Stein wrote:

IanS wrote:Your 21st century trust in Jesus is actually just the religious faith of the holy bible.

If that isn't both a blatant ad hom and a bald lie, I'd like to know what is.

Stein

I thought it was a spot on observation. You can take offense to it but this is a rational skeptic board, so it is kind of a given that Bible stories remain questionable by skeptics, and for valid reasons. If it is too hot in the kitchen for you,...

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

IanS wrote:Your 21st century trust in Jesus is actually just the religious faith of the holy bible.

If that isn't both a blatant ad hom and a bald lie, I'd like to know what is.

Stein

I thought it was a spot on observation. You can take offense to it but this is a rational skeptic board, so it is kind of a given that Bible stories remain questionable by skeptics, and for valid reasons. If it is too hot in the kitchen for you,...

It's a fact that people have deep convictions that the bible stories contain useable biographical data for a 'Jesus'. They back this up by citing extra-scriptural sources that need be no more than repetitions of hearsay, if they are not actual interpolations. Yes, one can also have a deep conviction that Josephus, Tacitus, etc. are faithful reporters of facts they actually checked in everything they wrote (assuming the words used to back up scripture are not interpolations by xian scribes through the ages).

What do they cite as the evidence for their deep convictions? Why, nothing but the writings about which they have deep convictions as to their veracity and value as independent biographical sources. Why don't we have better data? The guy was obscure! Oh, why didn't I think of that one?! I'll tell you why: It's an utterly ad hoc excuse. Everyone who's not famous is obscure. The guy became famous because people wouldn't stop telling the story. Now that sequence of events is being played out in the present day. Same tune, different lyrics. This time, instead of a religious icon, it's a humble human preacher. Why's that? What's not to like about a humble human preacher?

Cito di Pense wrote:

dogsgod wrote:

Stein wrote:

IanS wrote:Your 21st century trust in Jesus is actually just the religious faith of the holy bible.

If that isn't both a blatant ad hom and a bald lie, I'd like to know what is.

Stein

I thought it was a spot on observation. You can take offense to it but this is a rational skeptic board, so it is kind of a given that Bible stories remain questionable by skeptics, and for valid reasons. If it is too hot in the kitchen for you,...

It's a fact that people have deep convictions that the bible stories contain useable biographical data for a 'Jesus'. They back this up by citing extra-scriptural sources that need be no more than repetitions of hearsay, if they are not actual interpolations. Yes, one can also have a deep conviction that Josephus, Tacitus, etc. are faithful reporters of facts they actually checked in everything they wrote (assuming the words used to back up scripture are not interpolations by xian scribes through the ages).

What do they cite as the evidence for their deep convictions? Why, nothing but the writings about which they have deep convictions as to their veracity and value as independent biographical sources. Why don't we have better data? The guy was obscure! Oh, why didn't I think of that one?! I'll tell you why: It's an utterly ad hoc excuse. Everyone who's not famous is obscure. The guy became famous because people wouldn't stop telling the story. Now that sequence of events is being played out in the present day. Same tune, different lyrics. This time, instead of a religious icon, it's a humble human preacher. Why's that? What's not to like about a humble human preacher?

Yeah, he's obscure, but the true believer has no problem nailing him, excuse the pun. I think the true believer is taken in by all the believers that have come before, and as you have noted, could a billion flies be wrong?

"Why's that? What's not to like about a humble human preacher?" There appears to be the emotional attachment to such a figure. The story never did much for me so I am minus the emotional attachment, perhaps that is why it's tough to care either way. Holding fast and firm to beliefs is for non-skeptics, the true believer.

dogsgod wrote:
Yeah, he's obscure, but the true believer has no problem nailing him, excuse the pun. I think the true believer is taken in by all the believers that have come before, and as you have noted, could a billion flies be wrong?

"Why's that? What's not to like about a humble human preacher?" There appears to be the emotional attachment to such a figure. The story never did much for me so I am minus the emotional attachment, perhaps that is why it's tough to care either way. Holding fast and firm to beliefs is for non-skeptics, the true believer.

I don't mean that people have an emotional attachment to the way the character is described (is he described that way? No. It's a projection of what he must have been, given how obscure he has to be in order not to leave better evidence of his passage.)

I mean that the story of the humble preacher is taken as not over-selling the subject of the biography. Have to be careful of that, given how much overselling of the demigod has been done already. The humble preacher is a niche character, in this case.

dogsgod wrote:Holding fast and firm to beliefs is for non-skeptics, the true believer.

Try telling that to Dejuror, or any of the fanatic mythers who dot the on-line landscape!

Stein

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:Holding fast and firm to beliefs is for non-skeptics, the true believer.

Try telling that to Dejuror, or any of the fanatic mythers who dot the on-line landscape!

Stein

More butthurt Stein?

Meanwhile, to continue the discussion about alleged 'Semitisms' or Aramaicisms' or 'Hebraisms' in the New Testament someone wanted, this article doesn't seem to offer much of interest either:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xm3mI ... om&f=false

While perhaps an interesting article about language it doesn't really help us resolve why no christian literature seems to have been composed in the language of the alleged Jesus and his supposed immediate successors.

proudfootz wrote:Looking at another link - apparently at least one person has floated the notion that gMatthew was originally composed in Hebrew and that the authors of gLuke used this Hebrew gospel and gMark to compose their version. The Hebrew gospel subsequently became lost and only the translation into Greek was preserved. This hypothesis was proposed to account for alleged 'Semitisms' thought to be abundant in gLuke.

James R Edwards apparently rejects the idea that gMattew is the Greek translation of this lost gospel, but defends the idea that there was such a text and that gLuke did make use of this hypothetical narrative. Edwards also apparently posits that gMatthew then uses gLuke as a source to account for their common material.

Anyone have any idea if this is a 'consensus' view?

Until someone turns up an "early" manuscript or a fragment of the NT in Hebrew or Aramaic, the only language that appears to exist in the extant evidence at the earliest centuries is Greek. The consensus is that the NT is a Greek literary phenomenom for this reason.

The Pauline documents are addressed to communities around the Aegean sea. The hypothetical 'Johaninne community' (John the Evangelist, John the Presbyter, etc) was likely based nearby in in Asia Minor (Ephesus). John of Patmos is said to have written the Book of Revelation.

The first certain witness to Johannine theology among the Fathers of the Church is in Ignatius of Antioch, whose Letter to the Philippians is founded on John 3:8 and alludes to John 10:7-9 and 14:6. This would indicate that the Gospel was known in Antioch before Ignatius' death (probably 107). Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 80 to 167) quotes from the letters of John, as does Justin Martyr (c. 100 to 165).

The earliest testimony to the author was that of Papias, preserved in fragmentary quotes in Eusebius's history of the Church. This text is consequently rather obscure. Eusebius says that two different Johns must be distinguished, John the Apostle, and John the Presbyter, with the Gospel assigned to the Apostle and the Book of Revelation to the presbyter.

Irenaeus's witness based on Papias represents the tradition in Ephesus, where John the Apostle is reputed to have lived. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp, thus in the second generation after the apostle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Johannine_works#Early_criticism

So many Johns ...

We may not know where the gospels of Matthew, Mark, & Luke were written (?)

the Gospel of Luke

"The earliest partial manuscript witnesses (the technical term for written sources) for Luke's gospel are five 3rd-century papyrus fragments; the earliest complete attestations are 4th and 5th century.[9] These fall into two "families", the Western and the Alexandrian: the differences between these pose major difficulties, and the problem of the "original" text remains unresolved.[10] The dominant view is that the Western text represents a deliberate revision or editing, as the variations seem to form specific patterns."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Background


9 Carroll, John T. (2012). Luke: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press.

10 Ellis, E. Earl (2003). The Gospel of Luke. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

11 Boring, M. Eugene (2012). Luke, Chapter 23 in An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology.
. .Westminster John Knox Press.
.

proudfootz wrote:Meanwhile, to continue the discussion about alleged 'Semitisms' or Aramaicisms' or 'Hebraisms' in the New Testament someone wanted, this article doesn't seem to offer much of interest either:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xm3mI ... om&f=false

While perhaps an interesting article about language it doesn't really help us resolve why no christian literature seems to have been composed in the language of the alleged Jesus and his supposed immediate successors.

Maybe Stein could explain why he provided the link.

Cito di Pense wrote:

dogsgod wrote:
Yeah, he's obscure, but the true believer has no problem nailing him, excuse the pun. I think the true believer is taken in by all the believers that have come before, and as you have noted, could a billion flies be wrong?

"Why's that? What's not to like about a humble human preacher?" There appears to be the emotional attachment to such a figure. The story never did much for me so I am minus the emotional attachment, perhaps that is why it's tough to care either way. Holding fast and firm to beliefs is for non-skeptics, the true believer.

I don't mean that people have an emotional attachment to the way the character is described (is he described that way? No. It's a projection of what he must have been, given how obscure he has to be in order not to leave better evidence of his passage.)

I mean that the story of the humble preacher is taken as not over-selling the subject of the biography. Have to be careful of that, given how much overselling of the demigod has been done already. The humble preacher is a niche character, in this case.

Yes, given The Enlightenment, Jesus had to be reinvented.

the Gospel of St. Matthew, from The Catholic Encyclopedia online

"(3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Church History III.24.6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be borne in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm

Whether Papias was writing about the NT Gospel of Matthew is disputed -

The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c.100-140 CE), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260-340 CE), as follows: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi), and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - perhaps "translated") them as best he could."[16]

On the surface, this has been taken to imply that Matthew's Gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."[17][14]

Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[16]

The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not Aramaic or Hebrew.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author

Cito di Pense wrote:It's a fact that people have deep convictions that the bible stories contain useable biographical data for a 'Jesus'. They back this up by citing extra-scriptural sources that need be no more than repetitions of hearsay, if they are not actual interpolations. Yes, one can also have a deep conviction that Josephus, Tacitus, etc. are faithful reporters of facts they actually checked in everything they wrote (assuming the words used to back up scripture are not interpolations by xian scribes through the ages).

What do they cite as the evidence for their deep convictions? Why, nothing but the writings about which they have deep convictions as to their veracity and value as independent biographical sources. Why don't we have better data? The guy was obscure! Oh, why didn't I think of that one?! I'll tell you why: It's an utterly ad hoc excuse. Everyone who's not famous is obscure. The guy became famous because people wouldn't stop telling the story.

The first person to publish the story far and wide was the Roman Emperor Constantine. This gave the story its "majestic spin". Since then the political organisation known as the Christian church has adopted the professional practice of never stopping the telling of the story, because it was good for their monopoly industry.

Leucius Charinus wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Looking at another link - apparently at least one person has floated the notion that gMatthew was originally composed in Hebrew and that the authors of gLuke used this Hebrew gospel and gMark to compose their version. The Hebrew gospel subsequently became lost and only the translation into Greek was preserved. This hypothesis was proposed to account for alleged 'Semitisms' thought to be abundant in gLuke.

James R Edwards apparently rejects the idea that gMattew is the Greek translation of this lost gospel, but defends the idea that there was such a text and that gLuke did make use of this hypothetical narrative. Edwards also apparently posits that gMatthew then uses gLuke as a source to account for their common material.

Anyone have any idea if this is a 'consensus' view?

Until someone turns up an "early" manuscript or a fragment of the NT in Hebrew or Aramaic, the only language that appears to exist in the extant evidence at the earliest centuries is Greek. The consensus is that the NT is a Greek literary phenomenom for this reason.

What's odd to me about the hypothesis that there was a 'Hebrew Gospel' and that it was an early version of gMatthew is why should gLuke preserve more of these alleged 'Semitisms' than does gMatthew.

Wouldn't it make more sense that the story allegedly composed in Hebrew would show more evidence of such a process than one composed apparently in Greek?

Cito di Pense wrote:

dogsgod wrote:
Yeah, he's obscure, but the true believer has no problem nailing him, excuse the pun. I think the true believer is taken in by all the believers that have come before, and as you have noted, could a billion flies be wrong?

"Why's that? What's not to like about a humble human preacher?" There appears to be the emotional attachment to such a figure. The story never did much for me so I am minus the emotional attachment, perhaps that is why it's tough to care either way. Holding fast and firm to beliefs is for non-skeptics, the true believer.

I don't mean that people have an emotional attachment to the way the character is described (is he described that way? No. It's a projection of what he must have been, given how obscure he has to be in order not to leave better evidence of his passage.)

I mean that the story of the humble preacher is taken as not over-selling the subject of the biography. Have to be careful of that, given how much overselling of the demigod has been done already. The humble preacher is a niche character, in this case.

The skeptic, or the so called myther, claims that if Jesus existed he was so obscure that we can't know anything about him while the True Believer casts aspersions towards the so called myther for using the word "if."

Stein wrote:

dogsgod wrote:Holding fast and firm to beliefs is for non-skeptics, the true believer.

Try telling that to Dejuror, or any of the fanatic mythers who dot the on-line landscape!

Stein

I would agree with you Stein, and add that in your case all you have to do is look in the mirror.

Stein wrote:

RealityRules wrote:

Stein wrote:Why will no myther ever, ever address and actually analyze the research that has recently been made on the philological layers in the various sources, the colloquialisms and Aramaicisms that have been unwrapped in certain Koine Greek materials but significantly not in others and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications from many more agnostics in the profession than just Ehrman? We've seen references to the Aramaicisms and colloquialisms in this very thread from a number of different posters already. It is the act of a troll to pretend that such references have not been made right here. It is the act of a troll to routinely trot out a shameless lie instead that the HJ model is not based on any philological scholarship at all, when it bloody well is. It is the act of a troll and a woo peddler to routinely trot out the same lie over and over again, showing that the goal of mythers is not to analyze all the data and the research that the modern world has finally generated, but to peddle kool-aid that they know to be based on lies, over and over and over and over and over and over again.

No, Yeshua the human rabbi was never a zombie. But these mythers sometimes act like they're the real zombies around here.

Stein

Why will no myther historicist ever, ever address and actually analyze present the research that has [ever] been made on "the philological layers" in 'the various sources', the 'colloquialisms' and Aramaicisms that have been 'unwrapped' in 'certain' Koine Greek materials, but 'significantly' not in others, and that are directly referenced in peer-vetted publications ... ??

There's a plethora of such material (ever heard of Google? ). These barely scratch the surface, but they'll get you started:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebraisms.html
http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html
http://www.hjkeen.net/halqn/hbrwgsp2.htm
http://www.hjkeen.net/halqn/hbrwgspl.htm
https://books.google.com/books?id=xm3mI ... om&f=false
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... clnk&gl=us

Stein

Thanks! Stein - I posted something on Aramaic in Matthew a few posts up - #39813

proudfootz wrote:
What's odd to me about the hypothesis that there was a 'Hebrew Gospel' and that it was an early version of gMatthew is why should gLuke preserve more of these alleged 'Semitisms' than does gMatthew.

Wouldn't it make more sense that the story allegedly composed in Hebrew would show more evidence of such a process than one composed apparently in Greek?

Interestingly, there's a passage in Wikipedia (that I'd posted a few posts up from this one of yours viz. #39810) that says

RealityRules wrote:the Gospel of Luke

"The earliest partial manuscript witnesses [sources] for Luke's gospel are five 3rd-century papyrus fragments; the earliest complete attestations are 4th and 5th century.[9] These fall into two "families", the Western and the Alexandrian: the differences between these pose major difficulties, and the problem of the "original" text remains unresolved.[10] The dominant view is that the Western text represents a deliberate revision or editing, as the variations seem to form specific patterns."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Background


9 Carroll, John T. (2012). Luke: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press.

10 Ellis, E. Earl (2003). The Gospel of Luke. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

11 Boring, M. Eugene (2012). Luke, Chapter 23 in An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology.
. .Westminster John Knox Press.
.

Interestingly, Alexandria reportedly became the biggest centre for Judaism after the Roman-Jewish Wars so, if Luke had an Alexandria origin, then one might expect it to be more likely to have Hebrew 'flavors' than if it was written elsewhere (or until it was edited elsewhere).

RealityRules wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
What's odd to me about the hypothesis that there was a 'Hebrew Gospel' and that it was an early version of gMatthew is why should gLuke preserve more of these alleged 'Semitisms' than does gMatthew.

Wouldn't it make more sense that the story allegedly composed in Hebrew would show more evidence of such a process than one composed apparently in Greek?

Interestingly, there's a passage in Wikipedia (that I'd posted a few posts up from this one of yours viz. #39810) that says

RealityRules wrote:the Gospel of Luke

"The earliest partial manuscript witnesses [sources] for Luke's gospel are five 3rd-century papyrus fragments; the earliest complete attestations are 4th and 5th century.[9] These fall into two "families", the Western and the Alexandrian: the differences between these pose major difficulties, and the problem of the "original" text remains unresolved.[10] The dominant view is that the Western text represents a deliberate revision or editing, as the variations seem to form specific patterns."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Background


9 Carroll, John T. (2012). Luke: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press.

10 Ellis, E. Earl (2003). The Gospel of Luke. Wipf and Stock Publishers.

11 Boring, M. Eugene (2012). Luke, Chapter 23 in An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology.
. .Westminster John Knox Press.
.

Interestingly, Alexandria became a the biggest centre for Judaism after the Roman-Jewish Wars so, if Luke had an Alexandria origin, then one might expect it to be more likely to have Hebrew 'flavors' than if it was written elsewhere (or until it was edited elsewhere).

Good to know - thanks for the information!