[Old Man G Funk]

The professors I’ve been listening to don’t limit their sources to only the canonical Texts.

The sources don't really matter when it comes to the assumptions made before the sources. Do we assume Jesus existed or don't we? It's only recently that people have begun to look at this stuff with the attitude that Jesus might not have existed vs. assuming that he did.

Really, before Q, M, L…………..those were the sources for those Gospels.

It was my understanding that Paul's letters are the first Christian writings we have (around 50 CE). I could be wrong, however.

The purpose of independent attestation is to filter those modifications out from sources that were not eye witnesses.

Correct, but only if they are truly independent.

Or that they attest to the same event that actually happened. As to them not written independently, that is the case for Matthew and Luke, but not for Mark and John.

Matthew and Luke were certainly cribbed and I'm glad we can agree on that. One of them was written first, so it was not cribbed. The last might not have been, but two problems still arise. The single editor may have done some editing and the problem with hearsay is that if the story gets around, people can retell it as if they were there and have firsthand knowledge, but they are still retelling someone else's story.

I would disagree that the earliest manuscripts we have all had a “single” editor.

Someone (or some group, but that doesn't really change the argument) put them all together into a single book. Some accounts were included, others were not.

How could John “crib” from the other Gospel writers when a) his Gospel was different from the synoptic and b) he was in an isolated community in Asia Minor when he wrote his Gospel. How could Mark crib from anyone, his was first?

Yes, Mark was the first, so others would have come from him. John may not have been cribbed, I'll grant you that, but the other problems (see above) still arise.

Since it’s not one historians consider I don’t see it as valid. Unless of course you’re a Phd Bible scholar then I might consider it………..LOL

If they don't, they should take it into account. Do you automatically throw things out? No, but you should take it into account.

Dr. Ehrman mentioned Tacticus in a lecture I heard the other day on this subject……….but I’ll double check that.

Please do. Obviously I do have some interest in this area.

My point was not to lay out how one attains eternal life, my point was to point out the dissimilarity of the passage in Matthew to the generally accepted soterological method of Christianity.

I understand what you are saying now. It might count as a dissimilarity. Wasn't the Jewish philosophy of the time to do good deeds though? Perhaps it was an extension of that philosophy? It could have slipped by the editors who came from the Jewish tradition.

I couldn’t find one off the top of my head. However, contextually, Matthew seems to be the most “credible” of the Gospels from a Jewish point if view.

I was not aware of that. Is there a reason that it's considered to be the most "credible?"

I don’t think in that post I made that assumption, I stated that because the passages I cited “pass” the criteria I listed the probability and historical reliability of said passages definitely goes up.

If one can make those arguments, it does increase the probability, but there are still problems with those arguments. Also, better proof would be contemporary citations and records from the actual time frame.

I think the term historians use is critical examination rather than doubt.

That is probably correct. Pardon my imprecise language.

Keep in mind that it was not uncommon for rabbi’s with s’mikah (authority, which from the Gospels we see that He was [note: which would mean that we take the Gospels as actually what happened. So for this example and point I’m deviating from my purely historical perspective and switching to my Christian perspective – the comment being made is merely food for thought, not meant to be a hard and fast…..”yep I’ve just proved Jesus”]) to perform miracles and healings…….Jesus was a regular rabbi in that sense.

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble making out what you are saying here. Are you saying that Jesus was like any other rabbi in that they are all capable of performing miracles and healings? Or is it any rabbi with s'mikah that can do this? Was Jesus a regular rabbi or a regular rabbi with s'mikah?

Also, one thing that I've wanted to ask you about is this: you describe Jesus as a rabbi, yet the Christian tradition often refers to him as a carpenter. Didn't it take years of study for one to become a rabbi or a carpenter, so he would have been one or the other?

 

[fluff]

Also, one thing that I've wanted to ask you about is this: you describe Jesus as a rabbi, yet the Christian tradition often refers to him as a carpenter. Didn't it take years of study for one to become a rabbi or a carpenter, so he would have been one or the other?

C'mon Old Man, any fule kno that Jesus was actually an electrician.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

C'mon Old Man, any fule kno that Jesus was actually an electrician.

So, he invented tables and electricity? Man, dat cat was cool.

 

[fluff]

So, he invented tables and electricity? Man, dat cat was cool.

Don't forget the yo-yo.

Oh, and Christmas and Easter.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Don't forget the yo-yo.

Oh, and Christmas and Easter.

Wow....Is there anything he can't do?

I also heard that he invented hot rods.

 

[Andyman_1970]

The sources don't really matter when it comes to the assumptions made before the sources. Do we assume Jesus existed or don't we? It's only recently that people have begun to look at this stuff with the attitude that Jesus might not have existed vs. assuming that he did.

Again, using the critera listed from the sources we have at hand, the excepts from those sources that “pass” those criteria certainly raise the probability that Jesus (in some form) existed.

It was my understanding that Paul's letters are the first Christian writings we have (around 50 CE). I could be wrong, however.

I concur, however Q, M, L all predate the Gospels other than Mark.

Correct, but only if they are truly independent.

I concur.

Matthew and Luke were certainly cribbed and I'm glad we can agree on that. One of them was written first, so it was not cribbed. The last might not have been, but two problems still arise. The single editor may have done some editing and the problem with hearsay is that if the story gets around, people can retell it as if they were there and have firsthand knowledge, but they are still retelling someone else's story.

Matthew and Luke were either as you say cribbed from, or they shared a lot the same passages from Q.

Someone (or some group, but that doesn't really change the argument) put them all together into a single book. Some accounts were included, others were not.

Yeah sure, but I’m referring to all sources pre-cannon, including the Gospels that were canonized as well as the ones that weren’t. Late in the 1st century there wasn’t a single group editing the Texts.

Yes, Mark was the first, so others would have come from him. John may not have been cribbed, I'll grant you that, but the other problems (see above) still arise.

Yes historically I cited that passage from John that fails the contextual credibility critera.

If they don't, they should take it into account. Do you automatically throw things out? No, but you should take it into account.

I believe the established criteria I cited take this into account.

I understand what you are saying now. It might count as a dissimilarity. Wasn't the Jewish philosophy of the time to do good deeds though?

Yes but it was not how one attained eternal life………….that understanding is from Martin Luther.

Perhaps it was an extension of that philosophy? It could have slipped by the editors who came from the Jewish tradition.

It is related to that philosophy, the Jewish idea of eternal life was not just what happens after you die, but the kind of life you live now, that it would be in harmony with God, the environment, and others. Even for second Temple Jews “salvation” (to borrow a Christian term) was always grace through faith in God.

I was not aware of that. Is there a reason that it's considered to be the most "credible?"

It’s the most “Jewish” of the Gospels, you see a lot of rabbinic phrases and idioms used by Jesus in that Gospel as compared to the others. The use of “Kingdom of Heaven” is also indicative of writing to a Jewish audience (rather than use Kingdom of God)……..since Jesus and the disciples were Jewish it’s not much of a stretch to see that Matthew is pretty contextually credible.

I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble making out what you are saying here. Are you saying that Jesus was like any other rabbi in that they are all capable of performing miracles and healings? Or is it any rabbi with s'mikah that can do this? Was Jesus a regular rabbi or a regular rabbi with s'mikah?

Also, one thing that I've wanted to ask you about is this: you describe Jesus as a rabbi, yet the Christian tradition often refers to him as a carpenter. Didn't it take years of study for one to become a rabbi or a carpenter, so he would have been one or the other?

Sorry for my lack of clarification, I was wanting to “switch gears” in my Bible perspectives and didn’t want to get “called out” by you on some faith statement on some historical issue.

Anyway, Jesus was a rabbi with s’mikah. It was not uncommon for rabbi’s with s’mikah to perform miracles and heal (none raised anyone from the dead though). Keep in mind being itinerant in the 1st century as far as rabbi’s are concerned was the norm in second Temple Judaism. The way a rabbi would teach their students about the Torah and their yoke was not in a classroom, but out in the world. So as a disciple you would, in Jesus’ case go to the job site with him and as he worked you would learn about his yoke, when someone was being dishonest that was used as a time of learning. The Hebraic method of teaching is much different than the Greek/Western model we all grew up with. Good question though………..one I can actually answer…….LOL

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Again, using the critera listed from the sources we have at hand, the excepts from those sources that “pass” those criteria certainly raise the probability that Jesus (in some form) existed.

I still think that the assumptions lead one down a certain path. Do we start with, "Yes, he existed" and move towards proving it, or do we start with no assumption and gather the data independently of his existence?

I concur, however Q, M, L all predate the Gospels other than Mark.

I was not aware of that. I thought the gospels were next after Paul's letters.

The problem I still have with it is that the gospels are supposedly witness accounts, which should theoretically place them higher in importance than non-witness accounts, yet we see cribbing in the witness accounts? I honestly don't believe why some people think that the gospels were written by people who were there.

Yeah sure, but I’m referring to all sources pre-cannon, including the Gospels that were canonized as well as the ones that weren’t. Late in the 1st century there wasn’t a single group editing the Texts.

When do we see the first new testaments in more or less finished form? I don't think it is at the end of the 1st century. I believe the "separate" stories had to be compiled and put together and it happened later on. If memory serves, it might not have happened until the conversion of the roman emperor? I could be completely wrong about that though (Old Man memory not as good as it used to be.)

I believe the established criteria I cited take this into account.

I'm not convinced. I think there was a lot of time in there for the story of Jesus to become folklore and pass to a lot of people. I'm not sure we can resolve this one though unless we find more data.

Yes but it was not how one attained eternal life………….that understanding is from Martin Luther.

It may count (as I think I said before) and it may have been an oversight. To be honest, I'm not sure.

It is related to that philosophy, the Jewish idea of eternal life was not just what happens after you die, but the kind of life you live now, that it would be in harmony with God, the environment, and others. Even for second Temple Jews “salvation” (to borrow a Christian term) was always grace through faith in God.

Perchance it was simply extolling that same philosophy?

It’s the most “Jewish” of the Gospels, you see a lot of rabbinic phrases and idioms used by Jesus in that Gospel as compared to the others. The use of “Kingdom of Heaven” is also indicative of writing to a Jewish audience (rather than use Kingdom of God)……..since Jesus and the disciples were Jewish it’s not much of a stretch to see that Matthew is pretty contextually credible.

Interesting, thank you.

Sorry for my lack of clarification, I was wanting to “switch gears” in my Bible perspectives and didn’t want to get “called out” by you on some faith statement on some historical issue.

Anyway, Jesus was a rabbi with s’mikah. It was not uncommon for rabbi’s with s’mikah to perform miracles and heal (none raised anyone from the dead though). Keep in mind being itinerant in the 1st century as far as rabbi’s are concerned was the norm in second Temple Judaism. The way a rabbi would teach their students about the Torah and their yoke was not in a classroom, but out in the world. So as a disciple you would, in Jesus’ case go to the job site with him and as he worked you would learn about his yoke, when someone was being dishonest that was used as a time of learning. The Hebraic method of teaching is much different than the Greek/Western model we all grew up with. Good question though………..one I can actually answer…….LOL

So, rabbis taught through an apprenticeship sort of system, correct? That's exactly how carpentry was taught. I would venture to say that once one got into an apprenticeship, that was it. You would be an apprentice then "graduate" to workman or rabbi and that was what you did. So, I'm still wondering why Jesus was both a rabbi and a carpenter.

 

[Andyman_1970]

I still think that the assumptions lead one down a certain path. Do we start with, "Yes, he existed" and move towards proving it, or do we start with no assumption and gather the data independently of his existence?

One thing Dr. Ehrman emphasized is that he was approaching the sources from a purely historical perspective and not from that of one of a person of faith, like every lecture in that series. Anyway, what I’m presenting here is info from his lectures alone.

When do we see the first new testaments in more or less finished form? I don't think it is at the end of the 1st century. I believe the "separate" stories had to be compiled and put together and it happened later on. If memory serves, it might not have happened until the conversion of the roman emperor? I could be completely wrong about that though (Old Man memory not as good as it used to be.)

Since as you say a single document wasn’t until the 4th century, that would have been when a single “editor” kicked in. The sources I’ve been citing or referencing are late 1st or early 2nd century well before the “editor” kicked in.

So, rabbis taught through an apprenticeship sort of system, correct? That's exactly how carpentry was taught. I would venture to say that once one got into an apprenticeship, that was it. You would be an apprentice then "graduate" to workman or rabbi and that was what you did. So, I'm still wondering why Jesus was both a rabbi and a carpenter.

To be able to answer this I need to explain the educational system for a 1st century Jewish boy. At the age of 5 Jewish boys and girls would go to the local synagogue for school, this level if education was called bet sefer, this lasted until the student was 10 years old. Boys would memorize the Torah, and girls would memorize Deuteronomy, Exodus and the Psalms (they were the worship leaders at home).

Starting at 10 years old the student would enter bet Talmud, this would last until the age of around 15. Here the student would memorize the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Oral Torah, and start to learn the practice of rabbinic questions and answers. In the Gospel of Luke chapter 2 we see Jesus in the Temple asking questions and answering questions from the rabbi’s….and their amazed. This would have been when Jesus was in bet Talmud learning that kind of stuff. Also in bet Talmud at home the student would be learning the family trade, this when Jesus most likely learned about carpentry.

Starting at the age of 15, a student would “apply” to a rabbi to be their talmidim (disciple), this was called bet midrash. This is where the student would learn how to interpret the Torah, and learn the interpretation of their rabbi. It’s crazy how many people on the Christian forum I post on have a cow when I suggest Jesus was once a disciple Himself………..it’s really too funny.

At the age of 30 is typically when a talmidim would “graduate” as a rabbi. As I said earlier the majority of rabbi’s were itinerate and had a trade that paid the bills. Rabbi’s also could not accept money for their teaching as such they depended on the hospitality of others as they were traveling and teaching (which flies in the face of Word of Faith teachings that Jesus was rich).

So Jesus was a rabbi and used His carpentry to pay the bills, much like Paul (also a rabbi) was a tent maker to pay the bills.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

One thing Dr. Ehrman emphasized is that he was approaching the sources from a purely historical perspective and not from that of one of a person of faith, like every lecture in that series. Anyway, what I’m presenting here is info from his lectures alone.

The historical tradition, however, has been dominated by people that have simply assumed Jesus's historicity up until just recently. If Ehrman is truly taking a more critical approach, then kudos to him.

Since as you say a single document wasn’t until the 4th century, that would have been when a single “editor” kicked in. The sources I’ve been citing or referencing are late 1st or early 2nd century well before the “editor” kicked in.

If the originals really survived the editing process. Maybe they did, do we know for sure?

To be able to answer.....

That's actually very interesting, thank you. Did their system have compulsory schooling for all children, like ours does now? Also, was the schooling a full time thing like what we see now, or was it weekends, days of worship, etc.?

 

[Andyman_1970]

If the originals really survived the editing process. Maybe they did, do we know for sure?

I believe there are manuscripts from a good portion of the New Testament predate 390 AD.

That's actually very interesting, thank you. Did their system have compulsory schooling for all children, like ours does now? Also, was the schooling a full time thing like what we see now, or was it weekends, days of worship, etc.?

In Galilee schooling was “mandatory”, Galilee was like the central point for orthodox Judaism in the 1st century. A typical Galileans literacy was way beyond those who lived in Judea and Jerusalem even those who lived in Judea and Jerusalem considered the Galileans to be “rednecks” of sorts. They would attend school 6 days a week, and I believe bet sefer was like only a half day as the rest of the day was spend at home learning as well.

 

[SK6]

Truth be told, Jesus was simply a carpenter, and the son of man. Any added fluff directly goes against the teachings of the son of man.

For you non Christians, Jesus WAS the son of God made flesh...period! Died for our sins so we can have salvation. It is quite simply as simple as that.

For you Christians, has it ever occurred to you that your overzealousness is actually driving non-believers away from Christ? or is your stance so self righteous that the originally intended purpose of what Christ taught so ambiguous thats it about you?

And to all, Christ said that the Evil One, quotes scripture with authority...

To prove my point, read the threads in response to my commentary...

 

[skinny mike]

i wonder how much an authentic jesus coffee table would go for on ebay.

 

[Westy]

i wonder how much an authentic jesus coffee table would go for on ebay.

More than an authentic Madonna bra, but not as much as an original Michael Jackson nose.

 

[SK6]

Hey, I saw Jesus in my Les Paul...who wants to offer me a $100,000,000.00 for it?

 

[SK6]

Any cool christmas plans for everyone?

 

[kinghami3]

Actually getting to go home for Christmas break has me excited.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

In Galilee schooling was “mandatory”, Galilee was like the central point for orthodox Judaism in the 1st century. A typical Galileans literacy was way beyond those who lived in Judea and Jerusalem even those who lived in Judea and Jerusalem considered the Galileans to be “rednecks” of sorts. They would attend school 6 days a week, and I believe bet sefer was like only a half day as the rest of the day was spend at home learning as well.

Thanks for the info.

 

[MudGrrl]

Any cool christmas plans for everyone?

I'm planning to take G Funk to the woods of upstate NY and take advantage of him

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I'm planning to take G Funk to the woods of upstate NY and take advantage of him

Touchdown!

 

[MudGrrl]

Touchdown!

I don't know if you'd consider it a touchdown when I pull out the whip and tie you to a tree..............



check it out...I am now a "Turbo Monkey"

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I don't know if you'd consider it a touchdown when I pull out the whip and tie you to a tree..............

LPFC! LPFC! LPFC!

 

[MudGrrl]

you only get to participate if you are a lesbian.

So... here's the test to determine membership:


-Do you like women?
-Would you tie them up?

Write a short paragraph why you should be a member of the LPFC...

 

[Old Man G Funk]

you only get to participate if you are a lesbian.

So... here's the test to determine membership:


-Do you like women?

Hellz yeah. The more the better!

-Would you tie them up?

I've done it before and I'll do it again!

Write a short paragraph why you should be a member of the LPFC...

What do you call a lesbian dinosaur? Lickalotapuss.

Do I get in?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Truth be told, Jesus was simply a carpenter, and the son of man.

You wouldn't ask a carpenter in the 1st century to settle disputes of inheritance, you wouldn't ask a carpenter how one attains eternal life, and you wouldn't ask a carpenter what was the most important command of Torah................you would however ask a rabbi these questions.

Jesus is referred to as "rabbi" to His face and doesn't refute what they call Him, nor does anyone in the Gospels call Him by "carpenter" that I'm aware of.

Any added fluff directly goes against the teachings of the son of man....

So Jesus wasn't a human that entered into a real culture at a real time in a real place?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Any cool christmas plans for everyone?

Yeah we'll be in East TN for the holidays visiting my mom and all my brothers and sisters.............so that will be cool.