i’m not saying oral trad is a bad thing. not at all! i also dont want to quote monty python by saying: youre not supposed to take it lit…
metaphysically speaking (by which, i dont mean a ‘fairy tale’) early day ‘myths’/‘allegories’ were grappling with subjects that were later categorized under terms like ‘realism’, or epiphenomenlogygygygygy, n ting. -this is not to say, i would question anyone’s right to take the bible at face value…but i fear most (or at least, the one’s without the ‘gift’ of faith) of us would have to agree with dawkins at some point - albeit not so rudely, and with a tad more respect and grace.
in today’s methods of mass communication, we are still subject to sways and whimsies of various press moguls. we STILL believe in things that arent real, but this time it’s nicely glazed over with a big dollop of FACTS and graphic up-to-date documentation.
It should be noted that Paul didn’t receive his instruction from ‘any man’, at least, according to Paul. He received it through a revelation from God/Jesus. If memory serves, he only later met with the other apostles.
Ehrman is getting criticized by the mythicists for shoddy research (no surprise there) AND by other scholars who have written books supporting a historical Jesus. They are saying that Ehrman pretty much didn’t really look into the subject or else he would have seen their work.
Not really. Apart from lacking any historical credentials (he’s a professor of German, not history or any related field), his scholarship is pretty sloppy. That’s why his arguments are almost universally rejected by true historians.
While I agree that GA Wells’ argument is not very compelling, you really should source to someone more convincing than Holding (a pseudonym). It should be noted that Holding doesn’t have any credentials either, yet always harps on them from anyone he criticizes. Further, he distorts other people’s research (as effectively shown, IMO, in “Not the impossible faith”).
The difference is that I don’t claim that being a layperson automatically makes someone wrong. If it did, then the vast majority of the statements by SDMBers in this thread should be ignored.
The problem with Wells isn’t merely that he lacks professional credentials; rather, it’s that his arguments are poorly researched. That is why professional historians reject his arguments – in essence, agreeing with Holding that Wells did a poor job with his thesis.
Additionally, please note how I emphasized that Wells himself has abandoned his own position on this topic. You can’t blame that on Holding, sir, no matter how much one may strive to do so.
Actually, I disagree about his scholarship being sloppy. He’s very precise and his arguments are well-made. Have you even read them?
Wells has admitted that someone is responsible for the sayings of Jesus. He certainly hasn’t backed off his claims about the non-existence of anyone at all resmbling the “historical Jesus”. You can’t really say that he’s backtracked.
But he did meet with them, amongst whom was James Jesus’ brother.
And they told him they were not amused with his preachings.
This bit is what convinces me most that there was at least a real living man at the base of it all. The kernel of truth.
Then with Paul starts the fase “anyone is allowed to make shit up”. After which comes the fase “shouldn’t we write some of this stuff down?” After which comes the fase “It can’t all be true at the same time, can it? someone needs to sort this shit out”. And at last the fase “everyone stop writing, we’ve sorted it out”.
After which inevitably come several instances of “Didn’t I say you should stop writing!”
Yeah, I don’t believe we know the “real history” behind how Paul became a Christian. The biblical history is that he saw resurrected Jesus in a vision and became a convert. The reality is he probably met some early Christian leaders in the region and dug their teachings. Because obviously it’s highly unlikely there was any actual vision or resurrected Jesus at all. But it’s probably historical fact Paul never met historical Jesus, because I think otherwise their earthly meeting would factor heavily into the New Testament if they had. Instead Paul is said to have only seen Jesus in a post-death miraculous vision.
But Paul’s age would not have been very much younger than historical Jesus, so in Paul’s time there would have been some people who had learned from historical Jesus in the region first hand.
It is the hebrew word “elohim,” which is very curious in that it is a plural word but is most generally in the context of being singular.
But you are very correct, “elohim” can mean human authorities as well as the Most High. “Sons of God” (bene ha elohim) is a phrase used to denote those who have the understanding of YHWH Elohim and adhere; unless you’re a follower of David Icke, that is, and his reptilian theories, in which case you are convinced “sons of god” means reptilians came to earth and mated with human women, pissing God off to the point of deluging the earth in the great flood.
I agree that his arguments are poorly researched (from what little I can remember) - I pointed out that, in general, so are Holdings. In fact, Holding often employs dishonest arguments.
Yes, Wells changed his mind and I’m not blaming nor am I crediting Holding for this. Now, why did Wells change his mind? If it’s because of a particular argument, then that is relevant. If none can be presented, then that’s not really an argument.
I’m not a myther - I don’t find the evidence for Jesus particularly strong, but I think the onus is on the mythers to provide a solid argument. I just don’t think they do.
One, I find it more likely that when Paul was referring to James as a brother of Christ, he’s referring to him AS Christ’s brother (not merely as Christians often used the term).
Two, the conflict in teaching (as you allude to) is what I believe you would expect to find in an emerging religion that was founded around a charismatic leader - this happened with Islam as well after Muhammad’s death.
I somewhat agree with this - I think Paul probably learned Christianity from the Christians he was persecuting, rather than an actual experience of Jesus or from the Christian leaders.
I also tend to agree with Carrier when he says that Paul probably felt guilty about his persecutions and after experiencing something akin to a temporal lobe seizure he changed his ways.
Also, and I could be totally wrong about this - but I have it in my head that Paul had to have been around 18ish (perhaps younger) when Jesus died at 30 AD and he converted sometime in the 40’s-50’s.
I would think that this one is already too much guessing.
We don’t know.
But if we are guessing, I always liked the theory where Paul never left ‘the secret service’ but went in deep.
Maybe what he was trying was to destroy the movement from within.
If so he succeeded, albeit not with the intended result, as the counter-movement proved many times more dangerous to Rome than the original.
Personally, I think Paul was like Laura Holt and Jesus was his Remmington Steele. He needed a character to sell his personal self-help cult and bammo, Jesus.
The plain fact is that when dealing with ancient history, there aren’t any contemporary accounts of most historical figures. Most ancient historical writing was at least a generation after the fact, and very often historians have to use accounts written several centuries after the fact because that’s all they have. So the four canonical gospels, written probably 30-60 years after the fact, are quite close to the event by relevant standards.
As others have mentioned, there’s a likelihood that the material concerning Jesus was in the oral tradition at first, then at some time in the 40’s we have the first of the epistles, but there may have been other written sources that have since been lost. There have been scientific studies of oral transmission, which have found that cultures which use it can transmit lengthy works for many generations with high accuracy. Hence the fact that the material was in oral form for some time before being written down is not an a priori reason to reject it.
If the whole story were being made up from scratch, why the suffering and dying, especially a criminal’s death? You’d more likely expect Jesus to temporarly blind or stun everyone, have a few pithy sayings, and then make his getaway in the clouds - very much like the all-powerful King of the Jews would.
Plus, as I said and others - the timing is all wrong. The church started while there were still plenty of contemporaries who remembered the time. As I said, the intellectual/monied classes (as opposed to just the aristocracy) were sufficiently connected that you could not tell someone in Damascus or Antioch about this fellow and his advetures if it were totally bogus; they have the connections to know if this was fact or fiction. The merchants and scholars of the area all knew each other. (It’s what merchants do). In the days before TV and internet, visiting and talking about things, especially about events in other places with people who just came from there, was as close to entertainment as you get without bring out the dancing girls.
If you mentioned a disruptive cult leader who was executed 20 years ago in Jerusalem at the instigation of the high priests, someone would be able to call “bullshit” if it was complete fiction.
As I understand it, Paul was a natural born salesman and loose cannon who went off making his own embellishments until he was called back to Jerusalem to reconcile his version of the message with the home-grown version.
While this is all correct to a point, there is no evidence that Christianity was relayed to the scholars or the upper class either during or directly after Jesus’s time. In fact, the first scholarly Christians (aside from Paul) were 100 + years after the life of Jesus (Justin Martyr).
Jesus’s direct followers were not the upper crust nor were they scholars.
I’ve just wasted half-an-hour searching unsuccessfully through my bookcases for the book I have which summarizes why manuscripts before about 200 AD are rare. (I suspect it fell behind my bed. One of these [del]days[/del] years I’m going to have to get organized. :smack: )
But this webpage may make a similar point another way. It mentions a copy of Matthew Chapter 26 dated to 60 AD or earlier.
It also mentions that the earliest extant copies of the writings of Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristotle, and Julius Caesar all date to 900 AD or later! Were these writers mythical?
BTW, Rome, which probably had records of Pontius Pilate’s activities in Judaea, tried to suppress Christianity. Uhhhh … don’t you think they might have pointed out that the crucifixion was fictional if it were fictional?
Given how rare it is for any ancient writing (that hadn’t to do with the Church) to have survived at all, what do you figure of the chances of anti=christian writings to survive?
(I suspect it fell behind my bed. One of these [del]days[/del] years I’m going to have to get organized. :smack: )