This may not be news to many on this forum, however, I just had somewhat of an epiphany. In order to formulate and promote a theory about the Historical Jesus, one needs to build on the foundations of textual and literary criticism. That is, the one who wishes to formulate a theory needs to first decide what texts are relevant and what those texts mean. To peal the onion a little further, in order to discover what a text means, one needs to psychologize the author(s) to some degree.
That’s a tall task! No wonder this has all been the subject of much debate for a couple thousand years.
One must also realize that to “psychologize the author(s)” is a path fraught with problems and often tainted by personal biases. There is also the problem of limited sources and an inherent difficulty in verifying any given conclusion. The main reason this particular subject has been such a matter of debate for so long is that the potential implication of various conclusions can be profound. People also debate many issues with less significant implications, but generally with less passion.
But then what do we actually mean by “psychologize”? Imagine their motivations? Or psychoanalyze them from afar? I ask because I just found ** you do not have permission to see this link **, a prominent Jewish historian, which attempts to do exactly that with Ezekiel. In his recent translation/commentary Robert Alter speculates over Ezekiel’s mental health. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel is the one who most tempts one to do this sort of thing. He certainly wears his…what? phobias? complexes? psychoses? on his sleeve. I have no doubt that Halperin, as usual, will have many interesting things to say. Still…really?
Stephen said
But then what do we actually mean by “psychologize”?
As far as I can tell, the most important consideration when interpreting a text is: What did the author intend to communicate? This is fundamentally a psychological consideration: What was going on in their head that caused them to say/write what they did?
What did the author intend to communicate? This is fundamentally a psychological consideration: What was going on in their head that caused them to say/write what they did?
I would say that it well nigh impossible to do this. Of course we can imagine these motivations. This project will keep our graduate programs full. I don’t know my own motivations half the time. How could I possibly determine the motivations of unknown authors thousands of years ago?
Whenever we read something, we have to have some level of confidence that what we are reading and how we are understanding it at least approximates what the author intended us to understand. If this condition is not true, then we should simply stop reading immediately, and do something more worthwhile. If we push beyond this basic level of communication, and attempt to divulge what the author what thinking when he wrote what we are writing, beyond what the words themselves say, we enter very tenuous territory. In relatively rare instances, we might be able to make some reasonable observations about how the author constructed the entire work, and how a particular aspect of that work functions within the whole, but when we have so little writing by an author, it is very hard to verify any broader speculations about intent or hidden meanings. As just a very simple example of the problem, who is the author of the gospel of Mark? When, with some precision, was it written, and where? What is the context in which this author was living and writing? Without being able to answer these basic questions with any reasonable level of accuracy, one should not expect to be able to do much beyond the words themselves. The less we are able to answer them, the more suspect any such extensions of interpretation must be.
JAS said
Whenever we read something, we have to have some level of confidence that what we are reading and how we are understanding it at least approximates what the author intended us to understand. If this condition is not true, then we should simply stop reading immediately, and do something more worthwhile. If we push beyond this basic level of communication, and attempt to divulge what the author what thinking when he wrote what we are writing, beyond what the words themselves say, we enter very tenuous territory. In relatively rare instances, we might be able to make some reasonable observations about how the author constructed the entire work, and how a particular aspect of that work functions within the whole, but when we have so little writing by an author, it is very hard to verify any broader speculations about intent or hidden meanings. As just a very simple example of the problem, who is the author of the gospel of Mark? When, with some precision, was it written, and where? What is the context in which this author was living and writing? Without being able to answer these basic questions with any reasonable level of accuracy, one should not expect to be able to do much beyond the words themselves. The less we are able to answer them, the more suspect any such extensions of interpretation must be.
Perfect. (Meaning, I agree!) The lack of context forces us to take these ancient tests at more or less face value. We must assume they are communicating what they intended to communicate.
It occurs to me that this lack of context might have been intentional and an argument for divine inspiration. How so? If we knew the actual context, “how the sausage was made” so to speak, it might be very hard to sustain the proper reverence. Sometimes God conceals.
Stephen said
Perfect. (Meaning, I agree!) The lack of context forces us to take these ancient tests at more or less face value. We must assume they are communicating what they intended to communicate.
I am gratified by agreement, in spite of my typos. We can establish some general context, of course, from other sources of about the same period, but that can only help a little. It is too easy to go far afield with esoteric readings with no basis but our own imaginations.
…with no basis but our own imaginations.
Which is perfectly fine if we’re self-aware enough to realize that’s what we’re doing and honest enough to admit it to others. Can we advance enough as a species to see our religions as products of the active imagination (in Blake’s sense) and as expressions of creative play? We need imagination. We need the irrational. Without them we are never truly sane.
brickleytre said
This may not be news to many on this forum, however, I just had somewhat of an epiphany. In order to formulate and promote a theory about the Historical Jesus, one needs to build on the foundations of textual and literary criticism. That is, the one who wishes to formulate a theory needs to first decide what texts are relevant and what those texts mean. To peal the onion a little further, in order to discover what a text means, one needs to psychologize the author(s) to some degree.That’s a tall task! No wonder this has all been the subject of much debate for a couple thousand years.
This is a path that has been proven many times and leads to conflicting conclusions, which means that this methodology is insufficient to narrow down possible reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Need for additional complementary criteria and expertise from other fields.
Why is it like that? The figure of the historical Jesus is described in the literature in a top-down manner and at the same time the number of authors is increasing.
The first writer, Paul, writes about the resurrection, the crucifixion, Lord Supper, about the humanity of Jesus (born of the woman). But he doesn’t write anything about the historical Jesus because he doesn’t know one.
Others took advantage of Paul’s “truthfulness and honesty”, who did not dare to cross the border of his revelation. They boldly exclaimed “but we know historical Jesus” and it started. Fortune favors the brave.
Successive authors pass on the sayings of Jesus. Evangelists add a narrative. Initially a common narrative, then developed in different directions. Something like a constitution supplemented independently by three different parliaments.
Increasing competition in terms of the number of authors and their works. More and more “true facts” and possible interpretations. Without end. Nativity Story – two versions. One 800 words, the second 2000 words. Fewer than 20 words in common. Genealogies – all different. But by joint effort it can be established that the fathers of Mary and Joseph are brothers coming from the line of David. And the original thesis of Paweł was confirmed. Full circle.
Stephen said
Which is perfectly fine if we’re self-aware enough to realize that’s what we’re doing and honest enough to admit it to others. Can we advance enough as a species to see our religions as products of the active imagination (in Blake’s sense) and as expressions of creative play? We need imagination. We need the irrational. Without them we are never truly sane.
I increasingly prefer the term non-rational. Irrational seems to me to be where we make a choice that actively defies reason, where reason might apply. Non-rational seems to cover that much broader range of things for which we have insufficient information or reason really cannot fully be applied. And very often, what appears to be rational, is mostly an illusion.
JAS said
One must also realize that to “psychologize the author(s)” is a path fraught with problems and often tainted by personal biases. There is also the problem of limited sources and an inherent difficulty in verifying any given conclusion. The main reason this particular subject has been such a matter of debate for so long is that the potential implication of various conclusions can be profound. People also debate many issues with less significant implications, but generally with less passion.
If you don’t at least attempt to understand the psychology of the authors then you will always have an incomplete understanding.
Stephen said
But then what do we actually mean by “psychologize”? Imagine their motivations? Or psychoanalyze them from afar? I ask because I just found ** you do not have permission to see this link **, a prominent Jewish historian, which attempts to do exactly that with Ezekiel. In his recent translation/commentary Robert Alter speculates over Ezekiel’s mental health. Of all the prophets, Ezekiel is the one who most tempts one to do this sort of thing. He certainly wears his…what? phobias? complexes? psychoses? on his sleeve. I have no doubt that Halperin, as usual, will have many interesting things to say. Still…really?
People can take it too far, but it’s important to understand the motivations of the authors.
Stephen said
What did the author intend to communicate? This is fundamentally a psychological consideration: What was going on in their head that caused them to say/write what they did?I would say that it well nigh impossible to do this. Of course we can imagine these motivations. This project will keep our graduate programs full. I don’t know my own motivations half the time. How could I possibly determine the motivations of unknown authors thousands of years ago?
You can understand the author’s motivations by studying what changes they made to previous texts. For example, the author of Matthew appears to have been motivated to change Mark into more of a Jewish gospel. Another example is how the author of Luke-Acts was motivated to portray Paul and Peter as in total agreement.
cstu said
You can understand the author’s motivations by studying what changes they made to previous texts. For example, the author of Matthew appears to have been motivated to change Mark into more of a Jewish gospel.
Strange. Historically speaking you’d expect a later author would want to make an earlier author’s gospel into less of a Jewish one.
Historically speaking you’d expect a later author would want to make an earlier author’s gospel into less of a Jewish one.
Matthew was almost certainly written later but it’s special sources are probably as primitive as Mark’s. From Paul we learn that there was an early controversy between Jewish believers who insisted on obeying the Law and himself. Matthew’s community, like James and the Jerusalem church, were of the party of circumcision.
Stephen said
Matthew’s community, like James and the Jerusalem church, were of the party of circumcision.
“This is my Son … listen to him“
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.”
Where in Matthew’s gospel does Jesus command circumcision?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)