Posted on 01/29/2007 10:02:46 AM PST by presidio9
An Amherst-based group will lead a new effort to examine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed in history. The Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion is billing its scholarly investigation the "Jesus Project," and it plans to take the work of the controversial "Jesus Seminar" a step further.
The "Jesus Seminar," which formed in 1985, focused on what sayings in the New Testament were truly spoken by Jesus and what deeds he actually performed, but in the end it didn't question his existence.
Amid much fractious debate - as well as dismissive criticism from many Christians - the group of seminar scholars concluded that fewer than one-fifth of the statements attributed to Jesus in the four Gospels were actually made by him and also agreed that he did not rise from the dead.
The "Jesus Seminar" still exists, but interest in its work has faded, and its founder, Robert Funk, died in 2005.
Members of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, which is based at the secularist Center for Inquiry, near the University at Buffalo North Campus, want to reignite the debate with a different emphasis.
Many of the scholars involved with the "Jesus Seminar" examined the question primarily from a theological perspective, said R. Joseph Hoffman, who heads the committee and will organize regular meetings of historians, classicists and other scholars for the "Jesus Project."
Others involved at this point include Robert M. Price, a former "Jesus Seminar" participant, and Gerd Ludemann, a history professor in Germany, Hoffman said.
The new investigation will differ from the "Jesus Seminar" because it won't be hamstrung by theology, he said.
The committee regards the belief that Jesus was a historical person as a "testable hypothesis," just like any other historical question.
Hoffman announced the "Jesus Project" on Sunday at the conclusion of a conference on "Scripture and Skepticism" at the University of California at Davis.
The conference attracted scholars from around the globe to explore the use of historical and critical interpretation in the study of religious texts.
The "Jesus Project" will keep that method of research at the forefront in examining the existence of Jesus, Hoffman said.
"We can't let this discussion be dominated by people who do theologically driven history," he said.
The "Jesus Project" is not necessarily an attempt to disprove that Jesus existed, Hoffman said. "I happen to believe there probably was a Jesus of Nazareth, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking the question," he said. "I'm kind of agnostic about it. I want to look at the historical evidence."
The committee will begin accepting applications in March from scholars interested in participating. Members of the project will meet twice a year - once in Amherst and once in Los Angeles.
Hoffman predicted the work of the group would take no more than five years and result in the publication of majority findings and minority findings.
No, Jesus is mentioned twice by Josephus and similar events (the crucifiction of a heretic most presume to be Jesus) are mentioned by Rabbinical sources hardly sympathetic to the Christians.
Also, the letters of Peter (an eye witness -- who is listed in Roman secular records as being executed for inciting civil unrest) make no sense without the basic events stated in the 4 gospels. Peter's letters are generally considered the oldest portion of the new testament --- maybe 10-25 years after the crucifiction.
There are actually two mentions of Jesus by Josephus. While one passasge is considered a forgery the authenticity of the other is almost universally acknowledged.
Thanks for the information. It will hearten you to know that the scholars of the Jesus Seminar are all working as weatherman for their local tv news. To maintain their scientific accuracy in their new field they know use a dart board instead of marbles.
Basically, until recently, the primary dispute has always been not whether the fundamental, core, historical (i.e., the preaching and the crucifiction) events ocurred (which most have agreed they did), but rather the significance of the events, and, of course, the issue of resurrection, which is the real dispute.
He is His own existence. He was not "made."
Feh. This is mishegas.
Almost everyone who has seriously looked at the Josephus passage agrees that it was a later interpolation by a Christian scribe. Stylistically they simply don't match. Keep in mind that there are no "original" versions of the work extant. They're handwritten copies of handwritten copies of handwritten copies, and the people doing the copying, for the most part, were Christian monks.
Outside of the current instance of our local universe (the matter, energy and events contained in the visible, expanding universe), is there any universal or absolute time standard?
There are two FJ passages, one, is indeed, (IMHO) highly interpolated.
The other (with none of the disputed adoption of Jesus as Christ/Mesiah) not so.
Source please. If a Christian monk were going to hoax Jesus into Josephus, I'm guessing that He would appear in more than a few lines. That being said, I don't doubt that the part about Jesus being the Christ was inserted. But there is no reason to doubt that Josephus mentioned the man.
"My GOD, my GOD, why hast thou forsaken me?", Christ's prayer and plea on the cross. It was recently taught to me that this plea, taken from Psalms 22 was actually a means of teaching that Jesus used.
Written 1,000 years before Jesus that crucifixion Psalms tells of His being despised, of things He would say and that would be said, about His bones being out of joint when His arms were pulled from socket on the cross, His thirst, lots being cast for His garments and his hands and feet being pierced. The 8th verse tells what the words of the High Priest were at the crucifixion (Matt.27:41).
To me, instead of trying to explain or understand why He would say He had been forsaken it makes sense that He was teaching us that prophecy was being fulfilled, from 1,000 years before His time.
And these people DARE to say there was no Christ.
HUH?!
Not that I know of. Time itself started with the Big bang. Thusly "before the big bang" is meaningless.
Railroad time is the standard time.
I believe that James and Jesus were siblings, one way or another, is soundly refuted by the Church.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.