Steven Carr

As I put forward arguments why the baptism of Jesus by John only appeared in Mark's Gospel, and asked for a first-century Christian who had ever heard of the vast cast of Gospel characters , Professor Hurtado had no option but to refute my arguments, sorry, tell me to clear off.

He was unable to produce a word of refutation at http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/20...d-the-gospels/

To be fair, he didn't attempt to refute me.

I guess he is just not used to people asking him for evidence that the Gospels have some historicity in their tales of Judas, Thomas, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, Simon of Cyrene etc etc.

But surely a professional should be able to rub my nose in all the evidence for the existence of these people.

What else does Professor Larry Hurtado do with his time other than gather evidence?

ApostateAbe

Such people are arrogant, Steven Carr. In order to get the time of day from them about their own field, you have got to kiss ass, first. They are not going to debate anybody with an opinion, as he very plainly expressed. He might be willing to engage you if you showed him some humility and respect. There are millions of ideologues with an interest of believing their own preferred opinions about early Christianity. On top of that, the best explanations for the evidence are not easy for just anyone to discern, and just anyone will have a strong tendency to believe whatever they want to be true. That is why the debates with lay people can come off as almost completely futile. Therefore, maybe you had best leave the impression that you are on the fence, willing to change your mind if you were to see a plausible argument or a little evidence.

Steven Carr

Showed him some humility and respect? I stuck my chin out and practically begged him to hit it. But he couldn't even refute an amateur. Perhaps my arguments about the baptism in Mark's Gospel are much stronger than I thought....

Toto

Does Hurtado really believe that there were skeptics who questioned the existence of Pilate?

That and having to read Stephen Avery's comments makes that thread rather unappealing.

DCHindley

Steven,

Come on down from your high horse already. You were in people's faces and had a chip on your shoulder. FWIW, he was correct in saying that "assertion does not amount to proof of anything," and that "sweeping generalizations of the sort you’ve lobbed aren’t sound method."

Are you really all that surprised he wasn't interested in playing your game?

Apostate Abe gave good advise in "He might be willing to engage you if you showed him some humility and respect."

Even the least of academics have learned dead and live languages, read deeply into primary sources, as well as the secondary and tertiary literature, and wrote MA and usually PhD theses that are reviewed by committees of scholars in their field.

You know, it would help to cite specifics, and maybe refer to other scholarly positions that might argue against Bauckham's assessments, or Hurtado's understanding of Bauckham.

"We don't have first hand statements, witnessed by third parties, to corroborate that these characters existed, which proves that they must be the fictional inventions I so desperately want them to be!" is not a very convincing argument. Why don't you also ask for a photocopy of their driver's license while you are at it.

DCH

Steven Carr

So you also have no evidence that Judas existed, and simply slam people who point out that not one Christian ever reported having heard of the guy before 'Mark' wrote his unsourced, unprovenanced ,anonymous work which doesn't even pretend to be history.

'Even the least of academics have learned dead and live languages, read deeply into primary sources, as well as the secondary and tertiary literature, and wrote MA and usually PhD theses that are reviewed by committees of scholars in their field.'

No wonder Hurtado could not produce a shred of evidence for the existence of Judas. He had been wasting his time producing paper qualifications for himself , instead of asking basic questions in history.

Who reported the existence of Judas? What were his sources? What was his track record?

It is a lot more useful learning history than learning Greek.

But ,as far as I can see, Hurtado has never studied any historical subject outside the Bible, and historians are hardly rushing to invite him to teach them how to do the history of other periods.

This is why he has no methodology to enable him to see if Judas, Thomas,Lazarus, Nicodemus, Joanna,Salome, Mary Magdalene existed other than to read 'Mark' in Greek and confirm that those names appear in Greek texts decades after they allegedly lived.

You don't get to say 'The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.' simply by putting in 'I read it in the original Greek.' between 'The Bible says it' and 'I believe it'.

''The Bible says it.I read it in the original Greek. I believe it. That settles it.' is not an argument.

dog-on

Well Steven, what methodology would you use to show that Bilbo, Frodo and Smeigle existed.

I have never seen any evidence from the Shire that shows that anyone ever heard of these guys, prior to Sam's story.

Steven Carr

To be fair,Professor Larry Hurtado is a lot more professional than many other NT scholars.

Steven Carr

PROFESSOR HURTADO
We do have corroboration of some characters. E.g., in Paul’s letter to the Galatians we have first-hand references to Kephas (Peter), James (Jesus’ brother), John (Zebedee), Barnabas, and Titus (all of whom are also mentioned in Luke-Acts.

CARR
It seems not to be well known among professional New Testament scholars that Luke/Acts never says Jesus had a brother called James.

Why do leading scholars not know the basics?

Steven Carr

Professor Hurtado is claiming that these people existed because they are in the Gospels.

And that nobody disputed who wrote the Gospels, and ' Indeed, the anonymous authorship of the Gospels suggests no desire to claim ownership of what they wrote, not an intention to deceive.'

So not only were the authors known, they were also anonymous!

You have to laugh, don't you?