In a current thread, http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=26613, I asked whether JC would have been considered an apostate or a heretic under Jewish law, or whether he was a radical but acceptable reformer, and it was his followers preaching of his resurrection, etc., who were the apostates. IzzyR pointed out that you’d have to separate out what JC said, what his followers said, and what later gospel writers put into JC’s mouth. Danielinthewolvesden pointed out that in Matthew, JC never publicly stated that he was the Messiah, but in the later written Gospel of John, JC did so state.
So, New Testament scholars, in order to have the discussion/debate I wanted, I need to clarify this. Any thoughts on what is accepted as actual words of JC? Any sites/readings you may suggest? Thanks.
“Nobody knows” is probably the correct answer, but dammit man (person?), people have made their careers creating something out of nothing. If biblical scholars could come up with the Book of J out of several passages in Genesis, etc., somebody has to have an opinion that, yep, JC said this, but didn’t actually say that.
No offense to Biblical scholars intended (especially as I’m relying on y’all to answer my question).
The Gospel of Thomas is held by some as direct quotes from the guy, others scoff at it. The Canonized Gospels are held as true records of his actions and words by most believers.
SuaSponte - Some links that I have been following (as time permits) include this biblical resource page that links to numerous pages on the synoptic gospels and the historical Jesus. One of the pages, the Synoptic problem homepage has a good summary of the various theories about the lineage of the gospels and who cribbed from whom – which has direct bearing on which parts are older and more likely to be the actual words of Jesus, and which were added later.
Dang, (just previewed this post and realized CheapBastid had beat me to it), but I also found the Gospel of Thomas to be rather interesting to have a look at, as it has no narrative framework but rather simply (asserts) to record the actual things that Jesus said.
There is little doubt that JC actually existed, but there is great doubt as to his actual words. In Matthew, when grilled by the High Priest (Matt26:63) “the hight priest…said unto him…that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ…” JC answered “thou hast said”. In Mark 14:62, JC answers “…I am” In Luke22:67 JC answers “If I tell you, ye will not believe”, and finally in John, they query is not asked as such. So much for Biblical inerrancy.
You’re in luck! There’s a large well-funded group of scholars and theologians researching and debating your questions even as we speak!
The real ‘lightning rod’ aspect of this seminar is probably the way that the ‘truth’ about a particular quotation or fact is ultimately derived: by ballot box.
Aside from the NT and the Apocrypha, there is one relatively contemporaneous record of JC - a first century Roman historian mentioned him. IIRC his name was Josephus.
Thanks for all the sites (cites), guys. Once I do the research, I hope the question of the Jewish apostacy/heresy of JC turns into a GQ for the ages, lessen those bastards in GD steal it.
Why? Surely you’re not implying that decisions reached, after debate, by majority decision are inherently worthless. In any case, I think if you peruse the following site:
which explains the voting system, you’d be more impressed than you seem to be. Basically, voting (and presentation of results) isn’t just yes/no, but more like yes/probably/probably not/no.
Besides Josephus (a jewish historian), there is a roman record of James, the Brother of Jesus( mentioned as such), and several roman records speaking of his apostles, in which there seems no doubt JC actually existed. In the Rabbi thread, we are debated whther or not JC was a Rabbi, and it seems mostly on the side of yes.
I just read a fascinating “Q” book - “The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins” by Burton L. Mack.
The Q theory seems to be endorsed by some weighty thinkers. If you buy into the two sources theory of Mark and Q, it’s easy to believe that Jesus never claimed to be the messiah, and the gospels are full of myth. The author defends the myth development as being culturally vital to the early church, while questioning why people today cannot accept “myth” for what it is.
A Christian, who believes Jesus was saviour sacrificed for the sin of man, etc. is quite different from a “Jesus follower,” who would ONLY follow the oral tradition of this cynic-teacher.
Really looking at Q is fascinating. It’s incredible to think of how the immediate church of Jesus’s followers could change so drastically in the first two centuries.
