outhouse

Thank you.

aa5874

You are merely admitting you are an HJer. That is all.

You must now go to the next stage.

You MUST now provide credible sources of antiquity that can support your position.

You very well know that you that there are two fundamental positions that are argued.

1. They created Biblical Jesus from historical Jesus.

2. They did NOT create Biblical Jesus from historical Jesus.

It would appear you have decided to Defend position 1.

Well, lets get the ball rolling.

Give us your sources that support you. Fill in the blank space if you can.

1...................................


I am defending position 2.

Biblical Jesus is fundamentally from Hebrew Scripture.

1. His birth is from Isaiah 7.14.

LegionOnomaMoi

What does that have to do with anything? You said biblical studies exists in a vacuum and referred to archaeology. I've read entire monographs which concern the historical Jesus and are completely based on archaeological studies (e.g., M. A. Chancey's Myth of a Gentile Galilee). If you want to assert something about biblical/NT/historical Jesus scholarship, you should be able to back it up. Yet there are plenty of early christian and historical jesus studies which not only depend on archaeology, but were actually written by archaeologists.

What is your obsession with "archaeological evidence?"!!! We have plenty of statues, coins, inscriptions, which represent "archaeological evidence" for mythic gods. We have none for most of the historical individuals we know existed (with as much certainty as is possible). The usefulness of archaeological evidence when it comes to the ancient literary past is mainly for additional context. Virtually everything we know about the Greco-roman period is from LITERARY evidence.


If I were to rely on unambigous archaeological evidencel, then I would have much more evidence for the historical existence of Zeus, Hercules, Hera, etc., than I would for Aristotle, Plato, Plutarch, Livy, Euripides, and virtually every single historical individual we know of from ancient history.. Which is why no ancient historian discounts textual/epigraphic evidence and relies on archaeoligical evidence as anything more than historical/cultural context.


The problem is that you equate Eusebius with modern NT/biblical scholarship (whether concerning Jesus or the early "church"). This is utterly and completely baseless. Only a thorough lack of understanding/reading of modern scholarship on the subject would lead to such a bizarre dodge: ignore modern scholarship, and dismiss it as based on and/or equivalent to Eusebius.



Unambigious? No. It's just science after all. It could be wrong. But you are the one who compared "NT studies" with "ancient historiography" as if there were some wide gulf. Guess who uses this same process for determining the dates of texts? Well, jeez. EVERYONE concerned with ancient history. I guess they are all bible thumping ignorant oafs.


Great argument. Except p52 isn't part of the Oxyrynchus finds. But by all means, present your arguments against those of Roberts, Kenyon, Schubart, Bell, Hatch, and other paleographers when it comes to dating.


I asked about you knowledge of modern scholarship. I can't understand why you keep harping on Eusebius, unless it is because you haven't actually read any modern scholarship on the historical Jesus or early christian history.

I've read Momilgliano. I've read an extensive amount of classical scholarship. I actually know that Momilgliano's work has been used in NT/biblical scholarship. So simply asserting that you've "researched the field" while you make baseless assertions about palaeography, archaeology, and the entirety of the field is hardly convincing. So far you've mentioned a single modern classical scholar (whose work was incorporated into NT studies) and have relied on Eusebius to ridicule modern NT studies.

mountainman

I am not convinced that there is unambiguous evidence for the new testament, or for Jesus or for "Christians" prior to this time. What evidence would you cite to convince me any of these things existed before this time?



The Myth of a Gentile Galilee (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series) (or via: amazon.co.uk) Hardcover by Mark A. Chancey.


The time of Jesus? 1st century?

What model of crystal ball does Chancey use?

He certainly did not find Jesus in the archaeology.
Neither did he find anything "Christian" in his review - did he....




The same obligation are on those who wish to assert the existence of a 1st century historical jesus. Evidence is highly regarded. What is it?



You do not appear to perceive the problem of the absence of evidence for anything that can be unambiguously described as "Early Christian". Certainly truckloads of Biblical and NT academics are writing truckloads of academic papers on "Early Christianity", but I do not find their evidence compelling.

This article was also written by an archaeologist:

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity



Jesus does not have a church or a church-house. The Dura-Europos-Yale "Christian House Church" is the solitary exemplar of "Early Christian architecture.

Jesus does not have a shrine, or a figurine, or a grafitti before the 4th century. Crosses appear in the 4th century.

What archaeological evidence is there for "Early Christianity"?
I do not regard this as an obsessive question.
I regard this as a sensible question to ask.
Do you have any answers?




We are not simply just discussing historical individuals, or so-called historical individuals such as Jesus and Papias and Hegessipus. Rather we are discussing the evidence that is able to substantiate the existence of the entire population of "Early Christians". Most groups above a certain size and profile leave some archaeological footprint on planet Earth. How far underground were the "Early Christians"? What evidence do we have for these people outside of Eusebius?




CLEARLY we have plenty of acheological evidence that there were followers of Zeus, Hercules, Hera, Apollo, Asclepius, etc, etc, etc. Why do we have no evidence for the followers of Jesus?





Palaeography is not science, it's more like an art.
Who are you trying to fool?




It is not a science. It could be wildly off the money.



The process is but ONE process used to provide dating estimates. It is usually used in corroboration with many other dating processes.



Your guess may be better than mine.

Doug Shaver

I meant: Why did he pick that name rather than some other name?

Than you're inferring it from some evidence. What evidence?

OK, that is your thinking. What are your reasons for thinking it?

Which NT figures comprise him?

In a sense, yes. Of all the people who write anything, at all times, there are always some who try to conceal their identities. But they are rare. Most writers want people to know who they are.

Neither does it automatically follow that he wasn't. The antecedent probability that that any document whose author calls himself by a certain name was actually known by that name is very high. When we think we've found an exception, we need good evidence. What's yours?

Letters with his name on them are evidence. That evidence can be overturned by better evidence for a contrary hypothesis, but that doesn't stop it from being evidence. Just because a football team never wins a game doesn't mean it's not a football team.

Duvduv

If Paulus meant Small One then it could simply have been a generic name for more than one writer of what became a set that was presented always together. Like the "author " of Poor Richard's Almanac or like Franklin W. Dixon who wrote the Hardy Boys but was actually several authors.
Notice of course that no apologists ever challenged certain letters of the set or claimed that Paul wrote only five or only twenty letters, or that the real letter to Galatians or whatever was different than the known one.

mountainman

You mean like Lucius Annaeus Seneca ?

Duvduv

Isn't it interesting that all those chapters never mention the names of Jesus or Christ even once??! And why should the letter to the Laodiceans be less eligible for the canon than any other epistle?!

mountainman

The purpose of the letter exchanges seems to be to demonstrate that Paul and Seneca and Caesar are "Good Buddies". Paul is being credentialled by Seneca and Caesar. These are real., important and influential historical people. Everyone knew them. OTOH Jesus is not required for this process.

maryhelena

Heaven only knows...:huh:
Re-read what I wrote...

Acts places 'Paul' to follow on the gospel JC timeline. The letters attributed to 'Paul' reflect a christian context that could not, to my thinking, have been an actuality in Jerusalem prior to 70 c.e. I happen to think that that context, the timeline in which 'Paul' is placed is relevant. But so too is the post 70 c.e. period. An early and a later tradition seems to be more realistic than to opt for one or the other - an early or a late 'Paul'. I prefer to think that two traditions have been combined to create the NT figure of 'Paul'. While that is indeed an interesting question - I don't think it can be answered while the relevant Herodian history, the historical context, in which the NT story is set, has not been clearly identified. The Josephan reconstruction of Herodian history is not above question. A problem that I am attempting to address in my thread: Putting Josephus in the Dock.
Sorry - your not going to pass the buck on that one. If you want to uphold the idea that the letters attributed to the NT 'Paul' were indeed written by that self same 'Paul' - then supply the evidence.A name on a document is not evidence that the document was written by the person named on that document.