NT Reliability

[PaulS]

 

17 minutes ago, thormas said:

Additionally, there is no incongruity because the gist apparently does not include dialogue. Even, for example, when mention is made of Jesus' use of parables, are specific parables or the specific 'words' of parables included as gist? 

There is incongruity.  You quite rightly say we can't know if the words of Jesus are accurate in the Gospels (or even if whole stories came from Jesus or not), but we can know that the gist of Jesus is accurate.  Why?  Because Mark could be wrong about Jesus' words and messages, but can only be right about Jesus' gist?  Anyway, this is really going nowhere.  I was just pointing out that I don't believe Rom was trolling and thought he was making a valid point.  Surrogate?  Maybe so, I could well be misunderstanding Rom.  I'm open to that.  

23 minutes ago, thormas said:

I side with Ehrman and Allison on this. It is just a tad amazing that you seem to not appreciate what Ehrman, in particular, has been saying about the gospels (above) and thereafter utilizes them to arrive at the accepted gist material. 

I'm amazed that you're amazed.  I have said several times now that I believe Erhman is speaking in a different context than what you are claiming.   I completely appreciate what Erhman is saying - but for what I think it is and not for what you keep claiming it to be.  I don't think Erhman is claiming any gist of Jesus to be based on actual connection to Jesus but rather, he points out that it comes from the only material we have and so this is currently the only way we know of to view Jesus.  It is the only gist available to us because there simply is nothing else surviving.  From other articles, blog posts and books I I have read of Erhman I think he would say that that gist could be off the mark or there could be more to it or there could be less to it - but we simply don't know because we don't have anything more.  From what we do have it is clear there were differing views about Jesus and his teachings, but precisely what those were is difficult to guess because although they may be referenced in say Paul's letters, we don't actually have those difference spelt out for us anywhere.

[thormas]

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

There is incongruity.  You quite rightly say we can't know if the words of Jesus are accurate in the Gospels (or even if whole stories came from Jesus or not), but we can know that the gist of Jesus is accurate.  Why?  Because Mark could be wrong about Jesus' words and messages, but can only be right about Jesus' gist?  Anyway, this is really going nowhere.  I was just pointing out that I don't believe Rom was trolling and thought he was making a valid point.  Surrogate?  Maybe so, I could well be misunderstanding Rom.  I'm open to that.  

Paul,

There is no incongruity concerning the actual topic that I was discussing: the trial of Jesus and the dialogue/words of that trial vs. the gist. The death of Jesus under Pilate is part of the gist and also, mentioned by Josephus, but the dialogue of the trial is not. Therefore pointing out what is not part of the gist, does not impact that there is gist material recognized by scholars and listed by Ehrman. Again your argument is with Ehrman and all the other critical scholars on the topic of the gist material about Jesus. 

"Because Mark could be wrong about Jesus' words and messages, but can only be right about Jesus' gist?" Yes! Wrong or 'creative' (?) with the words/dialogue and correct on the gist material regarding Jesus. It is also interesting to consider and determine if 'core beliefs' about Jesus are also reflected in the gospels as Hurtado demonstrates that they are in Paul. However, this demands some effort, some research rather than one liners or repeated opinion without attribution to back a position.

 

I have presented quotes, blogs and books from scholars to support a position (and when I felt I neglected information in a response to Joseph I posted again to include it).  I am open to additional information and willing to adjust my position (if necessary) but that requires more than one liners or mere opinion. I have repeatedly asked you for scholars that support your position on the gist or that refute Hurtado (or Allison): quotes, blogs, books, essays - and I am still waiting to be referred to those scholars who support your position.

 

If you or someone else wants to have a larger discussion about the words attributed to Jesus and the gist, I'm more than glad to engage.

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

1. I believe Erhman is speaking in a different context than what you are claiming.   

2. I completely appreciate what Erhman is saying - but for what I think it is and not for what you keep claiming it to be. 

3. I don't think Erhman is claiming any gist of Jesus to be based on actual connection to Jesus....... 

4. It is the only gist available to us because there simply is nothing else surviving. 

5. From other articles, blog posts and books I I have read of Erhman I think he would say that that gist could be off the mark or there could be more to it or there could be less to it ......

1. Here is the context from Ehrman himself:

"there are certain memories of Jesus that are extensively and thoroughly documented throughout our sources that are completely plausible and that do not appear to represent the biased perspectives of later Christian storytellers.  

These would be gist memories that provide a basic outline of what we can say about the historical Jesus.... 

 

2. I didn't claim anything, I simply quoted what Ehrman himself states!

 

3. These would be gist memories ..... of what we can say about the historical Jesus....  

Ehrman, refering to the NT gospel as sources, identifies gist memories about what we can say about the historical Jesus - an actual connection to Jesus - (and adds that most scholars agree).  

 

4. Ehrman knows as well as or better than most that the canonical gospels are what we have (all we have right now and perhaps forever) and he still states - that what is judged by scholars to be gist memories about the historical Jesus - are plausible and unbiased.

If it is plausible and unbiased in itself, then even if we discover another gospel and there might be more to know about the historical Jesus, that would not invalidate what is already judged to be plausible and unbiased information. And, although I don't know how another gospel would provide us with less. If it did lack information, it also would not take away from what was already judged plausible and unbiased. And if any new gospel contained contradictory information - it would still have to pass the same smell test and a judgement would have to be made if some of its material were also plausible and unbiased - and compared to the canonical material.

I say, if we discover more gospels, bring it on. How great, how much fun would that be? However, dealing with what we have - a judgement has been made that the NT sources contain plausible, unbiased 'materials' that link to the historical Jesus. 

If I am reading this wrong please give me chapter and verse to amend this position.

5. It is apparent that Ehrman will go to the mat on two things about the canonical gospels (see above) and included in that is his take on the gist memories in the gospels and their link to the historical Jesus. 

I await the specifics "from other articles, blog posts and books I (Paul) have read of Ehrman."  But, again and I ask sincerely, do you also have scholars other than Ehrman to whom I should refer, who agree with you?

Paul, you said "From what we do have it is clear there were differing views about Jesus and his teachings, but precisely what those were is difficult to guess .." I agree that there are some differences among the teachings of Jesus (at least in the setting, example the Sermon on the Mount if not the content or meaning), but his teachings are not listed in the gist memories (if I remember correctly). The gist is that which is not different from gospel to gospel, that which is plausible and that which is unbiased. 

 

[PaulS]

7 hours ago, thormas said:

Paul,

There is no incongruity concerning the actual topic that I was discussing: the trial of Jesus and the dialogue/words of that trial vs. the gist. The death of Jesus under Pilate is part of the gist and also, mentioned by Josephus, but the dialogue of the trial is not. Therefore pointing out what is not part of the gist, does not impact that there is gist material recognized by scholars and listed by Ehrman. Again your argument is with Ehrman and all the other critical scholars on the topic of the gist material about Jesus. 

I am talking about a broader incongruency concerning how you approach the matter of accuracy of gist vs accuracy of Jesus stories.  You seem happy to accept that Jesus stories could be made up, but not happy to consider that gist stories could be invented/creative/or miss the actual mark.

I should say, that if you are now restricting the gist of Jesus to that of Jospehus, I would agree with you - "A man named Jesus, preached and did suprising deeds, garnered followers, got killed by the authorities".  That gist I can roll with based on my own personal opinion.

As Erhman says in his book Did Jesus Exist - "Expert opinion is, at the end of the day, still opinion".  This cuts to my points about you defending the 'gist' you have presented from others.  Such can ONLY be based on current NT references, so in my opinion there is plenty pf room for error between what they present as the gist of Jesus and what actually happened.

This is the end of the road for me Thormas - we are going nowhere.

[thormas]

4 hours ago, PaulS said:

I am talking about a broader incongruency concerning how you approach the matter of accuracy of gist vs accuracy of Jesus stories.  You seem happy to accept that Jesus stories could be made up, but not happy to consider that gist stories could be invented/creative/or miss the actual mark.

I should say, that if you are now restricting the gist of Jesus to that of Jospehus, I would agree with you - "A man named Jesus, preached and did suprising deeds, garnered followers, got killed by the authorities".  That gist I can roll with based on my own personal opinion.

As Erhman says in his book Did Jesus Exist - "Expert opinion is, at the end of the day, still opinion".  This cuts to my points about you defending the 'gist' you have presented from others.  Such can ONLY be based on current NT references, so in my opinion there is plenty pf room for error between what they present as the gist of Jesus and what actually happened.

This is the end of the road for me Thormas - we are going nowhere.

First, my initial comment was specific to the trial before Pilate - no incongruity.

Second, a consideration of the historicity of the gist material and the historicity of specific words, entire dialogues or specific settings for those dialogues is a larger conversation. If someone wants to broaden to that conversation it might help to start with more than a one liner, a line taken out of context or just an opinion. Reference to some scholarly sources gives others the opportunity to read and consider a position. Though obviously not a requirement (or needed for all subjects) it can help on a topic like this - if that is the point of a post. Or perhaps some are just interested in 'gotcha moments' or trolling. Never helpful, always boring.

Third, now you accept Josephus and we know the death of Jesus under Pilate is found in the gospels. Ehrman states the gist (see above), "......represents a “true memory” of the past."  So if you accept Josephus on Pilate as historically accurate then, logically, you must also acknowledge that this same material, found in the gospels and included in Ehrman's gist list does indeed represent a true (historical) memory of a past event in the life of the man Jesus. We therefore have an example from the gospels that there are (appear to be) true memories of Jesus that are historically accurate. 

Fourth, end of the road? Going nowhere?  Where are all the scholars and references I repeatedly asked for? 

Okay, we have one. However, even the Ehrman quote needs more: what is he talking about; is it said specifically about gist material in the gospels; how does it compare with what he said about about 'true memory' in the gospels; how does this quote connect to or contrast with his statement that "we have a “good idea” about what the authors wrote. (and) That’s a working assumption because it really does work?"  These last statement are about the canonical gospels from the final quarter of the 1st C, but then Ehrman, and other critical scholars, look at what those authors wrote and based on their study and research, list true memories of the past - memories that are of the historical Jesus.  The expert opinions overwhelmingly agree that the 'gist list' represents true memories of the past of and about Jesus (and remember the list is pretty bare bones and does not include dialogue). Are there other opinions, expert or otherwise that disagree? If you disagree, where is it specifically that you disagree and what are the reasons, based on what, that you find Ehrman and these expert opinions wrong? 

 

Edited October 26, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

On 10/23/2019 at 7:11 AM, thormas said:

Exactly. As I have mentioned prior to that post, Rom has a tendency to ask others to do the work

I have to do the work to get a yes or no answer from you?

Incidentally, my appendix and I have decided to do an unamical separation. 

From the confines of the local regional hospital.

Edited October 26, 2019 by romansh

[thormas]

49 minutes ago, romansh said:

I have to do the work to get a yes or no answer from you?

Incidentally, my appendix have decided to do an unamical separation. 

From the confines of the local regional hospital.

Well, first, I hope you have a speedy recovery.

And second, you will have to do more work to have a 'real' dialogue on the subject. What do you think and why and what and who (references) are you basing your position on?

I'll be waiting:+}

 

[romansh]

Based on your opinions of Ehrman has opinions about what ancients scribes wrote about what they thought or plain fabricated.

My point is, it is time to go back to the drawing board.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

My point is, it is time to go back to the drawing board.

Well that's helpful. Not!

But I do appreciate all the work you have put into it and all the research you have done :+}

[romansh]

How do you know it is not helpful?

[thormas]

25 minutes ago, romansh said:

How do you know it is not helpful?

how do you know it is.......

[romansh]

1 minute ago, thormas said:

how do you know it is.......

I never claimed it is. But we can have a more meaningful conversation ab0ut what we can bring to the table from modernity. And not just our opinions of what are the opinions of scholars of what they think ancient scribes thought/plagiarized/fictionalized about a person who might not existed. We can move pat the gist. The real world is here and now.

 

Use it.

 

But that takes real work does it not?

[thormas]

3 hours ago, romansh said:

I never claimed it is. But we can have a more meaningful conversation ab0ut what we can bring to the table from modernity. And not just our opinions of what are the opinions of scholars of what they think ancient scribes thought/plagiarized/fictionalized about a person who might not existed. We can move pat the gist. The real world is here and now. Use it. But that takes real work does it not?

If you suggest it and you don't even know or suspect it could be helpful - it puts your entire drawing board suggestion in question.

Is it your opinion that all ancient writings or insights are unworthy of the consideration and study of critical scholars and interested non-scholars? Have you decided on an exact century when such writings became relevant? How did you decide on when, what and whom are relevant and irrelevant?  

Isn't the gist simply 'material' about Jesus that is judged to have happened (i.e. it is historical) based on how scholars make such determinations? The gist holds historical relevance but it doesn't truly focus on matters of Christian faith and beliefs - which holds the greatest meaning for Christians. So, what's the issue - exactly? Do you have historical information that indicates Jesus wasn't a Jew, or wasn't from Nazareth, or wasn't known as a teacher, didn't have conflicts with religious authorities, wasn't crucified 'under' Pilate - or better yet, never existed?  Do you have an issue with a particular biblical scholar methodology; do you have scholars who refute these methods or results that have influenced your present position and that we can also consider? 

Merely because one is familiar with history or merely because one holds particular beliefs about God, life, ethics, the 'teachings' of ancient religious figures, etc. - it doesn't follow that they don't live in the real world or have any less an understanding of life or how to navigate it. 

I have already done the work as evident in the posts of this topic. So take a spin Rom and do the research, make the argument, show the reasons why the methods and research of the biblical scholars is wrong, why the gist is wrong, why Jesus didn't exist and then show how all the present (lets make it simple) progressive Christians do not know or live or impact the real world here and now.

Do it...............do the work rather than throw out one liners and talk of drawing boards - do something............

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

Yes thormas  …  you do something with your gists. Tell us what we should do with them now that we have them.

[thormas]

8 hours ago, romansh said:

Yes thormas  …  you do something with your gists. Tell us what we should do with them now that we have them.

First, it's not my gist which you should have picked up by now if you read the previous posts.

Second, acknowledging the historicity of gist material isn't the same as the faith decision: 'what we should do' is an individual decision.

Third, once again, you ask another to do the work - thus affirming my earlier comment.

 

Edited October 28, 2019 by thormas

[PaulS]

On 10/26/2019 at 11:38 AM, thormas said:

First, my initial comment was specific to the trial before Pilate - no incongruity.

I know your initial comment was specific to the trial before Pilate - you have said that several times now.  If you need to be right about this point then let me say that it is completely recognized and understood that your initial comment was only referring to Jesus trial before Pilate.  So moving on, as I have said a couple of times now, I am referring to your broader incongruity concerning how you approach the matter of accuracy of gist vs accuracy of Jesus stories.  But again, this is going nowhere so I am only answering to put you at rest that I recognize you were, in that particular comment, only referring to Jesus' trial before Pilate.

Quote

Second, a consideration of the historicity of the gist material and the historicity of specific words, entire dialogues or specific settings for those dialogues is a larger conversation. 

I thought that WAS the conversation we were having.

Quote

Third, now you accept Josephus and we know the death of Jesus under Pilate is found in the gospels. Ehrman states the gist (see above), "......represents a “true memory” of the past."  So if you accept Josephus on Pilate as historically accurate then, logically, you must also acknowledge that this same material, found in the gospels and included in Ehrman's gist list does indeed represent a true (historical) memory of a past event in the life of the man Jesus. We therefore have an example from the gospels that there are (appear to be) true memories of Jesus that are historically accurate. 

I always accepted the basics of Josephus, no issue.  My point was concerning  the leap you were making from Josephus to justify Erhman's gist - which Josephus clearly doesn't do on more than 2 or 3 points (the barest of bare bones remember).  So because of the extreme shortcomings between Jospehus' points and Erhman's gist, I see no logical conclusion that one must accept Erhman's list of gist points, other than we can run with Jesus lived, preached at some point, had a following, did some surprising deeds and was executed.  Nothing else is substantiated by Josephus.  I've already countered all of the other Erhman gist points that are not substantiated by Jospehus (this is going nowhere comes to mind again).

Quote

Fourth, end of the road? Going nowhere?  Where are all the scholars and references I repeatedly asked for? 

Do the work Thormas - it is there.

But seriously, what scholarship do you need other than what is already presented by the likes of Erhman.  Have you read what Erhman is basing his conclusions around gist on?  Can you seriously not recognize that other than Mark and some small elements of Paul, that there is exactly NO other evidence for any gist of Jesus?  I can't imagine any scholar writing a book on just how limiting any information about Jesus really is (Robert Price does a good job though), although Erhman does acknowledge such consistently in his writings.  Erhman deduces his conclusions concerning the gist of Jesus based on what we have.  He or any other scholar can not point to what we don't have (other than there being hints scattered in some of Paul's writings and some incongruities amongst the Gospels themselves, which indicate some differences).  Add that to other traditions that developed about Jesus that we now consider not orthodox, and we can recognise that there were likely different understandings of the Jesus gist following the death of Jesus (unless you are only referring to the 'barest of bare bones gist' of Jesus that I have acknowledged a few times now) but that one particular view became established as the orthodox view.  

Again, you will now counter that this isn't accurate and demand I show you the proof about what we don't have.  That's is why I said this is going nowhere and is becoming quite boring (to me).

 

 

[thormas]

Paul, I'm simply suggesting that you or Rom start that broader conversation (gist vs stories): take an initial position, provide some detailed references that support that position, give us some info to mull over and let's take it from there. But give us something to work with, something to consider - not just unsupported 

Regarding Josephus, If you prefer, leave him out of the picture. My question is if Ehrman, notwithstanding all his caveats, still states that we can say we do know what the authors of the gospels are saying (and I recognize the caveats) and he (and other scholars) then, working with those sources, find what they call gist material about the historical Jesus - where and why do you disagree with Ehrman's methods and conclusions? This gist material is historical information or facts about Jesus. What's the issue - where and why do you disagree? As we both know, Ehrman is one of the biggest skeptics out there but still he is the one I have quoted on this position. I have even been re-reading 'Did Jesus Exist' and there are no changes to Ehrman's position. I would be glad to have a discussion on the stories, including the words, the settings and the actions that the authors write about. I think it is (probably) different and I am quite comfortable with Allison's position on this. I believe, for the most part that his general patterns are different than the gist material. And the interesting thing about the words of Jesus or those attributed to Jesus is the inclusion of Aramaic words.

Even if there were other 1st C gospels, we would be having the same discussions about them and they would be subject to the same methods used by scholars with the canonical gospels. Would other hypothetical gospels be judged credible if they differed drastically on the gist material (Jesus wasn't a Jew, wasn't a teacher, didn't use parables, wasn't crucified under Pilate)? Again, with gist we are dealing with historicity not the faith decision. I don't find any scholars (and since we have started this I have read or re-read selected works of at least 8 scholars) having problems with the concept of gist material or the basic list that I have included above.

All I'm asking is that someone not just give us one liners that go nowhere or questions for others without starting with or providing their own answers and if someone gives their opinion then at least give us something that supports that position, give us something with some detail (scholars, meaningful quotes, sources, etc.) so we can actually consider it, learn and decide.

 

 

[thormas]

11 hours ago, PaulS said:

But seriously, what scholarship do you need other than what is already presented by the likes of Erhman......

Sorry Paul, I missed this last paragraph but for now I refer you to the last post about references.

Edited October 28, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

14 hours ago, thormas said:

Third, once again, you ask another to do the work - thus affirming my earlier comment.

OK tell me what you are going to do with them?

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

OK tell me what you are going to do with them?

with what?

[romansh]

16 minutes ago, thormas said:

with what?

Do your own work.

[thormas]

I've done the work, now I'm waiting on yours.

 

 

[Burl]

“You remind me of the man.”

”What man?”

”The man with the power.”

”What power?”

”The power of hoodoo!”

”Who-do?”

”You do!”

”I do what?”

”Remind me of the man.”

”What man?” . . . 
 

 

[romansh]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

I've done the work, now I'm waiting on yours.

I am waiting for your answer.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I am waiting for your answer.

what answer to what question would that be?