Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Soul Invictus · 08-12-2003, 04:05 PM

I thought I read somewhere that parts of the NT that are traditionally having been credited to having been said by Jesus may have most likely not have been.

What sources or references can anyone offer in this study?
Does anyone know the reasoning behind this thought?
What do scholars hold as being most likely said by Jesus?
What are the credentials of the scholars that make these assertions?

Doctor X · 08-12-2003, 04:18 PM

Oh my. . . .

Well . . . there is a group that calls themselves The Jesus Seminar that thinks they know. . . .

The problem is based upon what evidence. Long story short, scholars seem to vote for what they "like." I use to scoff at the JS--I often quote a mentor who laughed, "I think they have conclusively proven he once said 'the'!" A bunch of guys voting with balls . . . based on what? Squeezing texts that cannot get further back than the fall of Jerusalem? Okay . . . sure . . . Q . . . but where is it?!

I also became disappointed with Funk's production which preserved traditional translations--so much for rigor.

I will add a comment another poster here put . . . it regarded the question of resurrection . . . his mentor he quoted thought biology answered this one, but laughed at how his collegues sweated blood over it! "Maybe it happened and who are we to say. . . ."

So much for rigor! So much for rigor mortis.

Anyways, I had a mentor--I hate "name droppers"--"Believe my crap because I was once thrown out of a seminar attended by. . . ."--but this guy is a respected NT scholar. He chided me on my assessment of JS, and stated that I "missed the genius of Funk."

"Genius?!" I protested then started ranting as above . . . "balls?!! BALLS?!!" [The JS members vote with colored balls.--Ed.]

As he explained:

Quote:

For years people have spoken of the "teachings of Jesus" as if you can pick them up and point to them. What Funk has demonstrated is they only exist in the minds of scholars.

So . . . was Real Junior™ that really "nice" stuff like "Bless'd are the Cheese-Makers" or was it that "nasty" stuff like not letting people understand "lest they turn and be saved?"

I am not sure if Funk agrees with that, but a "default" position for scholars what with the debate on whether or not a HJ even existed is that "the Teachings" are . . . like . . . you know . . . really neat!

What if it all exists in the minds of some scholars?

I fear they would find that "too dark altogether."

--J.D.

Soul Invictus · 08-12-2003, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Oh my. . . .

Well . . . there is a group that calls themselves The Jesus Seminar that thinks they know. . . .

The problem is based upon what evidence. Long story short, scholars seem to vote for what they "like." I use to scoff at the JS--I often quote a mentor who laughed, "I think they have conclusively proven he once said 'the'!" A bunch of guys voting with balls . . . based on what? Squeezing texts that cannot get further back than the fall of Jerusalem? Okay . . . sure . . . Q . . . but where is it?!

I also became disappointed with Funk's production which preserved traditional translations--so much for rigor.

I will add a comment another poster here put . . . it regarded the question of resurrection . . . his mentor he quoted thought biology answered this one, but laughed at how his collegues sweated blood over it! "Maybe it happened and who are we to say. . . ."

So much for rigor! So much for rigor mortis.

Anyways, I had a mentor--I hate "name droppers"--"Believe my crap because I was once thrown out of a seminar attended by. . . ."--but this guy is a respected NT scholar. He chided me on my assessment of JS, and stated that I "missed the genius of Funk."

"Genius?!" I protested then started ranting as above . . . "balls?!! BALLS?!!" [The JS members vote with colored balls.--Ed.]

As he explained:

So . . . was Real Junior™ that really "nice" stuff like "Bless'd are the Cheese-Makers" or was it that "nasty" stuff like not letting people understand "lest they turn and be saved?"

I am not sure if Funk agrees with that, but a "default" position for scholars what with the debate on whether or not a HJ even existed is that "the Teachings" are . . . like . . . you know . . . really neat!

What if it all exists in the minds of some scholars?

I fear they would find that "too dark altogether."

--J.D.

Doctor, you are something else. How about an easier task...from what basis did King James and his translators attribute the red lettered texts to Jesus? Was the assumingly Greek manuscript that it was translated from have some sort of record attributing those said phrases to him?

Doctor X · 08-12-2003, 05:26 PM

Well . . . I do not have a KJV . . . and I have never seen an "original" KJV . . . though printers used different types and colors to advertise--why front pieces became so intricate.

However, I "thought" the red was a convention to set the "holy words" appart, and I "thought" it applied to all of them.

--J.D.

Asha'man · 08-12-2003, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soul Invictus
How about an easier task...from what basis did King James and his translators attribute the red lettered texts to Jesus? Was the assumingly Greek manuscript that it was translated from have some sort of record attributing those said phrases to him?

I think it's pretty obvious just from reading the text. When a sentance starts out with "Jesus said...", you can bet that the rest will be in red. It's all based on context, nothing more.

Rational BAC · 08-12-2003, 07:05 PM

Excellent thread if it goes anywhere.

I do take what Jesus is purported to have said much more seriously than St. Paul or any of the other "interpreters".

So ------Let us all take this thread more seriously. I want to learn.

Peter Kirby · 08-12-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
I do take what Jesus is purported to have said much more seriously than St. Paul or any of the other "interpreters".

But the people who purported Jesus to say things were definitely "interpreters." You can't hide the activity of a flesh and blood Christian person claiming "Jesus said" behind the passive voice. And Christians claim to know the mind of Christ just like theists generally claim to know the mind of God.

best,
Peter Kirby

Darth Dane · 08-12-2003, 11:43 PM

I heard somewhere, that the Vatican only knows for sure that Jesus said "Eli"

Read the Gospel of the Holy Twelve perhaps.

DD - Love & Laughter

Doctor X · 08-12-2003, 11:54 PM

Eli Wallach?

--J. "Hey Blondie!!" D.

RTS · 08-13-2003, 01:34 PM

First, to prove "What did Jesus really say" you have to prove that Jesus actually existed as a flesh and blood historical person. There is not one shred of evidence to prove an historical Jesus. A fanciful construct of someone's imagination cannot "say" anything.

The general consensus of biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention Jesus. After 40+ years, it would be almost impossible for anyone to quote exactly what anyone had said, especially if these stories had been told over and over with embellishments added to every telling.

We must also consider the fact that these Gospel writings did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. And, 'Lying for the Church' was a common and apparently accepted practice.

The big question is 'how did the original writers know what Jesus said when Jesus was alone?' There were no witnesses to many of the quoted "Jesus sayings", so how could they quote his words?

The Bible is a mythological "Story" and mythological figures can't say anything !

08-12-2003, 04:05 PM	#1
Soul Invictus Contributor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin Posts: 15,576	What did Jesus really say? I thought I read somewhere that parts of the NT that are traditionally having been credited to having been said by Jesus may have most likely not have been. What sources or references can anyone offer in this study? Does anyone know the reasoning behind this thought? What do scholars hold as being most likely said by Jesus? What are the credentials of the scholars that make these assertions?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2003, 05:26 PM	#4
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Well . . . I do not have a KJV . . . and I have never seen an "original" KJV . . . though printers used different types and colors to advertise--why front pieces became so intricate. However, I "thought" the red was a convention to set the "holy words" appart, and I "thought" it applied to all of them. --J.D.

08-12-2003, 07:05 PM	#6
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Excellent thread if it goes anywhere. I do take what Jesus is purported to have said much more seriously than St. Paul or any of the other "interpreters". So ------Let us all take this thread more seriously. I want to learn.

08-12-2003, 11:43 PM	#8
Darth Dane Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Required Posts: 2,349	I heard somewhere, that the Vatican only knows for sure that Jesus said "Eli" Read the Gospel of the Holy Twelve perhaps. DD - Love & Laughter

08-12-2003, 11:54 PM	#9
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Eli Wallach? --J. "Hey Blondie!!" D.

08-13-2003, 01:34 PM	#10
RTS Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 86	First, to prove "What did Jesus really say" you have to prove that Jesus actually existed as a flesh and blood historical person. There is not one shred of evidence to prove an historical Jesus. A fanciful construct of someone's imagination cannot "say" anything. The general consensus of biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention Jesus. After 40+ years, it would be almost impossible for anyone to quote exactly what anyone had said, especially if these stories had been told over and over with embellishments added to every telling. We must also consider the fact that these Gospel writings did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. And, 'Lying for the Church' was a common and apparently accepted practice. The big question is 'how did the original writers know what Jesus said when Jesus was alone?' There were no witnesses to many of the quoted "Jesus sayings", so how could they quote his words? The Bible is a mythological "Story" and mythological figures can't say anything !

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.