No you twisted them because you did not like the opinion I have. I was asking politely what research he had done so as to know which researcher's work he was familiar with. I also then made very clear that his question requires reconsidering some of the conclusions he has drawn, this is because the traditional conservative opinion offers no answers as to why there was a lapse of many years between the orthodoxy's date for Jesus' death and the writing of the Gospels. I made very clear that my post was my opinion based upon my research. If you knew anything about this research you would appreciate the complexities of the matter yet would value the opinion of someone who had begun it before you, as I do other posters with greater knowledge and familiarity with the issues.
What happened between Jesus death & the gospels being written?
by yaddayadda 52 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
yaddayadda
I've decided to read the following books in my quest to get the truth (see below). Witherington seems the least scholarly and Meiers work the most daunting by far, but the quest for truth will be worth it in the long run.
At the end of the day we can't prove definitely one way or the other how much of the gospels is true or not but I at least want to weigh up the evidence on the balance of probabilities, without working from the a priori assumption that miracles are impossible and hence the gospels are fictions, which seems to be the case of many on this website, most of whom appear to have renounced faith in God and are hence predisposed to accepting and defending anything critical of the historicity of the bible. As I unquestionably believe in a creator I have no problem with accepting that the miracles and resurrection could indeed have happened as described in the gospels if all the other lines of evidence to assert them as true historical documents all stack up.
Who Was Jesus? (Paperback)
by N. T. Wright
A New Perspective On Jesus: What The Quest For The Historical Jesus Missed
by James D. G. Dunn. Dunn argues, against more liberal/skeptical scholarship, that the similarities and differences in the synoptic gospels are best explained by oral transmission of these events and teachings in the early church.
The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Paperback)
by Ben, III Witherington
A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vols 1, 2 & 3 (Hardcover)
by John P. Meier "The historical Jesus is not the real Jesus..." -
free2beme
Basically, it was a time in which legend was born and put down on paper to become religion. Everything I have ever read, that showed me otherwise was written by someone with the bias attempt to want to prove Christianity right, as it was their faith of choice. Just remember, the bible is the approved books of the day and not the only ones. There are many more missing, that would enlighten people to see how much of it was legend and without common threads. Yet if you took all these books, stories, etc and only kept the ones that you felt promoted a belief you wanted, then that is the core to Christianity and the Bible.
-
yaddayadda
Free2beme: "Everything I have ever read, that showed me otherwise was written by someone with the bias attempt to want to prove Christianity right, as it was their faith of choice. Just remember, the bible is the approved books of the day and not the only ones. There are many more missing, that would enlighten people to see how much of it was legend and without common threads."
(Sorry, can't put the above in quotes as this website isn't very compatible with Mozilla firefox)
It's impossible to approach the subject with total objectivity...everyone brings their biases, favouritism, predispositions, justifications. Sceptics and atheists say that Christians accept the gospels because of a type of wishful thinking, but the Christians say that the sceptics only deny them because they don't want the moral responsibility that goes with believing. Who has the stronger motive to accept or deny? I don't know. Admittedly all the authors of the books I'm going to read are apparently Christians; but I intend to research the 'Jesus seminar' side of the story as well, don't worry about that. On the question of historicity, it's my understanding that there have been independent historians and scholars with no apparent agenda who have declared the gospels and Pauline writings as meeting all the standard criteria and tests for declaring ancient documents as historical or not. In fact, I've read that many have said that the gospels are much better attested than any other writings of antiquity, certainly in terms of the sheer volume of manuscripts available and how far back they go. There is really only one thing that causes people to reject the gospels, and it's not whether they have an essential core layer of historical truth. Practically all sceptical scholars at least admit there is at least a certain layer of truth in them (the question is how deep is that layer). What puts people off acceptingthe gospels as genuine is that they contain miracles. I can understand scepticism about believing claims of miracles two thousand years ago when no ones seen any ever since. That's natural scepticism. Even Thomas refused to believe in the resurrection until he had tangible proof before his own eyes. The point is if you take away the miracles there would be no question that they are historical.
I'm sure that there are a range of mythological writings comtemporaneous with the gospels, but those documents clearly stand out as mythological for a number of reasons. From the snapshots of research I've gained so far, most scholars state that the gospels are different in a number of important ways from contemporaneous mythological writings, but that's something I need to really research thoroughly, as I intend to...... -
Narkissos
yaddayadda
There is really only one thing that causes people to reject the gospels, and it's not whether they have an essential core layer of historical truth. Practically all sceptical scholars at least admit there is at least a certain layer of truth in them (the question is how deep is that layer). What puts people off acceptingthe gospels as genuine is that they contain miracles. I can understand scepticism about believing claims of miracles two thousand years ago when no ones seen any ever since.
I disagree with this presupposition of yours -- which reflects a common apologist's strawman, namely that Bible criticism is essentially based on the unproved naturalistic assumption that the so-called "supernatural" doesn't exist / happen. While this can be true of late 19th / early 20th scholarship in some cases, it is hardly a fair assessment of current scholarship.
First, ancient historiography obviously didn't share this modern assumption: the works of ancient historians (Josephus or Greek and Roman historians) didn't cringe from miracles, omens, prophecies etc. The presence of the "supernatural" per se doesn't disqualify an ancient work as "historical" in intent or actuality. How such "history" must be interpreted by a modern reader is another matter.
You will find that the picture of Jesus as a "miracle-worker" (or magician, if you will) has been taken very seriously by advocates of a historical Jesus in the last 30 years or so (Meier is a good example of that). Instead of considering it a late embellishment of an original miracle-free Jesus, they tend to consider the magical overtones of the miracles of Jesus in Mark or John, for instance (implying Aramaic formulae, gestures like spitting, etc.) as belonging to the earliest historical traditions about Jesus. The later developments in Matthew and Luke, or in John's theological discourses, actually tone down the earlier magical aspects.
What is much more problematic to the perspective of a historical Jesus is the literary analysis of the stories, whether they involve "supernature" or not: when miracles or parables alike can be verbally traced back to earlier writings, one may question whether (or to what extent) they need to reflect real events. This -- not the miracles per se -- is the real problem for the advocates of a "historical Jesus". A good and easy read from this perspective is Robert M. Price's The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.
-
yaddayadda
Ok, I see what you are saying Narkissos. Your comments seem reasonable enough. I've seen that 'the incredible shrinking jesus' book advertised and might buy that too. Actually, recently I found a website www.christianorigins.com and was reading an article by a Christopher Price that echoes your comments, ie, that nearly all scholars admit that the miracle accounts can be traced back to the earliest stages and that Jesus was viewed as a miracle worker. (The next step in the process, like you say, is to test the extent that the miracle accounts may be traced back to pre-Christian origins). Here are some quotes from the article:
V. The Assessment of Critical Scholarship
For all of the above reasons, modern scholarship has concluded that Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker originated with Jesus himself. His contemporary followers believed that Jesus was performing miracles in their midst. See B.L. Blackburn, "Miracles and Miracle Stories" (in Jesus and the Gospels, p. 556), "Among NT scholars there is almost universal agreement that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcisms." Many of these scholars, though, would not concede that Jesus actually performed supernatural feats. For example, though Fredriksen believes Jesus healed the sick, she also is adamant that she "does not believe that God occasionally suspends the operation of what Hume called 'natural law.'" Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 114. Nevertheless, placing the origin of Jesus' miracles with Jesus himself is a significant historical conclusion. As such, I provide here a demonstrative sampling of respected scholars and their conclusions on the subject:
• "Any fair reading of the Gospels and other ancient sources (including Josephus) inexorably leads to the conclusion that Jesus was well known in his time as a healer and exorcist. The miracle stories are now treated seriously and are widely accepted by Jesus scholars as deriving from Jesus' ministry. Several specialized studies have appeared in recent years, which conclude that Jesus did things that were viewed as 'miracles'." B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, pp. 11-12 (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998).
• "[T]he tradition that Jesus did perform exorcisms and healings (which may also have been exorcisms originally) is very strong." R.H. Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles, p. 39.
• "[B]y far the deepest impression Jesus made upon his contemporaries was as an exorcist and a healer. . . . In any case he was not only believed to possess some quite special curative gifts but evidently, in some way or other he actually possessed them." Michael Grant, An Historian's Review of the Gospels, pp. 31, 35.
• "Yes, I think that Jesus probably did perform deeds that contemporaries viewed as miracles." Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 114.
• "There is no doubt that Jesus worked miracles, healed the sick and cast out demons." Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, p. 277.
• "In most miracle stories no explanation at all is given; Jesus simply speaks or acts and the miracle is done by his personal power. This trait probably reflects historical fact." Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 101.
• "There is agreement on the basic facts: Jesus performed miracles, drew crowds and promised the kingdom to sinners." E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, p. 157.
• "Yes, we can be sure that Jesus performed real signs which were interpreted by his contemporaries as experiences of an extraordinary power." H. Hendrickx, The Miracle Stories and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 22.
• "That Jesus performed deeds that were perceived as miracles by both him and his audience is difficult to doubt." Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, page 155.
• "[W]e must be clear that Jesus' contemporaries, both of those who became his followers and those who were determined not to become his followers, certainly regarded him as possessed of remarkable powers." Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God , p. 187.
• "[T]he tradition of Jesus' miracles has too many unusual features to be conveniently ascribed to conventional legend-mongering. Moreover, many of them contain details of precise reporting which is quite unlike the usual run of legends and is difficult to explain unless it derives from some historical recollection; and the gospels themselves show a remarkable restraint in their narratives which contrasts strangely with that delight in the miraculous for its own sake which normally characterizes the growth of legend." A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 100.
VI. Conclusion
The miracle stories of Jesus originated very early, contained reports not likely to have been created by early Christians, and cohere well with the rest of what we know about Jesus and his ministry. The best explanation for this evidence is that Jesus was known during his life as a miracle worker. The uniqueness of such miracle working adds significant weight to this conclusion and leads us to the further conclusion that the feats of Jesus must have been impressive. Though, as Carrier points out, Jesus lived in a time of superstition and religiosity, his miracles are uniquely attested. No other person of that time period has anything close to the attestation Jesus receives as a miracle worker. Accordingly, even if your philosophical predispositions preclude you from believing that Jesus actually performed miracles that violated the laws of nature, it should be admitted that he performed feats that convinced his contemporaries that he did such deeds. -
Narkissos
It is clear from the NT itself that "miracles" (exorcisms, healings, etc.) were expected from "men of God / the gods" in several circles, Jewish and Gentile alike (cf. Apollonius of Tyana). In themselves they are not distinctive of Jesus. They are found among the Pharisees (Matthew 12:27//), Jewish disciples associated with the "apostolic" group (Matthew 10:1//) or not (Mark 9:38f//), Hellenistic-Pauline Christianity (Matthew 7:21ff; 1 Corinthians 12:10; Galatians 3:5; Hebrews 2:4). On the other hand it was not a universal expectation: John the Baptist was not known as a miracle-worker according to John 10:41.
Miracles could be ascribed to a historical character as well as to a fictional one. So as a whole they have little bearing on the issue of the "historical Jesus".
-
Leolaia
I would also suggest looking at distinguishing different genres of miracles and looking at some have OT models as opposed to others (e.g. multiplication of loaves vs. exorcisms), and which works are shared with other charismatic movements of the day...You may notice certain patterns pertaining to the literary function of these stories. For instance, there is a Moses typology in the early chapters of John (cf. John 1:17 = Exodus 34:10, 32; 1:45 = Deuteronomy 18:18; 3:13-14 = Numbers 21:4-9; 4:1-7; 5:18 = Exodus 2:15-17; 5:45-46 = Deuteronomy 31:26; 6:31-32 = Exodus 16:4-36; cf. also 9:29), with the miracles forming a key part of it....hence, the language used to describe them matches the language used in Exodus LXX (i.e. both Moses and Jesus performed (epoiésen) the signs (ta sémeia) and people believed in him (episteusan eis auton), Exodus 4:30-31, 14:31 LXX, John 2:11, 20:30-31; in fact, the word pisteuó as applied to Moses is explicitly compared to pisteuó in the case of Jesus in 5:46), and so it is not surprising that the first "sign" parallels the first plague in Egypt, which involved the transformation of water into blood (= wine), including water in jars (cf. Exodus 7:17, 19-21), and in which there is a reversal of the tasting motif.
A useful book I have used is Francis Martin's Narrative Parrallels to the New Testament which puts together paralleled stories from the OT, rabbinical literature, and Hellenistic sources. There you can see at a glance the kinds of stories attributed to other rabbis and to kings, emperors, and other miracle workers. Let me cite a few at random:
"Our masters taught: It happened that the son of Rabbi Gamaliel fell sick. He sent out two disciples to Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa to ask mercy for him. As soon as Hanina saw them he mounted to an upper room and asked mercy for him. When he came down, he said to them, 'Go, for the fever has left him' " (b. Berakot 34b).
"Rabbi Hanina had a neighbor who once said to him: 'I have built a house but the beams will not reach the walls.' He said to her: 'What is your name?' She said to him: 'Aiku.' He said to her: 'Aiku, that you beams may stretch!' They projected one cubit on either side. Some say new pieces joined themselves perfectly to the beams" (b. Ta'anit 25a).
"Rabbi Aqiba ben Joseph and I, Rabbi Eliezer were walking together on a road. He said to me: 'My master, teach me about the planting of cucumbers.' I said one command and the whole field was filled with cucumbers. He said to me: 'Master, you have taught me how to plant them, now teach me how to pick them.' I said one command, and all the cucumbers were gathered in one place" (b. Sanhedrin 68a).
"Rabbi Gamaliel was travelling in a ship when a wave arose to drown him. He said: 'It seems to me that this is on account of none other than Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyracanus.' He arose and said: 'Sovereign of the Universe, it is known to you that I have not acted for my honor, nor for the honor of my father's house, but for your honor, that strife may not be multiplied in Israel.' At that, the sea subsided" (b. Baba Mesi'a 59b).
"Ben Temalion [a demon] entered the Emperor's daughter. When Rabbi Simeon arrived, he said: 'Ben Temalion leave her, Ben Tamlion leave her.' And as he said this, he left her' " (b. Me'ila 17b).
"A servant of Antionius was on the point of dying and the latter sent a message to the rabbi saying, 'Send me one of your disciples that he may revive this dying man.' He sent to him one of his disciples, some say it was Rabbi Simeon ben Halafta, who went and found the man lying down. He said to him, 'How is it that you were lying down while your master is standing on his feet?' Immediately, the man shook violently and rose" (Leviticus Rabbah 10.4).
"Vespasian himself healed two persons, one having a withered hand (cf. Mark 3:1-6) and the other being blind, who had come to him because of a vision seen in dreams; he cured the one by stepping on his hand and the other by spitting into his eyes (cf. Mark 7:33)" (Dio Cassius, Roman History 65.8).
"A man of the people who was blind and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel" (Suetonius, Vespasian 8.7).
"A certain woman came who had gone blind and came before Hadrian ... and received her sight after she had bathed her eyes with the water in the temple (cf. John 9:7) from which she had come. Also a blind man from Pannonia came to Hadrian when he was ill with fever, and he touched him, whereupon the man received his sight and the fever left Hadrian" (Aelius of Sparta, Life of Hadrian 25.1-4).
-
gumby
Totally off topic....but I just fell outta love with Leolaia cuz of her new avatar pic I just saw
Gumby
-
Leolaia
Oh come now! It's freaking hilarious. Maybe it should get submitted to The Smoking Gun. ;)