These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute. Lecture 15 Outline of Last Lecture I. The context II. Jesus as an Apocalypticist III. Jesus’ Apocalyptic message IV. Conclusion Outline of Current Lecture II. Review: Jesus the apocalypticist III. The historian and the problem of miracle IV. Jesus’ deeds and activities V. The associations and disputes of Jesus Current Lecture Reli 104 1st EditionI. Review: Jesus the Apocalypticist - last lecture-talked about what we can say that Jesus taught and said. Major disputes on this by scholars. Disagreements among scholars-area where you have to make up own mind - best approach to making up mind about important topic is not to assume that what your Sunday school teacher said. Making up own mind means THINKING about it, looking at evidence, weighing probabilitites and making probable judgments (just cause mom said this doesn’t make it so. Make up own mind) - have to have historical criteria to know about historical Jesus - Jesus best understood as apocalyptisist. Apocalyptisism is world view by ancient people-forces against god that are alined against god and they are making them suffer. If you side with god in this world, you will suffer/be penalized. God though is soon to intervene to overthrow forces of evil and bring good kingdom to earth. No more starvation, hurricants, tsunamis, murder, war, hatred; it will be perfect utopian kingdom. Going to come very soon - gods kingdom is about to arrive, going to happen any day-also view of jesus himself. View found in oldest sources on Jesus lips. Point of view found in gospel of Mark, Q, M, Lin oldest sources that this is what he was preaching. - Jesus was almost certainly apocalypticist-many scholars think this II. The Historian and the Problem of Miracle-talking about what jesus did - When talking about what he did, confronted with problem with miracle; page after page Jesus does miracles. He is born miraculously, he spends his life doing miracles, casting out demons, healing sick, calming storm, raising dead, raised from the dead. - if you talking about what the bible says, need to talk about miracles the whole time - not interested in how they are portraying Jesus, but what really happened in history. Problem when it comes to historians talking about miracles (of Jesus, Muhamad, ect). Whole chapter (16) but kind of complicated - The problem of miracle: two sets o The problem of Presuppositions-don’t think it is possible for anyone (you, me, anyone) to approach history without presuppositions. All of us have presuppositions (assume things about the world). Question is whether there are presuppositions that are appropriate for the task or not. Have to have presuppositions that are appropriate for the task. Some of historians presuppositions are appropriate, some are inappropriate. Presupposition-assume things are true. Some things they have to assume are true. Example-appropriate thing: the past happened (assume it did but cant prove it did; cant prove the past). There are some kidns of evidence to show us what happened in the past (cant show for certainty). Certain things from the past that can show things probably having happened (evidence). Assume things are more probable than others (game yesterday or 300 years ago). Somethings are probable some aren’t. certain presuppositions historians cant have. Cant presuppose something as a historian that isn’t presupposed by community of historians if you want to be historian. Example-historian ofWW2 that reconstruct what happened. Always point out that allies beat axis powers. What if you had historian who wrote that Allies won because martians empowered them to win. Wont find it cause it presupposes things that historians don’t generally presuppose-presupposes life on other plantes more intelligent than life on our planet, that they sometimes intervene-might be true but you cant presuppose them cause not generally held by scholars throughout the world. Can you presuppose that the god of Israel intervened in history and raised him from the dead-not b/c it concerns theological views that arnt held but all. Cant presuppose theological views when doing historycant claim that God of Israel did great miracle that Jesus rose from dead b/c it is presupposing theological - the Historical problem o what historians do: establish what “most probably”happened in the past. All you can docant prove what happened in past in scientific way b/c its not a scientific method o problem with past is that experiment cant be repeated. When past happens, its over and done withgone/doesn’t exist anymore. Cant repeat past so cant engage in scientific experiement in pastcan only established what probably happened o what are miracles: "Least probably" occurances; 7 billion people in the world, how many can walk on the water-none. What would be the odds if one person could do it-1/7billion. If somebody did, the chances would be so remote that it’s a miracle. Suppose someone did a miracle and did it-probability that they did it is remote-they can never be the most probably. The least probable thing cant be the most probable thing that happened. o The dilemma: how can the “least probably” occurrence be shown “most probably to have happened *you cant o The ultimate point: history is not the past  the past is everything that happened before now. History is not the past-history is what you can show to have happened. Most of the past is inaccessible to us. Vast majority is inaccessible. It is probable that your grandfather ate something for lunch on march 23 1958. That’s probable. Can you show what he ate-probably not. How would you show it? No way to show it, don’t have any sources. So its in the past but its not history  historians deal with history, which is tiny slice of past  even though he does miracles, cant show that they happen. Historical Jesus cant be the miracle jesus (have to bracket miracles) or you arnt being historian, you are theologians III. Jesus’ Deeds and Activities: things we can say that jesus did that aren’t related to miracles. Clear that he was doing things that coincide with his apocalyptic message. The things you can establish that he did make sense in apocalyptic sense - Baptism-already shown that he was probably baptized by