Adam

Even I do not claim that we have any text in hand that can be dated earlier than the Second Century. They were not canonized until the Fourth Century. However, the various Fourth Century textual families can be compared by Textual Criticism (Bart Ehrman's speciality, formerly called Lower Criticism) to give us what was the original text of the First Century (or early Second Century according to the preferences of most posters here at FRDB). I acknowledge that none of the four gospels in their present forms existed during Jesus's lifetime nor in the 30 years thereafter (60 CE).I have never said that any of the four canonical gospels were written in their entirety by any of the twelve disciples (apostles would be a better term for what I think you mean, as Luke, John Mark, and the women named in the gospels would count as "disciples"). Of the Twelve, my thesis holds that Andrew, Matthew, Peter, and John had major roles in the Signs Gospel, Q, Ur-Marcus, and the next-to-last edition of John respectively (basically as documented in the Muratorian Canon). My other three eyewitnesses you would probably not count in what you mean by "disciples": John Mark, Simon Barsabbas, and Nicodemus. By my theory Matthew wrote Q and Nicodemus wrote the Johannine Discourses while Jesus was still alive, and John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative just days after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. See various threads of mine here on FRDB such as Significance of John and

Gospel Eyewitnesses (jumping in at Post 170 where it lists my preceding posts #1, 18,#38, #52, #74, #132, and #144
that comprise my thesis).

spin

The sophistry continues. You do claim that parts of the canonical gospels were written by people of the reputed time, an oft-repeated claim that you have no evidence for. So, the pretense in "not in their entirety" merely tarts up the claim.

An untestable net of conjecture does not warrant being called a "thesis".

The Muratorian Canon isn't much use for dating seeing as it could be as early as 170 or as late as 300 CE.

Which all adds up to an argument by assertion after assertion after assertion after assertion.

outhouse

Yet very few here actually even know what this translates to properly.

You and DC


This forum isn't about discounting all the evidence because it doesn't fit in ones mythical hobby horse. Yet that is what happens, more often then not.



The Gospels themselves are evidence, and it is scholars main evidence, but somehow when I use them, it is not considered evidence :huh:

Without the gospels, the there would ne no scholarships on this topic.


What study have you done on this topic?

Do you deny the size of the crowds?


Or that if a crowd that size existed, "in front" is silly?



So no one showed up at Passover?, and no man could ever be martyred in front of a crowd?



Instead of sniping cherry picked arguments from high branches, you are welcome to share some of that knowledge. Not everyone here is so fixated with their own hobby horse, their not above learning.




The crowd in this forum would not accept any demonstration, no matter how well it was put together. They make it painfully obvious.

I have read Jan Vansina on this topic and understand the basics.



Did not all of the Gospels start from oral tradition generated after Passover?

Sorry I thought it was obvious they were later, written down, and compiled, and redacted with fiction and mythology.




Its funny, most Scholars use and can only draw on a limited source for a historical Jesus. Do you deny the use of the Gospels?

spin

This seems to be an argument along the lines of not bothering to attempt to adhere to standard scholarly methodologies because you perceive others are not adhering.

Just more assertions.

You make the assertion. Do not try to shift the burden.

I'd rather try to put the house in order step by step. You are a long time rehearser of views rather than a provider of reasoned argument. Isn't it time you picked up your act?

In other words you won't pick up your act because some others wouldn't appreciate the effort.

And that helps the discussion how exactly?

The assertion implied in this question is one that you have to provide evidence for rather than hope it will pass without control.

As we only have the documents that you acknowledge contain fiction, mythology and other additions, how do propose to identify materials that are derived from real events from amongst that which you hold to be latter additions?

If they contain mythology and other non-factual information, what makes you think that the core isn't completely full of myth and other non-fact? I can't answer the question and so I'm not willing to make unwarranted assumptions on the matter.

The gospels are unprovenanced, undated, anonymous documents, whose value seems beyond testing. Despite status quo assumptions, while there may be some real events behind the gospels, I cannot see how one can extract any history from the core material in them.

The gospels are an epistemological nightmare that many fools have thought they can extract core history/myth from on the basis of unwarranted assumptions. Religionists gull themselves, as do historicists, as do mythicists. When there is no way to know, we should be honest and admit that we cannot make a reasoned conclusion.

wordy

I've heard an explanation from a theologian that the texts
are supposed to be read aloud in a small group and go from
person to person reading and that the verbal reading aloud
is a bit like a live role plying.

You are supposed to suspend your disbelieve and experience
the story as if it was something you witness right before your eyes
a kind of guided tour into the Kingdom of God with Jesus as the Guide.

What we do here is more like critical historic reading using our intellect?
they where not written for that purpose. Not that it is a plot in a theater text
but it is a kind of meditative story telling where you live the story as if
you where there and being one of the twelve.

Not sure when I heard this but it did a strong impression on me
despite me hating all religion and the believers. It made sense
and it explain how odd the text is. It is maybe not written to make sense
from a philosophical logical perspective. It is an experience kind of text.

I have no idea how many of the Scholars that support that take on the Bible though.

did they lie to me. It could have been a radio program or a TV
or I read it in a book and thought I heard somebody telling it live?

Clivedurdle

No, it wasn't me

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...highlight=Jesi

mountainman

It is reasonable to assume that only a very few could read Greek.

Therefore it is reasonable that there were a few READERS and a host of LISTENERS.

However there is a further very troublesome issue.

The earliest Greek of the NT invariably contained "nomina sacra".

These are abbreviated terms that would NOT be understood by your normal average Greek reader, because they were coined by the earliest Christians for terms like "Jesus" and "Christ" etc.

A typical Greek reading academic in antiquity would not be able to understand these "abbreviations".

Many of these terms would have been only capable of being "interpretted" by someone within the secret circle of Christians.

The situation would be like an accountant who supplies to a client a series of General Ledger Accounts (eg: BANK, FIXED ASSETS, PROFIT, LOSS) in which these account names were not explicit, but instead listed as codes (eg: 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, etc).



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Well perhaps you have used the term more than most.

Many Jesuses = Many Jesi



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

outhouse

I guess you can keep me on ignore then. Since you don't share much anyway, its no great loss.

Your talented and hold great volumes of knowledge, sadly its my personal opinion your compass is not aimed in the right direction. You remind me of Carrier, whom I hold in great esteem despite his clinging as close to the middle of the road as possible.


Like it or not "you" do hold a minority opinion. So you seem to attack those who hold or follow the majority as teachers, claiming they "appeal to authority". Which means your forced to attack their methodology no matter how sound or strong their foundation may be.

Like it or not we are stuck with the Synoptic Gospels, Josephus and Tacitus and the Pauline Epistles as evidence. Weak or strong is up for debate, but it is evidence.



"Reasoned conclusion" is to wide and vague as you use it. You would be correct we cannot identify 100% historical details of a "Historical Jesus". But honest? Honest us to accept the reason why these sources point to a real man who was martyred and remembered.

MrMacSon

I strongly agree that

"Ancient Grecco-Roman 'biographies' were often written many generations after the facts, were sourced primarily from myths,
and contained impossible claims about the life in question. They were hardly like biographies written today."

Therefore, I strongly disagree that "... the gospels were ... biographical"
.