David Conklin

To Paul, Jesus is God and God gave us the Law. See the Sermon on the Mount and Lev. 19:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5.

David Conklin

The NEB is wrong, the words "Lord Jesus" is in the Greek.

In one paragraph you made a cryptic reference to someone named Wells, would that be G. A. Wells?

Iasion

Greetings all,


Sojourner said :


David said :

Actually,
What evidence we DO have clearly points to these myths being developed later - in the early-mid 2nd century.

There is no mention by ANY Christian writer of the miracles of Jesus until early 2nd century.

There is no mention by ANY Christian writers of the virgin birth stories until early-mid 2nd century.

(In fact the bulk of the story of Jesus of Nazareth is missing from all of these first 20 books or more - no Pilate, Judas, Mary, trial, triumphal entry, etc. etc. can be found till 2nd century).


The first CENTURY or more of early Christian writings shows no knowledge of these things (yet once the Gospels appear, everyone cites them ad nauseum).


Here is a reconstructed chronology showing when these details appear.


50s :
1 Thess.
1 Cor.
2 Cor.
Galatians
Romans
Phillipians
Philemon

60s,70s :
Hebrews

80s :
Colossians
1 John
James

90s :
Ephesians
1 Peter
1 Clement
Revelation

100s :
Didakhe
Oxy1224
Jude

110s :
Barnabas - Miracles first mentioned

120s :
2,3 John
apocPeter
secretJames - Healings mentioned
gThomas - Healings mentioned
preachPeter
Quadratus

130s :
Papias
2 Peter
Pastorals
gPeter
Hermas

140s :
Diognetus
Marcion - Healings, NO virgin birth
episApostles - Virgin Birth first mentioned
2 Clement

150s :
Justin - many Gospel elements
ProtoEvangelium - many Gospel elements

Note -
Aristides may mention the Virgin birth in the 120s.
Ignatius is problematic - I date him c.150s


In Sum -

Miracles and/or Healings by Jesus are not mentioned by anyone until early 2nd century - Barnabas, Secret James, G.Thomas.

Virgin Birth Stories of Jesus are not mentioned by anyone until mid 2nd century (or possibly earlier by Aristides).

Once these stories WERE known, they were repeated and expanded upon ad nauseum by dozens of writers.


This is clear evidence that the Miracle stories and the Virgin Birth stories were later additions to the Jesus myth.


Quentin David Jones

lpetrich

Judeo-Pagan syncretism is more likely. Divine biological fatherhood of heroes and famous people had been a common belief in the Greco-Roman world.

lpetrich

Earl Doherty's <a href="http://www.jesuspuzzle.com" target="_blank">The Jesus Puzzle</a> is a good read; it makes a strong case for the Jesus-myth hypothesis.

David Conklin

More sources showing that Paul was aware of the teachings of Jesus:

G. Henry Waterman "The Sources of Paul's Teaching on the 2nd Coming of Christ in 1 and 2 Thessalonians," JETS 18 (1975): 105-13

David Wenham "Paul and the Synoptic Apocalypse," in Gospel Perspectives. Vol. 2. Edited by Wenham and R. T. France (JSOT, 1980-1): 345-75

David Conklin

Please shows us this evidence.

It has been noted that none of the NT writings presuppose that the Temple had already been destroyed. This has led scholars in the field to conclude that all of the NT had been written by 70 A.D.. Sociologically that makes far more sense than a 2nd century creation.

Jayhawker Soule

Genesis 6 <ol type="1">[*] When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,[*] the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.[*] Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."[*]The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.[*]The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.[*]The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.[/list=a]

David Conklin

Actually it is a rather weak case becuase of how he deals with the evidence and his sources (the one's he does give credence too (G. A. Wells for isntance) and the one's he gives short-shrift too(Meier for instance).

For instance, on pages 206-13 he deals with the TF.

The scholar of note who has done the most intensive investigation of Josephus is Louis H. Feldman. See his work &lt;u&gt;Josephus and Modern Scholarship&lt;/u&gt; (Walter de Gruyter, 1984). On pages 679-703 he presents a listing of bibliographic sources (with some notes) (references #2721-2818l; so there’s approx. 100 sources in total) about the Testimonium Flavianum.

The Jewish scholar Paul Winter also has a short bibliography for the TF: “Josephus, Antiguitates Judaicae, XVIII, 63, 64.,” Journal of Historical Studies (1969-70): 292-6. Unfortunately, most of the sources are either in French or German.

You might also consider the article by John P. Meier “Jesus in Josephus: A Modest Proposal,” for the Catholic Biblical Quarterly (1990): 76-103. He concludes that outside of some interpolations the passage is genuine and is in line with a previous mention of Jesus (in passing). This work is influential among contemporary scholars, including John Dominic Crossan and John O'Connor-Murphy.

In the book Jesus Under Fire edited by Michael J. Wilkins and J. P. Moreland (Zondervan, 1995) there’s a chapter by the historian Edwin M. Yamauchi entitled “Jesus Outside the New Testament: What is the Evidence?” (pages 207-229). The TF is covered on pages 212-4. Most critics will point out that some phrases are rather obvious interpolations; what they don’t tell you is that there are other phrases which are not typically Christian (which Yamauchi points out).

See also H. W. Magoun "Eisler on the Josephus Passage," Bibliotheca Sacra (1935): 77-94 -- he deals with how Robert Eiselr handles the TF.

Another flaw in the book (I noted a couple before Istopped reading it) is on page 194 when he claims that "no serious scholar" dates Matthew and Luke "before the year 80".

Just a small sample here:

Norman Perrin suggests 70-90
J. A. T. Robinson suggested a range of 40-60+
D. A. Carson put Mark before 60 and Matthew after 60
Julicher put Mark "by 75 at the latest" vs. G. A. Wells around 90!
Robin Lane Fox put Mark around 65-9.
Graham Stanton put Mark no later than 67 A.D..

This told me that Doherty is rather unfamilar with the field and is thus unqualified to speak on it.

Steven Carr

So Wells talks about Matthew and Luke and you quote people talking about Mark, and claim Wells is wrong!

'After 60' is perfectly compatible with 80, as is 70-90. That leaves Robinson, who was reduced to pretty desperate stuff in his datings.