Several scholars have begun another quest for the historical Jesus. "The Jesus Project, "according to the Christian Post (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20081210/new-quest-for-historical-j...), has as its goal "to objectively determine what can be 'reliably recovered' about him, his life, his teachings, and his activities." Scholars such as James Tabor, Paul Kurtz, Robert Price, Robert Eisenman, and Bruce Chilton are part of the project. Tabor is author of The Jesus Dynasty; Kurtz is the founder and chairman of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry; Price has argued in several publications that Jesus never existed; Eisenman has written some idiosyncratic, if not bizarre, theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls; he also is not sure that Jesus ever existed. Except for Chilton, one wonders how these men can truly be objective about recovering anything about Jesus--especially when they have published so much that is on the fringes of genuine scholarship.
Yet this group distances itself from the Jesus Seminar which, they say "had difficulty separating itself from the faith commitments of its members” (R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the Project; quotation is found in the Christian Post link provided above). Reading between the lines, it seems that this group will offer up an even more radical fare than the Jesus Seminar did.
Most remarkably, the claim that this group of scholars can be completely neutral in their assessment of the data is simply a resurrecting of the old canard of the religionsgeschichtliche Schule, left for dead decades ago by even the most liberal scholars. No one is neutral when it comes to Jesus, and we might as well all admit that fact. It is beyond my comprehension how a man who has explicitly and frequently written that the historical Jesus is a myth could be a part of this project. Robert Price was also a part of the Jesus Seminar; his pockets were full of only black beads. I wonder whether this new project will yield much of value, any more than a fundamentalist group in which the members would all have red beads in their pockets could on the other side of the theological aisle.
I don't see what the point of having a new quest for the historical Jesus when it comes to these scholars. Their presuppositions alone rules out the testimony of the early Christian community because, they're seen as biased uncritical ancient neanderthals who would believe anything without evidence, even if it went against their 1st century Jewish expectations.
I can already guess what the outcome will be. It might go a little something like this: "If Jesus even existed at all he was an unimportant Jewish sage, he had a hippie theology straight from the 1970's. He never claimed to be the Son of God and wasn't considered that until long after his death when legends began to spring up about him. Again that's even if he existed at all, for which there is no good evidence."
That story sounds familiar huh? No one should pay this even more radical Jesus seminar any attention. If I wanted to hear more unsubstantiated claims about the historical Jesus (who probably didn't exist) I'd go to the popularizers. I heard Bob Price is a nice man but he's a joke to me, no offense.
*sigh*
Just when I thought that enough books against the Jesus Seminar had been written that people outside of the academy were starting to realize how radical their conclusions were we get this news.
1. They are claiming (albeit of themselves) that Bob Price, well known on the atheist debating circuit and for his radical hypothesis despite evidence, has no faith commitments? Really? Or that Tabor who changes views whenever a buck is available (compare the many contradictions between Jesus Dynasty and what he said about the Jesus Tomb) is unbiased? Of course, Tabor still claims in this article, "the Jesus Project repudiates any theological agendas, special pleading, or dogmatic presuppositions."
2. Tabor has a great quote in the article when he says, "Scholars now at the beginning of the twenty-first century are able to take advantage of a plethora of new texts, sources, and methods, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, various lost Gospels that are not in our New Testament, and a rich archeological record." What do we now have that we didn't have twenty five years ago at the onset of the Jesus Seminar? The Vision of Gabriel...Gospel of Judas?
P.S. I thought I read awhile back about some of the old Jesus Seminar guys getting together with Bauckham and Hurtado to start up another one of these groups. Have y'all heard anything about that?
This is cool!
The two Roberts in one team!
The outcome must be great!
Remember "James the Brother of Jesus"?
That was not far from the Da Vinci Code!
I can't wait!
Btw. I know what they will find out about him:
- he was born around 5 BCE
- his name was probably "Jesus"
- he lived a comparatively normal life in Palestina.
- he was Jewish!
- he first worked as a carpenter, probably
- later he became a full-time Rabbi
- he preached!
- he had a few disciples
- he died on the cross, probably
- he died around 30 BCE.
- he was an Essene (minority vote, Eisenman)
;-)
Dr. Wallace, I am a Seminary grad and was greatly blessed by the solid teaching I received concerning TC. I have recently noticed that their are more books on the popular level that are meant to undermine the text of the NT especially, and I wondered if you could recommend and article, essay, or book that would be appropriate for the average layperson that would give an evangelical and informed perspective of the current attacks on the Biblical text? What I'm looking for is something that is relatively short and readable that I can recommend to church goers, family members, friends, etc on this topic. Also, is there anything like this that you'd recommend for current issues surrounding the search for the historical Jesus? Again, short and readable for your average Christian in the marketplace, etc.
Thanks,
Justin
The Jesus Project.
*Yawn*
Their results are 100% predictable. Why do they engage in the charade of alleged research. Go ahead & write the book, you've already reached your conclusions.
Sadly, many of the mindless sheep in mass media will present this as scholarly.
The sad thing is that if they come up with some hyper-radical conclusions like "Jesus probably never even existed", they only need some media coverage and a portion of the general public is going to take them as representatives of some new and supposedly serious trend in current scholarship.
Paqid Yirmeyahu wrote about this:
"While some archeologists are scholarly, there are also a great number of contra-scholarly academics who, whenever it contradicts their set-in-concrete positions, evade and dismiss irrefutable scientific evidence contributed by impeccable scientists (like Prof. Andrey Feuerverger and Prof. Wolfgang Krumbein), even when corroborated by the findings of a court of law (which found the charges of forgery of the Yaaqov ossuary baseless).
These contra-scholarly academics, secular Jews in concert with Christians, are committed to maintaining the status quo of Christian Hellenist perceptions, which date no earlier than Paul, to the exclusion and contradiction of documented history: the Judaic context demonstrated, inter alia, by Prof. Elisha Qimron in his work on Dead Sea Scroll 4Q MMT.
From at least the 4th century C.E., the world has accepted the Church's definition of Jesus as their divine Son of God displacing (superseding) the Torah with himself as "grace," as described in the Christian NT. Thus, Jesus is intractably anti-Torah (antinomian) and contradictory to documented history: the Judaic context, which defines the historical Jew as a Torah-teaching (pro-Torah) Pharisee Ribi: Yehoshua. Playing games with these names changes neither character any more than switching the names of a rose and an onion would change the characteristics of either. Jesus is the intractably contradictory polar opposite of Ribi Yehoshua. Thus, the very phrase "Historical Jesus" is an intractable oxymoron, pre-ensuring that any quest for it is impossible.
If there are any real scholars in this field, let them acknowledge the historically-documented Judaic context that defines and constrains the very real, historical Jew who was a Torah-teaching Pharisee Ribi -- and let that, instead of Paul and post-135 C.E. Hellenist Roman fabrications, mold their conclusions about him and his teachings.
Instead of looking for the oxymoronic "Historical Jesus," start looking, for the first time, for "Historical Pharisee-Ribi Yehoshua." You can start your search, and find an enormous amount of information, at www.netzarim.co.il.
Paqid Yirmeyahu (member of Mensa)
Paqid 16, The Netzarim, Ra'anana, Israel
Israeli Orthodox Jew (Teimani Baladi Dardai)
Advancing Logic as Halakhic Authority
Welcoming Jews & non-Jews
www.netzarim.co.il"
Anders:
Thanks for the note, but your rabbi's note playing Paul against Jesus is an old trick that does not work. Acts and other early Christina texts, including Paul's from Galatians makes the point that these ethnic emphases within the new movement did not ultimately end up in opposition to each, although some claiming to be associated with them did try to stoke these fires. So I am afraid note from your orthodox Jewish contact, though rightly recognizing the Jewish context of Jesus,does nto recognize the reform he called for in his ministry and that Paul developed.
dlb
Anders visited my blog with the same writing. My rebuttal is here.
I can only imagine what this group is going to come up with. Especially with such great names as Robert Price (seriously?), Richard Carrier, Hermann Detering (it's all a forgery!), etc. I'm surprised G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty didn't make the list.
We can all strive to be objective - but when groups such as these guys and the Jesus Seminar claim to be the objective voice despite clearly representing non-mainstream scholarship, they have to be deluded or full of themselves.
Post new comment