Historical Jesus

Comment

Comment by Tamla Boone on March 22, 2010 at 1:42pm

I just red Tabor's "The Jesus Dynasty". Is there interested in studying the substance of book, chapter to chapter? Great Book, very informative.

Comment by James Tabor on November 10, 2009 at 1:14pm

have a new "Op-Ed" piece just posted at the Web site Bible Interpretation. If you don't know the site you might spend some profitable time exploring its many features and thick archives, drawing in a "Who's Who" from the world of Biblical Studies and Archaeology.

My essay deals with the thorny question of whether or not the description of the "Last Days of Jesus" (scholars call this the "Passion Narrative) in the Gospel of John is dependent or independent of Mark, our earliest Gospel. And further, if John is independent, as I argue, does it rest upon sources that might in fact be more primitive, and potentially more reliable, for gettingat the "historical Jesus." You can read the entire essay here:

"The Gospel of Mark: Priority Does not Mean Primacy"

Comment by Hanoch Young on June 23, 2009 at 12:23pm

Hey Ross....

Just trying to walk in your shadow a bit... :-) Hey - what color did you want your room in Modi'in painted?
Hanoch

Comment by Les Ruttka on March 28, 2009 at 2:33pm

Shalom Ross,

My findings have been that we can obviously find Jewish sayings and thought in the NT, since it was born out of the turmoil of 1st century Judaism, a messianic expectation, with many differing ideas. This doesn't necessarily validate the NT, it merely shows that truth can be put into someone's mouth when creating a story based on a character to give it "legs". Everything we know about Jesus is simply derived from the NT and "christian" writings.

I have not yet been able to find any source outside the NT, and it's proponents, to bring one fact about this Jesus. Everything is derived. This is particularly amazing since we are talking about a man who did so many things that the volumes of the world could not contain them. Whether Jesus existed, or not, and taught Torah is irrelevant to me. Since the NT cannot be validated i prefer to go right to the foundation (Moses and Torah) to determine my relationship to HaShem. Of the few, i think 4, references to Jesus that the "church" uses as extra biblical proofs are merely derived or shown, by scholars, to be interpolated.

Depending on one's view, to assign to someone, other than HaShem, those attributes that are His alone (salvation, redeemer, king, etc) is (idolatry?).

Even if he existed, which I cannot find, he is of no more value than anyone else of the time, whether it be Hillel or Shamai, etc. If the NT were authoritative, i would quote "narrow is the way", and christianity is certainly very wide.

In order to accept the NT is to say that the Jews could not get their own writings, given to them by HaShem, straight and needed some new hellenistic bend to correctly interpret His instructions. oyvey.

Anyway, that's my story and I'm stickin to it. OK, I'm heading for the hills to escape the stake and the fire. :)

Shalom
Les

Comment by Nancy Blackburn on February 26, 2009 at 8:08pm

Hey Ross Looking forward to see what come up in the group. I've been really looking into what I believe on who Yeshua really was. I'm beginning to wonder if I can believe anything in the NT. I hope we can all have some meaniful discusions and learn something