judge

Well perhaps the situation is uncertain but I'm not sure how we can say that Origen did not do so (or perhaps even did do so) but we do have Clement of Alexandria taking this position there before Origen.

I am not sure how one can conclude what all of these schools taught with any certainty (perhaps there is more info we are not aware of).

I think your original assertion..."2. Check whether the statement is true. (It isn't)." might need be tempered a little for the moment.

eheffa

I have been thinking that these phrases or sayings as the case may be represent part of the oral tradition around the Jesus story rather than quotes from a finished book or recognized work? I suppose there is even a chance that the gospels were written using these very oral traditions rather than any more first person or direct information.


Thanks for this good summary.

I re-read Richard Carrier's essy on the NT canon yesterday (on this site library) & it does address this question quite well.

-evan

eheffa

[/QUOTE]

Can you comment further on the reliability of Clements' quoting of sayings of Jesus & why you believe that he is "spurious"?

-evan

xrey

Back to the OP....

The fact that authors like Strobel don't bother to really explain it should answer your question. Usually, if they have sources at all, they usually lead nowhere. The reader is expected to take it on faith.

Welcome, and thanks for posting your story Evan.

dog-on

Sure, based on form, fit and function, the letter portrays a later stage of Church development then the period to which it has "historically" been ascribed. Thus creating anachronisms that would place this book later into the 2nd century, perhaps as late as the second half of that century.




There is a good article here:

Der erste Clemensbrief und die Ignatianen in der Holländischen Radikalkritik

Tim Holt

NT Wright is in a different league to McDowell and Strobel. You mention Simply Christian; what are the other books of his that you've been given?

To be fair, this is one of Wright's popularist works, hence the lack of references; his bulkier, more systematic works (e.g. "The New Testament and the People of God (or via: amazon.co.uk)", "Jesus and the Victory of God (or via: amazon.co.uk)", and "The Resurrection of the Son of God (or via: amazon.co.uk)", which together form one argument) are carefully referenced.

eheffa

Thanks for your comments Dog-on. That article was quite helpful and gives a good case for the later dating...it's interesting to see how fragile the case for an early gospel dating really is. :wide:

-evan

eheffa

Yes. "The virtue of faith." Another of my childhood axioms in shards on the floor. Thank goodness - I think.

-evan

eheffa

Another title on "Evil..." but I can't recall the exact title

Thanks for the suggestions. I want to keep an open mind and so I should perhaps look for these. I may, but I am becoming less eager to re-read the the same arguments that I find are ultimately based on doubtful premises...For example, my red warning flags go up when people use Josephus unquestioningly as support for the Historical Jesus.

Does Wright bring any more compelling arguments to the question in these more exhaustive texts?

-evan

Tim Holt

Not one I know; he's written a lot.

If you want a direct assessment of the idea that there was no historical Jesus, looking particularly at early extra-biblical references to him, then these books aren't what you're after. They engage and critique mainstream New Testament scholarship (liberal and conservative, past and present), but not minority views such as the Christ-myth view.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't help you to answer your questions (one way or the other). In your OP, you referred to "discovering that the apologetic arguments for the gospels' historicity and accuracy are seemingly very tenuous". This sounds to me like frustration which a particular branch of Christian scholarship, and not the most defensible branch. It's one one thing to say that the Bible isn't what Christian apologists or Christian ministers say it is, but quite another to say that it isn't what Christian theologians say it is (not that all apologists, or ministers, or theologians are alike, but I hope you get my point).

If I were reassessing my beliefs as I approached 50, I think I'd want to look at views in the middle of the religious spectrum as well as those at the two extremes. If you have the patience to tackle Wright's works referenced above (be warned, they're substantial), then you'll get a fair representation of how a respected theologian handles the gospels and comes out with a Christian Christology, and of what a Christian Christology based on sophisticated (but mainstream) New Testament scholarship looks like (hint: it doesn't involve biblical inerrancy).

If that isn't what you're after, and you just want a more detailed look at early extra-biblical references to Jesus, then you may find Murray J. Harris, "References to Jesus in Early Classical Authors", in Gospel Perspectives Vol V worth a look. It defends the conservative line in a bit more depth than some other discussions.

- Tim