Solitary Man

So you're right. I've not read either one. I'm guessing that all the discussion which ensues is based on the one chapter?

youngalexander

I am very keen to examine the 'evidence' from the HJ side presented in these tomes, particularly since at least one has been so warmly recommended by Jeffrey. It is certainly a privelage, and, given his past reticence, virtually a miracle, that we have received this beneficence.

I do not doubt that you will also be partaking of this fine opportunity to become even better acquainted with realistic quality scholarship pertaining to these divers historical conundrums.

Solitary Man

I've added it to my list of books to buy.

Malachi151

Actually I think that was 3 or 4 years ago now. I've never claimed to have any credentials or formal training in this field and have been very clear about that.

I think that a survey of the so-called scholars, however, shows just how poor the scholarship in this field is. We've gone through this many times on this board.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of people with PhDs in New Testament studies can be listed, who have published papers in journals and written textbooks and who are even currently teaching at universities, who have absolutely idiotic ideas about the New Testament, the Bible, Jesus, etc., and who say and support things which are easily provably false.

I've said it many times, I really have zero respect for this field.

There are so-called NT "scholars" out there who still reject Markan priority for "Christ's sake", and argue that Matthew was written first. You really have to be off your rocker to make such claims... yet these people teach at universities.....

And actually, if you compare my views to those of Robert M. Price, mine are more moderate.

Even Robert M. Price makes what I consider to be the mistake of chasing after "pagan parallels" claims and over reaching.

My basic view is quite simple.

The early development of the Jesus Christ worshiping cults and the New Testament literature emerged from essentially purely Jewish sources. There may have been some vague influence of the Greek mystery religions, but this was mostly superficial or structural if at all.

Paul's concept of Christ and the Gospels have nothing to do with "pagan" ideas, they are solidly rooted in what we call the Old Testament and the post-Old Testament apocalyptic and messianic writings and beliefs of the 2nd century BCE to 1st century Jews.

Regardless of whether or not there was some guy named Jesus that played some role in the development of this specific cult, virtually every attribute of the Jesus Christ of the New Testament has nothing to do with this guy, and can instead be traced back to apocalyptic and messianic traditions as well as the "Old Testament".

Paul's Jesus was derived from the Hebrew scritpures (Old Testament).

The Jesus of the Letter to the Hebrews was derived from the Hebrew scritpures.

The Gospel of Mark was derived from the Hebrew scriptures.

All other narratives about Jesus were derived either directly or indirectly from the Gospel of Mark.

Most or all of the apparent pagan influences on Christianity are products of the later integration into "pagan" society and really have nothing to do with the origins of the Jesus Christ cult.

As far as I'm concerned this is a very conservative view, which I have arrived at and supported by sticking strictly to the evidence, and most importantly, ignoring what the so-called "scholars" say.

Solitary Man

Who you respect, Mr. Price, is of no concern, since you yourself are not a scholar. I'll regard your position like I regard creationists' position on biologists. Meant for the pews, not the university.

Solitary Man

And try to overlook it as you wish, after all, there is no shame in learning, but here it is, your shock of discovering Psalm 22 was October 2006, just over a year ago.

Toto

The synagoge discussion has been split off here (along with the digression on Kee.)

Malachi151

Seems like long ago... And your point?

I've never tried to defend my own reputation, because I really don't give a damn what anyone thinks.

Think whatever you want I don't care. The facts are what is important, not the person.

I have no delusions of credibility.

I'm sure that it would be quite easy to simply take, for example, the "scholars" from The Jesus Seminar and demonstrate that each and every one of them holds holds nonsensical and unsupportable views. I have never gone through the trouble of detailing the views of every single person, nor would I, but of the ones I've read from it doesn't take long to see that they are full of crap.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/Fellows/fellows.html

I'm never going to waste my time getting a degree in any field related to Bible studies, I have better things to do with my life than that. I've not seen anything from people with such degree to make me think they are worth the paper they are written on anyway. I'll stick to my science degrees thank you very much.

Zeichman

So your thesis is that because no one is perfectly right the whole field is wrong? Imagine if that were applied to other areas of study; one might as well give up trying with such a ridiculously high standard.

Mythra

I'll say this about R.G. Price. If he was shocked about the Psalm 22 / crucifiction connection just one year ago, he is an incredibly fast learner.