Years ago I wrote the following reflection about the historical existence of Jesus. Maybe it can help.

There is a lot of controversy on the internet about the historical existence of Jesus and the battle is usually done by using historical documentation about it. Among these, there are first of all the Gospels, obviously, with all the reservations required by their attitude of faith; there are also the "apocryphal" gospels, and then there are the references that can also be found in documents outside the Bible. This research, however, fails to be convincing: for some people we have enough documentation to make us consider Jesus a historical figure, for other people this documentation is absolutely insufficient, as well as vitiated by an attitude of faith. So we are back to square one.
In this debate, however, a fundamental problem is overlooked: what are we talking about? What is the subject of the debate? In fact the "Jesus" imagined, for example, by the scholars of the Sacred Scriptures, does not coincide one hundred percent with the Jesus imagined by the average of believers, because their way of evaluating the stories of the Gospel is different.
So, to put our ideas in order, let’s go on by a criterion of "stripping" the Gospels, that is, we start from the poorest and simplest elements that are told to us.
The Gospels tell us that a man existed two thousand years ago. Is there any reason to be suspicious about this news? If anything, the opposite news would be suspected, that is, if someone told us that two thousand years ago there were no human beings in Palestine. Similarly, we can add the name “Jesus” (as it is usually transposed in English). Is there any suspicion on the information that two thousand years ago there was someone named Jesus? Here, too, the opposite information would be more suspect, that is, if they told us that two thousand years ago there were no people in Palestine named Jesus; it is as if they told us that in New York there are no people named John, or Bob: there would be a lot to suspect. We can go on, by adding more and more details to this man: that he went around Palestine preaching, that he had a group of disciples, that he was killed by the cross. Even on these last three pieces of news that I have added, we are in the same situation, since two thousand years ago in Palestine dozens of people went around preaching, dozens of people had their group of disciples, hundreds of people were killed through the method of the cross. We would therefore be suspicious if someone wanted to tell us that two thousand years ago in Palestine no one was preaching, no one made disciples, no one was ever put on the cross. So far, therefore, the problem becomes quite different: we are forced to ask ourselves not if Jesus existed, but if anything, how many Jesus existed in Palestine two thousand years ago, with characteristics more or less similar to those we find in the Gospels.
The question changes if, in this progressive increase in the attributes of Jesus, we begin to add miracles, the supernatural. At this point, however, the correct question becomes: has historical science ever admitted the existence of supernatural phenomena or supernatural people? The answer, of course, is no, since the very word "supernatural" is meaningless to science. This last reflection forces us to take another thing into account: in the question of whether Jesus existed or not, it is necessary to keep in mind who we intend to address it to: the result of addressing it to a scientist will be different from the result of addressing it to somebody else, for example to a poet.
Conclusion: asking in a pure and simple way whether Jesus existed or not is a question that doesn’t make sense, because it does not take into account two essential elements: 1) what we are talking about, that is, which attributes we intend to refer to the person who are we calling "Jesus"? 2) To whom do we intend to address the question?
In other words: the question whether Jesus existed, formulated in a hasty way, is suitable only for certain television broadcasts, in which the purpose is to have heated debates, but without ever clarifying anything, rather creating the maximum possible confusion, because otherwise the show ends and there is no more fun.

I can't see why inserting philosophy leads to confusion — Jack Cummins

:up: I can't see anything negative about philosophy either. Besides, it's a personal choice. I for one, would introduce philosophy into politics, arts, and all aspects of life. Isn't this what true philosophy is supposed be about?

:up:

Karen Armstrong suggests the importance of contemplation of texts. — Jack Cummins

I've read Ms. Armstrong and she clearly does not mean philosophical contemplation (i.e. critical-hermeneutic à la Spinoza, Hume, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Bultmann ...) when she says "contemplation".

I think that the centre of any ethics of from the NT has to be that of loving others as oneself. Sometimes, I think that people forget that a starting point for loving others is to love oneself. Also, I don't think loving oneself and others is a simple task. — Jack Cummins

I think you hit the nail on the head there. St Augustine in City of God points out that you can't truly love others unless you love yourself because only self-love and knowledge of what is good for you can teach you how to love and be good to others. And vice-versa, as Socrates would have put it, you are good to others because that is good for you.

But as Augustine says, in order to properly love yourself, you must first love God. And Socrates would have agreed because God or the Divine (to theion) is Goodness, Beauty, and Truth as well as Justice and Wisdom. By learning to love those qualities you learn how to love them in and for yourself and in and for others.

Here Augustine makes an important observation:

"Thus, if a man knows how to love himself, the commandment to love his neighbour bids him to do all he can to bring his neighbour to love God. This is the worship of God; this is true religion; this is the right kind of devotion" (City of God, X 3).

This is why Jesus said: ''You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).

The Law includes the Decalogue or ten injunctions to love your father and mother, abstain from committing murder, theft, adultery, perjury, etc. It may not seem like much, but I think it can be used as a good foundation for a basic moral philosophy.

I've read Ms. Armstrong and she clearly does not mean philosophical contemplation (i.e. critical-hermeneutic à la Spinoza, Hume, Feuerbach, Nietzsche, Bultmann ...) when she says "contemplation". — 180 Proof

I think the point was that NT passages may be approached in different ways at different times. Sometimes through contemplation, other times through critical reading. Two different things, no?

A critical difference is that philosophy relies on reason, the biblical religions on revelation. What is known as the problem of "Athens and Jerusalem".

A critical difference is that philosophy relies on reason, the biblical religions on revelation. — Fooloso4

However, the two are not mutually exclusive. There have always been philosophers who practice religion and religious people who practice philosophy. The Church Fathers are a good example. Christianity brings Athens and Jerusalem together.

I think that the issue of the supernatural is one of the aspects of The Bible which many people have difficulty with, including miracles. However, there are people in modern times who claim to have experienced miraculous dealings. The example which I am thinking of is those who have experienced healings in the holy waters at Lourdes. Of course, many visit Lourdes and are disappointed because they don't get healed but, on the other hand, people have spoken of healings there and that is why the place has become renouned. But I am aware that many people would argue that miracles are not possible scientifically, and would suggest that there must be some other explanation.

I think that the problem of supernatural and miracles is all about the context of mentalities where they are supposed to happen. The more we are severe, critical, scientific, the less we see miracles, and viceversa. But I disagree also with those who despise those people who are not so severe, those people who are superstitious: it is evident that supestitions, naiveties, lies, actually are able to reveal a lot about our human psichology, our needs, our mechanism, symbols, meanings.
So, I think that both people, those who want to proof and those who want to disproof miracles, miss something essential, that is humanity, the richness of human soul. I think that the important question is not if a miracle happened or didn’t happen: the only utility of such discussions is just to reveal who is scientifically severe and who isn’t. But myths, stories, fantasies, are for me like a treasure that can unveil our humanity.

Well for one the name Jesus couldn't of existed untill 1535ish because the letter j didn't exist untill around 1535. So there's a good possibility that the name Jesus was fabricated at the time of the making of the original king James bible .

My discussion was about Palestine, I referred the English transcription “Jesus” just to make things simple. So, I actually was referring to the Hebrew version of the name: the discussion was about the existence of Jesus: the English version of his name doesn’t matter.

I think that the ten commandments can be seen as a basis for laws, as derived from Moses. Jesus was emphasising the importance of the first two commandments. Writers such as Augustine can be compared to Socrates in emphasising wisdom and being pious. However, we could say that there has been an different trend, towards an emphasis in social justice in more recent thinking, especially in the trend of liberation theology, which focuses on the alleviation of suffering.

I don't think that it is particularly helpful to focus on proving or disproving miracles, and any experience of these which people have are probably best appreciated on a subjective basis. I also agree that the mythic dimension of life do provide treasures and I think that this aspect of life is undervalued by many. It is probably most understood and appreciated within the arts.

So, I actually was referring to the Hebrew version of the name — Angelo

Just as a general observation, I don’t think the original was Hebrew, more likely it was Aramaic or even a Hellenized form of it. In any case, the NT has the Greek version Ἰησοῦς Iēsoûs (something like Yeh-soos/Ee-soos in Modern English pronunciation) that was rendered as Jesus in Latin and other West European languages.

But I agree that, whilst being cautious about obvious cases of "superstition", we should keep an open mind about reports of miracles and show respect for what people feel to be genuine experience. Miracles have been reported by intelligent and educated people, not just the ignorant and the superstitious.

It's Hebrew, it means "God saves". Why should it be Aramaic?

Aramaic was the everyday language. Hebrew was used for religious purposes. So, the name is more likely to have been Aramaic even if it was Hebrew originally.

For example, if an English person has the English name "John", then John would be an English name even if originally (many centuries ago) it was a Hebrew one.

In any case, the NT was written in Greek, so it has the Hellenized or Greek version of the name.

Yeah. As per the OP, only philosophical contemplation of the Bible / NT is relevant. @Jack Cummins, maybe you too, seem to drift changing the topic's goal posts, as it were, which is okay, but I'm off the bus before any quixotic or anachronistic detours.

As per the OP, only philosophical contemplation of the Bible / NT is relevant. — 180 Proof

Lol I think "only" was inserted by your good self.

@Jack is an open-minded kind of person with a wide range of interests and perspectives. And as I said, he was referring to "contemplation" and "critical reading" as two equally important, yet different, approaches to the NT text.

But you're more than welcome to jump back on the bus. After reciting some prayers and engaging in the vita contemplativa for an adequate period of time, of course.

I am sorry if I am sending you off the bus, and I do wish to keep the discussion on the philosophical. But, the Bible is a big topic and I wish to look at it as fully as possibly can. I have a couple more books which I wish to bring into the thread but will not do so until Monday because I am at my mother's house. Generally, my own approach is about trying to use ideas in books as a basis for critical discussion, as when philosophy is just talking purely on the basis of one's own ideas I don't think it goes as far as when it involves considering specific ideas of writers.

I have a couple more books which I wish to bring into the thread but will not do so until Monday — Jack Cummins

Only a couple? @180 might be disappointed to hear that. But I'm sure he'll be hopping back on the bus at the next opportunity. At any rate, I tend to think that detours are what makes a bus journey, and life, more interesting. So, do continue reading and inform us of your new findings that we can discuss in due course :up:

There's a good reason a philosophical approach is so reflectively selective in sorting-out non-probative (uncorroborable, only subjective/affective, figurative) from probative (corroborable, reflective/more-than-subjective, conceptual) sources for critical-hermeneutic examination and dialectics: the latter is public data-rich and the former is merely anecdotal. 'Other approaches' are, well, not philosophical and, therefore, of much less relevance or significance to understanding this topic philosophically.

The blue bus
is calllin' us ...
Driver
where are you
takin' us?

I want it, I want it, I want it, I waaaant it ... (You caaaaan't have it!) — old skoOl ...

I don't think so: a merely rational, critical, scientific approach to the Bible is at risk of missing a lot of connections because it is less connected with our humanity, emotions, psichology, sensitivity, it doesn't listen to the deepest echoes that the text is able to recall from our humanity. Obviously, after a meaning has been sensed by a spiritual approach to the biblical text, it needs to be reexamined with the critical and scientific instruments available to us. It's like commenting art pieces: you can't grasp most meanings and connections if you limit yourself to a rational and critical perspective. In art as well, as I said, we then need the critical scrutiny to avoid talking about ourselves rather than about the art object. I'm sure this applies to philosophy as well.

Yeah. As per the OP, only philosophical contemplation of the Bible / NT is relevant. Jack Cummins, maybe you too, seem to drift changing the topic's goal posts, as it were, which is okay, but I'm off the bus before any quixotic or anachronistic detours. — 180 Proof

Good decision. It seems that this is turning into more of a full analysis of the Bible:

I am sorry if I am sending you off the bus, and I do wish to keep the discussion on the philosophical. But, the Bible is a big topic and I wish to look at it as fully as possibly can. I have a couple more books which I wish to bring into the thread but will not do so until Monday because I am at my mother's house. Generally, my own approach is about trying to use ideas in books as a basis for critical discussion, as when philosophy is just talking purely on the basis of one's own ideas I don't think it goes as far as when it involves considering specific ideas of writers. — Jack Cummins

This could be the longest thread ever - the 'specific ideas of writers' contained within:
http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/Bible_Verses.asp

Quite the ride...
First stop, the Creation of Philosophical Concepts, Genesiis 1.
http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org/Bible_Verses.asp#Genesis_1_-_The_Creation_of_Philosophical_Concepts

We can always be tourists:
'Hop-On, Hop-Off' as the mood takes ya' :wink:

Our hop-on, hop-off London bus tours give you the flexibility to plan your day, your way. You can choose to stay on board the entire route and let us take you for a scenic spin, or hop-off at the destinations you want to further explore. Once you've seen it, done it and selfied it, you simply wait for the next bus to come along to rejoin the tour. — bigbus tours/ hop-on-hop-off- London

Wouldn't recommend the London one - stuck in polluted traffic jams. Best to explore on foot or public transport. Just like Rome...you see the best bits D.I.Y. with a Roman :cool:

Mais, chacun à son goût...bon voyage...

Thanks for the links, I have just woken up but I will read them. I don't know how far this thread will go because I only started it about 5 days ago. Going back to Proof's idea of the bus it depends on which passengers get on and off. I would have thought that some analysis of The Bible is worthwhile as there are threads devoted to the works of Plato. It is not as if I am approaching the topic with a set agenda, and I do like to encourage discussion from those of varying viewpoints because I think it builds balanced dialogue.

I will probably not be writing much on the thread today because I am going on the train back to London this afternoon. I am hoping that my thread can last for a few more days at least, but this does depend on who is engaged, as in a way all these threads are a bit like mystery tours.

I am hoping for some discussion from outside of mere textual analysis of The Bible. I am not a theologian and have more of a humanities and psychology perspective. I do have some ideas which I do wish to contribute but it will probably be some time tomorrow, because I am busy most of today and the books which I wish to look at are in my room in London. I will put in an entry some time tomorrow because I do need to look at a book or two to see what is appropriate for the thread. I am wishing for any discussion to be critical in nature, but it does depend partly on the various angles of anyone who engages in the thread.

I see that http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org says “Welcome to the website that is committed to the inerrancy of the Bible”: this makes me think that actually it has nothing to do with philosophy, nor with the Bible, because it, instead of trying to listen to philosophy and biblical texts, makes the prior choice of listening first to its pre-set idea of considering the Bible immune from errors.
Besides, it seems obvious to me that Jack and other people have no intention to explore every detail and every problem related to the Bible and to philosophy: it should be clear that the aim of this thread is not to be an encyclopedia. Rather, it can be very fruitful in exploring some essential, crucial and indeed very interesting questions about some connections between philosophy and the Bible.

I think that I probably have a slightly wider view of philosophy than you do because even I look at philosophy texts I do believe in drawing on ideas from related fields. I don't think philosophy can be boxed off. Also, I do think that the line between contemplation and critical thinking is absolute because we engage with writing and ideas on an aesthetic level. For example, I think that the ideas of Nietzsche work better as an art form rather than simply at the conceptual level.

Of course, I and, I am sure others don't have time to build an encyclopediac thread . I will look at it, and I am hope to try to draw out ideas which are worth discussing in the thread, in conjunction with any who engage in it while it lasts.

I see that http://www.biblicalphilosophy.org says “Welcome to the website that is committed to the inerrancy of the Bible”: this makes me think that actually it has nothing to do with philosophy, nor with the Bible, — Angelo

That's not what I saw. Perhaps read on...

Welcome to the website that is committed to the inerrancy of the Bible and its total sufficiency within a philosophical discussion of Christianity. “In Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” wrote the Apostle Paul (Colossians 2:3). On the one hand, many Christians see philosophy (etymology, “love of wisdom”) as a discipline that attacks our Lord Jesus Christ, the Bible, and His people. On the other hand, many Christian philosophers see philosophy as more important than the Scriptures. So, what about a Christian philosophy or Biblical philosophy? Could either of these be consistent with Biblical teaching and with scholarly philosophy? — biblical philosophy

One of the great divisions among Christians who work in philosophy, Biblical philosophy, or Christian apologetics is over presuppositionalism and evidentialism (see below). It will not take much reading on this site to know that I am a convinced presuppositionalist. Simply, one must assume something to have anywhere concrete to begin. René Descartes said, “I think, therefore I am.” Augustine of Hippo said, “I believe in order to understand.” Socrates said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Or, one can say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Or, you can choose your own place to start. I have reviewed what some of these starting points might be.

Thus, I prefer “Biblical philosophy,” rather than “Christian philosophy.” My most basic presupposition is that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, that it is the only source of truth that anyone will know in this earthly life, and that it is sufficient for everything that anyone needs to know. "The Bible is true about everything to which it speaks, and it speaks to everything." — biblical philosophy

it seems obvious to me that Jack and other people have no intention to explore every detail and every problem related to the Bible and to philosophy — Angelo

Yes indeed. Life is too short even for angels :halo:

... as if philosophy isn't metadiscursive and is merely relative to any and all other object-discourses. :roll: Fashionably ahistorical p0m0. Yes, mate, yours is a "wider road" than mine ... Other adjacent sources, while data-rich and not just anecdotal, may be informative but not determinative of (or focused on) conceptual reflections on, or interpretations of, the topic at hand. For my shekels, Jack, in light of your discussion-lead the title of this thread is misleading; you're after 'multidisciplinary readings' of the Christian Bible, etc which, IMO, has little-to-nothing philosophical to do with the positive development of (moral) philosophy, either in theory or practice, in Western societies. Apologies for repeating myself.