Toto

Just to add: that wikipedia page does not identify Teeple as a mythicist. You do not have to be a mythicist to not believe in the historicity of the empty tomb.

Adam

It only proves that you can't a priori reject them as false. You need to weigh the pros and cons. And you also seem to be contradicting yourself. You won't consider it worth reading unless it's supernatural, so how are you going to fairly weigh the pros and cons of what isn't impressive enough to read?

Emailing to Criticus is not that easy. I have to join before I'll see how to contact? Why do I have to join U-Stream, even after I first elected Google?

Toto

This doesn't make any sense. Even if you don't reject the nonsupernatural claims a priori, you can still find them lacking in evidential support.

And I'm not saying that something is not worth reading if it's not supernatural, but it's not clear why a religion started around it.

You don't have to join U stream or anything. Just send an email from any email account to criticus@aol.com

Adam

That was easy. I don't know why I thought that was a website--sometimes I overlook the most obvious thing. So I asked him if he knew Teeple from the book or just from the 1970 JBL article, "The Oral Tradition that never Was". For someone giving late dates, that seems closer to Mythicism than to HJ.

Maybe the first documents did not tell anything astounding, but the religion was off-and-running because people had been impressed by the founder. Gee, that's an HJ point in itself. The first documents were not about a God-man in heaven, but about a man who so impressed also the first authors that they wrote about even the littlest things about him, like "Peace be with you". As time passed and memory of the little daily things faded, they wrote about things they could not forget, like miracles. And since they all knew that astounding miracles had happened, by the time for second- and third-hand accounts (much of Matthew), they wrote down things that had not occurred as stated, but still seemed possible from such a great founder?

Adam

Even in John 19:25 where Clopas is named, so are two other women, plus the Beloved Disciple was there too. Oh, you've read my stuff so well that you know I include Cleopas in Luke 24:13-35 as an eyewitness in this part of L, and we know Proto-Luke includes several unique last words of Jesus. You're making great intuitive leaps here, my friend, maybe someone will charge you with having a mental condition like I've been accused of here!

But no, you know well enough I never named Clopas (or Cleopas, notwithstanding the opinion of some scholars that we can't interchange Aramaic and Greek names in this manner) wrote L. After all, he would have been too old if L did not get written for several decades later (thus explaining its absence from any other gospel). Yes, as you know my theory gives Simon of 24:34 as the author. And you're one of those of us (in spite of being Protestants) who see this Simon as Cleopas' son. Therefore the huge intuitive leap is not at all unreasonable after all. "Simply" Simon got these last words of Jesus from his mother Mary, the wife of Clopas, not from the other women or anyone else. QED!

Seriously, I had not thought of that before. Nevertheless, I have you to thank for this productive advance! Everyone here says I need more evidence, so thank you!

Edited to add:
Darn! I just realized that the last words of Jesus in John I show from Teeple as in the Passion Narrative Source. That's for me supposedly written by John Mark, but even though three women named Mary are listed at the Cross, none of them are his mother Mary. But wait--maybe Mary Magdalene (who was there) was his girlfriend. He surely wouldn't have been wasting his time talking to all those older women named Mary or Salome. (Or maybe Teeple was wrong, the words were in E, and the Beloved Disciple, who was there, could have been the source.)

stephan huller

Don't forget Balaam's talking ass as a witness to the existence of angels

gurugeorge

Supernaturalism is indeed part and parcel of the stories we have. It's a religion ferchrissakes, religions tend to have supernatural entities in them. Christianity is one of those religions. It claims to have evidence of a supernatural entity, presented in its textbooks. All the "evidentiaryness" that's associated with the story is associated with a supernatural entity.

I'm not at all ruling out that there might be evidence of a human being in the NT, just ruling out that you can easily slide to something that's evidentiary of a human being just by noting absence of supernaturalism in a story that is largely supernatural.

To show evidence of a human being in the NT, you need something that ties a person known (by current standards) to have historically lived, to a person resembling the Jesus character stripped to the quotidian. That, unfortunately, we don't have, so the HJ remains a highly tentative hypothesis.

The archaeologist is religiously-minded, whatever. The point is that there's no logical link between a character in a story and a hypothesized character in real life, until that link is made by evidence and argument. It cannot be assumed.

Toto

Jesus as God-man split to here

Adam

OK, then, please follow this link to my
#178 here
that gives links to my later posts in Gospel Eyewitnesses in which I detail the three "quotidian" sources (that I already named in my passage you quote above) that you demand. I'm still waiting for someone more eminent that Sheshbazzar to deal with this "GattA". (spin in #612 did not cover anything past my #423, falling 100 posts short of where I repackaged my "goods".)
Note also that I display this verse-by-verse in my thread
Early Aramaic Gospels
except that you would need to skip the selections from Mark that scholars do not readily accept as Q. Luke 4:1-13 can also be disregarded as obviously not written by an eyewitness. (Some of the verses I include from John include miracles, but of the minor nature that can be explained away as psychosomatic.) The ending Resurrection verses can be disregarded for your purpose because the texts do not agree other than that there was an empty tomb.

Sheshbazzar

Why not introduce your ideas here as parts of a normal conversational exchange with others, where each statement can be examined and discussed?

Reference by post numbers back to huge blocks of texts containing multitudes of one-sided 'I' personal assertions does not make for effective communications. Or is that your intention?