From 15:35 to 16:47 - Perfectly put by Chrissy.

This is a great discussion and video. I think agree skepticism of sources has helped move biblical studies forward. I like the idea of moving Luke/Acts into the second century. I discount the idea of “ M” and “L” material. Why couldn’t those gospel writers simply invent the stories not found in Mark. I do not think there is any reason to think the gospel writers simply have to be redactors of previous traditions and sources. I think the weakest part of Jesus mythicism is its positive claims.

For late dating of the gospels you might want to reach out to M David Litwa. He said he’s considering writing a book on redating the NT. I think especially his ideas about Luke & Acts are fascinating (Marcion Priority). He even thinks Mark is c.100 which I’m quite skeptical of but it’d be interesting to hear his reasoning. I agree with you it doesn’t really matter for Christians but for scholarship some of these things (especially Marcion Priority) are very significant.

@michaelhenry1763

3 ай бұрын

I think dating to important too. I just struggle with which dating to accept with Luke. Is it 85-90 or is it 120?

Chrissy is great and this was a great conversation. Shoutout to her for bringing up Douglas Campbell.

@chrish4309

3 ай бұрын

I really like Campbell. I don't agree with him on much, but I think he is a great scholar. I think his view of the authenticity of the epistles is probably the best case. If we accept, for instance, 2 Thess. I don't think there is any reason to reject Colossians, Ephesians, or Philemon either. He and I primarily disagree on our starting assumptions and methods.

@computationaltheist7267

3 ай бұрын

It's a him. Do you give the same charity to Young Earth Creationist?

@lowkeytheology

3 ай бұрын

@@computationaltheist7267 you must live a very sad life. There is no point in you replying to this since I’m not going to read your reply. But I just want you to know that I hope one day you can look at yourself in the mirror and realize how sad you are to say something so stupid in a KZread comment.

@chrish4309

3 ай бұрын

@@computationaltheist7267 oh look, a class act bigot on the set.

It's a subject that seems to me to engender much vitriol and in-fighting. (Not saying that was the case here.) I think the subject (of historicity vs. myth) should be wrestled with seriously. For example, leaving the hot-button "Jesus", let's pick another figure from the deep past, say Confucius, and ask what do we really know about said person. When a follower of Confucianism thinks of Confucius are they really thinking of an actual person that lived, or is their _conception_ of some figure the truth to them?

@Jd-808

3 ай бұрын

That’s a theological question, not a historical one

@michaelhenry1763

3 ай бұрын

I agree with you. I think, for example, we have enough evidence to establish existence. To me the main problems come when we want to establish what the historical Jesus actually said and did. I think that should be the research focus.

Can anyone tell me what academic credentials Chrissy has?

@chrish4309

3 ай бұрын

I am a grad student with over 25 publications relating to early Christianity, Christian origins, and historiography of New Testament research in leading New Testament and biblical studies journals. I am one of the single most published people currently on the historicity of Jesus.

@adamdavis3361

3 ай бұрын

@@chrish4309 Thanks for replying. A graduate student in what?

@roddyboethius1722

3 ай бұрын

​@@chrish4309yeah, but your intellect is below average. You're credulous and inarticulate.