Again, there simply isn't enough evidence on Judiasm of Jesus' day to make any definitive claims on the extent of the influence of the pharisees. And the fact that the "Pharisees play no role in the arrest, trial, and death of Jesus" adds to the plausibility of historicity, as the pharisees held influence with people, but had no official status.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is Jesus a Mythical Character?
- Thread starter roli
- Start date
Again, there simply isn't enough evidence on Judiasm of Jesus' day to make any definitive claims on the extent of the influence of the pharisees. And the fact that the "Pharisees play no role in the arrest, trial, and death of Jesus" adds to the plausibility of historicity, as the pharisees held influence with people, but had no official status.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Actually he does address it:
However, I think the fault is more with historicists who have stubbornly failed to develop a good theory of historicity. By simply resting on the feeble laurels of prima facie plausibility ("Jesus existed because everyone said so") and subjective notions of absurdity ("I can't believe Jesus didn't exist!"), the existence of Jesus has largely been taken for granted, even by competent historians who explicitly try to argue for it."
This is the scholarship that you consistently allude to.
This is rich, and so typical of the attitude towards anyone that would dare question the status quo.
I would expect this type of comment from you, because this is your idea of "addressing" scholarship. His statement in no way "addresses" scholarship on the historical Jesus. It doesn't even show that he has read any of it.
Addressing scholarship (I will try to make this clear for you, as it is something you have consistently failed to do) does not mean simply writing it off as insufficient. It means examining IN DETAIL the arguments made by numerous scholarly publications from all different experts, all pointing towards more reliable of the Jesus tradition than Carrier allows. Carrier does not do this. This is not to say that he has not addressed any scholarship, only that his analysis has to date been very limited and left out the bulk of it (primarily because most of his efforts have not been concentrated on the historical Jesus per se but on undermining christianity and religion in general). This is why I am looking forward to the release of his book I referenced above, where I hope he will address the mountain of scholarship on the historical Jesus. I know you can't tell the difference between addressing scholarship and simply referring to it (particularly as you haven't read any of it), so I thought I would make it clear.
This is what he himself is very open about. It is also the reason for his foray into the field at all, as his specialty and interest lie elsewhere. It is also the same type of criticism I have levelled at christian scholar's who make the same type of errors in the opposite direction.
Again, your lack of knowledge on this subject, combined with your bias and apparent inability to actually read anything other than websites which support your view ought to disqualify you from commenting until you can offer something of substance to the debate.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
If anyone has failed to address scholarship it is you. All you ever do is allude to this "mountain of scholarship" but you have yet to provide an argument and back it up with any references to this scholarship.
I have no reason to believe that you have read much of anything at all other than what has been preached by religious leaders for the last two thousand years.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Please provide references addressing the extent of pharisee influence.
How is this so in lieu of the fact that you just stated that "there simply isn't enough evidence on Judiasm of Jesus' day to make any definitive claims on the extent of the influence of the pharisees."?
Please clarify and provide references to support your claim, whichever it may be.
Actually, I have referenced many scholarly works. I will give a few more below:
On the oral tradition behind the gospels (as I have repeatedly discussed), see particularly
Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition edited by Henry Wansborough
Memory & Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity by Birger Gerhadsson
Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony by Richard Bauckham
Jesus Remembered (volume 1 of Christianity in the Making) by James D. G. Dunn
Jesus als Lehrer by Rainer Riesner
Story ad History-History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History by Samuel Byrskog
"Informal Conrolled Oral Tradition and they Synoptic Gospels" Asia Journal of Theology 5 (1991) and "Middle Eastern Oral Tradition and the Synoptic Gospels" Expository Times 106 (1995) by Kenneth Bailey.
On the Gospels as bioi/vitae (ancient biographies) as I have argued, see particularly
The New Testament in Its Literary Environment by David Aune
What are the Gospels? A Comparison with Graeco-Roman Biography by Robert Burridge
Evangelium als Biographie: Die vier Evangelien im Rahmen antiker Erzählkunst by Dirk Frickenschmidt
"Genre for Q and a Socio-Cultural Context for Q: Comparing Sorts fo Similarities with Sets of Differences" Journal for the Study of the New Testament by F. G. Downing
On this historical Jesus, there are so many, many, books and articles that any bibliography would go on far too long.
However, J. P. Meier's three volumes (soon to be four) on the historical Jesus remain a good survey of scholarship. See also the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus
None so blind as those that will not see. The fact that I don't argue against the resurrectiong of Jesus, or that he was/is God, sort of sets me apart.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
Provide sources please.
What have you offered to the debate other than that Jesus is historical because there is a mountain of scholarship out there that says so? I make use of the internet because it provides a wealth of information. You simply have a problem dealing with it and it's evident by your consistent use of ad hominems. You are incredibly quick to accuse everyone that joins in on this debate that they lack knowledge, it gets really boring and serves no other purpose than to avoid actually addressing the points made by those that question the historicity of your beloved Jesus. The scholarship is out there for everyone, I would suggest you make use of it.
I will provide the reference you ask, despite the fact that you have consistently failed to do so. For primary references, we have very little (Josephus, the NT, and the rabbinic literature) and all of them have problems. For scholarly refrences see in particular:
The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees Before 70 by Jacob Neusner
Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era edited by Jacob Neusner, William Green, and Ernest Frerichs
Early Judaism and its Modern Interpreters ed. by Robert A. Kraft and George Nickelsburg
Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies by E. P. Sanders
The New Testament and the People of God by N. T. Wright
A Marginal Jew (vol III): Companians and Competitors by J. P. Meier
I can provide more references if you wish. However, as you won't read them anyway, it seems somewhat of a waste of time.
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
The point is this, you never provide a line of reasoning from any of those books to support your views. Pointing to a pile of books provides nothing.
Just read his blog. He is devoted to "preaching" atheism, and is full of quotes like "It's definitely a feel good movie for atheists, and it definitely ****** off Christians to no end. I like it." This isn't a problem per se, of course, because it is possible to produce great scholarship despite biases, but he doesn't.
Information that is full of errors because it is by people who don't know what they are talking about. I have already demonstrated numerous errors from those awful sites you reference, not to mention numerous basic errors you have made yourself.
No, so far only the people who have failed to cite any scholarship whatsoever, or who have made basic historical errors (you above all).
I have provided you with references to every point I have made. You have as yet cited no scholarship supporting your views, and the only two scholars you have cited at all you have misrepresented.
I have. I have pointed out numerous times that the various ways in which the gospels differ from pagan myth, and in which they are similar to ancient history. For this reason. I have pointed out that the reasons that scholars believe an oral tradition lies behind the gospels (including quoting primary sources and utilizing prior analysis of the NT). I have stated that there is reason to believe that the oral traditions were reliably transmitted, and pointed to scholarship to back this up. I have pointed out how close (compared to some other ancient history) the gospels are to the events they describe.
I have outlined both in general and specifically why the gospels ought to be regarded as containing history, and in particular why they likely reliably transmitted Jesus teachings
I have also shown that you have made so many basic errors nothing you say should be taken seriously until you show you know what you are talking about. You aren't in a position to judge whether or not the websites you read are any good, because you lack the relevent knowledge with which to make such distinctions.
Now you have asked for spefic refences to back up my points. I have given you numerous references, and you discount them because 1) you have no such references to give, as you haven't read any scholarship in the field 2) you apparently don't like the fact that I CAN back up my points with scholarship and 3) if you don't discount the references you asked for, it makes you look pretty foolish. I would submit that you look pretty foolish anyway, not only for the numerous basic errors you have made, but because you are constantly accusing me of ignorance when I am particularly well-informed on this topic and you simply aren't.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
How do I know this or make any evaluation? As is typical, you didn't provide an address.
The above is typical of the full extent of your arguments. Statements such as "those awful websites" is not enough to demonstrate they have mistakes. Your arguments rarely go any further than to dismiss information that questions the historicity of Jesus out of hand and baseless accusations.
Merely providing book titles is not demonstrating that you know what you are talking about. When it comes down to it, accusing others of what you yourself fail to do is all you've got.
I am sorry, I naturally assumed that when I said "his blog" you would be capable of looking up his blog, seeing as your talent seems to be finding things on the internet. Here it is
That's true. However, I ALREADY demonstrated the mistakes in full, and I am not going to do it again in every post. You or anyone else simply has to go back and see (for example, you quoted that site on translating Hebrews, and the author either didn't know that the greek is a PRESENT unreal/contrary-to-fact condition).
Wrong again. As I said already, I have already outlined reasons for taking the gospels seriously as ancient histories and as likely to have reliably transmitted sayings/teachings of Jesus. The fact that I don't go over these IN EVERY POST doesn't mean I haven't done it. Just go back and review. It is true that I have given a basic outline, and covered some of the specifics in this thread (as well as my thread on "The Myth of the Jesus Myth" and the other current thread on the historical Jesus). However, to go further (apart from pointing out your numerous errors) is to write a book. What I do instead is give the outline, along with some specifics, and point to numerous more indepth works which back up my points and others can refer to if they are interested.
What you do is make basic historical errors, point to a bunch of websites, ask for references and then discount them, and fail to cite any scholarship on your own.
I have provided references to back my views, and you have not.
I have not made many basic historical errors, and you have (which I outlined all together in a previous post in this thread, although you have added to them since then; for instance, your statements on the gospels not being accepted until the 4th century)
I know this topic in great detail, and have read extensively on it, and you have not.
In short, I have a great deal to back me up, and you have a bunch of websites. You discount my references because you don't have any.
Last edited:
dogsgod
Well-Known Member
I've argued that Christianity is reliant on written tradition and have explained why yet I don't even know what point you are trying to make as regards to oral tradition. This is the extent of your argument as far as I can tell, "I have stated that there is reason to believe that the oral traditions were reliably transmitted, and pointed to scholarship to back this up." You state there is reason butI don't know what the reasoning is because when asked you merely point to a book. I don't know to what extent the role of oral tradition plays according to you. You are so incredibly preoccupied with stating how knowledgeable you are and how everyone else is without knowledge that you really have nothing of any substance to offer. I simple line of reasoning would be useful but is never provided by you which is why I don't think you understand why you believe what you believe, let alone understand the argument of those that oppose you.
You haven't argued anything. You pointed to one website which badly argued that all of Mark was dependent upon the OT. I showed that the author of the websites goes well beyond the evidence, and I went into extensive detail in one case (even analyzing the greek used in the two relevent passages) to show the author made comparisons on basically a single word.
I then asked you to cite actual scholarship. You proceeded to misrepresent Crossan and Mack by using them as evidence. I told you that ALL scholars acknowledge that the gospels used the OT to help them understand Jesus, and that neither Crossan nor Mack deny the historical Jesus, nor do the argue the gospels are completely dependend upon the OT, nor do the argue that there is no oral tradition behind the gospels. I then quoted from both specifically to show exactly how dishonest you were being.
Wrong again. I went into this argument in some detail, and I will sketch out the basic points again here:
1) Indepth analysis of Mark and the other gospels has revealed that these gospels contain individual and independent "sayings" and such which the authors have strung together in an overall narrative. This is the mark of a utilization of oral tradition.
2) Although all of the gospels were probably written originally in greek, many of the sayings are quite obviously translations from Aramaic. The only reason for this is that they are dependent on the Aramiac words of Jesus which were passed on orally before being translated for the Hellenists.
3) Independent attestation of early Church fathers is evidence that not only were the gospels based on oral tradition, but that this tradition continued to be circulated orally even after the gospels were written.
4) The culture of Jesus was overwhelmingly oral.
5) Paul uses technical vocabularly to describe the Jesus tradition being transmitted to him orally, as well as passing it on.
6) The gospels also use such vocabulary.
This is in part a basic sketch on why scholars all believe the gospels relied on oral tradition. The question then becomes how accurately and faithfully it was transmitted. Once again, we look to the statements made both in Paul and the gospels (Paul, for examples, discusses receiving the tradition from eyewitnesses, and of faithfully transmitting it). We can also look to the church fathers mentioned earlier who describe the necessity of receiving the tradition from those who knew it from eyewitnesses. Finally, apart from internal evidence and extra-canonical literature, we can examine oral transmission in general, particularly from cultures close to that of Jesus. Gerhadsson, Bailey, and others have all done so. By using this information we can see that oral tradition was likely fairly controlled (i.e. stories were not simply circulated widely, but people who were known to be "informed" were responsible for accurately transmitting these traditions). This is further backed by the various references to elders, eyewitnesses, etc, both in the NT and out of it.
Again, you should review the posts I have already made in order to avoid looking foolish. On top of these points I have given, I have pointed to numerous references where you can go for further information, as even if all I had ever contributed beyond references were the above six points, it would still be more information of greater accuracy than your contributions throughout this thread. You simply haven't done the research.
Perhaps you should actually read my posts.
And again, you discount my references because you have none.
Last edited:
Imagist
Worshipper of Athe.
I don't have any links online unfortunately. I have read a few books on the synoptic gospels and the historical Jesus, but my main knowledge on the subject comes from long discussion on the subject with my father, who is a college professor with his Ph.D. in Religious studies (I think his particular focus is Judaism and Early Christianity).
In any case, the literature written on the subject doesn't really have much to offer beyond opinion on the primary sources anyway.
How does a statement that the transmission of the gospels was affected by bias from two warring groups convince you that it was more reliably transmitted?
This is true, but it's worth noting that by the time the synoptic gospels were written, the Paulean group already had an advantage over the Petric group. It's possible that the Petric group had dropped the circumcision issue (which was obviously unpopular anyway) due to the fact that they had bigger fish to fry. The entire Jewish law was in danger of rejection by Christians, so the specific issue of circumcision was put on the back burner in favor of the larger argument.
The disagreement during Jesus' life is of little relevance in comparison to the disagreements during the time when the gospels were written.
A few things:
1. Oral transmission is unquestionably less reliable than written transmission, so your claim that the oral model of transmission makes it more reliable is simply wrong. Lucky for you, it's likely that the transmission wasn't entirely oral (most likely the synoptic gospels are abridgements of a longer gospel known as Q, or a at least drew from some of the same written sources: see the synoptic problem (not for you, for others who are reading this)).
2. Given that life expectancy was much lower then than it is now, 70 years might represent as much as 3-5 generations. Given this it is very unlikely that the accounts are double or even triple hearsay.
Death, resurrection, and ascension are no less common in pagan myth than death and rebirth. Even if they were, the differences are minor and not really enough to claim that the ideas weren't taken from other myths.
Furthermore, the claims of virgin births, miracles, resurrection, and ascension should make it clear more than anything else that the gospels are unreliable.
Where are you studying? I find it highly questionable (although not impossible) that a credible university will be giving you a Ph.D. for claiming that the gospels were a reliable source on the historical Jesus.
Christian Pilgrim
Active Member
Maybe many follow a mythical Jesus contrary to the real Jesus?
I Never Knew You
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ - Jesus
Last edited:
Evidence of historicity is not at all the same as reliable history, and to conflate the two is sloppy at best. To reject historicity suggests rejecting Galatians and Acts as complete fabrications while dismissing the gospel authors as second or third generation frauds or fools or both.