01-21-2008, 12:23 AM
<b>John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus
</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
The minority brief, November 14, 2004
By Mark Mills (Glen Rose, TX USA) - reviews
(REAL NAME)Â Â Â
Quoting Meier: "This book grapples with one of the greatest puzzles of modern religious scholarship, the historical Jesus. As I will explain at length in Chapter 1, by the "historical Jesus" I mean the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research." In paragraph 2, he outlines his technique for adjudicating the 'scientific evidence': "I often use the fantasy of the 'unpapal conclave.' Suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic - all honest historians cognizant of 1st century religious movements - were locked up ... and not allowed to emerge until they had hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended in his own time and place."
Unfortunately, the 'conclave' is entirely in his imagination and he never elaborates on 'the scientific tools of modern historical research'.
With respect to the conclave, it is useful to put 'A Marginal Jew' in context. It was released to the public on Nov, 1, 1991. It is safe to assume the above was written down sometime in the late 80s. A few years earlier (1985), the 'fantasy conclave' had actually been realized. That conclave, now known as the Jesus Seminar, was several hundred scholars and they worked for several years on the project Meier outlines. Given the size of the Jesus Seminar, it is certain Meier knew of its activities.
In other words, Meier's 'unpapal conference' was actually taking place and Meier chose not to engage it directly. This book should be seen as a 'minority brief.' Of course, the Jesus Seminar is often vilified, so 'minority' or 'majority' is a matter of debate. He got his brief out 2 years before the Jesus Seminar's 'The Five Gospels', but an adequate rebuttal (if one can be made) will require another author.
While Meier alludes to 'scientific historigrahy', he doesn't inform the reader on the subject. By ignoring this, he makes a major mistake. The 'majority report' issued by the Jesus Seminar relies almost entirely upon textual deconstruction, the process of deducing hidden meaning via unexpected juxtaposition of a given textual record. While debatable as a science, no one can deny the computer has given us the ability to statistically analyze text for word usage patterns far exceeding anything available to pre 20th century scholars. This 'modern science' is use to great effect by the Jesus Seminar, but Meier seems incapable of dealing with it.
Faced with the juggernaut of the non-fantasy conclave's computerized textual deconstruction, Meier falls back upon traditional historiographic methods. He cites earlier publications and his favorite scholars. On an objective level, Meier cannot make a dent in the Jesus Seminar claims. In the end, Meier is relying on 'old fashion' textual decomposition. His arguments fall flat for all but the reader already confirmed in his opinion.
With this in mind, what does Meier argue? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
The minority brief, November 14, 2004
By Mark Mills (Glen Rose, TX USA) - reviews
(REAL NAME)Â Â Â
Quoting Meier: "This book grapples with one of the greatest puzzles of modern religious scholarship, the historical Jesus. As I will explain at length in Chapter 1, by the "historical Jesus" I mean the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research." In paragraph 2, he outlines his technique for adjudicating the 'scientific evidence': "I often use the fantasy of the 'unpapal conclave.' Suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic - all honest historians cognizant of 1st century religious movements - were locked up ... and not allowed to emerge until they had hammered out a consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended in his own time and place."
Unfortunately, the 'conclave' is entirely in his imagination and he never elaborates on 'the scientific tools of modern historical research'.
With respect to the conclave, it is useful to put 'A Marginal Jew' in context. It was released to the public on Nov, 1, 1991. It is safe to assume the above was written down sometime in the late 80s. A few years earlier (1985), the 'fantasy conclave' had actually been realized. That conclave, now known as the Jesus Seminar, was several hundred scholars and they worked for several years on the project Meier outlines. Given the size of the Jesus Seminar, it is certain Meier knew of its activities.
In other words, Meier's 'unpapal conference' was actually taking place and Meier chose not to engage it directly. This book should be seen as a 'minority brief.' Of course, the Jesus Seminar is often vilified, so 'minority' or 'majority' is a matter of debate. He got his brief out 2 years before the Jesus Seminar's 'The Five Gospels', but an adequate rebuttal (if one can be made) will require another author.
While Meier alludes to 'scientific historigrahy', he doesn't inform the reader on the subject. By ignoring this, he makes a major mistake. The 'majority report' issued by the Jesus Seminar relies almost entirely upon textual deconstruction, the process of deducing hidden meaning via unexpected juxtaposition of a given textual record. While debatable as a science, no one can deny the computer has given us the ability to statistically analyze text for word usage patterns far exceeding anything available to pre 20th century scholars. This 'modern science' is use to great effect by the Jesus Seminar, but Meier seems incapable of dealing with it.
Faced with the juggernaut of the non-fantasy conclave's computerized textual deconstruction, Meier falls back upon traditional historiographic methods. He cites earlier publications and his favorite scholars. On an objective level, Meier cannot make a dent in the Jesus Seminar claims. In the end, Meier is relying on 'old fashion' textual decomposition. His arguments fall flat for all but the reader already confirmed in his opinion.
With this in mind, what does Meier argue? <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->