Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Bernard Muller wrote:I put that saying among the seventeen Jesus' sayings which I think are likely to be predominantly authentic.

Going through the NT texts I counted up 125 alleged 'sayings' of Jesus. Thus doing a little subtraction, it appears you reject 108 of the NTs 'sayings' of Jesus.
I reject only 17 more Jesus sayings than you. And I believe in only 1 less Jesus than you.

Actually, as these Jesus 'sayings' are composed of multiple assertions, and each one must be considered separately, the number of his alleged 'sayings' is actually much higher than 125, not that it matters, excepting that you believe damn little of what your imagined Jesus has to say. And shouldn't be too surprised that there are others who believe even less of the NTs horse crap,

Peter Kirby wrote:

toejam wrote:Great article. I think Jesus existed. But I'm not as confident as people like Ehrman and Casey who seemingly do think it's a slam dunk. For me, I see lots of pointers in the direction of the existence of a historical Jesus. None are slam dunks, but it seems unlikely that all of them are flawed.

E.g. Mythicists love to insist that we can't be sure that Jospehus wrote anything about Jesus. And this is true. But we can't be sure that he didn't either. Same for Tacitus and his sources. Same for Paul's letters. Mythicists love to insist that we can't be sure that Paul really did meet brother James. And this is true. But we can't be sure that he didn't either. Same for the gospel traditions. Mythicists love to insist that we can't be sure of any story in the traditions. And this is true. But we can't be sure that none of them are either.

The DIFFERENCE then, for me, is that mythicist hypotheses basically require ALL of these potential pointers to be faulty, where as historicism only really requires one. As you said in your article, if Josephus did say something about a historical Jesus, then it's more or less a closed case. If Tacitus was simply repeating common knowledge (like if we made a passing reference to L. Ron Hubbard), then it's more or less a closed case. If Paul really did meet James (or refer to a known historical brother at least) then it's a closed case. If Paul did write 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 then it's more or less a closed case. If the gospels do contain some historical memory of a crucified cult leader (like Hubbard's $cientology.com biography), then it's more or less a closed case. I have my doubts about some of these pointers. But I doubt more so that all of my doubts fall on the side mythicism requires.

There is a good point to be made here, but to an extent the door swings both ways. One correct argument to the effect that Paul (or, really, any of the pre-Gospel Christians who believed in "Jesus Christ") did not have a historical Jesus in view, for example, could invalidate our explanation of a multitude of other references, given that our hypothesis has to account for all the acknowledged evidence. And it's a lot easier for any single tradition to turn out to be false somehow than it is for Christianity to forget that its unintentional "founder" was crucified by Pilate and deposited his teaching with his disciples during his life.

I think this is why I'm attracted to definitions of historicity that involve a "founder" aspect. The "based on" definition is much looser and allows that the biography of Jesus simply had a tidbit here or there "based on a true story," like a Hollywood movie.

A one man theory verse a theory of a composite man theory? Searching for that one man 'founder' figure is like searching for a needle in a haystack. Searching for the historical figures that the gospel story writers could have used in the creation of their composite gospel Jesus figure is possible. Thus, the composite figure theory has more scope for advancing the historicist vs ahistoricist debate. That also means that the best case for Jesus is to drop the futile attempts to search for that one man 'founder' figure. i.e. rest the case on belief, faith, assumption - because that is where the case has rested ever since the gospel story became viewed as a historical story about it's Jesus figure.

I do think there is history reflected in the gospel story and that is why it originally was able to get a foothold. Early readers could 'see' that historical reflection. Time causes memory to fade. What was originally historical reflection became, for later readers of the story, historical reality.

Did he inadvertently cause the birth of Christianity, or did the birth of Christianity cause him? Along the lines of "God, if he did not exist, would have to be invented," was Jesus someone that had to be invented for the early Christians, or had they known him for a fact "in the beginning"?

The gospel Jesus story is invented i.e. it is a story. It was the retelling of history via a prophetic lens or OT interpretation that generated, invented, the Jesus figure. History plus its retelling in a prophetic format. Leaving history out of the mix that generated the NT story is where the mythicist theory falls flat. Top marks to the historicists in that regard...they won't be giving up on a historical relevance to the gospel story any time soon...

Was it the Emmaus road experience of coming to understand from the scriptures that the risen Lord Jesus had indeed walked among them, or the Damascus road experience with the bolt of insight that this man was indeed their lord and resurrected messiah?

New knowledge, new understanding, can be likened to a Damascus road experience. Got it! Penny dropped, lightbulb moment etc. Maybe a bit like that vase with two faces - one sees the same thing but views it differently. Logic does not guarantee a breakthrough to new ideas. Especially so when dealing with stuff of a theological nature. Sometimes, like evolution itself, intellectual evolution mutates or takes jumps.


And so the NT story of Paul. One minute he was persecuting Jesus followers the next he was a Jesus follower himself. Light-bulb moment on the road to Damascus - the road to Damascus the trigger the NT story is indicating for the conversion of it's Paul figure?



http://www.bible-history.com/maps/ancie ... srael.html

Bernard Muller wrote:I have been thinking lately about Lk 7:28 (also in Mt 11:11):

Cordially, Bernard

Why in Mt Arabic versions, "prophet" Is left out ?

The first sentence could not have been written by a Christian

Not sure what you mean here. They really did not exist when Luke was written. Do you mean proto Christian?

If Lk 7:28a is not Christian, then there is a very good chance it came from Jesus himself

It makes no difference either way.

I like this commentary here.

http://biblehub.com/luke/7-28.htm

And here

http://biblehub.com/matthew/11-11.htm

maryhelena wrote: And so the NT story of Paul. One minute he was persecuting Jesus followers the next he was a Jesus follower himself. Light-bulb moment on the road to Damascus - the road to Damascus the trigger the NT story is indicating for the conversion of it's Paul figure?

No


If you actually read Paul he contradicts this account in Acts. He just simply states he had a feeling from within. A change of heart.

outhouse wrote:

maryhelena wrote: And so the NT story of Paul. One minute he was persecuting Jesus followers the next he was a Jesus follower himself. Light-bulb moment on the road to Damascus - the road to Damascus the trigger the NT story is indicating for the conversion of it's Paul figure?

No. If you actually read Paul he contradicts this account in Acts. He just simply states he had a feeling from within. A change of heart.

Over the years I have written at length that Saul of Tarsus never existed. What has been written by others about Saul/Paul shows that he was an intolerant and bigoted man. Orthodox Jews rejected the Paul of the New Testament, even though he came out of a Pharisee background: he was a man “cut-off” from the general Israelite community. As a Pharisee (פרושים perushim/פרוש parush, meaning “set apart”; cf. (Ernest Klein (1987). Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem : Carta; [Haifa] : University of Haifa), Saul/Paul represented a group generally associated with being undesirables: tax collectors for the hated Roman occupation forces and the Roman Empire as well as relying on prophetic or Mosaic authority for their interpretation of Jewish laws, while the Sadducees represented the authority of the priestly privileges and prerogatives established since the days of Solomon, when Zadok, their ancestor, officiated as High Priest. There was also a form of class struggle between the two groups; the Pharisees were seen as poor and uneducated, while the Sadducees were seen as a “chosen people” who were among the elect of their god YHWH since the Sadducees included the wealthy and aristocratic families who collaborated with the Romans at the expense of the general community, dined with foreign occupants and even ignored cultural traditions (read: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ml#Essenes).

The Pharisees developed as a party within orthodox Judaism; shortly after the time of the revolt of Judas Maccabaeus against the Greek overlords in the middle of the second century BCE. The Pharisees separated themselves from other forms of religious belief within Judaism to be the ‘godly people’ who would be saved and, unlike most Israelites, believed in an afterlife and a warrior savior (a messiah - מָשִׁיחַ) who would be anointed with the holy oil reserved for kings and generals and come to the earth to reign over all Israelites (Exodus 30:22-25) as a descendant of a King “David” (דָּביתדוד); but the word has more than one meaning and actually is two words (a compound noun) meaning “beloved house” and indicative not of a man but of a dynasty or prophecy. The Tel Dan stele tells of the victory of an Aramean king over “the king of Israel” a triumph that was not foreseen and in fact promised would never occur (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... senes.html).

https://arthuride.wordpress.com/tag/serapis-god/

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote:

maryhelena wrote: And so the NT story of Paul. One minute he was persecuting Jesus followers the next he was a Jesus follower himself. Light-bulb moment on the road to Damascus - the road to Damascus the trigger the NT story is indicating for the conversion of it's Paul figure?

No. If you actually read Paul he contradicts this account in Acts. He just simply states he had a feeling from within. A change of heart.

Over the years I have written at length that Saul of Tarsus never existed. What has been written by others about Saul/Paul shows that he was an intolerant and bigoted man. Orthodox Jews rejected the Paul of the New Testament, even though he came out of a Pharisee background: he was a man “cut-off” from the general Israelite community. As a Pharisee (פרושים perushim/פרוש parush, meaning “set apart”; cf. (Ernest Klein (1987). Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language. Jerusalem : Carta; [Haifa] : University of Haifa), Saul/Paul represented a group generally associated with being undesirables: tax collectors for the hated Roman occupation forces and the Roman Empire as well as relying on prophetic or Mosaic authority for their interpretation of Jewish laws, while the Sadducees represented the authority of the priestly privileges and prerogatives established since the days of Solomon, when Zadok, their ancestor, officiated as High Priest. There was also a form of class struggle between the two groups; the Pharisees were seen as poor and uneducated, while the Sadducees were seen as a “chosen people” who were among the elect of their god YHWH since the Sadducees included the wealthy and aristocratic families who collaborated with the Romans at the expense of the general community, dined with foreign occupants and even ignored cultural traditions (read: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... ml#Essenes).

The Pharisees developed as a party within orthodox Judaism; shortly after the time of the revolt of Judas Maccabaeus against the Greek overlords in the middle of the second century BCE. The Pharisees separated themselves from other forms of religious belief within Judaism to be the ‘godly people’ who would be saved and, unlike most Israelites, believed in an afterlife and a warrior savior (a messiah - מָשִׁיחַ) who would be anointed with the holy oil reserved for kings and generals and come to the earth to reign over all Israelites (Exodus 30:22-25) as a descendant of a King “David” (דָּביתדוד); but the word has more than one meaning and actually is two words (a compound noun) meaning “beloved house” and indicative not of a man but of a dynasty or prophecy. The Tel Dan stele tells of the victory of an Aramean king over “the king of Israel” a triumph that was not foreseen and in fact promised would never occur (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... senes.html).

https://arthuride.wordpress.com/tag/serapis-god/

Few problems with the above.

It assumes he was a Pharisee. And it does not tell you that the Pharisees were divided on Hellenistic lines. Some mirrored Zealots, and some Hellenist. What is hard to deal with when looking at Paul, is he mirrors both. Pauls Judaism has always been debated, and there are no clear answers.

Also the term orthodox Jew, does not apply to the first century.

Most of the sources used were later sources a few hundreds years after Paul if im not mistaken.

to outhouse,

Why in Mt Arabic versions, "prophet" Is left out ?

Two possible answers:
1) not to antagonize Moslems then, who had Mohammad as the ultimate prophet.
2) because it was translated from the Alexandrian text-type, acknowledged by scholars to be the closest of the original writings: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_text-type
The RSV, which follows the Alexandrian text-type, does not have "prophet" in Mt 11:11.

Not sure what you mean here. They really did not exist when Luke was written. Do you mean proto Christian?

Why do you think Christians did not exist when gLuke was written? Did not "Luke" have Jesus as "Christ", "Son of God", with extraordinary divine powers and resurrected? That's good enough for me in order to declare "Luke" was a Christian.

I like this commentary here

What are the specific parts you like?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:Why do you think Christians did not exist when gLuke was written?



Cordially, Bernard

Because they are often called Jewish Christians for the first 100 years.


Many people still identified them as a Jewish sect.

What are the specific parts you like?

All of it.

Its giving you different theological possibilities to better place the context.

outhouse wrote: Because they are often called Jewish Christians for the first 100 years.

That is what is often asserted: it is likely there were a mix of prior or concurrent other beliefs involved or overlaying early Christianity

MrMacSon wrote:

outhouse wrote: Because they are often called Jewish Christians for the first 100 years.

That is what is often asserted: it is likely there were a mix of prior or concurrent other beliefs involved or overlaying early Christianity

Agreed whole hearted.

With no center to speak of, and many different groups with different faiths and adherence to Mosaic traditions, there had to be a wide range for a definition of these early groups.