aa5874

In your article I find that it is not at all reasonable or logical that one cannot argue that Jesus never existed when there is no evidence for his existence.

In court trials or at any level where evidence is required the lack of evidence provides the fundamental basis for acquittal.

In effect, one can argue that he NEVER did commit an offense once there is no evidence.

The lack of evidence for an historical is the fundamental basis for the argument that Jesus of Nazareth NEVER existed.

Only evidence from antiquity can overturn the argument that Jesus never did exist.

ficino

Andrew, you mean that Luke cut the story down to a minimum and John omitted, no?

I think Meier muddies his own waters by his tendency to speak about what "the Church" thought, did, etc. I can understand this from a doctrinal point of view, since he's a Catholic, but from a historian's perspective, one needs to know about the early groupings and leadership structures before one can speak confidently about a purported unitary community.

aa5874

The story in gMark and gLuke is essentially the same story. In fact, the author of gLuke added details not found in gMark. The author of gLuke claimed Jesus was praying when he was baptized and that he was about 30 years old at the time.

gLuke baptism event is an expansion of gMark's

Mark 1
Luke 3

outhouse

A unitary community? :facepalm:

Church?

Toto

What is your problem with "unitary community" or church? The issue is that there were competing Christian factions with disagreements about theology. The orthodox version of history is that there was one true church (unitary) and some insignificant heretics who are best forgotten. Historians who have looked at the remaining records reject this view.

rlogan

Could you quote for us the passages where he expresses embarassment, since it is so clear?

DCHindley

For a guy like me, who have dished out tongue aplenty, somethines can't tell when others are doing it too.

BTW, thanks for having a sense of humor! Maybe I am running across too many who don't and just got jaded ...

DCH

outhouse

In context to the gospel authors. Do you think there were churches. or just private houses where these people gathered in the first century?


Who cares about orthodox version. That is not history as Ficino points out.

Early members of the movement were wide and diverse.

Toto

Please read more carefully. The gospel authors do not refer to churches. Meier refers to "the church" by which he only means a gathering of believers, not a church building. Andrew Criddle commented that there was no "unitary community" that could be referred to as "the" church. It doesn't appear that you would disagree with this.

The orthodox version of history is the basis for Meier's analysis of the criterion of embarrassment. If you agree with the idea that there was diversity in early Christianity, it is difficult to identify anything that would have been embarrassing to all Christians.

You could save time by writing more details in complete sentences, rather than facepalming yourself.

outhouse

My post covered everything I needed to say, your the one with comprehensive issues. Which seems to be normal with you when dealing with real scholarships. You mentioned orthodox not me or Ficino

I was facepalming Meier, if Ficino's interpretation was correct regarding a "unitary community" in the first century.


Nonsense. It is not difficult to identify JtB a human baptizing a deity, if your creating a deity you want all to worship, let alone a peasant Galilean.

There are cores to the legend that this criterion and others are used in conjunction.

It's not a idea that the early movement was diverse. It is fact based on scripture and the diversity within its pages.