Mental flatliner wrote: The fact that the four gospels agree in every detail means that they witnessed events and are corroborating each other.
Has Rushdoony returned from the grave?
Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet
Re: Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet
Has Rushdoony returned from the grave?
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Re: Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet
....
Last edited by andrewbos on Mon Apr 27, 2015 6:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet
mentalflatliner is gone now, but --
in the snippet that you quote, he uses the word "copy" in a very restricted sense, ignoring the context of its application.
in the snippet that you quote, he uses the word "copy" in a very restricted sense, ignoring the context of its application.
Re: Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet
I have to agree. Of all the potential gloves out there, this one seems to fit the best. I would also add a D12 - the contextual credibility of the hypothesis. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the host of other eschatological prophet-like figures found in Josephus shows that apocalyptic thought was in the air. So it's not like we're dealing with a hypothesis that is totally out of left-field.bskeptic wrote:I agree with mainstream scholarship on the historical Jesus (e.g., E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman, Dale Allison, Paula Fredriksen, et al.) that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet. Such a hypothesis, if true, would be a simple one that would make sense of a wide range of data
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
-
ingafreeman
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 10:32 am
Re: Jesus as a Failed Eschatological Prophet
[quote="ApostateAbe"][quote="Blood"][quote="bskeptic"]
D11. Consider also E.P. Sanders’ argument: the passages that attribute these predictions to Jesus and Paul satisfy the historical criteria of multiple attestation (and forms), embarrassment, earliest strata (Mark, Q, M, L, Paul’s earliest letters, the ancient “Maranatha” creed/hymn) etc., thus strongly indicating that these words go back to the lips of Jesus....[/quote]
No. Sanders is in error. Religious writers copying other religious writers in their circle is not "multiple attestation" of anything. Four different versions of the Book of Tobit is not "multiple attestation" of the historical Tobit.
Q, M, and L do not exist. Non-existent documents cannot be used as evidence of anything.[/quote]
Mark, Matthew and Luke exist, and the only way to make sense of them is to posit that Matthew and Luke each had many prior sources, and those prior sources are designated Mark, Q, M and L. We can estimate the contents of those sources even if they do not exist, because the existing literature used them as sources. Matthew, Mark and Luke are certainly not mere copies of each other.[/quote]
Ilove Jesus
D11. Consider also E.P. Sanders’ argument: the passages that attribute these predictions to Jesus and Paul satisfy the historical criteria of multiple attestation (and forms), embarrassment, earliest strata (Mark, Q, M, L, Paul’s earliest letters, the ancient “Maranatha” creed/hymn) etc., thus strongly indicating that these words go back to the lips of Jesus....[/quote]
No. Sanders is in error. Religious writers copying other religious writers in their circle is not "multiple attestation" of anything. Four different versions of the Book of Tobit is not "multiple attestation" of the historical Tobit.
Q, M, and L do not exist. Non-existent documents cannot be used as evidence of anything.[/quote]
Mark, Matthew and Luke exist, and the only way to make sense of them is to posit that Matthew and Luke each had many prior sources, and those prior sources are designated Mark, Q, M and L. We can estimate the contents of those sources even if they do not exist, because the existing literature used them as sources. Matthew, Mark and Luke are certainly not mere copies of each other.[/quote]
Ilove Jesus