A Crash Course in Jesus Studies (by Phyllis Tickle)
A Sunday or two ago, I made mention of -- more to the truth, wrote a whole "Summer Sundays" entry more or less about -- the canonical Jesus, thereby raising a small bevy of questions and responses and polite "say-what's?" I could not be more delighted. But delighted or not, I also feel some obligation to make my case.
All of us who were reared in modernity and/or in the afterwash of its ways of conceptualizing, have known the impact of modernism. In few areas of life has that impact been more keenly felt by Christians than in discussions of "Jesus Studies" or, as it is sometimes more popularly known, of "the quest for the historical Jesus." That is to say that many of the intellectual tools and much of the sophisticated technology of modernity, in addition to its conceptual principles, a lot of brilliant thinking, and a world's worth of patient research, have been brought to bear over the last century or so on the study of just who Jesus of Nazareth was.
The bulk of the questions have focused upon what he supposedly did and/or did not say and upon whether or not he was or was not accurately portrayed by those who became the church. Those questions have assumed from the start that the Jesus of the canonical gospels might well be a man-made or human-shaped figure different from the actual or historical creature who at one time lived among us. Working from that assumption, it should be no surprise that the Jesus who has emerged from all of this professional scholarship and lay furor is as multiform and various as the scholars and concerned laity who have engaged the quest. The end result, in fact, of our dozen or so decades of scratching through history is such a multiplicity of Jesuses that one has to say, "Whoa! Let's just hold up here a minute and think this thing through a bit more clearly."
Story, perhaps, is better than intellectual argument in this kind of process. Accordingly, I wrote a small story some months ago, one that I want to re-run here today. I do so, of course, with apologies to those who may have heard it before, but also in the hope that even they will find it to be worth a few minutes this summer Sunday morning.
* * * * *
Let us suppose then. Let us suppose that there is a huge, deadly wreck on busy Main Street, USA, in the midst of midday traffic. There are, technically speaking, several hundred witnesses, albeit from very different perspectives. Some of the witnesses are immediate, so immediate in fact that two or three of them are wounded themselves by the flying glass and careening steel. Others are simply immediate enough to have been splattered by blood and dust and specks of oil. Not so immediate, but still close enough, are those who had to jump out of harm's way and, in doing so, dropped possessions or skinned a knee or simply got an adrenalin rush of significant proportions.
Other of those who saw had a less dramatic experience, of course. Some of them really did see, in that they were standing at the curb waiting for the light to change and saw the whole thing as if in slow motion. Others were walking in the direction from which the wreck came and likewise saw the whole thing, also as if in slow motion, albeit from a safer distance. Some witnesses, of course, only "saw" the deadly accident in the loosest sense of saw. That is, the space between the sound of the crash in progress and their turning their heads to look was no more than a nano-second, or so it seemed. For some even, the screeching of tires laying down rubber was so dramatic that they turned and, in point of fact, really did "see" the wreck itself, although they hardly could be said to have "seen" the whole thing, since they witnessed only its final act of culmination.
And then, of course, there are all the window-gawkers ... the office workers who leaned out from the windows of all the surrounding buildings that line
Assume, then, that we have some several hundred good citizens -- maybe even some not-so-good ones and a few outright liars, thieves, and ne're-do-wells on
Yet the truth in all of this -- the one "fact" in it all -- is that each witness, bearing home his or her story of disaster on Main Street, is reporting the actual wreck. All of them who seek to speak the truth of what they witnessed are indeed speaking the truth. The inconsistencies and contradictions amongst their various stories, were we to collect those tales into some kind of whole, would not be erroneous or deliberated distortions or violations of fact. They would be honest and true reports of what happened, because what happened did happen within the vitality and experience of each tale's teller.
Now good and honest men and women are on the horns of a dilemma. We have the expertise of the police who have brought their training to bear on what will become the more or less official assessment of what happened. In addition, we have all the technology and brilliance of accident-reconstruction specialists who, by studying the lay-down of debris and tracks and the pressure required for such impact and the points of primary as opposed to secondary and tertiary impact can be reasonably certain about what or who hit what or whom first. They can even reconstruct enough to establish with some confidence which actions had to proceed which other actions in order to culminate in the impact in the first place.
All of this is absorbing. It can occupy the news media for weeks and conversation for a lifetime. It can cause consternation among those accused and angst among those deemed to have been not at fault. Reams and reams of paper, billions and billions of pixels, yards and yards of documentation, not to mention several hundred thousand dollars, will be spent in pursuit of the facts about this wreck on
And when it is all over, when all is said and done by expert or ordinary citizen, the only absolutely certain thing ... the only "fact" beyond conceivable question ... is that there was a wreck one day on Main Street, USA, and that there was some take-away. We will never know the sum total of all the facts about the wreck nor will be ever know all of its specific details. What we have -- and all we have -- is the actuality of the wreck and the burgeoning largesse of lives changed in some greater or lesser way by their engagement with the wreck itself or with its story.
* * * * *
A parable always reveals itself early-on in its telling, as we all know. And as I said in the beginning, I tell you this dangerous tale on a mid-summer Sunday morning for a reason. That is, it was, and still is, the way of modernism to believe that there is some means by which to reconstruct and define, with detail, atemporal constancy, and specificity, the facts and truths about the wreck on
Let us go forth, then, you and I, and enjoy to its fullest this lovely summer morning but may the wreck and its story also bother every one of us this whole day through. Because the operative truth here is that every single one of us, alive in 2008 and claiming Christianity as our belief system, is going to have to decide what he or she thinks about the wreck and all the words said about it. In other words, every single one of us, if we live another decade or so, is going to have to decide what he or she thinks not only about the crash, 2,000 years ago, of Messiah into space/time but also about how we understand and engage the records of that event that have come to us over the centuries. Pray God we do it well.
Phyllis Tickle (www.phyllistickle.com) is the founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly and author of The Words of Jesus: A Gospel of the Sayings of Our Lord and the forthcoming fall release, The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Phyllis:
Please give me a minute or two of your precious time because I'm really giving up mine too.
I hate to see the true picture that is underlining our Christian faith. Has really human history, even the bible itself, shatters the foundation of our Christian faith, or have it not? I know, this is a turn off letter which on first impulse may cause you to feel like just deleting this email when you understand my complete message, and I understand that feeling to, because I've once felt them myself. Having been a Christian since the age of 7 until in my late 50s, it hurts me to my stomach when I saw that our world history reveals that a change from polytheism of the past, to monotheism, meant that a move was made from human reality, to an almost perfect religious worldwide scam, the matrix of monotheism.
Based on my research, there was a special reason why the western hemisphere was evangelized first with Christianity, while the Middle East- the Islamic faith. Just consider this point. The Jews were scattered abroad by the Roman Catholic Inquisition because Pope Innocent III could not convert them to Christianity. The things they (Romans) wrote in the bible about Jews and Jesus Christ, who is supposed to be Jewish Messiah, are all false. Neither could they sell Jesus to the Arab people for basically the same reason. So you can see why they targeted the Westerners first, in hopes that over time it could catch on by easing its way in the East as well.
The Catholic Church used to Torture and kill people who didn't accept Jesus Christ as savior and Lord. By doing some research even in the Britannica Encyclopedia it will show that its the Romans, the Papal under Emperor Constantine I that originated the Christian scam, possibly with the co-operation of political Jewish leaders but, we know that the populace of Jews do averse to the notion of Jesus, as is written in the KJV. A search of Jewish Encyclopedia as well clearly shows that there is no rendition that recognized Jesus as a phenomenon in their life history, one who is supposed to be their Messiah. Where is all of this leading? The Jesus story just did not seem to have happened based on evidence. If there were anything true about Jesus Christ Blood then it would have cleansed the pedophile priests, and avoid the molestation of many boys. See, they have forgotten to let the priests married and have a family as they set it forth in the bible, that God said, "be fruitful and multiply", and, "a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife" but, the congruity has slipped their minds.
The religious and educational system throughout much of the world today is tainted by the Italian/Romans effort to have control over the masses. Can you guess a good reason why Present George W. Bush has such a cozy relationship with the Roman Pope Benedict?
Why is Darwin's theory of evolution being taught in the public schools when government has in its possession hieroglyphics and tablets etc., fill with ancient information delineating Homo sapiens literal origin? See the scholarship of Dr. Samuel Noah Kramer of Pennsylvania University, on Sumerian history in the Cuneiform language, Babylonian, Egyptian and Assyrian. Oh, it is apparent that we have a whole society bamboozled?
jeremiah2004@bellsouth.net
Posted by: Ancient Reader | July 20, 2008 11:00 AM
Phyllis, thanks for your good follow-up article. This demonstrates why we all need to study and widen our education windows, but also why it is essential for each of us to deepen our spiritual journey by refusing to dictate to the Lord just where He should lead us. We need to be ready to explain what our faith is based on, and I don't think simply saying that this is what we were taught, will be enough.
It also shows why it is so essential to read the commentary of others with as clear and discerning an eye as possible.
Posted by: janible | July 21, 2008 12:01 AM
Scholars have actually named it "The Search of the Historical Jesus".
It is an unfortunate preposition choice, but nonetheless...
Posted by: Tim | July 21, 2008 2:41 AM
Just want to say that I am disappointed that there was nothing written about Tony Snow on Sojo. Great write-up on Russert, but not Snow.
You're right -- this was off-topic. And let's keep it there for now.
Posted by: Rick | July 21, 2008 10:48 AM
Ancient Reader,
You may want to look further into the premise that humanity move from polytheism to monotheism. This has been seriously challenged in the last 20 years.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 21, 2008 11:21 AM
Just want to say that I am disappointed that there was nothing written about Tony Snow on Sojo. Moderatelad
Maybe you could start you own blog and write about it. You would be the one voice of reason crying in the wilderness.
Posted by: JamesM | July 21, 2008 1:32 PM
Let it Snow, let it Snow, let it Snow ...
Posted by: Don | July 21, 2008 1:40 PM
"If you want to read some interesting things about Snow. Look up what Bob Beckel has written about Tony" Moderatelad
No thanks. Not interested.
"Not sure that I would have done the same."
I am not sure either.
Blessings
Posted by: JamesM | July 21, 2008 4:40 PM
Jeff: "You may want to look further into the premise that humanity move from polytheism to monotheism. This has been seriously challenged in the last 20 years."
Sorry for the off track posting. However Jeff, I'm not privy to any challenges on the subject, can you tell me what its about? If you wish, use my email in supra post. Based on my chronological understanding of human world history, the facts are very clear on how these moves have been made by the people in charge of running the religious scam.
Posted by: Ancient Reader | July 21, 2008 7:17 PM
This is really a weak article. Ms. Tickle provides no evidence or even clear assertion that she has really studied a solid range of the research into the historical Jesus. Instead she goes into an inaccurate comparison via inept parable.
It is time to address the fact that the NT is inconsistent with itself and historically inaccurate on several points. It is time to address the fact that the NT was NOT written by eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus. This article is false comfort to those who wish to evade some rigorous and challenging research. The topic needs to be considered by someone who is truly qualified and willing to take an honest look at some very persuasive and well constructed arguments.
The problem here is serious. There is a large portion of Evangelical faith communities who believe that the NT is the accurate, spirit filled account of the life of Jesus. That it is in some sense inerrant and certainly that it contains nothing that is fabricated, or flat wrong, or a third hand interpretation, or fundamentally fictional. These presumptions are powerfully challenged by the close cross-referenced look at the NT and historical records provided by John Crossan , E.P. Sanders, Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen and many other Historical Jesus researchers and this research goes back in History long before post modernism and includes many Christian believers.
Posted by: jonabark | July 21, 2008 11:45 PM
JamesM,
I not sure how an expression of disappointment about SOJO's silence on Tony Snow's passing is a gratuitous swipe.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 22, 2008 12:26 PM
I not sure how an expression of disappointment about SOJO's silence on Tony Snow's passing is a gratuitous swipe. Jeff
Jeff, I am not sure how my not expressing an interest in what that person had to say about Snow and how my agreeing with how he characterized what he would or would not do to help another person out is "insulting". Why don't we just agree to disagree on that one, Jeff?
Have a nice day.
Blessings
Posted by: JamesM | July 22, 2008 12:32 PM
Ancient Reader,
http://bloomington.in.us/~lgthscac/monotheism.htm is a good place to start. The evidence is that the most primitive cultures and the earliest archaeological finds point to the belief in one Supreme God whose attributes devolved into personified attributes of individual deities.
The presupposition of many scholars is that there is an evolution of religion with monotheism as the highest form of that evolution. Study of primitive cultures would suggest a devolution (sic?) of the one true God.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 22, 2008 12:41 PM
Jeff; I try to access the website but it says, unavailable. I'll will try again. However, what's your knowledge of those accounts, concerning the way one God dealt with human. How the interaction went between then and God....if you understand what I' asking.
Ancientre
Posted by: Ancient Reader | July 23, 2008 6:49 AM
Ancient reader,
I'm not sure I understand what your asking. Sorry, could you rephrase the question?
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 23, 2008 11:58 AM
Jeff says: The evidence is that the most
primitive cultures and the earliest archaeological finds point to the belief in one Supreme God whose attributes devolved into personified attributes of individual deities.
I try the link that you gave me a second time, to no avail. I really want to see it. However, this is what I meant to ask you. E.g., the KJV has given a picture of how God made mankind in the origin. The Sumerian history gives us another but superior picture, of how alien beings produce mankind via DNA, to be their servants. Can you give me a similar picture from the source referenced above, if it illustrates such picture to you. In other words, what roll did God and his other deities play in human existence? Hope this explains what I'm asking.
Posted by: Ancient Reader | July 23, 2008 7:26 PM
i really like this article. jonabark, i think what she is saying metaphorically & what the people you've cited are saying are not far apart at all. i also think this story deals well (& beautifully) with the belief in the factual inerrancy of the good book. of course, they weren't all trying to recount straight facts about what happened as one might with an accident, but they were all trying to tell stories that were true (as you know, truth is a way bigger concept than factuality). & they all relate back to that one core - the life of jesus and their experience of him after his death. thank you phyllis
Posted by: nad2 | July 24, 2008 10:28 AM
Phyllis,
I loved this article. Contrary to jonabark's assertion, I know that you've done extensive reading in this area and I suspect held many discussions on the topic, perhaps even with your friend Marcus Borg. Personally I've found the work of NT Wright to be elucidating on these topics.
I was curious about your reference to the challenge facing those of us living through the next decade. Can you elaborate on that further?
Thanks,
Bob from the Ann Arbor Vineyard
Posted by: Bob | July 24, 2008 3:37 PM
Dear Phyllis,
Thank you for sharing with us such a storied adventure explicating the impasse between modernism and postmodernism. I imagine that, through this medium (truly faithful to Christ's teachings in parables, in fact), that this story will effectively communicate to many, without recourse to 'argument,' the different positions that exist historically, and globally, within the Christian spectrum.
I have one proposal: that if one employs a post-moderninst post-structuralist reading, that there may be a slight revision to this one point in your text:
"There was once a wreck and, from the instant of its occurrence, it existed only in the actuality of hundreds and hundreds of people and in their engagement of it."
The facticity of this actual wreck would not be so given, so objectively knowable, save for the actual revelation of it's occurence as experienced by observers. There is a need to stretch the visual metaphor, too. An image of actual sensory information is interpreted by the visual cortex...thereby producing an image, that, while specific to each viewer, exists in fact (as far as the physics of vision and perception are objectively there.) So this points to the actual unknowability of the event-status of Christ's coming-save for through the revelation of divine Spirit, moving and teaching communities of faith, of worshippers-stoppers by, people crossing the street, and those in their houses, who would gather and partake in the Storied story. Galileo's vision, his early empiricism, is what causes us to struggle, so, today...the narrow reliance on observation and "literality" that causes us to focus on phenomena that are way too small to account for the largeness of Christ's coming.
Another key aspect to be pointed out in relation to the visual metaphor is that not all perception of this event is untainted. Some, who saw the wreck, mocked, and were satisfied from their seats of power. The question, which stands as a corrective to the relativist dilemma that would accept all readings of the 'event' as true, is one that poses a challenge to the violence with which many of us have been taught to "see..."
As Donna Haraway states, "with whose blood have my eyes been crafted?"
May we echo your prayer to be faithful 'readers' of the Christian story....
Posted by: JH | July 24, 2008 3:56 PM
Phillis,
I enjoyed your article, but you might have added an additional factor to your parable which would have made it a more accurate portrayal of the task faced by New Testament scholars:
Suppose that the only sources of information we have for this car wreck are four documents, all published by groups that support more stringent traffic safety laws. Suppose further that three of these documents were clearly copied, either from each other or from common third party documents. That's it -- nothing in the mainstream newspapers, nothing in the TV or radio transcripts, no photos or videos. The lack of independence of these documents, and their clearly polemic character, would certainly leave us justified in wondering whether many of the aspects of the story of the car wreck were exaggerated or fabricated -- or whether, indeed, there was actually any car wreck at all. And given the supposedly massive nature of the wreck, the silence of any other contemporary sources would be highly suspicious.
I have perhaps tediously extended the metaphor, but this is this situation historians find themselves in when they deal with the Jesus traditions.
Posted by: ScottKnick | July 24, 2008 4:05 PM
Re the work of Borg, Crossan, et al. While they provide very useful historical background of peasant life in the first century, they are not without severe critics of their methodology and conclusions. Richard Bauckman of Oxford has recently published a volume refuting the claim that eyewitnesses had no hand in Gospel production. See also N.T. Wright, Luke Timothy Johnson, Wayne Meeks, Richard Hays, and many more. Much of the Jesus Seminar work is tendential and self-promoting by a small group of scholars (80 to 200 out of 6900) not affiliated with the Society of Biblical Literature or any international body.
Phyllis does us a service by restoring us to the core of the story without getting bogged down in historiography that was not of primary concern to the writers.
RE extant evidence, while it is small, there is mention of Jesus and the early Church in Roman and Jewish literature. Source criticism seems to tell us that there were a wide variety of stories, sayings, traditions, that circulated independent of one another. The fact that the Church exploded and grew as rapidly as it did suggests this was not "a thing done in a corner."
Posted by: Norman Bendroth | July 24, 2008 4:28 PM
Does so much concern for "what happened" say more about the witnesses than the event? Perhaps everyone is right, but not right in some absolute sense. Isn't the meaning one makes much more interesting than trying to get the facts right? As if truth is just a series of facts. Thanks
Posted by: Gary Johnson | July 24, 2008 4:29 PM
A big problem w the Bible is that there is little understanding that we are part of nature and not meant to dominate...We are destroying ecosystems,species,everywhere..Tony Snow said a lot of terrible things and helped keep the focus away from the fact that we must stop this mad rush to shop and consume...
Posted by: Jean Mcmahon | July 24, 2008 5:09 PM
I met Jesus in my office, in April 1979, and His mother in 1994 while listening to some Catholics recite the Rosary, I was raised Presbyterian and from a youth had a love of God, but in puberty my hormones and will took over to indulge the flesh! My take is Jesus revealed himself to me and one thief on the cross, and to the other thief and a few others he hid his identity, just to drive us crazy in trying to open the eyes of the blind! The Blood of Jesus, washed the sins of all humanity, and He will have compassion on whom He will! Since he ' saved' me and I am not any better than any pedophile, I think He is obligated to the whole world to give us a break. Some of us, enjoy God now, The rest of us I hope enjoy God in His Time!
Loved your article, and I have given up trying to evangelize, but very satisfied that the sacrifice of the Mass is the greatest service I can offer to God for the salvation of the lost, who my evangelical friends are sending to Hell, because they are blind! Because Jesus, Mary and Joseph and St. Paul chose to live a celibate life for effective ministry, the Catholic Church adopted that life style as a model, and like all of us, we find we cannot live the christian life without failing in sin! Let him who is without sin, throw the first stone! Jesus' last words were, Father forgive them for they know not what they do!
Posted by: Montague maura | July 24, 2008 5:32 PM
ScottKnick,
Would the groups who published these four document have been in favor of more stringent traffic laws before the wreck or because of the wreck? I think this is an important distinction. Someone who is so moved by the horror of a traffic accident as to begin advocating stricter laws would have no reason to exaggerate said accident at all.
Also suppose that the reason that there are only four documents is that all other witnesses were silenced for one reason or another.
Posted by: Jill | July 24, 2008 6:09 PM
AncientReader
There is a book called 'Eternity in their hearts' by Don Richardson which is about the monotheistic beleifs of primative cultures. As a Christian even I was surprised by the content. It is quite an easy book to read and offers some interesting refutations or at least places to start looking at the counterpoint on the view of religious evolution (polytheism to monotheism). From memory there is reasonable referrencing also for more academic study of the topic. It at least would be a good place to start viewing this issue from different angles.
All the best in your search through these issues, which I agree very much with you are very important.
Another interesting issue worth considering when viewing the really dark days of the Crusades, the Inquisition and the like.. (which as far as I'm concerned has nothing to do with genuine faith/relationship and everything to do with fallen humanity and are absolutely ugly and appalling)... is to realise the very Christian beginnings of most social reforms in western culture (end of the slave trade, women's rights, rspca, care for unwanted infants/children, the ill, aged, deformed, disabled). I don't think that good things are only ever done by Christians, but a good many of these significant, constructive social justice/reform movements came out of the church - and out of relationship with Christ. I think in these, somewhat more quiet but culture-shifting events we see the true heart of Christianity revealled. The heart of Christ. The One who touched the lepers, the sick, the shamed, the broken and restored them.
Once again, all the best as you consider these really significant issues.
Take care,
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa | July 24, 2008 7:09 PM
Well, Henry Ford said that "history is bunk," and Napoleon said that history is "what men choose to believe." Sounds like Phyllis agrees or comes close to.
Her story is another take on the story of the blind men and the elephant. Each observed something quite different from the others - tail, ear, side, foot, etc. and each description was different but each was also right.
Posted by: jsens3 | July 24, 2008 7:17 PM
Dear Sister Tickle,
The canonical Jesus is one profound tangle web we weave for various and sundry reasons. Yet there is some agreement in Matthew and Luke that Jesus did attend synagogue and read Isaiah 61:1-2
“ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.
In other words people of God/church men and women and children have servanthood service to render. While those who are busy with discussing the wreck, others inside and outside the body of Christ need to use love as a verb to/for/with the poor/the brokenhearted, the captives/ the physically and spiritually blind and the oppressed. Those actions those ‘feet washing’ activities of service will answer the question “who do they say I am?”
Peace ad blessings,
Minister Jim
Posted by: jim | July 24, 2008 7:30 PM
We have a commonsense drought here, and it has been now for many decades. I believe that the only reason people believe in Genesis creation story, is the misuse of two words: "Faith and Believe". (accepting ideas without questioning) Earlier framers of religion have used those words to destroy sound thinking, and thereby cause folks to accept religious ideas ignorantly. Now we swear that all of the ridiculous dogmas are perfectly inerrant to redeem us from our sins.
First, examine the characters taking part in the initial six chapters of Genesis. The God doing the creative acts is very ignorant, lacks foresight, unforgiving, cruel and generally indifferent to mankind. (But they fool us, by saying that is because Adam disobeyed God). True human history, refutes that. The depicted Adam was such an ignorant person, because he had nothing to say when Eve approached with the forbidden fruit. He who God gave the command not to eat of it, eat freely as though nothing was said by his Lord to him. Then the alleged God of redemption, did many absurd things that simply made no sense at all. Like confusing man's language, and bringing a flood upon them. Tell the Roman Catholic pope, to baptize all of the pedophile priest in Jesus' blood. When they're married and living clean, we may have a reason to believe in the story.
Posted by: Ancient Reader | July 24, 2008 7:32 PM
Thanks Lisa, for offering. Since I found the history of the Sumerians, earliest of homosepians, and discover that the KJV was extracted from that story. I'm not willing to short-circuit the congruity of that historical account, in favor of less potent information. Want to learn about Adam and Eve, eat the forbidden fruit and become like gods, sons of God marrying human women, confuse man's language, kill man with a deluge? Read Sumerian history. See the work of Dr. Samuel Noah Kramer, University of Pennsylvania. Once again thanks Lisa: (jeremiah2004@bellsouth.net)
Posted by: Ancient Reader | July 24, 2008 7:59 PM
RE: in search of the historical Jesus ...
like so many others, I have wrestled with the concept of readacters changing the exact wording of the accounts of Christ's life etc. to match their concept of what's trying to be said, and thereby blurring the intended message. Remember, none of these accounts were written in the original arabic tongue of those passing along their oral tradition. What we have is a series (not to mention, a variety)of transpositions - translations that have been adjusted to fit the nuances of the host language. Anyone who speaks more than one language can attest that sometimes a concept cannot be accurately rendered from one language to another. For instance, I am from the Northeast, and a friend from the South was quite amused by my useage of a turn of phrase I had grown up with: "Between you, me, and the lampost ..." Now, we were contemporaries, residing in the same country, speaking the same language, and yet we found differneces in how we expressed ourselves within this common language. Imagine someone a thousand years from now, with no references to our American English, trying to interpret what I meant by that colloquialism. How easy would it be to misunderstand this as a spatial reference rather than the intended one of secrecy. After much study and discernment, I have come to the conclusion that it is a journey down the wrong path to dissect the Gospels for accuracy, or to attempt to sift the actual words of Christ from the accounts of His brethren as though we were sorting the wheat from the shaft. God the Father gave Moses the Ten Commandments - those are all the rules we need. (God otta know!) Christ showed us how to live out those rules. (How do you argue with Perfection?)
My mother used to tell me "Heaven is not on earth." and I would further that with "Neither is Perfection." The Hebrews of the old testament were not perfect, yet the message in the story of their lives is. The Christians of the new testament were not perfect, yet the stories they tell and the lives they lived deliver the same perfect message as the Hebrews of old. God is love. To serve God is to love with all your heart, all your mind, all your soul. ... The rest is chaff.
Posted by: Michele | July 25, 2008 11:13 AM
What I prize about the work of the Jesus Seminar are not the Jesus quotes that they designate as "definitely not" or "probably not" the real words of Jesus, but the passages that these scholars say are "probably" or "definitely" the words of Our Saviour. What we do with their scholarship is most important.
The revelation that parts of the gospel were copied from each other or came from sources other than first-hand accounts of Jesus's sayings does not disturb me. I can accept it all -- with all the contradictions -- as the inspired Word of God and useful for our understanding and decisions.
It helps to make a distinction between journalism and literature. History has been written from both perspectives, but most often from the literary point of view. And even modern-day journalism is not a relation of "just the facts, ma'am."
Point of view is always important.
No, to me the importance of scripture is not to find out who the "real" Jesus was. It's to learn about the relationship of God and humanity. As my pastor used to say when I was a teenager, the important part of the creation story is not the "how," but the "why."
The bible is a continuation of God's creation. At a point in human history, God inspired people to start writing stuff down. Other people were inspired to save those writings, to edit them and redact/rewrite them and finally, to canonize them. Then more people were inspired to translate these canonical writings and copy them and publish them and comment on them.
Scripture and the truth derived from it and the scholarship surrounding it are living, changing phenomena. People stuck in the modern approach of only trusting physically observable "facts" as the only truth are unable to understand the power of scripture. People stuck in the pre-modern, fundamentalist demand to accept all scripture as literal and inerrant are also unable to perceive the power of this living, changing conversation between several millenia of humans and God.
Posted by: Virginia Gilbert | July 25, 2008 2:46 PM
I find that nothing we say makes any sense unless it is consistent with approved ancient history. Try hard as we may, we can't make a God that the earliest people on earth never knew. So what have they said about God and the reason man was made?
Posted by: Ancient Reader | July 26, 2008 12:04 AM
Hi Ancient Reader,
Thank you for your kind response. A couple of questions: how would reading different material short circut your current position? If your position is beyond refutation then surely new information would not be harmful to it?
I think it is important for all of us to continue questioning and examine even information that may prove uncomfortably challenging to our current positions.
I confess I know not much of sumerian culture at all. My mother is an ancient history teacher so I am happy to access and examine such information.
Thanks again,
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa | July 26, 2008 12:46 AM
Lisa, I left you a post saying thanks for your correction inter alia but something is not happening here.
Posted by: Ancient Reader | July 27, 2008 12:39 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?