Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

roachboy · 06-29-2005, 01:36 PM

yikes--yet another philo thread that i dont think can be coherently added to in a message board. so i'll revert to teaching form and do things like say go read a book.

1. on the question of anachronism at the level of starting assumptions for interpreting texts like teh gospels--this is tricky because you have lots of transpositions in the intervening 200 years or so, not least of which is in the meaning of belief, the definition of history, the redefinition of myth--paul veyne's book "did the greeks really believe their myths" is short and quite good on all these questions. so for example to think about history in its contemporary form--which is rooted in particular protocols for treating the factoid base of interpretations, particular ways of legitimating arguments, particular assumptions as to quasi-scientific status--as if this conception applied in the 1-2nd century ad is folly. you simply are not dealing with the same kind of texts--the question of "historical accuracy" in the contemporary sense is moot when it comes to them.

2. the various jesus stories often get situated in the context of a genre of semi-mythical travelling wise man/magician stories--i think this was mentioned earlier--for example, apollonius of tyana. these travelling wise men/magicians probably constitue a genre template for the jesus stories.

3. the question of divine inspiration is confusing as well--you had lots and lots of alternative texts about jesus, etc. generated by gnostics--all equally legit in their claims to divine inspiration until the council of nicea came along and the folk who were there decided that divine inspiration had already stopped at some arbitrary previous point. well because if it hadnt, you woudlnt really need a church, now would you? what would it mediate?
anyway, the select criteria for whcih gospels were and were not included in the canon that alot of folk now take as necessary and eternal was rooted not in any conception of "historical accuracy" (see point 1) but in considerations of theology--the texts selected tended to be more hierarchically organized at the philosophical level.
they certainly are not the most entertaining, however.
give me the gospel of the teenage jesus any day--thomas i think.

06-29-2005, 01:36 PM	#57 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	yikes--yet another philo thread that i dont think can be coherently added to in a message board. so i'll revert to teaching form and do things like say go read a book. 1. on the question of anachronism at the level of starting assumptions for interpreting texts like teh gospels--this is tricky because you have lots of transpositions in the intervening 200 years or so, not least of which is in the meaning of belief, the definition of history, the redefinition of myth--paul veyne's book "did the greeks really believe their myths" is short and quite good on all these questions. so for example to think about history in its contemporary form--which is rooted in particular protocols for treating the factoid base of interpretations, particular ways of legitimating arguments, particular assumptions as to quasi-scientific status--as if this conception applied in the 1-2nd century ad is folly. you simply are not dealing with the same kind of texts--the question of "historical accuracy" in the contemporary sense is moot when it comes to them. 2. the various jesus stories often get situated in the context of a genre of semi-mythical travelling wise man/magician stories--i think this was mentioned earlier--for example, apollonius of tyana. these travelling wise men/magicians probably constitue a genre template for the jesus stories. 3. the question of divine inspiration is confusing as well--you had lots and lots of alternative texts about jesus, etc. generated by gnostics--all equally legit in their claims to divine inspiration until the council of nicea came along and the folk who were there decided that divine inspiration had already stopped at some arbitrary previous point. well because if it hadnt, you woudlnt really need a church, now would you? what would it mediate? anyway, the select criteria for whcih gospels were and were not included in the canon that alot of folk now take as necessary and eternal was rooted not in any conception of "historical accuracy" (see point 1) but in considerations of theology--the texts selected tended to be more hierarchically organized at the philosophical level. they certainly are not the most entertaining, however. give me the gospel of the teenage jesus any day--thomas i think. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite