Grog

What do you mean by oral tradition?

What do you mean by accurate?

Aren't you making an assertion that "oral tradition...can be accurate."

If you mean, memorized text can be passed on flawlessly from one person to another (or nearly flawlessly), then, yes, oral tradition can be accurate.

If you mean oral tradition based on eyewitness accounts of events that happened at some point in the past, then I think you start having difficulties. How do you ascertain "accuracy?" If we had 12 apostles witnessing the same event, would they all come up with the same account word for word? If not, how would the most "accurate" account be determined and then passed on? And with no text as an authoritative source, how do we know that the later rendition of this "accurate" oral tradition is indeed accurate?

I see this claim about oral tradition a lot, but it isn't very clearly thought. The fact that oral tradition undoubtedly existed does not at all prove that the events in the Gospels either happened or happened as recounted in the Gospel stories. There is a naive acceptance of what "oral tradition" is and how "accurate" it can be.

outhouse

this




BUT we dont even have that


we have cross cultural oral tradition

Grog

Odin, for one.

However, note that a historical figure being the inspiration for a Jesus Christ character does not show that there was a "Jesus Christ," a man from Nazareth crucified by Pilate. I think there are number of potential inspirational sources, actual historical people, who could have served as the inspiration for the Jesus character, exactly similar to how St. Nick serves as the inspiration for the entirely mythical Santa Claus.

outhouse

except there is no need to deify a Galilian poor peasant jew teacher healer, born in a dirt water low life village like nazareth was. And on top of that, a failed messiah.


if they were going to create a myth they would have done a better job.

instead we see the unknown authors struggling with what to do with all these blunders while trying to maintain divinity

Diogenes the Cynic

The minor agreements are a very fair point, but they could easily reflect a shared, primitive, pre-Markan Passion. Hypothetical, yes, but no more so than Farrer.

A case against Q has to explain the major differences in Mt and Lk's respective Nativities and Passions.

ApostateAbe

Mr. Doherty, the "best argument for a historical Jesus" that I referred to was not Ehrman's argument, but a variation of it, and it is not Ehrman's idea of the best argument. He called these two arguments "key": (1) James, Peter and the multiplicity of sources attesting to them and (2) the crucifixion of Jesus against messianic interests and the multiplicity of sources attesting to it. My personal opinion, and Ehrman hints agreement when he talks about a "powerful confluence of evidence," is that the conclusive strength of a case in this matter is made by the combined power of many arguments, not just one or two.

Diogenes the Cynic

That's it exactly, it's not like there's any single smoking gun piece of evidence, it's the the aggregation of small pieces and that eventually (in my opinion) becomes preponderant enough show that a purely mythical origin is more and more difficult to sustain.

spin

The substantive passage better starts at 1 Thes 4:14, which says

[T2]ο θεος τους κοιμηθεντας δια του ιησου αξει συν αυτω
God will bring those who have fallen asleep in Jesus with him[/T2]
Note the fact that god is bringing those who have fallen asleep with him. The grammar is quite clear that it is god who is coming. The coming of the lord is the coming of god. This non-titular use of κυριος in Paul's Jewish context refers to god.

It is only when κυριος in its non-titular form functioning in lieu of a name leaves the Jewish context that it is used for Jesus. This is aided by the fact that Jesus had already been referred to by the title of lord (the lord Jesus, etc). The few uses of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus in Paul are indications of interpolation (1 Cor 6:14, 11:23-27).

James 5:7,8 also talk of the coming of the lord, though it should be clear in James 5 that "the lord" refers to god. The coming of the lord in 1 Thes 4:15 should be seen as the coming of god as well. It was normal in diaspora Greek Jewish literature to refer to the deity either as "god" or "the lord", as the Hebrew used "elohim" and "YHWH", so the fact that 1 Thes 4:14-17 uses both is no indication of a different referents. Verse 16 returns to the same notion, the dead in christ (εν χριστω): now we learn that they will rise at the coming of the lord. God will bring them with him.

1 Thes 4:14-17 is about the big man himself coming. That notion is also found in the parable of the bad tenants (Mk 12:9).

(A clarification: the revelation is of christ, not from christ. It is from god, who revealed his son to* Paul, Gal 1:15-16.)

outhouse

I started out strickly myth


the more I studied and learned, Ijust couldnt hang on myth alone anymore

Diogenes the Cynic

Paul does, yes, 1 Corinthians 1:23.

"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles"

Oh, and Ehrman doesn't say he thinks Jesus prophesied his own return, only the destruction of the Temple.