Arthur Drews on Jesuan Parables and Teaching Speeches

May 2011
2,925
Rural Australia
#21
There is no justification for.your assumption thatJewish sources were any more reliable than Church ones or.any less.bias. .

///

You seem to have a double.standard, accepting Jewish sources at face value, but hyper skeptical.ld Christian ones.

///

Yet you accept whategrr Jewish writers wrote. You clearly have 2 standards, which makes you anri-Christian, not just skeptical..
That's all entirely false. You're not understanding my position. My objective was to seek to date the historical sources which are independent of the church and which corroborate the church dogma that the NT was a product of the 1st century (or 2nd). If you think that objective is an invalid historical investigation then you had better state your reasons.

On another issue you complained that Drews was certainly wrong to contemplate Jewish influence on the NT. This is based on your chronology for the NT before the 189 CE appearance of the Mishna. Do you happen to know the chronology that Drews had hypothesised for the authorship of the NT?
 
Last edited:

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
7,095
#22
That's all entirely false. You're not understanding my position. My objective was to seek to date the historical sources which are independent of the church and which corroborate the church dogma that the NT was a product of the 1st century (or 2nd). If you think that objective is an invalid historical investigation then you had better state your reasons.
Bull. Every time there is an objective source like Tacitus, you find some excuse to dismiss it as a forgery. You are not objective, and the standard you apply is different than the standard you apply to other works. You accepted the claims of s 12th Jewish writer without question, yet reject everything Christian.

Let"s fave it, you would dismiss any independent evidence as forgeries, because you have done so with Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus, Celsus, etc.,. The standard you set is unrealistic and unfair, it I'd like asking for independent sources of Greek and Roman history that were not from Greek or Roman. Nobody outside church people ould have an interest in the doing, sayings, and beliefs of a minority group of mostly poor uneducated people except for rare occasions. Tacitus only mentioned Christians in passing as part of his attack on Nero, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned them at all.

We don't know the beliefs of the Mithras followers.for the most part, and most of what we know of their beliefs come.from a Christian writer. Most writers of the time did not mention them, Tacitus doesn't as far as I know, yet their places of worship.show they were far richer than the ea ly Christians.


On another issue you complained that Drews was certainly wrong to contemplate Jewish influence on the NT. This is based on your chronology for the NT before the 189 CE appearance of the Mishna. Do you happen to know the chronology that Drews had hypothesised for the authorship of the NT?

No, it is also.based on intenal evidence of he gospels themselves . A writer of later period wouldn't have known or gotten as much right as the NT does. Why would a 2nd, 3rd century know or care about the 1st centu a groups andnpeople.like the he Sadducees, or Pilate? The aTalmud doesn't even know or mention the name or the Sadducees, and it has less accurate detail of the beliefs than the NT.

The Temple.was ho oughly demolished in 70 AD, yet the Gospels have accurate details.of it. Works that are truly later, like.the Gnostic gospels, lack.affurate historical details or knowledge of real Jewish customs, of Jewish feast. Most Gnostic gospels don't even know Jesus and his followers were eben Jewish, and Jesus never is quoting the old Testament, as we would expect any 1st century Jewish teacher to do. Further, we see a progression in thought and attitudes of he Gospels consistent with the established chronology. Mark,clearly the oldest einf both Luke and Matthew borrow from it, as a neutral attitude toward Jews, it is only Jewish leaders who are condemned. Matthew written later has a more hostile view against Jews, and when Jesus is condemned it is Jews, not just Jewish leaders who took on the responsibility. Finally, in John, the newest, Jesus opponents are just Jews, not Pharisees or Sadducees, and Jesus regularly criticizes the Jews as if he and his followers were not Jews and themselves. This makes sense only in a 1st century context. From the text themselves, independent scholars would have rather them as 1st century sources, and most scholars dismiss a lot of what early Church said about the Gospels or the Epistles, their judgements are not based on Church writing for much.of their conclusions. Scholars are not blindly accepting everything in the NT, most reject 2 Peter, for example. They evaluate each NT work on its on merit, you and your he scholars you like are then ones blinding rejecting everything, no matter what.

It is not just with regard to the Talmud, but he is way off base on Gnosticism, which did not arise until Iater. The beliefs of Gnosticism would not have been held by any first century Jew of Palestine. Jesus and his followers have clearly Jewish names, yet they are decidely non Jewish in the Gnostics works, not quoting the OT, performing no Jewish rituals, celebrating no Jewish feast, while in the canonical gospels they do all those things. Clearly the canonical Gospels came first.
 

Similar History Discussions