did jesus exist?

[Ilisrum]

If only evidence would come to light indisputably linking the Talpiot tomb to the historical Jesus. It would silence both the mythers and the fundamentalists.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And of course there's a whole lot we could learn from archaeology and inscriptions.

Yes, but it's an original. It's set in stone.

It's possible, but I don't know. I had to look at a lot of papyri fragments for a linguistics project I did, and I don't recall any, but that doesn't mean much.

I've come across a few that are very interesting, and I think close to the original author due to their extreme rarity - in other words, there are no exant copies and the date is close to when the person was alive.

I guess I would say - there are no originals of the NT documents, but possibly there are some originals out there from other writers.

 

[Oberon]

Yes, but it's an original. It's set in stone.

Quite literally. I'd forgotten about that.

I guess I would say - there are no originals of the NT documents, but possibly there are some originals out there from other writers.

Fair enough. I wouldn't disagree. Not that any of this really helps out outhouse, in that the vast majority of our knowledge of the Greek and Roman worlds comes from "copies of copies." But it is good to keep in mind nonetheless.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Quite literally. I'd forgotten about that.

Martin Ferguson Smith produced an excellent text and translation. It really is an awesome volume, with pictures. The fragments are truly massive.

Chilton also has a good volume on it.

 

[outhouse]

Since all the classical texts are copies of copies (and the NT is the best textually attested collection of the ancient world) are you discounting all of ancient history? Most classical authors are attested by manuscripts dating to the middle ages. They all have errors. Is your view that we can't know much of anything from classical texts (caesar, thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, etc)?

I'm not discounting all of ancient history, errors need to be taken into account and should for any historical item.

many of the old works are taken for value of the content, not the authenticity of the author or Q

For many of the classics the need may have not been as high to forge as it was to create a religion. Or to write down the evolution of a combination of religions and make it sensational enough for belief.

since we know historical jesus is different from biblical jesus, the source comes into question, where does one draw the line between the myth and reality?

 

[outhouse]

Fair enough. I wouldn't disagree. Not that any of this really helps out outhouse, in that the vast majority of our knowledge of the Greek and Roman worlds comes from "copies of copies." But it is good to keep in mind nonetheless.

Its not just that its copies of copies, the validity of storys, tales, are not taken literaly in ancient text without personal interpetation coming into play.

despite the knowledge and lack of knowledge at hand little, very little is known about the historical jesus, not enough to make a decision with certainty

 

[Oberon]

I'm not discounting all of ancient history, errors need to be taken into account and should for any historical item.

Then what does the "copies of copies" remark refer to? Such a disparaging comment is far better suited for the rest of ancient historical textual studies than it is for the NT, where we have a wealth of texts.

many of the old works are taken for value of the content, not the authenticity of the author or Q

The question is, if "copies of copies" is a problem for determining content, than these old works are even more problematic because the manuscripts we have are much more removed from the originals, and harder to reconstruct accurately (textual critical methods are easier in that we have fewer texts, but harder in that the quality and dates of our texts are less desirable).

For many of the classics the need may have not been as high to forge as it was to create a religion.

It seems you neither understand the process whereby religious movements like christianity began, or the infusion of religious thought in greco-roman literature and history, or the textual criticism in general. I ask again, what scholarship have you read which deals with classics, ancient history, early christianity, or any of the topics you touch on with such an authoritative tone?

since we know historical jesus is different from biblical jesus, the source comes into question, where does one draw the line between the myth and reality?

One uses historical methods just as one does with any other figure.

 

[outhouse]

Then what does the "copies of copies" remark refer to?


One uses historical methods just as one does with any other figure.

copies of copies comes into play because of the importance of these said documents and many are know to be forged.

You know im using conclusions of other proffessional scholars so why ask?

I would have to think with the pure imagination and fantasy involved with the unbelievable accounts in this obvious peice of fiction authenticity come more into play when trying to find real historical facts.

I know there far and few between

It would be great if we knew the material we had was even second hand or third hand or forth instead of guessing.

 

[Oberon]

copies of copies comes into play because of the importance of these said documents and many are know to be forged.

What does forgery have to do with copying? I'm not understanding you.

You know im using conclusions of other proffessional scholars so why ask?

Because it is abundantly clear you aren't. I've asked you to give some citations of the scholars or scholarly works you are building your views off of. You haven't. I'm also very well acquainted with the field of NT studies, classics, and so forth. A lot of what you have attributed to scholars is just wrong. In short, I am asking you to show me I am wrong. If you are actually using academic sources, please let us know what.

 

[outhouse]

just google and wikipedia seems to offer a wealth of information on the subject.

You asked me to do your homework, I did. You made great points but I believe people are becoming more educated. There not falling for 2000 year old fiction near as much as they used to. minds have opened up with a wealth of information at there finger tips.

Its not all conspiracy theory's and uneducated guesses. You dont need a scholarship to understand conclusions made by professionals and non professionals. true and stretching. Dont like it change wikipedia

Again my belief seems to be jesus is not the biblical sense people associate with him. A historical jesus may exist but little is know for certain about his existance without guessing.

 

[Oberon]

just google and wikipedia seems to offer a wealth of information on the subject.

That isn't scholarship. There is a great deal junk out there written by people who don't know what they are talking about. I didn't ask you what stuff you had read online, because that really doesn't matter. You said you are using "professional scholars." Who? And what works?

You asked me to do your homework, I did.

I also asked you what scholarship you read, written by "professional scholars." Still waiting.

Dont like it change wikipedia

Wikipedia isn't meant to be authoritative. Anyone can edit it. It isn't written by experts nor is it reviewed by them. Most professors won't even let their students cite it.

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, what have you achieved by reading scholarship, that the gospels and Acts represent a reliable history? I think a rational mind and an ability to use sound reasoning would be a requirement over faith based belief of the scholarship that coincidentally happens to agree with your foregone conclusions. If you go looking for an historical Jesus because you believe there is one, you'll find him.

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, no one is saying Wiki is an authority. It has information that has to be assessed like any other body of information. Sometimes it's disappointing as concerning religion in particular and other times it can be informative. The exact same thing can be said of any encyclopedia. You're always on your high horse about authority, as if you can judge any better than anyone else.

 

[outhouse]

Like i said its not all I use, funny it does quote professional scholars quite often.

I dont feel I need to quote my sources. Not my fault you dont know the source

it wont change the fact little is historically known about the jesus charactor.

We know the bible is fiction and thus, what do you have? your the expert. How much is real???

what can YOU bring to the jesus table with certainty???

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, no one is saying Wiki is an authority. It has information that has to be assessed like any other body of information. Sometimes it's disappointing as concerning religion in particular and other times it can be informative. The exact same thing can be said of any encyclopedia. You're always on your high horse about authority, as if you can judge any better than anyone else.

Yes, which is why encylopedia's aren't what one uses in order to understand a field. They are a tool to get the barest understanding and no more.

 

[Oberon]

Like i said its not all I use,

Ok, so what else do you use?

I dont feel I need to quote my sources. Not my fault you dont know the source

how about just naming the scholarship you have read? As for not knowing the source, again it is quite clear you aren't using any scholarly sources.

 

[outhouse]

We know the bible is fiction and thus, what do you have? your the expert. How much is real???

what can YOU bring to the jesus table with certainty???

 

[Oberon]

We know the bible is fiction and thus, what do you have? your the expert. How much is real???

what can YOU bring to the jesus table with certainty???

I'm still waiting for the answers to my questions. Then I'll be more than happy to address yours. It is important to get your answers first, because being aware of your background knowledge (or lack thereof) will help me explain my view. So, again, you claim to be using professional scholars. Who? And what works?

 

[dogsgod]

Oberon, what have you achieved by reading scholarship, that the gospels and Acts represent a reliable history? I think a rational mind and an ability to use sound reasoning would be a requirement over faith based belief of the scholarship that coincidentally happens to agree with your foregone conclusions. If you go looking for an historical Jesus because you believe there is one, you'll find him.

 

[Oberon]

Oberon, what have you achieved by reading scholarship, that the gospels and Acts represent a reliable history?

I gave you several examples of how ancient history incorporates the same type of myth, rumor, and magic acts does, even when it comes to the best of the best in terms of ancient historians (like Thucydides). You ignored this. NO ancient history is really reliable. It must all be sifted and evaluated critically. The point is, acts is self-consciously historical. It sets out to explain the history of the early church through the eyes of the early followers. It is no "a piece of second-century mythmaking" like you described it.

I think a rational mind and an ability to use sound reasoning

Let's look at sound reasoning for a second:

1) You have repeatedly made reference to court room procedures (like hearsay) which have no bearing on historical methods as a means of discrediting historical information in the gospels
2) You have ignored experts in favor of those without expertise, and ignored scholarship in favor of popular works
3) At the same time, you depend upon the works of real experts for your views on things like Q. So when it comes to things that promote your view, you are more than happy to accept the consensus despite lacking the background knowledge to evaluate the arguments for and against Q
4) We are talking about a world from 2000 years ago. All the texts are written in other languages. Scholars use everything from archaeology and sociology to anthropology and classics in order to understand the world behind the gospels and to critically assess our sources. In over 200+ years of critical analysis, the view that it is all myth has time and time again been rejected as inadequate to explain our sources. You reject this, despite a) not being an expert and b) relying largely on non-experts for your view. Despite what you assert, not anyone can simply read a few books and understand the difference between ancient history and myth, between cult and sect, and so forth.
5) Another technique you've recently developed is to refer to those few incidents where scholars who have voluntarily committed themselves to religious universities have changed their minds and published views contrary to that of the institution they teach. This ignores the fact that the majority of researchers do not work in such places.
6) You use the works of scholars who absolutely believe we can know Jesus existed as evidence for your view he didn't, although you are far less acquainted with the field than they.

I could go on, but basically the point is that despite your facade of "I'm just an unbiased researcher who found the truth" you have long ago put on blinders and are determined only to reinforce the view you have.

If you go looking for an historical Jesus because you believe there is one, you'll find him.

You realize the reverse is just as true? Guys like doherty and wells and so on start with the idea that Jesus never existed, and the proceed to explain away all the evidence. Which is why Price would like us to "leapfroge" over the Josephus debate (without even mentioning the Josephus passage on James).