ApostateAbe

Cool, I think we are on the same page.

Adam

Back to your bald untrue assertions. Yes, spin, you did engage me in my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses and complained of lack of scholarly rigor again and again for my thesis that there are seven identifiable written eyewitness records about Jesus. However, you never once entered in among the 115 posts in my Significance of John
my scholarly article (see my Post#43, peer-reviewed in 1980) that did document and footnote my case for the eyewitnesses that wrote the sources for gJohn. Now that I have re-opened that thread, I expect your productive commentary on my failings as a scholar. You could start by pointing out where scholars have advanced in source-criticism of gJohn in the last three decades. Surely my article does not stand above everything that has been produced since? Do my posts #85 and 108 still stand unchallenged?
Then you should easily be able to show why my Significance of John article should not have passed peer review.
I did not cite the Muratorian Canon to establish dating, as its 170 CE date was a full century or more later than gJohn was finished. I cited it to show that some ECF believed that Andrew had been involved in the composition of gJohn, not just John the Apostle. Not doubt why you preferred to assail me on this thread rather than my peer-reviewed article.

Toto

How many times do we have to go through the "ancient biographies" argument?

There were bioi (ancient biographies written about mythical personages. The mere fact that the gospels have a few characteristics in common with bioi is no indication that they were even intended to be historical. But even beyond this, the gospels have significant differences from bioi.

For reference, here is Vridar on Outlining and Questioning Burridge

spin

You're right.

Fine.

But you're demonstrated that you are completely unable to make a reasoned judgment on the matter.

I neither like it nor don't like it.

This is simply wrong. I attack those who appeal to authority, claiming they "appeal to authority". Evidence is the only thing of importance. Assertions and appeals to authority have no value in themselves.

Without a sound methodology, you don't get anywhere. You are a case in point.

You are not actually saying anything. Everything can be used as evidence for something. However, when dealing with the historicity of Jesus for example, you need to demonstrate that any of those sources are in fact evidence. You cannot assume it or slavishly accept authority on the matter.

Rubbish. A "reasoned conclusion" deals with argumentation based on evidence. You need to check out that last item: it's what you are having so much difficulty with and why you seldom say anything of meaning for BC&H.

Please supply just one detail supported by sufficient evidence that you can identify regarding this "historical" Jesus.

Be careful when you bandy about the word "honest": it may lead you into saying things that will get you suspended for breaking the rules of these forums.

This sentence does not make sense. Grammatically. What do you mean by starting a sentence with "Honest us...."?

The second part of the sentence seems to be making an assertion about "the Synoptic Gospels, Josephus and Tacitus and the Pauline Epistles". Argument by assertion is still contentless nonsense.

Looking at the sources that you seem to be making assertions about, I have already pointed out that the gospels are unprovenanced, undated and anonymous works. There is no reason to accept that there is any historical value in the core content.

Paul specifically indicates that he didn't meet his Jesus and that he got his information about him from revelation (Gal 1:11-12). Scratch that one as well.

Josephus has clearly been altered by christian sources. No matter how you cut that, you cannot avoid the tarnish by saying but "I believe some bits of the Jesus stuff in Josephus are still kosher" because it is purely arbitrary. Scratch that. The funny thing here is the irresponsibility of those scholars who will not deal with their own lack of epistemology.

The Tacitus passage makes some interesting blunders (see here) that strongly suggest that it wasn't written by Tacitus. In fact, seeing as it was preserved by christian scribes and they were not averse to altering texts (as seen with Josephus: "he was the christ!"), it makes sense that Tacitus, who was a top quality writer known today for his precision, was not the author of those blunders. Now you can waste your time and rehearse stuff about your authorities, but it won't matter. You tend not to deal with the raw material that arguments are based on, ie evidence, but with the predigested views of your authorities. Who needs evidence?

But evidence is the aim of this forum. Assertions and appeals to authority are not. And these endless spiels that assume the existence or non-existence of Jesus lack the most essential ingredient that we are now striving for on this forum. We can't continue the bad habits that have reduced this forum into needing hard work to repair. Our guidelines go into some detail about evidence. Please try to understand what the guidelines are on about. Argument by assertion and appeal to authority do not add anything to a discussion except noise. Assuming conclusions that inform all aspects of a members contributions is more noise. Our aim here is to reduce the noise component in the discussion and try to stimulate more reasoned contributions.

spin

You may remember that I went through your rubbish at length when you first proposed it here. You've shown not the slightest evidence of having changed your aversion to scholarly methodology.

Toto

How would you know?

Which books or articles by Jan Vansina have you read? What is the relevance of a historian of recent colonial history in Africa to the question here?

There is no evidence for any oral traditions. There is a lot of evidence for literary influences after the fall of the Temple.

No, it is not obvious. It is an idea that you are fixated on and can't let go of, but it is not based on any evidence.

That is the weak point of scholarship on the historical Jesus - the gospels are the only source, but there is no accepted way of extracting any history from them.

Adam

You would think (RE: Post #63 and Vridar) that if knowledge that Jesus was the Son of God was so important in gMark, that Jesus would at least once have said so, yet he never says in Mark that he is the Son of God. "Son of God" in Mark 1:1 is a variant, and elsewhere it is demons or other people who say "Son of God". (3:11, 5:7, 15:39).

Adam

That you quoted from my #62 is the only evidence that this is not a second reply to my #51. You completely neglected everything I said in #62. In #62 I referred to my scholarly methodology getting me peer-review acceptance in 1980. By your assertions it would imply that FRDB has corrupted my standards since joining here. So put that aside, start at last dealing with my Significance of John that pre-dates my woeful attempts at scholarship here on FRDB.

aa5874

What?? You believe Jesus of Nazareth did exist as a human being therefore you must accept and agree that the Gospels contain biographical details of Jesus of Nazareth.

1. The very claim that Jesus was from Nazareth is the first indication that you do NOT disagree the Gospels were biographical.

2. The very claim that Mary was the mother of Jesus of Nazareth is an indication that you do NOT disagree that the Gospels were biographical.

3. The very claim that Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John is an indication that you do NOT disagree that the Gospels were biographical.

4. The very claim that Jesus of Nazarteth had followers is an indication that you do NOT disagree that the Gospels biographical.

5. The very claim that Jesus of Nazareth was considered a miracle worker is an indication that you do NOT disagree the Gospels were biographical.

6. The very claim that Jesus of Nazareth was on trial before the Sanhedrin is an indication that you do NOT disagree that the Gospels.

7. The very claim that Jesus of Nazareth was on trial under Pilate is an indication that you do NOT disagree were biographical.

8. The claim that Jesus of Nazareth made a false prophecy is an indication that you do NOT disagree that the Gospels were biographical.

9. The claim that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified is an indication that you do NOT disagree that the Gospels were biographical.

10. The claim that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified under Pilate is an indication that you do NOT disagree that the Gospels were biographical.

11. The claim that Jesus of Nazareth was buried is an indication that you do NOT disagree that the Gospels were biographical.

Please, you are not on the same page.

You Agree the Gospels contain biographical details of Jesus of Nazareth.

And further, you did actually use those supposed biographical details in the Gospels to INVENT the Gospel according to Abe.

spin

I don't care how many times you write numbers with hash signs to point me to some vain nonsense you have written. I have read your stuff and started dealing with it here, including your Noesis stuff. I gave up when I noticed that you did not have even a vague understanding of scholarly methodology or the inclination to deal with the issue. When I return to your stuff from time to time I note that nothing has changed. To tempt me into a discussion about your spurious claims of eye witnesses you have to do better than to entreat me to waste more time.