The scholars in question aren't necessarily Christian.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Did Pontius Pilate exist?
- Thread starter steeltoes
- Start date
The scholars in question aren't necessarily Christian.
I could name some, Robert Price, Fr Tom Brodie.
As in some who are?
That's why I said not necessarily. Some are Christians, some aren't.
Robert Price is a mythicist.
Sources? You just suck this stuff out of your thumb sans evidence, sans reason. It's grossly irresponsible.
Sources for what, holocaust denier accusations compared to those that question Jesus existence(that would be about 8 posts back), or biblical anti Christ references?:
2 John 1:7 Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist
It's almost sad, isn't it?
Clearly, anologies have little effect here (particularly as I included the "climate change denier's" to show that academics who were quite credible, extremely well qualified, and absolutely in a position to make statements about the climate get maligned in ways they do not deserve, even if they are wrong; we don't have that situation here, as there are plenty of credentialed people with wild ideas about Jesus and early Christianity, yet basically none of these think he didn't exist).
So let's make things much clearer. If saying that Jesus Christ never existed is so taboo, why do books on the subjects written by amateurs or professionals outsell any actual scholarship? Well, for one because it's really hard to convince people who know what they are talking about, but far, far easier to convince those who don't. Most grad students are basically slaves until they get a doctorate, and then try desperately to get tenure. Carrier, on the other hand, made his name as a grad student for talking about things largely outside his field, and rather than get a grant to do research like scholars do, he got his blog audience to pay him to write his first book (which didn't actually touch on the historical Jesus, as that will be the next book, but did manage to misuse a lot of math to be convincing).
This has been going on for a long time. Arthur Drews came out with Die Christusmythe (the Christ-myth) in 1909, followed shortly by Die Christusmythe II: Die Zeugnisse für die Geschichtlichkeit Jesu, eine Antwort an die Schriftgelehrten mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der theologischen Methode (the Christ-myth II: the evidence for the historicity of Jesus: a reply to the literalists with a focus on the theological method). A few years later, he wrote (ostensibly) a response to Schweitzer's bashing of the mythicists with a survey of some 3 dozen mythicists over the (then) past 50 years (this was a few years before 1930).
Of course, we can go back even more in time to see mythicists, or fast forward to Wells (before Dunn's response made him change his mind), Murdock, Freke & Gandy, Doherty, and others. However, as the time from Strauss and Bauer's works became more and more distant, and the arguments by the 3 dozen or so surveyed by Drews (and Drew himself) were answered again and again, and the only thing that changed was an increasing knowledge of the past and better tools to study (which hurt, not helped, the mythicists), we see fewer and fewer scholars buying into what is mainly now an internet phenomenon.
You can see bias all you want, but when the same questions answered in full get asked again some hundred years later (and by those who didn't know these questions were asked before, nor bothered to find out what answers were provided), perhaps the reason the specialists in fields related to Jesus studies don't write books about why jesus likely never existed is for the same reason nobody spends lots of time and effort trying to reinvent the wheel. Until there's a new question, or new evidence, or a new reason to look at old evidence other than the same tired, worn-out (and usually factually incorrect) arguments that Jesus was e.g., just another dying-and-rising godman (something Frazer spent years and many, many pages trying to show a century ago, until he couldn't make his case and ended up with something much less than he wanted), what's the point?
Last edited:
I take it you know something from reading texts about someone that no one ever met.
Well they met his brother. And in addition to the mention of this brother by Josephus and the gospels, Paul talks about meeting him. So it doesn't really matter who the gospel authors are, or if they knew Jesus. It's kind of hard for someone to meet family members of a guy who never existed. But don't let knowledge spoil your fun. If ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.
That's one way to interpret what you read. I take it you know the correct interpretation.
Of what? The Greek? That was easy. Even before Dickey's Greek Forms of Address or (more importantly) her paper "Literal and Extended Use of Kinship Terms in Documentary Papyri" (Mnemosyne 57(2): pp. 131-176). The use of the genitive in this way is so basic that most ancient Greek reference grammars include as a seperate section.
Look ma, no hands!
Actually historians generally rely on historical methodology and a knowledge of the sources and time period in question (as well as an ability to read these sources). When it comes to Paul, we're left with a lot of questions, sure. But formulaic 3rd person expressions of kinship, rather than adelphoi used in address, aren't problems. Except for those desperate to explain away any and all evidence to support some bizarre account for our sources which ignores historical context, genre, and 200 years of scholarship, and a few other "details" to make a point that doesn't seem worth the effort. If one is after the truth, then research is useful. If one is looking to support faith, then grabbing onto whatever sources one can while ignoring any others is often required. And apparently, mythicism has become a faith.
- Romans 14:10 But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? or thou again, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God.
- Romans 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge ye this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock in his brother's way, or an occasion of falling.
- Romans 14:15 For if because of meat thy brother is grieved, thou walkest no longer in love. Destroy not with thy meat him for whom Christ died.
- Romans 14:21 It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor to do anything whereby thy brother stumbleth.
- Romans 16:23 Gaius my host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. Erastus the treasurer of the city saluteth you, and Quartus the brother.
- 1 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
- 1 Corinthians 5:11 but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat.
- 1 Corinthians 6:6 but brother goeth to law with brother, and that before unbelievers?
- 1 Corinthians 7:12 But to the rest say I, not the Lord: If any brother hath an unbelieving wife, and she is content to dwell with him, let him not leave her.
- 1 Corinthians 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in the brother: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
- 1 Corinthians 7:15 Yet if the unbelieving departeth, let him depart: the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace.
- 1 Corinthians 8:11 For through thy knowledge he that is weak perisheth, the brother for whose sake Christ died.
- 1 Corinthians 8:13 Wherefore, if meat causeth my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh for evermore, that I cause not my brother to stumble.
- 1 Corinthians 16:12 But as touching Apollos the brother, I besought him much to come unto you with the brethren: and it was not all his will to come now; but he will come when he shall have opportunity.
- 2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints that are in the whole of Achaia:
- 2 Corinthians 2:13 I had no relief for my spirit, because I found not Titus my brother: but taking my leave of them, I went forth into Macedonia.
- 2 Corinthians 8:18 And we have sent together with him the brother whose praise in the gospel is spread through all the churches;
- 2 Corinthians 8:22 and we have sent with them our brother, whom we have many times proved earnest in many things, but now much more earnest, by reason of the great confidence which he hath in you.
- 2 Corinthians 12:18 I exhorted Titus, and I sent the brother with him. Did Titus take any advantage of you? walked we not in the same spirit? walked we not in the same steps?
But that one time (brother of the Lord), he meant blood sibling because we are making a case.
Last edited:
Well, let's start with the basics. Assuming you've read Dickey's paper (which is not written by a religious or biblical scholar, but a classicist, and not for biblical/N.T. studies but for the study of ancient Greek), we can go to the next step. As I said:
So now you can point to me where else Paul uses a genitive of kinship/family to identify a third party to the audience, rather than a nominative and rather than an address to the readers, and uses this metaphorically.
ho kurios? Well, given the number of historical figures addressed using this title...yes.
