NT Reliability

[romansh]

On 10/19/2019 at 9:47 AM, JosephM said:

One thing i hope is not lost in this discussion (validity or reliability)  is the many inspirational messages that can be gleamed from the NT

Is this not true for just about any book? Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy 'inspired' me to move away from a vague deism and more towards agnosticism. 1984 cautioned me how people can be manipulated. Having said that I suspect homilies like mine are just that. These ideas in books are triggers for what has been building up inside us all the time.

As to the power of positive thinking, I can't speak to your book; but I do recall just a few years ago on the radio a report of a study on positive thinking. Apparently it was not all that it was cracked up to be, but better than negative thinking for sure.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

I still can't see how you can draw the conclusion that Josephus' bare bones in any way supports what you quote Erhman as calling the gist of Jesus.

The point is simply that Joesphus mentions some of the bare bones information also mentioned on the gist list: Jesus was a teacher, he had followers, he was a wonder worker (one who works wonders also called miraculous deeds) and he died under Pilate (see additional Ehrman list above). Of course we can add that Josephus assumed he was born and raised a Jew. It's not really that big an issue but a bit absurd to totally dismiss the similarities.

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

Hurtado ......... is circular reasoning..........don't you find it incredulous that we have no other documents pertaining to Jesus outside of only those few that made it into the canon eventually? 

Two different topics, so let's take one at a time. Other (non-canonical) documents: I am interested in and willing to read any critical scholar on 'other' documents, and I have already read some (although I believe most discovered 'alternate' documents date from after the 1st CE). But, incredulous or not, it is what it is, we have what we have yet I remain open to other writings.

Concerning canonical documents that exist. We already have Ehrman's 'working assumption,' shared by (seemingly) all critical scholars,  that we have a good idea of what the authors wrote in the gospels and Paul's authentic letters. Hurtado, studying Paul's letters, demonstrates what I have presented above in his own words. Therefore, specifically on this second topic, rather than constantly say we don't have X or we only have Y or this is circular reasoning or no one can demonstrate this or that - simply tell us what scholar we should read to show that Ehrman's assumption, Allison's methodology or Hurtado's method or conclusions are wrong.  I have provided this information for the site, simply respond in kind rather than merely repeating an opinion.

Hurtado is not talking about a correct gist, he is, rather, talking about the Jerusalem 'Christian' circles (plural), associated with first followers of Jesus, within months of his death, having beliefs and devotional practices that Paul fought against, later converted to and adopted as his own and are found in his later letters. I am then saying that these same beliefs and practices are found in the NT gospels (and one assumes in whatever sources they used). That's it!  You asked how a scholar could demonstrate how or when Paul received material and beliefs about Jesus: it has been provided. I asked for scholars who supported your position on Paul and I simply ask for scholars who refute Hurtado's position: it has not been provided. I am sincerely asking because it has been since our initial discussion that I have delved into even more of this information, reading authors I had never known or only knew in passing and I would read a different view. Who is providing one? 

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

 I'm just saying until we have those one can't say they fully support the Gospels.  It simply has to be a 'who knows' scenario... you can cite any scholar who can tell you what these earlier sources contain in their entirety.

It's much more than a 'who knows' scenario. Haven't scholars separated Markan influences in Matthew and Luke, and also separated out an additional common source (they named Q) and are then left with a source(s) particular to Matthew and Luke (named M and L) for material that is not shared by these gospels? Once Mark is separated out and once what is common is Matthew and Luke is separated out, they arrive at what is left with the 'working assumption' that there was another source(s) that for convenient sake they name M. So as Ehrman said, hypothetical but probable. You seem to be demanding absolute certainty, wanting to know if a source fully supports a gospel, wanting to know the source in its entirety. There is no certainty, there is only probability based on the lifetimes of work and research of scholars who cite different materials in, for example Matthew, which points to different (source) materials used to compile what we know as the gospel of Matthew. 

 

 

[thormas]

2 hours ago, JosephM said:

I think Ehrman says "Romans had to have a reason to crucify a person.  There had to be a criminal charge.  There could be lots of charges – runaway slaves, brigands, insurrectionists, all could be crucified.  So why was Jesus crucified?  The Gospels tell us, and in this particular case, there are very good reasons for thinking what they say is right.  Jesus was crucified for calling himself King of the Jews."

However Pilate found no basis for a charge against him and found him innocent.

From reading Ehrmans blog, he makes the assumption, he called himself King of the Jews. . He was accused of it by those who wanted him dead but there is no record in the NT he claimed to be King of the Jews. So much for the verifiable of what authors such as Ehrman write. Assumptions may be reasonable but they are really just best guesses or conjecture on Ehrmans  part.  We could also assume Pilate's use of the term king of the Jews (v. 39) is obviously sarcastic since he has just said Jesus poses no political threat.

The innocence of Pilate builds throughout the gospels and the blame is placed more and more squarely on the Jews - at the same time that the gospel communities were in increasing conflict with the Jews. Biblical and early Christian history scholars doubt this statement about Pilate. 

There is a logic to what Ehrman writes given what Jews thought of the Messiah and what Jesus taught about the role of the 12 (I also point you to Allison's general patterns (above) where he demonstrated how Jesus probably saw his role in the coming apocalypse). Plus there are the secret teachings, especially in Mark (?) about Jesus as the Messiah. It seems you dismiss Ehrman and other 'such authors' much too easily ...........

Paula Fredriksen is also a good read about the reaction of the people when Jesus entered Jerusalem for the final time and how that played into the decision that Pilate eventually made about Jesus but interestingly he did not make the same decision (crucifixion) for his followers then or post-resurrection (as had happened with others who 'went against' Rome). It is apparent that Jesus was considered a political threat...........

Of course we do have the famous question posed and the reply of Jesus in the Synoptics, "Are You the King of the Jews?" "You have said so," Jesus replied. He didn't say No.

We also have John: "Then You are a king!" Pilate said. "You say that I am a king," Jesus answered. "For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth." Again, not only not a No - sounds like a resounding Yes (the reason for his birth, the reason for his incarnation).

 

There are assumptions and then there are assumptions: I would typically put greater trust in a critical, respected scholar's guesstimate or when s/he suggests a probability or makes a working assumption - as it is based on a lifetime of study and research. I find the more I read an author the easier it is to decide how credible, how dependable they are (or are not).

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

5 hours ago, PaulS said:

..... this discussion is strictly around the merits of arguing whether what is represented in the Gospels is an accurate representation of Jesus, his messages, his actions, his deeds, etc and what evidence we may or may not have to support any claims for or against.  I would view it as a healthy debate around stuff that at the end of the day matters very little for PC's.

I agree with Paul but I think it does or perhaps should matter to PCs

[JosephM]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

Is this not true for just about any book? Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy 'inspired' me to move away from a vague deism and more towards agnosticism. 1984 cautioned me how people can be manipulated. Having said that I suspect homilies like mine are just that. These ideas in books are triggers for what has been building up inside us all the time.

As to the power of positive thinking, I can't speak to your book; but I do recall just a few years ago on the radio a report of a study on positive thinking. Apparently it was not all that it was cracked up to be, but better than negative thinking for sure.

Of course there are other books that inspire us. "Just about any book", i personally don't think so but you are entitled to such a belief.

[Burl]

8 hours ago, PaulS said:

I'm not sure that all the study in the world in ancient literature will answer the question that if within the Jewish community in the early decades following Jesus' death there may have been different views of the gist of Jesus and his message, as the only surviving manuscripts we have from that time portray only one view.  They may be accurate, indeed many believe they are, I'm just saying that that alone is not evidence they are accurate representations of everything Jesus.

There were many interpretations of Jesus during his lifetime and after.  Jesus had imitation apostles running around (Luke 9:49).  1 Corinthians 1:10-16 shows even in one church people were taking off in different directions before the NT even existed.

Later on there were many different Christian churches, so there were undoubtedly miltiple viewpoints. 

[romansh]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

Of course there are other books that inspire us. "Just about any book", i personally don't think so but you are entitled to such a belief.

I am not saying Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy would inspire everyone … but then books like Mein Kampf and Das Kapital inspired people too.

[thormas]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

Of course we have the famous question posed and the reply of Jesus in the Synoptics, "Are You the King of the Jews?" "You have said so," Jesus replied. He didn't say No.

We also have John: "Then You are a king!" Pilate said. "You say that I am a king," Jesus answered. "For this reason I was born and have come into the world, to testify to the truth." Again, not only not a No - sounds like a resounding Yes (the reason for his birth, the reason for his incarnation).

I wanted to add in fairness that no one knows what transpired or what was said, if anything, when Jesus was before Pilate. These statement, but especially John's, are part of a high Christology. In addition, and I have to double check this, Fredriksen places a focus on the crowds, claiming that Jesus was Messiah and the 'time' was near, when they greeted Jesus as he entered Jerusalem. Such enthusiasm was enough to put the leaders on alert. She believes that Jesus was a known quantity to the Romans and considered harmless but the passion of the crowds was alarming and the surest way to quash it was to crucify the object of their adoration and expectations. With Jesus gone, no Messiah, no end time, no worries about the Roman status quo. Also, once he was gone, there was no need to go after his followers. It is an interesting argument.

Having said that, Ehrman still makes an interesting argument. It seems evident that Jesus was crucified for real or imagined or possible insurrection (at least of the crowds). He was crucified as the 'King of the Jews' which was both a mock (?) and the charge. The Messiah was expected to be from the house of David (a King) and a warrior King in the image of David. 

Did the crowd or some in the crowd hail him as Messiah? Seems probable.

Did he call himself King? Two point from Ehrman(from his blog):

1. "All of our sources report Jesus was executed by the Romans specifically for calling himself the King of the Jews.  They do not report that the Roman governor Pontius Pilate ordered him crucified for raising an army, or for causing a disturbance in the temple, or for being a pain in the neck for the Sadducees, Pharisees, or anyone else.  They report that the charge was for calling himself the Jewish king." Note: this is what Ehrman meant, this is what the sources tell us.

2. "Moreover, I think it is fair to say that Jesus did not publicly proclaim himself the King of the Jews.  The reason is the same: we have no public teachings of Jesus in which he takes this title for himself.  Read for yourself: see his longest teaching in Mark’s Gospel, chapter 4: no mention of him being the King of the Jews.  Or the longest teaching in Matthew, the Sermon on the Mount, chapters 5-7: no word of such thing.  Look at all the Gospels.  Jesus never publicly declares himself the King of the Jews."

"So why was he executed for calling himself that?  My view is not an idiosyncratic theory that I made up myself.  I inherited it from scholars far better than me.  It is the view, roughly, of the great Albert Schweitzer himself.  Jesus taught his disciples, in private, that he was the King of the Jews.  And one of them, Judas, betrayed the secret to the authorities.  They arrested Jesus, questioned him about it, and executed him for it."

Did he think of himself as Messiah and future King? Very possible, see Allison's general patterns above, cited from his short book (above).

 

It is interesting to compare and contrast Ehrman's with Fredriksen's POV.

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

9 hours ago, thormas said:

I wanted to add in fairness that no one knows what Jesus said [full stop]

Fixed it for you. Indeed no one knows if Jesus said anything that is attributed to him.

[PaulS]

13 hours ago, thormas said:

The point is simply that Joesphus mentions some of the bare bones information also mentioned on the gist list: Jesus was a teacher, he had followers, he was a wonder worker (one who works wonders also called miraculous deeds) and he died under Pilate (see additional Ehrman list above). Of course we can add that Josephus assumed he was born and raised a Jew. It's not really that big an issue but a bit absurd to totally dismiss the similarities.

It would be absurd to totally dismiss any similarity, but of course, that's not what I've done.  I simply pointed out that of the 12 or so 'Erhman gist points' you listed, Josephus can at best meet 3, maybe 4 of the 12 (including the assumption that Jesus was a Jew which Josephus doesn't actually mention, but let's count it).  That's about 20-33% similarity, to which I was saying isn't 'strong' when you were making the point that independent historical sources verify the gist of Jesus you cited.

By the way, it may seem pedantic to you but Josephus does not actually say that Jesus was a wonder worker or that Jesus did miraculous deeds, but rather Josephus says that Jesus performed 'surprising deeds'.  Some versions I read says that he did 'wondrous deeds'.  Nothing I read actually says 'miracles' though, so I think you are applying some personal interpretation here which isn't supported by the text alone.  Surprising deeds or wondrous deeds could possibly refer to him behaving differently and treating people in a way contrary to social norms, but of course we can't know what Josephus actually meant.  So indeed, maybe it still is a similarity - I just don't think you can draw 'miraculous' from it which I think gives it a different connotation.

 

[PaulS]

9 hours ago, Burl said:

There were many interpretations of Jesus during his lifetime and after.  Jesus had imitation apostles running around (Luke 9:49).  1 Corinthians 1:10-16 shows even in one church people were taking off in different directions before the NT even existed.

Later on there were many different Christian churches, so there were undoubtedly miltiple viewpoints. 

Indeed, and my point is that we don't know if Apollos, or Cephas, or 'Christ' may have been the carriers of a more accurate gist of Jesus but that they didn't win the day so their voice was drowned out by the likes of Paul and later followers for what we have today.  To me, drilling down to that level of evidence is currently unavailable to us and we have ultimately only been left with a certain presentation of Jesus.  Is it accurate - who knows!

[thormas]

6 hours ago, romansh said:

Indeed no one knows if Jesus said anything that is attributed to him.

That's your contribution? That's all you have to offer? Tell us something we don't know.

No research, no nuance? But thanks for playing,

 

[thormas]

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

It would be absurd to totally dismiss any similarity, but of course, that's not what I've done.  I simply pointed out that of the 12 or so 'Erhman gist points' you listed, Josephus can at best meet 3, maybe 4 of the 12 (including the assumption that Jesus was a Jew which Josephus doesn't actually mention, but let's count it).  That's about 20-33% similarity, to which I was saying isn't 'strong' when you were making the point that independent historical sources verify the gist of Jesus you cited.

 

It is a minor issue, so who cares about %. The fact is that a secular or Jewish source contains some of the gist and 'verifies' some bare bone facts about Jesus. 

6 hours ago, PaulS said:

By the way, it may seem pedantic to you but Josephus does not actually say that Jesus was a wonder worker or that Jesus did miraculous deeds, but rather Josephus says that Jesus performed 'surprising deeds'.  Some versions I read says that he did 'wondrous deeds'.  Nothing I read actually says 'miracles' though, so I think you are applying some personal interpretation here which isn't supported by the text alone.  Surprising deeds or wondrous deeds could possibly refer to him behaving differently and treating people in a way contrary to social norms, but of course we can't know what Josephus actually meant.  So indeed, maybe it still is a similarity - I just don't think you can draw 'miraculous' from it which I think gives it a different connotation.

Doesn't a wonder worker do wondrous deeds? And (good) surprises are wonderful:+}  It seems that miracles and wonders and surprising deed (those out of or different from the ordinary) are basically the same. Again, a minor issue, even if removed, the bare bones remain. There is no personal interpretation, I was actually going off what you wrote about Josephus (it has been ages since I read about him) and recognizing that the words are oftentimes interchangeable. Actually Matthew has the Baptist refer to them merely as 'the deed of Jesus.' Potato, potato.

We get the idea that there are tales or stories of this guy, Jesus who seems to be doing 'more' than the ordinary Jacob, Joseph or Mary.

BTW, you are giving a personal interpretation of Jospehus "could possibly refer to him (Jesus) behaving differently and treating people in a way contrary to social norms."

All in all, a minor point compared to the larger, more important topic. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by thormas

[romansh]

4 hours ago, thormas said:

That's your contribution? That's all you have to offer? Tell us something we don't know.

So, you agree that we don't know if Jesus actually said anything that was attributed to him?

I am just wondering what is the logical thing to do here.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

So, you agree that we don't know if Jesus actually said anything that was attributed to him?

I am just wondering what is the logical thing to do here.

See all previous responses on this topic, 'behold, the answer is upon you.'

Additionally I refer you to Allison or Ehrman or other critical biblical or early Christianity scholar on the topic.

[PaulS]

21 hours ago, thormas said:

It is a minor issue, so who cares about %. The fact is that a secular or Jewish source contains some of the gist and 'verifies' some bare bone facts about Jesus. 

The barest of bare bones, so bare you couldn't even make a Gospel soup from them - "There was a guy named Jesus, who was a teacher & attracted followers, he did surprising deeds, he was executed".  So considering Erhman further - Nothing about coming from Nazareth, nothing about being baptized by John, nothing about an apocalyptic message, nothing about teaching in parables, nothing about his ethical teachings, and nothing about controversies with other teachers (not to mention miracles but we'll leave that one alone).  So when you say that you think 6 or 7 of Erhman's 'gist' points are pretty bare bones, and Jospehus fails to meet more than half of even those, I think it's a stretch to put Josephus forward as a historical record demonstrating the gist of Jesus (other than he lived, he died, he taught, he attracted followers).  It may be a minor issue but clearly there are some that care about the %'s enough to continue to argue that they support one's view.

21 hours ago, thormas said:

Doesn't a wonder worker do wondrous deeds? And (good) surprises are wonderful:+}  It seems that miracles and wonders and surprising deed (those out of or different from the ordinary) are basically the same. 

Maybe you use a different dictionary to me.

21 hours ago, thormas said:

BTW, you are giving a personal interpretation of Jospehus "could possibly refer to him (Jesus) behaving differently and treating people in a way contrary to social norms."

Of course I am - that's why I added to my statement - "but of course we can't know what Josephus actually meant".  I don't have the right to twist his words into something else such as 'miracles' because the evidence is not there.

21 hours ago, thormas said:

All in all, a minor point compared to the larger, more important topic. 

I disagree.  Citing Josephus as a historical record to support your arguments when it doesn't, is a reasonable point to discuss.  As our discussion was about how we can verify if what we have in the NT more or less accurately captures who Jesus was and what he did and what he believed and what he preached, to pretend that somehow Josephus legitimizes that 'gist' seems worthy of debate.  That said - I think we have both made out points and for me, I've made enough.

[PaulS]

15 hours ago, thormas said:

Additionally I refer you to Allison or Ehrman or other critical biblical or early Christianity scholar on the topic.

Even though they can't demonstrate it either.  They can only make best guesses based on the limited material available.  They could be off the mark in major ways and we couldn'tt know, at this point.

[thormas]

34 minutes ago, PaulS said:

Even though they can't demonstrate it either.  They can only make best guesses based on the limited material available.  They could be off the mark in major ways and we couldn'tt know, at this point.

Actually I didn't say what they could or couldn't, did or didn't do. I merely suggest that Rom research them concerning his question.

 

[PaulS]

9 minutes ago, thormas said:

Actually I didn't say what they could or couldn't, did or didn't do. 

That was clear - that's why I pointed it out.

[thormas]

37 minutes ago, PaulS said:

The barest of bare bones, so bare you couldn't even make a Gospel soup from them - ".... it's a stretch to put Josephus forward as a historical record demonstrating the gist of Jesus ....... It may be a minor issue........

 

No one said anything about making a gospel, soup or entree, from the ingredients provided by Josephus. However, the point is that scholars and historians accept that Josephus, a non Christian source, provides mention about the man Jesus who is the subject of the Christian gospels. This mention includes some detail that are considered part of the historical gist of the NT gospels. That's it - the fact is that some of the 'information' in the one are also in the other.  There is no attempt to legitimize the gist: the gist, recognized by Ehrmans (and others), is there, regardless of Josephus  - it is a minor issue.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

That was clear - that's why I pointed it out.

So it was clear.

[PaulS]

16 minutes ago, thormas said:

So it was clear.

It was clear that you weren't answering Rom's question which was - "So, you agree that we don't know if Jesus actually said anything that was attributed to him?"

[thormas]

1 hour ago, PaulS said:

It was clear that you weren't answering Rom's question which was - "So, you agree that we don't know if Jesus actually said anything that was attributed to him?"

Exactly. As I have mentioned prior to that post, Rom has a tendency to ask others to do the work: to research or to summarize a post or read and jointly report on a book. I and others have taken note of this and have 'mentioned' it to him on occasion.  Simply, going forward, I said I wouldn't do what he is quite capable of doing. Plus it has also been mentioned that Rom likes to troll. Trolling is a waste of time if one is interested in a serious discussion and continued learning.

Given this overall topic which stemmed from our private conversation, particularly with quotes of Ehrman, Allison and others, my answer is present within. Remember Ehrman on no absolute certainty and my emphasis on Allison?  So, I suggested and still suggest that Rom consider previous posts, if he is truly interested, and perhaps even consider the works of some of the scholars that I reference and then we can talk at length. 

Also, I though my initial response said it all: "Tell us something we don't know." :+}

 

 

 

[PaulS]

On 10/23/2019 at 10:11 PM, thormas said:

Exactly. As I have mentioned prior to that post, Rom has a tendency to ask others to do the work: to research or to summarize a post or read and jointly report on a book. I and others have taken note of this and have 'mentioned' it to him on occasion.  Simply, going forward, I said I wouldn't do what he is quite capable of doing. Plus it has also been mentioned that Rom likes to troll. Trolling is a waste of time if one is interested in a serious discussion and continued learning.

Given this overall topic which stemmed from our private conversation, particularly with quotes of Ehrman, Allison and others, my answer is present within. Remember Ehrman on no absolute certainty and my emphasis on Allison?  So, I suggested and still suggest that Rom consider previous posts, if he is truly interested, and perhaps even consider the works of some of the scholars that I reference and then we can talk at length. 

Also, I though my initial response said it all: "Tell us something we don't know." :+}

I disagree with your opinion that Rom has a tendency to let others do the work, or that he likes to troll.  Yes you and Burl have made statements about it before (I'm not aware of any others claiming this), and you're entitled to your opinions, but I don't agree (either as an Administrator or simply a member of this forum).

In this case I think Rom is trying to make a point to you, which you have perhaps too eagerly dismissed because of your view he is trolling, and provides a challenge to you to consider that what we have about the gist of Jesus, could be, on any number of issues, incorrect about Jesus.  Your response "Tell us something we don't know" seems incongruous with your claims that we have a very good understanding of Jesus because of what is written in the Gospels and to a much lesser degree, claimed by the historian Josephus.  So, to me anyhow, you seem to be agreeing that nobody can know if what the Gospels say Jesus said actually occurred or not, but somehow the rest of the stuff you draw from the Gospels which gives you your 'gist' about Jesus, can be verified and/or relied upon as reasonably accurate, based on nothing more, again as it seems to me, than because the Gospels say so.

Rom can speak for himself, but that's how I read what he was doing and your response.

[thormas]

2 hours ago, PaulS said:

I disagree with your opinion that Rom has a tendency to let others do the work, or that he likes to troll.  Yes you and Burl have made statements about it before (I'm not aware of any others claiming this), and you're entitled to your opinions, but I don't agree (either as an Administrator or simply a member of this forum).

In this case I think Rom is trying to make a point to you, which you have perhaps too eagerly dismissed because of your view he is trolling, and provides a challenge to you to consider that what we have about the gist of Jesus, could be, on any number of issues, incorrect about Jesus.  Your response "Tell us something we don't know" seems incongruous with your claims that we have a very good understanding of Jesus because of what is written in the Gospels and to a much lesser degree, claimed by the historian Josephus.  So, to me anyhow, you seem to be agreeing that nobody can know if what the Gospels say Jesus said actually occurred or not, but somehow the rest of the stuff you draw from the Gospels which gives you your 'gist' about Jesus, can be verified and/or relied upon as reasonably accurate, based on nothing more, again as it seems to me, than because the Gospels say so.

Rom can speak for himself, but that's how I read what he was doing and your response.

I no longer remember the name but I believe it was a woman, it was 'suggested' she summarize her post and she refused. The same has happened to me and there have been other instances. As for trolling, all are entitled to their opinion, now we have yours. 

As for the rest, I simply disagree. The post had nothing to do with the gist: it was about Jesus before Pilate and that 'dialogue' is not part of any gist. That he was crucified under Pilate is. There was no challenge about the gist. Are you using Rom as your surrogate here? Plus, I was the one who volunteered that no one knows what if any dialogue took place before Pilate.

If someone really, seriously wanted to begin a discussion about whether or not we know or can know if any of the words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him, that could be of interest to some on the site. But....... it might involve some work, some research, to actually present a reasoned position. 

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? 

And the gist is not 'mine.' Again, your debate is with Ehrman and other scholars who accept that there is a 'Jesus gist.' 

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. Are you referencing another scholar who disagrees with Ehrman? In addition there is Allison who I have quoted and referenced who gives his position and his reasoning.Then there is Hurtado. 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2019 by thormas