Examining Thomas Brodie's Myther Arguments

Image result for Jesus in the Talmud


The last time I argued about the Jesus myth Idea I was told that there is now a serious renowned Bible Scholar who supports the Jesus myth idea, his name is Thomas Brodie. I have not been able to obtain his works as yet but I did cone across an article on a blog by someone named Tom Dystra, who argues for Brodie's work[1] .Dystra takes Brodie's side against Bart Ehrman, I will discuss his arguments about Brodie and Ehrman.
Ehrman’s key point was the existence of multiple independent witnesses to the historical Jesus.  He considered Mark, Q, L (Luke’s special material), and M (Matthew’s special material) all to be independent witnesses, and he even cited the Gospel of Thomas and later sources such as Papias, Ignatius, and 1 Clement. Brodie argues that none of these are genuinely independent witnesses.  All of the New Testament sources are actually dependent on Old Testament texts and each other, and later sources are dependent on the New Testament. As for the Gospel of Thomas, dating that text early is “skating on thin ice.” [2]
That is misleading and exaggeration. Q, Mark and L are all independent of each other. They are independent of the NT since they are the foundations of it. The NT is dependent upon them rather then vice versa.None of them are genuinely independent witnesses if by that one means they exist in total isolation from all other witness, but if by that term we mean their knowledge of  the historical  exigence is first hand,  which I think is the more rational standard, then all of them are.For example if  Q is Pre Mark redaction then of course it is independent of Mark. The historical knowledge of Papas was first hand knowledge of the Apostle John and  other eye witnesses regardless of his relationship to the gospels.[3] Sources connected to gospel events through first hand relationships to eye witnesses are not dependent upon the gospels even if they read them. As far using as Gospel  of Thomas, that was given an early date and enthusiastically lauded as such by most liberal scholarship.[4] The only serious challenge to this comes from conservative  ranks,[5]

Dystra quotes Brodie attacking Ehrman's sense of historicity at a fundamental levels:  "The problem is that Rule One in any valid list of criteria for historicity would be to determine the literary context of a source, and this is missing from Ehrman’s approach.  As Brodie puts it, 'If a newspaper announces cheap flights to Mars, it is important to note whether the advertisement occurs in the Travel Section or in the Cartoons-and-Jokes Page. Clarity on the literary factor is Rule One.'" [6]  

Does Dystra think the Gospel authors were writing ancient world comic books? Fan fiction? Before the development of the adventure novel or DC comics?



If, as Brodie asserts – and he backs up his assertion with evidence – the literary context of the New Testament is historicized fiction created by rewriting Old Testament texts, Rule One trumps the other “critieria for historicity.” Sure, there are texts that speak of eye-witnesses and reliable transmission of historical data, but it is a mistake to read such a text as historical, “without asking sufficiently whether it is actually historical or whether it is simply written to look like history.” [7]
I don't think Dystra really understands what;s going on here. The importance of history-likenesses has been used by scholars for some time, but the point of it is not to argue that the authors crafted a history-like story to pass off   fictional events as real. That implies a  conspiracy theory,something most scholars abhor. Before passing judgement on Brodie in this regard (having not read him) that does seem to be where Dystra is headed and he keeps documenting Bordie as reference every step of the way:
Even such things as accurate geographical knowledge aren’t necessarily evidence of historicity – Virgil’s Aeneid also shows accurate knowledge of places.You reach different conclusions once you take into account the literary character of the New Testament books. So, for example, John Meier in A Marginal Jew interprets texts that present Jesus as a new Elijah to mean that a historical Jesus thought of himself as standing in the line of Elijah/Elisha. But the simplest explanation that fits the literary data is that “the evangelists adapted the biblical figure of Elijah to draw the picture of Jesus.” [8]
Simpler yet is the explanation that the Jews like to put real events into a contexts that reflect Biblical  events. Otherwise you have the conspirator theory of a group of authors imposing a lie upon society and conspiring to act like it's true. It makes much more sense to think that those who recorded the true story of Jesus' actual historical life,drew out the  Elijah-likeness in the events.

Apparently Brodie tries to dismiss all documentary events by tying it all to the New Testament the negating the new testament with blanket assertion that it's all forged history likeness. That raises a host of problems too complex to go into here but the main point is that everything was prophetic fulfillment. They weren't using the OT as a guide for fan fiction, they were using it as a guide to prophecy.

Brodie dismisses Josephus as an independent historical source, but for poor reasons. "Ehrman cites Josephus as another independent witness, and Brodie discounts that independence also. He points out that a genuinely independent witness generally provides information we don’t find elsewhere:" Nothing in the NT tells us James head of the Jerusalem Church, as stoned to death by the Jews that information comes from Josephus. 

There is evidence of Jesus' existence in history apart from the New Testament. This is evidence from the Talmud (Abodah Zarah,folio 16b-17a).A famous rabbi was called to account for repeating an opinion of Jesus of Nazareth that a whore's donation to the temple should be used for the priests' toilets, from filth to filth. Note new information of Jesus; teaching not related to the NT just as Brodie says historicity should  be,
Rabbi Eliezer: The Arrest Story According to a story told in three different contexts and in three different forms in rabbinic literature, Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, a late first century CE sage famous both for his memory and his religious conservativism,2 was arrested on suspicion of minut or “heresy”3 and brought before a Roman judge to be tried. He was released from the trial almost immediately, but he remained preoccupied and distressed by the accusation until his former disciple, Rabbi Akiva, managed to discover what had happened and eventually succeeded in comforting him. R. Eliezer realized that his arrest must have been caused by an accidental meeting with a disciple of “Yeshu ha-Notsri”, who had told him a teaching of his master, and this teaching had apparently pleased him. Evidently this exchange was witnessed, and either the witnesses had denounced Rabbi Eliezer to the Roman authorities or knowledge of the exchange had spread, providing an opportunity for others to denounce him. We shall, of course, comment in great detail on all this below, as we analyze the different versions of the story.[9][10]
Schwatrz and Tomson are not concerned with proof that Jesus existed, They are researching encounters between Jews and Christians in first and second century. They show Jews dealing with followers of Jesus and acting as though Jesus was a real man, it has no relation to the New Testament. This story is affirmed by German Jewish philosopher Constantine Brunner. He also alludes to the fact of Celsus studying the history of Jesus from information supplied by the Jews He offers the new information not relate to any Christian source that Mary was a hair dresser.[11] 

Origin quoting Celsus:

Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god." [12]
Those are two examples: (1) The arrest of Rabbi Eliezer, (2) Mary the hairdresser (historyofJesus given to Celsus),[13] and here is a third one:


(3)Instone-Brewer and b. Sanh. 43a 

On his video Instone-Brewer shows the censored text and the original uncensored and demonstrate the name Jesus by name list charges says he will be hanged before Passover. (hanged is crucified). He shows they changed it to stoning rather than Crucifixion to change the facts of The Romans executing him.[Tyndale house, "Expert's Evidence for Jesus Crucifixion," [14]


The Munich Talmud manuscript of at b.San.43a preserves passages censored out of printed editions, including the controversial trial of “Yeshu Notzeri”. Chronological analysis of the layers in this tradition suggests that the oldest words are: “On the eve of Passover they hung Jesus of Nazareth for sorcery and leading Israel astray”. This paper argues that other words were added to this tradition in order to overcome three difficulties: a trial date during a festival; the unbiblical method of execution; and the charge of "sorcery" which implies that Jesus’ miracles were genuine because illusions were not punishable by death.  [15]
"Hung" meant crucified. Here we have three examples of Jesus documented to be known as historical to the Jews of first century Palestine and not connected to new testament at all provoking new information as fits Brodie's criteria.
I;ve written another essay on the o  Instone-Brewer article see teh link
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/04/peter-kirbys-straw-man-best-case-for.html




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus
Virtually all scholars who write on the subject agree that Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8]














[1]Tom Dystra, "Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus–Review of Thomas Brodie’s New Book
" Mandatory for Decent human Life (2015)
https://tomdykstra.wordpress.com/2012/12/25/beyond-the-quest-for-the-historical-jesusreview-of-thomas-brodies-new-book/

[2] Ibid

[3] Joseph Hinman, "Debate with Bowen: Testimony of Papias Validated: The Religious a priori, (2716)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/photo-authorbauckhamzpstjbww5ohpng.html

[4]Simeon Burke,"when was the Gospel of Thomas Written?" Bible Odyssey (2018)
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/tools/ask-a-scholar/gospel-of-thomas (accessed Nov 5,18 )


[5]Ibid


[6] Dystra quotes Brodie(122)

[7] Ibid

[8] Dystra cites  Brodie (158)
[9]JOSHUA SCHWARTZ and PETER J. TOMSON, "When Rabbi Eliezer Was Arrested For Herasy," Originally published  JSIJ, 10 (2012) 145-181 PDF
http://jewish-faculty.biu.ac.il/files/jewish-faculty/shared/JSIJ5/schwartzandtomson.pdf

[10] Abodah Zarah,folio 16b-17a
This is a Talmudic reference ccan be found on the net: http://www.come-and-hear.com/zarah/zarah_17.html


Our Rabbis taught: When R. Eliezer was arrested because of Minuth they brought him up to the tribune to be judged. Said the governor to him, 'How can a sage man like you occupy himself with those idle things?' He replied, 'I acknowledge the Judge as right.' The governor thought that he referred to him — though he really referred to his Father in Heaven — and said, 'Because thou hast acknowledged me as right, I pardon; thou art acquitted.' When he came home, his disciples called on him to console him, but he would accept no consolation. Said R. Akiba to him, 'Master, wilt thou permit me to say one thing of what thou hast taught me?' He replied, 'Say it.' 'Master,' said he, 'perhaps some of the teaching of the Minim had been transmitted to thee and thou didst approve of it and because of that thou wast arrested?' He exclaimed: 'Akiba thou hast reminded me.' I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name, who said to me: It is written in your Torah, Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot … into the house of the Lord thy God. May such money be applied to the erection of a retiring place for the High Priest? To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught by Jesus the NazareneFor of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return. They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth. Those words pleased me very much, and that is why I was arrested for apostacy; for thereby I transgressed the scriptural words, Remove thy way far from her— which refers to minuth — and come not nigh to the door of her house, — which refers to the ruling power.—Abodah Zarah,folio 16b-17

[11] Constantin Brunner, "appendix on Criticism.."Info online resource
http://constantinbrunner.info/sbise/1/200503150938.htm  (accessed 6/15/16);
see also Peter Shafer, Jesus's in the Talmud: Princeton Township:Princeton University Press, 2007

he discusses the passage  Abodah Zarah,folio 16b-17a:


The passage in Avodah zavah 16a deserves special attention: it is the most remarkable reference to Jeshua in the talmudic tractates, ascribing to him as it does a certain spiritual significance. It speaks of him as one who taught; things learned from him had come down, through his disciple Jacob of the village of Zechania, to Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, who adopted this tradition. In fact, Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus was one of the most distinguished Tannaim, the brother-in-law of the Patriarch Gamaliel II.; he was also called Eliezer the Great. And so this Rabbi Eliezer, who lived in the first Christian century, speaks of an opinion of Christ which had come down to him from a disciple of Christ (and some identified this Jacob with  Christ's brother). This seems to me to be an important fact, particularly as it touches Christ's historical reality, and I find it astonishing that the critics have thus far paid no attention to it. Moreover, it is more than probable that important, really important sayings of Christ (not under his own name, of course) are contained in Talmud and Midrash. There are plenty of sayings and parables of great clarity, beauty and dignity which could have come from his mouth.[Constantin Brunner,info, Website, accessed 6/20/16 URL: see above] 
[12]Origin quoting Celsus, On the True Doctrine, translated by R. Joseph Hoffman, Oxford University Press, 1987, 59

[13]"Supposed by Tosah, to be the Mother of Jesus; cf. Shab. 104b in the earlier uncensored editions. Her description Megaddela (hairdresser) is connected by some with the name of Mary Magdalene whose name was confused with the name of Mary, the mother of Jesus." This is just a snkipit to show what it's about.This is the one Celsus said the Jews provided him and said it was real dirt on Jesus.

[14]ou Tube, URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF0egAzJ7bw accessed 6/20/16]

[15] David Instone-Brewer, "Jesus of Nazareth’s Trial in Sanhedrin 43a " PdF

http://legacy.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Instone-Brewer/prepub/Sanhedrin%2043a%20censored.pdf  (accessed Nov3,2018)

Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament, Tyndale House, Cambridge.



Comments

im-skeptical said…
Q, Mark and L are all independent of each other.
- That's a bold assertion. Most scholars think that Luke (L) and Matthew (M) are based on common sources, which are taken to be Mark and Q, if indeed there is such a thing. The evidence for the existence of Q is very thin. We have no no documentary evidence of it whatsoever. It is only a hypothetical construct to explain the differences between Mark and the other synoptic gospels.


Note new information of Jesus ... R. Eliezer realized that his arrest must have been caused by an accidental meeting with a disciple of “Yeshu ha-Notsri”, who had told him a teaching of his master, and this teaching had apparently pleased him.
- This was late first century. The rabbi didn't speak of meeting Jesus. He spoke of meeting a Christian (disciple of Jesus). By that time, there were quite a few Christians, and the myths about Jesus had already become widespread. I don't see how this can be seen as any kind of independent confirmation of Jesus' historicity.

Origin quoting Celsus ...
- Celsus was far removed from the lifetime of Jesus (late 2nd century). Once again, the Jesus myths and gospels were well-known by that time. How can you claim that this would be an independent source? Most real scholars would take issue with that.

Joe Hinman said…
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Q, Mark and L are all independent of each other.

- That's a bold assertion. Most scholars think that Luke (L) and Matthew (M) are based on common sources, which are taken to be Mark and Q, if indeed there is such a thing. The evidence for the existence of Q is very thin. We have no no documentary evidence of it whatsoever. It is only a hypothetical construct to explain the differences between Mark and the other synoptic gospels.

Wrong! First L is not Luke it's the spherical material that is unique to Luke and nothing else,so it's not part of Q or the other asymptotic. Secondly Q is solid, it has the confidence of all of liberal scholarship. When i went to Perkins I knew Bill Farmer the champion of the anti-Q faction if he did not perused me to turn against Q nothing will


Note new information of Jesus ... R. Eliezer realized that his arrest must have been caused by an accidental meeting with a disciple of “Yeshu ha-Notsri”, who had told him a teaching of his master, and this teaching had apparently pleased him.

- This was late first century. The rabbi didn't speak of meeting Jesus. He spoke of meeting a Christian (disciple of Jesus). By that time, there were quite a few Christians, and the myths about Jesus had already become widespread. I don't see how this can be seen as any kind of independent confirmation of Jesus' historicity.

you missed the point, He;w quoting a teaching by the Rabbinical leader of a sect that's not in the Bible meaning Jesus was such a Rabbinical leader and had large body of teachings that we don't oven know about to think a mere fictional hero in a novel council be developed into that never having had anyone who claimed to have known him personally is incredulous.

It does;t say he lived in late second century the decline could have known Jesus

Obviously the Jews knew him to be a historical figure.


Origin quoting Celsus ...


- Celsus was far removed from the lifetime of Jesus (late 2nd century). Once again, the Jesus myths and gospels were well-known by that time. How can you claim that this would be an independent source? Most real scholars would take issue with that.

Celsus claimed to have been given the secret history of Jesus by the Jews and the things he says about it show it was the same Taludic sources I've talked about proving those source existed early on and the Jew considered then historically actuate, they didn;t just make them up foh in they had existed for sun tine

you are not even dealing with the tried one that's proven strongly proven. Instone-Brewer thinks they are quoting from the charge sheets against Jesus,

im-skeptical said…
Wrong! First L is not Luke it's the spherical material that is unique to Luke and nothing else
- This is just another way of saying that L is the additional material that Luke added on his own. L is Luke.

Secondly Q is solid, it has the confidence of all of liberal scholarship.
- Excuse me, but scholars agree that Q is hypothetical. There is no manuscript source, no mentions of it or references to it, and no historical evidence of any kind, other than the gospels of Matthew and Luke. I would agree that Q might be real in some sense. That would most likely be the evolving oral tradition of the early church. Q adds elements to the mythos that didn't exist when Mark was written. There is no reason whatsoever to think that it might have preceded Mark.

you missed the point, He;w quoting a teaching by the Rabbinical leader of a sect that's not in the Bible meaning Jesus was such a Rabbinical leader and had large body of teachings that we don't oven know about
- You missed the point. By the end of the first century, there was a growing body of material surrounding the story of Jesus, his life and his teachings. The simple fact that there was a Christian at the time who believed it says nothing about the historicity of Jesus.

It does;t say he lived in late second century the decline could have known Jesus
- I said late first century. And the possibility that this disciple could have known Jesus is there, but it's just a possibility, and nor very likely. Plenty of people would have called themselves disciples of Jesus simply because they were Christians.

Obviously the Jews knew him to be a historical figure.
- The documentary evidence doesn't support that. You can't show me the direct historical references to the man himself, because they don't exist. The best you can do is show a few oblique references.

Celsus claimed to have been given the secret history of Jesus by the Jews
- Secret history of Jesus? I have no idea where you get that. Celsus was a strong critic of Christianity. "He wrote that some Jews said Jesus' father was actually a Roman soldier named Pantera." Origen disputed much of what Celsus wrote about Jesus, and the church suppressed and banned it.

you are not even dealing with the tried one that's proven strongly proven. Instone-Brewer thinks they are quoting from the charge sheets against Jesus
- "Strongly proven"? The Babylonian Talmud was NOT contemporary with Jesus. It is just another case of capturing the stories in writing, long after the historical fact. And one might ask, why didn't this story show up in the Jerusalem Talmud?
Joe Hinman said…
Blogger im-skeptical said...
Wrong! First L is not Luke it's the special material that is unique to Luke and nothing else

- This is just another way of saying that L is the additional material that Luke added on his own. L is Luke.


look at your original statement: "That's a bold assertion. Most scholars think that Luke (L) and Matthew (M) are based on common sources, which are taken to be Mark and Q," You say there L and M are Mark and Q they are not. The point is in both cases they are special material that is neither in Mark nor Q, you got it the opposite of what it is


Secondly Q is solid, it has the confidence of all of liberal scholarship.

- Excuse me, but scholars agree that Q is hypothetical. There is no manuscript source, no mentions of it or references to it, and no historical evidence of any kind, other than the gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Excuse me wed are talking about textual criticism archaeology, you cannot show me a liberal believing scholar who does not accept Q.


I would agree that Q might be real in some sense. That would most likely be the evolving oral tradition of the early church. Q adds elements to the mythos that didn't exist when Mark was written. There is no reason whatsoever to think that it might have preceded Mark.

It's independent from previous sources and tell us new information, It fit's Brodie's criteria.Of course it proceeded Mark. In the standard dating scheme there's only about five years difference in Mark and Matt so it's silly to think Q began and spread in that time. Besides the real issue is not getting back to a point closer to the original because we already know and date pre mark redaction at 50 and that is consensus. Moreover Q was probably pre Mark , some have suggested GTom.

you missed the point, He;w quoting a teaching by the Rabbinical leader of a sect that's not in the Bible meaning Jesus was such a Rabbinical leader and had large body of teachings that we don't oven know about

- You missed the point. By the end of the first century, there was a growing body of material surrounding the story of Jesus, his life and his teachings. The simple fact that there was a Christian at the time who believed it says nothing about the historicity of Jesus.

No that contradicts Doherty';s time table, all those mythers accept the 19th century late dates for Gospels. Besides where do you get the idea that the original story is late first century?

Joe Hinman said…
It does;t say he lived in late second century the decline could have known Jesus

- I said late first century. And the possibility that this disciple could have known Jesus is there, but it's just a possibility, and nor very likely. Plenty of people would have called themselves disciples of Jesus simply because they were Christians.

I meant to say first, Celsus was second, No reason to think the original story in the Talmud was not early first century. Or even if it was late it still assumes Jesus was a real guy. Baht they did so assume in late fist century is still a problem for mythers,

Obviously the Jews knew him to be a historical figure.

- The documentary evidence doesn't support that. You can't show me the direct historical references to the man himself, because they don't exist. The best you can do is show a few oblique references.

all the talmudic references refer to the man himself. The story of Eleaser refers to the man himself. the story sites by Instone-Brewer is quoting from the charge sheets don't understand what it means? It's like saying it's quoting from the mug book when he was arrested,

Celsus claimed to have been given the secret history of Jesus by the Jews

- Secret history of Jesus? I have no idea where you get that. Celsus was a strong critic of Christianity. "He wrote that some Jews said Jesus' father was actually a Roman soldier named Pantera." Origen disputed much of what Celsus wrote about Jesus, and the church suppressed and banned it.

it may be polemical But then why didn't they just say "He never existed?" Obviously they believed he did exist. The material is from Mishna that goes back to mid first century,

you are not even dealing with the tried one that's proven strongly proven. Instone-Brewer thinks they are quoting from the charge sheets against Jesus

- "Strongly proven"? The Babylonian Talmud was NOT contemporary with Jesus. It is just another case of capturing the stories in writing, long after the historical fact. And one might ask, why didn't this story show up in the Jerusalem Talmud?


Everyone knows the Jews take great pride in an oral tradition they claim has been going on since Moses and they argue that material in the Mishna goes back to first century doesn't matter when it was first wreitten down,
Joe Hinman said…
Instone-Brewer's discovery of Talmudic statements from charge sheets agaisnt Jesus


Here
im-skeptical said…
look at your original statement:
- OK. I mis-spoke (slightly). If L is the unique part of Luke, then that part of Luke wasn't derived from any other source. However, that doesn't change the fact that the book of Luke is widely believed by scholars to be mainly derived from Mark and Q. But there is no reason to think that Q is anything other than an evolved version of the gospel story as set out in Mark years earlier. In other words, Mark is the original written version of the gospel, and all of the others present evolved versions of it.

Excuse me wed are talking about textual criticism archaeology, you cannot show me a liberal believing scholar who does not accept Q.
- Excuse me, but the existence of Q as a document is nothing more than speculation, and virtually all the scholars would agree with that. Here is an article on it. The main reason for supposing it was an actual document is the similarity of various passages between Matthew and Luke. But that could just as well be explained by Luke copying from the Matthew (the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis).

It's independent from previous sources and tell us new information, It fit's Brodie's criteria.Of course it proceeded Mark. In the standard dating scheme there's only about five years difference in Mark and Matt so it's silly to think Q began and spread in that time. Besides the real issue is not getting back to a point closer to the original because we already know and date pre mark redaction at 50 and that is consensus. Moreover Q was probably pre Mark , some have suggested GTom.
- Only biased Christians try to push the date of gospels back as early as possible. The consensus among serious scholars does not date any of these documents as early as 50. In any case, for Q, it is impossible to date, because there's nothing that can be examined. All we have is speculation about what Q might have contained. There are some who think it might have pre-dated Mark, and that Mark actually drew material from Q. That might be true, especially if you consider Q to be the narrative of the early church, but then you have to recognize that the narrative evolved significantly over the years following the death of Jesus. This can be clearly seen in the gospels themselves.

No that contradicts Doherty';s time table, all those mythers accept the 19th century late dates for Gospels. Besides where do you get the idea that the original story is late first century?
- That was from your own cited text: "Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, a late first century CE sage famous both for his memory and his religious conservativism". Do you read your own material? The arrest story involved a meeting with a Christian. It happened in the late first century.

I meant to say first, Celsus was second, No reason to think the original story in the Talmud was not early first century. Or even if it was late it still assumes Jesus was a real guy. Baht they did so assume in late fist century is still a problem for mythers.
- Of course Christians believe Jesus was a real person. If you only ask Christians without looking elsewhere, the answer is a foregone conclusion. But that doesn't mean it's the correct answer. What mythicists do is to seek information from unbiased sources. And that's a problem for the Christian religionists.
im-skeptical said…
all the talmudic references refer to the man himself. The story of Eleaser refers to the man himself. the story sites by Instone-Brewer is quoting from the charge sheets don't understand what it means? It's like saying it's quoting from the mug book when he was arrested
- Charge sheets? What are you talking about? The Romans didn't keep police blotters. And you are making it sound as if there are actual records of the arrest of Jesus. There is no such thing. This story is about the arrest of the Rabbi Eliezer. It only mentions a meeting with an unknown Christian who called himself a disciple of Jesus. Eliezer liked what he heard from this Christian, and that's why he was arrested for heresy. That is an oblique reference, if ever there was one. Frankly, I don't see how you could think this helps to make any case at all for the historicity of Jesus, except for the fact that you completely fail to understand the material you cite.

it may be polemical But then why didn't they just say "He never existed?" Obviously they believed he did exist. The material is from Mishna that goes back to mid first century
- I don't know what claims Celsus made, and neither do you. His material was suppressed by the church. What we have is the writings of Origen. (And once again, I don't think you understand the material you cite.)

Everyone knows the Jews take great pride in an oral tradition they claim has been going on since Moses and they argue that material in the Mishna goes back to first century doesn't matter when it was first wreitten down
- It does matter. "Oral tradition" is notoriously plastic.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
look at your original statement:
- OK. I mis-spoke (slightly). If L is the unique part of Luke, then that part of Luke wasn't derived from any other source. However, that doesn't change the fact that the book of Luke is widely believed by scholars to be mainly derived from Mark and Q.


Obvious and irrelevant.


But there is no reason to think that Q is anything other than an evolved version of the gospel story as set out in Mark years earlier. In other words, Mark is the original written version of the gospel, and all of the others present evolved versions of it.


No sorry that's a very out dated view. First of all no reason to think Q was written after Mark. Secondly it's irrelevant, Q is not dependent upon Mark that is the issue. Third,Mark is the first of the canonical Gospels to be written but it is not the first Gospel written there is a pre Mark redaction. That dates to just 18 years after the events in the Gospels.


Excuse me wed are talking about textual criticism NOT archaeology, you cannot show me a liberal believing scholar who does not accept Q.

- Excuse me, but the existence of Q as a document is nothing more than speculation,

wrong. It;s a necessary deduction, and also a possibility since the core of GTom might be Q


Skepand virtually all the scholars would agree with that. Here is an article on it. The main reason for supposing it was an actual document is the similarity of various passages between Matthew and Luke. But that could just as well be explained by Luke copying from the Matthew (the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis).

No it can't be,the great B.H, Streeter opposed the theory for several reasons including Luke omits certain of the Mat text, Luke preserves ,more prom,primitive versions of the reading. "Along with Marcan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.[4] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was written in Koine Greek; "
source




Joe Hinman said…
JoeIt's independent from previous sources and tell us new information, It fit's Brodie's criteria.Of course it proceeded Mark. In the standard dating scheme there's only about five years difference in Mark and Matt so it's silly to think Q began and spread in that time. Besides the real issue is not getting back to a point closer to the original because we already know and date pre mark redaction at 50 and that is consensus. Moreover Q was probably pre Mark , some have suggested GTom.




- Only biased Christians try to push the date of gospels back as early as possible.

That is the date proposed by super liberals Koester and Crosson, supported by most scholars,according to ahtiest Myther Peter Kirby PMR is now consensus,


SkepThe consensus among serious scholars does not date any of these documents as early as 50.

Wromng Skepoe you don't even know what docs I'm taking about,I am Talking about the Pre Mark redaction of the passion narrative, PMRPN--from now on PMR. Crosson dates it to AD 50

In any case, for Q, it is impossible to date, because there's nothing that can be examined.

we can date it's use in the synoptics


All we have is speculation about what Q might have contained. There are some who think it might have pre-dated Mark, and that Mark actually drew material from Q. That might be true, especially if you consider Q to be the narrative of the early church, but then you have to recognize that the narrative evolved significantly over the years following the death of Jesus. This can be clearly seen in the gospels themselves.


Look at your statement? The original post is arguing against the Jesus myth idea you allude to the death of Jesus. fictional beings don't die historical deaths, Q had to be at least older than Matt or Matt could not have used it,


JoeNo that contradicts Doherty's time table, all those mythers accept the 19th century late dates for Gospels. Besides where do you get the idea that the original story is late first century?

- That was from your own cited text: "Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, a late first century CE sage famous both for his memory and his religious conservativism". Do you read your own material? The arrest story involved a meeting with a Christian. It happened in the late first century.

use your brain Skepie--late would be 80AD. In that docent Jesus is still considered a Rabbi and still an important figure in the Jewish world of ancient near east, All if which indicates there was no time for transition from fiction to quasi historical. That doesn't leave much time for the development from fictional character to historical figure, from AD70 to 89 or 90, Doherty's thinking requires over 100 year period for that.


- Of course Christians believe Jesus was a real person. If you only ask Christians without looking elsewhere, the answer is a foregone conclusion. But that doesn't mean it's the correct answer. What mythicists do is to seek information from unbiased sources. And that's a problem for the Christian religionists.


Dohortey tires to chart the evolution of Jesus in history. He allows a lot more time for development, it makes no sense to think they could go from Nark inventing the story in 70 to Jesus broadly acted as a man in history with a large following and hated by the Jews as early as AD 80.

Joe Hinman said…
Joe
all the talmudic references refer to the man himself. The story of Eleaser refers to the man himself. the story sites by Instone-Brewer is quoting from the charge sheets don't understand what it means? It's like saying it's quoting from the mug book when he was arrested



- Charge sheets? What are you talking about? The Romans didn't keep police blotters.

how do you know?

And you are making it sound as if there are actual records of the arrest of Jesus. There is no such thing. This story is about the arrest of the Rabbi Eliezer.

It only mentions a meeting with an unknown Christian who called himself a disciple of Jesus. Eliezer liked what he heard from this Christian, and that's why he was arrested for heresy. That is an oblique reference, if ever there was one. Frankly, I don't see how you could think this helps to make any case at all for the historicity of Jesus, except for the fact that you completely fail to understand the material you cite.

We are on a different story now now Einstein (there was a thord one down there) try to read all the words next time,see what you miss by not reading bottom third of the paper?



it may be polemical But then why didn't they just say "He never existed?" Obviously they believed he did exist. The material is from Mishna that goes back to mid first century

- I don't know what claims Celsus made, and neither do you. His material was suppressed by the church. What we have is the writings of Origen. (And once again, I don't think you understand the material you cite.)

We do know what he said by what was said refitting him

JoeEveryone knows the Jews take great pride in an oral tradition they claim has been going on since Moses and they argue that material in the Mishna goes back to first century doesn't matter when it was first wreitten down

- It does matter. "Oral tradition" is notoriously plastic.

No that's bull shit there's a lot of scholarship showing that they kine how to control it like thke Bards in Ireland who could memorized huge poems longer than the Iliad not miss a word,
im-skeptical said…
No sorry that's a very out dated view. First of all no reason to think Q was written after Mark. Secondly it's irrelevant, Q is not dependent upon Mark that is the issue. Third,Mark is the first of the canonical Gospels to be written but it is not the first Gospel written there is a pre Mark redaction. That dates to just 18 years after the events in the Gospels.
- Of course there are some scholars who think Q pre-dates all the gospels, and Mark is dependent on it as well (see here for example). They also concede that there are different versions of Q, which present an evolving story. If you take that view, then your whole thesis of independent sources falls apart. None of the gospels would be independent of Q, and Q equates basically to the evolving narrative of the church, whether or not it was written.

wrong. It;s a necessary deduction, and also a possibility since the core of GTom might be Q
- That depends on your view of what it is. If you think there was a written document, then it is nothing but speculation, because there is no actual evidence that this document existed.

No it can't be,the great B.H, Streeter opposed the theory for several reasons including Luke omits certain of the Mat text, Luke preserves ,more prom,primitive versions of the reading. "Along with Marcan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.[4] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was written in Koine Greek;"
- Various scholars have various hypotheses. None of them have ever been proven. You try to make it sound as if you know, but you don't.

That is the date proposed by super liberals Koester and Crosson, supported by most scholars,according to ahtiest Myther Peter Kirby PMR is now consensus
- We can all concede that there was some kind of Christian narrative before the gospels were written. We can also concede the obvious fact that it evolved with time.

Wromng Skepoe you don't even know what docs I'm taking about,I am Talking about the Pre Mark redaction of the passion narrative, PMRPN--from now on PMR. Crosson dates it to AD 50
- Purely hypothetical. If you don't think so, tell me where I can find this hypothetical document.

Look at your statement? The original post is arguing against the Jesus myth idea you allude to the death of Jesus. fictional beings don't die historical deaths, Q had to be at least older than Matt or Matt could not have used it
- Fictional beings die fictional deaths.
im-skeptical said…
use your brain Skepie--late would be 80AD. In that docent Jesus is still considered a Rabbi and still an important figure in the Jewish world of ancient near east, All if which indicates there was no time for transition from fiction to quasi historical. That doesn't leave much time for the development from fictional character to historical figure, from AD70 to 89 or 90, Doherty's thinking requires over 100 year period for that.
- That's apologetic bullshit. How long did it take Donald Trump to transform from a TV celebrity with a criminal background to the Savior of America? He has millions of true believers. The fact is that legends can arise in practically no time at all. Jesus' basic transformation from a faith healer to son of God probably happened quite quickly. Other elements of the narrative happened over many decades.

Dohortey tires to chart the evolution of Jesus in history. He allows a lot more time for development, it makes no sense to think they could go from Nark inventing the story in 70 to Jesus broadly acted as a man in history with a large following and hated by the Jews as early as AD 80.
- I don't claim the whole evolution occurred in ten years.

how do you know?
- the point is that YOU don't know.

We are on a different story now now Einstein (there was a thord one down there) try to read all the words next time,see what you miss by not reading bottom third of the paper?
- I knew which part of your article I was criticizing right from the start. Evidently, you were confused about my comments.

We do know what he said by what was said refitting him
- What we know is the the parts that were preserved in the arguments of Origen. We don't know how much other material was destroyed by the church or otherwise lost.

No that's bull shit there's a lot of scholarship showing that they kine how to control it like thke Bards in Ireland who could memorized huge poems longer than the Iliad not miss a word
- Now you're claiming that the narrative was memorized word-for-word like an epic poem and preserved intact? NOBODY believes that. If it were true, then there would be no discrepancy between the gospels. That narrative itself would eventually have been written as-is. Clearly, that never happened.
Joe Hinman said…
Joe
No sorry that's a very out dated view. First of all no reason to think Q was written after Mark. Secondly it's irrelevant, Q is not dependent upon Mark that is the issue. Third,Mark is the first of the canonical Gospels to be written but it is not the first Gospel written there is a pre Mark redaction. That dates to just 18 years after the events in the Gospels.


- Of course there are some scholars who think Q pre-dates all the gospels, and Mark is dependent on it as well (see here for example).

Skep Q is the material that Mat and Luke have in common that is not in Mark So Q cannot be dependent upon Mark, Nor is Mark dependent upon Q.

They also concede that there are different versions of Q, which present an evolving story. If you take that view, then your whole thesis of independent sources falls apart. None of the gospels would be independent of Q, and Q equates basically to the evolving narrative of the church, whether or not it was written.

there are different versions of Mark too but none of the differences are major. Since no Q sayings are in Mark he probably didn't use it at all

wrong. It;s a necessary deduction, and also a possibility since the core of GTom might be Q

- That depends on your view of what it is. If you think there was a written document, then it is nothing but speculation, because there is no actual evidence that this document existed.

It doesn;t make any difference if Q was written or oral it was a tradition that was passed on. But since GTom uses a lot Q sayings it's real possible that it used Q.

JoeNo it can't be,the great B.H, Streeter opposed the theory for several reasons including Luke omits certain of the Mat text, Luke preserves ,more prom,primitive versions of the reading. "Along with Marcan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship.[4] B. H. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was written in Koine Greek;"


- Various scholars have various hypotheses. None of them have ever been proven. You try to make it sound as if you know, but you don't.

that does not answer the argument:slough!

JoeThat is the date proposed by super liberals Koester and Crosson, supported by most scholars,according to ahtiest Myther Peter Kirby PMR is now consensus

- We can all concede that there was some kind of Christian narrative before the gospels were written. We can also concede the obvious fact that it evolved with time.

JoeWrong Skepoe you don't even know what docs I'm taking about,I am Talking about the Pre Mark redaction of the passion narrative, PMRPN--from now on PMR. Crosson dates it to AD 50


Joe Hinman said…
- Purely hypothetical.[Q] If you don't think so, tell me where I can find this hypothetical document.

At the core of the Gospel of Thomas Man. you have totally lost sight of what is at issue, if Q did not exist as an independent body of work and was just part of Matthew then that set's Matt apart from Mark as an independent historical document

You seek sounding that mantra but you but most scholars don't by that the consensus in the field is that it did exist as a bonfied body


JoeLook at your statement? The original post is arguing against the Jesus myth idea you allude to the death of Jesus. fictional beings don't die historical deaths, Q had to be at least older than Matt or Matt could not have used it


- Fictional beings die fictional deaths.

How could it have time to go from fictional to historical in 10 years?


Joe
Blogger im-skeptical said...
use your brain Skepie--late would be 80 AD. In that docent Jesus is still considered a Rabbi and still an important figure in the Jewish world of ancient near east. All if which indicates there was no time for transition from fiction to quasi historical. That doesn't leave much time for the development from fictional character to historical figure, from AD70 to 89 or 90, Doherty's thinking requires over 100 year period for that.

- That's apologetic bullshit. How long did it take Donald Trump to transform from a TV celebrity with a criminal background to the Savior of America? He has millions of true believers. The fact is that legends can arise in practically no time at all. Jesus' basic transformation from a faith healer to son of God probably happened quite quickly. Other elements of the narrative happened over many decades.

It's a sad fact bit true, trump does actually exist,He can skip over that whole process of turning fiction into history and although he's turning propaganda fiction into rhetoric,Trump himself is not fictional, He also has mass media which Jesus did not have,

Dohortey tires to chart the evolution of Jesus in history. He allows a lot more time for development, it makes no sense to think they could go from Mark inventing the story in 70 to Jesus broadly accepted as a man in history with a large following and hated by the Jews as early as AD 80.

- I don't claim the whole evolution occurred in ten years.

You are going to have to because I just showed you those are the historical perameters you have to work with,

how do you know?

- the point is that YOU don't know.

I Just showed you i do, Einstein, think again: Mark invents Jesus in AD 70,by at least 90 Rabbi Eliaser knows Jesus had followers who understand him to have been a living man in history, now how did they get around who people who were alive in 50 on up that this guy they have never heard of had thousands of followers who cheered his entry into Jerusalem
Joe Hinman said…
We are on a different story now now Einstein (there was a third one down there) try to read all the words next time,see what you miss by not reading bottom third of the paper?

- I knew which part of your article I was criticizing right from the start. Evidently, you were confused about my comments.

you clearly thought Instone-Brwer was the Eliazer story

We do know what he said by what was said refitting him

- What we know is the the parts that were preserved in the arguments of Origen. We don't know how much other material was destroyed by the church or otherwise lost.

it's enough to know he was given a history of Jesus but that is instone brewer

JoeNo that's bull shit there's a lot of scholarship showing that they kine how to control it like the Bards in Ireland who could memorized huge poems longer than the Iliad not miss a word [oral tradition]



- Now you're claiming that the narrative was memorized word-for-word like an epic poem and preserved intact? NOBODY believes that.

Yes they do, shows how little you know about this stuff. But I will admit my arguments are not very dependent upon oral tradition they only had to keep it straight for 18 years and there were still living memories at that time, who were there in Jesus' day


If it were true, then there would be no discrepancy between the gospels. That narrative itself would eventually have been written as-is. Clearly, that never happened.

that is clearly, foolish. You have to be from mars to think that, that human consciousnesses is that uniform.,we have dependencies between eye witnesses in modern court rooms,
im-skeptical said…
Q is the material that Mat and Luke have in common that is not in Mark So Q cannot be dependent upon Mark, Nor is Mark dependent upon Q.
- That's absurd NOBODY thinks that there is no material in common between Mark and the other synoptic gospels. Of course there is. That's why they're called synoptic. And it is entirely possible that they all draw from at least one common source.

there are different versions of Mark too but none of the differences are major. Since no Q sayings are in Mark he probably didn't use it at all
- Since Q is hypothetical, nobody knows exactly what it would contain, or evem if such a thing existed.

It doesn;t make any difference if Q was written or oral it was a tradition that was passed on. But since GTom uses a lot Q sayings it's real possible that it used Q.
- Yes, it's possible that the evolving church narrative was Q. Even scholars who believe there was a Q source also think it was not just one static document. They talk about different versions of it.

that does not answer the argument:slough!
- Not the way you want to hear, anyway. But don't pretend that you know something for which there is no definitive answer.

At the core of the Gospel of Thomas Man. you have totally lost sight of what is at issue, if Q did not exist as an independent body of work and was just part of Matthew then that set's Matt apart from Mark as an independent historical document
- It only means that the narrative changed after Mark was written. So part of Matthew was different. - not all of it.

How could it have time to go from fictional to historical in 10 years?
- Who says the Jesus myths are historical? Show me the records that prove any of it.

It's a sad fact bit true, trump does actually exist,He can skip over that whole process of turning fiction into history and although he's turning propaganda fiction into rhetoric,Trump himself is not fictional, He also has mass media which Jesus did not have
- The point is that legends can arise quickly. We've seen it happen, and it doesn't require modern mass media.

You are going to have to because I just showed you those are the historical perameters you have to work with
- I don't share your narrow view. I look at facts and evidence, and I'm not boxed into your ideology.

I Just showed you i do [know the truth], Einstein, think again
- Sorry, Joe, but you don't know. You are blinded by your ideology. That's what faith is all about. It's pretending to know what you don't. Nor should you assume that I haven' given much consideration to this whole topic. After all, I became an atheist on the basis of examining the available evidence, and finding it severely lacking.

you clearly thought Instone-Brwer was the Eliazer story
- I never even mentioned Instone-Brwer. The confusion is due to your inability (or unwillingness) to listen to what I say.

it's enough to know he was given a history of Jesus but that is instone brewer
- So, I looked at this Instone-Brewer paper, and I see that he mentions Celsus exactly one time. Celsus never gave any history of Jesus, as you say. He merely believed that Jesus learned his magic tricks in Egypt. That is the extent of this "history" you think is so important to your case. Honestly, Joe, the more I examine your sources, the more I find that you are grasping at the thinnest of straws.

Yes they do, shows how little you know about this stuff.
- Read this.

You have to be from mars to think that, that human consciousnesses is that uniform
- Contradicting yourself again. You just told me that this story was memorized word-for-word. If so, then there is no explanation for so many different versions of the story.
Joe Hinman said…
JoeQ is the material that Mat and Luke have in common that is not in Mark So Q cannot be dependent upon Mark, Nor is Mark dependent upon Q.

skep- That's absurd NOBODY thinks that there is no material in common between Mark and the other synoptic gospels. Of course there is. That's why they're called synoptic. And it is entirely possible that they all draw from at least one common source.


That's not what I said. I did not say No material in common, i said Q not in Mark. That us the official definition that's what it is, look it up it's a priori the nature of the case that Q can't be dependent upon Mark, true by definition.

Joethere are different versions of Mark too but none of the differences are major. Since no Q sayings are in Mark he probably didn't use it at all

skep- Since Q is hypothetical, nobody knows exactly what it would contain, or evem if such a thing existed.

I disproved taht assertion, The Q sayings are in G Tom so that might be Q, That's not hypothetical ,we have that MS from Nag Hamadi,

JoeIt doesn't make any difference if Q was written or oral it was a tradition that was passed on. But since GTom uses a lot Q sayings it's real possible that it used Q.

skep- Yes, it's possible that the evolving church narrative was Q. Even scholars who believe there was a Q source also think it was not just one static document. They talk about different versions of it.

do you even remember hny we are talking about Q at all?It establishes independent material testifying to Jesus existence prior to Mark--it does not have to be a single written document to accomplish that,

Joethat does not answer the argument:slough!


skep- Not the way you want to hear, anyway. But don't pretend that you know something for which there is no definitive answer.


Q establishes an independent historical tradition definitively. Erhman thinks so,

JoeAt the core of the Gospel of Thomas Man. you have totally lost sight of what is at issue, if Q did not exist as an independent body of work and was just part of Matthew then that set's Matt apart from Mark as an independent historical document


skep- It only means that the narrative changed after Mark was written. So part of Matthew was different. - not all of it.

There is no reason to assume Q was written after Mark, we know it was part of the pre Mark redaction especially if we date Thomas early Mark was not the first writing about Jesus. Crosson and koester date PMPN at AD 50.

JoeHow could it have time to go from fictional to historical in 10 years?

skep- Who says the Jesus myths are historical? Show me the records that prove any of it.

You so easily miss the point, the rabbi Eliaser story is late fist century. Let's say 80. But Mark was written in 70. Jesus chaster was invented in 70 and by 90 the Jews took him for a historical guy with disciples, ridiculous.
Joe Hinman said…
JoeIt's a sad fact bit true, trump does actually exist,He can skip over that whole process of turning fiction into history and although he's turning propaganda fiction into rhetoric,Trump himself is not fictional, He also has mass media which Jesus did not have

Skep- The point is that legends can arise quickly. We've seen it happen, and it doesn't require modern mass media.

Argument from sign. Even quasi historical legends like Robin Hood are based upon historical figures. Jesus was known to be historical as early as AD 50. That is within living memory of eye witnesses,his enemies researched his life and were aware of his past,knew his mother and his grandfather,

JoeYou are going to have to because I just showed you those are the historical perameters you have to work with

Skep- I don't share your narrow view. I look at facts and evidence, and I'm not boxed into your ideology.

you are obviously ignoring the facts, you assert that Mark was the invention of Jesus right? That's dated at 70. Before the century ended we know there were groups worshiping Jesus all over the Roman world and his enemies had researched his life and knew he was real, Paul met his brother and people who had known him. The Johanine community is full of winterizes, these are facts,the Pre Mark redaction is a fact, the the Myther time table talbe is not a possibility, this effectively disproves their whole assertion,


JoeI Just showed you i do [know the truth], Einstein, think again

Skep- Sorry, Joe, but you don't know. You are blinded by your ideology. That's what faith is all about. It's pretending to know what you don't.

You are not even conversant with the basic facts. You don;t even know the basic definition of Q.Yon don;t know about the PMPN you don't understand the time table argument very basic stuff,


SkepNor should you assume that I haven' given much consideration to this whole topic. After all, I became an atheist on the basis of examining the available evidence, and finding it severely lacking.

you did a prety piss poor job it, You really need to re-think. Research is not your strong suit,


Joeyou clearly thought Instone-Brwer was the Eliazer story

Skep- I never even mentioned Instone-Brwer. The confusion is due to your inability (or unwillingness) to listen to what I say.

when you say you haven't mentioned Instone-Brewer you are just admitting to my point, you have not answered the argument,you did not know there was another argument down there because you didn't read that far,


Joeit's enough to know he was given a history of Jesus but that is instone brewer

Skep- So, I looked at this Instone-Brewer paper, and I see that he mentions Celsus exactly one time. Celsus never gave any history of Jesus, as you say.

Instone-Brwer does not mention Celsus at all, I did. Yes Celsus does give a history of Jesus,he claimed the Jews gave it to him. It coincides with certain points in the Talmud so it is certain it is from the Mishna which is first century Material


Skep He merely believed that Jesus learned his magic tricks in Egypt. That is the extent of this "history" you think is so important to your case. Honestly, Joe, the more I examine your sources, the more I find that you are grasping at the thinnest of straws.

(1)Mother Named mary, (2)she was a hairdresser (3)His grand fahter's name (matches name in Lukes geology) (4)Caim that the father was
Roman named Panteria. All of which ties the info to the Talmud




JoeYes they do, shows how little you know about this stuff.

Skep- Read this.

see below


Joe Hinman said…
the end of that exchange there is a alleged contradiction


ME: You have to be from mars to think that, that human consciousnesses is that uniform
Him- Contradicting yourself again. You just told me that this story was memorized word-for-word. If so, then there is no explanation for so many different versions of the story

Here is the original exchange that refers to.


SkepNow you're claiming that the narrative was memorized word-for-word like an epic poem and preserved intact? NOBODY believes that.

Yes they do, shows how little you know about this stuff. But I will admit my arguments are not very dependent upon oral tradition they only had to keep it straight for 18 years and there were still living memories at that time, who were there in Jesus' day


SkepIf it were true, then there would be no discrepancy between the gospels. That narrative itself would eventually have been written as-is. Clearly, that never happened.

that is clearly, foolish. You have to be from mars to think that, that human consciousnesses is that uniform.,we have dependencies between eye witnesses in modern court rooms,

Actually what i should have said was they didn't memorize the Gospels they memorized their teachers words, So they probably memorized Jesus' sayings, if Q was a list of sayings then they Memorized Q.
,

Joe Hinman said…
Skep link to that PBS thing from Jesus to Christ, it really cracks me up this guy thinks that's real advanced stuf I dont knkow about. First I;ve seen that thing about 10 times.It is a good show.I went to a major liberal seminary,I heard them say stuff like that every day for four years and I studied with people who are more liberal than Michael White,(the guy quoted on the show).

White says stuff like this:


"And yet there's that story of his resurrection of his coming back to life. And it's around that memory, around that set of concerns that a lot of the earliest oral stories about Jesus must have circulated and must have been built. So we have to imagine the followers of Jesus getting together around the dinner table probably and talking about their memories, maybe it was the memory of something he actually said once upon a time or maybe it was a glimpse of an image that they had of him. Surely they thought it was some image of great power.... But the thing that keeps coming back is they tell the story of who he was in retrospect from the experience of what he became through his death and through the story of his resurrection....

Story telling was at the center of the beginnings of the Jesus movement. And I think we're right to call it the Jesus movement here because if we think of it as Christianity, that is, from the perspective of the kind of movement and institutional religion that it would become a few hundred years later, we will miss the flavor of those earliest years of the kind of crude and rough beginnings, the small enclaves trying to keep the memory alive, and more than that, trying to understand what this Jesus meant for them. That's really the function of the story telling...it's a way for them to articulate their understanding of Jesus. And in the process of story telling, when we recognize it as a living part of the development of the tradition, we're watching them define Jesus for themselves. At that moment we have caught an authentic and maybe one of the most historically significant parts of the development of Christianity.:

I guess when Skep hears such things he reads "Jesus was not real" Nothing white sahs neans that White believes in historical Jesus,

No reason why oral tradition can't communicate real history At Perkins I studied with people who walk through this stukff everh dah and still believe,
J. P Holding said…
Brodie is a crank. https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2013/03/book-snap-thomas-brodies-beyond-quest.html
im-skeptical said…
That's not what I said. I did not say No material in common, i said Q not in Mark. That us the official definition that's what it is, look it up it's a priori the nature of the case that Q can't be dependent upon Mark, true by definition.
- Then you can't deny that Q is HYPOTHETICAL. I was talking about real possibilities, and you are trying to define this hypothetical document into existence.

I disproved taht assertion, The Q sayings are in G Tom so that might be Q, That's not hypothetical ,we have that MS from Nag Hamadi
- Since Q is hypothetical, nobody knows exactly what it would contain, or even if such a thing existed as a document.

do you even remember hny we are talking about Q at all?It establishes independent material testifying to Jesus existence prior to Mark--it does not have to be a single written document to accomplish that
- Yes, and it's still possible (even likely) that the evolving church narrative was the common (but evolving) source for all the gospels, regardless of how you define the hypothetical Q.

Q establishes an independent historical tradition definitively. Erhman thinks so
- Come on, Joe. You don't read Ehrman. He says that "Q must only be treated with caution as a potentially separate source and that's all". (see Quora) And furthermore, anyone who claims to know what is or isn't in Q besides the non-Markan sayings of Matthew and Luke is making it up.

There is no reason to assume Q was written after Mark, we know it was part of the pre Mark redaction especially if we date Thomas early Mark was not the first writing about Jesus. Crosson and koester date PMPN at AD 50.
- I refer you to my previous remark.

You so easily miss the point, the rabbi Eliaser story is late fist century. Let's say 80. But Mark was written in 70. Jesus chaster was invented in 70 and by 90 the Jews took him for a historical guy with disciples, ridiculous
- You miss the point. The story in the Talmud only describes a Rabbi who says he met a guy who claimed to be a dicsiple of Jesus. It doesn't say the Jews believed in Jesus. YOU are making a huge leap of logic.

Even quasi historical legends like Robin Hood are based upon historical figures. Jesus was known to be historical as early as AD 50. That is within living memory of eye witnesses,his enemies researched his life and were aware of his past,knew his mother and his grandfather
- No. There were STORIES about Jesus. None of this is known with certainty. You are talking about what has been hypothesized about Jesus.

im-skeptical said…
you are obviously ignoring the facts, you assert that Mark was the invention of Jesus right? That's dated at 70.
- Learn to read. I never said that. There was a Christian narrative, and it evolved over time. The gospels are versions of that narrative that were written down at different stages of its evolution.

You are not even conversant with the basic facts. You don;t even know the basic definition of Q.Yon don;t know about the PMPN you don't understand the time table argument very basic stuff
- Regardless of what I know, you still claim to know things that you don't.

when you say you haven't mentioned Instone-Brewer you are just admitting to my point, you have not answered the argument,you did not know there was another argument down there because you didn't read that far
- Joe, I didn't say that I hadn't read it. I said that I initially made comments on certain specific parts of your article, and that wasn't one of them.

Instone-Brwer does not mention Celsus at all, I did. Yes Celsus does give a history of Jesus,he claimed the Jews gave it to him. It coincides with certain points in the Talmud so it is certain it is from the Mishna which is first century Material
- It's right in the paper you cited, which I read, and apparently you didn't. Celsus IS mentioned, but there is no history of Jesus by him. All he said about the life of Jesus was that he learned his magic from the Egyptians. You didn't even know Celsus was a skeptic and a critic of Christianity. You thought he was some great source of historical information, but Celsus didn't know anything about Jesus that Christians at the time weren't talking about.

So they probably memorized Jesus' sayings ...
- That's very different from the claim you made.

I guess when Skep hears such things he reads "Jesus was not real" Nothing white sahs neans that White believes in historical Jesus
- I never said "Jesus was not real". You are incapable of listening to what I say and understanding it. I agree completely that there is no reason why oral tradition can't communicate real history. But that's not the point. There is also no reason it can't be made up. And we KNOW that is is highly likely to change over time. Sure, certain sayings of Jesus might be remembered and kept more or less intact, but the narrative clearly has evolved over time. There's no question about that.
Joe Hinman said…

Blogger J. P Holding said...
Brodie is a crank.


https://tektonticker.blogspot.com/2013/03/book-snap-thomas-brodies-beyond-quest.html


thanks JP I suspected as much

Joe Hinman said…

Blogger im-skeptical said...
JoeThat's not what I said. I did not say No material in common, i said Q not in Mark. That us the official definition that's what it is, look it up it's a priori the nature of the case that Q can't be dependent upon Mark, true by definition.



- Then you can't deny that Q is HYPOTHETICAL. I was talking about real possibilities, and you are trying to define this hypothetical document into existence.

you have never answered the argument about Q coming fro Thomas which
would mean it is not hypothetical, so your argument has no impact,



JoeI disproved that assertion, The Q sayings are in G Tom so that might be Q, That's not hypothetical ,we have that MS from Nag Hamadi


- Since Q is hypothetical, nobody knows exactly what it would contain, or even if such a thing existed as a document.

Obviously it's not hypothetical,the thing is you don't understand the nature that term. they don't call it hypothetical because they don't know what's in it n only because they don't know what form it took originally they have a body of material they call Q, the material in Matt and Luke not in Mark. they find that in Thomas,


Joedo you even remember hny we are talking about Q at all?It establishes independent material testifying to Jesus existence prior to Mark--it does not have to be a single written document to accomplish that


- Yes, and it's still possible (even likely) that the evolving church narrative was the common (but evolving) source for all the gospels, regardless of how you define the hypothetical Q.

there's no basis for the assertion of no historical core. The terms you are slinging around that you got from the PBS show I've seen a dozen times does not justify your assertion to the contrary,


JoeQ establishes an independent historical tradition definitively. Erhman thinks so



- Come on, Joe. You don't read Ehrman. He says that "Q must only be treated with caution as a potentially separate source and that's all". (see Quora) And furthermore, anyone who claims to know what is or isn't in Q besides the non-Markan sayings of Matthew and Luke is making it up.

He is not fit to turn pages for Koester. BTW I have read Erhman and written on his stuff,you haven';t read him.


JoeThere is no reason to assume Q was written after Mark, we know it was part of the pre Mark redaction especially if we date Thomas early Mark was not the first writing about Jesus. Crosson and koester date PMPN at AD 50.

- I refer you to my previous remark.

which is ignorant and misleading,



Joe Hinman said…
JoeYou so easily miss the point, the rabbi Eliaser story is late fist century. Let's say 80. But Mark was written in 70. Jesus chaster was invented in 70 and by 90 the Jews took him for a historical guy with disciples, ridiculous


- You miss the point. The story in the Talmud only describes a Rabbi who says he met a guy who claimed to be a dicsiple of Jesus. It doesn't say the Jews believed in Jesus. YOU are making a huge leap of logic.

Yes it does say they believed he was a historical figure. Because he didn't say You deluded fool Jesus never existed. rather he quotes quotes a teaching by Jesus not in the NT so obviously people in that day took Jesus for a real man in history,Don't forget That meet's Brodie's criteria for historicity,



Even quasi historical legends like Robin Hood are based upon historical figures. Jesus was known to be historical as early as AD 50. That is within living memory of eye witnesses,his enemies researched his life and were aware of his past,knew his mother and his grandfather


- No. There were STORIES about Jesus. None of this is known with certainty. You are talking about what has been hypothesized about Jesus.

very very foolish. it's certain PMPN existed and dates to mid centjrhy, we also find Pai's connect to historical eye witness to Jesus' life and the Talmudic neediness including Intone-Brewer (you still don't even know what that is)



Joe Hinman said…
Blogger im-skeptical said...
you are obviously ignoring the facts, you assert that Mark was the invention of Jesus right? That's dated at 70.
- Learn to read. I never said that. There was a Christian narrative, and it evolved over time. The gospels are versions of that narrative that were written down at different stages of its evolution.

You are not even conversant with the basic facts. You don;t even know the basic definition of Q.Yon don;t know about the PMPN you don't understand the time table argument very basic stuff
- Regardless of what I know, you still claim to know things that you don't.

when you say you haven't mentioned Instone-Brewer you are just admitting to my point, you have not answered the argument,you did not know there was another argument down there because you didn't read that far
- Joe, I didn't say that I hadn't read it. I said that I initially made comments on certain specific parts of your article, and that wasn't one of them.

Instone-Brwer does not mention Celsus at all, I did. Yes Celsus does give a history of Jesus,he claimed the Jews gave it to him. It coincides with certain points in the Talmud so it is certain it is from the Mishna which is first century Material
- It's right in the paper you cited, which I read, and apparently you didn't. Celsus IS mentioned, but there is no history of Jesus by him. All he said about the life of Jesus was that he learned his magic from the Egyptians. You didn't even know Celsus was a skeptic and a critic of Christianity. You thought he was some great source of historical information, but Celsus didn't know anything about Jesus that Christians at the time weren't talking about.

So they probably memorized Jesus' sayings ...
- That's very different from the claim you made.

I guess when Skep hears such things he reads "Jesus was not real" Nothing white says means that White does not believe in historical Jesus


- I never said "Jesus was not real". You are incapable of listening to what I say and understanding it. I agree completely that there is no reason why oral tradition can't communicate real history. But that's not the point. There is also no reason it can't be made up. And we KNOW that is is highly likely to change over time. Sure, certain sayings of Jesus might be remembered and kept more or less intact, but the narrative clearly has evolved over time. There's no question about that.


No it';s not likely to be made up they big constraints on what they could say,No one is willing to risk being ostracized for some stupid fan fiction,

No they the narrate could not change and evolve, for three reasons:a

(1) The point of establishing the counties was to preserve the remembrance of Jesus; life and to show how it fit the prophesies of Messiah. Allowing the narrative to evolve to the point where the original ideas where lost would defeat the purpose,they memorized that stuff and recited it everyday,

(2)they controlled the telling with eye witness checks in each community

(4)they only to control ut for 18 years,from Resurrection to writing on PPN in AD 50 there were plenty of witnesses still alive after that period


this topic is closed now, but I will take it up again with a look at the evolution of the narrative Monday,

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?