Ok, I see what you are saying Narkissos. Your comments seem reasonable enough. I've seen that 'the incredible shrinking jesus' book advertised and might buy that too. Actually, recently I found a website www.christianorigins.com and was reading an article by a Christopher Price that echoes your comments, ie, that nearly all scholars admit that the miracle accounts can be traced back to the earliest stages and that Jesus was viewed as a miracle worker. (The next step in the process, like you say, is to test the extent that the miracle accounts may be traced back to pre-Christian origins). Here are some quotes from the article:
V. The Assessment of Critical Scholarship
For all of the above reasons, modern scholarship has concluded that Jesus' reputation as a miracle worker originated with Jesus himself. His contemporary followers believed that Jesus was performing miracles in their midst. See B.L. Blackburn, "Miracles and Miracle Stories" (in Jesus and the Gospels, p. 556), "Among NT scholars there is almost universal agreement that Jesus performed what he and his contemporaries regarded as miraculous healings and exorcisms." Many of these scholars, though, would not concede that Jesus actually performed supernatural feats. For example, though Fredriksen believes Jesus healed the sick, she also is adamant that she "does not believe that God occasionally suspends the operation of what Hume called 'natural law.'" Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 114. Nevertheless, placing the origin of Jesus' miracles with Jesus himself is a significant historical conclusion. As such, I provide here a demonstrative sampling of respected scholars and their conclusions on the subject:
• "Any fair reading of the Gospels and other ancient sources (including Josephus) inexorably leads to the conclusion that Jesus was well known in his time as a healer and exorcist. The miracle stories are now treated seriously and are widely accepted by Jesus scholars as deriving from Jesus' ministry. Several specialized studies have appeared in recent years, which conclude that Jesus did things that were viewed as 'miracles'." B.D. Chilton and C.A. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, pp. 11-12 (NTTS, 28.2; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998).
• "[T]he tradition that Jesus did perform exorcisms and healings (which may also have been exorcisms originally) is very strong." R.H. Fuller, Interpreting the Miracles, p. 39.
• "[B]y far the deepest impression Jesus made upon his contemporaries was as an exorcist and a healer. . . . In any case he was not only believed to possess some quite special curative gifts but evidently, in some way or other he actually possessed them." Michael Grant, An Historian's Review of the Gospels, pp. 31, 35.
• "Yes, I think that Jesus probably did perform deeds that contemporaries viewed as miracles." Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, p. 114.
• "There is no doubt that Jesus worked miracles, healed the sick and cast out demons." Gerd Theissen, The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition, p. 277.
• "In most miracle stories no explanation at all is given; Jesus simply speaks or acts and the miracle is done by his personal power. This trait probably reflects historical fact." Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician, p. 101.
• "There is agreement on the basic facts: Jesus performed miracles, drew crowds and promised the kingdom to sinners." E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, p. 157.
• "Yes, we can be sure that Jesus performed real signs which were interpreted by his contemporaries as experiences of an extraordinary power." H. Hendrickx, The Miracle Stories and the Synoptic Gospels, p. 22.
• "That Jesus performed deeds that were perceived as miracles by both him and his audience is difficult to doubt." Witherington, The Christology of Jesus, page 155.
• "[W]e must be clear that Jesus' contemporaries, both of those who became his followers and those who were determined not to become his followers, certainly regarded him as possessed of remarkable powers." Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God , p. 187.
• "[T]he tradition of Jesus' miracles has too many unusual features to be conveniently ascribed to conventional legend-mongering. Moreover, many of them contain details of precise reporting which is quite unlike the usual run of legends and is difficult to explain unless it derives from some historical recollection; and the gospels themselves show a remarkable restraint in their narratives which contrasts strangely with that delight in the miraculous for its own sake which normally characterizes the growth of legend." A.E. Harvey, Jesus and the Constraints of History, p. 100.
VI. Conclusion
The miracle stories of Jesus originated very early, contained reports not likely to have been created by early Christians, and cohere well with the rest of what we know about Jesus and his ministry. The best explanation for this evidence is that Jesus was known during his life as a miracle worker. The uniqueness of such miracle working adds significant weight to this conclusion and leads us to the further conclusion that the feats of Jesus must have been impressive. Though, as Carrier points out, Jesus lived in a time of superstition and religiosity, his miracles are uniquely attested. No other person of that time period has anything close to the attestation Jesus receives as a miracle worker. Accordingly, even if your philosophical predispositions preclude you from believing that Jesus actually performed miracles that violated the laws of nature, it should be admitted that he performed feats that convinced his contemporaries that he did such deeds.
yaddayadda
JoinedPosts by yaddayadda
-
52
What happened between Jesus death & the gospels being written?
by yaddayadda inhi, i'm interested in researching this subject.
can anyone recommend any good books that offer critical theories on the origins of early christianity, specifically the content and creation of the gospels.
for instance, how much of the gospels is underlying historical truth and how much might be exaggerations that crept in through, say 'chinese whispers' in the time between jesus death and the writing of the gospels ?
-
-
yaddayadda
-
3
How to Quit Church Without Quitting God: 7 Good Reasons to Escape the Box
by yaddayadda infound the above titled book while surfing amazon.
looks worth a read, might buy.
anyone here read it?
-
-
yaddayadda
Found the above titled book while surfing Amazon. Looks worth a read, might buy. Anyone here read it?
One reviewer said:
"...Don't get me wrong, I like the book and would recommend it. The chapters on God does not live in Boxes, the Church digs People into Spiritual Ruts, and the Church binds People to clocks and Buildings are insightful and excellently argued. Taken as a whole it is a good read and can cause the reader to see things in a different light that is based on truth instead of institution. An excellent book that is part of what are probably the three best books on the problems of the church today. The other two books would be "Messy Spirituality" and "When Bad Christians happen to Good People". Every Christian who realizes that something isn't quite right about the way the Christian religion is practiced today should read these three books." -
14
Parents congregation disbanding
by New Worldly Translation inmy parents told me that the do has advised the cong that it's going to close due to there not being enough publishers in it (why didn't he just say people .
it is a very small cong with about 35 people in it but they have enough elders and everyone was happy being in it.
apart from being dubs they actually are a genuinely nice bunch of people and i feel a bit sorry for them having to get split up against their wishes.. the hall is split into two congs, with the other half having about 140 publishers, and i asked why they didn't just ask some from the other half to support theirs.
-
-
yaddayadda
"He was re-instated in a blisteringly short space of time after showing remorse and several of the elders disagreed with this decision and the fact that no secular authorities were advised and so formed another cong."
Can elders really do that...just go and form another congo because of some issue in the current one they are in? I thought all those decisions came from the Branch, CO, etc?
Totally understand their reasons to form their own. -
52
What happened between Jesus death & the gospels being written?
by yaddayadda inhi, i'm interested in researching this subject.
can anyone recommend any good books that offer critical theories on the origins of early christianity, specifically the content and creation of the gospels.
for instance, how much of the gospels is underlying historical truth and how much might be exaggerations that crept in through, say 'chinese whispers' in the time between jesus death and the writing of the gospels ?
-
-
yaddayadda
Free2beme: "Everything I have ever read, that showed me otherwise was written by someone with the bias attempt to want to prove Christianity right, as it was their faith of choice. Just remember, the bible is the approved books of the day and not the only ones. There are many more missing, that would enlighten people to see how much of it was legend and without common threads."
(Sorry, can't put the above in quotes as this website isn't very compatible with Mozilla firefox)
It's impossible to approach the subject with total objectivity...everyone brings their biases, favouritism, predispositions, justifications. Sceptics and atheists say that Christians accept the gospels because of a type of wishful thinking, but the Christians say that the sceptics only deny them because they don't want the moral responsibility that goes with believing. Who has the stronger motive to accept or deny? I don't know. Admittedly all the authors of the books I'm going to read are apparently Christians; but I intend to research the 'Jesus seminar' side of the story as well, don't worry about that. On the question of historicity, it's my understanding that there have been independent historians and scholars with no apparent agenda who have declared the gospels and Pauline writings as meeting all the standard criteria and tests for declaring ancient documents as historical or not. In fact, I've read that many have said that the gospels are much better attested than any other writings of antiquity, certainly in terms of the sheer volume of manuscripts available and how far back they go. There is really only one thing that causes people to reject the gospels, and it's not whether they have an essential core layer of historical truth. Practically all sceptical scholars at least admit there is at least a certain layer of truth in them (the question is how deep is that layer). What puts people off acceptingthe gospels as genuine is that they contain miracles. I can understand scepticism about believing claims of miracles two thousand years ago when no ones seen any ever since. That's natural scepticism. Even Thomas refused to believe in the resurrection until he had tangible proof before his own eyes. The point is if you take away the miracles there would be no question that they are historical.
I'm sure that there are a range of mythological writings comtemporaneous with the gospels, but those documents clearly stand out as mythological for a number of reasons. From the snapshots of research I've gained so far, most scholars state that the gospels are different in a number of important ways from contemporaneous mythological writings, but that's something I need to really research thoroughly, as I intend to...... -
52
What happened between Jesus death & the gospels being written?
by yaddayadda inhi, i'm interested in researching this subject.
can anyone recommend any good books that offer critical theories on the origins of early christianity, specifically the content and creation of the gospels.
for instance, how much of the gospels is underlying historical truth and how much might be exaggerations that crept in through, say 'chinese whispers' in the time between jesus death and the writing of the gospels ?
-
-
yaddayadda
I've decided to read the following books in my quest to get the truth (see below). Witherington seems the least scholarly and Meiers work the most daunting by far, but the quest for truth will be worth it in the long run.
At the end of the day we can't prove definitely one way or the other how much of the gospels is true or not but I at least want to weigh up the evidence on the balance of probabilities, without working from the a priori assumption that miracles are impossible and hence the gospels are fictions, which seems to be the case of many on this website, most of whom appear to have renounced faith in God and are hence predisposed to accepting and defending anything critical of the historicity of the bible. As I unquestionably believe in a creator I have no problem with accepting that the miracles and resurrection could indeed have happened as described in the gospels if all the other lines of evidence to assert them as true historical documents all stack up.
Who Was Jesus? (Paperback)
by N. T. Wright
A New Perspective On Jesus: What The Quest For The Historical Jesus Missed
by James D. G. Dunn. Dunn argues, against more liberal/skeptical scholarship, that the similarities and differences in the synoptic gospels are best explained by oral transmission of these events and teachings in the early church.
The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (Paperback)
by Ben, III Witherington
A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person, Vols 1, 2 & 3 (Hardcover)
by John P. Meier "The historical Jesus is not the real Jesus..." -
27
"Delivered From the Trap of the Birdcatcher" DC Demonstration
by FadingAway ina very convincing and timely demonstration on the dangers of the internet!
http://www.box.net/public/j2uoneqjfe.
if you can't get this to run, i will be more than happy to pm it to you if you can stomach it.
-
-
yaddayadda
How come this was on the 'active topic' list when there was only 1 post, the original post? What determines whether a topic is 'active' or not?
-
52
What happened between Jesus death & the gospels being written?
by yaddayadda inhi, i'm interested in researching this subject.
can anyone recommend any good books that offer critical theories on the origins of early christianity, specifically the content and creation of the gospels.
for instance, how much of the gospels is underlying historical truth and how much might be exaggerations that crept in through, say 'chinese whispers' in the time between jesus death and the writing of the gospels ?
-
-
yaddayadda
Thanks for the information. I see that I am going to have to do a lot of research on this.
I can totally understand the sceptism about the miracles etc in the gospels. And it seems that the other synoptic gospels borrowed heavily from Mark.
What seems strange to me about this whole affair is that, according to various scholars, the dead sea scrolls proved that the book of Isaiah had hardly changed at all in about 1,000 years of writing, and persons like Sir Frederick Kenyon and other eminent intellectuals conclusively state that the NT has not materially changed much in many hundreds of years (I've read critiques on Ehrman's latest book. He shows that although there has been a bit of redaction and revisionism, it is not as nearly as much or as significant as he is making out), yet the sceptics are saying that pretty much the entire gospels accounts are just myths, complete fictions, that they somehow magically appeared in a relatively short space of time in a culture where great care was taken by scribes to accurately transmit holy writings, where there was a strong tradition of systematic oral memorisation techniques, amongst a people who were just about the last people on earth to believe myths and legends that all their pagan neighbours believed. I am asked to believe this despite the fact that for long streches of many centuries it is clear that the scriptures did not materially change. It just seems just as much an article of faith to brand the entire gospel accounts as complete mythological fictions than to accept that much of them may indeed be true.
Is it not the case also that the early church fathers going back to the second and third centuries quote extensively from the gospels as we read them today? Or have I got that wrong? -
52
What happened between Jesus death & the gospels being written?
by yaddayadda inhi, i'm interested in researching this subject.
can anyone recommend any good books that offer critical theories on the origins of early christianity, specifically the content and creation of the gospels.
for instance, how much of the gospels is underlying historical truth and how much might be exaggerations that crept in through, say 'chinese whispers' in the time between jesus death and the writing of the gospels ?
-
-
yaddayadda
PeacefulPete, Can you please refer me to the authors or sources (not personal opinions of persons on this heavily biased website) that discuss "the complex redaction history of the Gospels and the preGospel sources of many of the "sayings" that you say exist. This is what I am seeking help on. I honestly want to get to the bottom of this for myself, as objectively as I can (I am aware of my own biases and motivations to either believe or let go of Christianity) so I can make as informed a choice as possible. I realise this is an enormous subject.
-
52
What happened between Jesus death & the gospels being written?
by yaddayadda inhi, i'm interested in researching this subject.
can anyone recommend any good books that offer critical theories on the origins of early christianity, specifically the content and creation of the gospels.
for instance, how much of the gospels is underlying historical truth and how much might be exaggerations that crept in through, say 'chinese whispers' in the time between jesus death and the writing of the gospels ?
-
-
yaddayadda
Elsewhere, I can understand the scepticism but it seems unreasonable to just dismiss the historicity of Jesus. From what I've read, nearly all scholars and biblical historians accept that there must have been a person called Jesus and that there is a layer of truth underneath it all. The only question is how deep that layer is.
I'm not trying to defend the orthodox Christian view. I want to get to the bottom of this, or at least give all the various theories a fair trials. From what I have researched so far it seems to me that the new testament writings meet the hallmarks of genuine historical documents. Any objective historian would give them the thumbs up, except for 1 big thing: the miracles! If it weren't for the miracles in the gospels then evidently no one would doubt their historicity.
Re the Chinese whispers that you feel is the cause of it all, in response to your Apollo moon landings analogy, here is another analogy I've read:
# During the period when the Gospel writers wrote their accounts many eyewitnesses would still have been alive and would have objected if the Gospels were exaggerated in some way. This would be something like a group of people trying to fictionalise a whole series of events that happened during World War II. There are too many people still living who would be able to challenge inaccuracies.
# Similarly, as with the second world war the events that occurred were striking and significant, making long lasting impressions upon the minds of the people who went through the experience. This is even more so with the Gospels. The things that Jesus said and did would have had powerful impact and long lasting impression upon the memories of those who witnessed the events. The culture of Jesus' day held to `oral tradition'. People spent much time and effort in memorizing texts. Michael Green observes that many Jews memorized the whole Pentateuch and that there were Greeks who could recite large portions of Homer's Iliad (The Truth of God Incarnate, p. 124).
I'd like to find out more about the claim by this author Michael Green that there was a strong Jewish tradition of memorization. If this is correct then it would seem to run against the theory that so many mythological embellishments and supernatural fables could have been added to the Jesus story in such a short time through a 'chinese whispers' effect. Can anyone refer me to any sources? -
52
What happened between Jesus death & the gospels being written?
by yaddayadda inhi, i'm interested in researching this subject.
can anyone recommend any good books that offer critical theories on the origins of early christianity, specifically the content and creation of the gospels.
for instance, how much of the gospels is underlying historical truth and how much might be exaggerations that crept in through, say 'chinese whispers' in the time between jesus death and the writing of the gospels ?
-
-
yaddayadda
LOL That doesn't add up Elswhere. Just because there was a gap between when Jesus purportedly died and when the gospels were written doesn't mean everyone 'forgot' about him. There is evidence of a strong, memorized oral tradition. They didn't forget about him they just talked about him and didn't write it down for a while. It is stated that the gospels were written to capture Jesus essential sayings and deeds before the ageing earliest disciples and eyewitnesses died off from old age, to prevent the 'chinese whispers' effect.
Thanks Leolaia.