Jesus and "Homo rationalis"

[Bill Van Fleet]

I believe Jesus was ahead of his time. And much of what he was trying to accomplish, got lost after he was killed. The Jesus Seminar points out that most of what is attributed to Jesus probably was not said by him, but was gradually added by subsequent evangelists.

I see our species as being at the very beginning of a third exponential change (1st - language; 2nd- science) that will indeed, for the first time ever, make our lives much, much better. (The first two changes have given us tools that have been in the service of our basic animal nature, so with them we have done wonderful things and terrible things and all inbetween. Something else is needed.) I believe that what Jesus was trying to accomplish was consistent with this change. My general impression is that there were two main ideas that Jesus was promoting.

First, he took a stand against the culture of his time with its heavy reliance upon authoritarian ethics, as spelled out by religious and governmental authority. Instead, he recommended that people use their capacity for rational thinking. If he indeed taught by the use of parables, he was calling everyone’s attention to underlying principles involved in kinds of situations, and was saying that the answers to ethical questions could be arrived at logically, rather than by obedient reference to pronouncements of religious and/or governmental authority.

Second, he also seemed to be saying that we should not engage in punishment and revenge, or hostile behavior in general. He advocated trying to understand the other individual, even if that individual is from a substantially different culture or subculture, and even if he or she has engaged in nonoptimal behavior.

Sad to say, he made relatively little difference, and his followers ultimately acquired lots of blood on their hands even in his name. On the other hand, awareness of his effort has remained with us, and I believe it has done so because we can sense that he was on the right track, even if we do not pay much attention to what he said.

I believe there is some tendency growing within Christianity to pay more attention to what he said about how to live life. This is in marked contrast to ubiquitous mandates to obediently believe certain things about him, the having of such beliefs magically making a person okay and accomplishing what is needed.

I have attempted to add to this third exponential change by writing elsewhere about my view of its development and what that entails. I have contrasted "rational ethics" with "authoritarian ethics." I have also written about the anger prevention paradigm that I use in my practice, as well as the "rational-ethical model of child rearing" that I teach to parents who are finding that the problems in the family are spiraling out of control, a not unusual phenomenon within the standard model of child rearing, which is based heavily upon authoritarian ethics and punishment.

Our species is dangerously close to enormously escalating our human-induced pain, suffering, disability, and early death. It is becoming increasingly urgent that we come to agreement regarding certain basic existential and ethical propositions. And our beliefs must be accurate. We will kill ourselves by holding onto, till the very end, the postmodern position that agreement is unnecessary, that what is true for you may not be true for me, so let's just talk about something else.

I maintain such agreement is possible, but only if we clear up characteristic problems in our ways of communicating (that lead to unending, nonproductive and often hostile debate) and also dedicate ourselves to those methods of living that foster increasingly accurate belief.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So you believe that Jesus was ahead of his time because you think his parables teach your so-called "rational" ethics rather than "authoritarian"?

Even if this were true, there is no evidence whatsoever for it, because the parables themselves as they are preserved are completely disconnected from the "historical" Jesus in the first place, and are handed down as "authoritative" prescriptions rather than a methodological ethic like the Greek/Roman philosophers. It is in philosophy, not religion, that we find a rational-based ethic.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

So you believe that Jesus was ahead of his time because you think his parables teach your so-called "rational" ethics rather than "authoritarian"?

No, that is not what I said or meant. I don't think Jesus was aware of the issue of "authoritarian ethics" vs. "rational ethics." This is my way of conceptualizing this area. What I believe is that Jesus was taking a stand against what the vast majority believed. I think maybe he was saying (among other things), "You can figure it out for yourself." I certainly could be wrong, but that is my general impression. Do you not think so?

Even if this were true, there is no evidence whatsoever for it, because the parables themselves as they are preserved are completely disconnected from the "historical" Jesus in the first place, and are handed down as "authoritative" prescriptions rather than a methodological ethic like the Greek/Roman philosophers. It is in philosophy, not religion, that we find a rational-based ethic.

Yes, of course. That is what I was saying. So I don't know what the "it" is supposed to be in "there is no evidence whatsoever for it...." The "it" appears to be something that I am not saying or believing.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What I believe is that Jesus was taking a stand against what the vast majority believed. I think maybe he was saying (among other things), "You can figure it out for yourself." I certainly could be wrong, but that is my general impression. Do you not think so?

This is a multi-faceted question. First, it depends on who "the vast majority" to whom you refer is. Then there are a lot of "ifs." If it's first century people who had any access at all to rabbinic teachings or to Greek philosophy, then they certainly were exposed to people who taught them to think for themselves. That would be the point of many teachings, and the Jesus of the Gospels fits perfectly within many contexts if he teaches people to think rationally.

However, we remember that many people pleasantly ignored philosophy and religion and went about their lives as they saw fit, thoughtlessly and living according to whatever felt good. EDIT: I guess my point here is simply this: who are the "vast majority of people" and what exactly did they believe? How do you know what Jesus taught and how precisely did it go against the grain? I don't think that you can answer these questions sufficiently.

Secondly, there is no evidence IMHO that can point us to the historical Jesus. Everything that we have is the product of later Christianities and focus on their issues and problems, so I don't know if Jesus wanted people to think for themselves.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, that is not what I said or meant. I don't think Jesus was aware of the issue of "authoritarian ethics" vs. "rational ethics." This is my way of conceptualizing this area. What I believe is that Jesus was taking a stand against what the vast majority believed. I think maybe he was saying (among other things), "You can figure it out for yourself." I certainly could be wrong, but that is my general impression. Do you not think so?



Yes, of course. That is what I was saying. So I don't know what the "it" is supposed to be in "there is no evidence whatsoever for it...." The "it" appears to be something that I am not saying or believing.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

The "it" is the body of evidence that you use to reconstruct the sayings of Jesus that you conceptualize as being "rational" as opposed to "authoritative."

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I guess my point here is simply this: who are the "vast majority of people" and what exactly did they believe?

Probably about the same as today, unfortunately. Although the rules of logic and the rules of evidence have brought about this vast second exponential change (giving us science and technology), the vast majority of people make little use of it in their daily lives. I would be speaking of the vast majority of any large group of people, but more specifically the culture of which he was a part.

How do you know what Jesus taught

Well, its all conjecture, of course, but the Jesus Seminar did code some of his presumed statements in red. My best bet is that he was right part of the time and wrong other times. But don't you get the impression he was against hostility, revenge, and punishment?

and how precisely did it go against the grain?

Enough to get him killed.

I don't think that you can answer these questions sufficiently.

What is the criterion you are using for "sufficiently"? Do you think that conjecture, sharing of opinion, etc. are okay or should be banned?

Secondly, there is no evidence IMHO that can point us to the historical Jesus.

Here I think the Jesus Seminar members would disagree with you. Maybe you are using the criterion that probability must be 100% in order to render a belief valuable, but I doubt it and hope not. The Jesus Seminar present their rules of evidence and the rationale for them, and they also come to conclusions as to what he likely taught and what he likely didn't.

Everything that we have is the product of later Christianities and focus on their issues and problems,

Could we not modify that to say that "Everything that we have is the product of what he said and what later Christianities and focus on their issues and problems contributed"? Of course this makes for a lot of uncertainty, but I don't think we are left with no propositions of above 50% probability.

so I don't know if Jesus wanted people to think for themselves.

What seems to come across is that Jesus did not give straightforward answers. He apparently encouraged thinking. And he also seemed to be in favor of benevolence and generosity, and against hostility, punishment, and revenge. If I am wrong about that, then I would have to say that I disagree with him.

But since so many people seem to at least give lip service to valuing what he had to say, I am glad that what he seemed to be saying was what I think he was saying, and not the reverse (if indeed that is so).

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'm not against the speculation that Jesus taught people to think. I don't think, however, that Jesus was a philosopher, teaching people how to think for themselves in the same way that scores of other philosophers did (beginning, of course, with Socrates). As far as I'm aware, the Jesus Seminar hasn't agreed on anything but have presented various portrayals of the historical Jesus that have not sustained critical review.

Because all the evidence for Jesus was written, edited, and transmitted by later Christianities, scholars who want to reconstruct a historical Jesus must develop critical tools with which they filter out the later redactions of the traditions in an attempt to produce purely "historical" material that is "free" from later influences. There is no critical tool that is precise enough to produce a historical Jesus... all of the results of the Jesus Seminar are tainted by this failure.

I can't think of an instance in the New Testament where Jesus tells people to think for themselves. Perhaps if you're thinking of a specific instance in the NT that would help. He teaches the principle of love, which may be a rational activity (as per Plato and Aristotle), but it seems more like an activity to me (like providing for someone's needs).

So I am hesitant to agree that Jesus was "was ahead of his time" any more than any other Greco-Roman philosopher who actually did teach people how to think (I am thinking specifically of Socrates, the Stoics, the Epicureans, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, etc).

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I'm not against the speculation that Jesus taught people to think. I don't think, however, that Jesus was a philosopher, teaching people how to think for themselves in the same way that scores of other philosophers did (beginning, of course, with Socrates).

I agree with you, and was not saying otherwise.

As far as I'm aware, the Jesus Seminar hasn't agreed on anything but have presented various portrayals of the historical Jesus that have not sustained critical review.

I don't think their method or expectation was concensus. My understanding is that they wished to try to reconstruct, as much as possible, the historical Jesus, independent of restriction of thought posed by religious dogma. I don't know what the criterion would be for saying that their portrayals had "sustained critical review." Their effort was to start rational dialogue, which had been suppressed so far. Their method was to present a picture of how much agreement or disagreement there was among the members of the Seminar, not to put forth a position statement representing the unanimous view of the members.

Because all the evidence for Jesus was written, edited, and transmitted by later Christianities, scholars who want to reconstruct a historical Jesus must develop critical tools with which they filter out the later redactions of the traditions in an attempt to produce purely "historical" material that is "free" from later influences. There is no critical tool that is precise enough to produce a historical Jesus... all of the results of the Jesus Seminar are tainted by this failure.

Again, you seem to holding up some standard of perfection or "absolute certainty" with which to judge the value of the effort. I agree with all that you said, except for this implied view that they failed in their effort. I think they accomplished something by taking this nondogmatic approach to the study of the literature, and that the good that they have accomplished has not yet ceased occurring. There are parts of the world where such an effort would still result in death.

I can't think of an instance in the New Testament where Jesus tells people to think for themselves.

Of course not, if you mean that he used those words.

Perhaps if you're thinking of a specific instance in the NT that would help.

Again, I think it is implied when he replies to questions with parables rather than direct answers. Don't you think that this implies that they should think and figure out the answer rather than expect him simply to give it to them as an authority?

He teaches the principle of love,

What do you mean by "principle of love"? Are you referring to something like "You should love your neighbor, including your enemy"? In other words, an ethical rule of conduct or an ethical principle?

which may be a rational activity (as per Plato and Aristotle), but it seems more like an activity to me (like providing for someone's needs).

I don't follow you here. Actually, you are now using words differently than I do in my book, which carefully defines all key words so as to avoid the illusion of disagreement by virtue of different meanings of words. I would not use the phrase "rational activity," because I would not be able adequately to define it.

So I am hesitant to agree that Jesus was "was ahead of his time" any more than any other Greco-Roman philosopher who actually did teach people how to think (I am thinking specifically of Socrates, the Stoics, the Epicureans, Cicero, Seneca, Plutarch, etc).

Well don't you think some of them were ahead of their time also? Are you by any chance making the assumption that I believe that Jesus was ahead of everyone in all areas of thought, or that no one else had the same ideas that Jesus had? I certainly would think that that was unlikely. He made a big impression for reasons unclear. He apparently was rather challenging, enough to get himself killed. But he also apparently was fairly successful as a prophet. And somehow we still are thinking about him.

And BTW, the fact that we are still thinking about him doesn't in itself mean he was a positive influence or valuable in his thinking. We still think about Hitler, et. al. But thinking about him has become quite influential, and it would be great if that thinking could be as beneficial as possible. I certainly could write about what I believe without reference to him, but I think I might be able to have dialogue with more people if I do add in my beliefs about him. I personally have made a case for nonhostility, nonpunitiveness, and nonrevenge, among other things. If (our impression of the historical) Jesus supports me in this, then that is a good thing, I think.

I appreciate your having this dialogue with me.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't know what the criterion would be for saying that their portrayals had "sustained critical review."

Basically, the amount of scholars who agree with the reconstruction and why. By "critical review," I mean to say that the reconstructions of the various "historical Jesus(s)" produced by the Jesus Seminar have not passed critical examination. The methods were imprecise, leading us now to refer to the historical Jesus as more myth than history.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Their effort was to start rational dialogue, which had been suppressed so far.

Not so.. the quest(s) for the historical Jesus began in 17th century with new understandings of how the history of Jesus was myth, and continued through to Bultmann's demythologization of Jesus. Many of the reconstructions of the historical Jesus as presented by the Jesus Seminar relied heavily on previous scholarship. The Jesus Seminar merely continued an ancient work.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Again, you seem to holding up some standard of perfection or "absolute certainty" with which to judge the value of the effort. I agree with all that you said, except for this implied view that they failed in their effort. I think they accomplished something by taking this nondogmatic approach to the study of the literature, and that the good that they have accomplished has not yet ceased occurring. There are parts of the world where such an effort would still result in death.

Yes... I do think that the Jesus Seminar is a failure inasmuch as they attempted to present the historical Jesus. It's simply not possible to reconstruct the historical Jesus because there is no historical evidence for him (using critical definitions for 'historical' as outlined by modern German thinkers). The disagreements among the members of the seminar members themselves highlight their failure - they produced a variety of historical Jesus(s) using faulty methods, and because their method was imprecise, their conclusions were completely wrong.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What do you mean by "principle of love"? Are you referring to something like "You should love your neighbor, including your enemy"? In other words, an ethical rule of conduct or an ethical principle?

Yes... I don't think that the command to love is intended as a rational, well-thought out ethical philosophy. It's not a philosophical system that lends itself to "rational" thinking, no matter how loosely it is defined. The ethic of love as taught in the Gospels is a generalized rule of life and not a ethical principle which is the product of reason - this significantly makes Jesus's concept of love different from ethical paradigms.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Not so.. the quest(s) for the historical Jesus began in 17th century with new understandings of how the history of Jesus was myth, and continued through to Bultmann's demythologization of Jesus. Many of the reconstructions of the historical Jesus as presented by the Jesus Seminar relied heavily on previous scholarship. The Jesus Seminar merely continued an ancient work.

Well I must defer tentatively to your greater knowledge of this area, but in their Introduction to The Five Gospels (p.3) they mention Bultmann (and Barth) as suppressive of interest in the historical Jesus for five decades, because at that time the quest for the historical Jesus was for the purpose of achieving a "factual basis for faith," and it had failed for the reasons you state. In other words, I gather that the purpose of the effort at that time was religious, not scientific/historical, as opposed to the purpose of the Seminar. And the 5G says that its development coincided with a re-emergence of interest in the historical Jesus in the context of biblical scholarship finally being out from under religious supervision. Perhaps I sounded too much like I thought that the JS was an isolated breakthrough. I make no claim to know more about this than you or those in the Seminar, and I have not followed the critical appraisal of the JS's work. I would bet that there is difference of opinion, however, that the matter is not settled.

Actually, my interest is not so much in this specific historical development of religious thinking but instead in the third exponential change that our species, I believe, is beginning to undergo. I see this religious phenomenon as simply one small part of it. But I think religion will have played a prominent part in it, in both positive and negative ways.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Yes... I don't think that the command to love is intended as a rational, well-thought out ethical philosophy. It's not a philosophical system that lends itself to "rational" thinking, no matter how loosely it is defined. The ethic of love as taught in the Gospels is a generalized rule of life and not a ethical principle which is the product of reason - this significantly makes Jesus's concept of love different from ethical paradigms.

Again, you and I use different languages, that contain the same words. It is difficult to reduce complex areas of thought down to sentences or paragraphs out of their context. I use the term "authoritarian ethics" to mean ethical beliefs that are legitimated by their logical consistency with the ultimate (authoritarian-) ethical proposition that "we should do that which X wants us to do, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful (parent, leader, group, deity). I use the term "rational ethics" to mean ethical beliefs that are legitimated by their logical consistency with the ultimate (rational-) ethical proposition that "we should do that which will not only promote the survival of our species but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future. (And I define the good life as meaning containing as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible.) There would be other ways to use the words, of course, but I have found this way to be very useful. At least that is what I believe, and that is what I have done in the book.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Yes... I do think that the Jesus Seminar is a failure inasmuch as they attempted to present the historical Jesus. It's simply not possible to reconstruct the historical Jesus because there is no historical evidence for him (using critical definitions for 'historical' as outlined by modern German thinkers). The disagreements among the members of the seminar members themselves highlight their failure - they produced a variety of historical Jesus(s) using faulty methods, and because their method was imprecise, their conclusions were completely wrong.

Wow! Gosh, you don't really mean this do you, i.e., "because their method was imprecise, their conclusions were completely wrong" There is no 100% precision in any of the sciences. Does that mean that all scientific conclusions are completely wrong? That would be a great way to legitimate a lot of knowledge. Test a hypothesis, and since the measurements cannot be 100% precise, that proves that the opposite hypothesis is correct! I may be misinterpreting your comments some. There seems to be an "all-or-none" quality to them. If we cannot show something to be so with absolute precision, then it is simply not so. I think of our efforts as increasing or decreasing the likelihood of our various propositions. We are always faced with some degree of uncertainty. All of knowledge is probabilistic. The fact that we can't precisely predict the weather certainly does not mean there is no value in attempting to do so. And hopefully we will be right more often than we are wrong.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I appreciate the feedback regarding the Jesus Seminar. So are you saying that the majority of biblical scholars who are not members of the JS have expressed the opinion that the work of the JS has been so flawed that their work has not contributed significant understanding regarding the historical Jesus? If so, where is a summary of that opinion found? I have read only The Five Gospels.

Again, thanks for your clarifications.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Wow! Gosh, you don't really mean this do you, i.e., "because their method was imprecise, their conclusions were completely wrong" There is no 100% precision in any of the sciences. Does that mean that all scientific conclusions are completely wrong? That would be a great way to legitimate a lot of knowledge. Test a hypothesis, and since the measurements cannot be 100% precise, that proves that the opposite hypothesis is correct! I may be misinterpreting your comments some. There seems to be an "all-or-none" quality to them. If we cannot show something to be so with absolute precision, then it is simply not so. I think of our efforts as increasing or decreasing the likelihood of our various propositions. We are always faced with some degree of uncertainty. All of knowledge is probabilistic. The fact that we can't precisely predict the weather certainly does not mean there is no value in attempting to do so. And hopefully we will be right more often than we are wrong.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

That is a logical fallacy on your part, I never applied the imprecision of the methods of the Jesus Seminar to "sciences" because what they did (and do) is an art.

Yes, I really do mean that if the method which one uses to reconstruct a historical model is imprecise, all the results are essentially worthless. Methods determine results.

Also, imprecision leads to misunderstanding. That is, if a "historian" is imprecise, they can continually attempt to defend the criticism of others on the basis of perceived misunderstanding, when it is the "historian's" fault for being imprecise in the first place, hampering the critic's ability to reconstruct the "historian's" ideas. Indeed, the imprecision itself is the root problem that henders the idea.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I appreciate the feedback regarding the Jesus Seminar. So are you saying that the majority of biblical scholars who are not members of the JS have expressed the opinion that the work of the JS has been so flawed that their work has not contributed significant understanding regarding the historical Jesus? If so, where is a summary of that opinion found? I have read only The Five Gospels.

Again, thanks for your clarifications.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

Not only that, but the majority of the Jesus Seminar disagree with eachother as well, which was my point.

I do think that the Jesus Seminar's great contribution is that the historical Jesus will forever be a product of creative imagination and of little historical value in an absolute sense.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I use the term "authoritarian ethics" to mean ethical beliefs that are legitimated by their logical consistency with the ultimate (authoritarian-) ethical proposition that "we should do that which X wants us to do, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful (parent, leader, group, deity).

Can you present a place where Jesus doesn't do this in the New Testament. It kind of seems like the point to me.

I use the term "rational ethics" to mean ethical beliefs that are legitimated by their logical consistency with the ultimate (rational-) ethical proposition that "we should do that which will not only promote the survival of our species but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future.

OK, defined in these terms, I don't think that you can seperate your "authoritarian ethics" from "rational ethics" in the Greco-Roman world. Everything was authoritarian, and ethics were both rational and authoritarian at the same time. I don't know of any philosophers who were atheists or anarchists (well, maybe some extreme Cynics), but if there were, their philosophical method was their god (or authority).

EDIT: Even presented in those terms, the ethic itself becomes the authority.

Example:

we should do that which X wants us to do, X being whoever or whatever is most powerful (parent, leader, group, deity)

X = actions that are legitimated by their logical consistency with the ultimate (rational-) ethical proposition that "we should do that which will not only promote the survival of our species but also the good life for everyone, now and in the future"

The ethic or the self becomes the authority, or perhaps the person who is the authority behind X. Depends on your point of view...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I appreciate the feedback regarding the Jesus Seminar. So are you saying that the majority of biblical scholars who are not members of the JS have expressed the opinion that the work of the JS has been so flawed that their work has not contributed significant understanding regarding the historical Jesus? If so, where is a summary of that opinion found? I have read only The Five Gospels.

Again, thanks for your clarifications.

Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com

Yeah, these little intellectual jumping jacks are fun. Several members on the forum are quite able to interact on the highest level.