did jesus exist?

[Oberon]

I don't think that there is anything else like a Gospel -- or the letters of Paul, for that matter. There are many elements that are similar, but not the full meal deal.

What do you think about the scholarship on gospel genre? E.g. the ones I most frequently cite (both because I like there arguments and because I own most of them)

Bryan, C. (1993). Preface to Mark: Notes on the Gospel in Its Literary and Cultural Setting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Burridge, R. A. (2006). Gospels. In J. W. Rogerson & Judith M. Lieu (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 433
Stanton, G. N. (1974). Jesus of Nazareth in New Testament Preaching Society of New Testament Studies Monograph Series 27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talbert, C. H. (1977). What is a Gospel? The Genre of the Canonical Gospels. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
Aune, D. E. (1987). The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster.
Frickenschmidt, D. (1997). Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evanelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst. Tübingen: Francke Verlag.
Wills, L. M. (1997) Quest of the Historical Gospel : Mark, John and the Origins of the Gospel Genre. London: Routledge.
Incigneri, B. J. (2003). The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Leiden: Brill.

 

[outhouse]

In short, each group sincerely and thoughtfully believe that the other group has a distorted picture of the historical Jesus

 

[Oberon]

Oral trasmission for a decade is not accurate, with all the mystery authors your story doesnt hold water.

I spent several years of post-M.A. studies specifically researching orality within the Jesus tradition, part of which entailed a massive amount of research into cross-cultural studies of oral transmission. We know for a fact that oral teachings can be transmitted and retained verbatim, thanks to anthropological studies (see e.g. Vansina, J. (1985). Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985.). There's another instance of historical Jesus research using tools from other disciplines.

Didnt have one thing written about him by one of many scribes who lived at that time.

In a primarily oral culture, very, very, few people had much at all recorded about them, even highly influential people.

 

[dogsgod]

The works are Jewish mythology written for theological/political purposes, the genre is gospel. I've tried to explain how these theological works were put together such as Crossan, Price, Helms, etc. pointing out that every single line from the passion narrative alludes to the OT as well as most of the NT including Acts, and is a rewrite of Moses in certain respects, the use of anecdotes, oral tradition, sayings, etc, etc, but a particular poster here is only interested to talk about his own opinion of so called "expert" scholarship, end of story, which is why these discussions go nowhere.

 

[dogsgod]

I'm sorry, I didn't finish.

Dark hair, dark eyes, medium build. He may have been lighter than 185 - maybe 155.

OK, but he loved zatziki with his vegetables and sardines.

 

[outhouse]

I read the vansina chapter on oral traditions

I liked the part that said earlier work may be encoded with riddles, proverbs, praise names and dynastic poems.

Allthough they say it can be used in certain historical refferences the validity "can" still be in question. with religion its tenfold

I would have to think with a evolving religion that had to use certain pagan beliefs to appeal to the pagen population, one would have to realize that oral transmission might have been purposely a skewed.

earlier you stated with certain pagen/jewish parrallels to jesus "sadly there were none" I would have to wonder if the church destroyed that history. We know they not only had motive but burned many of the source materials.

You could even go so far as to guess that mary magdalane was jesuses wife and author of "Q", we know so little you cant prove other wise.

 

[Oberon]

The works are Jewish mythology written for theological/political purposes, the genre is gospel.

So you are arguing that Mark, whose literary skills are pretty minimal, INVENTED a genre?

I've tried to explain how these theological works were put together such as Crossan, Price, Helms, etc. pointing out that every single line from the passion narrative alludes to the OT as well as most of the NT including Acts, and is a rewrite of Moses in certain respects, the use of anecdotes, oral tradition, sayings, etc, etc

All experts argue that the NT authors alluded to the OT. It is obvious. However, R. G. Price is the only one idiotic enough to suggest that the entire thing comes from the OT and is somehow allegorical fiction. I've responded to that particular idiocy here

Vast sections of the Gospels have no OT parallels, and it is simply impossible to get from the OT to the NT with no historical Jesus. It is very easy, however, to explain those places in the gospels that do refer to the OT by knowing that the earliest christians were Jews looking to understand Jesus through scriptures. The reason why Price fails so pitifully is because he is trying to explain the entirety of the gospels through the OT, and so time and time again is forced into ridiculously strained explanations.

If this wasn't bad enough, his whole argument of allegorical fiction means that
1) Mark, not a literary genius to be sure, invented a rather unique genre
2) While the Jews had plenty of different literary expressions which enabled them to express their distaste with their interactions with Rome, Mark for some reason chose to use a way nobody would understand (except Price).
3) In fact, despite the fact that Mark isn't that adept of a writer, according to Price he is such a genius he was able to use sophisticated literary techniques to create an allegorical narrative

Right.

Except the gospel genre ISN'T just gospel. Even for those who argue there is nothing quite like it, there are literary works which are quite close, and for most the gospels belong in this genre: graeco-roman biography.

So while you and Price would have us believe that Mark is some literary genius who just can't write very well, and would have us buy into some of the most strained arguments for reliance on the OT I have ever encountered, it is far, far, far more probable (given the similarity between the gospels and the genre of biograph) that the references to the OT are a result of christians grafting it onto Jesus' life, not Jesus' life being constructed from it.

 

[Oberon]

I read the vansina chapter on oral traditions

It's a book.

with religion its tenfold

No it isn't. Oral transmission of religious traditions tend to be far more controlled.

I would have to think with a evolving religion that had to use certain pagan beliefs to appeal to the pagen population, one would have to realize that oral transmission might have been purposely a skewed.

Why on earth would you think that?

earlier you stated with certain pagen/jewish parrallels to jesus "sadly there were none" I would have to wonder if the church destroyed that history.

We have plenty of evidence of pagan and jewish gods and myths and figures. There are parallels to Jesus, though imperfect ones. They also happen to be historical. For example, augustus caesar was deified and called the son of god. Apollonius of Tyana was another first century miracle worker. John the baptist was a preacher in 1st century palestine. All these had similarities with Jesus. But they were also historical figures.

We know they not only had motive but burned many of the source materials.

A lot of the sources material is only around because it was copied into christian works. Until the nag hammadi library was dug up, what we knew about the so-called gnostics came from heresy hunters recording a great deal of gnostic writing and thought into their works. We learned a great deal. Writings by anti-christians like Celsus to are recorded in christian works.

 

[dogsgod]

I was referring to Robert M Price, John Dominic Crossan and Randel Helms.

New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash​

Robert M. Price​

The line is thin between extrapolating new meanings from ancient scriptures (borrowing the authority of the old) and actually composing new scripture (or quasi-scripture) by extrapolating from the old. By this process of midrashic expansion grew the Jewish haggadah, new narrative commenting on old (scriptural) narrative by rewriting it. Haggadah is a species of hypertext, and thus it cannot be fully understood without reference to the underlying text on which it forms a kind of commentary. The earliest Christians being Jews, it is no surprise that they practiced haggadic expansion of scripture, resulting in new narratives partaking of the authority of the old. The New Testament gospels and the Acts of the Apostles can be shown to be Christian haggadah upon Jewish scripture, and these narratives can be neither fully understood nor fully appreciated without tracing them to their underlying sources, the object of the present article.

New Testament Narrative as Old Testament Midrash by Robert M. Price



Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

John Bowman, The Gospel of Mark: The New Christian Jewish Passover Haggadah. Studia Post-Biblica 8. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1965

Thomas L. Brodie, “Luke the Literary Interpreter: Luke-Acts as a Systematic Rewriting and Updating of the Elijah-Elisha Narrative in 1 and 2 Kings.” Ph.D. dissertation presented to Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, Rome. 1988.

John Dominic Crossan, The Cross That Spoke: The Origins of the Passion Narrative (San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1988.

J. Duncan M. Derrett, The Making of Mark: The Scriptural Bases of the Earliest Gospel. Volumes 1 and 2. Shipston-on-Stour, Warwickshire: P. Drinkwater, 1985
Earl Doherty, The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Ottawa: Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999.

C.F. Evans, “The Central Section of St. Luke’s Gospel.” In D.E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R.H. Lightfoot. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1967,pp. 37-53.

Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions. Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989.

Frank Kermode, The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative. The Charles Eliot Norton Lectures 1977-1978. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979.

Dennis R. MacDonald, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000

Dale Miller and Patricia Miller. The Gospel of Mark as Midrash on Earlier Jewish and New Testament Literature. Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 21. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press

Lilian Portefaix, Sisters Rejoice: Paul’s Letter to the Philippians and Luke-Acts as Seen by First-Century Philippian Women. Coniectanea biblica. New Testament series, 20. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wicksell, 1988.

Wolfgang Roth, Hebrew Gospel: Cracking the Code of Mark. Oak Park: Meyer-Stone Books, 1988.

William R. Stegner, “The Baptism of Jesus: A Story Modeled on the Binding of Isaac.” In Herschel Shanks (ed.), Abraham & Family: New Insights into the Patriarchal Narratives. Washington, D.C.: Biblical Archaeology Society, 2001.

Rikki E. Watts, Isaiah’s New Exodus and Mark. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 2. Reihe 88. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

 

[outhouse]

Oral transmission of religious traditions tend to be far more controlled.

again this religion at that time was evolving, to some degree with creationism and ID it still is lol

so far at best your saying we follow a huntch that goes with the norm into gray area, I dissagree. we know christianity borrowed parts here and there as they pleased. I feel they and the early church were pleased with what they imagined and wrote down. It could have followed the truth or only the percived truth

 

[Oberon]

I was referring to Robert M Price, John Dominic Crossan and Randel Helms.

R. M. Price is the only NT scholar arguing Jesus is most probably not historical, and he doesn't get there by arguing that Mark was allegorical fiction. However, as I said, all experts understand that the NT authors used the OT. But you can't get from the OT to the NT without Jesus. Everyone but Price gets this, because it is so blatently obvious. Of course, as long as you are being prejudiced against "christian" scholarship, R. M. Price feels much more comfortable worshipping Jesus Christ without there being a historical Jesus to worry about.

 

[outhouse]

A lot of the sources material is only around because it was copied into christian works

EXACTLY the early church was know for burning things they did not understand or like as well as proof's.

If this wasnt religion I would stand tooth and nail and fight by your side with your historical work and views. Thats the problem with scholars, to wrapped up in there work, your surrounded by positives and no one is really searching out the negatives due to belief as the norm

 

[Oberon]

EXACTLY the early church was know for burning things they did not understand or like as well as proof's.

You don't get it. In order for sources to survive they had to be copied and preserved. Burning really doesn't matter if no one is preserving the records. Thankfully, in some cases christians even recorded the views of their enemies. It would have been much worse if they hadn't burned anything but instead had just not bothered to preserve it.

If this wasnt religion I would stand tooth and nail and fight by your side with your historical work and views.

But instead you are incredibly biased because it is and so, without ever doing research in this area, you will fight tooth and nail to promote a view you support by reference to a few websites.

Thats the problem with scholars, to wrapped up in there work, your surrounded by positives and no one is really searching out the negatives due to belief as the norm

The "negative" was first proposed and explored two centuries ago in scholarship. And there are still quite skeptical views of the reliability of the gospels (although in general not as skeptical as when Bultmannian views dominated the field). Yet even Bultmann, an extreme skeptic of gospel reliablity, understood you can't explain the Jesus sect without Jesus.

 

[dogsgod]

All experts argue that the NT authors alluded to the OT. It is obvious. However, R. G. Price is the only one idiotic enough to suggest that the entire thing comes from the OT and is somehow allegorical fiction. I've responded to that particular idiocy here

Vast sections of the Gospels have no OT parallels, and it is simply impossible to get from the OT to the NT with no historical Jesus.

There's a lot of idiocy out there, but then, that's your opinion.

"Earlier scholars (e.g., John Wick Bowman), as many today (e.g., J. Duncan M. Derrett), saw gospel echoes of the ancient scriptures in secondary coloring here or redactional juxtaposition of traditional Jesus stories there. But the more recent scrutiny of John Dominic Crossan, Randel Helms, Dale and Patricia Miller, and Thomas L. Brodie has made it inescapably clear that virtually the entirety of the gospel narratives and much of the Acts are wholly the product of haggadic midrash upon previous scripture." Robert M. Price

 

[outhouse]

a view you support by reference to a few websites.

Not a few, there are many. I take them all with a grain of salt, theres only a handfull of proffesional's behind it. Wiki however has some great points pro and con and the discussions are great by a number of highly educated people.

Biblical scholars believe in a jesus that is vague at best and not much can be said with certainty
I feel the scholars as a whole are biased for a few different reasons, christianity and wrapped in the work with little negative research being looked into.

for sources to survive they had to be copied and preserved

you dont get it these are probably the ones burned. We know some of the original storys of the bible were taken from books and only small parts used the rest burned.

this could have happened at any time during the bibles contruction including the gospels, theres a reason why the authors are not known.

vigorous editing had been done, possibly from the start even in oral tradition

 

[dogsgod]

R. M. Price is the only NT scholar arguing Jesus is most probably not historical, and he doesn't get there by arguing that Mark was allegorical fiction. However, as I said, all experts understand that the NT authors used the OT. But you can't get from the OT to the NT without Jesus. Everyone but Price gets this, because it is so blatently obvious. Of course, as long as you are being prejudiced against "christian" scholarship, R. M. Price feels much more comfortable worshipping Jesus Christ without there being a historical Jesus to worry about.

I don't know what point you are making by Robert M. Price being a Christian and at the same time not seeing Jesus Christ as historical. I don't see a problem with that, neither did Paul, Peter, James, et al we read of in the epistles. The literal Jesus can't possibly be historical because He defies the laws of physics, but many many truly do believe God's Son came down to earth and sacrificed himself in order to save us all, or at least all that believe.

From a reading of these texts there is nothing obvious about there being an historical Jesus, at least not one from Galilee that can be connected with the Christ cult of Jerusalem that we read of in the epistles. There is nothing that suggests one Jesus is the founder of all this Christianity and no one has shown there to be.

 

[dogsgod]

The literal Jesus can't possibly be historical because He defies the laws of physics, but many many truly do believe God's Son came down to earth and sacrificed himself in order to save us all, or at least all that believe.
It's hardly a stretch to consider that just as many tone down the magical aspects of this story in order to make it more believable, in order to retain and justify their belief that this Jesus is historical.

 

[outhouse]

you cant disprove a myth lol

 

[outhouse]

It's hardly a stretch to consider that just as many tone down the magical aspects of this story in order to make it more believable, in order to retain and justify their belief that this Jesus is historical.

they dont tone it down

they tear it apart down below the foundation to make it acceptable.

 

[dogsgod]

you cant disprove a myth lol

People try. I can understand trying to see an historical Jesus and there may be one within the gospel story but he's far from obvious, and the one that the epistle writings tell of is almost certainly non existent from what I can gather.