Reply to If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Let's recap.

The following classical, independent scholars agree Jesus definitely existed. Quotes and links were provided a few pages ago.
- Paul Meier
- Michael Grant

The following scholars are potentially biased [i]against[/i] finding Jesus walked the earth, yet they are certain he did: 
- Bart Ehrman, an atheist who also describes himself as a historian
- Amy Jill Levine, Jewish 
- Paula Fredickson, a Jewish historian

And, of course these cites on Wikipedia think Jesus definitely existed: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

So do the many theologians quoted at 17:44, which atheist pp's call "theologists" and complain must be biased. Because, apparently, some people spend their lives doing things they know are false, or something.

These scholars, typified by the quotes used here from Ehrman, relied on up to 30 Christian and non-Christian sources as well as linguistic evidence. For example, Ehrman writes (link was given a few pages ago): "Paul, as I will point out, actually knew, personally, Jesus’ own brother James and his closest disciples Peter and John. That’s [by itself] more or less a death knell for the Mythicist position, as some of them admit."

***

Posters who claim the evidence of Jesus' existence isn't certain have brought to the table:
- A few weeks ago on DCUM, posters with zero scholarly credentials or evidence agreed there's no 100% certainty. 
- ???
[/quote]

Bumping this because some of you still think you know better than thousands of scholars (historians, classicists and theologians) who agree Jesus definitely existed.[/quote]

Again…

If you dedicate decades of your life to studying something you’re more likely to believe it’s true.

Meier, Ehrman, Levine, Fredickson - all theologists/NT academics 
Grant - used gospels as source

Ehrman is using a Christian source to verify Jesus?

Anyway, he most likely existed, but we don’t have definitive proof. 
[/quote]

Again, Ehrman uses external and linguistic sources as well. How many times do we need to repeat this?

Again, Ehrman is an atheist and Levine and Fredricksen are Jewish. All three are, if anything, biased [b]against[/b] finding Jesus existed.

What are your scholarly credentials?[/quote]

They aren’t biased “against” at all. They have dedicated their careers to the study of the NT. They are deep into Christianity, whether they believe in the supernatural aspects or not.

[/quote]

You're kidding, right? You're not serious that Ehrman, Levine and Fredricksen are biased in favor of finding Jesus existed. These are people who have made their careers trying to disprove various parts of the gospels and publishing books like Jesus Interrupted and Misquoting Jesus.

Proving Jesus didn't exist would be the capstone of these peoples' careers.

You're a clown, sorry.[/quote]

They are nitpicking details in the literature, not stepping back to look at archeological evidence of his existence. Again, using gospels as evidence is a disqualifier.

[/quote]

It's sad that you can't be bothered to read posts like the ones at 10:57 and 11:06 that provide other types of evidence. Or the evidence from Paul (not in the gospels) who knew Jesus' brother James and Jesus' disciples John and Peter.

Here's the post on linguistic evidence again. You may be unable to provide your own scholarly credentials, but at least you can read.

So, no more posts saying "using the gospels is a disqualifier."

***

Linguistic evidence

Good evidence shows that some of the Gospel accounts clearly go back to traditions about Jesus in circulation, originally, in Aramaic, the language of Roman Palestine, where Jesus himself lived. One piece of evidence is that Aramaic words occasionally appear in stories about Jesus, often at the climactic moment. This happens in a variety of stories from a variety of sources. For example, In Mark 5 Jesus raises the daughter of a man named Jairus from the dead. When he comes into her room and raises her, he says to her “Talitha cumi.” The author of Mark translates for us: “Little girl, arise.”

... [a story about Bart's German professor giving German anecdotes] ...

This story about Jairus’s daughter, then, was originally told in Aramaic and was later translated into Greek, with the key line left in the original. So too with several stories in a completely different Gospel, the Gospel of John. It happens three times in just 1:35-42. This is a story that circulated in Aramaic-speaking Palestine, the homeland of Jesus and his disciples.

Traditions Stemming from Aramaic

The other reason for knowing that a tradition was originally in Aramaic is because it makes better sense when translated *back* into Aramaic than it does in Greek.

My favorite illustration of this is Jesus’ famous saying: “Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:27-28). The context: Jesus’ disciples have been eating grain from a field on the Sabbath day; the Pharisees object, and Jesus explains that it is permissible to meet human needs on the Sabbath. Then his clever one-liner.

But the one-liner doesn’t make sense. Why would the Son of Man (Jesus) be Lord of the Sabbath BECAUSE Sabbath was made for humans, not the other way around? In other words, when he says “therefore” the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, what is the “therefore” there for?

The logic doesn’t work in Greek (or English). But it would work in Aramaic. That’s because in Aramaic the word for “man” and the word for “son of man” are the same word: “Bar enash” (could be translated either way). And so what Jesus said was: “Sabbath was made for bar enash, not bar enash for the Sabbath; therefore bar enash is lord of the Sabbath.” Now it makes sense. The saying was originally transmitted in Aramaic, and when translated into Greek, the translator decided to make the final statement about Jesus, not about humans.

Reality Check: Jesus Existed

Christianity did not make a big impact on Aramaic-speaking Palestine. The vast majority of Jews in the homeland did not accept Christianity or want anything to do with it. There were not thousands of storytellers there passing on Christian traditions. There were some, of course, especially in Jerusalem.

But the fact that these stories based on Aramaic are scattered throughout our sources suggests that they were in circulation relatively early in the tradition. Most of these are thought to go back to the early decade or two (probably the earliest decade) of transmission. [bolding added] You cannot argue that Jesus was made up by some Greek-speaking Christian after Paul’s letters, for example.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics