skepticdude

damn straight, bless my soul.

ercatli

Sorry storytime, these are all interesting questions, though not as new or as unanswered as you suggest. But I am going on summer holidays tomorrow, and I can't even begin to discuss it right now.

But I can report that scholars both recognise the issue and have drawn conclusions, for example:

E P Sanders: "the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism."

P J Tomson: "Although he apparently considered himself the heavenly 'Son of Man' and 'the beloved son' of God and cherished far-reaching Messianic ambitions, Jesus was equally reticent about these convictions. Even so, the fact that, after his death and resurrection, his disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah can be understood as a direct development from his own teachings."

NT Wright: "When something can be seen to be credible (though perhaps deeply subversive) within first century Judaism and credible as the implied starting point (though not the exact replica) of something in later christianity, there is a strong possibility of our being in touch with the genuine history of Jesus." Thus he suggests that the views of the early church are not a problem to be overcome but part of the phenomena to be explained.

In other circumstances I'd dig out a few more quotes, but I don't have time for further discussion of an interesting topic, so I leave you with the experts. Sorry, and best wishes.

ercatli

Toto,

Let's not ruin a polite discussion by words like "disengenuous". I think I've explained myself quite clearly, for example ...

You know I didn't imply that. I said quite clearly that we should use the consensus of mainstream scholars which will be updated as new information comes along. That is what I am doing, but you seem unwilling to do so. That is your prerogative and your choice.

Check out names like Bruno Bauer, of whom Mark Powell writes: "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed." He goes on to point out that that view is no longer held in the academic world (I have asked people who know and they say there are literally only one or two reputable scholars who hold that view. It was looked at and rejected.

Nothing, as long as you don't kid yourself that their views are unbiased and factual. If they prove their case, their views become accepted and then we can believe them, but most of their views prove to be contrary to the facts. Wait and see is the safest course.

Simply untrue. Scholars are supposed to test everything, but not from a viewpoint that it is right until proven wrong or wrong until proven right. Reputable secular scholars such as Michael Grant (again I say, he was a non-believer) are highly critical of the extreme sceptical approach that makes assumptions before it starts. I'd encourage you to read Grant's book on Jesus.

His name was mentioned in the reference. If I misunderstood, I apologise for the mistake. But the principle still stands.

Another easy to make smear without evidence. Read the book for yourself and see if I quoted it out of context.

Lol!

Let's leave it there shall we?

skepticdude

Good observations, it reminded me also that a very late date would serve the agenda of the Acts author well - with all the characters in his book dead, there won't be anybody likely to register a complaint that some scene in his book wasn't true.

One proof I like to use on fundamentalists, to show that Acts shouldn't be trusted due to extreme bias, is Acts 15. The authors spills much ink recording details of speeches of Peter and James on why the Judaizer position is wrong. He also relates that Paul spoke of the miracles among the gentiles.

But he only represents the Judaizers with a single sentence repeated once, "except ye be circumcised and obey the law of Moses, ye cannot be saved." !

That's extremely biased reporting that goes beyond the regular bias we expect and overlook, this is deliberate suppression. Of course, the Judaizer position is far more biblical and in harmony with Jesus than Paul was, so it is little wonder why he gives such a slanted report.

Yellum Notnef

Guess we'll have to wait until about 2011 to see how this one wraps up.:devil1:

skepticdude

This single quotation causes more problems than it solves:

1 - Presumably this wasn't the only saying of Jesus Luke knew of. Why not quote others?

2 - the quoted saying is moral, not doctrinal. If this is an authentic early saying of Jesus, he appears to have stressed morality far more than doctrine, which makes John's gospel look suspicious, and makes doctrinal sayings in the synoptics appear late.

Not likely, he certainly admits in Luke 1:1-2 to quote previous sayings material.

ercatli

scepticdude

I won't try to answer all your points because it would be repeating much that has gone before. So I'll just address a couple ...

You make so many assumptions - that the oral traditions were circulating where Paul was, that he would have quoted them if he'd known them, and that he didn't quote them. The first two would be difficult to demonstrate, and the third has been shown to be in error, albeit that the number of quotes and references are fewer than you would expect. Hardly a scathing indictment!

Again, you don't have any answers, just questions. How do you know whether they would have been authoritative, or even recognised? Again, assumption by you, hardly a scathing indictment!

Yes you could accuse fundamentalist christians of that, but not me. That is my very point. A sceptic who refuses to use the unbiased historical evidence is as much a fundamentalist as is a believer who refuses. And it wasn't a "veiled ad hominem", but a question as genuine, and in the same but opposite spirit, as your original questions.

I thought you were just asking questions. Would you like to actually put your argument into formal propositions so it could be discussed?

Best wishes.

ercatli

OK, sorry, now I understand the question. I am saying that my reading indicates that the consensus of scholars is as indicated. Of course there was no vote, but it is determined as is the consensus in other academic fields, by peer reviewed publications and the gradual acceptance by the relevant scholars of a given viewpoint.

I Googled as many references as I could plus read about 20+ books on the topic, and that's my conclusion. Do you dispute it?

ercatli

scepticdude

Thanks, that was all I was trying to establish.

Toto

I think you did imply that. You are relying on a consensus reached a generation or more ago, based on old ideas. How long do you intend to wait before it is updated? How much resistance will you put into any perceived change? And will you convert to something else when the consensus changes?

If you don't want to put the effort into investigating something yourself, at least don't criticize those who do.

Well, actually, funny thing, that view was not rejected on the basis of facts or investigation. A very prominent German theologian, Bultman, announced that anyone who though Jesus never existed must be insane. The matter was dropped.

If you are going to wait and see, you should be agnostic on the question of whether Jesus existed.

Sure. I know that he ends up assuming that someone else proved that Jesus existed.

OK, first of all we note that the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, reviewed here, is described as

So this book is theology, not history.

The we look for the context of this quote in google books:

"a growing conviction amongst many scholars that the gospels tell us more about Jesus and his aims than we had previously thought." James Carlton Paget.

And we find a long discussion of the Third Quest, and the criterion of dissimilarity and its flaws, and trends of seeing Jesus as in opposition to Judaism. The foonote gives a reference to E.P. Sanders, 1985.

This quote might have been true in 1985, but I don't think it can be today. The trends in scholarship recently have been towards literary deconstruction of the texts and have tended to avoid claims that we actually know anything about the historical Jesus.

Paget is on the faculty of Divinity of the University of Cambridge. He is a theologian, and is describing discussions among theologians who all assume that Jesus existed, and would probably be forced to resign their positions if they indicated otherwise.

Well, enjoy your vacation.