Vinnie

WinACE, Q is not found in the New Testament. Substantial Portions of this now lost sayings Gospel are now found embedded within the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

[/quote]Archaelogy subjects I've studied, and other historical documents from those periods do not support the bible in general, either Old or New Testaments. [/quote]

I'm not interested in the Old Testament and that is too vague for me to offer up a decent response.

Why not?

Because Jesus wasn't as famous then as he is today. You have fallen victim to Anachronism.

There are no non-Christian writers who SHOULD have mentioned Jesus. He was just a rabble-rouser crucified in the backwaters of the Roman Empire. We've been though this several times. Iason's list is useless.

Easier said than demonstrated. There is of course lots of fiction and mythology in the Bible.

Vinnie

Metacrock

Meta: That is an interesting question Vinnie. What do you think?


Perhaps because they didn't want to provoke an uprising?

Metacrock

Archaelogy subjects I've studied, and other historical documents from those periods do not support the bible in general, either Old or New Testaments. [/quote]

I'm not interested in the Old Testament and that is too vague for me to offer up a decent response.



Why not?



Because Jesus wasn't as famous then as he is today. You have fallen victim to Anachronism.

There are no non-Christian writers who SHOULD have mentioned Jesus. He was just a rabble-rouser crucified in the backwaters of the Roman Empire. We've been though this several times. Iason's list is useless.



Easier said than demonstrated. There is of course lots of fiction and mythology in the Bible.

Vinnie [/QUOTE]


Meta: Agree! and also, that's only if you ignore Jo. I know there is the never ending debate over the validity of the TF, but most scholars seem to feel the core mention is authentic. Moreover, there are two passages.


there are other first century mentions by non Christians but all are problematic:

(1) Mishna Based upon first century material, but not really written until 2-4th.

(2) Celsus: not surviving in first hand material, coming through 2nd or third hand references.

(3) Thallus: Pretty much same problem. I think he was first cent. I have to refresh my memeory.

WinAce

But without knowing how the rest goes, or even if there were more portions than what AMt and ALk incorporated, how can you tell if it's found in the NT or not?

It is, of course, found at least partially...

Vinnie

You know what, I am absolutely convinced that shorter refernece in Josephus is more important for the historicity of Jesus. Of course they are tied together but the shorter one has the crucial element of Jesus brother James which is found elsewhere in 3-5 independent references in the first century. In two the link is inferred so that aren't probative but it just shows how common this knowledge was. The other two include Paul (first stratum--interpolation special pleading by skeptics not withstanding) and Mark (second stratum--embarrassing details).

The larger refernce has two problems:

1) Any reconstructions are really just guessing (even if educated like Meier vocab stats) what Josephus said. Its not probative.

2) Mythicists can claim Jo was writing what he recently heard about a growing Christian sect which started (according to their version of the evidence) off in the forties as a cosmic Christ myth.

Besides, the shorter reference has presumption and I get to accuse would be denyers of special pleading or working from less clear data to clear data when the good historian would do the opposite

Vinnie

Vinnie

This is relatively easy. Without getting too complex:

In all probability Matthew and Luke used different versions of Q.
Q was very fluid.
Its extent can be inferred by how much Matthew and Luke repinted//respected portions of Marj and Q now extant.

See kloppenborg on the extent of Q in Formation, starting on p 80.

First off it seems probable that most of Q is reprinted but I stand by my statement. Q is not in the Bible.

Matthew and Luke edited its content and order at various points. There is no straightforward text of Q there. Substantial portions of Q are embedded in Matthew or Luke.

Vinnie

Radcliffe Emerson

I disagree. I think it's easier demonstrated than said.
The bible is just a bunch of books voted on by the council of Nicea in 325. There is no support at all for anything in the bible outside the bible itself.
Archaeology and other historical documents from those time periods offer no support for the bible as an historical document, other than to study the customs of the people who wrote the books.

Vinnie

""""""Jesus never existed and was made up in the bible stories. """"""""

Here is the thread if you want to participate. I've proven the existence of an HJ in there

<------- =



http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...88#post1263888

Vinnie

Amaleq13

I'm not sure about your number of "independent references" (I'm familiar with 2) but, to my knowledge, the earlier references to Josephus as containing such a phrase seem to place that phrase in a different portion of the text than it now stands. That doesn't really recommend accepting it as genuine.

Paul doesn't refer to James as "the brother of Jesus" but as "the brother of the Lord" so that doesn't really qualify as an independent reference.

Zindler (Jesus the Jews Never Knew)has a pretty good section calling the legitimacy of the short reference into question. He notes that Photius refers to Josephus but never thinks to mention any references to Jesus. Zindler also notes that Photius referred to James as "brother of the Lord".

The short reference ends up being no more credible than the Testimonium.

rlogan

In all of the gospels we have pilate asking the crowd what they want done with Jesus. It is the crowd that asks for crucifiction. If the Sanhedrin played a role in the gospels it was that they urged both the crowd and pilate to act.

It is indicated in all of the gospels that Pilate finds no fault with which to put him to death. It also seems the gospels either flatly state or strongly imply that the Jews do not have authority to sentence him to death.

In other words, it was a lynch mob Pilate "sanctioned" according to the only "evidence" we have. What he died for is unclear to me then. If he was so popular then what the hell are the people asking him to be crucified for?

I have two questions then. First, is there any evidence that Pilate had this custom of asking the crowd what he was supposed to do with an accused man - especially when he found insufficient fault?

Second, where is the speculation arising that something besides the gospel accounts happened?

(Well, besides the very reasonable supposition that he didn't exist in the first place)