archibald wrote:
Thanks. I'm not by any means saying R M Price is an idiot or unqualified, just that I think (ie imo) he's gone out on a limb when it comes to Jesus' existence (possibly in some ways, it seems, a bit like that Rupke guy you cited). I'll try to read those later ..

I had appreciated you don't think R M Price is an idiot or unqualified.

archibald wrote:
... though to be honest I'm simultaneously trying not to get sucked into this thread (again) ...

That's mostly why I post stuff like that; mostly to try to get people away from the thread into more considered commentary (I've downloaded 'The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts' and have had a quick look: it reads well and does look like good commentary. I won't bother with the other two, yet).

I think Price has come to look at things differently after studying and interacting with the texts and stories in them (I though Ehrman was going the same way until he took a detour or even a U-turn ~2012)

I'm not sure of Ruepke's motivation for writing what he did in Pantheon, but I know he's spoken at conferences and seminars with Matthias Klinghardt; even though I don't think MK has been as 'out there' as Ruepke was in Pantheon (MK has a 2-volume 2015 book in German that may say those things, but I haven't yet seen anyone repeat such a blatant view from it).

archibald wrote:What the fuck, seriously, has proof, one way or the other, got to do with it?

That concept in conjunction with any discussion concerning the (non)existence of Jesus Christ never ceases to amuse me. People on both sides of the issue seem to be excessively confident that they have a map from which a territory can be discerned with sufficient accuracy to come to their particular conclusion with a great deal of certainty that they are right and the other side is wrong. It's hilarious. Next: n angels can dance on the head of...

When people are arguing their 'case' for Historical Angels, then obviously we want to see if they can meet the burden of proof.

proudfootz wrote:When people are arguing their 'case' for Historical Angels, then obviously we want to see if they can meet the burden of proof.

Not I. That would be obvious to you already, had you not only read but also digested what I wrote in my previous post.

proudfootz wrote:When people are arguing their 'case' for Historical Angels, then obviously we want to see if they can meet the burden of proof.

Oh, absolutely, proudfootz; it's all about burden of proof. Historians want to be able to say they are pondering real phenomena, just like, you know, scientists (who used to be called 'natural historians', after all). The farther back in time the historians can document (or debunk) phenomena, the more like science it will seem to them. Really, though, the phenomena for this one are scribblings on parchments and the like, and the data the 'historians' are perusing is literature. All of a sudden, it looks to some like a document that references actual phenomena, and not just another ploy to sell popular books to the sensation-hungry public. The fact that they don't actually have any phenomena is taken by those who only know dichotomy as evidence that the literature they are studying is a myth. It's not a myth. It's just literature, and historians with nothing else more pressing on the schedule sometimes study literature. Take careful note, here, proudfootz: I am in no way defending the thesis of a "historical (or, for that matter, a mythical) Jesus". When I want to win an argument, I pick something meatier, like a meteor.

To recap; we have a claim by some that the story about the son of God is based on an historical figure and that those attempting to debunk this notion are doing a piss poor job of it, fringe as it were. Meanwhile, back at the WH...

proudfootz wrote:When people are arguing their 'case' for Historical Angels, then obviously we want to see if they can meet the burden of proof.

Suggesting that Bible stories are just that, stories, is obviously more than some can bear. No Jesus means that no one ever walked on water, ever, imagine the emotional stress this causes.

dogsgod wrote:

proudfootz wrote:When people are arguing their 'case' for Historical Angels, then obviously we want to see if they can meet the burden of proof.

Suggesting that Bible stories are just that, stories, is obviously more than some can bear. No Jesus means that no one ever walked on water, ever, imagine the emotional stress this causes.

I find I can enjoy fantastic stories without becoming emotionally attached to the notion that the characters are real people.

But it's such a wonderful story ....

Then a great light appeared so that the mountains shone
from the sight of him who had appeared.
And a voice called out to them saying,


"Listen to my words that I may speak to you.
Why are you asking me? "

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/letpet.html

Article on 'stunning' parallels between non-messianic person in Josephus with Mark's Jesus character:

"In my judgment this significant list of 22 parallels is not only striking but stunning in its possible implications. Put quite simply: the parallelism existing between the two stories is provocative and demands an answer to the obvious question: How can one account for these 22 narrative points at which there are such a close parallels between Josephus’ story of Jesus, son of Ananias, and Mark’s story of Jesus?" -- Theodore J Weedon


https://vridar.org/2019/03/22/better-in ... xEVwmsy-IE

Sadly, Josephus's Jesus isn't crucified.

proudfootz wrote:Article on 'stunning' parallels between non-messianic person in Josephus with Mark's Jesus character:

"In my judgment this significant list of 22 parallels is not only striking but stunning in its possible implications. Put quite simply: the parallelism existing between the two stories is provocative and demands an answer to the obvious question: How can one account for these 22 narrative points at which there are such a close parallels between Josephus’ story of Jesus, son of Ananias, and Mark’s story of Jesus?" -- Theodore J Weedon


https://vridar.org/2019/03/22/better-in ... xEVwmsy-IE

Good job by Neil Godfrey at the expense of Tim O'Neill's misguided rant.

Brodie's suggestion that the NT was produced by a "literary school" seems more and more reasonable.

Sadly, Josephus's Jesus isn't crucified.

But when they rolled away the stone did they find him?

What constitutes a parallel?
How do we know how many parallels signify something?
Once that number is reached, how do we know what it signifies?

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk

MS2 wrote:What constitutes a parallel?

Points (events, names, places, etc) within a narrative that are shared with another supposedly independent narrative.

How do we know how many parallels signify something?

We dont for sure. Its based AFAIU on statistical maths. On one side of the possible explanations there is coincidence and the Infinite Monkey Theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem.

On another side is the probability that the two stories are not independent.

Once that number is reached, how do we know what it signifies?

As the parallels increase the probability of dependence increases. If the stories are dependent upon one another then it generally follows that elements ("narrative points") of one (later) story have been borrowed from the other (earier) story.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

MS2 wrote:What constitutes a parallel?

Points (events, names, places, etc) within a narrative that are shared with another supposedly independent narrative.

That's not a sufficiently rigorous definition. It could be used to 'prove' anything (and thereby nothing).

How do we know how many parallels signify something?

We dont for sure. Its based AFAIU on statistical maths.

I don't think so. I can't see any statistical maths in the linked article. But apparently they think 22 undefined 'parallels' is a significant number for some reason.

On one side of the possible explanations there is coincidence and the Infinite Monkey Theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem.

On another side is the probability that the two stories are not independent.

And somewhere in between is the likelihood that 2 stories written by people with similar backgrounds, stories set in the same location, at roughly the same time etc etc will have a (currently unknown) number of (currently undefined) parallels.

There's a vast amount of work that hasn't been done before someone can even begin to show that a particular number of parallels is significant

Once that number is reached, how do we know what it signifies?

As the parallels increase the probability of dependence increases. If the stories are dependent upon one another then it generally follows that elements ("narrative points") of one (later) story have been borrowed from the other (earier) story.

As a general statement this makes sense. But for the reasons mentioned above, as far as I can see nobody has done the groundwork to turn it into an argument that can prove anything


Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk

MS2 wrote:What constitutes a parallel?
How do we know how many parallels signify something?

The issue isn't just parallels per se, it's the use of previous narratives and accounts in a way that embellishes the later key character, Jesus of Nazareth.

MS2 wrote:... as far as I can see nobody has done the groundwork to turn it into an argument that can prove anything.

Yes they are, piecemeal. Besides the likes of Ted Weeden - ‘Two Jesuses, Jesus of Jerusalem & Jesus of Nazareth: Provocative Parallels & Imaginative Imitation’, Forum N.S. 6.2 (2003), pp. 137-341 - and Craig Evans, - 'Jesus in Non-Christian Sources’, in Studying the Historical Jesus, 1998, pp. 443-78 (475-77) - saying the parallels between Jesus ben Ananais and Jesus of Nazareth are too numerous to be a coincidence, Ted Weeden thinks it's also likely that the author of the gospel of John, at least,also used Josephus's account of Jesus ben Ananias - https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/cro ... pics/18075

RealityRules wrote:

MS2 wrote:What constitutes a parallel?
How do we know how many parallels signify something?

The issue isn't just parallels per se, it's the use of previous narratives and accounts in a way that embellishes the later key character, Jesus of Nazareth.

The discussion is about parallels, 22 of them. Whether there are additional arguments about previous narratives etc is irrelevant to the questions I asking

MS2 wrote:... as far as I can see nobody has done the groundwork to turn it into an argument that can prove anything.

Yes they are, piecemeal.

Where? Where has 'parallel' been rigorously defined? Where has statistical analysis been done to show a particular number of parallels is significant. I bet anybody could take any two reasonably long texts coming from the same period and geographical area and find quite a few apparent 'parallels'




Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk

It's fascinating that any multi-year participant in this thread has only just now noticed that scholars debate literary dependence because of parallels among surviving texts (this is how it is claimed one 'gospel narrative' is thought to be prior to or dependent on another - a feature of Bible studies mentioned many times already).

MS2 wrote:The discussion is about parallels, 22 of them. Whether there are additional arguments about previous [or other] narratives etc is irrelevant to the questions I asking

How many wheels on the bus go round and round? How many times do they go round? (hint, it's more than one in each case)

MS2 wrote:
Where? Where has 'parallel' been rigorously defined? Where has statistical analysis been done to show a particular number of parallels is significant. I bet anybody could take any two reasonably long texts coming from the same period and geographical area and find quite a few apparent 'parallels'

At least you're doing more than one hand-wave ...

22 parallels in common between two shortish passages would seem to be significant.

Multiply those two passages by hundreds more (mostly OT and NT parallels) ...

RealityRules wrote:

MS2 wrote:The discussion is about parallels, 22 of them. Whether there are additional arguments about previous [or other] narratives etc is irrelevant to the questions I asking

How many wheels on the bus go round and round? How many times do they go round? (hint, it's more than one in each case)

MS2 wrote:
Where? Where has 'parallel' been rigorously defined? Where has statistical analysis been done to show a particular number of parallels is significant. I bet anybody could take any two reasonably long texts coming from the same period and geographical area and find quite a few apparent 'parallels'

At least you're doing more than one hand-wave ...

22 parallels in common between two shortish passages would seem to be significant.

Multiply those two passages by hundreds more (mostly OT and NT parallels) ...

So no answers to my questions then, just snarks.
That's fine. I'll conclude for the time being that the argument fails

Sent from my YOGA Tablet 2-1050F using Tapatalk