Solitary Man

All very, very true.

After watching these "JMers" for a while, it dawned on me: The Jesus myth is promulgated by poor exegetes. They can hardly even read simple statements, they lack all competence when reading Paul.

Ted Hoffman

Always happy to be of help Jeffrey. Anything else you would like me to "clarify?"

Ted Hoffman

Its a bad social practice - more of "unethical." It has no bearing on whether the concepts that embody the field are in fact based on solid foundation and that is the sense in which I used the word "weakness". A negation of the latter would be a weakness in my view. The former is just bad practice.
A few names/publications would help verify this.
Personal flattery is endorsement of someone's work? The above sound like flattering descriotions of Archaya, not her book.
We happen to disagree with that position and we are not in the business for looking for an easy way out, or shortcuts.
They have been shown to be mistaken. So what they think has been successfully debunked and is therefore worthless. We are not here looking for a group to lump with. We just want the truth. If you want to join the larger group, by all means go ahead and ne on that side.

Ehrman says that Jesus was a flesh and blood man but is today a myth? How do you define "myth" in this case? What is his evidence that Jesus was a flesh and blood man? What is his explanation regarding why Paul never places Jesus anywhere on Earth?
They say that they are "simply stating the assumptions of post-modern scholarship?" Where?
And what exactly is post-modern scholarship? What is your demarcation point for "modern" in your definition? Provide examples of "post-modern scholarship" in NT studies and contrast with "modern scholarship" with examples.
Feel free to start a thread to discuss my bias. Bias is not what is at issue here. I was illustrating what a few scholars think about objectivity in NT scholarship.
This is an empty declaration Zeichman. Your private opinion regarding who is a fool and who is not a fool is not of interest at this point.
I will let people interpret that for themselves.

Solitary Man

How about the recent Talpiot Tomb statement? And all you have to do is search the archives of ANE-2 to see Joe Zias and others taking shots at him, and finally, feel free to look at all the blog posts that Tyler Williams links to back when the Lost Tomb of Jesus was first aired.

ApostateAbe

OK. I was just trying to prove what most critical New Testament scholars think. If you think that their positions have been debunked, that's fine. Some people are not aware that the Jesus-myth theories are on the scholarly fringe, regardless of whether or not it is correct. Being on the fringe is not evidence of being wrong.

A "myth" is simply an idea that is transmitted from person to person. So we all agree that Jesus is a myth, but the disagreement is how it started.

As far as I am aware, Ehrman's evidence for the historicity of Jesus is the testimony of the early New Testament manuscripts, and the earliest New Testament manuscripts are those of Paul and the gospel of Mark.

Paul is the accepted author of the Epistle to Galations, and Galations 1:19 mentions in passing, "...James, the Lord's brother..." James would not be just a spiritual brother of the Lord. He is told to be the flesh and blood brother of Jesus in Mark 6:3 and Matthew 13:55.

Paul is also the accepted author of the Epistle to Philippians. According to Philippians 2:8, "Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." This is, on the face of it, accounts of flesh and blood events.

Ted Hoffman

I am interested in a review by NT scholars, of James Tabor's The Jesus Dynasty

Solitary Man

I'm afraid you've just changed the goal posts, a bit. But anyway, does Ben Witherington's blog count? If not, then have a look at Craig A. Evans in Fabricating Jesus.

Ted Hoffman

From your definition, the World War II is a myth. To be clear, a myth is a story or concept that lacks factual or historical justification.
How does Ehrman use the criterion of Independent Attestation? Does this mean he treats the gospels as historical documents?
The gospels do not indicate that that James in Mark was James the just who was linked to the post-Easter faith. If you think he was the same James, prove it. "Brother" in Galatians does not mean blood brother. These arguments have been dealt with and it does not help to act like you are ignorant of the rebuttals.
On the contrary, Philippians 2:8 is consistent with pre-existence Christology, which goes against historicity. See Burton L. Mack, Who Wrote the New Testament? The Making of the Christian Myth (or via: amazon.co.uk) (1995), p.92

Solitary Man

Prove it.

Very inadequately.

How does it go against historicity? Modern Christians have no trouble at all presupposing pre-existence of Christ in divinity and assuming that he existed as an historical man who lived during an historical period. This is a false dilemma on your part.

Malachi151

Its buried in this article, but you can find the argument made by searching for "brother of the lord" and starting there.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...h_followup.htm