Solitary Man

You are correct, since NT studies generally fall under historical studies, and thus by extension whatever criteria that does not work for historical studies will not work for NT studies. I'm glad you agree with me that Malachi's methodology does not work.

Malachi151

I wouldn't call my quip a "methodology".....

Ted Hoffman

Which book by Neusner do you have in mind? What do you mean by "defeated"? How do you know? Defeated on what?
Jacob Neusner himself has been wrong on several things especially his uncritical reliance on J. Jeremias on matters Judaism.
Are you willing to present him (Neusner) as a credible NT scholar that is worth critiquing?

Ted Hoffman

It is nonsense because crowds could not have been involved in symbolic acts like Jesus allegedly was. The crowds welcoming Jesus shouting ‘Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!’ are quoting an OT passage in unison and in concert to Jesus allegedly engaged in a symbolic act.

It is nonsense because Jesus could not possibly ride smoothly on a colt that was never rode on before as Randel Helms points out in Gospel Fictions (or via: amazon.co.uk)(1988).

It is nonsense because Jesus is portrayed as one who was coming to Jerusalem for the first time. As such the residents are not likely to have been able to recognize him and their spontaneous acts of lining along the road and spreading their garments require organized action and an anticipation by the crowds that is not mentioned in the gospels. People dont make red-carpet welcomes for people they do not know.

It is nonsense because is also very unlikely that the sophisticated ruling elite in Jerusalem, the capital city with its imperial authority, could make a red carpet using their own garments to an unknown peasant from Galilee who could not speak or read Greek, riding on the back of a donkey.
One may object to this argument and assert that if they did this, they were certainly not the elite but were likely pilgrims from Galilee who were in Jerusalem for the Passover. But this argument would still fail because the evangelists, who were keen on portraying Jesus as endeared to the poor and the meek, would certainly have exploited that event to further distance the aristocrats and the rich from Jesus. The evangelists regularly pointed out the social status of the characters. And while doing so, they portrayed the poor and lowly as more favored and more inclined to be faithful and this spirit is best expressed in the beatitude that says “blessed are the meek.” Luke 6:20 says that the Kingdom of God is for the poor and Luke 16:19-31 narrates about a poor Lazarus and a rich man with the latter being tortured in the afterlife. Mark 12:38-44 talks of a poor widow giving the smallest of coins and is presented as giving more than the rest. As such, the evangelists are not likely to have been silent on this point if it were indeed the case.

The above reasons combined show us that Sander's lame suggestions about the prophecy are nonsensical.

Wrong. Dont you read what you post? You cited Sanders as writing:
What are the three actions? I quote you below:
(1) his entering Jerusalem on a donkey
(2) His going to the Temple, where he turned over the tables of money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons
(3) His sharing a last supper with his disciples

He complains about difficulties about certainty and makes guesses but overall, he states above, plain as daylight, that he regards the first two were symbolic actions.

About the crucifixion, Sanders writes in your quote of him:
Guess? This is after admitting that "Jesus' cry, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me' (Mark 15-34) is from Psalms 22.1"

Sanders plainly ignores the obvious explanation for this. Was Jesus a Psalms expert who had memorized all Psalms passages and could belt out the right ones at the appropriate time when he landed in a scenery crafted out of Psalms?
It is almost impossible that in the midst of pain, as the hard nails tore through Jesus flesh and broke his bones, like a good stoic actor reading a script, Jesus recalled Psalm 22:1 and cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me” (Mark 15:34). How about "Ouch!" "Oh God!". A lamentation and a cry of pain are not the same. Humans dont lament when iron is piercing their flesh.
This is my ENTIRE point. The ones he deems as confirmable or symbolic are EQUALLY historically dubious and/or unconfirmable. He provides no reasons at all why this piece is believable and the rest are dubious.
Why is this alleged "reminesence" any more credible compared to riding a colt or temple ruckus? Its all arbitrary.

He does not disregard the rest; he merely admits difficulty but does not offer direction, leaving the readers to decide whatever they want. What is important is that he presents a general outline being that Jesus was involved in symbolic acts.

He does the following:
1. Declare that Jesus was engaged in Symbolic acts in the mentioned passages.
2. Admit that some passages were derived from the OT and claim Jesus was acting them out then pontificate about what was possible for Jesus.
3. Make further admissions of problems, twiddle his thumbs, scratch his head, engage in apologetic guesswork, make non-specific statements and throw up his hands leaving the readers to their own devices and with a general view that Jesus was engaged in symbolic actions.
Neither does Sanders speak of the spear that allegedly pierced Jesus' side. Neither does he speak of the crown of thorns and purple robe. Neither does he speak of the women or the allege eclipse.
It is silly to insist that Sanders must mention every element in a scene by name before we can apply his methodology to interpretation of the element.

Malachi151

Not only this, but we have to deal with patterns as well.

Its not just that Jesus would have had to quote an appropriate Psalm at the appropriate time, but the rest of that scene has other obvious elements from the same Psalm being performed by the Romans crucifying him and the Jews who were "walking by shaking their heads" as they mocked him.

So in this case, in order to argue for historicity you have to argue that three separate groups of people, the Romans, the mobs, and Jesus, were all acting out lines from Psalm 22.

Obviously, holy prophecy is a more likely explanation than simple coincidence or that these people were all aware of the Psalm and acting it out.

But it doesn't stop with that one scene. There are also many other scenes in the Gospel of Mark that follow this same pattern of paralleling scripture.

Thus, the ONLY reasonable explanation, the one that the NT scholars avoid the most, is that these scenes were crafted by the author based on the scritpures, as of course you know.

Solitary Man

Psalm 22 is one that inspires even the non-religious. There are things that I've been so entrenched in that I could spout them off even during the worst of pain, and I've done so. When under surgery, passed out cold, I could communicate in Hebrew. I even wrote it down because they couldn't understand what I was saying. I have no recollection of this, but multiple witnesses who were there. Certain lines are so entrenched in my own head that I have little doubt that if I thought I were fulfilling God's mission somehow, my unexpected murder would permit me to cry in the same vein Eli! Eli! Lama Azavtani!

What happens next is what Malachi ignores. Like Josephus when he crafts his story on scripture, he doesn't make it up cold - he molds the events. Likewise, that Jesus uttered Eli Eli lama sabachthani is the starting point, and thereafter begins the midrash of the event.

As Amaleq pointed out earlier, you really have to distort Psalm 22 to get crucifixion out of it. It's far more probable given the nature of ancient authors to merely model history based on already known patterns found in earlier scripture.

Amaleq13

I don't find that incredible. I know plenty of Bible-thumpers who are so thoroughly familiar with the text that quotes appear to fall naturally in conversation and/or come immediately to mind without any apparent effort.

It is my understanding that the nutjobs who allow themselves to be literally nailed to a cross at Easter (Philippines?) are capable of praying throughout.

Keep in mind I'm not arguing that the words Mark places in the mouth of Jesus are reliably historical, I'm arguing that these particular points of yours is not sound.

IMO and assuming an HJ, the fact that everybody puts different passages into his mouth is sufficient to conclude nobody actually knew if he said anything or, if he did, what it might have been but they figured it must have been scriptural.

No Robots

Not to forget that this was an oral society in which scholarship and memorization were very tightly linked. Also, remember that the Iroquois for example had death chants that they would sing right through extreme torture.

driver8

I can't believe you guys are trying to defend the accuracy, or even context, of those supposed last words. I don't see how they help you.

Here we have a supposed son of god who has previously revealed his divinity, stated his purpose on earth, acknowledged the means of his "betrayal," and willfully submitted to his execution, all in order to fulfill his mission on earth, the reason for his very existence, his only relevance. And, he is supposed to now be surprised, forsaken? The punch-line doesn't fit the joke.

It smacks of literary creation in order to impress. It is drama, the big finish. You can't have the premise with all the miracles and then have this ending. The story has likely been edited to meet changing objectives, but the process was an uneasy one at best. Not surprising though, as the entire story is clumsy.

No Robots

This is a problem for those who think that the dude was god, not for those of us who think he was just a dude.

I was talking about mythicism with some conservative Christian friends the other day. I said that it seems that the mythicist argument boils down to a syllogism:

• Jesus Christ is God
• God is a myth
• Therefore, Jesus Christ is a myth

My friends found that on this basis mythicism is logical. They affirm that the premise of Christ=God is the correct reading of the NT, so if you don't believe in the existence of God, you cannot believe in the existence of Christ. I didn't beat them over the head with my own position that the premise Christ=God is simply a grotesque distortion of what the NT says, and that both traditional Christians and mythicists have profoundly misunderstood what they are, respectively, upholding and attacking. It is one thing for Christians to be victims of a profound misunderstanding of what they profess to believe in. Far worse, though, is that our self-labelled skeptical and rationalist critics have accepted that misunderstanding as the genuine reading. They are aiming at a target that doesn't even exist, a pure chimera. In Plato's cave, the credulous sit and watch the shadows, believing them to be real. An updated version would have our mythicists throwing themselves against the shadows in a mad fury.