Minimalist

The Old Testament has been trashed by modern archaeology. What "reliability" are you claiming for it?

mountainman

I am asking for a date, for a specific chronology. This is not extraneous to any position in the field of historical assessment. We know the bible has two parts, an old one and a new one. We should obviously try and agree as to what we mean when we use the term "the bible".


Evidence requires a timeframe. Any and all evidence is a thing in time. When was the new testament first bound to the old? When was the transmission of the texts of the old (the Hebrew Bible) first also associated (by binding them together in a codex of a scroll) with the physical transmission of the new testament? When? When? When?

I am sorry have to invoke the THRICE-WHEN question. But this is more of a history forum than a philosophy forum. Evidence in the field of history is not of any use whatsoever without some sort of a date. So when did the new testament first get published along with the old testament as the bible? Let me know if you'd like a hint.

Best wishes,


Pete

figuer

1. I am not claiming reliability for it, your quote is out of context.

2. I am referring to the idea of a historical Jesus (New Testament).

3. Some parts of the Old Testament are historical.

figuer

Your position is irrelevant as to the consideration of the Bible as evidence for a historical Jesus. Your position simply relates to the strength and reliability of such evidence.

Rick Sumner

You have either fundamentally misunderstood or misrepresented Ehrman's point. Ehrman's reconstruction doesn't simply "require" "characteristics of the gospel Jesus," it demands them, in a sense that the works of, for example, Crossan, Funk or Mack do not.

Ehrman sees himself as standing in the line of Schweitzer, who opined that either Jesus was the apocalyptic prophet we find in the gospels ("thoroughgoing eschatology") or he was lost to history ("thoroughgoing skepticism"). Ehrman unequivocally places himself in the ranks of the former, and suggesting that he reconstructs a Jesus that exists outside or independently of the "gospel Jesus" is to seriously misrepresent him.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

The word "here" in what you quoted refers to an idea in my previous paragraph, which you omitted. I guess I need to be more careful.

Rick Sumner

I omitted it because it was implied in my mention of Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet ("thoroughgoing eschatology"). Ehrman arrives at that conclusion by deciding that Jesus' message, at least, is very much in keeping with the "gospel Jesus." That is, after all, what the entire model is based on. Suggesting that Ehrman arrives at a millenarian prophet without "requir[ing]" the "gospel Jesus" is simply inaccurate.

I guess you need to be less snide.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

Perhaps you need to make this less personal and avoid imputing meanings into casual words?

I read Ehrman's book some years ago. It impressed me as a good literary effort, but not as a convincing historical effort. Yes, Ehrman based his reconstruction on various parts of the gospel. Is this the same as "recovering the Jesus of history" - the subject of this thread? I don't think so. I think he relied on some extra assumptions that are not detailed there, in particular the assumption that some prophetic, charsimatic person must have started the Christian religion, because that's how he assumes religions start.

andrewcriddle

Hi Toto

It is too long since I read Ehrman's book for me be sure whether or not I agree with your description.
However, in principle it is IMO legitimate to use ideas about the requirements probably necessary to start a religious movement in order to reconstruct the origins of Christianity.

Theissen and Winter do this explicitly in The Quest for the Plausible Jesus

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist

You claimed reliability for the bible. The OT was made part of it. If the foundation is flawed what chance does the house have of standing?