Hubert Dreyfus - The Gospel of John

This is the fourth series of lectures in Dreyfus' course called "Man, God, and Society in Western Literature - From Gods to God and Back", which covers philosophical issues as expressed in poetry, drama, and the novel. This course will compare and contrast the Greek, Medieval, and modern worlds, as reflected in their greatest literature, with special emphasis on the role of the community in reconciling conflicts between sub-groups in society and the individual's ability to understand and control his own life.
Lecture 1: 00:00
Lecture 2: 01:17:03
The New Testament, Lattimore translation: amzn.to/2RIcrDB
All Things Shining: Reading the Western Classics to Find Meaning in a Secular Age by Hubert Dreyfus: amzn.to/2LxaliL
A Companion to Phenomenology and Existentialism by Hubert Dreyfus: amzn.to/2PFzdIx

[@m.b.crawford5464]

This is the best non-Christian handling of Jesus I’ve come across. Most academics who teach theological subjects, especially Christianity, start from the supposition that what is being talked about is archaic and not critically relevant to a modern life; they’re only teaching it for historical purposes. For example, professors that teach the Bible only as a literary object. To strip a religious text of its religiosity is absurd. This a ridiculous way to teach anything, let alone the most impactful worldview of all time. Dreyfus isn’t a theologian, and you should know you’re not getting the whole story here, but you can sense his willingness to give himself completely over to his subject and allow the transmission of whatever truths reveal themselves. This is what it means to be a real intellectual. Dreyfus’ only agenda appears to be a real understanding of the topic at hand.

[@goodide3552]

Awesome

[@piushalg8175]

All evangelists were highly trained greek speaking people. The gospels were written anonyosly and their names were added later.

[@Amfortas]

A debated claim at best

[@piushalg8175]

@@Amfortas Debated in which respect?

[@skadiwarrior2053]

@@Amfortas The Gospels were written in Greek so that might tell you something.

[@piushalg8175]

@Anonymous Stranger I do not remember. But I gues I referred to my knowledge aquired from professor Bart Ehrman, a scolar of the New Testament. So I did not give some sort of personal opinion like mr Dreyfus who is certainly not a scholar of the New Testament At least I also do not remember him saying so.

[@ElonMuskrat-my8jy]

​@@piushalg8175Bart Ehrman is a fool, not a scholar.

[@myles_lynn]

Dreyfus is certainly brilliant, but this is a rather disappointing understanding and interpretation. Dreyfus obviously doesn't seem to have a historical understanding of what Christ is supposed to represent in relation to the rest of Jewish conception. Jesus isn't supposed to be interpreted as a type of fallen, mysterious, quasi-God-philosopher or as a work of art uncovering being, but as a fulfillment of Jewish prophecies that were coming through the lineage of Abraham and King David. Christ is supposed to be seen as the physical embodiment of this Jewish fulfillment and promise. Or, if you want to put the Incarnation in existentialist terms, the actualization of Logos in the world as a means of rightfully interpreting existence. His disciples couldn't understand him because they already had preconceived notions of what the Messiah was to accomplish in light of their own context, which to them the Messiah was to bring about a restructuring order of Israel through zealot means against the oppression of the Roman empire, to establish a new physical religious-society in reference to King David. Whereas Jesus demolished that conception entirely when he instead debated with the religious leaders, performed miracles and healings, taught truths on how one should live, then died on the cross for deconstructing all the dogmatic Jewish understandings of how they should religiously act in favor of advocating meekness, love, and humility. Jesus was in a sense a very radical Jewish prophet culminating these prophecies as a prophet, exclaiming himself to be God as flesh, which the disciples did actually come to understand even more so after his resurrection and reproduced this understanding in written form. Whether you take his rather metaphysical claims as the God-man to redeem the sins of the world is another discussion entirely and should be left up to individuals themselves to decide in faith, but Jesus certainly isn't supposed to be understood as only a work of art uncovering the reality of being.

[@hakmagui9842]

I think you are being overly reactionary to what Hubert was getting at on account of your dogmatism. He wasn't trying to override or replace the classical Christian interpretation of the Gospel of John, he was trying to teach his class existentialism through looking at the writings of people from an existentialist lens i.e. that these writers were grappling with their circumstances/existence. You can see this by how he is analogizing the gospel with the philosophy of ancient greeks which he went over earlier with Homer and Aeschylus despite Homer and John having two completely different outlooks on life. He is comparing human experience (reflections on existence) to teach his class existentialism. What Jesus was supposed to be isn't the point; the point is how does his experience teach us more about our own? The dogmatic approach is too exclusive of human experience; it sort of assumes human experience is not necessary or the starting point, only objective revelation which configures human experience much like you would configure a machine with code, which is an idea that goes directly against existentialism.

[@ElonMuskrat-my8jy]

Christ is the Incarnate God-man. Any other view is false.

[@ElonMuskrat-my8jy]

Christ is the Incarnate God-man. Any other view is false.