Logical

Really? REALLY?? You're going to quote the ENTIRE long post just to comment on it?

Chaucer

"A Thing of Beauty is a Joy Forever", John Keats.

Cheers,

Chaucer

Duvduv

Rather interesting that if this was meant to refer to a literal brother of historical Jesus that the author(s) totally ignored someone even more important - the MOTHER who bore Jesus, the virgin Mary, who is not mentioned anywhere in the epistles, thus indicating that the letters were put together before the nativity stories emerged.

aa5874

Are we just going go over the same debunked nonsense of Galatians 1.19 every day for the next hundred years???

Please!!!!

Let us get serious.

In the the Pauline writings Jesus had NO human father--Jesus was the Son of God. See Galatians 2.20 and 4.4

Apologetic sources that used Galatians claimed Jesus had NO human father and that Jesus was the Son of God born of the Holy Ghost. See writings attributed to Tertullian and Origen.

The Pauline writings are Canonised and Must be Comptapible with the Teachings of the Church that Jesus was the Son of God without a human father born of the Holy Ghost. See the Nicene Creed.

At this point the HJ argument is just a complete waste of time.

It is just wholly illogical that the Church Canonised the Pauline writings and knew in advance that he was a WELL KNOWN Herectic and Canonised his Heretical letters.

Duvduv

The relevant section from Galatians 4 makes no sense if viewed as an integral single letter. First it says that God sent his son born of woman, and then says that God sent "the Spirit of his Son" into their hearts, without the slightest explanation or hint of what these two sendings mean in relation to each other in historical or physical terms.

The flow of the text only makes sense if one removes "born of woman and born under the Law" because then the Son is only a SPIRITUAL being to redeem those under the law and to be adopted (whatever that is supposed to mean) WITH NO SIGNIFICANCE HERE TO ANY HISTORICAL EVENT.

4 What I am saying is that as long as an heir is underage, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 The heir is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were underage, we were in slavery under the elemental spiritual forces of the world. 4 But when the set time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those under the law, that we might receive adoption to sonship.[b] 6 Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba,[c] Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but God’s child; and since you are his child, God has made you also an heir

AND, as a composite we see that the section dealing with Sarah vs. Hagar interferes with the flow from verse 20 into Chapter 5, verse 13.

17 Those people are zealous to win you over, but for no good. What they want is to alienate you from us, so that you may have zeal for them. 18 It is fine to be zealous, provided the purpose is good, and to be so always, not just when I am with you. 19 My dear children, for whom I am again in the pains of childbirth until Christ is formed in you, 20 how I wish I could be with you now and change my tone, because I am perplexed about you!
[..........]
(Chapter 5) 13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh[a]; rather, serve one another humbly in love. 14 For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”[b] 15 If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.

outhouse

like most non-scholar mythicist, attacking the messenger is all you have left once reality smacks you.


your half hearted attempt is noted. I would bet lunch you never give it a decent rebuttle

EarlDoherty

No, the way it sounds wrong in any language that a writer would say “and brought before (the Sanhedrin) the brother of Jesus called Christ, one James…” mentioning the ‘explanation’ about who this James was before mentioning the person himself who was brought before the Sanhedrin. If a news report said: The D.A. brought before the court the son of Ronald Reagan, the President, one John by name…” (don’t know if that was his son’s name), that would be one thing. The important point is that this is Reagan’s son. But if news reports had never before contained a reference to Ronald Reagan, and if the readers of those news reports would not be expected to even be familiar with a Ronald Reagan, let alone know what the hell a “President” was, then that word order would be awkward and suspicious.

Are you saying that any of the other references in Josephus which show the Ant. 20 word order are relevant, in that they entail the same awkward and dubious situation? This is what I mean about inflating straws.

More of that old criticism that I cannot draw on anything said by a scholar if he doesn’t himself use it to arrive at my own application. Kelber subscribes to the "prophetically functioning sayings of the Risen Lord” idea at least in part (just as famously C. K. Barrett agreed with me in part that “kata sarka” could refer to the “realm of the flesh”). I can use that for my own purposes quite legitimately. And in what way, and by whom, has Bultmann’s "model of orality" (which means?) been discarded, and what direct relevance does that have to my use of his stated opinion on this point? Besides, are newer interpretations invariably and undeniably better than older ones? Given the see-saw condition of NT scholarship and the constant overturning of opinions, that’s a dubious and unsupportable proposition.

And whether you were asked to review me or not, does not change the fact that you did put all that work into it. If someone asked me to critique Joe Atwell, I would hardly spend the time doing so if his theory meant no more to me than some ridiculous idea that could hardly stand up to examination. Sounds like the defence of a personal hegemony to me.

Earl Doherty

aa5874

Are you not tired of using Myth Fables as history???
Well, the very same sources NT sources claim Jesus was the Son of a Ghost, the Son of God and ACTED like a Ghost.

The Specific Gravity of Jesus was NOT that of a human body in the NT Canon. The NT Canon does NOT contain the historical account of the character called Jesus.

Mk 6:48-49 Please, we had enough of the Myth Fables in the Canon.

Again, there is NO evidence that any writings in the Canon are contemporary and NO evidence that they were written before Antiquities of the Jews.

You have NOT established when any book or epitle was written.

Please your PRESUMPITIONS about the NT are worthless.

The DATED NT manuscripts show that NO writing has been found that is contemporary with Pilate, or Caiaphas or before c 70 CE.

LegionOnomaMoi

First, the "any language" part is just clearly wrong. You are not allowing for the extent of varation among languages (for example, a literal translation of "He took a picture of himself holding a book" in Kashaya is "book holding make-cause-self (infinitive)". Second, word order in Greek, as you well know, is much freer than English. And such hyperbaton is associated particularly with kin terms. From A. M. Devine and Laurence D. Stephens Discontinuous Syntax: Hyperbaton in Greek (Oxford University Press; 2000) "Postnominal position (N ton emon) is very strongly associated with kin terms." p. 24. While they do not discuss introductions or indentification constructions, there are plenty of examples of the types of discontinuity you state "sounds wrong in any language". Additionally, their study is on classical Greek, while (as I already noted) Dickey points out that the influence of Latin and other factors changed the forms and methods of address in Greek during the Roman period. Finally, as Meier sums things up rather nicely here, I'll quote his article "Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal"

You're going to have to qualify what you mean by "awkward and dubious" because Greek is filled with examples which would fall under that category in translation. I just referenced an entire monograph on the subject.

This is what I mean about inflating straws.



No, you can certainly do that. But 1) there a methods to indicate you are quoting midway into a sentence, and cutting off a significant portion and (more importantly) 2) It's one thing to quote Kelber's arguments about that possible prophetic nature of Paul's references to "words of the lord" while noting that Kelber only argues that we can't tell when Paul is doing that given the nature of oral tradition in his model, and quite another thing to quote part of a sentence which gives the impression that Kelber's text supports your argument that Paul simply received inspiritation (either through personal revelation or that of others).




It's standard practice not to cite a reference in support of an argument your reference disagrees with unless you note the disagreement.

By whom would be everybody who deals with the subject. Studies on orality (oral tradition, oral transmission, oral poetry, etc.) has become a field unto itself, mainly in anthropology and sociology, but for some time also within NT studies. Bultmann relied on a now-discarded model of transmission of folktales, which was held at the time by German scholars of folklore.

That is the main reason behind Bultmann's assertion that the Jesus tradition was freely added to. He adopted the "folk" model in which the focus was on the "form" (Gattung) of units and (much more importantly) the tradition is a product of a creative community. However, even folklorists have abandoned the "communal and anonymous composition" model, and there is no reason to assume that the early Christian community functioned similarily to the communities the scholars of folklore studied in Bultmann's time.


In this case, yes. Using Bultmann to understand the composition of gospels narrative or the Jesus tradition is like using Margaret Murray to understand European witchcraft. It's hopelessly outdated. And this has nothing to do with NT studies, as (again) models of orality are largely independent of NT and Biblical studies.

I spent more time writing a review of the series Sherlock the other day. It's posted on another forum. Don't flatter yourself.

spin

Only your argument isn't supported by Josephus at all. Your one example is not an introduction, LegionOnomaMoi. See my post #9. You need to do your research a little better.

ops:

Got anything else up your sleeve or can we scratch this blunder?