Are the four gospels reliable documents?

[JTurtle]

From William Lane Craig:

{snip}
1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability. Again I only have time to look at one example: Luke. Luke was the author of a two-part work: the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. These are really one work and are separated in our Bibles only because the church grouped the gospels together in the New Testament. Luke is the gospel writer who writes most self-consciously as an historian. In the preface to this work he writes:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

This preface is written in classical Greek terminology such as was used by Greek historians; after this Luke switches to a more common Greek. But he has put his reader on alert that he can write, should he wish to, like the learned historian. He speaks of his lengthy investigation of the story he’s about to tell and assures us that it is based on eyewitness information and is accordingly the truth.


This is just a little sample of the evidence out there that suggests that the New Testement documents, including the gospels, are reliable documents. Although many skeptics today believe that the NT documents are unreliable until proven true, I believe that there is better evidence to suggest that the NT documents are RELIABLE until proven wrong.

I am looking forward to hearing your response's........love

Jonathan

*****FYI, not all of the information on here is from me. Some of it is taken from the work of a certain Christian apologist, and more of the information can be found
here. (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html#text2) *****

Edited for copyright purposes. The rest of the much longer article can be found at the above link.

[funinspace]

Here is a little example, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death.

This is all pretty much the same old drivel, but it seams even other apologists diverge with this 5 year idea (not that I am endorsing the site):

http://www.kolumbus.fi/hjussila/rsla/Paul/paul08.html
At the end of Galatians 1 and at the beginning of chapter 2 Paul gives a general account of the initial stages of his ministry: "I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus. Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days -- Later I went to Syria and Cilicia. -- Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the Gospel that I preach among the Gentiles."

If Paul's conversion was in the year 32, he worked "a long time" in Damascus, then he went off for a short visit to Jerusalem, he was "three years in Arabia" and in Syria and Cilicia so long that only "fourteen years later" did he visit Jerusalem again. Evidently these fourteen years must be counted from Paul's conversion experience. Thus 32 + 14 plus the "long time" in Damascus, that is, perhaps almost a whole year would point to the year 47 A.D., when his first missionary journey is often placed. These approximate estimates make one ask where Paul had worked in those "intermediate years".

Not enough time for building legends? Man you really should get out more.

DK

[Mageth]

Originally posted by JTurtle
*****FYI, not all of the information on here is from me. Some of it is taken from the work of a certain Christian apologist, and more of the information can be found
here. (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html#text2) *****

Fine and dandy, but I think it would be proper for you to clearly indicate which parts are yours and which belong to others. Say, by placing the words of others within:

quotes.

[Yannis (J'ohn)]

Originally posted by JTurtle
The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James.
Many if not most scholars support that the mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus was a forgery, exactly for the purpose of affirming the historicity and impact of Jesus on his era.

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased.
You are assuming that the gospels were written within the lifetime of people that had come in contact with Jesus, and, more importantly, you're assuming that they were written in the general area where Jesus (supposedly at least) acted.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.
Fine. Then I hope you also believe that the sister of Alexander the Great drank water of immortality and became a mermaid. ;)

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.
Here you are assuming that the gospels were written by Jews.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.
Again, you are assuming that the authors of the gospel wrote them while under the direct surveillance of people who had communicated with Jesus in person

5. [I]The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.{/I]
Do they? I haven't read any other works of theirs. Could you mention some to me?

Oh, and, before I draw this to a close, let me highlight a reason why the gospels should be assumed to be "guilty until proven innocent":
Because zealots are ready to support anything in order to make their faith grow stronger. The authors of the gospels had in mind the spreading of the beliefs of Christianity. They were ready to fill the gospels with lies if that would make them more popular.

Ask Eusebius.

SBS :)

[Mageth]

BTW, since most of your post is Craig's work, I think it's proper to respond by posting:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/christianity/craig.shtml

[Mageth]

Oh, and at the bottom of the page from which most of the information in the OP was copied, there are the following statements:

Copyright (C) William Lane Craig. All Rights Reserved.

copyright © 1995-2004 Leadership U. All rights reserved.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html

If you did not get permission from Craig and Leadership U., I'm afraid you (and this site) are in danger of copyright violation.

Thus, note that I've reported the OP to the moderators.

[rlogan]

Has it occurred to you that if the Gospels record absurdities and are self-contradictory that these are valid reasons to challenge them as historical documents?

If you are reading along in a purported biography of Abraham Lincoln and he's raising people from the dead, walking on water, feeding the Northern army with a can of tuna fish, turning water into Mountain Dew, healing lepers, and coming back to life after being shot at Ford Theatre -

Would you say it was history?

If one Biography says he was born ten years later than the other, and neither one of them will say when he died, would you say they are reliable? How about three completely different versions of his murder? Three different lineages?

[capnkirk]

JTurtle, JTurtle,

If you are arguing for a Historical Jesus Christ, you will either be completely ignored, or eaten alive by some of the Great White Sharks that swim these waters. If you are expecting to convince anyone here that you are right, forget it. There are more genuine Biblical scholars on this forum than most universities have on their faculty staffs, and with them, your faith will avail you nothing. I hope you have more to offer than that.

There ARE some here that argue for a historical Jesus who was an exclusively human Jewish messianic candidate; I personally lean that direction. Most of the others will drown you in documentation that points strongly to a purely mythical Jesus. Perhaps you can prepare yourself by reading through another thread on this forum titled "Earl Doherty".

I personally am not interested in entering into a debate with you because so much that you think you know is wrong, and I have my doubts that someone that writes an OP as long as yours is likely to give an inch.

Just to give you a taste of what is coming, I will address just this one point. You said, "The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about...even Jesus himself and his brother James." There are precisely two references to Jesus in Josephus, and most scholars now agree that they are interpolations inserted by others at a later date, and that there is no way to tell what, if anything, was there beforehand. The Doherty thread spends a lot of time discussing James the Just, and whether the references to his being Jesus' brother are literal or figurative.

LOL,

This is capnkirk...

[Mageth]

If you are arguing for a Historical Jesus Christ, you will either be completely ignored, or eaten alive by some of the Great White Sharks that swim these waters.

He's not really arguing at all; he's posting William Lane Craig's arguments. I suspect that JTurtle, if he tried to argue on his own, would be eaten by the minnows.

[graymouser]

Originally posted by JTurtle
When looking at Jesus, it is foolish to deny that a historical Jesus existed."When looking at Odysseus, it is foolish to deny that a historical Odysseyus existed." Please substantiate exactly why - mythicism of the substantiating works aside - these statements are different.

The New Testament documents are the most important historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth.Luke is the only source that claims to be a history, and it is not well corroborated. However, yes, there are people who we now primarily through hagiographic writings. However, the amount of actual data taken from hagiography in good historiography is far less than 100%. Any hagiographic document must necessarily be considered biased.

However, there are also many other sources OUTSIDE of the gospels that mention Jesus. He’s referred to in pagan, Jewish, and Christian writings outside the New Testament.A spurious reference in Josephus aside, none for about a century.

The Jewish historian Josephus is especially interesting. In the pages of his works you can read about New Testament people like the high priests Annas and Caiaphas, the Roman governor Pontius Pilate, King Herod, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself and his brother James. You were right up until the last part; it is definite that the passage about Jesus himself - the "Testimonium Flavium" - is a forgery, because Josephus considered Vespasian to be the Messiah.

That aside, this does not imply that the Gospels were true, because a different - equally explanatory - hypothesis would be that the individuals writing the Gospels had access to Josephus' works.

There have also been interesting archaeological discoveries as well bearing on the gospels. For example, in 1961 the first archaeological evidence concerning Pilate was unearthed in the town of Caesarea; it was an inscription of a dedication bearing Pilate’s name and title. Even more recently, in 1990 the actual tomb of Caiaphas, the high priest who presided over Jesus’s trial, was discovered south of Jerusalem.So the Gospel authors knew that Pilate was prelate (though they mislabelled him as procurator) at the time when they were writing, and that Caiaphas was high priest. This does not corroborate the unique information given in them.

According to Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, "Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate and continued to have followers after his death." For more information on this feel free to check up on it, here is the reference: Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123. So any reliable historian will tell you this. Ipse dixit. There's no argument presented here.

Still, if one wants any details about Jesus’s life and teachings, one must turn to the New Testament. The question then becomes: how historically reliable are the New Testament documents?Now, given that the NT was canonized around the 380s, what reason is there to believe that only the four gospels currently considered canonical are to be believed? What disqualifies, say, the documents that were found at Nag Hammadi as being authoritative? Please present thorough argumentation without begging the question.

Let us look at the burden of proof shall we? Should we assume that the gospels are reliable unless they are proven to be unreliable? Or should we assume the gospels are unreliable unless they are proven to be reliable? Are they innocent until proven guilty or guilty until proven innocent? Sceptical scholars almost always assume that the gospels are guilty until proven innocent, that is, they assume that the gospels are unreliable unless and until they are proven to be correct concerning some particular fact. BUT, here are 5 reasons why we should assume the gospels are RELIABLE until proven wrong:In historiography, you try to piece together the truth. You don't assume the veracity of any document 100%. Ever. You look for corroborating sources and archaeological evidence; you look for the source's bias and try to winnow it out entirely. You don't accept anything prima facie.

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. The interval of time between the events themselves and recording of them in the gospels is too short to have allowed the memory of what had or had not actually happened to be erased. This betrays a complete misunderstanding of human thought processes and nature. Go to www.snopes.com and look at the myths that get passed around and accepted as true in the information age when everybody is literate and well-connected and the average Joe has the world's greatest ever database of knowledge at his or her fingertips.

Then look back at the age you're dealing with: a time of widespread illiteracy, superstition, and legend. It is not only impossible, it is probable that such legends would spread. More fantastical things spread about people during their lives, much less afterward.

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives.Yes, they do. This is entirely possible and probable - you're just assuming that it's not because it supports your thesis. Urban legends spread about modern and historical figures all the time.

Second, you're assuming the historicity of Jesus, which is very much questionable - and even proponents of an HJ admit that he would've been very minor. A minor figure can be quite good if you want to start inventing a religion from scratch.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable. In an oral culture like that of first century Palestine the ability to memorize and retain large tracts of oral tradition was a highly prized and highly developed skill. From the earliest age children in the home, elementary school, and the synagogue were taught to memorize faithfully sacred tradition. The disciples would have exercised similar care with the teachings of Jesus.Please demonstrate this in some - any - way. At all. And in that context, explain the significant differences between the Septuagint (LXX) and the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible.

4. There were significant restraints on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision. Since those who had seen and heard Jesus continued to live and the tradition about Jesus remained under the supervision of the apostles, these factors would act as a natural check on tendencies to elaborate the facts in a direction contrary to that preserved by those who had known Jesus.Can you attest independently any apostles except James and Paul? Or this supervision of which you speak? Nobody quoted the Gospels during the lifetimes of the apostles; how can you prove that there was no redaction from the death of the last apostle to the first actual records (a time that would've been over a century and a half)?

5. The Gospel writers have a proven track record of historical reliability.Do they? There's no outside attestation for the events of the Gospels, I'm afraid. And the character of Pontius Pilate is drawn very differently from the known man, who made something of a hobby of taunting his Jewish subjects.

Due to lack of time, we will only look at the first point for now.

1. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the historical facts. No modern scholar thinks of the gospels as bald-faced lies, the result of a massive conspiracy.www.joeatwill.com

The Flavian Hypothesis holds exactly what you say no one thinks. Sorry, but you're wrong.

The only place you find such conspiracy theories of history is in sensationalist, popular literature or former propaganda from behind the Iron Curtain.Nice ad hominem against anyone who'd doubt this.

Despite this, ever since the time of D. F. Strauss, sceptical scholars have explained away the gospels as legends. Like the child’s game of broken telephone, as the stories about Jesus were passed on over the decades, they got muddled and exaggerated and mythologized until the original facts were all but lost. The Jewish peasant carpenter was transformed into the divine Son of God.Not necessarily. Mystery cult theorists hold the opposite - the divine Son of God was transformed into a Jewish peasant carpenter.

One of the major problems with the legend hypothesis, however, which is almost never addressed by sceptical critics, is that the time between Jesus’s death and the writing of the gospels is just too short for this to happen.Not necessarily.

This point has been well-explained by A. N. Sherwin-White in his book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament [A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), pp. 188-91.]. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is a professional historian of times prior to and contemporaneous with Jesus. According to Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman and Greek history are usually biased and removed one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence the course of Roman and Greek history.At times. There are numerous eyewitness accounts - like Julius Caesar's Bellum Gallicum or Josephus' Bellum Judaicum. However, yes, there are strong biases; this is the cause of far more headaches and work in historiography than you can imagine.

For example, the two earliest biographies of Alexander the Great were written by Arrian and Plutarch more than 400 years after Alexander’s death, and yet classical historians still consider them to be trustworthy.Arrian's Anabasis and Plutarch's account are not taken prima facie, which is what the Christian wants us to do with the Gospels. Every detail is fact-checked against archaeology and the other sources, and still there are dozens of competing interpretations of Alexander.

You also underestimate the fact that most of the literature of the ancient world has been lost. For instance, Arrian (and Plutarch, and Quintus Curtius Rufus, and Diodorous Siculus) based his account of Alexander on a variety of original sources, including the official journal of the campaign, and accounts written by people who were actually present - like Ptolemy. They didn't just magick their accounts up from oral history.

Christians should actually study ancient history instead of just believing it.

When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed.Ipse dixit and entirely unsubstantiated.

Here is a little example, Paul in his letters hands on information concerning Jesus about his teaching, his Last Supper, his betrayal, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection appearances. Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death. It just becomes irresponsible to speak of legends in such cases.Paul-as-mythicist theory completely explains this. So does the Flavian Hypothesis. Sorry.

This is just a little sample of the evidence out there that suggests that the New Testement documents, including the gospels, are reliable documents. Although many skeptics today believe that the NT documents are unreliable until proven true, I believe that there is better evidence to suggest that the NT documents are RELIABLE until proven wrong.

I am looking forward to hearing your response's........love

Jonathan

*****FYI, not all of the information on here is from me. Some of it is taken from the work of a certain Christian apologist, and more of the information can be found
here. (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html#text2) ***** The evidence - speaking as someone who loves and studies ancient history - is extremely weak. You've shown that you neither understand ancient history nor historical criticism, and your argument relies on ipse dixit statements and faulty assertions about how legends spread.

The evidence for the reliability of the Gospels is extremely weak; the further obvious contradictions finish the job.

-Wayne

[Mageth]

So far, I've dissected the following that are "original" to JTurtle, though parts of this are simply rewordings of parts of Craig's article:

When looking at Jesus, it is foolish to deny that a historical Jesus existed. The New Testament documents are the most important historical sources for Jesus of Nazareth. However, there are also many other sources OUTSIDE of the gospels that mention Jesus.

and

For more information on this feel free to check up on it, here is the reference: Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1996), p. 123. So any reliable historian will tell you this.

That last line is kinda funny.

and

This is just a little sample of the evidence out there that suggests that the New Testement documents, including the gospels, are reliable documents. Although many skeptics today believe that the NT documents are unreliable until proven true, I believe that there is better evidence to suggest that the NT documents are RELIABLE until proven wrong.

I am looking forward to hearing your response's........love

Jonathan

*****FYI, not all of the information on here is from me. Some of it is taken from the work of a certain Christian apologist, and more of the information can be found
here. *****

There are a few other lines here and there which were simply reworded.

That statement, "FYI, not all of the information on here is from me. Some of it is taken from the work of a certain Christian apologist..." is laughable. There was no real information from you in that post.

[DISSIDENT AGGRESSOR]

2. The gospels are not analogous to folk tales or contemporary "urban legends." Tales like those of Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill or contemporary urban legends like the "vanishing hitchhiker" rarely concern actual historical individuals and are thus not analogous to the gospel narratives


Just in case anyone is a wondering who Paul & Bill is:

http://www.drlamay.com/pecos_bill.htm (http://)

http://www.paulbunyantrail.com/talltale.html (http://)

Sorry but "vanishing hitchhiker" sounds a little spooky:eek:and I didn't want to look him up:eek:

[Peter Kirby]

Yannis: Many if not most scholars support that the mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus was a forgery, exactly for the purpose of affirming the historicity and impact of Jesus on his era.

capnkirk: There are precisely two references to Jesus in Josephus, and most scholars now agree that they are interpolations inserted by others at a later date, and that there is no way to tell what, if anything, was there beforehand.

PK: I would be interested in expanding my list of writers who have argued that the whole Testimonium (18.3.3) and/or the second reference (20.9.1) to Jesus were interpolated.

I would be especially interested in writers since 1980. Here's a start:

Ken Olson (only the Testimonium discussed)
Twelftree (only the second reference discussed)
G. A. Wells (both rejected)
Earl Doherty (both rejected)
Freke&Gandy (both rejected)

Olson and Twelftree haven't published on the historicity of Jesus. Wells, Doherty, Freke, and Gandy are simultaneously arguing against historicity.

What else has been published since 1980 that disputes whether there was any original Testimonium and/or whether the twentieth book mentioned Jesus (brother of James)?

best,
Peter Kirby

[Vorkosigan]

What else has been published since 1980 that disputes whether there was any original Testimonium and/or whether the twentieth book mentioned Jesus (brother of James)?

best,
Peter Kirby [/B]

Zindler...Price...Ellegaard (inferred from the discussion on p232 and the book's conclusions in general)...Liedner...Eisenman (by implication of his thesis, although he accepts the 20.200 reference)....

If you are arguing for a Historical Jesus Christ, you will either be completely ignored, or eaten alive by some of the Great White Sharks that swim these waters

Pay attention to capnkirk, JT. It's not often the sharks give warning.

Instead of putting up a series of points, perhaps you could start several threads with one point each. That would be tidier and easier to manage for mods and posters. Otherwise the thread will sprawl all over the place.

Also, if you want to participate here -- and we welcome new posters -- it might be a good idea to have read some of the major works listed in the recommended readings. A major New Testament introductory work, like that of conservatives Brown or Johnson, should be considered mandatory.

Vorkosigan

[Vinnie]

If one Biography says he was born ten years later than the other, and neither one of them will say when he died, would you say they are reliable? How about three completely different versions of his murder? Three different lineages?

First, Herod is placed at the beginning, then the baptist, then Pilate at the end. There are cleat chronological Markers even if no "on x day this occured."

Second, Luke probably just conflated two sets of riots for Jesus' birth . A minor historical mistake on his part. See E.P. Sanders.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

"When looking at Odysseus, it is foolish to deny that a historical Odysseyus existed." Please substantiate exactly why - mythicism of the substantiating works aside - these statements are different.

For starters go here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html

See only issue 15 which speaksof a ground zero.

Next go here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

This has a stratification of Jesus and Christian sources.


Now please provide a general ground zero for Odysseyus and list your source stratification of Odysseyus texts.

After you do your job we can get into genre and spoecific.

Do any Odysseyus texts consist of movable pericopes that were inherited?

This is just another poor "Robin Hood Comparison."

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

capnkirk: There are precisely two references to Jesus in Josephus, and most scholars now agree that they are interpolations inserted by others at a later date, and that there is no way to tell what, if anything, was there beforehand.

This is blatantly false. The shorter passage is widely regarded as authentic. Disputing the shorter reference appears to be little more than special pleading. The longer reference (Testimonium Flavianum) is hotly contested for good reason.

The opposite is more likely. Maybe the four mythicist scholars you read favor double interpolation (goes with their grain) but the majority of critical scholars certainly do not favor total interpolation of both passages.

The shorter reference is more important as it mentions James, Jesus' brother as does Mark. We can throw in Paul but the mythicists here like to engage in apologetical harmonizations and wiggle on that one. Jospehus and Mark is sufficient as there is nothing extraordinary about a first century having a brother.

Vinnnie

[Vinnie]

Are the four gospels reliable documents?

Yeah. Matthew Mark, Luke and John are reliable at reconstructing what Christianity was like from 70-100 C.E.

Take Mark's portrayal of Jesus' opponents and the nullification of the food laws as one VERY SECURE example of Christians projecting later views back onto the historical Jesus.

But by reliable, if you mean "historically accurate" then no. The Gospel of John least of all.

Vinnie

[Vorkosigan]

The opposite is more likely. Maybe the four mythicist scholars you read favor double interpolation (goes with their grain) but the majority of critical scholars certainly do not favor total interpolation of both passages.

Unfortunately, their arguments are generally specious. Meier's argument in The Marginal Jew is the canonical example, being full of logical holes, disingenuous, and irrelevant. There are no sound reasons to accept the authenticity of the TF. Were that any other passage in any other document (a work of Aristotle's for example), it would undoubtedly be rejected wholesale as an interpolation.

Nevertheless, Vinnie, is correct. The majority of exegetes maintain that the Josephus passage has been worked over by Christians, not that the whole thing is false. But since the vast majority of exegetes are oath-sworn to Jesus' historical existence, their opinion is worth little on this matter.


poster: If one Biography says he was born ten years later than the other, and neither one of them will say when he died, would you say they are reliable? How about three completely different versions of his murder? Three different lineages?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vinnie: First, Herod is placed at the beginning, then the baptist, then Pilate at the end. There are cleat chronological Markers even if no "on x day this occured."

Your comment does not answer the poster's objection.

Jospehus and Mark is sufficient as there is nothing extraordinary about a first century [man] having a brother.
Vinnnie [/B]

....unless, of course, that first century man is a fiction, and the passages of Jesus are interpolations (which they certainly are!)

Vorkosigan

[Vinnie]

Nevertheless, Vinnie, is correct.

Vorkosigan is correct on this issue :)

But since the vast majority of exegetes are oath-sworn to Jesus' historical existence, their opinion is worth little on this matter.

This is correct even if for other reasons than you state. What ultimately matters is the arguments behind the opinon (mythicist or HJ) but arguments from authority do have "some" merit. They are not needed here, however and one seriously arguing a position like this should not need to appeal to tbem.

Your comment does not answer the poster's objection.

I did not intend to. I agree with the objection. The Gospels are not historically reliable. I was adressing Luke vs Matthews dating of Jesus birth and the lack of a year for Jesus' death.

If you want commentary on the rest:

The lineages of Jesus are found in the Birth narratives.

The birth narratives are not historically relaible and they contradict one another. On an HJ/MJ level I wrote this in number 11 of the Jesus Faq:

[11] Argument: The Infancy Narratives Are Way Creative

Rebuttal: I've seen this one several times. I must concede that I generally agree that the infancy narratives are "way creative". What some Jesus skeptics forget to tell us is that the infancy narrative material is not like the rest of the Gospel material which consists of individual and movable pericopes. Whole streams of NT thought show no knowledge of the infancy narrative material (e.g. Mark and John) and it appears relatively late (ca 90 C.E. when Mt and Lk were written but some material inside must be dated earlier--but how far back we cannot be certain).

It is simply fallacious to use the highly creative nature of the infancy narrative material and apply that to the rest of the Gospel material which was transmitted and used separately of the infancy narratives for so many years. They need to be evaluated on their own terms. This anachronistic eisegesis must go.

Of course I agree there is nothing or only extremely little that is historical in the birth narratives (general time frame and the names of Jesus' parents).

As far as the Passion accounts those are largely non-historical as well. The brute fact of crucifixion emerges, possibly all by its lonesome. The accounts of Jesus' death are not strict--reliable straighforward history accounts. Extremely little can be affirmed on historical grounds as having occured. THis does not mean we can prove all it didn't but when lacking positive evidence for something we are forced to lack belief in it.

[quote]....unless, of course, that first century man is a fiction, and the passages of Jesus are interpolations (which they certainly are!)[quote]

The TF might be (though you know i tend to ddoubt this) but not the shorter one. It is special pleading unless you can provide some prima facie reasons for viewing it as one?

Vinnie

[graymouser]

Originally posted by Vinnie
For starters go here:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusfaq.html

See only issue 15 which speaksof a ground zero.

Next go here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

This has a stratification of Jesus and Christian sources.


Now please provide a general ground zero for Odysseyus and list your source stratification of Odysseyus texts.

After you do your job we can get into genre and spoecific.

Do any Odysseyus texts consist of movable pericopes that were inherited?

This is just another poor "Robin Hood Comparison."

Vinnie If Greece were kinder to the preservation of ancient documents, much of the sighing done by antiquarians - and do not mistake me for a Biblical scholar, I am looking at it from a historical standpoint - would not happen.

I do see your point about a common time before which no extant Jesus writings speak, and I see that the time limit itself is quite appropriate.

I feel that this still leaves us with no more proof that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels lived than proof that Odysseus lived.

-Wayne

[Vinnie]

I feel that this still leaves us with no more proof that the Jesus Christ of the Gospels

A harmonized four-fold Gospel Jesus is as mythological as Zues is. The "Jesus Christ" of the Gospels is a mythological chimera. I speak of "Jesus ben Joseph", the man underneath the embellished harmonized portrait of Jesus in the canon. I speak of the Jesus ultimately behind Q, Thomas. Pre-Markan traditions, the Jerusalem school, the original disciples and so on.

Vinnie

[Vorkosigan]

The TF might be (though you know i tend to ddoubt this) but not the shorter one. It is special pleading unless you can provide some prima facie reasons for viewing it as one?
Vinnie [/B]

The reasons are well known to exegetes, Vinnie. The gospels are fictions and all relationships in them are fictions; where a "history" reproduces a fiction, it is itself a fiction (that applies to both the TF and the Antiquities 20.200 passage). Paul never refers to James as Jesus brother, but simply gives him a title or a position in a group. You can only get to authenticity for 20.200 if you backread the gospels into Paul.

Vorkosigan

[Vorkosigan]

Do any Odysseyus texts consist of movable pericopes that were inherited?

No gospel texts consist of "inherited" movable pericopes. The sources for these stories are in the OT or similarly in the general culture, or from creativity. Please demonstrate that any source in the gospels is "inherited" by transmission from an putative historical Jesus or anyone around him.

Vorkosigan

[Vinnie]

No gospel texts consist of "inherited" movable pericopes.

Lord have mercy.....

Please demonstrate that any source in the gospels is "inherited" by transmission from an putative historical Jesus or anyone around him.

The crucifixion of Jesus in an "inheritided tradition". Embarrassment and multiple attestation.

Vinnie

[Weltall]

Originally posted by Vinnie
The crucifixion of Jesus in an "inheritided tradition".
Actually the only sources we have for this event are the gospels and they contradict themselves on this rather important event.
Embarrassment and multiple attestation.
If you have an extrabiblical attestation for the crucifixion I'd love to see it.

[Doctor X]

Looks over the field. Notes it did not take the hounds long. . . .

. . . instructs Seed to open a Midleton cask in honor of a truly religious holiday. . . .

--J. "Slainte!" D.

[rlogan]

Uh, exactly which disciples were in attendance at the crucifixion?

[Doctor X]

Uh . . . Fred, I think . . . you know the one who ran the projector after the Last Supper. . . .

--J.D.

[Vorkosigan]

Originally posted by Vinnie
Lord have mercy.....

No problem then. Just supply the independent line of evidence that some gospel text has been inherited from Jesus or those around him.

The crucifixion of Jesus in an "inheritided tradition". Embarrassment and multiple attestation.
Vinnie [/B]

Please explain how you know the Crucifixion was embarrassing to early adherents. Also, there is no multiple attestation of an event that allegedly took place under Pilate in Jerusalem. That is known only from later fictional tales, all dependent on one another.

In other words, you have neither "embarrassment" nor "multiple attestation."

Vorkosigan

[Doctor X]

. . . and there was St. Bastard. . . .

--J.D.

[Llyricist]

Originally posted by Vinnie
The crucifixion of Jesus in an "inheritided tradition". Embarrassment and multiple attestation.

Vinnie
Embarrassment? This keeps getting trotted out as if it actually had any value in determining anything. When in fact it is wholly irrelevant, especially in the case of the crucifixion.

If Doherty is right, then the central point of the Jesus Myth (as related by Paul) WAS the crucifixion, so the gospel writers were stuck with it. No embarrassment there.

If the Flavian Hypothesis is right, then the only embarrassment there is falls squarely on whoever falls for it.

Are there ANY JM Hypotheses, that aren't made of straw, that are in any way undermined by this "embarrassment criterea"?

I don't know of any.

[judge]

"With reference to....the originality of the Peshitta (//http://www.peshitta.org/initial/peshitta.html) text, as the Patriarch and Head of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church of the East, we wish to state, that the Church of the East received the scriptures from the hands of the blessed Apostles themselves in the Aramaic original, the language spoken by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and that the Peshitta is the text of the Church of the East which has come down from the Biblical times without any change or revision."

Mar Eshai Shimun

by Grace, Catholicos Patriarch of the East

The Peshitta is all but ignored by western scholars, however there is much evidence that it is the original from which our greek mss were translated.


Signs of the Cross (http://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.asp?bookid=11636) written by Andrew Gabriel Roth (http://aramaicnttruth.org/page.php?page=home) outlines much evidence in this regard.
You may find some here who disagree but you will not find actual refutations.

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Weltall
Actually the only sources we have for this event are the gospels and they contradict themselves on this rather important event.

If you have an extrabiblical attestation for the crucifixion I'd love to see it.

Every source dealing with crucifixion. They contradict one another? So what. They should. The cross was initially embarrassing and Christians made stuff up to alleviate this. Errors are expected.

Vork:

Paul and Mark for starters (contra B. Mack).

""""Please explain how you know the Crucifixion was embarrassing to early adherents.::::::::::

We've been down this road before. I can't believe you want to even object to this!

The "skandalon" of a crucified Jesus is history remembered. "Skandalon", as you should know, is from the Pauline corpus.

Why don't you guys just go to X-Talk?

They have been discussing this very issue: the historical fact of the crucifixion the last few days.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15242

Follow all the "facts of a historical Jesus" threads in the last few days starting with that one.

Here, I'll reprint all the pro-crucifixion statements by various scholars:

Patrick Narkinsky

Stipulating (but not necessarily conceding) that the gospels are not basically historical, the crucifixion is unlikely to be fabricated. The problem is this - Jesus is described as Christ from the beginning of the Christian movement. The Christ - or Messiah - was in Jewish expectation the king of Judah who would finally overcome foreign overlordship and restore the people of YHWH to their rightful place of glory.

Crucifixion at the hands of the Romans would present a prima facie case that Jesus was *not* the Messiah. It seems grossly improbable to suppose that any Christian would have made it up.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15248


Ted Weeden:


Richard, when I say that as a historian I am convinced that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical fact, I am making a judgment based upon the best available evidence, weighing that evidence against various probabilities, and then deciding which of the various probabilities is most cogent and persuasive. In the case of the crucifixion it is, as has been pointed out by others on this list, multiply attested by both Christian sources (Paul, the Gospels) and non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus [unless Josephus' reference to Jesus' crucifixion is a total Christian corruption of the Josephus text] and the Roman historian Tacitus) of the first century. There is no evidence that any source of the first century states or infers that Jesus died a natural death or by some other tragedy, or that Jesus was mythologically viewed as having been apotheosized or translated to heaven, as some traditions hold to be the case for Elijah,
Moses, etc. Using the criterion of embarrassment, employed by some Jesus scholars, such as Meyer, would suggest that Jesus' death by crucifixion could only have been an embarrassing, even scandalous, fact about him (see Paul) in the view of non-Jewish or Gentile persons, since his crucifixion would have been recognized as a clear indication that Jesus was guilty of some capital crime against the Roman Empire. If Jesus did not die from
crucifixion, it is difficult to explain why Christians, interested in
winning converts among Gentiles of the time, would have nvented such a tradition, since such a tradition would in effect serve to undermine their evangelistic cause rather than support it.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15249


Joe Weaks

The logic here is not quite right. Sociologically speaking, a
martyr-like death does indeed elevate the memory of the individual to hyberbolic heights. So, you would be correct to say, "Were not Jesus crucified, he would never have been considered a martyr much less God's self-sacrificing love incarnate." But, communities don't invent stories of martyrdom to lift up a diving man persona. They invent stories of stupendous deaths, mostly "being taken up." See for example, Lucian's
Demonax, or Jewish traditions of Moses or Elijah.

It seems extremely unlikely to posit why the early community would make up the fact that Jesus was crucified along with other criminals. What seems much more PLAUSIBLE is that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, and then the early community would have reason to reinterpret said crucifixion with tales of martyrdom, compassion to criminals on the cross, a centurion seeing Christ for who he was at point of death, the curtain in the temple tearing and then adding on resurrection stories to overshadow the humiliation of death.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15262



Jeffrey Gibson

Funny how Suetonius and Celsus and Porphyry and Lucian and Minucius Felix and Fronto, among others, who were targets -- or at least aware --of this alleged marketing plan, didn't pick up on that, but instead see Jesus' crucifixion as a sign that Jesus was a failure and Christianity superstitious and pernicious nonsense.

Funny how apologists like Justin Martyr and Origen and Octavius found themselves having to devote more attention to defending the claim that Jesus' crucifixion did not prove Jesus a charlatan and Christianity utter foolishness than with anything else they had to struggle with in their defense of Christianity.

In any case, you have a hidden supposition here that what the cross and Jesus' crucifixion has **come** to symbolize is what it **would** have symbolized to those who were the first recipients of the message of "Christ crucified".

In the light what of what Jews had been schooled by Deut. 21:22-23 to believe regarding those hung on a tree, let alone what Circero and Plautus and Varo and other Greco-Roman authors say regarding the horror and the impropriety of even the mentioning of crucifixion, and what Zeno tells about the absolute irrationality of dying as Jesus was known to have died, this hardly seems likely -- and I really have to wonder where your claim is coming from. It certain is not well grounded in primary evidence.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15263



Anthony Burglass

Tony:
Is it just too simplistic for me to say that Guy makes the mistake of reading the situation through modern "capitalist" eyes (eg marketing symbol) instead of 1st C "honour-shame" eyes? That the cross was so shameful that the earliest Christians used signs such as the fish rather than the cross?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15265



Jeffrey Gibson

Assuming by success you mean growth and then acceptance in the west and then state sponsorship, no it is not true. In fact, the fact that Jesus was crucified and that Christians proclaimed a Christ crucified was often used as a justification for persecutions against Christians. It was certainly a -- if not the -- main factor in Greco Roman intellectuals line Fronto, Celsus, Porphyry, etc., rejecting Christianity as folly and as scandalous.. See Martin Hengle's

What made Christianity a success and led to its growth was, to some degree, its egalitarianism, and its treatment of the sick and itsrefusal to abandon those struck down by plague.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15270


Jeffrey Hodges

And that's the point. Crucifixion was shameful, and
was intended to be so. Read "The Dream of the Rood" to
see what the Anglo-Saxons had to do to make the cross
palatable to their culture.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15273

Finally, Joe Weaks again:

All the responses to your premise agree that
virtually everything we know about 1 c. Palestine suggests that
inventing a story of crucifixion would NOT have been seen as a
beneficial thing to do for lots of reasons. (The fact that it appears
beneficial to you, 2k years later is immaterial.)

a. We have many examples of stories praising an individual where their deaths are embellished... and crucifixion is not how they made the guy look good.
b. What we know about shame sociologically negates it as a desire of the community.
c. Early Christian kerygma is an apology and rhetorical repositioning regarding crucifixion, doing their best to cast a positive light on an embarassing aspect of their messiah. That's why they said, "Well, yeah, but he rose from the dead, so na na na na." or "He's coming back!" or "He died not cause he had to but cause he wanted to, in your place."
d. etc.

There are very few things regarding HJ studies that virtually all
serious HJ scholars agree on, but the fact of Jesus' crucifixion is at
the top of the list.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15283


A crucified Jesus is history remembered. That may be one of the very few or possibly the only fact of the passion narratives that is historical----a crucified Jesus. That brute fact alone, as Crossan observes.

I find it staggering that you or anyone would even TRY to question or deny that the cross was embarrassing at this point. Aside from all the extrabiblical evidence attesting to its nature we have Paul calling it a skandalon.

Mythicism and agnosticism is entirely unfounded. The course of events is easy to reconstruct here. Jesus was crucified by Rome. This caused a shitload of apologetics to surface in defense of this embarrassment. End of discussion.

Vinnie

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by rlogan
Uh, exactly which disciples were in attendance at the crucifixion?

The ones who fled , and went into hiding, silly.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/three.html

'Three other facts which we will not go into are the conversion of Paul, a skeptic and persecutor of the Church by what he claims was an appearance of Christ to him; the conversion of Jesus' skeptical brother James by an appearance of Christ to him; and the disciples' transformation, despite having previously deserted Jesus during the crucifixion.

They deserted Jesus during the crucifixion, while also standing by the cross.

How is this possible?

It's a miracle!

[Vorkosigan]

Every one of those is in error. I'll talk about them tonight. You should be able to spot some of the problems right away -- for example, where in the Pauline corpus is a crucifixion under Pilate attested? I have to go teach now.

BTW, I am not on XTALK anymore and haven't looked at it in weeks. Most of the discussions on XTALK quickly evolve into apologetic defenses and then devolve into "Why can't we consider miracles?" whining. I finally got tired of it, and left.

Vorkosigan

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Every one of those is in error. I'll talk about them tonight. You should be able to spot some of the problems right away -- for example, where in the Pauline corpus is a crucifixion under Pilate attested? I have to go teach now.

BTW, I am not on XTALK anymore and haven't looked at it in weeks. Most of the discussions on XTALK quickly evolve into apologetic defenses and then devolve into "Why can't we consider miracles?" whining. I finally got tired of it, and left.

Vorkosigan

The miracle whining on x-talk is absurd. Its actually quite laughable at times.

There was an anti semitism discussion that made me lack respect for some members. They seemed like prudes living in a dream world. I couln't believe what ome were offering as "anti-semitic"! It was astounding

Many kudos to Davies though on miracles. He called it like it is! :)

Oh yeah, I don't recall anyone saying Pilate occured in the Pauline corpus. I think he occurs in 1 Timothy as I do not find Doherty's arguments convincing but that Pastoral epistle dates to ca. 100 C.E.

I'll wait for you to get around to pointing out the flaws with the comments :)

Vinnie

[Doctor X]

Just to correct Judge's propaganda:

It is curious that nothing in Aramaic survives from the early Jesus movement (though the Syriac church claims that its Syriac NT texts are based on earlier Aramaic texts which they judge to be more reliable than what has survived in Greek).

In the past, some scholars argued that the canonical gospels were based on an Aramaic "Urgospel", but few if any scholars hold to this position today.

Given the thorough "hellenization" of Palestine, some scholars have argued that Jesus may have spoken Greek, rather than Aramaic. It's certainly possible that Jesus knew some Greek to ply his trade as a carpenter/artisan (if such he was) in the region of Galilee, but there is no reason to assume that he was fluent in Latin (!) as Gibson makes him out to be in his movie. I think it likely that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

The fact that we only have texts written in Greek indicates how far removed the writers of the NT texts were from the world of Jesus. And as various factions of the Jesus movement entered the wider Greek-speaking world of the eastern Mediterranean (Paul e.g.), common dialect Greek (the so-called "koine") was their only linguistic choice. The separation of Christianity from rabbinic Judaism (which returned to Hebrew as its primary language) and the adoption of Christianity by Greek-speaking "gentiles" (and eventually the emperor himself), virtually assured that only Christian texts written in Greek would survive.

No doubt there were texts written in Aramaic, and these may have circulated in Palestine for some time, but they were all lost. Indeed, there is very little reference to anything written in Hebrew or Aramaic in the early period. Eusebius (c. 325 CE) preserves a quotation of Papias (c. 120 CE) that "Matthew composed his text in Hebrew (or Aramaic)", but this seems unlikely since we know that Matthew relied on the Greek text of "Mark" as one of his sources. Eusebius also mentions the "Gospel of the Hebrews", which may have been written in Hebrew or Aramaic, but this text has not survived.

If you saw the movie "Stigmata", you'll recall that at the end a claim is made that the "Gospel of Thomas" was the original Aramaic gospel of Jesus which the Vatican tried to suppress. But there is little doubt that Thomas was written in Greek originally. One might similarly ask why there was no (early) gospel written in Latin? In fact, we don't get Latin Christian texts until the end of the second century CE. It is interesting, I think, that when Paul wrote his letter to the assembly of believers in Rome, he wrote in Greek. That would seem to suggest that even in the Latin west, there was a considerable number of Greek speakers (probably of the lower classes). I don't know of any good article or book that deals with this subject, and I'm not sure I've answered your question satisfactorily, but these are some of my thoughts on the topic.

From a scholar who wishes to remain annonymous. He sides with the historical Jesus crowd but feel that there is nothing certain that can be said of him. For Vinnie he would agree with "embarrasing" events may indicate actual events that writers had to deal with/address, but they do not prove these events.

So . . . once again . . . we are all back where we started . . . with nothing. . . .

--J.D.

[judge]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Just to correct Judge's propaganda:



From a scholar who wishes to remain annonymous.

Once again this is a bit vague Dr X.
Just what are you referring to here?
Where did you come across this scholar who wishes to remain anonymous?

You have quoted someone but you have not made mention of where the quote came from.

Can you clear up what it is you are trying to say?

Thanks in advance

[Doctor X]

{Comment deleted}.

Still waiting for that paper. . . .

. . . waiting. . . .

. . . waiting. . . .

--J.D.

[rlogan]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Uh . . . Fred, I think . . . you know the one who ran the projector after the Last Supper. . . .

--J.D.

Cheered me up there, J.D.

And right, Steven. We just have a few too many miracles.


The embarrassment criteria. The trojan pony of the HJ myth. Don't be wheeling that thing in here again.

Theorem: If it is embarrassing it is true.

Vinnie, are you prepared to accept the

Corollary: If it is not embarrassing it is false.

Boy, can we storm through the NT with that Corollary.



For sake of argument, say you are making up a myth. He has to die somehow.

Old age? Dies in sleep? Pretty lame.
Messiah conquers the world? Nope.
Drowns on a three day drunk? (Second choice)
Dies in apocalyptic battle? Too big to fake.

Explain what ending would suit the purpose better than the Martyrdome and all of the Hebrew Bible trappings of being rejected by his own people and so forth.

[Asha'man]

Originally posted by JTurtle

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable.

If this was true, then other Jewish writings about Jesus should not be ignored. There is evidence that Jesus was born during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus and stoned to death around 78BCE under the rule of Jannaeus' wife, Salome. (G.R.S.Mead (http://www.christianorigins.com/mead/))

If the Jewish accounts are really all that reliable, this also provides an extra 100 years for the myth to have developed. :D

[capnkirk]

Vinnie,

If the following quote is from a historian, I sure wouldn't trust any history based on his arguments. My critique is interlaced in red.
Ted Weeden:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard, when I say that as a historian I am convinced that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical fact, I am making a judgment based upon the best available evidence, weighing that evidence against various probabilities, and then deciding which of the various probabilities is most cogent and persuasive. (claim to credential = objectivity) Notice that the "existence" of a historical JC is not subjected to this standard. In the case of the crucifixion it is, as has been pointed out by others on this list, multiply attested by both Christian sources (Paul, the Gospels) and non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus [unless Josephus' reference to Jesus' crucifixion is a total Christian corruption of the Josephus text] and the Roman historian Tacitus) of the first century. Is he claiming that each of these attestations is independent of the others? There is no evidence that any source of the first century states or infers that Jesus died a natural death or by some other tragedy, or that Jesus was mythologically viewed as having been apotheosized or translated to heaven, as some traditions hold to be the case for Elijah, Moses, etc. Again, the existence of a HJC is presumptive. Using the criterion of embarrassment, employed by some Jesus scholars, such as Meyer, would suggest that Jesus' death by crucifixion could only have been an embarrassing, even scandalous, fact about him (see Paul) in the view of non-Jewish or Gentile persons, since his crucifixion would have been recognized as a clear indication that Jesus was guilty of some capital crime against the Roman Empire. Introduces the "embarrassment factor" inviting us to speculate on how it would have affected Paul's (and the apostles') proselyting work. If it was embarrassing, one would have expected the event to be "minimized" or completely excised. If Jesus did not die from crucifixion, it is difficult to explain why Christians, interested in winning converts among Gentiles of the time, would have invented such a tradition, since such a tradition would in effect serve to undermine their evangelistic cause rather than support it. Now in a complete diversion, he uses these grounds to explain why Paul made the Crucifixion/Resurrection the central tenet of his salvation plan for the world. Without "Christ's sacrifice", there would be no ministry of Paul. This would argue that Paul would have been tempted to invent such an event rather than hide it. Besides, if you actually "read" Paul's letters, there is much more evidence that he understood this crucifixion/resurrection to have happened in the lower levels of the heavens rather than on earth anyway.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15249
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Weaks' quote which immediately follows Weeden's DOES support a crucifixion event, but not of a Jesus "Christ". Here he strongly hints that the divinity of Jesus was added after the fact to make Jesus into a religious martyr rather than a political one.

[spin]

What makes anyone think any of the gospels were written in Palestine? By tradition Luke wrote his out of Palestine. Matthew according to some scholars was written in Egypt. John, some relate to the person who according to tradition lived on Patmos. And Mark, the one given the good Roman name and featuring enough Latin to suggest that it was written in a Roman context, say umm, Rome.

So of these gospels which were written in Palestine and how does anyone know?


spin

[graymouser]

One point I raised in my long critique of the original (terribly long) OP that I haven't seen addressed much at all is:

The scriptures found at Nag Hammadi give a number of competing interpretations of Jesus Christ. Just like the four Gospels that we have, the Nag Hammadi text is quite sectarian. Is there any strong non-sectarian argument as to why the NH finds are not of any value in trying to find the historical truths behind Christianity, while the canonized New Testament is?

-Wayne

[MortalWombat]

Originally posted by spin
And Mark, the one given the good Roman name and featuring enough Latin to suggest that it was written in a Roman context, say umm, Rome. And not to mention Mark's ignorance of Palestinian geography (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/markauthor.html#geography) and customs (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/markauthor.html#custom).

[Vorkosigan]

Hot damn, cap'n! Wonderful! Well, I'll provide a critique as well tomorrow morning. It's 11:00 pm and I had night classes. Exhaustion has fogged my brain.

Seems like JT has vanished from the earth.

[Amaleq13]

Originally posted by Vinnie
The cross was initially embarrassing ... <snip> ...The "skandalon" of a crucified Jesus is history remembered. "Skandalon", as you should know, is from the Pauline corpus.


Nonsense. Paul is so clearly and explicitly proud that his Christ was crucified that he makes this central to his theology. The concept was abhorent and a "skandalon" to others outside Paul's fellow believers (ie Jews). It was certainly not an embarrassment to those who shared Paul's beliefs but a foundational tenet for their faith.

[capnkirk]

My apologies, Vinnie, for splitting my response into two parts. I got interrupted, but now I can finish: Again, interleaved critique in red.

Jeffrey Gibson

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny how Suetonius and Celsus and Porphyry and Lucian and Minucius Felix and Fronto, among others, who were targets -- or at least aware --of this alleged marketing plan, didn't pick up on that, but instead see Jesus' crucifixion as a sign that Jesus was a failure and Christianity superstitious and pernicious nonsense. And funny that Jeffrey Gibson would fail to realize that it was the claim of resurrection that was incredulous to these men, and that they probably viewed these claims as attempts to "resurrect" a failed mission.

Funny how apologists like Justin Martyr and Origen and Octavius found themselves having to devote more attention to defending the claim that Jesus' crucifixion did not prove Jesus a charlatan and Christianity utter foolishness than with anything else they had to struggle with in their defense of Christianity. Again, it was the apologists' claim of a resurrection that most found incredulous. Besides, these authors wrote in the 2nd cent. CE, AFTER the gospels were written. How can their arguments imply any "remembrance" of Jesus' crucifixion?

In any case, you have a hidden supposition here that what the cross and Jesus' crucifixion has **come** to symbolize is what it **would** have symbolized to those who were the first recipients of the message of "Christ crucified". The first recipients of the "Christ crucified/resurrected" message were ostensibly those in Arabia where he spent his first three years after "his" conversion. Chronologically, Paul's letters were the first to claim "christology" in Jesus. The gospels were written much later, in fact, Xtians point to Luke's association with Paul as an attestation of the veracity of GLuke! For the gospel attestation to have primacy, one must ignore the influence of Paul's "christ" on the gospel writers when the evidence points solidly in the opposite direction. There is much more evidence that the "christ" concept was edited back into the proto-gospel sources by Pauline Xtian interpolators in the construction of all the gospels.

In the light what of what Jews had been schooled by Deut. 21:22-23 to believe regarding those hung on a tree, let alone what Circero and Plautus and Varo and other Greco-Roman authors say regarding the horror and the impropriety of even the mentioning of crucifixion, and what Zeno tells about the absolute irrationality of dying as Jesus was known to have died, this hardly seems likely -- and I really have to wonder where your claim is coming from. It certain is not well grounded in primary evidence. Interesting here that Jeffrey is trying to use the "shame" of the crucified that would attend the crucifixion of a non-divine person to justify the extension of same to what Xtians claim was not just martyrdom, but "an intentional personal sacrifice and the prequel to his miraculous resurrection". Again, the shame of crucifixion only comes into play for those who had already rejected the resurrection claim.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15263

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All these quotes serve only to demonstrate how the presumption of an HJC causes people to misapply the evidence in order to maintain their faith. Mongo NOT impressed!

[capnkirk]

Originally posted by Vorkosigan

Seems like JT has vanished from the earth. Maybe the sharks ate him. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/aktion/action-smiley-045.gif

[Llyricist]

Oh, and if an HJ existed, the embarrassment criterea is still irrelevent, the fact that the crucifixion was central to Paul's theology (in exclusion of EVERYTHING else about HJ) attests well enough to its historocity....in the context of there being an HJ.

[MortalWombat]

Originally posted by Vinnie
""""Please explain how you know the Crucifixion was embarrassing to early adherents.::::::::::

We've been down this road before. I can't believe you want to even object to this!

The "skandalon" of a crucified Jesus is history remembered. "Skandalon", as you should know, is from the Pauline corpus.If you are implying that the word "skandalon" means embarrassment, I did a google search of "skandalon" (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=skandalon&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=greeknewtestament.com&safe=images) at www.greeknewtestament.com for the word skandalon, which occurs eight times, and the most common translation seems to be stumbling block, while sometimes also being translated as offense or foolishness. It never refers to embarrassment.

Paul uses the word 4 times:

Galatians 5:11

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
egw de adelfoi ei peritomhn eti khrussw ti eti diwkomai ara kathrghtai to skandalon tou staurou

NIV
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

American Standard Version
But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away.

Young's Literal Translation
And I, brethren, if uncircumcision I yet preach, why yet am I persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away;


Romans 11:9

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
kai dabid legei genhqhtw h trapeza autwn eiV pagida kai eiV qhran kai eiV skandalon kai eiV antapodoma autoiV

NIV
And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.

American Standard Version
And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them:

Young's Literal Translation
and David saith, `Let their table become for a snare, and for a trap, and for a stumbling-block, and for a recompense to them;


Romans 14:13

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
mhketi oun allhlouV krinwmen alla touto krinate mallon to mh tiqenai proskomma tw adelfw h skandalon

NIV
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

American Standard Version
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother`s way, or an occasion of falling.

Young's Literal Translation
no longer, therefore, may we judge one another, but this judge ye rather, not to put a stumbling-stone before the brother, or an offence.


1 Corinthians 1:23 (here, estaurwmenon is translated as stumbling block, while skandalon gets translated as foolishness).

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
hmeiV de khrussomen criston estaurwmenon ioudaioiV men skandalon ellhsin de mwrian

NIV
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

American Standard Version
but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;

Young's Literal Translation
also we -- we preach Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness,

In the case of the "skandalon" of the crucifixion, he never says that it is a problem for Christians, only to Jews and Greeks.

[capnkirk]

Vinnie, Installment 3 of 3. Interleaved comments to yahoo quoted posters is in red.
Finally, Joe Weaks again:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the responses to your premise agree that virtually everything we know about 1 c. Palestine suggests that inventing a story of crucifixion would NOT have been seen as a beneficial thing to do for lots of reasons. (The fact that it appears beneficial to you, 2k years later is immaterial.)

a. We have many examples of stories praising an individual where their deaths are embellished... and crucifixion is not how they made the guy look good. None of them were claimed to be divine. Also, if I recall, pagan worship in neighboring states featured the dying and resurrected savior figure Attis being hung from a tree.
b. What we know about shame sociologically negates it as a desire of the community. In the case of common folk, it signified treason against Rome, and the possibility that the family and relatives of the deceased might also be in similar danger.
c. Early Christian kerygma is an apology and rhetorical repositioning regarding crucifixion, doing their best to cast a positive light on an embarassing aspect of their messiah. That's why they said, "Well, yeah, but he rose from the dead, so na na na na." or "He's coming back!" or "He died not cause he had to but cause he wanted to, in your place." Here Jeffrey comes dangerously close to supporting my earlier point that it was disbelief in the resurrection that relegated Jesus' status back to that of traitor to Rome, and that the resurrection was the central issue of contention. Separation of the resurrection from the execution permits the entry of many spurious interpretations of the nature of the apologists' arguments.
d. etc.

There are very few things regarding HJ studies that virtually all serious HJ scholars agree on, but the fact of Jesus' crucifixion is at the top of the list.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/15283

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A crucified Jesus is history remembered. That may be one of the very few or possibly the only fact of the passion narratives that is historical----a crucified Jesus. That brute fact alone, as Crossan observes.The yahoo quotes you offered simply do not support that. As for Crossan, as an ordained Catholic priest, how could you expect him to publicly claim otherwise, no matter what his inner reservations might be.

I find it staggering that you or anyone would even TRY to question or deny that the cross was embarrassing at this point. Aside from all the extrabiblical evidence attesting to its nature we have Paul calling it a skandalon.There is perhaps ONE implication of Jesus' crucifixion that would prove embarrassing to Xtians, and that is: Jesus' crucifixion labeled him as a POLITICAL criminal, which would support the orthodox Jewish messianic understanding and thus characterize Xtians as having reinvented Jesus (as the christ) after his death. In fact, line was proposed by a Xtian scholar (sorry, I don't recall his name at the moment) in the early 19th century. Since then, several others have expanded on that line. At any rate, your argument that because crucifixion was embarrassing, then Jesus' crucifixion/resurrection must all be true is not supported by the arguments you have presented; in fact closer inspection argues for the opposite conclusion.

Mythicism and agnosticism is entirely unfounded. The course of events is easy to reconstruct here. Jesus was crucified by Rome. This caused a shitload of apologetics to surface in defense of this embarrassment. End of discussion.If the course of events was easy to construct, there would be little need for biblical scholarship on the subject at all. The ONLY reason it is easy for you is because, AS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH, you accept the Xtian claims. This is your starting point and your finishing point. Anything that threatens that article must be explained away at all costs. Your preceding arguments are about as credible as your "end of discussion" closing threat.

Ed: In view of the post that immediately follows this one, so much for your "end of discussion" threat.

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by rlogan
The embarrassment criteria. The trojan pony of the HJ myth. Don't be wheeling that thing in here again.



Why not? YOu can't refute it.


Theorem: If it is embarrassing it is true.

LOL Nice caricature. The point is, if the Gospel authors were engaged in creative activity, then we would not expect them to create details that run counter to their goals. If winning over Gentiles is the goal, inventing a crucified Jesus is not the way to go. The point is that the early church would not create its own problems. Its a very sound criteria. The fact that you so readily dismiss it only serves to show your uniformed bias which you delineate in the following comment:

Vinnie, are you prepared to accept the

Corollary: If it is not embarrassing it is false.

Boy, can we storm through the NT with that Corollary.

THis is all but laughable. Do you think the early Christians only retained that which was embarrassing? If it is not embarrassing we simply lack this positive criteria in favor of it's authenticity.

Furthermore, lacking positive criteria that an event occured does NOT mean the event did not concur. Simply logic dictates that we laqck belief i nthe event. We do not have solid grounds to affirm the event, but unless you can show it is not historicaly your assumption that it is false is ridiculous.

For sake of argument, say you are making up a myth. He has to die somehow.

This only supports my argument. If they were creative (which they were) we do not expect them to invent a tradition that creates problems for themselves.

Old age? Dies in sleep? Pretty lame.
Messiah conquers the world? Nope.
Drowns on a three day drunk? (Second choice)
Dies in apocalyptic battle? Too big to fake.

LOL So says the modern exegete with 2000 years of Christian coloring behind him. Obviously you have no interest in learning what it was actually like in the honor and shame culture 2000 years ago. You are content to project your own fantasies onto the Gospel authors.

This was adressed. Some guy on the list was arguing this on X-Talk and the sharks tore him to shred.

Everything that comments on crucifixion suggests that it would not have been created. Failure to accept this is failing to accept the primary source material from the time period and the nature of this status degredation ritual in 1c Palestine.


Explain what ending would suit the purpose better than the Martyrdome and all of the Hebrew Bible trappings of being rejected by his own people and so forth. [/B]

Not having a human Jesus crucified by Rome. The "Christ" theme started from the beginning. It would have undermined Jesus' claim to be messiah. This is why so many apologists had to defend it beginning with Paul and all the apologetics in the Gospels.

Vinnie

[capnkirk]

Vinnie,

You mentioned Crossan, so let's see what Crossan has to say about the reliabilaity of the gospels;
The Layers of Gospel (starting w/2nd para)
For some scholars, exegetical layering is denied in theory and therefore ignored in practice. For others it is affirmed in theory, but still negated by practice. In gospel exegesis, as distinct from field archaeology, layering must be defended both theoretically and practically. It is also important, for scholarly integrity, not to take back in every specific possibility what one has affirmed as general actuality. But that requires some explanation.

Imagine you had four witnesses in a court of law doing their best to describe an accident that been seen a few weeks earlier. All are sincere, honest, impartial, and only involved as casual bystanders, accidental witnesses. There would be, of course, some discrepancies of vision and recall, but as an attorney for defense or prosecution, you would feel most secure where al four were in closest agreement....Now imagine another scenario. One of those four informants was a reporter who got his knowledge from others either directly or indirectly involved, he told the next two informants about it, and the fourth one got his data from that previous threesome. How does the prosecution's case look now? It has one not-exactly-an-eyewitness and three sincere echoes. from the introduction to Excavating Jesus by John Dominic Crossan


The ordinary layman may well wonder why there is any problem at all with the literary (textual) level of the Jesus tradition. After all, do we not have four biographies by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, individuals all directly or indirectly connected with him and all composing within, say, 75 years of his death? Is that not better than what we have for the contemporary Roman emperor, Tiberius? What, then, is the literary problem for the Jesus textual tradition? It is precisely that fourfold record, even if there were no external documents whatsoever, that constitutes the literary problem. If you read those texts vertically from start to finish and one after another, you get a pretty persuasive impression of unity, harmony, and agreement. But if you read them horizontally, focusing on this or that episode, and compare it across two, three or four gospels, it is disagreement rather than agreement that strikes one most forcibly. By even the late first century CE, pagan opponents and Christian apologists alike were well aware of those discrepancies, even of only between say, Matthew and Luke. The solution was to reduce that plurality to unity in one of the two obvious ways: either eliminate all the gospels save one (as Marcion did), or to laminate all of them into a single narrative, the solution that was (imperfectly) applied to the now-canonized books we have today. from intro to The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan

From these two quotes, it seems that Crossan doesn't share your or JTurtle's implicit trust in the reliability of the canonized versions of the gospels at all.

[Llyricist]

Originally posted by Vinnie
LOL Nice caricature. The point is, if the Gospel authors were engaged in creative activity, then we would not expect them to create details that run counter to their goals. If winning over Gentiles is the goal, inventing a crucified Jesus is not the way to go. The point is that the early church would not create its own problems. Its a very sound criteria.
Vinnie
But according to Doherty, the gospel writers did NOT invent the crucifixion.... Paul did.

And the Flavian hypothesis requires the crucifixion as well in its symbolism of taking over the nationalist Judaism movement.

Here we see a straw MJ theory being trotted out to be taken on by the magical "embarassment criterea".... how impressive.

[capnkirk]

Originally posted by Llyricist
But according to Doherty, the gospel writers did NOT invent the crucifixion.... Paul did.

And the Flavian hypothesis requires the crucifixion as well in its symbolism of taking over the nationalist Judaism movement.

Here we see a straw MJ theory being trotted out to be taken on by the magical "embarassment criterea".... how impressive. http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/spezial/Fool/appl.gif BRAVO! Llyricist. TOTALLY CORRECT!! http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/spezial/kdchat/wow.gif

[Vinnie]

If the following quote is from a historian, I sure wouldn't trust any history based on his arguments. My critique is interlaced in red.

Some of your comments make amatuer mistakes so your opinion of Ted Weeden doesn't count for much in my opinion.

Ted: Richard, when I say that as a historian I am convinced that the crucifixion of Jesus is a historical fact, I am making a judgment based upon the best available evidence, weighing that evidence against various probabilities, and then deciding which of the various probabilities is most cogent and persuasive. (claim to credential = objectivity)

capn Notice that the "existence" of a historical JC is not subjected to this standard.

It may be that only your imagination allows one to rationally bifurcate between the two here. Why are they not interconnected?

Ted: In the case of the crucifixion it is, as has been pointed out by others on this list, multiply attested by both Christian sources (Paul, the Gospels) and non-Christian sources (the Jewish historian Josephus [unless Josephus' reference to Jesus' crucifixion is a total Christian corruption of the Josephus text] and the Roman historian Tacitus) of the first century.

Capn Is he claiming that each of these attestations is independent of the others?

This is the biggest amatuer blunder in your first post. You have to ask? Anyone with any knowledge of the field would know that he means "mulitple [independent] attestation. That is assumed. The "triple tradition" is not multiply attested (3x indepdnenly). It comes from a single source (Mark). All the scholars on X-Talk know this already. When he says Paul and Mark he means indepdnent, as the majority view accepts this and he wouldn't be using non multiple indepdnent attestation as evidence.

Ted: There is no evidence that any source of the first century states or infers that Jesus died a natural death or by some other tragedy, or that Jesus was mythologically viewed as having been apotheosized or translated to heaven, as some traditions hold to be the case for Elijah, Moses, etc.

capn Again, the existence of a HJC is presumptive.

The existence of Jesus is established by the crucifixion traditions and by the fact that we have primary contemporary source data confirming that the followers of Jesus mentioned in many different texts [YES INDEPENDENTLY] were real live people. But the crucifixion itself is very strong evidence itself. Add in a bunch of other pieces and abracadabra.

Ted Using the criterion of embarrassment, employed by some Jesus scholars, such as Meyer, would suggest that Jesus' death by crucifixion could only have been an embarrassing, even scandalous, fact about him (see Paul) in the view of non-Jewish or Gentile persons, since his crucifixion would have been recognized as a clear indication that Jesus was guilty of some capital crime against the Roman Empire.

Introduces the "embarrassment factor" inviting us to speculate on how it would have affected Paul's (and the apostles') proselyting work. If it was embarrassing, one would have expected the event to be "minimized" or completely excised.

You would expect it "minimized" or apologeticized as is the account of Jesus' baptism by John. All of a sudden John is the precursor of Jesus who merely prepares the way for him. His baptism "had to occur" and so forth. Matthew and Luke found Mark's (apologized) account of the baptism problematic but they did not eliminate it. They apologized it further than Mark did. This REFUTES you. There is also the issue that the apologists simply could not "INGORE" or minimize very firmly embedded tradition which is what the cross turns out to be. The skandalous notion of Jesus' [the Messiah?] death by crucifixion could not be swept under the rug.

Also another reason that the event was not minimized is that many Christians actually believed Jesus rose from the dead in the early church. Paul, being a Pharisess--and Pharisees = bodily resurrection in that era--championed this. It was the all important event for him. Jesus was the first-fruits...his death inaugurated a new era. The general resurrection was at hand and the world was ending.

Ted: If Jesus did not die from crucifixion, it is difficult to explain why Christians, interested in winning converts among Gentiles of the time, would have invented such a tradition, since such a tradition would in effect serve to undermine their evangelistic cause rather than support it.

Capn Now in a complete diversion, he uses these grounds to explain why Paul made the Crucifixion/Resurrection the central tenet of his salvation plan for the world. Without "Christ's sacrifice", there would be no ministry of Paul. This would argue that Paul would have been tempted to invent such an event rather than hide it. Besides, if you actually "read" Paul's letters, there is much more evidence that he understood this crucifixion/resurrection to have happened in the lower levels of the heavens rather than on earth anyway.

First you assert Paul made up the crucifixion as if Paul is our ONLY independent attestation of this. If sources independent of Paul mention the crucifixion then your argument is defeated. Welcome to multiple attestation 101.

Second, Paul made the cross his central piece because of his vision and the other beliefs Jesus rose. He thought it inaugurated a new kingdom.

It was also firmly embedded tradition that had to be dealt with. And How do you dispute Weeden here only yo accept Weak's comment below? This seems inconsistent.

As all studies of the era show and the quotes from scholars above, this [crucifixion] would not have been created by the first century Jews in Palestine. It was dealt with and the apologetics were probably helped along by the mistaken bvelief that Jesus had rose.


Joe Weaks' quote which immediately follows Weeden's DOES support a crucifixion event, but not of a Jesus "Christ". Here he strongly hints that the divinity of Jesus was added after the fact to make Jesus into a religious martyr rather than a political one.

Is it valid to bifurcate between religion in Politics in regard to first century Jews? And yeah, the divinity of Jesus came later.

And it is nice to know you agree with this from Weaks:

What seems much more PLAUSIBLE is that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified, and then the early community would have reason to reinterpret said crucifixion with tales of martyrdom, compassion to criminals on the cross, a centurion seeing Christ for who he was at point of death, the curtain in the temple tearing and then adding on resurrection stories to overshadow the humiliation of death.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by spin
What makes anyone think any of the gospels were written in Palestine? By tradition Luke wrote his out of Palestine. Matthew according to some scholars was written in Egypt. John, some relate to the person who according to tradition lived on Patmos. And Mark, the one given the good Roman name and featuring enough Latin to suggest that it was written in a Roman context, say umm, Rome.

So of these gospels which were written in Palestine and how does anyone know?


spin

Who said they were?

As Acts and Paul indepdnently attest (first and third stratum), Jesus followers initially settled in Jerusalem. That whole jerusalem school thing. The controversy over Gentiles taken polace there? The Gentile mission, etc.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by Amaleq13
Nonsense. Paul is so clearly and explicitly proud that his Christ was crucified that he makes this central to his theology. The concept was abhorent and a "skandalon" to others outside Paul's fellow believers (ie Jews). It was certainly not an embarrassment to those who shared Paul's beliefs but a foundational tenet for their faith.

This has been addressed over and over again in this thread. Paul made it foundation. That is ALL you have.

The multiple attestation and embarrassment of the data (as evidenced by all the extrabiblical treatments of it) in this honor and shame culture refute you.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by MortalWombat
If you are implying that the word "skandalon" means embarrassment, I did a google search of "skandalon" (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=skandalon&num=10&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=greeknewtestament.com&safe=images) at www.greeknewtestament.com for the word skandalon, which occurs eight times, and the most common translation seems to be stumbling block, while sometimes also being translated as offense or foolishness. It never refers to embarrassment.

Paul uses the word 4 times:

Galatians 5:11

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
egw de adelfoi ei peritomhn eti khrussw ti eti diwkomai ara kathrghtai to skandalon tou staurou

NIV
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished.

American Standard Version
But I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away.

Young's Literal Translation
And I, brethren, if uncircumcision I yet preach, why yet am I persecuted? then hath the stumbling-block of the cross been done away;


Romans 11:9

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
kai dabid legei genhqhtw h trapeza autwn eiV pagida kai eiV qhran kai eiV skandalon kai eiV antapodoma autoiV

NIV
And David says: "May their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them.

American Standard Version
And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, And a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them:

Young's Literal Translation
and David saith, `Let their table become for a snare, and for a trap, and for a stumbling-block, and for a recompense to them;


Romans 14:13

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
mhketi oun allhlouV krinwmen alla touto krinate mallon to mh tiqenai proskomma tw adelfw h skandalon

NIV
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way.

American Standard Version
Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother`s way, or an occasion of falling.

Young's Literal Translation
no longer, therefore, may we judge one another, but this judge ye rather, not to put a stumbling-stone before the brother, or an offence.


1 Corinthians 1:23 (here, estaurwmenon is translated as stumbling block, while skandalon gets translated as foolishness).

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
hmeiV de khrussomen criston estaurwmenon ioudaioiV men skandalon ellhsin de mwrian

NIV
but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

American Standard Version
but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;

Young's Literal Translation
also we -- we preach Christ crucified, to Jews, indeed, a stumbling-block, and to Greeks foolishness,

In the case of the "skandalon" of the crucifixion, he never says that it is a problem for Christians, only to Jews and Greeks.

Pau lsays its a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. This obvious invokes the embarrassment criteria.

You also have MAJOR glaring problems.

1. Backreading (eisegesis) the modern times into Paul's era you bifurcate between Christians and Jews. Christianity eventually evolved out of Judaism but at this early stage it was entirely Jewish. Your bifurcation is anachronistic and incorrect.

2. The Gentile mission occured very early. Christians were trying to win converts. Crucified Jesus not appealing in itself to Gentiles. Chruch would be creating its own problems.

Vinine

[Vinnie]

And funny that Jeffrey Gibson would fail to realize that it was the claim of resurrection that was incredulous to these men, and that they probably viewed these claims as attempts to "resurrect" a failed mission.

Again, it was the apologists' claim of a resurrection that most found incredulous. Besides, these authors wrote in the 2nd cent. CE, AFTER the gospels were written. How can their arguments imply any "remembrance" of Jesus' crucifixion?

So your argument is that Christians authors did not have to defend a crucified Jesus? I'll go dig up some of the primary literature a little later.

We can start with OPaul. We preach Christ CRUCIFIED--stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. It doesn't say "Christ RESURRECTED."

The arguments, coming from the mid second century show how it was viewed during that time period. The Jewish historian Josephus described crucifixion as "the most wretched of deaths" or "a most miserable death" (Jewish War 7.203) In Seneca's (died ca. 65 C.E.) Epistle 101 to Lucilius suicide is preferable to the cruel fate of being put on the cross.

Not to mention the OT and hanging on a tree (see. DT) It was avoided in Polite Roman society. Numerous other commentators offered opinions on the issue. Circero and Plautus and Varo and Zeno. THis alone tells me it was NOT merely the claims to the resurrection that were disputed.

Also, if I recall correctly, the great skeptic of Christianity Celsus DOES NOT object to a virginal conception. He object to the fact that a person "like Jesus" could have been virginally concieved. Its the same for a crucified Jesus. It undermined him in so many eyes and it started in Paul's day at the latest.


There is much more evidence that the "christ" concept was edited back into the proto-gospel sources by Pauline Xtian interpolators in the construction of all the gospels.

This is a might assertion.

In the light what of what Jews had been schooled by Deut. 21:22-23 to believe regarding those hung on a tree, let alone what Circero and Plautus and Varo and other Greco-Roman authors say regarding the horror and the impropriety of even the mentioning of crucifixion, and what Zeno tells about the absolute irrationality of dying as Jesus was known to have died, this hardly seems likely -- and I really have to wonder where your claim is coming from. It certain is not well grounded in primary evidence.


Interesting here that Jeffrey is trying to use the "shame" of the crucified that would attend the crucifixion of a non-divine person to justify the extension of same to what Xtians claim was not just martyrdom, but "an intentional personal sacrifice and the prequel to his miraculous resurrection". Again, the shame of crucifixion only comes into play for those who had already rejected the resurrection claim.

Jesus' followers alleviated the problems by reading the crucifixion in light of the OT. Form critical studies of the passion dictate this.

And I thought Paul contradicted the Gospels on this? Jesus is son of God at baptism in Mark (adoptionism). Death and resurrection in Paul?

Not to mention Jesus was a man. He is recoreded as having family and walking the earth. The whole divine aspect "CAME LATER" as you already agreed above. Why backpeddle now?

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Also, if I recall, pagan worship in neighboring states featured the dying and resurrected savior figure Attis being hung from a tree.

pagan worship. What about Jewish worship in Palestine? There lies ytour problem.

The yahoo quotes you offered simply do not support that. As for Crossan, as an ordained Catholic priest, how could you expect him to publicly claim otherwise, no matter what his inner reservations might be.


LOL Nice posioning of the well. Crossan denies the resurection and supernatural miracles and most of the Gospel accoutns of Jesus. I hardly think disputing the death of Jesus would be so personally crumbling to his doctrine.

Crossan offers the same arguments as virtually every other scholar, whether Jewish, Christian or other. Multiple attestation and embarrassment.

Vinine

[Vinnie]

But according to Doherty, the gospel writers did NOT invent the crucifixion.... Paul did.

This is not a stawe man on my part. Doherty is simply wrong. He misunderstands Paul the self-proclaimed Jewish Pharisee and so many other things in early Christianity.

Also, any multiple attestation or the crucifixion completely undercuts Doherty. He must also view the passion traditions as somehow dependent on the Pauline kerygma. Burton Mack might agree with him but the majority of NT scholars accept Paul and Marcan independence.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

Originally posted by capnkirk
Vinnie,

You mentioned Crossan, so let's see what Crossan has to say about the reliabilaity of the gospels;


From these two quotes, it seems that Crossan doesn't share your or JTurtle's implicit trust in the reliability of the canonized versions of the gospels at all.

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

When I stated up above:

Yeah. Matthew Mark, Luke and John are reliable at reconstructing what Christianity was like from 70-100 C.E.

Take Mark's portrayal of Jesus' opponents and the nullification of the food laws as one VERY SECURE example of Christians projecting later views back onto the historical Jesus.

But by reliable, if you mean "historically accurate" then no. The Gospel of John least of all.

Or how about this one:

I did not intend to. I agree with the objection. The Gospels are not historically reliable.

Or this one:

The birth narratives are not historically relaible and they contradict one another. [/qupte]

Or this one:

[b]As far as the Passion accounts those are largely non-historical as well. The brute fact of crucifixion emerges, possibly all by its lonesome. The accounts of Jesus' death are not strict--reliable straighforward history accounts. Extremely little can be affirmed on historical grounds as having occured.

Or this one:

A harmonized four-fold Gospel Jesus is as mythological as Zues is. The "Jesus Christ" of the Gospels is a mythological chimera. I speak of "Jesus ben Joseph", the man underneath the embellished harmonized portrait of Jesus in the canon. I speak of the Jesus ultimately behind Q, Thomas. Pre-Markan traditions, the Jerusalem school, the original disciples and so on.

Or this one:

They contradict one another? So what. They should. The cross was initially embarrassing and Christians made stuff up to alleviate this. Errors are expected.

Apparently you missed all these comments FROM THIS THREAD. This thread has a first page. Why not try reading it?Or go to the formal debate where I am demonstrating errancy through a detailed treatment of Mark on the food laws which shows he is projecting beliefs onto the HJ:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=79512

Or read one of the 75 articles I wrote on my site:

http://www.after-hourz.net/ri.html

Vinine

[capnkirk]

First you assert Paul made up the crucifixion as if Paul is our ONLY independent attestation of this. If sources independent of Paul mention the crucifixion then your argument is defeated.NO VINNIE! I assert that Paul's was chronologically the first assertion of a crucifixion of a human/divine figure named Jesus, and that most (if not all) of the other (allegedly) independent attestations can be traced back to Paul. Not the same argument at all.

Personally I lean towards the existence of an HJ (not an HJC), who was crucified, whose followers were observant Jews waiting for their human messiah to return, that Saul DID persecute these followers, and that his cathartic epiphany on the road to Damascus marked the interjection of the christ concept into an otherwise ordinary story of a failed Jewish messianic candidate, but this thread is not the place to pursue that argument. I offer this only as point of clarification because the bone of contention here is not about a "historical Jesus" but about the gospel's reliability concerning a "historical Christ". Your and other Xtians use of the terms 'Jesus' and 'Christ' interchangeably only serves to muddle the issue. Therefore the presumption must be that whenever a Xtian uses either term, "christ" is implicit, and responses are couched in that understanding.

The gospels were written (or at least extensively edited) by Pauline Xtians far from Jerusalem, and clearly show exegetical signs of it. The only question in my mind is whether there is a historical (exclusively human) Jesus beneath the interpolation or pure myth. The evidence of later interpolation has been clear enough to scholars for them to label the first three as "Synoptic"; that alone should be a red flag warning readers not to be too literal in understanding them. What should follow from that recognition is a thorough and impartial exegetical analysis of the nature and extent of said interpolation. Until that is resolved, no intelligent discussion of the OP can take place. Ergo, most of what has been postulated and argued thus far on this thread is dependent on the results of that study. So, let's quit dancing around and start digging into the central issue. It does not lie in the arguments of Origen or Justin Martyr, or in any of the post 1st century writers, but on the exegesis of GMatt, GMark, and GLuke.

Until we do that, everything else just serves to extend the argument, while getting nowhere.

[Llyricist]

Originally posted by Vinnie
This is not a stawe man on my part. Doherty is simply [b]wrong He misunderstands Paul the self-proclaimed Jewish Pharisee and so many other things in early Christianity.
LOL, This is simply ridiculous...... It IS a strawman if the version of the MJ theory you pretend to refute (with the embarrassment criterea) bares NO relationship to actual MJ theories. Wow, sometimes you blow my mind with absurdities.

Also, any multiple attestation or the crucifixion completely undercuts Doherty. He must also view the passion traditions as somehow dependent on the Pauline kerygma. Burton Mack might agree with him but the majority of NT scholars accept Paul and Marcan independence.

Vinnie
Vinnie is simply wrong.

Paul attests to the crucifixion as central to Christian theology, LATER..... the gospel writers come along and HAVE to incorporate the crucifixion into any story they make up about an HJ. So much for "independence"... Mark et al need not have had Paul's particular writings in hand to be familiar with the ESTABLISHED tradition!! Wow, the strained reasoning involved in NT "Scholarship" never ceases to amaze me.

[Vinnie]

The evidence of later interpolation has been clear enough to scholars for them to label the first three as "Synoptic";

Silly me, I thought that was the case because of the triple tradition material.

Vinnie

Edit "Vommoe"....now thats a typo :o

[Vinnie]

""""""""""Paul attests to the crucifixion as central to Christian theology, LATER..... the gospel writers come along and HAVE to incorporate the crucifixion into any story they make up about an HJ. So much for "independence"... Mark et al need not have had Paul's particular writings in hand to be familiar with the ESTABLISHED tradition!! Wow, the strained reasoning involved in NT "Scholarship" never ceases to amaze me."""""""""""

Again you guys show your amatuer skills. Chronologically earlier is only valid if we assume straight line development. SLD is very problematic in ECW research,

And Mark wrote just a few years after Paul. He had a need to incorporate the Pauline kerygma? Since you think he did, prove it. Wait, you can't. Woops. Mark also has a bunch of details not found in Paul. For instance, why the added detail of Jesus being crucified next to criminals, why the followers abandoing him? Peter's denials, Judas' betrayal, etc.

And Paul's "established tradition" speaks of a crucifed man anyways. Its also inherited tradition. Paul is not the inventor of Christianity nor of Christ crucified. He may have championed the latter but thats the extent of it.

Vinnie

[Vinnie]

and that most (if not all) of the other (allegedly) independent attestations can be traced back to Paul.

If they all can't Paul is not the creator. Th