Alexis Comnenus

Intensity - sorry I am slow replying but I'm afraid I have life off these boards and do not expect to be on line every day.

As I am a history student, you may be right to say that I have to be an insider for the moment. I have exams to pass and professors to please so maybe I am too averse to radical ideas and a bit conservative. I hope you didn't mean politically conservative as I'd consider that a gross insult . Basically, I follow the scholarly concensus unless I have done the wok myself which in this subject, I haven't.

I expect you'll find the Christian tradition in any book of apologetics like the one Peter Kirby has been tearing apart. Or get the NIV with study guide that also gives the traditional views (and no others) about almost everything.

The Homeric stuff is unpopular in the various journals it has been reveiwed in. Also, it is so revolutionary that had it been widely believed it would have set the entire field alight. I've only seen positive stuff in atheist sites on the web which doesn't suggest impartiality to me. It's like the only people who say the Testamonium is a complete fabrication also seem to believe that Jesus never existed. Well, they would, wouldn't they.

Regards

Alex

Ted Hoffman

Alexius
I resent the insult - we all have life off these boards.
But your point is perfectly understandable and has been noted.
One would think that for that reason exactly, you would be happy here because you dont have to please anyone here. And nobody is marking what you write here.
Religion is political (Look at Nothern Ireland). Considering you are from the UK, I would gather being conservative on religious matters has political implications.
Its called the path of least resistance. Some call it herd mentality. Even in scholarly circles, its a mechanism that keeps the team on course. Who wants to face-off scholars anyway? They are so informed!
It amounts to letting the scholars think for you.
Scholars are not infallible you know.
You mean the journals you have read?
And that is bad right? We dont want any fires do we?
Which sites are those?
You are assigning motive and labelling people instead of looking at their arguments. I guess thats what your professors would approve right?
Maybe you see positive stuff in atheist sites because the atheists have no professors standing over their shoulders and they have no marks to lose?
Its called thinking out of the box.
How long do you think you will think thoughts that please your professors?
There are many people who do not find the T flavianum authentic and yet are not Jesus Mythers.
James Still? Farrel Till? Richard Carrier?
The only Jesus myther I know of who is a serious scholar is Earl Doherty.
Name names. You will not lose any marks.

CX

Luke is nowhere considered a disciple. He is not mentioned in the gospels at all. What gave you this idea? Nor was Mark a disciple he too is absent from the gospel stories. Who has ever claimed that Luke and Mark were disciples? Whoever did has obviously never even read the bible. I think you are misinformed about Xian belief. As for references I don't have one handy for the Lukan attribution, but the Marcan attribution seems to derive from Papias who said [quoted by Eusebius],"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements."

Alexis Comnenus

Intensity - calm down. I don't want a row and will just walk away if I think things are getting too heated. I'll divide this post between on topic and off topic. First, the former.

I see Mr Carrier does think the TF is probably entirely ficticious and also that Jesus probably existed. Not sure about Till or Still (although neither appear to be scholars). So I should say that most who think the TF is entirely an interpolation are also Jesus Myth proponents. Doherty isn't a serious scholar (he blots his copy book badly with positive reviews of The Christ Conspiracy and Jesus Mysteries) but does appear worthy of consideration. He now has a generic atheism website which is unfortunate as it spells out his bias.

I do mean reviews I have read and been told about. I also checked the thread here which ended with a victory for the anti-Macdonald faction.

Some links from google featuring reviews by pros:

<a href="http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/hyper-lists/bmcr-l/2000/0275.html" target="_blank">http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/hyper-lists/bmcr-l/2000/0275.html</a> (negative)

<a href="http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/0300080123.html" target="_blank">http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/0300080123.html</a> (positive)

There's another couple of reviews on the web that are negative but I can't find them. Setting the field alight would be a good thing but MacDonald has failed to do this.

Off topic: I believe my professors because I have experienced first hand their remarkable knowledge and intelligence. I respect their expertise as men and women with years of experience in the field. I'll believe them over a website just as I'll believe a senior hospital consultant over a website. I do admit, however, that there may be a cultural element to this and if, in the unlikely event I ever reach their levels of erudition, I do the research myself I might contradict them.

We believe the vast majority of scientists about evolution over a few mavoricks (and a lot of websites) who deny it. Should we not give the same credit to historians or do you think only scientists have the ability to be honest?

Also, where have I expressed anything but the mainstream liberal scholarly consensus on anything? I have certainly never put forward a conservative religious view and you do not even know what my views are (they are not conservative over anything). In fact, you would be hard pressed to fit a cigarette paper between my views on history and those of CX, a self confessed atheist.

Regards

Alex

CX

I submit that this is very naive. The complexity of the development of the Xian text legacy relates not to the motives or acumen of the writers, but rather the number of texts, the number of redactors, our present historical distance from the period in question and the absence of strong manuscript evidence prior to the 4th century. It is a complicated issue which is why no simple and straightforward solution to the synoptic problem has yet been established as fact and probably never will be.

Toto

A victory? More like a stand-off, since no one conceded anything. (There were at least 2 threads.) The anti-Macdonald faction consisted primarily of some theists who refused to read the book and attacked a parody of it. And of course the people defending it were probably trying to read more into it than Macdonald intended, since he is a practicing Christian. AFAIK scholarly opinion was mixed, but I would expect the scholarly world to spend more time digesting and replying, so instant commentary is not the final judgment.

Bede did read the book before he reviewed it, but his biases dictated his results. I would recommend reading the book yourself before commenting on it. It is not that long, it's well written and engaging, and you don't have to worry that it might undermine your faith.

CX

Can I presume that you are not working in the field of biblical criticism? If not then you must derive your conclusions from somewhere. Where might that be? I took Alex's statement to be conclusion. Your own rejoinder implies that his conclusion was arrived at uncritically, which is unfair in my opinion. I can say that by and large I also accept scholarly concensus such as it is. Nonetheless I have arrived at this conclusion on my own after careful and ongoing study including a study of text criticism, koine Greek and the Greek New Testament(using the NA27, though I am only at approximately a 3rd semester level currently). Nonetheless I remain at best a dilletante and so rely significantly on the work of real scholars in the field. This is not an unthinking nor an uncritical position but acknowledges the considerable work that has been done. This is the way genuine progress is made in academic fields of inquiry. We SHOULD view radically divergent theories with skepticism because most of they are incorrect. This is as true in historical sciences as it is in physical science. Are we to accept Dr. Michael Behe's concept of "irreducible complexity" simply because it goes against the grain of scholarly concensus and is widely supported by uncritical sources on the internet? If your answer is no then I would suggest that your metaphysics are showing.

Jayhawker Soule

Is a knowledge of Greek a prerequisite?

Toto

It's not a matter of honesty. Scientists have much more data to work with, and scientists of a variety of political or religious backgrounds have reached consensus on a number of topics.

Where Biblical scholars from diverse viewpoints have reached a similar consensus, it makes sense to follow them. But on many points of Biblical scholarship there is no consensus. It has been noted more than once that everyone who studies the historical Jesus finds what he or she is looking for. There is not enough data to prove or disprove any of a wide range of opinions.

Ted Hoffman

CX
I said average christians. I have been a christian for 18 years.
I was not talking about christian belief. I was talking about what average christians believe.
The stuff that is thrown at them from the pulpit does not involve saying, "ok, Luke was not there but lets see what he has to say"
[quote]As for references I don't have one handy for the Lukan attribution, but the Marcan attribution seems to derive from Papias who said [quoted by Eusebius]...,[quote]
Eusebius fabricated that quotation again just like he lied about Testimonium Flavianum. He had an agenda and in his works the Demonstratio Evangelica, the Historia Ecclesiastica, and the Theophany his motive is clear: he fabricated a "historical" information to refute Jewish and pagan accusations against Jesus.
Textual examination and comparisons between Matthew and Mark have proved Mark could not have been written by Mark. Clearly Matthew was a Jew and Mark, despite Papias' bold assertion, was not very close to the Jerusalem Church Mark blunders about Judaism, Mark never acknowledges Peter's authority. Contrast Matthew 16:17-20, Luke 22:28-32, John 21:15-17. and so on. Take a look at Steven Carr's work.

And as far as Eusebius' moral integrity is concerned, he wrote that he unscrupulously suppressed all that would be a disgrace to early Christianity. Ecclesiastical History, vol. 8, c.21. he also relates as truth a ridiculous story of writing a letter to Jesus the Christ and then receiving an answer. Ecclesiastical History, vol. 1, c. 13.

Alexius
Look at how you contradict yourself:
He allows the possibility of Jesus' existence
Then you go on and say:
Earl Doherty is "most?
his copy book?
So serious scolarship is judged based on how scholars handle reviews of their books and not the contents of their books right?
Any serious scholar should not hold any beliefs. Earl Doherty holds some beliefs.
Therefore Earl Doherty is not a serious scholar.

Well, thanks for that argument. Sounds cool.
Well, thanks for the links. I appreciate it.
And how do you know that? Perhaps your professors act nonplussed?
Very nicely put - I am sure they would be very proud of you if they read this. A suggestion though:
Believing in their abilities would be more precise than believing in them.

This is simply irrelevant. Nobody is juxtaposing scientists with historians here unless you are nursing some inferiority complex.
Maybe thats because you are conservative about them?

CX
I submit that "huge" does not amount to complex, or intricate.
In fact, I think its a confused collection we are dealing with. Nothing complex, just disorganised.