Languages of the NT literature

[gnostic]

You've already been shown that the town was unquestionably there, and you've been shown that text totally unrelated to Christian ideologies have the town labeled Nazareth within 100 years of Christ. This is far more evidence than exists for many towns from the Bible that are accepted by scholarship as having been identified by archaeology.

I don't buy this assumption that "if there are real cities and towns that existed in the scriptures, then the scriptures are true".

If the cities existed, historically and archaeological, then they existed, but that really don't mean the scriptures are historically and archaeological factual.

Do you know why?

Because I am (amateur) expert in mythology. And the majority of the cities, regions and islands mentioned by Homer in his works - The Iliad and The Odyssey - existed geographically and archaeologically. If I used the same logic as you, then I can ask you following questions:

• Does this mean Homer's accounts on the Trojan War and the story of Odysseus are real historical events?
• And more importantly, does it mean the Olympian deities exist?

Two important cities in Homer's works were said to be mythical - Mycenae and Troy, but both Bronze Age cities were found in the 19th century, matching the locations of Homer's descriptions.

So following your logic, then Agamemnon of Mycenae and Priam of Troy would be considered to be real people of the past.

And if there was traces of a temple, supposedly built by Solomon, this doesn't mean that God exist, because there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of ruined shrines or temples, dedicated to various Greek gods, not only in Greece, but on the islands, in the coastal cities of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), Italy, Gaul (France) and Africa (city of Cyrene for example).

If you look at other pagan religions and their myths, you would find real settings (places) for their myths. It doesn't mean that the myth tell of factual events or real people.

The town of Nazareth in Galilee may have existed in Jesus' time, but it doesn't prove that Jesus was ever a real person or that he was raised there.

 

[dogsgod]

Paul. And again this comment shows your lack of knowledge of ancient history. We have more evidence for Jesus than for plenty of more socially "elite" figures of ancient history.

Jesus lived in a highly illiterate society. He preached to a community which was largely poor and illiterate. Yet we have four "lives" within a few decades of his mission (compared with the centuries seperating Diogenes Laertius and those he wrote about). We have a contemporary who records a few of his teachings, knew his followers, and his letters survive. We have a Jewish historian who mentions a contemporary (James) who was Jesus' brother, not to mention the altered but partly genuine passage by Josephus himself.

The fact that you accuse those who appeal to scholarly consensus of basing arguments from authority and then appeal to websites is simply incredible.

We don't have a single witness that wrote of Jesus when he supposedly lived. If he lived in the first part of the first century he was without contemporaries. Paul's Christ was a skygod, Mark reads like allegorical fiction of a Pauline tradition and it was he that places Jesus' crucifixion just before the time of Paul's writings, the other apostle writers are reliant on Mark, Josephus was tampered with by later Christians, what he supposedly wrote of James and Jesus didn't show up until the 4th century, all this in part could explain why outside of New Testament writers we don't know of a single believer until Ignatius wrote in 117CE on his way to his martyrdom. Imagine that, not one known believer in an earthly Jesus until well into the second century.

Of course Christians and supporters of the dominant Christian orthodoxy in scholarship believe otherwise because there just has to be a Jesus, besides, could so many Christians be wrong? Would the church fathers steer us wrong?

 

[Oberon]

We don't have a single witness that wrote of Jesus when he supposedly lived.

So what? The same is true of countless ancient figures, from Socrates to Pythagoras to Solon to Appolonius to Pilate to so many, many, others. What we have instead are a number of sources shortly after he lived, which is much MORE than most ancient figures.

If he lived in the first part of the first century he was without contemporaries.

Wrong. Paul was a contemporary.

Paul's Christ was a skygod

This is so foolish and ridiculous. We have already gone over the fact that Paul knows Jesus brother (attested to by Josephus and the gospels), that he says that Jesus was descended from David "in the flesh," that he describes a last meal before Jesus was betrayed, that he knows Jesus teaching on divorce which he differentiates from his own, that several other allusions to Jesus' teachings are also found in his letters, and so on.

Again, you rely on a bunch of websites to back up your ridiculous theory, and then have the arrogance to yell "bandwagon" when ever anyone states something like the above, and backs it up by an appeal to massive amounts of scholarship.

Mark reads like allegorical fiction of a Pauline tradition and it was he that places Jesus' crucifixion just before the time of Paul's writings

Only it doesn't. Mark shows no awareness of the Pauline letters. It isn't allegorical in nature. In fact, it reads like a bunch of independent narratives and sayings of Jesus woven into a largely fictional overall narrative.

, the other apostle writers are reliant on Mark

Only John isn't. Also, Matthew and Luke had Q, as well as their own sources.

, Josephus was tampered with by later Christians

Not the James quote.

,

what he supposedly wrote of James and Jesus didn't show up until the 4th century

What do you mean "didn't show up?" It was in the text from the beginning, and it isn't christian at all, as it states "Jesus, the one CALLED christ" which no christian ever says.

all this in part could explain why outside of New Testament writers we don't know of a single believer until Ignatius wrote in 117CE on his way to his martyrdom

We can add this to your growing list of errors. Polycarp, Clement, and Papias were all also active in the first century. That means we have the four authors of the gospels, Paul, the other epistle writers and the above christians all within the first century. For ancient history, that is an unbelievable amount of data. Precious few historical figures from Jesus' time have anywhere NEAR that kind of attestation.

Imagine that, not one known believer in an earthly Jesus until well into the second century.

So very, very wrong. Not only does this rely on your horrible interpretation of Paul, you mistaken reading of the gospels, your poor reading of the events in Acts (some of which the author is an eyewitness to), your lack of knowledge of author christians active in the first century, it is also indicative of your lack of knowledge of how much attestation we have for MOST ancient figures.

Of course Christians and supporters of the dominant Christian orthodoxy in scholarship

When all else fails, dismiss over a century of critical scholarship because of dominant christian orthodoxy. Nevermind that it was the scholars who first wondered if there was enough evidence that Jesus existed (and realized there was far more than enough). Nevermind that scholars opposed to christianity have stated he was historical. Nevermind scholars are willing to say he wasn't the messiah, never resurrected, never claimed to be the messiah, that his body was eaten by dogs, that he was a cynic philosopher, and all sorts of things which are completely against christian orthodoxy. Ignore all that, just dismiss it all by calling them all christian becuase they don't agree with the websites you use for information.

 

[maklelan]

I don't buy this assumption that "if there are real cities and towns that existed in the scriptures, then the scriptures are true".

I've never made that assumption.

If the cities existed, historically and archaeological, then they existed, but that really don't mean the scriptures are historically and archaeological factual.

Nor this one.

Do you know why?

Because I am (amateur) expert in mythology. And the majority of the cities, regions and islands mentioned by Homer in his works - The Iliad and The Odyssey - existed geographically and archaeologically. If I used the same logic as you, then I can ask you following questions:

• Does this mean Homer's accounts on the Trojan War and the story of Odysseus are real historical events?
• And more importantly, does it mean the Olympian deities exist?

Two important cities in Homer's works were said to be mythical - Mycenae and Troy, but both Bronze Age cities were found in the 19th century, matching the locations of Homer's descriptions.

So following your logic, then Agamemnon of Mycenae and Priam of Troy would be considered to be real people of the past.

I never made any claim even remotely similar to that.

And if there was traces of a temple, supposedly built by Solomon, this doesn't mean that God exist, because there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of ruined shrines or temples, dedicated to various Greek gods, not only in Greece, but on the islands, in the coastal cities of Asia Minor (present-day Turkey), Italy, Gaul (France) and Africa (city of Cyrene for example).

If you look at other pagan religions and their myths, you would find real settings (places) for their myths. It doesn't mean that the myth tell of factual events or real people.

The town of Nazareth in Galilee may have existed in Jesus' time, but it doesn't prove that Jesus was ever a real person or that he was raised there.

My turn. I am a (professional) expert in the ancient Near East, and I do this for a living. I've never argued that the existence of Nazareth points to the existence of Christ, I was just correcting a false statement made by another poster.

I approach every text from a position of neutrality. I don't assume it is telling me the truth or is lying to me, I just let the evidence speak for itself on whatever levels it can until it gives me a reason to believe it is lying to me or telling me the truth. With the historical Jesus question, there is no reason to reject the existence of an historical figure behind the Jesus tradition. This does not mean a savior of the world who walked on water and rose from the dead, necessarily, but rather an itinerant preacher who contributed to early Jewish messianism. The lack of his mention in contemporary literature is not surprising or problematic. I've already explained why. On the other hand, the growth of his following represented in the New Testament places a large number of his followers in prominent roles in Rome and elsewhere about 20-30 years following his death, and that is exactly when their mention pops up in the textual record. The cases made against the existence of an historical figure behind the Jesus tradition are almost exclusively arguments from silence and come almost exclusively from amateurs with an ideological axe to grind and professional sensationalists. There's very little merit to them.

 

[maklelan]

We don't have a single witness that wrote of Jesus when he supposedly lived.

You keep saying that and it is repeatedly explained to you why this is not problematic in real scholarship. You don't seem willing or able to respond to that. Please do so or I'm not wasting any more of my time.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You keep saying that and it is repeatedly explained to you why this is not problematic in real scholarship. You don't seem willing or able to respond to that. Please do so or I'm not wasting any more of my time.

There are different ways of looking at it.

Some historians - perhaps even New Testament scholars - may think that Jesus was invented by Paul, and the Gospels are simply made-up stories of the life of this Jesus (or a similar one) using common images in the mythology of other great men / gods.

The "historical" Jesus has been exceptionally difficult for scholars to locate given the nature of the sources, because Jesus is encased in mythology and there is no scientific (read - consistent) method to demythologize the text to the extent that one can reconstruct a Jesus that is true to a historical nature.

Now this may be true of all ancient people, and may indeed be the nature of historical "criticism" itself. That is to say that any written or oral history itself may be encased in a mythology - and this "myth" is "bias" behind any given historical method.

 

[Oberon]

There are different ways of looking at it.

Some historians - perhaps even New Testament scholars - may think that Jesus was invented by Paul, and the Gospels are simply made-up stories of the life of this Jesus (or a similar one) using common images in the mythology of other great men / gods.

Other than Price, can you think of any NT expert who believes that Jesus didn't exist? Of course this are widely varying degrees of skepticism when it comes to the historicity of our sources, but even Bultmann, Mack, and others who are very skeptical of gospel historicity believe we have sufficient evidence that Jesus was a first-century historical figure with followers who inspired (in some way) a movement which may or may not represent his teachings (Mack would certainly argue that the movement as represented in Paul and the gospels does not represent Jesus' intent).

The "historical" Jesus has been exceptionally difficult for scholars to locate given the nature of the sources, because Jesus is encased in mythology and there is no scientific (read - consistent) method to demythologize the text to the extent that one can reconstruct a Jesus that is true to a historical nature.

I would agree to a point. Certainly aspects of Jesus' mission are difficult to assess from a historical point of view. However, that he existed is as certain a historical claim as one can make of such a period. Also, there are a number of other things which we could say about the "historical Jesus" that almost certainly applied to the "real Jesus."

Now this may be true of all ancient people, and may indeed be the nature of historical "criticism" itself.

Even philosophies of science don't deal with proof or certainty, and history is definitely not as an exact a discipline as the sciences. We can't recreate "events" to falsify theories, as can be done in science. Nonetheless, history applies methodologies that can be tested and that constrain historical inquiry.

That is to say that any written or oral history itself may be encased in a mythology

I wouldn't say that the Jesus tradition is "encased" in mythology. For example, the oral tradition of Jesus' teachings found in the gospel are a substantial part of the gospels, and are not "mythological." I would say rather that the entirety of Jesus' mission as represented in our various sources is seen through a mythological lense (and, just to be clear, I don't mean to degrade the beliefs of christians by using the term "mythological").

 

[maklelan]

There are different ways of looking at it.

Some historians - perhaps even New Testament scholars - may think that Jesus was invented by Paul, and the Gospels are simply made-up stories of the life of this Jesus (or a similar one) using common images in the mythology of other great men / gods.

There are few of these, and many of them are sensationalists.

The "historical" Jesus has been exceptionally difficult for scholars to locate given the nature of the sources, because Jesus is encased in mythology and there is no scientific (read - consistent) method to demythologize the text to the extent that one can reconstruct a Jesus that is true to a historical nature.

You're not using the word "mythology" correctly. For biblical scholarship, mythology deals with the epic drama and interplay of the gods with each other in various stock type-scenes in etiological or propagandistic texts. Strictly speaking, there's no real mythology in any of the biblical texts. There is mythic imagery, which is confined exclusively to the Hebrew Bible and constitute allusions to older Syro-Palestinian mythology, like the council of the gods and cosmogonic battles (although their presence is not as widespread as previously believed). What you reference is legend, not mythology. Calling it "mythology" is part of the amateur atheist methodology of marginalization and denigration. There is much that is legend in the New Testament, but not all legend is purely fictional, and while the historical Jesus is difficult to unpack from the text, that in no way undermines the historicity of the root of the legends.

Now this may be true of all ancient people, and may indeed be the nature of historical "criticism" itself. That is to say that any written or oral history itself may be encased in a mythology - and this "myth" is "bias" behind any given historical method.

I disagree. See my explanation of mythology and legend.

 

[gnostic]

In Acts, there section where the apostles could speak in "tongues".

I get the feeling this has nothing to do with being linguistics, being able to speak different languages. The ancient Israelite in that time (Roman occupation) were already bilnguistic.

What is this "speaking in tongues" mean?

I have recently heard and seen news media of Christian sect of some crazy Americans (Pentecostals, I think) who supposedly could "speak in tongues", and they were speaking different languages; they were just making unintelligable noises. As far as I can tell, they are giving Christianity a bad name.

I hoped this is not what the Acts mean.

 

[maklelan]

In Acts, there section where the apostles could speak in "tongues".

I get the feeling this has nothing to do with being linguistics, being able to speak different languages. The ancient Israelite in that time (Roman occupation) were already bilnguistic.

Many of them were, but in Acts there are people in Jerusalem from "every" nation in the world. The languages represented there would have been far more numerous than Latin, Greek, and Aramaic.

What is this "speaking in tongues" mean?

I have recently heard and seen news media of Christian sect of some crazy Americans (Pentecostals, I think) who supposedly could "speak in tongues", and they were speaking different languages; they were just making unintelligable noises. As far as I can tell, they are giving Christianity a bad name.

I hoped this is not what the Acts mean.

No, that's not what Acts is referring to. Keep in mind the visitors from other countries are said to have heard the message in their own several languages. The Pentacostal version of tongues is an outgrowth of the spiritualism of the Great Awakenings of the early 19th century. It began with the Shakers and other spiritualists who interpreted that kind of activity as the presence of the spirit. It has much older roots, however, in the prophets of ancient Mesopotamia and, through borrowing, Israel. Back then the prophets were called "ecstatics," and they received prophecy through a similar kind of girating fit. This was the spirit "coming upon" someone. Christianity in general avoided such irreverent activity until the 19th century response to the enlightenment injected quite a bit of hellfire and spiritualism into the movement.

 

[gnostic]

If I was to experience such religious ecstasy, then I'd prefer an old-fashioned Bacchic orgy any day than looking like bunch of the Pentacostal or Shaker fools, making unintelligible noise, claiming to speaking in tongues.