I say Amen and Amen to this. Let the absurdity and the radicality of the life of Jesus speak truth rather than the carbon-14 dating of his bones.

Unfortunately, my friend, this is where we part ways. But when you get to “that place” with LTJ, know you will be joining me as well

Pluralism is another discussion for another day. I’m not sure I even know what it really means to be pluralistic. As a Christian I can not deny that God is working in the lives of other people in other faiths. The OT tells us that God works within the stories of other peoples (Isaiah) as well as the people of Israel. But as a Christian I can not deny what God has done and continues to do through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Maybe I’m not as pluralistic as I thought.

To me, looking at the gospels for historical evidence in order to make informed historical judgments about what Jesus did and didn’t do is still a worthwhile enterprise. The problem comes when we engage in that enterprise with the goal of overturning Church tradition and revising faith(which the Jesus Seminar did). I agree with LTJ that a project like that doesn’t serve anyone, but I disagree that the solution is to give up historical examination of the texts. Instead, telling the difference between history and myth helps us understand more about the myth, how it was created and evolved over time, and what it meant to Christ’s ancient followers. As Christians, if we are as committed to the power of that myth as we claim to be, we shouldn’t be afraid to examine it from all sides.

I think “The Quest” is always going to have dubious results if you jump in hoping to prove the bible true, or scheming to prove it false. But if we can find security in the knowledge of our own experiences with Christ and the power of the Christian story, we should be able ask historical questions about that story with honesty and learn what we can learn.

But here is the thing: I think I’ve been out of the desert for a while and sense that this is much more reconstructive. And although LTJ may to some have the RCC tag, he doesn’t teach that way. At least not so far.

Lynn- Good point. But as a listener and observer, on the point of being bound by history, I really sense that the concentration of LTJ’s writings on Jesus (though limited as mine has been so far) seems to say that we already know Jesus lived, but we can not limit what Jesus did to history.

If and when I get to that place with LTJ (that is: either it the resurrection literally happened or we’re not saved) then I will part ways with something more still; namely, a way of understanding the reinterpretation of symbols and the transforming power of mythic story-telling generation after generation.

Tripp, is this where Ricoeur comes back in? Or are we on to William James now?

JC

Oh- Ben, I think we might disagree on my last point.

Thanks for a thoughtful reply. Let me see if I can clarify what I’m pointing to. It seems to me that either Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, a historical person, and one who made particular claims about himself and performed particular acts, those believing in which claims and acts are called Christians, the acceptance of the truth of which is grounded on Faith (the theological virtue) in the truth of the texts handed down to us by the apostles and their successors, as guaranteed by the Holy Spirit…

or else the word “Jesus” might as well be replaced by the phrase “stuff Kevin likes” because we’ll all be reduced to picking and choosing which claims in Scripture by and about Jesus we believe and which we don’t. And upon what non-arbitrary basis could we possibly do that?

I don’t see how a middle position is metaphysically possible. Though I would want to emphasize that nothing I’ve said here is tantamount to “literalism” if “literalism” is meant to exclude the possibility of God teaching through parables. Scripture both employs metaphors and stipulates propositions (which is why I never understood the resistance of some contemporary theologians to propositions — good enough for God, good enough for me).

Does that clarify or only muddy what I was getting at?

K

It seems that Borg, for example, is out of the desert but hasn’t felt a need to change his scholarship. LTJ \ Borg experiences among friends has made me wonder just how much our own biography determines what becomes reasonable scholastically.

I guess my biography is a long ways from anything with a Creed that the LTJ Kool-Aid’s RCC trademark on the package makes me leery.

Thanks so much for the comments.

Ben- alas, we do agree on a couple of things;)

Kevin- I’m not sure I completely follow the logic of your argument. I’m not sure anyone is saying that we need to create an “either or” with regards to Jesus. In fact I think that is what the historical Jesus folk are doing.

I think that there is a middle position that allows the mythologies/allegories of Scripture and the historical realities of Jesus’ world to coexist. I actually think that this place has historically been the church; that is until conservative literalism of modernity sought to make everything knowable and provable. The reality is: it isn’t. And that’s not a commentary on truth, but a commentary on all the ways we know.

Blake- If you can get some time with MEM, you’ll be glad. If you can get a class with her, even better! Great quote.

So here are a couple of follow-up questions: 1. why am I now be accused of becoming a neo-conservative?

And (here is thought Nick gave me last night) 2. Is a quest for the historical Jesus the only way to combat Biblical literalism?

Thoughts? Banter?
Joshua