DCHindley

Yes. :Cheeky:

arnoldo

The phrase "seen and heard" is additionally used to distinguish it from the Petrine phrase preceding it. Thus in the following section of Acts 4:13-20

The phrase colored orange is in keeping with the confrontation character ascribed to Peter while the blue phrase is in keeping with Johannine language. Furthermore, Anderson states that the particular gramatical structure of "seen and heard" which occurs in Act 4:20 occurs "no where else in Luke's writings."

rlogan

I'm not familiar with his work, and am only relying on this paraphrase by analogy. But either way above, the written constitution is the genesis for statements about what is in the constitution.

With GMark we can find the written source for just about everything in there, from the Voice in the Wilderness heralding his arrival (JBapt) to the suffering at the end.

It is Germane to the OP topic because if you have identified the passages from the Hebrew Bible that were weaved together for the story of Jesus Christ, then you have done something the historicists can't do:

The Quote-mining from the Hebrew Bible gets you the Jesus of the Gospels, from JBapt to the virgin birth, Nazareth, Bethlehem, coming out of Egypt, riding on the donkey, etc., all the way to the crucifixion and rising. The Historical Jesus approach strips away "implausible" elements of Jesus, leaving you with an itinerant preacher.

Only one of these actually explains Jesus Christ of the gospels, and the other "explains" something that is not attested to by the gospels.

aa5874

Well, the "historicists" do exactly what they claim was not done.

The historicists will argue vehemently that Jesus of the NT was NOT derived from Hebrew Scripture but their HJ of Nazareth was completely derived from the NT Canon.

"Historicists" are such a laugh.

The Historical Jesus of Nazareth was believed to be baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

HJ of Nazareth is from the Bible just like Jesus of the NT.

MJers have already told them so.

The Historical Jesus of Nazareth is a MYTH Derived from the Bible by the "historicists".

DCHindley

I recall reading somewhere that when it comes to vocabulary, the book of Acts has more affinity with Gospel of John than it does with the Gospel of Luke.

Damn if I don't have the volume in my disorganized library, but I can't seem to lay my hands on it.

DCH

lmbarre

Hooker does not argue that the historical Jesus did not exist, only that we do not have adequate methods (criteria) for discovering him. She in fact states that Jesus was a historical figure:

"It is indisputable that he was put to death by the
Roman authorities – though to what extent the Jewish authorities were involved is far from clear – and that his followers came to believe that he had been raised from thedead, though how and where they came to that conviction it is now impossible to say."

"Common sense" is to replace traditional criteria for discovering historical Jesus. The statement about it being "the beginning of the end for the historical Jesus" does not represent her view. She seems to be calling for a more sound approach to the problem of the quest. She is not a mythicist but rather a skeptic regarding HJ criteria. She also notes that her position is only a partial representation of those who have contributed to her book.

Vorkosigan

If you don't have a methodology, you are only functioning on the assumption that reality is what you say it is. In other contexts, the English word for that is ideology.

Her position that Jesus was whacked by Roman authorities is merely reiterating a faith position.

Vorkosigan

lmbarre

In her defense let me say that the quote was taken from a forward to a forthcoming book. As such, you would not expect her to go into the specifics behind her "announcements." Is it really true that it is impossible to investigate the topic of the resurrection traditions in early Christianity? Why would that be so?

I think so also. She does seem like she is a bit of an ideologue.

Sheshbazzar

I always get a chuckle out of statements like this that ignore the obvious fact that non-believers, and skeptics have been disputing the Christian tale for ages.
'Course whenever the Church could get their hands on them, they never disputed anything ever again.

Adam

The Passion Narrative underlying the four gospels has nothing necessarily supernatural about it. A fair assessment cannot judge it all as oral, so it must be earlier than any of the four gospels and hence presumably historical, as it must have been quite an embarrassment for the first Christians.
As I have shown in Gospel Eyewitnesses in this sub-forum (in my Post #526 and #534) there is evidence that eyewitnesses wrote other accounts about Jesus without supernatural trappings, hence HJ triumphs over MJ. (Anybody ever hear of Q? Of L? The Discourses in John can also be separated from supernatural events.) I found MJ amusing when I started posting in FRDB, but I now find it just a sad commentary on human nature that people defend it so adamantly. (People are entitiled to their opinions, but not to shooting the messenger who dares to express contrary opinions.) I had always expected to reach a stalemate in my endeavours here, and that's how it remains regarding supernaturalism, but I see myself as having reached an unexpected victory in quashing MJ. (I realize that I have not explained my four eyewitness sources yet in a way that would be convincing to all MJ supporters, but judging by MJers who do know enough about my theory and who knee-jerk attack it, just presenting more evidence won't convince anybody. That's human nature.)