I won’t miss your shared inability to see past your own limited perspectives, and your seemingly fathomless self-involvement, but that’s hardly unique to you. It’s all too commonplace on the internet. But at least you are both self-quarantined. After a fashion.
Btw, the university I work at has decided to end all face-to-face classwork for the present time.
Oh sorry, I know reality is frowned on here. 😉
I’m glad you agree with me that Stephen’s take on the history is misguided. (And even as I type this, I know you’ll say I’ve misquoted you again).
And the rest is just personal crap–from both of you.
Enough.
You and the other obsessives, all grinding your own personal axes, have stifled real discussion here.
I’ll stick to the main blog until Bart’s book comes out.
But I’m still leaving the blog entirely, before my membership lapses. There has got to be a better place to discuss this topic than this–asylum.
Robert, just for the record, my view on historicity is this – while there is a detectable but minimal historical architecture present in the gospels, the narrative details of the stories are theological literary inventions. I do not question the historicity of Jesus’ crucifixion. But the narrative details recorded by each of the gospels are literary/theological inventions. For example, Mark is using Psalm 22 to create his account. (I remain completely agnostic as to whether Mark considered his own account historical but I like to imagine he was way more sophisticated than the evangelical fundamentalists I grew up with.)
I regard Mark 1:14-15 as the historical core of the NT. It is entirely possible that some of the sayings ascribed to Jesus go back to him in some form but their historical context has been lost. We have NO access to either the personal psychology of Jesus or the motivations of the writers.
Is this controversial? Robert, if you disagree with any of this I invite critique.
Robert said
Lots of traditional and literary creation, but a fair amount was presumably in service of living memories and enacted ideals that functioned for the communities in which they survived, developed, and continued to grow. It is certainly possible to form educated opinions about an author’s intent and context, but lots of opinions are defensible so there are obvious limitations. Controversy is a function of a community. Your views are obviously controversial in some contexts, less so in others. Not at all controversial among critical scholars, ‘though of course not all would agree.
Yes I meant controversial among critical scholars. I realize my family back in Georgia would not agree since they read the NT (when they read it at all) as newspaper reportage.
I would be interested in a passage that you feel illustrates “living memories and enacted ideals” in the gospels.
It is certainly possible to form educated opinions about an author’s intent and context…
Perhaps but because of the limited information we possess we are almost forced by necessity to take these documents at more or less face value. It’s useful to remember that the same tradition passes on stories of demon possessions and magical feats like walking on the water as well as it does ethical teachings and doctrinal controversies. Why accept the historicity of the latter and reject the former simply because we have a modernist prejudice against miracle claims?
I’m speaking personally of course but I’m less and less interested in attempts to peer “behind” the gospels and more and more interested in Mark simply as a ** you do not have permission to see this link ** which works as well if it were fiction as it does as theologized history.
Lots to unpack.
An example of a ‘living memory’ might be the fact that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer and probably in some sense a disciple of his.
This example serves to illustrate my point of view. Yes I agree there probably was a historical relationship of some sort between Jesus and John. Mainly from the good ole criterion of embarrassment. There is really no way to bring John into the story without raising some uncomfortable questions for Jesus’ followers. So why bring him into the story at all unless you had a pretty strong tradition of an association? But that doesn’t mean the actual narrative details of the stories we have are historical. And in the synoptics John has been turned into Jesus’ precursor.
Another example of course are the nativity stories. I think we can say fairly certainly that Jesus came from Nazareth. Otherwise why go through all that rigamarole of getting Jesus to or from Bethlehem where the Messiah had to be born? But then again outside of fundamentalists who thinks these stories are historical?
And that’s the distinction I’m making. I agree there is a historical framework detectable in the gospels. But the stories themselves seem to have been thoroughly theologized and the sayings decontextualized. (And I think you can make the case that Mark at least probably did this consciously.)
Note that association of ‘the cup’, presumably associated with that of the last supper also recounted in Mark, also somehow symbolizing some kind of participation in Jesus death… If that is a valid memory from the last days of Jesus…
I’m very skeptical of attempts to have Jesus anticipate his fate mainly because it appears that the only concept of the Messiah he would have had available to him would have been a traditional triumphalist one. And how would a “living memory” of a regular Passover seder between Jesus and his disciples been any different than the scenario you describe? Certainly it would take on a special significance in retrospect and time and imagination would go on from there.
If I have time tonight I’ll respond to your interesting comments about “intent”. I’m probably way behind you but I have some surmises as well about Mark. I’d love to hear your opinion.
Stephen said
This example serves to illustrate my point of view. Yes I agree there probably was a historical relationship of some sort between Jesus and John. Mainly from the good ole criterion of embarrassment. There is really no way to bring John into the story without raising some uncomfortable questions for Jesus’ followers. So why bring him into the story at all unless you had a pretty strong tradition of an association?
I disagree there was a first hand well known strong association between John and Jesus, the synoptics don’t seem to present that. Jesus ministry did not seem to begin until John was imprisoned, no followers, so who would know whether they were associated or not, certainly not Peter, who is supposed to be first disciple; he was fishing in Galilee a long way from the Jordan.
I have no idea how long between Jesus baptismal story and when he gathered any disciple who could conceivably have known of an association with John, It could have been many years, possibly when Jesus was teenager (this is speculation).
So I think the story of his baptism and association with John come not from others’ first hand knowledge but more likely rather from what Jesus himself explained to people. Of course no one other than Jesus himself could have originted immediately following wilderness story, if it is taken to have any historical basis.
Robert said
. . . It is certainly possible to form educated opinions about an author’s intent and context, but lots of opinions are defensible so there are obvious limitations. Controversy is a function of a community. Your views are obviously controversial in some contexts, less so in others. Not at all controversial among critical scholars, ‘though of course not all would agree.
Robert and or Stephen or Godspell,
you say it is possible to form educated opinions regarding author’s intent, but do you extend that to the subject of the treatise.
Do you think it is possible( or reasonable) to form educated opinions of Jesus’ intent ?
[I started the the thread with “does Jesus think/believe [such and such] about the resurrection?”],
Is that way beyond what is a reasonable question to consider and ask?
And if you don’t mind answering, does that also apply to Ehrman’s upcoming book as he claims
“Jesus didn’t believe in the soul going to Heaven or Hell” ?
Robert
…even if it is just that one detail of John being a disciple of John and/or having been baptized by John, there’s still a lot of leeway in trying to understand what John’s baptism may have meant.
No argument there. Of course these passages raise far more questions than they answer. Dang those ancient writers for not anticipating the curiosity of folks two thousand years later!
It’s very hard to say how Mark changed the stories he recounts. Our best bet in trying to discover his intent, in my opinion, is by looking at the overall narrative structure of the whole gospel.
Well to the degree we can explore Mark’s intent, all we have to go on is the way the stories seem to function. We can infer that the author intended those effects. (More about this part of it later.) But his personal psychology is occluded.
Let’s distinguish Jesus’ potential consciousness of his role as a Messiah, however he may have understood that role, and his potential consciousness of his impending death. I mean only that in the course of his prophetic opposition to authority figures, if he played such a role, Jesus could have naturally come to the conclusion that things were untenable, something had to give, and perhaps his time was up.
Ok but if Jesus had some sense that he was the Messiah and only had the traditional triumphalist concept available to him then the assumption seems to have been that divine forces would intervene on his behalf. Opposition would have functioned as validation. Jesus’ crucifixion was devastating to his followers precisely because it disconfirmed their expectations.
In case you’re interested, with specific reference to the pre-Markan, Pauline tradition of the last supper, Hngerhman and I had a very nice discussion of this ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
I did follow the conversation but it will be interesting to go back and refresh my memory. And hopefully it will prevent me from asking you questions you’ve already answered.
tompicard wrote
I disagree there was a first hand well known strong association between John and Jesus…
Ok but then why bring John into it at all? As I said bringing John in puts the followers of Jesus in a bind. Why create problems for yourself unless they were forced to by tradition?
I have no idea how long between Jesus baptismal story and when he gathered any disciple who could conceivably have known of an association with John…
There are hints that some of Jesus’ first followers followed him over from John. That makes sense.
you say it is possible to form educated opinions regarding author’s intent, but do you extend that to the subject of the treatise.
Do you think it is possible( or reasonable) to form educated opinions of Jesus’ intent ?
[I started the thread with “does Jesus think/believe [such and such] about the resurrection?”],
Is that way beyond what is a reasonable question to consider and ask?
And if you don’t mind answering, does that also apply to Ehrman’s upcoming book as he claims
“Jesus didn’t believe in the soul going to Heaven or Hell” ?
I don’t think we have any access to the personal psychology of either Jesus or the gospel writers. However as I responded to Robert we can note through textual analysis how the stories function in the gospels. We can properly infer that the writers intended the affects they achieved I think.
Prof Ehrman is distinguishing between the views of the historical Jesus and later traditions. It will be interesting to see how he avoids circularity in his argument. I look forward most to the scholarly work which I suspect will be much more stringent and meticulous in its arguments (judging from the difference between FORGED and FORGER & COUNTERFORGERY).
Stephen said
tompicard wroteI disagree there was a first hand well known strong association between John and Jesus…
Ok but then why bring John into it at all? As I said bringing John in puts the followers of Jesus in a bind. Why create problems for yourself unless they were forced to by tradition?
that is simple, because that is the story Jesus told his disciples, he told them
1. he was baptised
2. he saw a vision and
3. he immediately went into wilderness.
If that is the case, it completely explains why bring John into it at all .
if it is not the case then somebody else created the story and, even if it was well known the two men were associated, you still have not at all answered the question why [did the story inventor] bring John in at all ? as I can assume the inventor could have just as easily created 1000 other scenarios where Jesus saw the vision and so on
do we know that for sure, of course not
you like analogies, read the book of Mormon
how do we know John Smith translated gold plates, that is what into to the book tells us, right? but what does it really tell us?
he told his disciples that he got gold plates and translated them
Robert wrote
…can we make also make a connection to contemporary literary theory of Mark’s time? That’s what I have been trying to do. Must wait until retirement until I can publish this. Hopefully I won’t be totally senile by then.
Well you can discuss it without publishing first of course. Expand a bit on “contemporary literary theory of Mark’s time” please.
If Jesus had some sense that he was the Messiah. That’s the crux of the problem, no pun intended.
Of course the question of Jesus’ self-understanding is a hoary issue. And as I’ve said we have no access to Jesus’ psychology. But if the understanding of Jesus as the Messiah doesn’t go back to Jesus himself it must have begun almost immediately after his death. By Paul’s time “Jesus Christ” is practically coming out as one word. The association is complete.
tompicard wrote
…that is simple, because that is the story Jesus told his disciples…
Perhaps but see John 1:35-41. If Jesus drew disciples away from John after his arrest then it’s possible the association was there from the beginning.
why [did the story inventor] bring John in at all ?
Because he had a tradition that Jesus was exalted to divine sonship at his baptism?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)