A fairly long and thoughtful piece on the scholarship of who Jesus was, what he might have said and done, and what those in the field of historical analysis think about H(h)im:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/24/100524crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all. Good reading. Nothing earth shattering here if you've done any reading of stuff done by biblical scholars. Certainly discomforting if you haven't. I've read and listened to a lot from many of the scholars mentioned in the article, namely Ehrman, Crossan, and Johnson. Out of those, I tend to come down pretty much in agreement with Ehrman's take when it comes to Jesus and the religion that changed from being of Jesus to being about Jesus. Won't spoil it for you if you are not familiar with him, but pick up "Jesus Interrupted" by Ehrman or listen to one or several of his courses that are available by The Teaching Company--great for road trips.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2010/05/24/100524crat_atlarge_gopnik?currentPage=all. Good reading. Nothing earth shattering here if you've done any reading of stuff done by biblical scholars. Certainly discomforting if you haven't. I've read and listened to a lot from many of the scholars mentioned in the article, namely Ehrman, Crossan, and Johnson. Out of those, I tend to come down pretty much in agreement with Ehrman's take when it comes to Jesus and the religion that changed from being of Jesus to being about Jesus. Won't spoil it for you if you are not familiar with him, but pick up "Jesus Interrupted" by Ehrman or listen to one or several of his courses that are available by The Teaching Company--great for road trips.
9 comments:
The painting of the crucifixion pictured in the article is by Salvador Dali. I'm a Dali fan and that is one of my favorites.
Nutshell:
"It wasn’t that they really cared about the conceptual difference between the claim that Jesus and the Father were homoousian (same in essence) and the claim that the two were homoiousian (same in substance); they cared about whether the Homoousians or the Homoiousians were going to run the Church."
Man has always and will always attempt to filter Scripture through human lenses.
There is an innate belief that we can control everything by studying, investigating, analyzing.
The explosive technological advances over the last few centuries have not resulted in proportionate cultural advances. That is why the message of how to live is still relevant.
Hodie,
I think where I would quibble with your very thoughtful reply would be accepting much of what is scripture as being valid. I am perfectly satisfied at understanding a Jesus who preached some very basic and lasting tenets but have trouble believing that much or most of what is attributed to him was actually of him.
Yo, Hodie, Taras...I think it's time for a road trip.
Just tell me when.
Nimdok: is a road trip necessary to avert our thoughts back to reality? Or to explore this topic in more detail?
Taras: I believe scripture provides a baseline thought process for how to live: love God and your neighbor. Everything in it is mostly just support for this.
Ehrman admittedly has moved towards agnosticism mostly because he can't reconcile why an omnipotent god would allow so many bad things to happen. His loss of faith has not resulted from his many years of scholarly textual criticism.
To me, Ehrman's conclusion is but another example of (a) man's attempt to control his destiny through intellect and human will. See the book of Job, generally believed to be the oldest text in the bible. There is a reason why it was written first.
Do you ever question or consider where "scripture" comes from?
Hodie: Neither. Actually, a "road trip" - no matter the destination - is for me usually the first step in a long process of diverting my thoughts away from the realities of my everyday world. As to exploring this in further detail, a road trip - especially one to any of a number destinations I can think of that we three would agree on - would not only provide an excellent opportunity to exchange ideas and beliefs on this and other topics, it would come with the promise of a happy ending (so to speak). Necessary? No. Preferred? Absolutely.
Post a Comment