| Author |
Message |
    
Elizabeth
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 15, 2000 - 08:06 am: | |
The various portraits of the historical Jesus that Dr. Binder spoke of on 2-14-00 were enlightening to me. I had never heard of some of the men on the handout "Early Quests for the Historical Jesus." Although I have heard views regarding Jesus' body being stolen by his disciples, I didn't know the name of H. S. Reimarus nor his account of the historical Jesus.
I have heard of Thomas Paine, and of course, Thomas Jefferson, but I was unaware of their "selective beliefs" in the Gospels. I did not know Jefferson had formed his own version. He, along with Paulus, Strauss, and Holtzmann appear to have created the Jesus they personally wished to design. This, to me, is not unlike the world today. People who don't want to deal with the Jesus of the Bible often find ways to excuse, explain, or flat-out deny what is presented in Scripture. As humans, we all like our "comfort zones," and Jesus, as seen in the Bible, intrudes on comfort zones.
I found N. T. Wright's article (The Dallas Morning News; Saturday, February 12, 2000) of interest regarding the historical Jesus. Here, Mr. Wright explains how Jesus is painted with a wide "New Myth" brush that has five points. According to Mr. Wright, he is faced with this New Myth "...on the edge of every conversation." I find the five points outlined to be unbelievable, with no historical support, and personally, offensive, particularly the first point portraying Jesus as a willy-nilly type figure who "...didn't think his death would save the world, and he certainly didn't think he was divine." I hardly think Jesus would come to Earth and die on a cross for the world if He doubted the effect of that death! Of course, if one is going to deny the truth of the canonical gospels, one can paint the historical Jesus with as wide a brush as he chooses.
Mr. Wright's second point on the New Myth denies the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Naturally, if one first takes away the divinity of Christ and then takes away the resurrection of Christ, Christianity is also taken away. Without the resurrection, there is no need for divinity because the resurrection is THE HOPE for every Christian.
I concur with Mr. Wright wherein he points out that one of the reasons Americans are embracing this New Myth is because they yearn for "...a free-for-all, do-it-yourself spirituality, with a strong agenda of social protest against the powers that be, and an I'm-OK-you're-OK attitude on all matters religious and ethical." Mr. Wright's next sentence, however, sums up what I believe is and has been going on in America for some time now: "...you can have any sort of spirituality you like (Zen, labyrinths, Tai Chi) as long as it isn't orthodox Christianity." Why is this? I believe it is because Christianity demands answers. Who is Jesus? Why did He come? What does Jesus have to do with me? If He is the resurrected Christ and the scriptural promises of eternity are true, then one has everything to lose if he denies Christ and everything to gain if he believes Christ. Christianity demands a decision that marks one a Christian or a non-Christian. I don't think Zen and other religions superimpose this demand. People are uncomfortable with radical thought. However, whether one accepts or denies it, Christianity is radical! If one believes the Bible, one would have to say that indeed Jesus is radical! This is the historical Jesus I know.
Now, to answer the next question posed by Dr. Binder. The most convincing solution to the Synoptic Problem appears to me to be the Four-Source Hypothesis. It makes sense to compare Matthew, Mark, and Luke as has been so carefully done. I agree that it would almost be impossible for Mark, Matthew, and Luke to come up with passages that are verbatim the same had two of them not used the other's source. According to the text, Mark was written first, and Mark was one of Matthew's and Luke's sources. Matthew and Luke employed other sources as well--each their own (M & L, respectively), and both the Quelle, commonly called "Q." Therefore, with Ehrman's arguments for Markan priority and the patterns of agreement, sequence of narrative, and the overall methodology employed, I can see no real conflict in what Ehrman has described as a feasible solution to the Synoptic Problem. |
Damaris
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2000 - 12:49 am: | |
When I think about what the proto-orthodox Christians were doing when they put together the Canon, the process to me seems so arbitrary (?) yet also amazing. It seems arbitrary because the creation of the Canon as we have it today emerged from many groups of Christians arguing about their explanation or their understanding of Jesus Christ and what his message was. Furthermore, it was mainly because of the dominance of the proto-orthodox Christians (over Gnostic Christians, Marcionite Christians, etc.) that resulted in the canon (of the proto-orthodox Christians) being accepted as "the Canon."
Why do I bring up the development of the Canon? Because to me it is a bit similar to what Paine, Jefferson, Paulus, Schweitzer, and all the rest were trying to do-what we are still trying to do. Everybody, starting from the first disciples, had tried, had been trying, and is trying (if we haven't already done so) to understand Jesus. All the different Christian groups were trying to interpret, in their own way, the Christ figure. In establishing their canons, they were trying to piece together their interpretations, their explanations, for something/someone they couldn't explain in human terms. They were grappling with concepts that were new, different, unusual. They were trying to establish which doctrines most people believed in and which were correct Christian teachings. Jefferson established his own canon! He didn't believe something, cut it out. Paulus didn't believe in miracles, so they were naturalistic phenomena. We see their explanations as ludicrous, but they were trying to understand and explain in the best way they know how.
For some of us, what is recorded in the Canon affects/shapes many aspects of our lives. The Canon as it exists today "won" over many other versions because a group of Christians, larger than the others, were proponents/believers of the doctrines/theology in this particular Canon. (Of course, there's more to this…I'm leaving out the faith issue, theology, philosophy, etc.) Imagine if there were enough people reading from Jefferson's canon. What if a large enough group believed in the Hegelian Synthesis? For many of us, because of our faith, we are shocked by the image of the historical Jesus that the people of the past have tried to project. And we believe that Jesus was more than just a failed revolutionary or a failed prophet of the end times. But imagine what it was like during the times of the early Christians! Some groups were saying Jesus was fully divine, another group was saying there was a divine being, the Christ, that took over the body of the man Jesus. See how ridiculous that sounds?
I've said all that because I think we might look at the historians, philosophers, rationalists, or Deists like Paulus, Strauss, or Holtzmann in a more understanding (and less condescending) manner. If nothing else, in getting us to refute their explanations, they give us the opportunity to reaffirm our beliefs. |
Tabitha
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 16, 2000 - 08:19 pm: | |
I thought the different opinions that were presented to us about the historical Jesus were very interesting. I had never heard many of these views and found it enlightening to know how people from these centuries felt about the Historical Jesus.
For me it is hard to separate the Historical Jesus from my Faith Knowledge of Jesus. I believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God for Truth, Faith and Practice. To me, it is not right to pick and choose which parts of the Bible one is going to believe. When some one starts picking and choosing what they will believe and what they will say is false where does it stop. How one you say that this one part is false yet this other part is true? To me it is all or nothing.
From the view-point of a Christian, H.S. Remarus’ thought that Jesus was the failed revolutionary sounds like he didn’t really understand why Jesus came. He didn’t understand that Jesus came to save the people from their sins and not from the persecution of the Romans. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and H.E.G. Paulus all came up with a Jesus that best fit their lifestyle. They all had “feel good” ideas about the Historical Jesus. None of their ideas require any conviction. It is easy to find fault with something that you really don’t want to believe in. Paine found the Gospels to be inconsistent and unreliable. He saw Jesus as an ethical person, but nothing more than that. Jefferson cut and pasted the Gospels together to get a Jesus that worked with best for him. He came up with a philosophically sounds Jesus. Paulus claimed that all the miracles could be explained by natural phenomena. He lacked the faith that is required to believe that Jesus preformed miracles.
To me, Strauss, Holtzman and Schweitzer have more philosophical than historical ideas. I agree with Strauss that the Gospels were written from the perspective of faith but I do not agree that they have little historical use. They all have accounts of Jesus’ life at some time or another, and it can be proven scientifically that Jesus did walk the earth. I also agree with Holtzman that Jesus embodied ethical ideas, but do not agree that he came to create a sot of utopia on earth. He knew that we would never be able to live perfectly as he did. That’s why he had to die on the cross for our sins of the present and the past so that we mere humans could have a relationship with God.
I find the Farrer Hypothesis to be the most convincing attitude towards the synoptic problem. I find problems with the others because of the use of the Q source. Whithout physical evidence that this document existed it is hard for me go with a theory that is totally based on the existence of Q. I think that with the evidence shown, it is easy to believe that Matthew used Mark as a source to write his gospels, while he also used some outside information. I also think it is possible that Luke could have used both Mark and Matthew to compose his because it is the most polished of the Gospels and has so much detail. |
Sapphira
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2000 - 12:29 am: | |
I disagree with the Diest's belief that Jesus did not get involved in human affairs. The Synoptic Gospels prove that to be wrong. There are many places within the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus performed miracles healing, and providing for people. I find H.E.G. Paulus's belief that miracles were explained by naturalistic phenomena irrational. How can water being turned into wine be a natural phenomena? There is no way for that to be possible. Also, how are Jesus's healing miracles explained by naturalistic phenomena? Only a miracle can heal someone with leprosy or make a blind man see. Especially in those days when technology was extremely limited. I don't believe that the Gospels were of little use historically, either. I find the Griesbach Hypothesis to be the most convincing because its logical to believe that Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources, and not Matthew using Mark, because Matthew and Mark contain more detailed information. Mark is very abbreviated. Therefore, it's reasonable to think that Mark used Matthew and Luke as sources, and simply abbreviated their comments. |
Susanna
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2000 - 06:58 pm: | |
I was amazed by all the different takes on who Jesus was and what his goals were. I did not know that there where such different and extreme views on Jesus. I do not agree with all the different views of these people. I think that the Bible tells us exactly who Jesus was and what his intentions were.
Reimarus's view to me seems like he is trying to come up with an explaination of who Jesus was because he did not believe in him and what he stood for so he made up an idea of Jesus for himself.
The diast ideas who did not believe in all the Gospels seems odd to me. How can you take part of a book and only agree with parts of it when one was not there. The Bible was written by people who were in the presence of Jesus or the stories were handed down. I do not think that someone should say something is not true just because they did not see it or believe that the stories could be true. I think that to be a true believer one should either believe in all or nothing of the Bible(or whatever the subject matter is).
For those who believe that miracles cannot happen and those in the Bible were just "naturalistic phenomena", I think that they are taking the same kind of view as those who pick apart the Gospels. I think that miracles are a part of what Jesus is about.
I think that if you are going to be a Christian then you must believe what the Bible tells us and not choose only parts that fit into one's one beliefs.
For the Synoptic problem I believe in the idea of Mark being the first Gospel written. I think that there is more evidence pointing to the fact that Mark was written first. I do think that there was a source that no one knows about because Matthew and Luke have other similarities that do not come from Mark. Throughout history there are articles that are not found but believed to have existed. |
Apollos
| | Posted on Thursday, February 17, 2000 - 10:39 pm: | |
Finally we get to Jesus, the one who started this
mess in the first place. To assume that we will
ever know who the real Jesus was is almost
impossible for me to fathom. All we know about
him is that which others have written and what
others have perceived about him. Religious
scholars and simple men have been trying to piece
this man together for centuries. There are people
in contemporary society whom we will never really
know intimately. There are people with ideas and
talents that we with all of our information and
technology still cannot fully understand and they
are still alive.
I completely disagree with Susana who said that
the Bible tells us exactly who Jesus was. The
Bible gives us a very vague and unclear picture of
Jesus. It is only through the work and verbatim
of many scholars and theologians that we
understand anything that Jesus did at all. For
one he spoke in riddles or parables that can be
interpreted in so many ways.
It is also frustrating when people say the Bible
is all-true or nothing. How many things happen in
our natural world that can be completely without a
doubt absolute? In fact I don’t know of anything
that is always absolute. In every story, in every
eyewitness account, in every biography and even
autobiography, in all writings nothing is ever
absolutely true. There is always room to
embellish there is always the fading memory and
overwhelming power of passionate writing to stray
from absolute fact.
I sound like such a doubting Thomas but I just
want to explore a little and test my own beliefs.
The theories presented in class on Monday
fascinate me. It is amazing how this man has
sparked so much debate and theology. I agree with
what was said in class, Jesus’ identity and role
changes with the era in which he is being debated.
During the Enlightenment he was rationalized by
Paine and Jefferson etc. I almost want to say
that Jesus can be whoever anyone wants him to be.
Whatever anyone believes about him is true to that
person, or that generation. I mean … if no two
people can agree on his role then maybe his role
changes. What is his role today?
Our text does a wonderful job of illustrating the
Synoptic Problem. The solution seems to be simple:
Mark wrote his gospel first, shortly followed by
Luke and Mathew. Of course John came way later.
Unless anyone can come up with a better solution
or until we find |
Syntyche
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 01:41 am: | |
I found the notes and opinions on Monday very interestin. I find it fascinating to see how people throught the ages have molded Jesus and Christianity to fit their own lives. A girl I knew in high school once said that the problem with many Christians is that they try to change their religion to fit their lifestyle instead of changing their lifestyle to fit their religion. This is what I see happening with people such as Reimarus , Jefferson, Strauss, etc.
The major fault I find in the arguments for the historical Jesus discussed in class is in the beliefs reguarding the resurrection. I don't feel that one can claim to be a Christian and at the same time reject the resurrection. The resurrection is one of the foundations of Christianity-it proves Christ's power over death and gives us hope and reassurance that we too won't be conquered by death. I think many times it is hard for people- especially exceptionally intelligent or rational people-to accept situations that are unusual or that can't be explained in a way they feel to be logical. The fact is that the Christian faith is just that- you have to believe and have faith in that which we don't understand or that can't be explained by science. You can't start throwing out parts of scripture that you don't like and creating more acceptable situations-if you do you don't have Christianity- you have some religion that you have created for yourself alone. |
Martha
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 02:20 am: | |
The multiple faces of Jesus that were presented in class on Monday fascinated me. I have had some exposure to the demythologization of the scriptures, but I was never completely aware of its history. It is interesting to me that it all began at the end of Christ's life and is recorded in scripture. The Gospel of Matthew gives an account of guards being posted outside of Jesus' tomb at the request the Sanhedrien, who were afraid that his disciples would try to steal the body and then say he had risen. That this was such an issue of the time, that it permeated scripture and has continued to be an issue, captivates me. Why would someone steal a body of a guy they believed dead, especially if they would be killed if caught? Why perpetuate the belief that a "great teacher" had died and then risen? Why die for such a story? Why would such a story continue for thousands of years, and continue to have people today who are willing to die for it?
The Historical Jesus as presented by Strauss and Paulus and the others does not inspire me to believe. And why should it? If Jesus was just another man, would didn't conquer Satan and rise from the dead, if he didn't do miracles and heal people, why believe in him? What makes him any different from other people, other great teachers, other Pharisees of the day? Why would such an ordinary man inspire so many? He wouldn't. There have been many great men through out the ages, and yet none of them has inspired a perpetuating group of people willing to live and die for the right to share his story (accept maybe Mohammed).
The portrayals of Jesus presented by Jefferson and Payne are examples, in my opinion of what N.T Wright was speaking of in his article. These pictures of Christ are mirror images of who the author is or desires to be. They are the Jesus of their desire. In an attempt to create a historic Jesus they created a personal Jesus that would fulfill all their personal needs in a deity without any of the personal growth or sacrifice that goes along with belief. Damaris brought up the idea of the canon, and that the canon was the group of books that "won" because a large group of people thought they best supported a particular theology. He seems suggested that if the Jeffersonian gospel had had a large enough following it would have become an established book of faith. I would have to disagree with him. There are multiple examples of where people have created, either through divine inspiration or their own theological studies, other gospels or "biblical" accounts which have not been accepted into mainstream Christianity. Among those groups are the Mormons, who's extra-biblical books created a new religion. Also the Universal Church, also know as the Moonies, have extra-biblical books that are like Jefferson's gospel, an accumulation of the stories in the canonical bible that are acceptable to the leader of the Moonies. I believe that these portrayals of Jesus are one man's attempt to fashion a deity of his own making as an attempt to justify, reward, uplift, or inspire himself. I also believe that they haven't lasted and haven't been incorporated into the wider Christian faith because they lack that "divine truth" that makes one willing to give it all up to be apart of the truth.
I personally think that the Synoptic Problem, the problem of how to explain the wide-arrange agreements and disagreements among the first three gospels, is well explained by the use of the four source hypothesis. However, I personally believe that many of the disagreements are matters of perception and cultural relativity. The things that were important to the culture (be it Jewish or regional culture) were enhanced, retained, or emphasized over other stories. Things which were important to the scribe and the items that he believed would convince his readers of the truth were those that were told in more elaborate detail or with greater emphases. For example, when missionaries enter an unreached area the first thing they do is learn the culture of the people there so that they have a means of explaining the gospel in away that makes it through the cultural filters. If the missionary's explanation of the gospel were recorded it would look slightly different from the others, the order of the stories may vary, but the essential truth would remain. |
Timothy
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 12:40 pm: | |
My opinion of the various portraits of the "historical Jesus" are viewed in black and white in both the environments of acadamia and reality. Basically, I see two types of theories shrouding the question of Jesus and who he is, was, or will be. The first type of theory presented are those created by Christians who are obligated to attest Jesus and his miraculous doings to divine power. These people, while providing interesting accounts, must perpetually be hindered by their faith and its "don't ask too much" policy. But on the other hand are the theories by those such as Holtzmann and Paine that seem to facilitate my current beliefs and ideas to a larger extent. Jesus, no doubt existed and amassed legions of followers, but as far as being the earthly extension of an omnipitant being, I don't know. He was definitly, as Paine states, a man who was the purveyor of ethical ideals, but this is the extent to which I feel comfortable traveling. He was a good person with good intentions, but as far as the quest for the "historical Jesus" goes, I must agree with Paine, Paulus, and Holtzmann and their assessments.
The synoptic problem is a toss up for me. I have wrestled with the Griesbach Hypothesis and the Farrer Hypothesis and am still uncertain. But, if I must choose, I will go with the Griesbach Hypothesis because I have too much of a question of why, if Mark was written first, would it not contain as much detail or information. In Friday's class, we compared/contrasted the scripture were Jesus walks on water in both Matthew and Mark. Since Matthew contained more information and detail, I belive it to be written first. Also it contains a different approach to the disciples than Mark. Mark is almost harsh to them while Matthew is not. I believe Mark was written at a later date, to a different group of people, but using Matt as a source. |
Philip
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 12:43 pm: | |
The various portraits encountered of the historical Jesus seem primarily, through many scholarly attempts, to make Jesus in their own image. Instead of trying to conform tto the image of Jesus, many Christians themselves fall into this trap, making Jesus into their own image, rather than trying to conform to the image of Christ. When hate crimes are committed we many times don't hear what the historical Jesus "said", like love your neighbor, enemies etc, but rather we here "Jesus hate homosexuality, Jesus hates other religions". These latter statements clearly being farther from any statement anyone can even concoct of the "historical Jesus", than the former. Many forget canonical statements of dealling with one's own vices (which incidently is a life long process ending only in death) before one tries to pick the speck out of their neighbors eye.
Looking for the historical Jesus is not the problem, but making up the history of Jesus is. The feminists may make Jesus an ideal feminist revolutionary, Louis Farakan may make Jesus a literal black man, and socialist make Jesus the champion of their cause. Neutrally, Jesus could be all of these or none of these, but the problem is making Jesus only this, just because I am only this. One must peel away the values, cultures, stigmas and theologies that modern (medieval writers etc) have grafted on to "Jesus" and find the true Jesus (in his own day, in his own world, in his own words, with his own intent). This is the true quest for the historical Jesus. This involves finding out and piecing together what the carpenter from Nazareth really had to say.
For believers in Christ, Jesus is very adaptable because He is seen as God, and this itself brings many theological implications which can be deduced through reason and logic on the nature of Christ's teachings and their ultimate meanings. Thus, the canonical Gospels can preach a Messiah to the Jews and a Logos to the Greeks. This does not mean that they are false or fabricated, but that their theological understanding of Christ gives them a theology to potray to their audience. The quest for the historical Jesus however involves an neutral response (not necesarily denying the above) to see Jesus in an actual period of time, history.
The personal lesson I myself grasp on the quest for the historical Jesus, is not that Jesus is wrong in my own faith, but that I might be. This thought, though scary and offensive to myself, is good for me because It allows me to continually grow. If I thought I contained and had knowledge of all of the truth already then I would be stuck in a rut, making everthing fit around my own beliefs (just as many historical people ie Thomas Jefferson etc. have), intstead of always looking for the truth behind the illusions of my own ethnocentrism. I hope this is made real so that I can be made into the image of Jesus and not the other way around. |
Salome
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 01:21 pm: | |
I find the various portraits of the "historical Jesus" to be very interesting. I have never heard of them before. I find it interesting that all of these theories have come up in the last several hundred years. Like Tabitha, it is kind of hard for me to distinguish between a historical Jesus and my Faith-Knowledge of Jesus. I believe that the scripture is inerrant, infallible, and authoritative. I believe that it sufficiently reveals Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Based on this faith, I can give my opinions on these theorists.
In general, I feel like these portraits of Jesus are just an excuses that these men came up with after they realized that they do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he performed miracles. They do not seem to be logical and convincing ideas that prove Jesus to be only a common man or prophet. Evidence of this seems to be that their viewpoints are parallel to the values and ideals of their time. This is bias that results from ethnocentrism and anachronism.
I do not believe that Jesus was simply a man who tried to overthrow the Romans as H.S. Reimarus tries to say. I think that his theory about the disciples stealing Jesus' body and re-writing history is false. I also don't believe that Jesus was just a prophet as Thomas Paine and Albert Schweitzer said. The Scripture clearly states that he was the Son of God. Finally, the arguments against miracles by Thomas Jefferson, H.E.G. Paulus and David Strauss are simply not convincing for me. There were numerous people recorded in Scripture who were witness to the amazing miracles that Jesus performed.
Now, which solution to the Synoptic Problem do I find to be most convincing? I think that because of the lack of evidence of Q, I simply cannot rely on its existence. I believe that Matthew are Luke and Mark were witnesses to the life of Jesus and they were inspired by God for all of their writings. I makes plenty of sense to me that there could be great similarity and some differences in their accounts. If you read about a news story today, the accounts written by different reporters are going to be different. People see different angles on situations, and people stress different actions or points according to who their target audience is. Just because people have similarities in their report or differences, I do not think that proves there to be similar of different sources. Therefore, I'm not to sure that I believe any of the solutions to the "Synoptic Problem" that have been presented before me. I'm not even sure if there is a Synoptic Problem. |
Lydia
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 01:47 pm: | |
J
Thanks, for the tip! I'll save blue for your color. |
Paul
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 01:58 pm: | |
If the "historical Jesus" is that person whom we can reasonably know through scientific means, then my opinion is that none of the pictures of the "historical Jesus" we have encountered have truly been pictures of the "historical Jesus." They are actually then portraits of the "historic Jesus" or portraits of Jesus through faith-knowledge.
The difficulty lies in that the Bible is often our only source for information on Jesus. That being the case, the miracles must then be contended with. Scientifically, one would remove the miracles as mere coincidence, hyperbole, or fantasy of the author. In this case, the portraits of the "historical Jesus" we have encountered are reasonably, scientifically accurate attempts at explaining the man, most especially the Rational Jesus explanations by Paine, Jefferson, and Paulus. These explanations provide a "historical" picture of Jesus that can be scientifically borne out. Even Reimarus and Strauss provide reasonable scientific portraits of the "historical Jesus" in the absence of the miracles.
However, with few or any other sources which may be used to detail a picture of the "historical Jesus," it is a logical fallacy to pick and choose out of the primary source that which is or is not a scientifically verifiable occurrence in the life of a person. The problem of the "historical Jesus" is much like that of Joan of Arc, except that we have much more information on Joan. If you remove the miracles reported about her, you have a scientifically verifiable picture of Joan, but you may not necessarily have the truth about her. It is the same with Jesus. For this reason, my opinion is, that the pictures of the "historical Jesus" we have thus far seen, are accurate in the sense that they are reasonable scientific extrapolations about a man of whom so little is known. Yet, they are incomplete because they remove much information from the source, labeling it as unscientific or even impossible.
I personally prefer the Griesbach Hypothesis and would answer the critics with the hypothesis that Mark is an unfinished work, but the Farrer Hypothesis is by far the most reasonable. Whereas the Four-Source hypothesis expects one to trust in three sources that are for all intents and purposes imaginary, the Farrer Hypothesis does not. The Griesbach does not support Markan priority, though the weight of the evidence seems to point to Markan priority, an aspect that the Farrer agrees upon. The Farrer has fewer points that can be critiqued than either the Griesbach or Four-Source, once again making it the most reasonable, logical, and scientifically verifiable Hypothesis. |
Chloe
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 02:29 pm: | |
I have to admit that all of these issues that we have been discussing in class lately have been very disturbing to me. I consider myself strong in my faith in God, Jesus and the Bible, but when one doubts the historical accuracy of the gospels and the bias of its authors, the very basis for most everything I believe is shaken. But at the same time I have seen the effect of my relationship with Christ in my life and know that to be true far above the opinions of any scholars. However, I find that when one departs from the guidelines of the scriptures, everything becomes speculation and nothing can really be resolved one way or the other.
For example, if one can use logic to argue that the miracles and resurrection never occurred as the dramatic works that the Bible records them to be(as Reimarus, Paulus, Strauss and Jefferson assert), then the whole point of Jesus coming to earth is lost. His purpose was to become the atoning sacrifice that reconciles us to God once and for all. The miracles he performed were a big factor in proving his divinity; those works were what convinced most of His followers. But the scholars didn't believe that He was the Son of God anyway. Which brings up another point.
In the gospels it is recorded that Jesus proclaimed himself to be the Son of God; if he in fact was not, then he was not merely a great teacher, philosopher or leader, but a liar and a blasphemer. All of the scholars mentioned in class searching for the "historical Jesus" refute the assertion that He was the Son of God. With this in mind, Jesus has no credibility to be studied as a prophet or teacher (he was either deluded or evil). However, if one doubts the truth in the Gospels, then those statements too can be disregarded.
So if the Gospels don't contain the truth, then where does the truth lie? In the opinions of the great thinkers like Jefferson, Schweitzer, Paine, and others? Do we trust them to make sense of such deeply personal religious beliefs for us? Or will we try to figure it out on our own? The reality is that none of us were there and anything that we will believe about Jesus is nothing short of the proverbial leap of faith. On the other hand, the apostles and the authors of the Bible were witnesses or had contact with the very people that witnessed Jesus and his work. So while they were very biased individuals, I believe that they were at least present at the time and have a better perspective than any of us.
The extent of the impact of the bias of the canonic authors is a challenge to explain. They were undoubtedly biased by their religious convictions that Jesus was the Son of God. But I find it worthwhile to consider the fact that their faith strongly emphasized truth and it was committed to making truth known. (and aren't there passages that refer to God as truth?) One would wonder if they would be so quick to profane such an important principle and in a way their God by intentionally misrepresenting what happened. Why would they spend their whole lives enduring hardship and intense persecution even giving their lives for something they knew to be false? And there are also some interesting details (such as with the humble origins of Jesus and his desire for them to keep His identity a secret) that one would think odd for the authors to include if they were portraying Jesus in a less-than-honest way. In short, they could have painted a much more convincing and glorified picture of the Messiah if that was their sole concern and they had no regard for truth.
I find that logic to be far more convincing than that of the scholars questing for the "historical Jesus". |
Lydia
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 03:11 pm: | |
For me the only version of Jesus I will support is that of true God, made man, crucifide for the sins of the world, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven.
Everything else is ethnocentrism. It is man trying to redefine the gospels according to their own needs.
As for the different "portraits" within the gospels, I support them all. Jesus can be the new Moses, the suffering servant, etc. He is all things to all people. He really is that powerful.
AS FOR THE SYNOPTIC PROBLEM
Disclaimer: I realize the limitations to my present knowledge. Thus, I reserve the right to change my opinions as I learm more.
By the term "synoptic problem" I understand this as a question of order rather than authenticity.
I must say from a historical view, a Markan Priority solution makes sense. Mark is shorter, but its particular stories are lengthy. It appears Mark was limited in sources. Also, the in depth comparison from our text of similarities and differences is logical. Also, his struggle with the Greek language suggests early authorship. The most compeling support actually comes from an outside source and even explains some of the pecularities of the book of Mark.
Papias seems to be a reputable source. He wanted to know the truth and not the tainted versions of Jesus that may have reached him by the early second century. From Papias, we get the rest of the story, or at least some inside information. Mark does not appear to have first hand knowledge of Jesus. His writings may not even be the dictation of such a source. Papias claims Mark was a redactor himself, writing the stories Peter shared orally with various audiences.
This explains the problem with the sequencing of events. Without explicit details from Peter, Mark would have been left alone to sort out such details for himself. Matthew and Luke may have had more reliable sources for their sequencing. This could also be why the Mark collection is incomplete compared to Matthew and Luke. Mark was not researching sources in order to present a complete book of Jesus life. He was merely recording Peter's sermons.
The fact that these sermons took place, quite probably, during or shortly after the lives of the disciples gives a clue to Mark's (and Peter's) different tone. Clearly, the disciples were not perfect even in Luke and Matthew. It may have been comforting for the people who personally knew about their shortcomings, to see them portrayed as such. Perhaps Mark's (Peter's) point is that the Lord came for all, even imperfect people. (aka every human born) And that He chose such people as His followers. The future of the early church depended on imperfect people feeling adequite and useful. Some of the harshness can also be blamed on Mark's lack of fluency in greek. He may not have been able to convey exactly what he wanted in the exact tone he desired. I don't think I could write effectively in a second language! Matthew and Luke may have known this when they softened and reinterpreted various stories.
As far as the Q Source, I feel there were definitely other sources. It is believed that Mary may have been one of Luke's additional source. Luke even says he had "those before me." Different people in different times have access to different materials and witnesses. It is important to keep this in account when studying historical accounts. However, we must be very careful how we define this Q Source. We do not know there is only one source. (or even just four) I see the Q Source as the abstract representation of all outside sources we do not have first hand information about. Additionally, we can only suggest what may have been in these sources by the writings we do still have. Care should be given not to inadvertantly, conjecture hypothetical ideas into such a source in order to support one theory over another. As historians, we must stick to what we do know.
As hinted here, how an event is recorded greatly depends on who is recording it, when it is recorded, and for what reason. I look forward to learning what we do know about the authors of the synoptic gospels.
I do want to make the point that perhaps there are such strong similarities among these gospels because they are describing true events. The similar wording could be from a strong oral tradition. It could also be support for the theory that they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Perhaps the central ideas that need to be strengthened would be retained, almost word for word. Yet, because different people (whether of different times, culture, education, status, or even personality)learn differently, the message of a savior would have to be presented differently.
I cannot at this time adequately explain the drastic differences in Jesus' geneology and birth story. But it peeks my interest and creates a hunger for His truths. I shall continue researching this. |
Junia
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 03:46 pm: | |
Of the ideologies that we have discussed in class, it is interesting that not one of them questions Jesus' human existence. Even people that I have talked to during my lifetime, people who are trying to sort through the whole religion thing, will admit that Jesus did live a human life like you and me. The only aspect of His life that is called into question is His deity. For example, Paine and Jefferson's theories of the rational Jesus reduce the character of Jesus to someone who just lived a good life and taught good things. These theories leave no room for Jesus as the Messiah, Son of God.
The depictions of the historical Jesus all point to one thing and that is humankind's insistence upon being able to explain everything. In other words, it seems that humans want so much to find a graspable reason for things that seem unexplainable. Paulus and Strauss' explaining away of the miracles is an example of that human desire. It reminds me of how the serpent was able to convince Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit- because he promised her that doing so would enable her to know things that she did not know before. This insatiable quest for knowledge is almost a tragic flaw in that wanting to know more about subjects is an admirable characteristic but there comes a point when it passes the admirable stage and becomes detrimental because it rules out the possibility of faith. And it is that absence of faith that comes from a sole dependence on reason that isolates us from God, just like it did Eve and Adam.
Aside from religion, there are quite a few things in our lives that require us to just have faith. For example, when we prepare to sit in a chair we don't usually wonder whether it will be strong enough to hold us nor do we calculate the appropriate equations to figure just how much force we will be placing on it as a way of ensuring that the chair will not dump us onto the floor. Rather, we accept that someone has already figured that for us and have faith that the chair will hold us- so, we sit down.
I think the historical Jesus viewpoints have to be handled in a similar way. It seems impossible to view Jesus, historically and otherwise, separate from a faith-knowledge of who He is. Just like with the chair, someone already did the calculations, someone already did the work, and that was Jesus when He died on the cross and rose again on the third day so that we would not have to wonder who He is and was. He did the work by proving Himself on the cross and at His resurrection and now all we need to do is have faith that He is who He says He is and that He did what He said He did. Because someone already paid the price, all that is required of us is faith.
Of course, we can explain away Jesus' deity like Reimarus and Schweitzer, among others, did by claiming He was no more than a good person with revolutionary ideas or that He was a prophet. My question is why? Why would we choose to not believe that Jesus was actually the Messiah who was sent to be the atonement for all of the bad stuff that we do so that we can go to heaven and be with Him? Why would we reject someone who said that they would pay for the lying, cheating, stealing, etc. that we do? Why refuse a willing scapegoat? If we believe in Him and we are wrong about His deity then we have not lost anything. But, if we choose not to ever believe in Him and that He really is the Son of God then we have lost our chance to live in heaven with Him and we will be sent to the fiery lake of hell. It seems much more worthwhile, to say the least, to know have faith in Jesus' saying that He is Messiah.
I believe that all of the Bible is God's inspired word like the scripture says in, I think, First Corinthians, so the order that the Gospels were written in does not really pose a real concern for me except that it might be interesting to think about. I think of the Gospel writers as being inspired to write thier version of Jesus' life and ministry so that it would touch the hearts of its target audience. In other words, I can see the Holy Spirit guiding each Gospel writer in writing a text appropriate to the audience towards which the book was directed. If I had to choose an answer to the Synoptic Problem I would support the two-source hypothseis, but I would say that Q is none other than the inspiration of the Lord Himself. It seems to me that where the books differ could be a result of the Holy Spirit's leading to rearrange some things so that the book would better meet the needs of the people to which the book was targeted. |
Apphia
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 04:25 pm: | |
The obvious problem with each of the historical views of Jesus is that each one was
greatly affected by the time and place in which it was developed. Because the authors of
the Gospels cared little for the historical perspective and more about theology it makes it
very difficult for Historians to use those texts in their quest to understand who Jesus really
was.
Many of the historians using the writings of the Gospels chose to look only at the those
things which are rational and can be logically explained. Reimarus believed the disciples
made up the stories about his life and his miracles. Thomas Jefferson simply cut out the
miracles leaving what was “fact”, and Paulus explained many of the miracles as caused by
natural phenomena.
Regardless of the thinker, each man was susceptible to the ideas and beliefs of the time.
The fact that they have never seen another perform such miracles does not mean that they
did not happen. Many of the Disciples were willing to die and were in fact martyred for
their belief in Jesus as the Messiah sent of God.
I accept Jesus as the Messiah, sent as the Son of God. He came to this earth for the
purpose of saving the people from their sins. He came to create the New Covenant
between God and Man. While we were ugly with sin He came to save us. He faced Hell
so that we would never have to. He not only takes on our sins but He gives to us His
perfect righteousness.
The Synoptic Problem is another issue. I believe that there is a great deal evidence
supporting the Two Source Hypothesis. Maybe I should say I believe there is a great deal
of evidence for Markan Priority. I believe that many of the other stories were passed on
orally. Because of the great similarities in many passages and much of the order in
Matthew, Mark, and Luke it makes since that they be related in some way. I cannot say
for sure what way that is.
I have always been taught that Matthew was written by the Disciple Matthew, and, in fact,
in my Bible on the introduction page to the Gospel of Matthew it says that it was written
by the disciple. Because of this it makes it difficult to for me to accept that Matthew
borrowed from Mark who was not an eye-witness to the events.
Even though there is a great deal of evidence in favor of Markan Priority, it is hard for me
to accept in full due to what I have been taught all my life.
Regardless of who wrote what and who copied who these passages are the inspired word
of God, and I believe each and every word to be Holy. I am very interested to continue
this study of the passages, but regardless of what I am told or what I read one thing will
remain constant. Each and every word is GOD-BREATHED and HOLY. |
Matthew
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 04:30 pm: | |
I think the different attempts at constructing the Historical Jesus are interesting. While none of the attempts can really capture the essence of Jesus, they do stimulate thought about Jesus. H.S. Reimarus version of Jesus as a failed revolutionary seems hard to believe. What Jesus taught was revolutionary and over time his teachings caused many people to change their believes. Taking Jesus's revolution in a spiritual sense he was not a failure, but a success because he got so many followers later on to follow his teachings. If Reimarus meant revolution in the sense that Jesus was trying to take over the government then Jesus does not fit that mold either. People who try to overthrow governments usually support violent overthrows of the current government, but Jesus is not usually described as violent. Sure in the temple Jesus got mad, but Jesus did not call for people to revolt. It seems if Jesus had lead a failed revolution there would be more writings about Jesus being violent or supporting violence. I know Reimarus thought the disciples tried to rewrite history, but a good example of Jesus's nonviolent is when he does not have his disciples fight the Roman soldiers who have come to take him to jail.
Another version of the Historical Jesus says that Jesus was just a man with really good ideas. People like Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and H.E.G. Paulus did not want to believe what seemed to be unbelievable. They all liked the "logical" things Jesus said and did, but they could not bring themselves to believe in miracles. They either believed that Jesus was not God's son or that the Son of God would not have really preformed miracles. Paulus's explanations of the miracles as naturalistic phenomena seem to be far fetched at times. From what I understand his explanations although trying to be rational seem to be illogical at times because of the extraordinary things that occur in his explanations. He had faith in his own logic, but not in Christ. Likewise Jefferson seemed only to like the parts of the Gospels that agreed with his own logic.
David Strauss also did not want to believe in the miracles, but he probably saw the problems with Paulus's argument. He got around the failures of Paulus's argument by saying that the miracles never happened, but that early church created the stories of the miracles. It is hard to prove historically that the miracles did occur, but it is also hard to prove historically that they did not occur.
H.J. Holtzmann believed Jesus wanted to make the world a utopia with ethical ideals. Even if Jesus was just a philosopher like some protest, I believe that he would have been smart enough to realize that the world could never be a utopia. Maybe Holtzmann was caught up in the idea that over time mankind would continually get better and when mankind reached a certain point mankind could create a utopia. Jesus knew the true nature of man well enough to know that mankind would never be good enough to create a utopia.
It is not Albert Schweiter's theory about Jesus that interests me, but the fact that he did not believe his own theory. He was willing to make a case for something he did not believe. Although I do not agree with his theory, I am glad he made it. In Plato's writings about his teacher, his teacher often times argues for what he believes by first arguing for what he does not believe. When someone argues for what they do not believe they can often times discover the failures of what they are arguing, and in turn see the strengths of what they truly believe. I would like to know if Schweitzer's faith was strengthened by the theory he proposed.
I am not sure which solution to the Synoptic Problem I like best. They all have holes in their argument. The Two Source Hypothesis has a major problem because there are no copies of the Q source. There are not even fragments of Q still around. The believers in Q would say, however that there are examples of Q in parts of Matthew and Luke. The Griesbach Hypothesis and the Farrer Hypothesis both have the problem of explaining why the Gospels are so different in some areas. I really do not know which is right or if any are right. There is some correct explanation to the Synoptic Problem, but I do not know it. |
Priscilla
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 05:17 pm: | |
Before I start on my opinion of the “historical Jesus” we’ve been studying, I would like to air one of my pet peeves about the majority of the likenesses in the art world of Jesus. In my mind as I read his words, the descriptions of his travels and actions, he emerges as a vivid, powerful man. Because most of the Jewish nationals I have known in my life have been of Sephardic descent, I picture him dark-haired, dark-eyed, having significant facial features, not a giant, but a man of size. Someone whose appearance gave weight to his words. What’s with all the pale, anemic, skinny, sickly looking Jesus’ we see everywhere?
OK, now to Dr. Binder’s question. I feel better now that I got that off my chest. Reimarus, Paine, Jefferson, Paulus, Strauss, and Holtzmann were exactly what Schweitzer said they were, products of their age. There are points of reason in all their philosophies that just went beyond the reasonable in their elaboration. Jesus certainly was a revolutionary—he promoted a different government than the one he lived under, even prophesying it’s demise. In many times, many places, those feelings promoted to a select group of people would be considered revolutionary. “Failed?” That depends upon perspective. Certainly if one was looking for an immediate, earthly change, it would appear he failed. Those who look beyond that believe in an ultimate success. As to deistic thinking, one could argue that God doesn’t appear to have a hand in many things that happen among and between humans. But, in truth, how many fathers as we know them today control and manipulate their childrens’ every move? Deism is too small to cover long-range planning or guidance. Paine’s point that the gospels were inconsistent is hard to challenge, as we’ve seen this week. Perhaps that is part of the wonder of their unified conclusions—Jesus was the son of God representing a theocracy. Jefferson was hung up on the miracles—but, by nature, I’m a little cynical too. I’m not sure I believe everything today that is called a “miracle.” I find the NT miracles easier to accept because they had a timeless purpose that had nothing to do with immediate reward to the performer—they earmarked Jesus as somewhere above man (albeit “beneath the angels”) and they illustrated the power God’s Kingdom could have over human imperfections. Paulus seemed to be a rehash of everyone before him, and Strauss had a very valid point: if historians can only document but not evaluate, much of the meaning of the NT isn’t for them anyway. I don’t think Holtzmann read Jesus’ words very carefully. If he said his Kingdom was “not of this world,” then a Utopia at that time was not on his mind. This is not a new disappointment. There were early Christians who left the faith when it became apparent Jesus words were not coming true in an immediate, earthly fashion. I appreciate the little we learned about Schweitzer—he thought of Jesus as a Prophet who sought to initiate the “End of the Age.” If up until Jesus’ death, the Jews were, in fact, the chosen people of God, and if their refusal as a nation to accept him brought upon their separation from God, then Jesus did initiate the end of an Age religiously and culturally. My final analysis of these discussed philosophies is only to quote Hebrews 11:1: “faith is an assurance in things hoped for, the conviction in things unseen.” History alone cannot explain the life of Jesus and what happened within that group of early Christians.
I’m still mulling over the Synoptic Problem. Up until this week, I didn’t realize there was a problem! My religious education was just the study of the Gospels, not their history. I want to look into this more before I choose a solution. From lecture and the text, the 2/4 Source Hypothesis seems to be reasonable, but then here comes Q… |
Augustus
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 05:46 pm: | |
The search for Jesus has persisted for centuries. It seems that even the apostels struggled to define who this man was. Was he the son of God? This question seems to differentiate the different portrayals of Jesus. On one hand you have Jesus the ordained prince of peace and on the other a great man who meant well but was tragically cut short of his overall task. The reasoning of Paine and Jefferson seems to sugest otherwise. These men do not doubt the goodness and wisdom in Jesus' actions. However, they do doubt his divine spirit. I would find it very hard to base my religion on a man simply for being a good man. There have been many men throughout history that have proven themselves worthy of admiration, but only one that I would chose to use as the centerpiece of my faith. The belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a central tenant to christian belief. The idea that man's sins were washed away by the crucificion of Christ which in turn allowed Jesus and those who belive in this to be resurrected cannot be seperated from christianity. Can you have a religion without a divine being or afterlife? It is easy to state you belive in the rational or conceivable, it is quite another to stake your claim to the inconceivable. However, I do understand that this is a quest for Jesus the man, but you asked for my opinion. It is a complicated task to seperate the historical facts with the parables. I guess everything seems a liitle irrational when you remove the shield of faith. I have an easier time with some aspects of the Diest approach. The claim that God does not get involved in human affairs is quite easy to accept. I believe the each human being is endowed with their own innate free will. And it is this free will that challenges our faith. However, I cannot totally ascribe to the idea that God stands outside of this world. He lets us go only so far, like a cautious mother who lets her child out just far enough as to obtain responsibility but then not too far as to get hurt. God is this father, while we may have the free will to decide our own way, but then he is always there to welcome us back.
I believe that the two source hypothesis best answers the synoptic problem. Due to the similarities between Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark, I find it convincing to support the existance of a second source(Q). Then one could make the argument that Matthew and Luke were just borrowing from each other. However, there are major discrepencies between Matthew and Luke especially in those areas concerning the nativity. |
Rhoda
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 06:01 pm: | |
I find the various portraits of the "historical Jesus" very interesting. These men have tried many different methods to explain Jesus and each time they have fallen short. They have been unsuccessful in giving an exact "portrait" of Jesus because it is impossible to define or make sense of miracles.
When rationalizing Jesus, Paine, Jefferson, and Paulus have done so in a some what hostile manner. They each attack the Gospels saying they are inconsistant. The Gospels are the writen words of Jesus and by criticising them, they are able to rationalize Him. They take his miracles and disregard them by saying they are either untrue or a phenomena. All three of these men do not believe Jesus was resurrected. This futhers their ability of rationalization because the resurrection and asent to heaven is one of the core beliefs of Christianity.
Strauss's idea of a mythological Jesus is somewhat more believable. Except, he believess in the Gospels but claims the miracles are the mythological creation of the Early Church in order to teach theological lessons. This is hypocritical because Jesus's miracles are the root of many of the Gospels. To believe in the Gospels as the truth and then Jesus's miracles as a human creation does not make sense. You can not have the Gospels with out the miracles. Taking away the miralces would take away the foundation of Jesus Christ. It seems as though, as one historical view of Jesus is popular, another view comes up with many of the same thoughts.
The solution to the Synoptic Problem I tend to follow is the two source hypothesis. I find the two source hypothesis has more evidence pointing in it's direction. The similarities in Matt's and Luke's stories that are also found in Mark, then the major differences in Matt's and Luke's that aren't in Mark lead me to believe more in the two source then in the other hypothesis. The changes and additions made by Matt and Luke, in terms of grammer and style, in the stories that are also in Mark, I also find convincing. These two strong examples compared to the weak examples of the other hypothesis lead me to believe in the two source hypothesis. |
Marym
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 06:03 pm: | |
I was blown away by the thoughts of differnt types Jesus. I had never heard any of those theories, ever. The thought of Jefferson making his own Bible and leaving out the parts he did not like just made me laugh(I thought you went to Hell for stuff like that). I had never thought about differnt ways to interpet Jesus. Scheitzer's modle seems to be the only one not heavily influnced by the ideals of the time. I agree the other critques were inaccurate, but I am not sure if I beleive that Jesus was a failed apocalific prophet. IF he was here to say it was going to be the end of the world why would he bother trying to teach people to be nice; wouldn't it already be too late. To conclude, I am intrigued by the various partraits, but unsure what I actually beleive. |
Mary
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 06:19 pm: | |
I found it interesting how the various gospel that we look at in class have different representation of Jesus and his disciples. Today in class we read the story of Jesus walking on water in the book of Mark and Matthew. Matthew betrayed disciples as true believers anf follwers of Christ, they believed that Jesus had the ability to walk on water and proclaimed him as the son of God, while in Mark the disciples did ot understand the capabilities of Jesus and it that they has alot of doubt. In Mark the disciples of Jeus were said to have hardened hearts towards him.
I also think that the two-source theory is the best evidence to describe which book came first. I believe that Mark was written first and that Matthew borrowed from him and Luke borrowed from the both of them. Mark and Matthew have some of the same exact wording when descibing actual events. If Mark borrowed from Matthew, the question comes up, why did he leave out so much detail. |
Aquilla
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 06:45 pm: | |
Still in his feverish sleep, Aquilla dreamed. This time he dreamed he was sitting in the middle of the desert, inside a circle drawn in the sand with his finger. "I'm not leaving this circle, Jesus," he'd called out to the empty desert. "Until you come and talk to me." For thity nine days he'd waited, and in the heat of the 40th, Jesus came, sat down in front of the circle. Jesus held a book; Aquilla saw the title in gold leaf "The Many Faces of Jesus".
Jesus threw the book into the circle. "Interesting book. Ever read it?"
"No, sure haven't," Aquilla replied. Aquilla read through the book. "Jesus as a failed revolutionary; it that possible?"
Jesus nodded. "It's possible, but if I was a failed revolutionary, I'm no son of God. If I'm no son of God, what worth are my teachings?"
"Good point," commented Aquilla. He turned the page and read. "Rational Jesus. Sounds good. Your teachings as ethical ideas and philosophically sound sayings. I agree with that."
"You can agree with those ideas," said Jesus. "If you wanted to see me as a holy man, nothing else. If you want to see me as the son of God, or God in the flesh, you have a problem then."
Aquilla read. "Miracles as natural phenomenon? Get real! I can't think of any sea being so salty anyone can walk on it. And the feeding of the 5000? How do you explain that one?"
"Kabbalah," answered Jesus. "I met this one chick from South Dakota who thinks my feeding of the 5000 miracle can be explained by Kabbalah."
Aquilla dismissed what Jesus said, mainly because he didn't know much about the Jewish magick of Kabbalah. "The Liberal Jesus' by H.J. Holtzman. Did you work to create the Kingdom of God on Earth as a utopia that embodied ethical ideas?"
Jesus smiled. "THat's a good one for the modern times. People like to think they have a hand in their own salvation, and this one works if they like to see me more of a teacher to help them in salvation rather than a personal saviour. I have to say, I kinda like this idea."
"What about this idea of Albert Schweitzer's that you're a prophet who sought to initiate the end of the age?"
Jesus laughed, his laughter echoing into the desert. "Oh, give me a break! I saved all of humanity from its sins. Maybe I wanted to see the end of old ideas, the old covenant between the Jews and God, the destruction and rebuilding of the Temple, so to speak, but in no way am I a herald of the End Times. I didn't come back at the end of 999AD, and I didn't appear January 1, 2000. I am many things, but bringer of those four horsemen, no way!"
Aquilla paused. "So, Jesus? What are you really?"
Jesus got up from the circle. "That's for me to know," he said. "And for you to find out." And with that, Jesus walked off into the desert.
Aquilla woke up from his dreaming. By his bedside was the book, "The Many Faces of Jesus". He opened the cover, and on the title page, found this written in red ink:
"We all have to find out what Jesus means to us. Only then will we truly know Him." |
Mark
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 07:00 pm: | |
First off, on a side note, I would like to state that I am thoroughly enjoying class now. I am not one that is very interested in history as a whole so for the first part of this course I was a little lost, but now I actually look forward to the class. Just thought I would mention it because I know that I am not the only one that feels the same way.
Now for the question at hand. It is shocking to me that one (H.E.G. Paulus) would actually think that someone could be resuscitated after being CRUCIFIED. The way a person was crucifeid was no easy matter. It was a long and drawn out process that would have had to have a miracle to intervine on the death of one who went through the ordeal. I mean to literally hang by your arms without support from your legs and to hold yourself up that long would kill me and anyone else for that matter. The problem with the resuscitation notion is ludicrous because not only did the romans hang these "criminals" from the trees, but in order to make sure that each one died they would spear them in the side into a major vital organ. They did this because if one of the "criminals" were to actually survive the ordeal then the soldier that was overseeing the crucifix would in turn be killed as well. So they made darn sure that each person to go up on a cross also died on the cross, without a doubt. I would like to go on and on about how each one of these differect perspectives of Jesus are wrong but I just don't have time to write a novel. I will say that the Jesus I believe in is the one the he has reveales himself to me personally. The Jesus that did die on the cross and three days later was resurected not resuscitated and went to the disciples and told them to go and tell everyone about him and carry out the great commission. Then later ascended to the right hand of the Father and the Jesus who will come again in the rapture to take myself and other believers to heaven with him.
As far as the synoptic Problem I would have to say that I am still a little unsure what book comes first. This is something that in my early stages of Christianity the Lord has just not brought to importance. I would have to say that I believe the evidnece is very strong toward the fact that Mark was written first, but I do not believe that there was a Q involved in the writtings in any of the gospels. I guess this question would have to added to the many questions that I have for God when I go to heaven. So when asked which solution do I find more convincing I would have to say that I will have to still study more into that because they all have valid points (except Q because it is not tangible), but I think that I will have to lean toward the fact that Mark was written first. Not sure though. |
Lois
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 07:16 pm: | |
I feel that the underlying theme of the gentleman who sought to find the historical Jesus had one thing in common: they were ethnocentric.
I had an entire hours worth of work that described my thoughts on each and every man but, I just lost trying to post it, and now I have to go to work, so I am just going to move on to the Synoptic problem.
The best solution is the Two Source Hypothesis. It makes the most sense for a number of reason's, the proposed composition of the Q source explains the additions of Matt and Luke. It also explains why when Matt and Luke disagree from Mark they tend to agree with each other. It also explains why their is such a large amount of reproduction of Mark in Matt and Luke. The fact that Matt and Luke's Greek is better can explain that they are later than Mark. The order of the material in Matt and Luke's follow Mark's. And The fact that Matt and Luke's gospels appear to have Mark and another composition in front of them is seen through their writings. They seemed to face that as a problem and that points to the Two Source Hypothesis as an answer.
I am going to put all of my other ideas down tonight after work or tommorow, I just want you to read what I think of the Historical Jesus' you presented. You don't have to consider them as part of my grade. |
Candace
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 07:43 pm: | |
The main thing I noticed about the historical pictures of Jesus is that they all reflect the philosophies of the times in which they originate. The Failed Revolutionary picture of Jesus is based on the idea of governmental overthrow, which is reflective of the era in which it was written. The Rational Jesus was created by deists through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Because of their belief that God had no hand in the workings of the world past creation, they could not account for the miracles or resurrection of Jesus. They basically took the New Testament, and cut out every part that was not "rational". In fact, Thomas Jefferson even had his own variety of Bible consisting of what he found agreeable. The Mythological Jesus created by David Friedrich Strauss involves the scientific explanation of the miracles. Like the deists, he could not credit a deity with supernatural acts. However, he could credit him with natural phenomenon. Each miracle is explained in terms of the naturally miraculous. The Liberal Jesus mirrors the German conception of the brotherhood of man; basically a German version of Walden pond. The only exception to the theories reflecting author and times was the Prophet theory by Albert Schweitzer, but that ended up being rather useless anyway.
My opinion on the matter is that it is difficult for anyone to truly step outside of themselves and outside of their time to completely objectively view anything. To do so would be to negate passion, which drives people to these kinds of terrific discoveries. I would commend these theories, but do not agree with any of them. I would no longer take the stance that the Bible is infallible. I have learned through this class and many others that that can only be believed through ignorance. However, I do believe that by changing the role or conception of Jesus, the entire message of the New Testament is changed, if not nullified. I think that it has to be either accepted as it is or rejected outright.
As for the theories on the synoptic problem, I find them all quite thought provoking. Although I am certainly no expert, from my limited experience in classes and personal study, I find the Farrer Hypothesis the easiest to accept in its entirity. The Two Source Hypothesis is difficult for me to accept on account of the missing Q source. Not only the fact that it has not been discovered, but also the fact that it is not mentioned in the other gospels leads me to believe that the hypothesis is shaky at best. Maybe someday evidence will be found, and then my opinion would be easily swayed, but until then I cannot accept that hypothesis. The Griesbach Hypothesis makes more sense to me because it includes only sources that are valid. However, I find it makes more sense ,considering the knowledge that I have, to give Mark priority over Matthew. Mark, as we discussed in class, seems much like a rough draft. Matthew seems to have used Mark as a template to write his gospel, in which he refined the language and used examples directed toward a Jewish reading. Of course, I really have not studied extensively enough to feel justified in taking a strong position. If I must, the Farrer Hypothesis seems most likely to me. |
Barnabas
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 07:44 pm: | |
Okay, who is jesus? I think that it is basically a consensus from the rest of my classmates that none of us will ever truly know him. We will not know how he would react if Pamela Anderson walked by him wearing just her fine skin. Would he glance or stand straight and remain the righteous individual that we think of him as. What would Jesus do if he lived in a dorm and dealt with fraternizing RA's. How would he handle this situation or how would he handle that situation? None of us know what he would do. So, when I see what Paine, Jefferson, and Paulus have to say about the man-I find it quite funny. How can they ever believe that their theories are even remotely close to correct. All their theories really do is cause more problems. People become even more confused. Just because these theories exist and because of who these people were in history we read them, we comprehend them, and eventually we come to our own conclusion (which by the way is just as far off as theirs). We search and we search and we search, but what do we hope to find, his bones, his DNA, his miracles. What are we looking for.
Which solution to the synoptic problem do I find to be the most convincing. I would not go as far as to say that I am convinced of any of them, but if I had to choose then I would go with the Griesebach theory and that is based solely because I have to support people from SMU. These solutions are interesting to read and if anything they let me understand the person who thought of them a little bit more, but I know that there is none of these is the right answer. So what if some of the stories in Matthew, Mark, and Luke do not correspond with one another. These writings were written over 2000 thousand years ago and until the day that somebody invents the time machine, we will never truly know why these synoptic problems existed in the first place.
We are all looking for the truth. If jesus is who he says he is then why can't we just leave it at that. Absorb what he says, agree or disagree, and move on. If you believe him then take him into your heart and live by his teachings, then you might truly find your truth. What do I think about the "historical portrait" of Jesus. Its wrong. Its funny. It makes me proud. Yes, I am proud to see that we as humans would search for an answer that is completely unknown, yet we wake up daily still searching. I guess what the "historical portrait" means to me is just this-it is simply information that was taught to me in my Intoduction to the New Testament class here at SMU in the year of our lord 2000. Thus, I move on. |
Caiaphus
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 07:55 pm: | |
The Bible is not meant to be interpreted in many different imaginative ways, niether is Jesus. Jesus is not open to interpretation, He is what the Bible says He is and that is all there is to it. Jesus is not meant to be enterpreted as a good man just out to teach great morals, because if he was just that he would also be a madman and full of lies. Jesus was the Son of God for crying out loud, He preformed all the miracles the Bible said He did. The Deists seem to believe what makes it easier for them to phathom but the problem with that is they want a God that they can understand and explain which isnt going to happen. The Deists want to take God out of God, meaning they want to do away with all the omnipotent and all powerful God and put Him in human terms. They want to try to explain Jesus without the mirracles and greatness he embodied. They want to rationalize Jesus and explain him logicaly. But the Deists' veiws are no worse than lets say the views of Jesus as an "End of times Prophet" where He was said to have gone to the cross to help initiate the end of the age. And as for the beliefs of H.S. Reimarus who though Jesus was a failed revolutionary and again tried to rationalize Gods powers, there is alot of things that go on with Jesus and in the Bible that dont seem logical to us and we will never understand. Yes, we have never seen a resurection and will never see another resurection, that is why the resurection of Christ is in the Bible. If Christ was just simply resesitated he would not have been the Son of God, he would have been a false prophet and all the previous prophets would have been liars.All these different veiws are people trying to rationalise God and his powers. The problem with all these different interpretations of the Bible is that to make the claims they do, would be to make a large percentage of the Bible false and discredit almost every prophet and most importantly of all God. I am happy that all these people in there quest for Christ have great imaginations but these imaginations will take them no where without faith. The Bible claims that all the scriptures are the inspired Word of God therefore any additions or subtractions would be false. The real Jesus is plainly and vividly put in the Bible there is no need for any new ideas. Pondering the Bible is great but making up the Bible is another story. I beleive Revelations 22:18 tells the sumary of that story. |
Anna
| | Posted on Friday, February 18, 2000 - 07:57 pm: | |
I didn't know their were that many portraits of the historical Jesus, but I most agreed upon the one that deals with faith-knowledge of Jesus, which H.J. Holtzmann wrote about the Liberal Jesus. In that, Jesus is portrayed as the Messiah, who will create the Kingdom of God on earth as a utopia which embodies ethical ideals. I don't believe in many things unless they're scientifically proven but I do pray to Jesus because it's my faith in Him that converts me into a believer of someone who the scientific world has not yet proven to real. To love yourself and those around you without passing judgement and criticism because we are all His children. Jesus will guide our heart and soul when we believe, therefore we are all with him. No scientific findings can grant this inner knowledge thus it is in each person to find the faith for him/herself. Our Jesus Lord and Savior will come for us when no one is around to bear our darkest hours thus we must open our souls not just in those unbearable moments. But sometimes it is in those darkest hours that we find Him. Why can't we just be happy with the notion that Jesus is our Lord and Savior? Why do we have to mess with a good thing? From all the writings, for example the Book of Gospel, in which Matt, Luke, and Mark wrote about Jesus,it can not be made up. I know that Matt and Luke borrowed from Mark so somewhere Jesus must have existed because stories just don't spring out of nowhere. There is always an origin to every story. Faith in Jesus should not be a question of his existence or non-existence or that he could perform miracles but rather just to take the writings that the disciples have left and apply to one's life. From this the meaning of life will be much clearer thus the hardships that life brings will not be too overbearing.
The solution which is the most convincing to the Synoptic Hypothesis is that when Matt and Luke borrow from Mark, they differ from each other but not from him.
The reading from chapter 6 was very helpful. |
Eunice
| | Posted on Saturday, February 19, 2000 - 04:37 pm: | |
My opinion of the whole methodological aspect of historical Jesus is very uncertain. I feel that relying on historical research and findings is very risky and unreliable. I understand that this method is really the only means of gaining a picture of the "Real Jesus" but it is altered ct when people impose their own faiths and beliefs on history.
I feel that the idea of Jesus being a "Liberal Jesus" (Holtzmann) who sought to create the kingdom of God on Earth as a Utopia that embodied ethical ideas is a reasonable and accurate. That is, despite the fact the miracles and resurrection was moved to a secondary level.
I strongly agree with the Two Source Hypothesis after hearing lecture and then reading chapter 6. The idea that Mark was the first Gospel written seems very logical since: it was rare to find Matthew and Luke sharing the wording of a story also found in Mark when Mark differs. In addition, since all three sometimes use the same wordings, that is an indication that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. When they did not use the same wording they were changing the wording for their own individual reasons, thus differing in certain aspects.
The notion that "Q" was one of the four sources in the Two Source Hypothesis is logical because "Q" only consisted on sayings of Jesus. This idea is supported by the fact the Matthew and Luke only had information from "Q" in their Gospels , and Mark even though Matthew and Luke borrowed from him did not. |
Silas
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2000 - 02:14 pm: | |
After having studied the various accounts of Jesus, the decision of deciding which is the "right" account is made more difficult. The "Synoptic Gospels" (Matthew, Mark, and Luke)independantly retell three similar accounts of the life of Jesus but vary in some of their details and descriptions. Although the portraits never differ in depicting His mission of spreading love around Galilee and healing the sick, it makes it difficult when applying methodology to select which Gospel is the accurate historical account of His life.
I believe that Jesus exisited and was very much a messenger of God, sent to re-direct humanity to a more positive, mono-theistic way of living. My task of deciding which historical account of Jesus is the most convincing was made more complicated when I was introduced to the "Synoptic" hypotheses. One thing that remains true even though all of the Gospels vary in some of their details is that their messages are virtually the same. The variations in each story should not detract from the accuracy of each's portrait of Jesus, rather, should simply be accounted for by the indivual human experience. For example, Mark's account includes full, picturesque details which could be evidence that his personalitity and experience may have influenced his style of retelling these stories. He may have paid attention to detail because he may have felt that that is an important part of retelling history - describing the surroundings, while the others may ahve felt that they were irrelevant. Each account may have omitted, deleted or added events or details because indepentantly they made the choices of which information they may have believed to be signigant or irrelevant or, historically inaccurate.
Moreover, the Farrer Hypothesis seems like the most convincing of all the hypotheses. This theory, which believes that Mark was the first Gospel written, makes the most sense to me. Mark's account was the most abreviated of the three, so that gives evidence that Matt expanded and elaborated on Mark's version, including more details and variations on some events, to make a more interesting story. Luke's version bears striking resemblance to many of Matt's stories but does not include many of Matt's details for the reason of maintaining historical integrity. Luke recognized that Matt's account was a theological account, Luke wanted to produce documents that were historically accurate. |
Priscilla
| | Posted on Sunday, February 20, 2000 - 08:02 pm: | |
In doing some research, I have a few questions for the 2/4 source theory:
Some sources date Matthew at 41C.E. due to subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts with that date. Were there new discoveries dated before the tenth century that would have made those subscriptions spurious?
Jerome, in his work De viris inlustribus, Chapter III, writes that Matthew the tax collector and Mark’s Levi the tax collector were one and the same, and also that Matthew first composed his Gospel in Hebrew, since it was directed to the Jews. He claims this Hebrew text from the fourth and fifth centuries were housed in the library of Pamphilus in Caesarea. Has he been discredited as a reliable source of information?
Did Eusebius rightly quote Origen in the third century as corroborating both Matthew’s authorship as well as the first writing as being in Hebrew? The Ecclesiastical History, VI, xxv, 3-6. And if so, has he been discredited as a reliable source?
Also, I found an article that quoted even Papias as an authenticating source for Matthew's authorship. Why would that be?
The reason why these questions are important to me is that, if it is possible that Matthew’s work predated Mark’s, I would not only have trouble with the 2/4 source, but the other theories as well. The theory doesn't damage my faith in the value of these writings, but I am sensitive as to the motivation for accepting a theory such as those we studied. Were they products of a reluctance to accept the writings as inspired by God? If so, does accepting one of these theories place us in the same cynical state of those who believe the Bible is simply a collection of historical writings? |
Euodia
| | Posted on Thursday, February 24, 2000 - 12:01 am: | |
The different peoples view on the life and truth of Jesus is very intersting. I do not consider myself as one that would believe the whole over-animated truth of the "Life of Jesus". I would have to ask a few questions If Jesus really did exist if he wasnt this over used over exaggerated person... like ghandi or muhamaad why is it that the accounts of his life story are not the same. They (Matthew, Mark, Luke) are three different book with three different out looks on the same persons life... true they are supposed to be written by 3 different people but they are supposed to be focused on the same person's life. Also lets consider the source the people that wrote this were probably not even alive at the time jesus supposedly walked the earth... so, how can you take someones word on something when they weren't there so see it... it is therefore hear say and therefore in a way it can be defined as gossip. My attitude towards Jesus is as such he may have walked the earth but i personally believe that this was one of those camp fire stories gone out of control. So i dont neccessarily agree or disagree with the opinion of the so-called "experts" we talked about if he existed i would have to agree that there is a logical explination for all that has occured, but you would first have to convince me that he actually existed! |
Onesimus
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 08:04 pm: | |
Sorry so late. I never thought so many people had different views on Jesus. And I never knew how offended I can really be by the views these people had. I always believed that Jesus is our savior and that he died for our sins. The son of God (Jesus) was ressurected and on the third day he rose and lives within us through the holy spirit. I think that H.E.G Paulus has some sort of problem. He mentions that he thinks Jesus was walking on beach and not the water. These are just non believers that cant seem to rationalize some of the miracles that Jesus has done. But then again thats why he is Jesus because he is capable of miracles that most people cant even imagine. He also mentions that he wasnt ressurected and I am a firm believer that Jesus was ressurected and will come again. Thomas Jefferson was the most suprising to me and didnt think that he has such a insulting view of Jesus. I dont understand how someone can play with the gospels as he did, and he also doent think that Jesus wasnt ressurected. As for Thomas Paine i think that he needs to read over Matthew because he provides a lot of detail of what happened when Jesus walked the eart. Matthew goes into more detail than any other gospel. Although I always thought the books were written in order in the bible i belive that Mark was written first and then Matthew then Luke. Luke states that there has been other before him so that makes it obvious that he wasnt the first. And i also belive that Matt used mark with some additional information and that Mark was the first written Gospel. |
Peter
| | Posted on Friday, February 25, 2000 - 08:28 pm: | |
It seems that ever since Jesus' time on earth, he has had dissenters who try to knock Him off his pedastal. This didn't happen, that didn't happen. While it's true that every religion has inherently people that disagree, it seems that Christianity is the one that everyone wants to disprove and falsify. HEG Paulus, for example, bases much of his argument on the miracles that Jesus performed, or didn't in his opinion. Chalking many of the miracles up to poor line of sight by the disciples, or feelings of guilt of 5000 people or other such nonsense is just not reasonable. Trying to reason away God's hand working on earth doesn't work because the miracles were just that: God working on earth. The thing that Paulus doesn't take into consideration is the fact that Jesus was God. And if God can do anything he wants, then why not create spectacles and impossible happenings to prove it? If Jesus' miracles were just incredible coincidences and didn't happen, then there cannot be a God, and Paulus' argument would be moot. And trying to qualify Christianity and leaving out the resurrection at the same time is an inane gesture. There is no Christianity without the resurrection. All in all, these intellectuals who felt the need to 'realize' the story of Jesus were in fact doing the opposite by failing to look at the context in which Jesus based all of his teachings: Faith. |
Julia
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2000 - 06:21 pm: | |
The handout on historical Jesus presented several different ways of understanding who Jesus really was. In my opinion Jesus was the Son of God who came to earth to teach us about unconditional love, faith, and forgiveness. He died on a cross to give us the opportunity to live eternally (if we choose to follow him). Then he was resurrected , not stolen from the tomb.
The faith-knowledge stance is the one I take because of my beliefs. I understand that there are no writings from Jesus and that presents questions for historians. Also, "who wrote what and when" is another question that sometimes confuses people and gets them side tracked from what is really important.
What matters is one's belief in God and His Son Jesus. Although it is interesting and knowledgeable to know about the Synoptic Problem and different peoples takes on who Jesus was.
As for the Synoptic Problem, I have a difficult time believing that Q existed. I think that Matthew, Mark, and Luke got thier inspiration from God and borrowed from one another. I think that Mark was the first Gospel written, followed by Matt, and then Luke.
One of the critiques on the farrer hypothesis is that Luke rejected Matt's version of the birth and resurrection, yet he agrees with him in most of the other stories. My thought is that Luke agreed with Matt in most cases, but had his own ideas about a few things. It's quite understandable that two writers, writing on the same topic would not follow eachother verbatum, or agree on everything. |
Herodias
| | Posted on Monday, February 28, 2000 - 11:28 pm: | |
i think that the different versions of who jesus was are pretty much lame...it makes me mad that people cant accept jesus for who he really was and what he actually did, so they had to come up with all these rationalizations for his miracles and his prophecies...it seems like people are so scared of believing in something with their whole heart, because, lets face it, there is nothing in this world that will never let you down, and people are very aware of that fact especially today...society is faced with success coming from how much money you have and who you know, no matter who you have to kill or betray to get there. and then, they hear of this man who promised never to leave them or forsake them, who called them His friend, a true friend who would lay down His life for them, who DID lay down His life for them, and they dont get it. they dont know how to understand that, because its something that we just DONT HAVE here on earth...
i think the whole theory of Q is rediculous...isnt the theory that whichever theory has the least exceptions and additions is the truth? well, i just dont see how creating a whole other source is simplyfing the problem at all...i also think that it could be possible that no one copied off of anyone...its not very probable, but the scripture is God breathed, and maybe he just breathed the same exact words to the gospel writers..but what do i know, im just a lowly college student =) |
Drusilla
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 21, 2000 - 02:50 am: | |
I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and it is so hard for me to follow and understand how their can be so many different views on how and what Jesus was. I don't see why people can't just accept every thing that Jesus did, while he was on earth.
Out of the synoptic problems, the Q source is kind of rediculous. People make such a big deal out of trying to understand the underling message of the gospels, when, in my opnion, all they need to do is just read it and let the Holy Spirit speak to them. Making up another gospel to justify the other gospels is beating around the bush. |
|