Sheshbazzar

I agree. But advocating that position is certainly of no help to Ehrman or the 'historicist' camp.
It only removes their right to claim that all of those ridiculous 'miracle' texts were 'latter' interpolations, when attempting to retain some degree of credibility for their HJ theory.

It doesn't amount to diddly-squat if this or that word or verse in 'Paul' was interpolated, when 99.9% of the 'Gospel' narrative and dialog is pure fabricated mythological horse shit.

Let them accept right along with the crap that they wish to support, the fact that Jebus conversed with Satan on a pinnacle of the Temple, abracadabered water into wine, cured blindness with spit and mud, brought dead people back to life, and his death cracked open the tombs and caused zombies to wander around Jerusalem.
It is all well attested to, and is all supported by all exemplars.

Let them be the ones to abandon their dependence upon a claim that all of these 'miracle stories', and 'claims to Divinity' were 'latter additions' (interpolations) to the Gospel.
They do not have, and cannot produce one single Gospel exemplar of any date that does not include these miracle stories, and the claim that Jesus was fathered by a Ghost and was 'The son of God'.

They have no valid basis on which to be claiming these stories as being 'latter', and we should no more swallow, nor allow them to get away with employing such double standards unchallenged.

Sheshbazzar

'Luke' does NOT claim to be writing history.

'Luke' states;
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are MOST SURELY BELIEVED among us, Even as they DELIVERED them unto us,.."
In other words 'Luke' here, is reporting religious TRADITIONS that were passed down.
That there allegedly originally were 'eyewitnesses' is part of that same religious TRADITION.

'Luke' himself here, is distancing himself, and is making it clear that he is NOT himself claiming to -be- an eyewitness to these things, only a reporter on 'those things which are MOST SURELY BELIEVED among us'.

_He could NOT be that 'Luke' of Gospels.

He does NOT identify himself as any 'Luke'. That identification is more mistaken Church TRADITION which was imposed upon this otherwise anoymous text.

which makes his 'report' on the par with any similar report about 'things (traditions) that are most surely BELIEVED among us' (Church TRADITIONS) coming from any Christian preacher of today.



.

anethema

This I believe is my point. I am not arguing HJ. I am only arguing the impossibility of of finding anything empirical about the thing. And I dont use the term vicariously. It is a thing that is aping-pong ball between politically opposed sects. I would love to see the discussion on the level of who's buried in KV55. But that isnt going to happen. The thing is there get over it.

outhouse

no credible scholar claims mythology is interpolation

Sheshbazzar

No, they don't wish to use that term for it, so they simply claim that these elements are 'LATTER ADDITIONS' to a hypothetical 'Q' or X,Y, Z or whatever they would like to believe once existed to fit their theories.
If these 'LATTER ADDITIONS' were not part of the original Gospel, as they claim, then they are interpolations whether these 'scholars' are willing to term them so or not.

aa5874

Bart Ehrman is logically BARREN or suffers from some other problem with the application of logics.

sixth part

It has NOT crossed the mind of Bart Ehrman that people who claimed passages in the Pauline writings are Interpolated THINK the evidence and reason are VERY, VERY, VERY compelling.

Bart Ehrman does not seem to understand other people can THINK.

Bart Ehrman wrote a book called "FORGED" and in the 3rd chapter he THINKS they are Compelling evidence that the Pauline writings contains FORGERIES. 6 of the 13 Pauline letters are Forgeries according to Ehrman.

It is MOST ridiculous that Ehrman now THINKS that other people cannot have Compelling reasons that there are INTERPOLATIONS in letters considered to be authentic when BART himself ADMITS that he has Compelling evidence that there is at least one Interpolation in a supposed authentic 1 Corinthians 14.34-35.

It is most obvious and logical that people who ASSUMED, like Bart, that Paul wrote letters since before c 70 CE have identified passages that could NOT have been or was most likely NOT written before c 70 CE or before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

Bart Ehrman is logically BARREN.

Only Bart can have Compelling reasons for Interpolations in the supposed authentic Pauline writings???

Who the Hell is BART????

anethema

Thats funny, not only is the author the only one who even alludes to the fac t that the past may be involved he says hes going to make sure that everybody knows that what he is saying is true. Noone on this forum has actually read any real History(Livy, Seneca).

Diogenes the Cynic

Here's where it is on the Kindle. I don't know the page number in the hard copy.

spin

I think this is page 255. From the paragraph starting "In any event...." on page 254.

1 Thes 2:14-15 is the unstated reference. And what's interesting about it? The Jews killed Jesus, not the Romans. That deflates one of those historicist tenets.

Diogenes the Cynic

Which tenet is that? Acknowledging that Paul blamed the Jews for the crucifixion does not contradict the assumption that it was the Romans who actually did it.