Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Redactions do not mean that later Pauline influenced writers were the redactors though. I am not doubting that there are redactions; I am very familiar with them. However, what I am doubting is that these redactions were done by people in the Pauline school (who often disagreed with Paul anyway, and in fact, we see interpolations within authentic letters of Paul, because later "Pauline" teachers found what Paul was saying to be too liberal).
I don't have Tabor's book with me. I am currently on vacation/work trip, and did not bring it with me. If you want to discuss certain ideas though, please post them here.
Matthew also used the term though. More so, other Greek writers used the term as well, and forms of the term were used in the Septuagint.
Mark 10:45 says nothing of this. It does not mention the cross, an apocalyptic turning point, or anything. Neither does Romans. They see a significance in the death of Jesus, but so did all early members of the Jesus movement, regardless of following Paul or not.
Or, in other words, a common motif of Jewish leaders during that time. That is why we also see it in Matthew and Luke, as well as the OT.
Mark doesn't talk about the New Adam. That is a Pauline idea, that is not found in the Gospels.
This is also seen in Gnostic texts, that largely reject Paul. Not a convincing argument.
And Luke and Matthew stated the same thing. In fact, one can find the same idea in the OT, which is why Paul quotes the OT in his defense.
Also found in Gnostic ideas, which largely rejected Paul.
Peter might be scolded, but the overall impression isn't negative. You can't take one or two events as if they are all characteristics. Plus, the view that Paul has for the family of Jesus is quite positive. He sees James as being the leader of the church, and never says anything bad about him. In fact, Paul submits to him.
If you read all of Paul, he only says that Gentiles do not have to follow the food laws, and or the other Jewish laws. After all, they aren't Jews. There was no change in the law for Paul. Instead, looking at the OT, he saw that all the nations would be able to enter into fellowship, and he implemented that in his ideas as he thought it was the end of times.
Well, Luke-Acts often completely disagrees with what you listed, and in fact, Steve Mason, in the first link, said that he went a completely different direction. As for the parallels, they mean pretty much nothing besides that these authors were influenced by Hebrew scripture.
We don't have the Q document. We have very little idea what is in the Q document, and many scholars reject the existence of a Q document as it is only hypothetical. We can not say what is not in the Q document as we don't have it. As for the Didache, and Thomas, I am sure that if you wanted to find Jewish ideas in either, you could say that they resemble Paul, as that is basically what you have done.
That's not really true. He has written some great material that is well accepted by scholars in those fields. He is a respected scholar, who has the credentials. He may explore ideas that many wouldn't venture, but he does provide evidence for his claims, and is willing to correct them based on critiques.
You can't label an entire scholar's work trash because of one book that has a few negative reviews. Of course Bock is going to have a problem with Tabor. Bock is more conservative. I'm not sure about the other scholars, as I don't know them.
You judgement is based on very little exposure to him, and bias. The fact that many scholars still see him as credible, and respectable, means that one can't logically just write him off as a kook, as you are trying to do. You need to deal with his arguments, not just attack him.
Have you read his book? Have you seen his arguments (and I'm not talking about just one TV show that obviously was made to be more extravagant)? There is plausibility. In fact, everything has some level of plausibility, at least in historic studies.
My impression was that his credibility and authority were in question, and he was trying to establish it with this reference. After all, he, like any preacher today, was seeking credibility for his message. The problem for historicism, I think, is that it relies largely on a record of sales pitches. That is why we look for independent corroboration. After all, Paul was not Suetonius, Tacitus, or even Josephus. His main job was to convince folks of his mission.