Geoff Hudson

The question is how?

Geoff

capnkirk

Perhaps I should reword the statement. There does not seem to be any significant controversy of the dating of Paul's epistles, as evidenced by the lack of disagreement among scholars on those dates. Conversely, the inability of scholars to agree on the dating of the gospels is indicative of a lack of reliable documentation.

Geoff Hudson

On what basis do they date the epistles?

Geoff

Secular Pinoy

Capn, I think the dating you gave for the Synoptic Gospels are much too early. Most scholars I've read date them from about 70CE-120CE.

capnkirk

I do not take issue with your observation. My intent was to demonstrate that scholars generally agree that (at least) most all of Paul's letters had been written BEFORE the first gospel, and that this still remains true even when the very earliest estimates for the gospels are used (if you will note, the dates I offered still fall mostly in your quoted time range).

My purpose in making this point is to illustrate that because Paul's letters were almost certainly available to (or at least familiar to) the gospel writers, we should expect the final editing of the gospels to reflect Paulist perspectives and biases rather than the other way around (as the conventional organization of the NT, with the gospels first, would imply).

A later date for the gospels only fortifies my argument.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Greg,

For a serious historian, it's important to be able to understand the origins of Christianity. Where did this movement come from?

So the main question is whether a non-HJ will explain the origins of Christianity better than a HJ. I think it has remained something of a difficulty for the mythicist position that, so far, they haven't really presented a coherent story of how the earliest Christian movement could have started without any human founder figure.

Quote:

I think we can all agree that if this fellow existed, he was nothing like he's portrayed in the Gospels--being born under a wandering star, preaching to huge crowds, working miracles, arousing the alarm and wrath of both the Jewish and Roman authorities with his seditious teachings about the poor and weak overcoming the rich and powerful, and being executed among great signs and wonders. If that had been the case, surely Josephus would have devoted more than a few sentences to him, and many other Jewish, Greek, and Roman chroniclers besides. Why is it so important that we cling to the belief that there was really some obscure, practically unknowable Jewish preacher back of all this mythology?

I agree with most of what you say. It's not good to cling to any beliefs if they contradict with logic and common sense.

Quote:

We acknowledge that there were mystery cults that worshipped dying/rising savior gods much like Jesus (even to the point that some of them ate a sacred meal before being sacrificed), but we don't insist that there must have been an actual person back of THOSE myths.

But lots of people suggest that some historical persons did stand behind some or all of the typical stories of mythology.

Quote:

We acknowledge that for devout Jews at the time, the idea of the one, pure, holy God having any contact with flesh was blasphemy--yet we cheerfully assent to formerly devout Jews embracing the idea of God taking on actual flesh, living a lowly, humble life, and dying an ignominous death as a criminal and rebel, and nowhere having to defend this belief even to their fellow Jews!

Well, sure enough, I don't cheerfully assent to the idea that formerly devout Jews would accept such things. In fact, I'm saying that the true story of early Jewish-Christianity is still being covered up by our bigoted and/or incompetent NT scholars.

Quote:

We acknowledge that Paul has very little, if anything, to say about a historical Jesus. Yet this simply can't be because there wasn't one. No, it's because Paul was so spiritually advanced he just had no interest in meaningless, trivial, temporal things like what the Incarnate, Eternal Word said and did while he walked the earth.

IMHO, Pauline studies is one of the worst disaster areas of NT scholarship. The amount of gobbledegook and outright fraud that's going on in this area is truly astounding. So I'm not even going there at this time...

Still, I would suggest that much of this Pauline material should really be dated to the 2c. And in such a case, explaining why this Pauline material is so silent about the HJ may be a somewhat different problem than what is generally assumed.

Cheers,

Yuri.

Radorth

Yuri, I have virtually no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

Huh? I thought Earl and other Jesus-mythers argued that the Gospels came together in the second century.


Well, I think he's the most dishonest, air-headed writer I've ever read. He appeals to liberal "scholars" whenever it suits, but contradicts their assertions that the`Gosples are too contradictory and divergent to be taken seriously. He flatly says they are too similar, are basically copies and that even John is based on some synoptic. His assertion that Paul NEVER mentions the crucifixion is just nutso IMO.

Gratuitous assertion number 3

As a Christian, I am shamed by your leaps of faith. (Not to mention logic)

I think I'll go with Durant over Doherty when speaking of "serious historians." Durant tells us that to have invented such a personality as Jesus, his extraordinary miracles, parables, etc in such a short time is the only historically preposterous theory out there.

Try his swoon theory, if you wish to appear sane and serious about integrating all the historically believable facts. Then you won't have to assert a plethora different conspiracies and cover-ups going on for 300 years to make a coherent case.

Rad

Tercel

Earl's case certainly seems to be dependent upon 2nd Century gospels.

Yeah he does get carried away in his wishful assertions about just how copied the gospels are from one another - I noticed that too.
Can you think of any other respects in which he is inconsisent with regard to his appeals to liberal scholarship?

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Rad,

Generally, in order to have a productive discussion (as opposed to just a shouting match), two people need to agree at least on something. But it seems like in this case, you disagree with me on just about everything.

I doubt that Earl's argument is based on all the gospels coming together in the second century. Since you're expressing some doubt about this yourself, shouldn't you rather read Earl before slamming him the way you do?

So then I guess you've missed the whole point of my original article... Because my argument rests precisely on the idea that "such a personality as Jesus, his extraordinary miracles, parables, etc." could NOT have arisen "in such a short time"!

It's the early dating of the gospels that I'm arguing against -- which is what all the conventional NT scholars are still trying to sell to us.

Yours,

Yuri.

Peter Kirby

Does Doherty justify his interpretation of "the rulers of this age" as meaning spiritual beings with anything more than its possibility and reference to certain mainstream scholars?

best,
Peter Kirby