Yeah - I mean, there's also the text itself, versus the narrative.
-
-
Replying to @mssilverstein @SiobhanFedelm and
There's a lot of academic research on a "Q source" - the predecessor to Mark/Matthew/Luke (though not John) that later ended up with multiple versions, only then given different authors.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mssilverstein @SiobhanFedelm and
Only Matthew and Luke! Mark isn't thought to have drawn from Q. But yes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @mssilverstein @iridienne and
Overall - it's this transition from first- and second-hand accounts, toward a unified canon that can be shared much more broadly, and over a longer period of time.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mssilverstein @iridienne and
And Paul's role, in part, is to harmonize the church which is increasingly remote from Jesus himself, and where the bits of his teachings in the Gospels are insufficient.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mssilverstein @iridienne and
And, all the more so, to Christians who were not Jews, and would have had little context for Jesus's direct teachings.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mssilverstein @SiobhanFedelm and
Right. Jesus wasn't trying to invent a religion or even cause a schism! PAUL is the one who invented Christianity, out of whole cloth.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @mssilverstein and
Well it's not clear what Jesus was trying to do because it's not clear if he was one specific real guy
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @iridienne and
Back in the day the Jesus Seminar people tried to argue that the hippie progressive nice sounding stuff in the Gospels is the real Jesus and the scary violent apocalyptic stuff is later Christian insertion But this was mostly based on wishful circular logic
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
Seems to me a scary violent revolutionary getting retconned by his later followers into a humans compassionate teacher is just as plausible a scenario as the reverse
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @mssilverstein and
I mean, yeah, that's true. I'm not really a historical-Jesus believer. But the thing is that even most of the scary/violent Jesus stuff is pretty well within the bounds of 1st-century-CE intracommunal Jewish discourse? Like. There were a lot of tinpot prophets running around.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @iridienne @arthur_affect and
I think the evidence for *a* historical Jesus is pretty compelling. Which isn't to say that he's necessarily accurately represented in the Gospels, but probably in the broadest strokes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.