Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 10-24-2008, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Why do you think scholars are all over the map in regard to the "theories" of who the historical Jesus was?

Scholars are not "all over the map" about who Christ was. In fact, there is complete consensus, as atheist NT scholar William Arnal points out:

In fact, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew.--The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity, p. 5.

spamandham · 10-24-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Scholars are not "all over the map" about who Christ was. In fact, there is complete consensus, as atheist NT scholar William Arnal points out:

In fact, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew.--The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity, p. 5.

Oh boy. Jesus was a Jew. I feel so edified by the concensus of mainstream scholarship.

Now all we need to do is to "nail down" salient details of who he was, and we'll be set.

(how odd that the "mainstream" modifier was even necessary)

aa5874 · 10-24-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Why do you think scholars are all over the map in regard to the "theories" of who the historical Jesus was?

Scholars are not "all over the map" about who Christ was. In fact, there is complete consensus, as atheist NT scholar William Arnal points out:

In fact, no one in mainstream New Testament scholarship denies that Jesus was a Jew.--The Symbolic Jesus: Historical Scholarship, Judaism, and the Construction of Contemporary Identity, p. 5.

A classical "appeal to authority". And the statement itself may not even be true.

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Sorry, you're projecting. You're the one imagining Mark to be a clever conspirator who set out to deceive and fabricate.
t

Please read your posts, this is what you wrote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

..Mark appear as simply an imperfect 2nd hand reporter, not some ingenious fabricator.

You cannot show that the author of Mark was a 2nd hand reporter, you are just making stuff up.

The author of Mark may have deliberately fabricated the first Jesus story in the NT.

Nope, YOU are making stuff up. Mark appears prima facie to be a second-hand reporter. The onus of evidence is on your fabrication claim, how Mark was part of a conspiracy to invent a Galilean preacher. The conspiracy would have to involve the Q material, noncanonical Jewish gospels, Thomas, Paul, all of whom agreed there was such a human person as Jesus.

We tell Christians all the time that the Bible is a human book, that it should be evaluated like other human documents. We atheists have to do the same, and not just assume that everything was made up.
t

Toto · 10-24-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

.... Mark appears prima facie to be a second-hand reporter.

How is this? A second hand reporter writes things like, I, Joe Blow, learned this from these sources. . . at a particular time, these events happened. . . but other sources say. . .

In contrast, Mark starts his story at an indeterminate time, does not name himself or his sources, and has clearly based the events in his narrative on themes borrowed from the Hebrew Scriptures.

Quote:

. . . conspiracy to invent a Galilean preacher. The conspiracy would have to involve the Q material, noncanonical Jewish gospels, Thomas, Paul, all of whom agreed there was such a human person as Jesus.

No underhanded conspiracy is needed. People invent stories, expand on other stories, all the time. The conspiracy card is just a red herring.

Quote:

We tell Christians all the time that the Bible is a human book, that it should be evaluated like other human documents. We atheists have to do the same, and not just assume that everything was made up.
t

"Everything was made up" is a pretty good starting point. Can you make a case that anything in Mark is actually historical?

spamandham · 10-24-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Mark appears prima facie to be a second-hand reporter.

Can you please point out what Mark states that makes you believe he is reporting a story second hand, rather than writing a period hero biography?

Period hero biographies were generally written long after the "fact" for propaganda purposes to boost the authority of particular doctrines. They were not by any means history reports.

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

I think we've already established the author felt the end was emminent. So does Tim LeHay...does that mean his books are relevant to the discussion as well? I really don't understand how the expectation of the author that the end was nigh somehow argues for a historical Jesus.

Mark has Jesus saying the end was nigh, within the lifetimes of some people then living. Therefore, Mark must have believed some of the people listening to Jesus were still alive. (Which would also make sense, if Mark was getting his info from Peter, as Papias indicates.)

This argues for a historical Jesus because it shortens the time period between Mark and the time he's writing about. It means that Mark likely knew people who knew Jesus.

Quote:

If there was a historical Jesus, but he lived 200 years earlier than generally believed, that wouldn't diminish an apocalyptic expectation on the part of the author of Mark.

It most certainly would, as it does for the author of 2 Peter, which is why scholars date 2 Peter so late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

How you figure Paul into that is beyond me. If he was embarrassed by the idea of some mere human baptizing his hero, that would be a good reason not to mention it.

You seem to accept traditional datings, no? If so, then you accept that Paul wrote before Mark?

If Paul could get away with not mentioning the "embarassing" baptism, why could Mark - writing later than Paul - not also simply fail to mention it? Mark went out of his way to mention it in spite of the lack of mention of it by the earlier author Paul (according to traditional datings, which you seem to buy, but I don't).

Paul was not attempting to provide an account or summary of Jesus' doings. If the baptism was a well known event to the followers, that would be why Mark would include it... but he waters it down by having John grovel to Jesus, so that John's disciples should not think that John was in any way superior.
t

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The legal standard does not say that admissions against interest are more likely to be true. It simply allows evidence that would not otherwise be admissible to be considered by the jury. But the jury is not instructed that the admission is more likely to be true.

The fact that it's admissable inherently means that it's more likely to be true. It's why it's allowed but hearsay isn't. They don't need to be instructed, they get to hear it--it's already granted special favour, because it is considered more reliable.

That you think a greater degree of reliability isn't implicit in its admissibility boggles my mind. . .it's the entire point of the law. It's so much the case that it can even be admitted if the declarant is unavailable. So says Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3)

It's also admissible whether it's against penal or proprietary interest.

And none of that matters. You said that such a criteria wasn't used outside of the study of the NT. That is false. It's doubly false, because it's also used, extensively, in the study of the OT.

It's ultimately a question of bias--considering the biases of a source when evaluating it's reliability. That you would need to bear that in mind in historical-criticism of any kind seems so obvious to me that the fact that you need to see an example to conclude that it happens boggles my mind. But sure. I'll dig out the Meier reference in the morning. I actually already gave you the substance, I'll just need to track down the specific citation.

Quote:

If you think that there are no agendas in historical research, I doubt that you have read a lot of history.

What? The agenda I'm speaking of belongs to the ancient authors, not the historian. That should have been clear from the context. Given that you repeat the same thing below, I can only scratch my head at how you get this.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

All well said, Rick, bravo! I need to use some of this in my current discussion with Carrier

t

spamandham · 10-24-2008, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

Paul was not attempting to provide an account or summary of Jesus' doings.

Neither was Mark. This type of narrative, which was not intended as a historical record, was common at the time. We have many nonChristian examples of it as well. Read Talbert's "What is a Gospel" for an in depth understanding of the right approach to take in regard to the Gospels.

teamonger · 10-24-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by teamonger

If [Paul] was embarrassed by the idea of some mere human baptizing his hero, that would be a good reason not to mention it.

Unless you can think of some method to be able to test the hypothetical part, it can only be vain speculation. It makes as much sense to me as Paul not mentioning his christ being crucified, because of the embarrassment of some mere human crucifying his hero. This earns the doh! of the day.

spin

I was just trying to understand how Paul's omission of the baptism helped the OP's argument.

Paul mentions the crucifixion because he has worked in into his theology, baptism was way less important to him. But he clearly does understand the practice (1 Cor 1:16-17). That baptism among Christians was an early practice gives weight to the historical baptism of Jesus.
t

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.