I say "wantta-be" because their literalism forces them to conclude that Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant, meaning that most if not all of his expectations were already fulfilled in 70CE (before that generation had passed away)!
Well, at least that keeps them out of trouble, repeating the constant mistake of predicting that "Jesus is about to return in our day!", a mistake that has cropped up again and again throughout the middle ages and on into recent times.
There was I thinking that 'preterists' were Anglican clergy getting themselves into trouble again! [heavy irony which I hope translates across the ocean]. Theology is so rich in jargon. James Boswell ll, I am slightly bemused by the apparent contempt of one tribe of theologians for another, and, to be honest, I don't quite know how to take it, because to me it always comes across as intellectual arrogance, whatever the colour of the theology, or whoever is expressing it. Then again, I'd probably join in if I was a theologian.
@wabale
I appreciate the way you admit what you do not know (or care about).
Let me point this out: You frequently mention theology, and it IS true that many "historical Jesus" questers did and do New Testament theology based on their research findings. But there are also some who pretty much limit themselves to the historical questions and consider their research to be a precursor or prelude to whatever use the theologians may or may not make of it.
Dale Allison is one such, modest in seeking to do the historical work.
I do appreciate Theology: I just happen to love History more. My college tutor of many moons ago later wrote a book called 'Jesus, A Question of Identity' where both disciplines were fully engaged, and if the subject is 'the historical Jesus' they certainly need to be.
As I was getting into it during my college years, I kept sort of feeling there was something missing. I didn't realize that what was missing was largely due to Bultmann's influence.
Butltmann basically told people that they didn't really want to know about the historical Jesus because they would simply come up with an Old Testment (better, TaNaKh) outdated eschatological prophet. So Bultmann advocated demythologizing or better, remythologizing Jesus, finding some sort of existential relevance for him, not in the historical Jesus' teachings, but in the kerygma, the church's proclamation of him, with emphasis on good news message of the early church. That, Bultmann argued, was what the man in the street needed.t.
I always that that was a bit dishonest.
A Bultmannian tells the man in the street,
"
You don't want to know about Jesus, you want to know about the proclamation of the church."
Man in the street, "And what is that proclmation?"
Bultmannian: "That Jesus Christ is Lord."
duh?
That's putting it too simply, but has some truth to it, I think.
I went to Germany in 1973 and there I bean reading a book by a skeptical author tearing Jesus down, and he used Joachim Jeremias' newly published Theology I: The Proclamation of Jesus to do that. But the excerpts I read from Jeremias' book that the skeptic quoted caused me to say, "Well at least this scholar is telling the truth about Jesus, his genuine expectations. He's being honest about that." So I got his book and excitedly read it in German. And that for me was the beginning of a renewed interest in historical Jesus studies.
I have not read Robin Lane Fox, but I think he would have a hard time convincing historians of almost any stripe that the the Gospel of John is a one of the more valuable historical resources for studying the historical Jesus
Which is not to say, however, that it never is.
John P. Meier, for example, one of my favorite living historical Jesus scholars, frequently accords the Gospel of John more historical value than I do.
Hi Dafyd.
I'm reading Robin Lane Fox at the moment on the subject of Pagans and Christians, and I appreciate your example of how the different disciplines relate.
As initially a student of 20th century history I would disagree with you about paucity of evidence: on the contrary. there's too much of the darned stuff. And I suspect historians have managed to get through all the government records even of Henry Vlll only comparatively recently, at least in the sense of reading them once!
Perhaps I have overstated, for the sake of effect, the case for lack of historical evidence. But I have to say Frances Young, in her introduction to the 1st volume of the Cambridge History of Christianity, is even more cautious about what we can establish on any historical topic, before pointing out that the History of early Christianity presents particular difficulties. This is in a section called 'Jesus the Jew: towards a plausible portrait', which suggests to me a journey which is unlikely to be completed. Providentially, perhaps?
That may seem impossible, seeing as how I recently indicated that I was going to ask some questions that many of you may find difficult to answer. I know that sounds totally in-your-face, but I do not mean it that way.
On the contrary it doesn't sound in-your-face. It sounds smug and patronizing.
@James Boswell II you do realise joining on 22 June 2019, starting posting on 26 June and racking up 111 posts, 110 on this thread in 4 days is not usual behaviour for this forum? Most of us, even the most verbose*, do not post 25 times a day on average. It does feel as if you've come to lecture us on your book, not join in a discussion forum.
Yeah, I know this will be post 4,376, but there are a couple of people who've posted more than me, still. And my post count includes lots of game playing.
I think lecturing the Ship might be a break from writer's block on the novel.
First, I want to apologize to everyone here for coming across as one who is arrogant or thinks he knows-it-all, in so far as I may have done that. I will be trying to correct that impression.
Second, I want to apologize to Bishops Finger for personal attack. I meant it to be a bit more satirical, and in all honesty I felt he had engaged in some unkind comments toward me,
however--
a) looking back, I see that I totally misread some of the things he said, and apologize for that too. In the future I will try to read more carefully. I also saw that my contention that I had not been "nasty" while others had was not the case, or at least far less than I thought.
b) so now I want to turn over a new leaf.
That may seem impossible, seeing as how I recently indicated that I was going to ask some questions that many of you may find difficult to answer. I know that sounds totally in-your-face, but I do not mean it that way. In genuine humility, allow me to state that I say that only because those same questions were quite difficult for me to deal with as a youngster and a young man. Only for that reason do I think they may prove difficult for some of you.
Anyway, I don't think that I, for one, could have handled those questions very well without the help of churches and academic communities who encouraged me to use methods of historical and textual study, including higher criticism. Stay tuned.
"In genuine humility, allow me to state that I say that only because those same questions were quite difficult for me to deal with as a youngster and a young man. Only for that reason do I think they may prove difficult for some of you.
"Anyway, I don't think that I, for one, could have handled those questions very well without the help of churches and academic communities who encouraged me to use methods of historical and textual study, including higher criticism."
__________________
Of course if these things that caused difficulties for me as a youth studying the gospels -- if they do not cause difficulty for any of you, that would be wonderful.
"In genuine humility, allow me to state that I say that only because those same questions were quite difficult for me to deal with as a youngster and a young man. Only for that reason do I think they may prove difficult for some of you.
"Anyway, I don't think that I, for one, could have handled those questions very well without the help of churches and academic communities who encouraged me to use methods of historical and textual study, including higher criticism."
I’m afraid that taken in context with most everything else you’ve posted, it comes across as false modesty.
(I've been avoiding this thread, having had a nosey at the OP a little while ago, but am I alone in thinking "earlei in the morning" whenever the thread title flashes across the screen?)
As I was getting into it during my college years, I kept sort of feeling there was something missing. I didn't realize that what was missing was largely due to Bultmann's influence.
Butltmann basically told people that they didn't really want to know about the historical Jesus because they would simply come up with an Old Testment (better, TaNaKh) outdated eschatological prophet. So Bultmann advocated demythologizing or better, remythologizing Jesus, finding some sort of existential relevance for him, not in the historical Jesus' teachings, but in the kerygma, the church's proclamation of him, with emphasis on good news message of the early church. That, Bultmann argued, was what the man in the street needed.t.
I always that that was a bit dishonest.
A Bultmannian tells the man in the street,
"
You don't want to know about Jesus, you want to know about the proclamation of the church."
Man in the street, "And what is that proclmation?"
Bultmannian: "That Jesus Christ is Lord."
duh?
That's putting it too simply, but has some truth to it, I think.
The man in the street needs to see the Incarnation in, by, through others. And not in their empty claims.
@Lyda
Writer's block? The Dead Sea Gospel is finished and is available. on Amazon.
@Lamb Chopped
You say,
"You seem to feel contempt for those who do not hold the opinions you hold. Why is that?"
I suppose you said that because I mentioned higher criticism which you disdain. So let me just answer you with this: I'm pretty sure that what I am about to say will be as innocent, understandable, honest, upright, rational and sincere as I or anyone can be, and yet I anticipate that it will be met with hatred, contempt, ridicule, mockery, and disparagement. Why is that?
You must wait a little longer. I'm still working on it.
I will, however, just say this to you ahead of time. I noticed earlier that you mentioned Jesus' "half siblings." Even the Catholic scholar J. P. Meier admits that there never would have been any attempt to claim that Jesus' brothers and sisters were not really and simply his brothers and sisters if the Church (the Roman Catholic one) had not later developed the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. (As you know, that doctrine runs into a little bit of a problem at Matthew 1:25).
While you are waiting, rather than twiddle your thumbs, you might go to [link redacted] and look on the MORE/DISCUSSIONS page for the Dialogue With a Conservative Pastor to get some idea of what may be coming.
While you are waiting, rather than twiddle your thumbs, you might go to [link redacted] and look on the MORE/DISCUSSIONS page for the Dialogue With a Conservative Pastor to get some idea of what may be coming.
(Hope the hosts don't mind me saying that.)
This is now above host pay grade. Repeatedly ignoring hosts and admins will get you a suspension. You've been warned about repeated advertising of your site. Don't do it again, and don't dispute this ruling anywhere other than the Styx, or expect some shore leave.
@Lyda
Writer's block? The Dead Sea Gospel is finished and is available. on Amazon.
@Lamb Chopped
You say,
"You seem to feel contempt for those who do not hold the opinions you hold. Why is that?"
I suppose you said that because I mentioned higher criticism which you disdain.
No, I said it because of your tone.
And I don't "disdain" higher criticism. I disagree with it. It is an error to cast the entire discussion (such as it is, we don't appear to have anything to discuss as yet!) in emotional terms.
Even the Catholic scholar J. P. Meier admits that there never would have been any attempt to claim that Jesus' brothers and sisters were not really and simply his brothers and sisters if the Church (the Roman Catholic one) had not later developed the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Um, the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity was firmly in place well before anything that can be meaningfully be called "Roman Catholic" existed. Another page from the Dan Brown school of ecclesiastical history.
While you are waiting, rather than twiddle your thumbs, you might go to [link redacted] and look on the MORE/DISCUSSIONS page for the Dialogue With a Conservative Pastor to get some idea of what may be coming.
Indeed. The infancy gospel of James is reckoned to be mid 2nd century and based on much earlier oral traditions. And the church was clear by the 4th/5th century ecumenical councils that Mary was Theotokos (mother of God) rather than simply Christotokos (mother of the earthly Jesus).
Speaking as a nonconformist protestant who has spent a lot of time studying early church history, I've had to revise my understanding of Mary. Many populist protestant views of Mary are simply unhistorical. Going back to the historical roots makes that very clear.
Of course you can argue that such veneration of Mary was an early wrong turn. But if so then there were a lot of wrong headed church leaders around, all of whom were seeking seriously to follow the apostolic understanding of the faith once given.
Of course you can argue that such veneration of Mary was an early wrong turn. But if so then there were a lot of wrong headed church leaders around, all of whom were seeking seriously to follow the apostolic understanding of the faith once given.
As I recall, the protestant historian Philip Schaff, in The Principle of Protestantism, had to admit the antiquity of such practices. His argument was that these were well-meant efforts by the church to lead a pagan population to Christ, but that abuses gradually crept in, eventually requiring the protestant renewal to establish the pure catholic doctrine once and for all. His thinking leans a lot on Newman's "development of doctrine" but obviously with a very different direction.
Yes at least with regards to veneration of Mary, the Protestant revisionist is required to push the total apostasy of the church back more than a century before Constantine, letting Connie off the hook, so to speak.
Comments
Sticks and stones may break my bones...
@James Boswell II , do be careful about chucking personal insults around. The Hosts and Admins don't like it.
@James Boswell II the first part of your post which I have quoted looks very like a personal attack. At the very least it is ‘getting personal’ and addressing the person rather than the argument. Please don’t.
As to the second part of your quoted post it had better be entirely not for sheer spite. Posting for spite rather than actual discussion is disingenuous, and is generally called trolling. It is not welcome here.
Host hat off
BroJames Purg Host
I'd forgotten about the explanation of the lyrics...
https://youtube.com/watch?v=qGyPuey-1Jw
Enemy mine is a term of respect which goes too far in the light of that ad hominem. We are family here. There are those here who wouldn't cross the street to piss on me if I were on fire. We fight. But attack one attack all.
Ask anything you will: I will have no difficulty answering. What hubris that you should think that possible, like you know something we don't about Jesus, history, theology, epistemology. Unless you're Lacanian.
Now, now, Martin. I think I speak for all of us when I say that, were you on fire, we would most definitely piss on you.
First, I want to apologize to everyone here for coming across as one who is arrogant or thinks he knows-it-all, in so far as I may have done that. I will be trying to correct that impression.
Second, I want to apologize to Bishops Finger for personal attack. I meant it to be a bit more satirical, and in all honesty I felt he had engaged in some unkind comments toward me,
however--
a) looking back, I see that I totally misread some of the things he said, and apologize for that too. In the future I will try to read more carefully. I also saw that my contention that I had not been "nasty" while others had was not the case, or at least far less than I thought.
b) so now I want to turn over a new leaf.
That may seem impossible, seeing as how I recently indicated that I was going to ask some questions that many of you may find difficult to answer. I know that sounds totally in-your-face, but I do not mean it that way. In genuine humility, allow me to state that I say that only because those same questions were quite difficult for me to deal with as a youngster and a young man. Only for that reason do I think they may prove difficult for some of you.
Anyway, I don't think that I, for one, could have handled those questions very well without the help of churches and academic communities who encouraged me to use methods of historical and textual study, including higher criticism. Stay tuned.
Dowsing myself in petrol as we speak, Arethosemyfeet.
Get on with it man.
A 'preterist'? Sounds rather naughty... As you might gather, I have read very little Theology, and, having been a hardline conservative until comparatively recently have certainly not come into direct contact with a book by Bultmann. Nor am I intending to read much theology, despite the ever-growing pile of theology books my wife is reading to do her LLM course.
The point is I like History more, and have tried to keep it up, including some of the philosophy which underlies it. It is from that standpoint I am particularly critical of our ability to understand a figure in the past where there are no primary sources. (If only the 'titilus crucis' could be verified …) That historians insist we have very little evidence about Jesus Christ must be extremely irritating for theologians, but it is as important as ever in the current cultural climate to be accurate about what we know, and don't know, in terms of the disciplines we use, even if it is awkward sometimes from the point of view of our Faith. It is that aspect of your enterprise - that you appear to have found some new historical facts - that I am concerned about.
I hope it ignites quicker'n you can pee it!
Actually, it wasn't petrol, but a rather rough red wine (cheapskate that I am). I think you'll be OK...
Before I "get on with it," I will say to you, wabale, that you might get a kick out of web-searching "preterists," a somewhat small splinter group of wantta-be fundamentalistic scriptural literalists. I say "wantta-be" because their literalism forces them to conclude that Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant, meaning that most if not all of his expectations were already fulfilled in 70CE (before that generation had passed away)!
Well, at least that keeps them out of trouble, repeating the constant mistake of predicting that "Jesus is about to return in our day!", a mistake that has cropped up again and again throughout the middle ages and on into recent times.
I appreciate the way you admit what you do not know (or care about).
Let me point this out: You frequently mention theology, and it IS true that many "historical Jesus" questers did and do New Testament theology based on their research findings. But there are also some who pretty much limit themselves to the historical questions and consider their research to be a precursor or prelude to whatever use the theologians may or may not make of it.
Dale Allison is one such, modest in seeking to do the historical work.
I'll add that professional historians are not the same as Biblical source critics, and tend to treat Biblical evidence in a way that runs entirely counter to the instincts of Biblical source critics. For example, the atheist historian Robin Lane Fox, on looking at the New Testament, considered John to be of the greatest documentary value, then Luke, and treats Mark as merely confirmatory when it supports the other two; this being the reverse of the way Biblical source critics were accustomed to think of the three.
There was I thinking that 'preterists' were Anglican clergy getting themselves into trouble again! [heavy irony which I hope translates across the ocean]. Theology is so rich in jargon. James Boswell ll, I am slightly bemused by the apparent contempt of one tribe of theologians for another, and, to be honest, I don't quite know how to take it, because to me it always comes across as intellectual arrogance, whatever the colour of the theology, or whoever is expressing it. Then again, I'd probably join in if I was a theologian.
I do appreciate Theology: I just happen to love History more. My college tutor of many moons ago later wrote a book called 'Jesus, A Question of Identity' where both disciplines were fully engaged, and if the subject is 'the historical Jesus' they certainly need to be.
Butltmann basically told people that they didn't really want to know about the historical Jesus because they would simply come up with an Old Testment (better, TaNaKh) outdated eschatological prophet. So Bultmann advocated demythologizing or better, remythologizing Jesus, finding some sort of existential relevance for him, not in the historical Jesus' teachings, but in the kerygma, the church's proclamation of him, with emphasis on good news message of the early church. That, Bultmann argued, was what the man in the street needed.t.
I always that that was a bit dishonest.
A Bultmannian tells the man in the street,
"
You don't want to know about Jesus, you want to know about the proclamation of the church."
Man in the street, "And what is that proclmation?"
Bultmannian: "That Jesus Christ is Lord."
duh?
That's putting it too simply, but has some truth to it, I think.
I have not read Robin Lane Fox, but I think he would have a hard time convincing historians of almost any stripe that the the Gospel of John is a one of the more valuable historical resources for studying the historical Jesus
Which is not to say, however, that it never is.
John P. Meier, for example, one of my favorite living historical Jesus scholars, frequently accords the Gospel of John more historical value than I do.
I'm reading Robin Lane Fox at the moment on the subject of Pagans and Christians, and I appreciate your example of how the different disciplines relate.
As initially a student of 20th century history I would disagree with you about paucity of evidence: on the contrary. there's too much of the darned stuff. And I suspect historians have managed to get through all the government records even of Henry Vlll only comparatively recently, at least in the sense of reading them once!
Perhaps I have overstated, for the sake of effect, the case for lack of historical evidence. But I have to say Frances Young, in her introduction to the 1st volume of the Cambridge History of Christianity, is even more cautious about what we can establish on any historical topic, before pointing out that the History of early Christianity presents particular difficulties. This is in a section called 'Jesus the Jew: towards a plausible portrait', which suggests to me a journey which is unlikely to be completed. Providentially, perhaps?
On the contrary it doesn't sound in-your-face. It sounds smug and patronizing.
I think lecturing the Ship might be a break from writer's block on the novel.
I recently came across this and found it interesting. This woman is an excellent scholar.
Amy-Jill Levine talks the gospels
"In genuine humility, allow me to state that I say that only because those same questions were quite difficult for me to deal with as a youngster and a young man. Only for that reason do I think they may prove difficult for some of you.
"Anyway, I don't think that I, for one, could have handled those questions very well without the help of churches and academic communities who encouraged me to use methods of historical and textual study, including higher criticism."
__________________
Of course if these things that caused difficulties for me as a youth studying the gospels -- if they do not cause difficulty for any of you, that would be wonderful.
Weigh, Heigh, and up he rises . . . .
The man in the street needs to see the Incarnation in, by, through others. And not in their empty claims.
Writer's block? The Dead Sea Gospel is finished and is available. on Amazon.
@Lamb Chopped
You say,
"You seem to feel contempt for those who do not hold the opinions you hold. Why is that?"
I suppose you said that because I mentioned higher criticism which you disdain. So let me just answer you with this: I'm pretty sure that what I am about to say will be as innocent, understandable, honest, upright, rational and sincere as I or anyone can be, and yet I anticipate that it will be met with hatred, contempt, ridicule, mockery, and disparagement. Why is that?
@Martin54
"We're waiting...*
You must wait a little longer. I'm still working on it.
I will, however, just say this to you ahead of time. I noticed earlier that you mentioned Jesus' "half siblings." Even the Catholic scholar J. P. Meier admits that there never would have been any attempt to claim that Jesus' brothers and sisters were not really and simply his brothers and sisters if the Church (the Roman Catholic one) had not later developed the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. (As you know, that doctrine runs into a little bit of a problem at Matthew 1:25).
@Nick Tamen
"...false modesty."
I think that what I will say will indeed be modestly sincere.
(Hope the hosts don't mind me saying that.)
This is now above host pay grade. Repeatedly ignoring hosts and admins will get you a suspension. You've been warned about repeated advertising of your site. Don't do it again, and don't dispute this ruling anywhere other than the Styx, or expect some shore leave.
</admin mode>
No, I said it because of your tone.
And I don't "disdain" higher criticism. I disagree with it. It is an error to cast the entire discussion (such as it is, we don't appear to have anything to discuss as yet!) in emotional terms.
Um, the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity was firmly in place well before anything that can be meaningfully be called "Roman Catholic" existed. Another page from the Dan Brown school of ecclesiastical history.
I suppose one could say, therefore, that the Western church developed the doctrine, though it appears to have taken quite some time to do so.
More condescension.
It's certainly well established in the Eastern church also. It can probably be traced back to the Protoevangelium of James (q.v.).
I'm not sure where that leaves the discussion (if any such there be) on this thread!
Speaking as a nonconformist protestant who has spent a lot of time studying early church history, I've had to revise my understanding of Mary. Many populist protestant views of Mary are simply unhistorical. Going back to the historical roots makes that very clear.
Of course you can argue that such veneration of Mary was an early wrong turn. But if so then there were a lot of wrong headed church leaders around, all of whom were seeking seriously to follow the apostolic understanding of the faith once given.
As I recall, the protestant historian Philip Schaff, in The Principle of Protestantism, had to admit the antiquity of such practices. His argument was that these were well-meant efforts by the church to lead a pagan population to Christ, but that abuses gradually crept in, eventually requiring the protestant renewal to establish the pure catholic doctrine once and for all. His thinking leans a lot on Newman's "development of doctrine" but obviously with a very different direction.
You do realise that "in genuine humility" is one of the phrases that is only ever used when it isn't true?