Viggen Posted August 19, 2009 Report Share Posted August 19, 2009 It is hard to think of a more polarizing figure in human history than Jesus of Nazareth, for the very fact his adherents present him as more than human. The historical Jesus, if one exists, usually gets buried; the faithful are willing to take it on faith that Christ existed as he is portrayed in the Bible, while his opponents often consign him to the status of a fairy tale. If there is a middle ground, perhaps it is to be found in E.P. Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus... ...read the full review of The Historical Figure of Jesus E.P. Sanders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted August 31, 2009 Report Share Posted August 31, 2009 (edited) It is hard to think of a more polarizing figure in human history than Jesus of Nazareth, for the very fact his adherents present him as more than human. The historical Jesus, if one exists, usually gets buried; the faithful are willing to take it on faith that Christ existed as he is portrayed in the Bible, while his opponents often consign him to the status of a fairy tale. If there is a middle ground, perhaps it is to be found in E.P. Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus... ...read the full review of The Historical Figure of Jesus E.P. Sanders At the risk of overstating the obvious, Jesus has had an immense impact in History... as a religious figure, ie. as the inspiration of a colossal religious movement with literally hudreds of branches. As a religious figure, Jesus is (in present) in the same category as Buddha, Apollo, Pythagoras or Ahura-Mazda. All religions are based on faith, by definition a belief not resting on material evidence; strictly speaking, what is relevant to any religion is the idea behind the faith, not the material individual behind the idea. Jesus is no exception; in fact, if we try to analyze him as a non-religious historical figure, we are left with essentially... nothing. Sanders' book is hardly original; a "historical Jesus" (ie, a verifiable biography of Jesus of Nazareth based on historical non-religious methods) has been searched at least since the XVIII century. Sanders clearly owes a lot to the famous Jesus Seminar. Even if the methodology used by this kind of research may not be religious per se, its motivation most clearly is, because any branch of Christianity believes that "their Jesus" is the historical one (ergo, that the other versions are unhistorical). Naturally, a "historical Jesus" may also be useful for any deist, as evidence against the historicity of the religious figure. The Gospels ("good news") as biographies of Jesus, the same as any other text on him, canonical or apocryphal, are relevant just because they are informing the world about the coming of God. For that reason, all testimonies on Jesus (even Josephus) eventually get to the supernatural miracle part. This part is of course unacceptable by any Historical methodology; however, this same part is indispensable for any of such narratives; ie. without it, they would have no sense. Plainly, if Jesus was not God (or at least a prophet for the Muslims), who would care about his story? It's a fact that cannot be ignored. Therefore, strictly speaking, the "historicity" of Jesus is essentially irrelevant; true believers will always consider him God, for skeptics evidence will never be enough. Edited August 31, 2009 by sylla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 [Therefore, strictly speaking, the "historicity" of Jesus is essentially irrelevant; true believers will always consider him God, for skeptics evidence will never be enough. But for those of us who are neither True Believers nor Militant Skeptics, Sanders' study of historicity is both interesting and relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylla Posted September 1, 2009 Report Share Posted September 1, 2009 (edited) [Therefore, strictly speaking, the "historicity" of Jesus is essentially irrelevant; true believers will always consider him God, for skeptics evidence will never be enough. But for those of us who are neither True Believers nor Militant Skeptics, Sanders' study of historicity is both interesting and relevant. Yes, but in general terms the historicity of Jesus is both interesting and relevant for passive agnostics just in an indirect way; ie, just because there are millions of True Believers and Militant Skeptics who care about such issue all around the World. Just check it out; if we ignore the religious consequences of the life and death of Jesus across History, there would be essentially no evidence of his existence. A strictly non-religious search would not detect him at all. Please don't get me wrong; I'm actually a big fan of the work of the Jesus Seminar, and not primarily for religious reasons; we can learn a lot from them on textual criticism. Edited September 1, 2009 by sylla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts