Grog

You have a naive understanding of "oral tradition." IF (and I recognize that's a big IF actually), Matthew and Luke used Q material separately, then Q must be literary due to the integrity of the material in the two sources.

Of course, it could be that Luke and Matthew are not independent of each other. In which case, there is no need for Q. I believe this latter solution is more parsimonious.

outhouse

written so close to one another, its possible the oral tradition was the same. oral tradition can hold word for word, and the same person with the oral tradition could have been used.

Oral tradition has no issues holding word for word.

Im not commited to Q being oral tradition or script though.

Im just exploringboth options fully.

one more time, We dont know.




A source like Q is preffered over the M copy L method in the current scholarships.

Toto

This is good, from Dave31's link

Grog

Agree with him or not, the breadth and depth of Price's knowledge is pretty amazing. Ask him a question and sit back. It's like turning on the spigot and letting the knowledge flow!

outhouse

True

he has a great scholarship where other mythers loose credibility fast.



Only problem is ive found is he sticks with 3 main points he rides the myth train on, and they are busted pretty easy by mainstream scholarships.



My personal take is there is so little known with certainty on HJ, the Gray area leaves room for competing hypothesis.

I do like Price though

aa5874

Your statement is unsubstantiated. Mainstream Scholars are INCAPABLE of Busting anything with respect to the existence or non-existence of Jesus.

You very well know that there is an ON-GOING quest for the Historical Jesus that is now going on for 250 years.

The case for HJ of Nazareth is really a COLD CASE--no new evidence has surfaced so we are exactly in the same position as we started---HJ of Nazareth can ONLY be BELIEVED to have existed.

Toto

What are those?

outhouse

one of his claims are that none of the Epistle writers are aware of a recent historical Jesus.

no mention of jesus working miracles in secular sources


the parrallels to mid eastern religion of dieing and rising gods




I think i make a great case against those without a scholarship

Doug Shaver

Mainstream scholarship has not busted any of those. If you think they have, cite the articles where they've done it.

outhouse

None of his so called pillars really stop a historical jesus from existing.


They are aware of different legends in different circles of a teacher of judaism that was the christos. because hellenistic religious dogma was added does not mean they didnt understand this was a real historical person.

If we take roman emporers that were deified and magical powers given to them, can we claim they didnt know they were historical also??

because they wrote mythically doesnt mean they didnt view a historical core, almost all myths have a historical core and the suthors all knew this when they developed there version of the legend.


there are plenty of examples of hellenistic deification of real people.


jesus life to his disciples wasnt about miracles, they didnt teach this at all. historical jesus was all about his unique parables and his verbal fighting against roman taxation and oppression against judaism and the current state of roman corruption in the jewish governement.

because were left with a roman version, romans have all but been made inoccent, BUT traces are found all through the gospels of tax collecting and jesus preaching to tax collecters.

miracles are the hellenized version of what jesus was all about. He was probably a healer and did heal a few people. These stories of healing were later blown out of porportion. NOT originally told by his disciples but by the roman authors who wrote about him for a audience that jesus would have hated and looked at as the problem.

Jesus hated romans and the roman infection on the government.



Imagine that, jesus enemies used these hellenistic parrallels to write about him.


fact is biblical jesus is not historical jesus.


biblical jesus is a roman version of what the real man was, NOT the teacher of a sect of judaism that wanted to reform judaism back to a clean pre-roman version.

jesus didnt open up the religion to gentiles. his sect was that within judaism strictly for poor hardworking jews.

jesus didnt teach to the rich masses and political figures for two reason's. it would get you killed instantly, and he was poor and had no credibility among them.

Jesus traveled poor villages looking for handouts and scraps of food. By preaching against roman taxation and a pure judaism he did very well for himself and his small following.








jesus was small not well known traveling teacher who only traveled with a small handful of people, probably his inner 4 and thats it. he never preached to the large crowds described and his story grew after death, with that little historicity, it leaves a huge place for imagination to develop and only 1 decent scholar of thousands, has run with this myth theory that is not well accepted in scholarly circles