GakuseiDon

I can't see why. It would be evidence that certain parts of the Gospels aren't historical, but not evidence against someone who argues that the gospels are sufficient evidence upon which to base a conclusion that Jesus does exist.

If we just had the Gospels, and the Gospels were midrash, should we conclude then that there was no historical Jesus? From what I've read, the answer would be no.

Toto

But if every part of the gospels can be traced back to some riff on the Hebrew Bible, what is the evidence that would be used to assert that Jesus existed?

You may dispute that every part of the gospels is such a midrash, but the people who use this argument tend to assert that every item in the gospels can be derived from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Chris Weimer

A bad case of parallelomania. People can see "parallels" in just about anything. Have you read any of the pesharim? Or take the modern evangelicals who read the Old Testament for "prophecies" even where none exist in the originals. Combine that with the fact that history wasn't around at that time, that everything, even personal accounts like Josephus', was literary, and you have yourself what may appear to be vague literary traces, such as the kind that Vork has provided, but at the nitty gritty level there's not so strong of a relationship after all.

You're conditioned to think that the New Testament comes from the Old Testament - prophecy fulfillment was vital for the messiah, so of course that will play a factor. But that's just as much as thinking that Vespasian is a literary construction because Josephus showed that the prophecies applied to him, not a Judaean.

Ted Hoffman

A bad case of denialomania. People can refuse to see parallels even when they are sitting right in front of them.
For example, Psalm 22:18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing
Mark 15:24 divided his garments among them, casting lots for them.
Denialomania can be very powerful indeed.
I dont know what would make you utter such clearly wrong statements. That the NT was derived from the OT has been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Thomas L. Brodie’s The Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an Interpretive Synthesis of Genesis-Kings is a good text that demonstrates this. We also find what has been called "Prophecy Historicized" in John Dominic Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (1998), p. 520-521. See also Mark Goodacre’s When Prophecy Became Passion: The Death of Jesus and the Birth of the Gospels. Even Judith Newmans scripturalization (Praying by the Book: The Scripturalization of Prayer in Second Temple Judaism (1999)) illustrates the influence of the OT on the NT.
The evangelists go as far as picking speeches from the OT word by word and inserting them in the mouths of NT characters. Do you want examples or are you just preteinding to be ignorant?

Chris Weimer

Clearly you are misinformed. The whole NT "derived from" the OT? Not one scholar you mentioned supports that view. Denialomania (wow, could you have a more bastardized coinage?) is present indeed - present in the JMers who deny that their pet theory tanked over a hundred years ago. :wave:

Oh, and nice job on the strawman.

Ted Hoffman

I never used the word whole. That, my good man, is a strawman.

Chris Weimer

Tsk, tsk, a lot of backpedaling. The strawman lies with you, Ted. I never claimed that none of the NT comes from the OT - that some of it does actually is implicit in my responses to Toto. So if I already have established that some of the NT comes from the OT, but not all of it, which Toto did say 6 posts ago, then when you come along and say that I'm the one in denial, you characterize yourself as disagreeing with me (some of the NT comes from the OT, but not all of it) and agreeing with Toto (all of the NT comes from the OT).

There's no strawman on my part. That is clearly how you are presented. If there is any error on my part about your position, it lies with what you said and how you said it, but not how I took it.

:wave:

Toto

So how much of the NT comes from the Hebrew Scriptures? What percentage tips your attitude from acceptance to ridicule and scorn?

I gather that Bultman thought that nothing much of history could be derived from the gospels outside of Jesus' existence. Do you include him in your ridicule?

Crossan guesstimated 80% midrash to 20% history, and thought that more conservative scholars would reverse those percentages. Those numbers look too convenient. But it there a bigger differece between Doherty at 0% and Crossan at 20%, than between Crossan at 20% and a conservative at 80%?

Does the extra 20% that a mythicist thinks is unhistorical call for such derision as parallelomania?

Chris Weimer

When have I ever supported Crossan? He had a terrible case of parallelomania with his "Jesus the Cynic" stuff. Talking with a good friend, even the author of "Parallelomania" had a case of it. It deserves scorn when it's promoted through bigotry and ignorance, like Archaya S. or those "zeitgeist" morons.

Ted Hoffman

Neither myself nor Toto argued that the whole of the NT comes from the OT. Apparently, you just want a fight, even if its against your own shadow. Good luck with your picking-a-fighto-mania.