Why doesn't Jesus sound smart?

[ruach1]

Of course it's possible, as Mercuryturrent suggests, to decide that Jesus was inauthentic, but it's also possible, as some biblical scholars have suggested, that the reason his sayings often sound like someone else's is that they were usually reworked from contemporary Jewish traditions of parables, prayers, etc., as would be appropriate for someone with Jewish training. There's very little in the gospels about Jesus's youth, and there is the possibility that he was better educated than we think. The sermon on the mount, for example, draws on numerous prior sources, but usually bends them a little to a new purpose. It's been a long long time since I read up on this stuff, but the beatitudes are one example, I think, and as I recall the Lord's prayer is a composite of two or three standard Jewish texts as well. Of course if you want to make the case against Jesus youcan say that he's unoriginal, or that this stuff was compiled later out of scraps and he needn't even have existed, but if you choose you can also see the possibility that Jesus was a pretty savvy orator who knew both his texts and his audience.

Deut 6:5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Lev 19:18b ...love your neighbor as yourself.

I wouldn't necessarily call these "scraps," but, once again, Bruto has a point. However, Jesus was original enough in his own right not to be labeled unoriginal because he never fully left the Mosaic tradition.

Original? Give me an example.

I'm still holding to "Love your enemies." IMHO if one searches the depths of this statement in all its ramifications in all possible contexts, then the meaning is truly awesome and inspiring.

Oh yeah, and there was that whole death and resurrection thing...

 

[Ossai]

ruach1

I'm still holding to "Love your enemies." IMHO if one searches the depths of this statement in all its ramifications in all possible contexts, then the meaning is truly awesome and inspiring.

True, but hardly original.

Oh yeah, and there was that whole death and resurrection thing...

Considering that the existence of a historical Jesus is hardly settled, this is nothing more than wild speculation. Or to put it another way, got any sources? (Before you ask, no, a self referencing source is inadmissible)

Ossai

 

[c4ts]

Ruach, you've said "Love your enemies" several times now. What reasons does Jesus give for saying so? How does he support this statement?

 

[stamenflicker]

ruach1(Before you ask, no, a self referencing source is inadmissible)

If that's your standard then say bye-bye to most of history. Also, how do you consider the gospels self-referencing if Jesus didn't write them? Or how do you interpret letters from Paul and others regarding "an event" as self-referencing?

Do you reject the history of the Ceasars because they are about Ceasars? Or do you only accept the history of the Ceasars because you have coins with their images? If so, do you reject sources citing Ceasars without coinage?

I recognize that the claims of Christianity demand greater scruntiny than say, the history of the wars of the ancient Greeks, but to deem self-referencing sources as inadmissable would mean we need to define what constitutes a self-reference and demonstrate that this standard is withheld across the historical sources.

Flick

 

[jjramsey]

There is also the matter that if Jesus were wholly mythical, we should expect the New Testament to look radically different than it does.

 

[Piscivore]

There is also the matter that if Jesus were wholly mythical, we should expect the New Testament to look radically different than it does.

In what way?

 

[teacher]

Bagtagger.
One could call black white and vice versa and probably justify it somehow, but to suggest/imply that 'a great many' of Jesus' teachings are bad is provocatively running against the grain of the opinion of almost everybody of all persuasions I think you'd agree. Are you suggesting you have new insights or we have missed ALL these bad teachings? And are you suggesting that there are a set of far better rules that could not be similarly described after a critical examination?

Wouldn't you be better targetting satanists, (who ARE here)? I think anyone who looked at the Gospels and read them open mindedly would walk away with a very different opinion. I think you'd have to be mis-reading it or reading too deeply (or superficially, depending on the implication of the texts).

I can guess as to what you might be getting at and think of many such mis-readings and why that interpretation would be bad, as I could with any book or teaching or law or policy or things we often say. Get 10 innocent eye witnesses to an accident together for questioning and you'd get 10 contradictory statements.

If you are claiming that many of the teachings of Jesus, with a discerning reading, are bad, this is important and relevant and justifies wider expression than in this forum.

If you are being genuine (but not too bright or well read) or awkward or superficial (or otherwise mis-reading the text), then don't try to deceive or burst the bubble of millions of people who have read and believed the texts as most see them, followed the guy and are currently helping the poor, ill and suffering around the world because of 'their' (more positive) intepretation of what He meant. You won't be doing the learned atheist here any favours either, and even less so if you add to this thread that most wars are religious.

Advancedatheist.
This is a good example of Jesus being perceived as someone extra special, an aspect of the discussion. The (albeit interesting) view that you found of the story that is linked to Propaganda is not a fair or reflective view and without any evidence or general acsademic support.

The health and wealth preachers claim that Jesus was very rich, had so many pressies that they were put on ships and sailed up rivers, that he wore Armani style clothes, had a posh house and ran a travelling Bible school. Julius Wellhausen claimed a series of writers for the Penteteuch, and this has little following today either.

I wonder if readers would agree that when a report, book or finding that puts doubt or controversy upon the Bible, Christianity or Jesus, it is generally accepted, put on forums and discussed. The many more that support the Bible, its history, Christianity or Jesus' existence or similar do not tend to get read or make it onto forums. This seems to paint an unfair and unreflective image of the actual situation, and hence does not give full and open accounts from which to analyse the subject. I reckon a search of the site would support my suggestions of bias.

I would add that theists are at least equally guilty here!

 

[l0rca]

Of course it's possible, as Mercuryturrent suggests, to decide that Jesus was inauthentic, but it's also possible, as some biblical scholars have suggested, that the reason his sayings often sound like someone else's is that they were usually reworked from contemporary Jewish traditions of parables, prayers, etc., as would be appropriate for someone with Jewish training. There's very little in the gospels about Jesus's youth, and there is the possibility that he was better educated than we think. The sermon on the mount, for example, draws on numerous prior sources, but usually bends them a little to a new purpose. It's been a long long time since I read up on this stuff, but the beatitudes are one example, I think, and as I recall the Lord's prayer is a composite of two or three standard Jewish texts as well. Of course if you want to make the case against Jesus youcan say that he's unoriginal, or that this stuff was compiled later out of scraps and he needn't even have existed, but if you choose you can also see the possibility that Jesus was a pretty savvy orator who knew both his texts and his audience.

I wouldn't say Jesus was a savvy orator (hell I wouldn't say "Jesus was", without having to explain exactly what I meant, but I digress"). Though it's backed by popular opinion, it's not backed by evidence, or by a comparison against our other biblical figureheads.

And I doubt he picked his favorite parables. Jesus was considered a new paradigm of Jewish morals. His parables were 'revolutionary' to concepts back then.

at least eighty percent of the sayings were not authentic! That is to say, they were able to find explanations for their composition which did not require an historical Jesus.

What I gather from the quote, and what we know about Jesus's revolutionary ideas, I'm willing to bet that if I looked into the matter further, perhaps emailed the scholars who found out about this 80%, I'd find that the parables, and quotes attributed to Jesus were created after his purported life took place.

Also, I bolded that part about those biblical scholars. Would you mind providing a source or two?

 

[l0rca]

Deut 6:5
I'm still holding to "Love your enemies." IMHO if one searches the depths of this statement in all its ramifications in all possible contexts, then the meaning is truly awesome and inspiring.

It sounds like you have searched the depths of what this seemingly simple phrase "truly means". You wouldn't mind, then, giving us the answers you found?

(This writer would like to point out that the concept of post-modernism is a new idea, one that was not known back then.)

 

[bruto]

I wouldn't say Jesus was a savvy orator (hell I wouldn't say "Jesus was", without having to explain exactly what I meant, but I digress"). Though it's backed by popular opinion, it's not backed by evidence, or by a comparison against our other biblical figureheads.

And I doubt he picked his favorite parables. Jesus was considered a new paradigm of Jewish morals. His parables were 'revolutionary' to concepts back then.



What I gather from the quote, and what we know about Jesus's revolutionary ideas, I'm willing to bet that if I looked into the matter further, perhaps emailed the scholars who found out about this 80%, I'd find that the parables, and quotes attributed to Jesus were created after his purported life took place.

Also, I bolded that part about those biblical scholars. Would you mind providing a source or two?

I'm afraid I can't remember specific sources, since I read some of this stuff 30 or more years ago, and some I got from lectures and the like. You might find some of this in The Interpeter's Bible, but I'm not sure. About the only one I remember reading even longer ago than that, as a kid, was a volume of a very densely commented New Testament called "Scott's Bible," which as I recall included some specific references to existing Jewish literature, as well as to the tradition of parables. I really don't know how Scott's scholarship has held up, but a little googling shows that some of his cross references, etc. are still in use. Anyway, I remember I found the commentary interesting, and wondered why so few Christian commentators ever got beyond that sappy "holy jesus meek and mild" crap and pointed out that the guy was probably planning out his work pretty carefully. Jesus's ideas were revolutionary, but the point of the comments I refer to, which you can take or leave as you wish, is that he kept to a familiar format, and wove these revolutionary ideas into it in a way that would resonate with his audience. So, for example, the "beatitudes," while following a familiar form of calling out "blessed are these, blessed are those, etc." puts a radical new spin on who is blessed and why, and the Lord's Prayer takes familiar elements of existing prayers and puts them in a form that was purposely and unexpectedly terse.

I guess we can both read the bible and have a different opinion on how clever or wise the real or fictional Jesus was. Whether he was a real character who walked around and said more or less what the gospels say he said, or whether he's a work of fiction, I see a pretty good rhetorical skill from time to time, and if you read Mark, a bit of wit and playfulness when dealing with pharisees and the like.

 

[jjramsey]

In what way?

We would probably see a portrayal that was more consistently idealized and larger-than-life. Jesus' purported activities would be about as hard to fit into a historical timeframe as Robin Hood's. We probably would not even see him portrayed as having been crucified.

By the way, there is another thread that is better suited toward the historical Jesus topic: So did Jesus live or what?

 

[pgwenthold]

We would probably see a portrayal that was more consistently idealized and larger-than-life.

So, walking on water, raising others from the dead, and raising from the dead himself is not "larger-than-life"?

 

[stamenflicker]

So, walking on water, raising others from the dead, and raising from the dead himself is not "larger-than-life"?

It might be, but the internal inconsistencies of the gospel documents are likely not the product of invention, but rather indicative of a "buzz" circulating in communities about an important figure that people were trying to understand and categorize.

The inconsistencies lend merit to a real Jesus and an early writing down of the events, they don't add fuel to the theory that he was constructed by Paul and others.

Flick

 

[jjramsey]

So, walking on water, raising others from the dead, and raising from the dead himself is not "larger-than-life"?

Of course they are, but making your home base a small village at the shore of the Sea of Galilee and then condemning to hell some medium-size towns within walking distance is not larger than life. That's why I said that one would expect a wholly mythical Jesus to be "consistently idealized and larger-than-life." That consistency is just not there.

 

[ruach1]

It sounds like you have searched the depths of what this seemingly simple phrase "truly means". You wouldn't mind, then, giving us the answers you found?

(This writer would like to point out that the concept of post-modernism is a new idea, one that was not known back then.)

There can be voluminous responses to this question (as, of course, there can be with many questions in this forum).

The word circulating in my head right now is threshold. "Love your enemies" is a teaching that if you "get it," you've passed into an understanding of, well let's just say "things," which, once achieved, forms the self and the world in a fundamental way.

Do I "get it?" Yes. Do I always live up to it? No. Not always--only in my best moments.

Why is postmodernism relevant in this case?

 

[l0rca]

Understanding concepts before the birth of postmodernism, and understanding what the past's modernist approach was, is understanding how entirely different literary and conceptual ideas are thought of, then-and-now.

Back then, nobody ever expected people to take their words out of context. This means that Jesus most likely never intended any meaning beyond his contextual one.

That people feel that different translations, or inferences can be drawn from ideas in the bible is rediculous. People back then simply didn't think like that. Jesus didn't think like that. Even if he was God, it would be silly to claim he was speaking postmodernly in anticipation of a future literary movement. It's uneducated to claim he wasn't a modernist, and further uneducated to claim there's multiple dimensions to what he said: dimensions outside of the context were superfluous.

There's really only one intended meaning to "love thy enemies" (I might be paraphrasing, I dunno what he actually said, or if he said it, but neither do the rest of us). Although that one meaning may be lost on us, I think the most educated thing the religionists can do is to best correlate this phrase to its context, and draw meaning only from there.

On an almost unrelated note, are you familiar with the phrase, "turn the other cheek?"

That was actually a common Jewish phrase, and gesture back then. It's usually mistaken to suggest the victim give the attacker a free advantage; a very pacifist movement. But what turning the other cheek actually meant back then, was a gester of taunt, and mock. Turning the other cheek was a non-verbal scoff. A sort of "I'm better than you, I turn my head away from your shameful behavior" sign.

 

[KingMerv00]

Jesus said, "Love your enemies" and made it stick.

NO ONE has ever done anything like this.

This is beyond smart.

"Love your enemies" strikes me as naive, unproductive, and stupid. Sure, you should try and reason with your enemies but at some point, hate isn't so bad.

 

[KingMerv00]

By what standard is that a wise teaching? Clearly, judging Christianity's teachings by the standards of Christianity indicates that's fantastic - but that's true of any set of teachings.

By any rational standard I can think of, that's a profoundly stupid teaching.

Oops you beat me to it. Sorry.

 

[pgwenthold]

It might be, but the internal inconsistencies of the gospel documents are likely not the product of invention, but rather indicative of a "buzz" circulating in communities about an important figure that people were trying to understand and categorize.

The only "internal inconsistencies" are in different versions of the same story. That is perfectly consistent with 4 different authors writing about the same legendary character, sort of like if four different authors wrote about Robin Hood.

If they all came up with different stories, would that be evidence that Robin Hood existed?

 

[KingMerv00]

There can be voluminous responses to this question (as, of course, there can be with many questions in this forum).

The word circulating in my head right now is threshold. "Love your enemies" is a teaching that if you "get it," you've passed into an understanding of, well let's just say "things," which, once achieved, forms the self and the world in a fundamental way.

I mean this in the nicest possible way: What you wrote does not make any sense. You talk about "things" and "forming the self" in a way that is impossible to understand.

When it comes to my enemies, I consider some factors:

1) Is it possible that they are my enemy because one or both of us is operating on false information?

2) Is it possible to ignore my enemies?

3) Is comprimise out of the question?

4) Are others I care about likely to be hurt if a fight breaks out?

5) Consider long term pro's and con's of my final decision.

I think my "rule of 5" (which I just made up 2 minutes ago) is superior to something so saccharine as "love your enemies". It may not fit on a bumper sticker or feed a righteous ego, but it gets better results.