Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
 I don't know how anyone living today can "look from back then to now". So, historians including those mentioned above must reconstruct history based on available evidence. |
Yes but Ehrman et al. are working from what they've put together about the historical Jesus. That's why I say from then to now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zeek
Jesus scholars are all analyzing a similar core of evidence with varying interpretations. For most of the 20th century the apocalyptic prophet interpretation of Jesus prevailed. Beginning in the 1980s a new scholarly consensus emerged that in the earliest layers of the developing gospel tradition Jesus did not claim to be the Messiah or the Son of God in a special sense who expected a supernatural world-ending event in his own generation. As an example of the new consensus, The five gospels: the search for the authentic words of Jesus new translation and commentary by Robert Funk, Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar supports this view.
|
That's a lot of top notch scholars. So if they hold to the wisdom model of the "real" Jesus that holds some merit.
So where did Jesus the apocalypticist come from?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zeek
If you compare the sketches of Jesus by Borg or Crossan with those of Schweitzer, or Bultmann or Ehrman, I don't see how he could be both.
|
It depends on how you consider scripture. If you consider every word of it to be the very Word of God, then you can see both in the scripture. You can see that Jesus considered the end to be imminent (within that generation), and you can see the sermon on the mount as the wisdom/Sophia Jesus.