Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Date and Reliability of the Gospels.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
    I already noted that. I want to see arguments. There was also a time when scholars accepted the Jesus myth hypothesis as well.
    The Jesus myth hypothesis has never ever been a consensus or majority position, not even a significant minority position. There have been very, very few scholars (and I use the term as loosely as possible) who have ever supported that position.

    As for arguments, this has been a consensus developing from the early part of the 19th century. Very few have even bothered to oppose it, except by arguments from authority, eg, up until the 1960s Roman Catholic scholars were required to hold to Matthean priority but they never convinced anyone. As for arguments, it is practically obvious to anyone who reads the texts in Greek that everywhere Matthew is making minor stylistic (and other) improvements on the Greek text of Mark. In a Greek synopsis, this can be seen on almost every page of the triple tradition. Pick a passage, and I will show you in the Greek, if you like. If you do not have access to a Greek synopsis, I can help out when I return from my current business trip.
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
      I already noted that. I want to see arguments. There was also a time when scholars accepted the Jesus myth hypothesis as well.
      The Jesus Myth has always been "fringe scholarship" at best, and has until late been considered little more than foolishness. Much like Peshitta primacy, It has never been widely accepted.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Outis View Post
        The Jesus Myth has always been "fringe scholarship" at best, and has until late been considered little more than foolishness. Much like Peshitta primacy, It has never been widely accepted.
        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
        The Jesus myth hypothesis has never ever been a consensus or majority position, not even a significant minority position. There have been very, very few scholars (and I use the term as loosely as possible) who have ever supported that position.

        As for arguments, this has been a consensus developing from the early part of the 19th century. Very few have even bothered to oppose it, except by arguments from authority, eg, up until the 1960s Roman Catholic scholars were required to hold to Matthean priority but they never convinced anyone. As for arguments, it is practically obvious to anyone who reads the texts in Greek that everywhere Matthew is making minor stylistic (and other) improvements on the Greek text of Mark. In a Greek synopsis, this can be seen on almost every page of the triple tradition. Pick a passage, and I will show you in the Greek, if you like. If you do not have access to a Greek synopsis, I can help out when I return from my current business trip.
        Seems you all are right on this.
        Ok what about the "Dying and Rising gods" thing?

        Quote

        ""Still others suggest that Paul's conception is related to ideas of union with a dying and rising god that was popular in Hellenistic 'mystery religions.' These 'mystery religions,' a group of religions very popular in the Hellenistic world, featured secret initiations and promised their adherents 'salvation,' often by participation in a cultic act that was held to bring the initiate into union with a god. Under the impulse of the history-of-religions movement early in this century, many scholars attributed various doctrines of Paul to dependence on these religions. But direct dependence of Paul on these religions is now widely discounted. More popular is the view that Paul’s Hellenistic churches interpreted their experience of Christ in the light of these religions and that Paul’s teaching demonstrates point of contact with, and corrections of, this existing tradition…The mystical and repeated ‘dying and rising’ of a mystery religion adherent with a nature god like Osiris or Attis has little to do with Paul’s focus on the Christian's participation in the historical events of Christ's life.”
        http://www.christianthinktank.com/copycat.html#dying

        And robrecht, I do think that the data is accounted for in my theory. I know where I can get the Greek (Interlinear bibles side by side). Some cases, I found quite good similarities and in some, I found things looking not so similar (but basically the same event).
        Last edited by Quantum Weirdness; 02-09-2014, 02:48 PM.
        -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
        Sir James Jeans

        -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
        Sir Isaac Newton

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
          Seems you all are right on this.
          Ok what about the "Dying and Rising gods" thing?
          Depending on what specific article you're speaking of, it's either idiotic rubbish (the copies) or deliberately dishonest rubbish (the original). Same with the "six dozen copycat Christs" or however many they're claiming now.

          For most of these things, scholars don't even bother to refute them, because they're not just wrong, they're blatantly dishonest.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
            Seems you all are right on this.
            Ok what about the "Dying and Rising gods" thing?

            Quote

            ""Still others suggest that Paul's conception is related to ideas of union with a dying and rising god that was popular in Hellenistic 'mystery religions.' These 'mystery religions,' a group of religions very popular in the Hellenistic world, featured secret initiations and promised their adherents 'salvation,' often by participation in a cultic act that was held to bring the initiate into union with a god. Under the impulse of the history-of-religions movement early in this century, many scholars attributed various doctrines of Paul to dependence on these religions. But direct dependence of Paul on these religions is now widely discounted. More popular is the view that Paul’s Hellenistic churches interpreted their experience of Christ in the light of these religions and that Paul’s teaching demonstrates point of contact with, and corrections of, this existing tradition…The mystical and repeated ‘dying and rising’ of a mystery religion adherent with a nature god like Osiris or Attis has little to do with Paul’s focus on the Christian's participation in the historical events of Christ's life.”
            http://www.christianthinktank.com/copycat.html#dying
            Yes, it was much more commonly thought in the early part of this century to attribute much of Paul's high christology to Hellenistic mystery religions, but this was not used in support of a mythicist position. The most important scholar was Wilhelm Bousset. He was not a mythicist, but it is true that some mythicists take Bousset's work to a much more radical conclusion, but these mythicists were very few in number. The best recent appreciation and critique of Bousset's work has been done by Larry Hurtado.

            Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
            And robrecht, I do think that the data is accounted for in my theory. I know where I can get the Greek (Interlinear bibles side by side). Some cases, I found quite good similarities and in some, I found things looking not so similar (but basically the same event).
            Pick whatever passage you feel best supports your case, and I'll gladly take a look. But I must say that it is hard to take your word for your theory (better?) accounting for the data since all of the data is in Greek and I think you said above that you do not read Greek, right?
            Last edited by robrecht; 02-09-2014, 03:25 PM.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Outis View Post
              Depending on what specific article you're speaking of, it's either idiotic rubbish (the copies) or deliberately dishonest rubbish (the original). Same with the "six dozen copycat Christs" or however many they're claiming now.

              For most of these things, scholars don't even bother to refute them, because they're not just wrong, they're blatantly dishonest.
              My point was that scholars once accepted this as well but it has been abandoned.
              -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
              Sir James Jeans

              -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
              Sir Isaac Newton

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                My point was that scholars once accepted this as well but it has been abandoned.
                Depends on what you now mean by "this". Previously you were speaking of the Jesus mythicist position. What are you now referring to by "this"?
                βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                  My point was that scholars once accepted this as well but it has been abandoned.
                  Incorrect. The original "Copycat Christ" article was based on a series of forgeries and deliberate misinterpretations (sometime back on the early 1900s, iirc), and immediately got blasted out of the water like the garbage it actually was. The only folks who accepted it were wing-nuts who wanted to "disprove" Christianity--and they are most definitely not scholars.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Yes, it was much more commonly thought in the early part of this century to attribute much of Paul's high christology to Hellenistic mystery religions, but this was not used in support of a mythicist position. The most important scholar was William Bousset. He was not a mythicist, but it is true that some mythicists take Bousset's work to a much more radical conclusion, but these mythicists were very few in number. The best recent appreciation and critique of Bousset's work has been done by Larry Hurtado.

                    My point was that scholars changed their opinions.

                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    Pick whatever passage you feel best supports your case, and I'll gladly take a look. But I must say that it is hard to take your word for your theory (better?) accounting for the data since all of the data is in Greek and I think you said above that you do not read Greek, right?
                    Well what case is it? The case against Markan priority (which I think is accounted for by Peter being dependent on Matthew to an extent) or the case of Matthew in Hebrew. For the latter, the best passage I can think of is Matt 2:23 which doesn't make sense to a Greek reader but more to a Hebrew reader. For the puns, alliterations etc I suppose Matt 9:8 and 11:8-10 would be the best.

                    I can definitely understand not taking my word for it but I do think that the hypothesis that Peter was dependent on a Greek Matthew does merit some consideration (Especially since the purported letters of St. Peter appear to be literarily dependent on other sources)
                    -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                    Sir James Jeans

                    -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                    Sir Isaac Newton

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                      Depends on what you now mean by "this". Previously you were speaking of the Jesus mythicist position. What are you now referring to by "this"?
                      I was wrong on the Jesus mythicist position being accepted by a majority of scholars. "This" references the dying and rising gods thing.
                      Sorry for the confusion.
                      -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                      Sir James Jeans

                      -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                      Sir Isaac Newton

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Outis View Post
                        Incorrect. The original "Copycat Christ" article was based on a series of forgeries and deliberate misinterpretations (sometime back on the early 1900s, iirc), and immediately got blasted out of the water like the garbage it actually was. The only folks who accepted it were wing-nuts who wanted to "disprove" Christianity--and they are most definitely not scholars.
                        Is this referencing the dying and rising gods thing?
                        -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                        Sir James Jeans

                        -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                        Sir Isaac Newton

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                          Is this referencing the dying and rising gods thing?
                          They're both the same theory, Quantum--both propagated by the same group of nutters. Indeed, today's Christ-mythers use the so-called "Copy-cat Christ thesis" to support their "arguments" ... such as they are.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Outis View Post
                            They're both the same theory, Quantum--both propagated by the same group of nutters. Indeed, today's Christ-mythers use the so-called "Copy-cat Christ thesis" to support their "arguments" ... such as they are.
                            Well, according to the New International Commentary on the New Testament (where Miller quotes from), many scholars did support the theory.
                            -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                            Sir James Jeans

                            -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                            Sir Isaac Newton

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                              My point was that scholars changed their opinions.
                              If you're speaking of Bousset, that's way too simplistic. There were and are still differences of opinion. Johannes Weiss, a contemporary member of the same history of religions school, was practically diametrically opposed to Bousset. While Hurtado is both appreciative and critical of Bousset's work, there are still many who disagree fundamentally with Hurtado.

                              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                              Well what case is it? The case against Markan priority (which I think is accounted for by Peter being dependent on Matthew to an extent) or the case of Matthew in Hebrew.
                              Both are intimately related. If Matthew was largely dependent upon Mark's Greek, then he did not compose his text in Hebrew.

                              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                              For the latter, the best passage I can think of is Matt 2:23 which doesn't make sense to a Greek reader but more to a Hebrew reader. For the puns, alliterations etc I suppose Matt 9:8 and 11:8-10 would be the best.
                              Neither Mt 2,23 nor 11,8-10 is part of the triple tradition so they are both irrelevant to this discussion. You'll have to explain your view of how Mt 9,7 demonstrates dependence upon a Hebrew source rather than upon Mark's Greek text.

                              Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                              I can definitely understand not taking my word for it but I do think that the hypothesis that Peter was dependent on a Greek Matthew does merit some consideration (Especially since the purported letters of St. Peter appear to be literarily dependent on other sources)
                              I'm confused by what position you are trying to defend. You are no longer following Papias' view? Peter was dependent upon a Greek Matthew? Where do you get that?
                              Last edited by robrecht; 02-09-2014, 03:52 PM.
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Quantum Weirdness View Post
                                Well, according to the New International Commentary on the New Testament (where Miller quotes from), many scholars did support the theory.
                                The Commentary is wrong. In the 1700s, you had Volney and Dupuis. In the 1800s, you had Bauer and the Radical Dutch school, which was basically four people. In the 20th century, you had half-a-dozen or so people, some of them owners of their own publishing houses (because they couldn't get their crap published anywhere reputable). In the 21st century, you've got a dozen or so. The Christ-Myth crowd is a tiny sliver of historical-critical Biblical scholarship, and most of them are laughingstocks.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
                                39 responses
                                186 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                132 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                428 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                305 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
                                406 responses
                                2,517 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X