👉Join Atlas Vpn! get.atlasvpn.com/HistoryValley

Second favorite interviewee after Dr. James Tabor. Always happy to see either one!

I can definitely see where Dr Walsh is coming from. Christianity is like the perfect mix of ancient and classical religion. Dying and rising gods were all the 1st and 2nd century rage.

@BagzAndPresident

8 ай бұрын

Also before then. And Jesus is not God

Sensational heading. Creation of Christianity was a deliberate effort.

RFW in the house...I'm in!🐾

Dr. Walsh! Yay! Thanks!

I tend to think the canonical gospels were commissioned by the early Christian leaders. Scribes schooled in Greek composition and familiar with the Septuagint were hired to write a biography of Jesus to be read in various churches with the Gospel being slanted to meet the audience.

I like her approach of reading the gospels as historical literature (like we read historical novels -James Michener's "The Source" comes to mind), and Paul's letters as a way to understand the messiness of the Jesus movement prior to the destruction of the temple.

@KingDavid1979

8 ай бұрын

Sarah Damaris daughter of Yeshuah Ben Yossef married with Athenor! NT falling! Worshippers of a dead man is idolatry and weird! Christianism is dead 2000 year ago !

@ElkoJohn

8 ай бұрын

@@KingDavid1979 // we are like sheep among wolves

I think it's great the way Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh clarifies that any version of historic Christianity - be it big bang or otherwise - is wrong to present the growth and day-to-day life as problem-free. Not only is that clear in the Pauline Epistles, but also in the Epistles of Peter, James, John, and in the messages to the seven churches in John's Revelation of Jesus.

Robin Faith Walsh is one of my favorite scholars right up there with Richard C Miller, Markus Vincent and Richard Carrier.

@UrMomsFavSnack

8 ай бұрын

Oh hell yes, Miller and Carrier completely changed the way I look at the New Testament and the broader context/locations that these stories spawned from.

@christianmichael8609

8 ай бұрын

Interesting selection. My favorites are Crispin Fletcher-Louis, Dale C. Allison Jr, Richard C. Hays, Morna D. Hooker, Alan Garrow, Jens Schröter, John Coolidge Hurd and Luke Timothy Johnson. Johnsons ‘The Great Courses’ audio lectures are truly excellent in every way. I have gotten more valuable insights from listening to and reading Johnson than everyone else combined. Allisons even-handedness and humility is also admirable - I really enjoyed ‘Constructing Jesus’ and his short book ‘The Theological Jesus and the Historical Christ’. Jesus-myth proponent Richard C. Carrier deserves mention too. For me, Carrier is an example how far astray a razor sharp mind can go, when one is not paying close attention to the literary hermeneutic units of the individual compositions that are our source material. Carrier's work is the backdrop on which I came to appreciate the methodological superiority of exegesis that results from approaching the Pauline letters as carefully crafted literary compositions, that made use of ancient rhetorical conventions, having been written to address specific situations at points in time where Paul or one of his delegates could not be present locally, to deal with the matter in person. To me, Johnson and Hurd, though elderly scholars, are a breath of fresh air with scholarly integrity and wise discernment that is responsible to the sources.

@edwardmiessner6502

8 ай бұрын

@@christianmichael8609 Seeing where you come from by your username I think we'll have to agree to disagree about Dr. Carrier.

@christianmichael8609

8 ай бұрын

@@edwardmiessner6502 I am fine with a disagreement, but not with reading tealeaves ;) I doubt that my given name and family name has anything whatsoever to do with what I appreciate about Dr. Carrier's scholarship, and with the many instances where I have to disagree his assessment of the sources. I disagree when I find that the literary evidence does not support his claims. One example among many is Carrier's claim that the Life of Adam and Eve attests to an ancient belief that the Garden of Eden was imagined to have been located in the 3rd heaven, and that it Eden is equivalent to the heavenly Paradise Paul references in 2 Corinthians. Carrier completely ignores the evidence from the Book of Jubilees and Second Enoch, that explains the topography of the Garden of Eden quite well. If he had checked those sources, it could have stopped him from postulating that ancient Jews and Christians imagined that the garden of Eden was located in Heaven, and consequently, that heaven had trees and soil, and that people could be buried there. If he had cared to check, he could have been aware that Paradise in the 3rd heaven and the Garden of Eden are not equivalent place descriptors in the ancient sources. When Paul talks about having visited Paradise in the third heaven, he is very unlikely to mean the garden of Eden, because the 3rd heaven was where the souls of the righteous were envisioned to be resting, until the resurrection, while the Garden of Eden had been destroyed long ago, during the flood. If Carrier had checked, he could have learned that ancient Jewish texts imagined the Garden of Eden to have been a walled off garden, located at a mountaintop on Earth, with four rivers flowing down from it. The Book of Jubiliees narrates how the Garden of Eden, the highest place on earth, was the very last thing to be destroyed by the flood during the days of Noah. All of the plants of the garden were destroyed by the water entering the garden, except for the vine, which was saved :) Second Enoch envisions Paradise in the 3rd heaven as a sort of transparent balcony, , far above the garden on the high mountaintop. It was possible for Enoch, during his heavenly ascent, to look down from the 3rd heaven into the earthly garden, through a hole in the firmament below. In the same way, Adam and Eve had been able to observe the angels above through the same opening in the firmament. This was one of the things that made Satan envious of them. I have found the latter attested in an ancient text that I unfortunately do not recall at present. Anyhow, this topographical layout explains practically everything that is puzzling about geography in the Life of Adam and Eve, and pulls the rug from under Carrier. It is clear to me and many other readers of the Life of Adam and Eve, merely from paying attention to the hermeneutic unit of the text itself, that Adam's soul-less body is lying on the ground beside Eve and Seth while they look into the heavens above the pre-flood garden of Eden, and there and see the soul of Adam - which is the essence of Adam - being carried off by Michael to Paradise in the 3rd heaven. The soulless, "Adam-less" body is then buried in the earthly walled off garden while only Seth is allowed to remain awake. When the topographical information from Jubilees and Second Enoch is brought to bear, it solidifies the impression gained from the hermeneutic unit of the text itself. Given that Jubilees imagines the Garden of Eden to be the higher place on Earth, it makes good sense that Adam and Eve literally ‘fell down’ when they were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Try reading Carrier’s blog entry about ‘The Life of Adam and Eve’ with this knowledge in mind, and you will see how strained and unpersuasive his exegesis of the text really is. Had Carrier read more widely, instead of hurrying to mine data in support of his theory, it could have saved him this particular wild goose chase. He embarks on many of those, in my judgement. I provide another example of a serious misreading of an ancient author below, which he presents as factual information in favor of mythicism almost every time he get’s a chance to explain his theory.

@brainmoleculemarketing801

8 ай бұрын

Ad hominem....ad nauseum Even the ancient Greeks knew attacking the person, and not the ideas, was a cheap trick rhetorical trick and logical fallacy. But personalizing everything now is pop so...@@edwardmiessner6502

Yeah! This scholar makes me feel good as well as educating me.

Dr Walsh is meticulous without getting hung up on minutiae. That is, she carefully constructs patterns from the data and does not fret over a few details which do not neatly fit. The picture is fuzzy on the edges but the overall image is coherent.

Thanks!

This guy is always a hoot, but that shilling intro was the funniest bit yet! 😂🤣😅

14:40 yes indeed! This is similar to something Burton Mack said in his Q book, that the Q collection may have started out as just a collection of sayings of a particular type, in the Greek mode (though I am paraphrasing horribly). By the way, this is incidental to this presentation, but that would also support the idea that Jesus is not a historical figure, since the sayings collection would already be in circulation before anybody decided to add a central mouthpiece (called "god's saviour"/Yeshu') to say all of the aphorisms and homilies. It seems far easier to just invent one, in that situation, and base him on the archetype of the itinerant mendicant sage which would have been a familiar one in the Hellenistic world.

I am not quite sure what her personal research agenda is. Otherwise, she has a captivating speaking style and has an excellent command of the issues she discusses. I also like the fact that she ventures into fields such as sociology and, if you want, the dynamics of mass psychology along the lines of the Frankfurt School. I am not sufficiently well informed to discuss the influence of Stoicism and Pytahgoreanism (in my mental landscape they are quite different from each other.)

the clash between Albinus ( the whitened wall ) and Festus ( the pied piper ) on the road . great ballz of lightning-fire .

Dr. Walsh's approach to unpacking the steps and stages of cultural production creation and promotion really helps my study of other art and science and my own creative and business writing/marketing. How do cultural products actually get MADE who/what/when/where/how?

@edwardmiessner6502

7 ай бұрын

Why, too.

@brainmoleculemarketing801

7 ай бұрын

@@edwardmiessner6502 impossible to know why. Pure speculation, myth, solipism.

In the transcript Dr. Walsh refers to a “John Kenborg” and his ideas about Jesus societies. Is that the correct name of the author she cites. She mentioned a book, but in searching online I’m not getting any hits for it. Any help in sourcing this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

@decades5643

8 ай бұрын

She's talking about John Kloppenborg. Two books of his I'm familiar with are "Greco-Roman Associations: Texts, Translations, and Commentary" (Walter de Gruyter, 2011) and "Christ’s Associations: Connecting and Belonging in the Ancient City" (Yale University Press, 2019).

@michaelstackpole2021

8 ай бұрын

@@decades5643 Thank you so very much.

@kamilgregor

8 ай бұрын

​@@michaelstackpole2021The book is very good

Please can someone explain what is the Big Bang that started it all, as referred to in this video? 🧐

@edwardmiessner6502

7 ай бұрын

Basically what we are led to believe in Acts, proven to be an historical fiction.

Parental deity religion is just Art and it isn't history it is just literature. 💙

Great

I get the impression that scholarship in the west is too focused on European Christianity in the first century, at the expense of studying the spread of Christianity into, say, northern Africa or Syria, and then if Thomas went as far east as India, etc. For instance, to think that 100 Christian communities (say, 3,000 people in one hundred groups of about 30 each) were in existence early on is harder to imagine if we consider only Europe, but much easier to imagine if we are talking about globally. And I really do not get where the idea that women would not have been converting comes from. There are women today in Muslim and Hindu households, who are confined to the home, and not permitted to convert, who are converting anyway into followers of Jesus. Why would it have been any different in the first century in that regard? Especially considering the Jewish women who accompanied Jesus from early on and saw him resurrected, not to mention the women converts mentioned in the Pauline and Johannine epistles, in the book of Acts, etc. etc. Luke's Gospel records women testifying about Jesus in proportionately large numbers compared to men, as early as Elizabeth the mother of John and Anna the daughter of Penuel. Anna apparently wasn't going to be alive much longer, but given her report from long before Jesus' baptism, wouldn't we envision other women in similar positions and with similar confessions after Jesus' baptism?

❤😊

Isn't this guy actually in Ghostbusters 2016... Neil Casey? 🤣

Dr. Robyn Faith Walsh is an absolute delight in every way.

😍

Not being of the Arbrahmic religions I take it that you discount converts being converted by way of Divine revelation? Some level of divinely bestowed spiritual Revelaion common to all? I understand that is essential what their gospel writer's claim? A point in favor of your arguement is the vast majority of Gentils outside of Israil had never heard of Abraham, Noah or a Messiah and completly irrelevant to them. Paul, addressing the Greek philosopher's on Mars Hill skips the entirety of the Hebrew story and Judaism's external God up in the sky somewhere and instead, opens with words their highest understanding of Reality "As your philosophers say " In God you move, live and have your Being". and then preaches his "gospel" within that conext, at a Quantum Pyhsics level into days terms. It would be hard to imagine the few that listened that day or later the growing numbers of converts around the Mediterrian would be interested or care about Judism or the laws, kosher etc. There is no way there was any organized, specified, doctrine until centuries later no matter if it their gospel was spread by collective hysteria or Divine revelation.

It might be that we need to be saved from the savior.

@davidjanbaz7728

8 ай бұрын

LOL 😂 sure buddy that sounds good to the ignorant!

@somethingyousaid5059

8 ай бұрын

Maybe _all_ of us are ignorant, such that for all we know, the worst case scenario is actually the case. The default existence of an all powerful but _evil_ creator.

@coniferviveur3788

8 ай бұрын

@@davidjanbaz7728 Society needs to be saved from the institutional propaganda incessantly spewed by gullible deluded fools who have abandoned reason so they can believe in the ancient superstitious explanatory mythology invented by minds so ignorant about their world they were mystified by where the sun went at night.

@edwardmiessner6502

7 ай бұрын

You hit the Christian message right on the head!

7:45 this question regarding the timing of the layers of Q starts to make much more sense when you stop assuming that there was a historical Jesus, and start taking seriously Bull and Vinzent's work suggesting that the narrative gospels were compiled in the second century CE rather than the first, though I don't think there is yet a scholar who's putting all of those things together. It works quite nicely though when you do start to think it through, and I think it fits well with the John Kloppenborg and Burton Mack stuff on Q. However, I thoroughly expect to be ridiculed and belittled for saying so in the comments of this channel, but so what, eh? Calling people names never changed any facts.

@FictionMission

8 ай бұрын

I will not ridicule your observation. You are on the right track. 👍

@edwardmiessner6502

8 ай бұрын

No, I won't ridicule your observation either. I think you're onto something... that the way Q came about suggests a lack of an historical Jesus or the _"right"_ historical Jesus.

@TobiasC-mg4zk

8 ай бұрын

Jesus would have gotten in the way of Paul’s Christ if that’s what you mean. So he and his family had to be redacted from the scene and replaced with this Christ Myth. It’s a beautiful and well crafted myth but it’s got very little to do with history.

@integrationalpolytheism

8 ай бұрын

@@TobiasC-mg4zk yes, and that's why I think it should be generally recognised that there's no way to tell whether there was a hiatorical Jesus for not, rather than the current dogmatic insistence that there was definitely a historical Jesus, even if we can not reliably know anything about him! It's an odd cultural bias even among the secular guild, and it's really obvious once you see it. However Paul doesn't redact Jesus. He clearly doesn't know or care anything about a living Jesus in the first place. The visionary resurrected Jesus is all Paul cares about, and there are no early christian texts that mention the resurrection other than those dependent on Paul, including the canonical gospels, since gMark is clearly Pauline and the rest clearly do know gMark, obviously not conclusive, but it underscores your point that everything we do know about Jesus is actually fictional or unverifiable. I'll also make the point, since this is History Valley, that Paul meets Cephas and James the brother of the Lord in Galatians, and this is usually taken to show that the gospels are on sound footing to an extent, however that's as useless as the christian claim that finding Pilate's judgement seat lends credibility to the resurrection story. The gospels know Paul, so they are simply lifting these characters, who are nothing more than names really in Galatians, and building characters essentially out of whole cloth. James is mentioned in an almost unnoticeable way, even in Acts, and the character of Simon Peter almost doesn't even share a name with the career apostle that Paul met. The issue of historical veracity in the gospels and Jesus' existence in particular is far more tenuous than many of the dogmatic scholars on this channel and others are willing to admit, and they use braggadocio and bluster (or arguments from consensus and authority) in lieu of any convincing evidence on this one subject, even if they are detailed and methodological in their usual work, or that's my observation anyway.

@billyfudd818

7 ай бұрын

@@integrationalpolytheism kudo's for mentioning braggadocio and bluster. It seems to me we're all born with a penchant for proclamation and aren't discouraged from satisfying that proclivity with puerile pontifications. Puerile pontifications are always rescindable (tee hee).

Geesh, she speaks in pure academic fol de rol.

@justmagicmostly

8 ай бұрын

You might just be outta your depth, champ.

@gsr4535

8 ай бұрын

@@justmagicmostly Nah junior, I can discern academic speech - word salad with little content. Apparently you're unable to but thanks for playing along. Drive home safely!

@justmagicmostly

8 ай бұрын

@@gsr4535 interesting that nobody else seems to agree with you

@sopliplily2204

7 ай бұрын

@@justmagicmostly I agree with OP. Walsh does not point to a single historical artifact or document to support her theory. Idk how this is acceptable in academia. Shouldn't there be more weight on empirical evidence than people's wacky ideas? I expect this in Comparative Literature, not History. This reminds me of how people used to claim William Shakespeare wasn't the author of his plays and that there was a true mastermind behind them. It's an interesting conspiracy theory, but it should not be worthy of academia taking this seriously unless we find legitimate evidence to prove otherwise beyond shoddy reasoning like: Oh, I don't think a peasant who wasn't formally educated is capable of knowing what the nobles had learned.

christianity is a greco roman religion

@ranilodicen4460

8 ай бұрын

@@Besthinktwice good analogy

@edwardmiessner6502

8 ай бұрын

With "Jewish" characteristics

@ranilodicen4460

8 ай бұрын

@@edwardmiessner6502 yeah! early apostolic fathers know they needed the legitimacy of ancient judaism because romans treats new religions as superstition

@moshekallam1070

8 ай бұрын

Judeo-Greco-Roman

Jacob hellbent on Q, ignoring Walsh's unenthusiastic support of it.

@Jd-808

8 ай бұрын

They were great questions

@eximusic

8 ай бұрын

@@Besthinktwice Walsh also gives a good reason for Q not existing in her book, without directly denying the existence of Q. By her thesis there is also no need for it.

@eximusic

8 ай бұрын

@@Jd-808 Part of the art of conversation is also listening and adjusting your prepared questions when the guest goes a different direction.

@kencratchley8697

8 ай бұрын

There is no need for Q. I agree with Joseph Atwill that the gospels were compiled by an editorial board.

I wonder why she thinks Mark's Gospel shows the Spirit making Jesus into God's Son, rather than identifying Jesus as God's Son.

@justmagicmostly

8 ай бұрын

It was a common belief in early Christianity, read about the Ebionites for example

@dianastevenson131

7 ай бұрын

I recommend "The Risen Lord" by Margaret Barker on that theory - she has lots of info and sources there.

What is Dr. Walsh laughing about?

Paul was either evil or stupid.

@dwiii1635

6 ай бұрын

With one hell of a temper and emotional manipulative side.

Nothing but very weak arguments from silence.

I wish she’d be willing to model the behavior herself. I cannot quite grip what she’s actually attempting to communicate.

We all know why us men are really here

@jamesjc

8 ай бұрын

ok I do notice the extreme care taken for a visual impact

@Benjamin-jo4rf

8 ай бұрын

​@@jamesjcyes as usual Jacob is at his best and looking as dapper as ever.

@jamesjc

8 ай бұрын

​@@Benjamin-jo4rfgood one

@Benjamin-jo4rf

8 ай бұрын

@@jamesjc thank you hombre

@justmagicmostly

8 ай бұрын

Some of us are actually interested in Bible scholarship but hey, way to out yourself.

Dont worry be happy, the begining does not mater, the important is the end . Jesus only saves christians, Jesus will not save you.

@TupacMakaveli1996

8 ай бұрын

Only and only Jesus will save? Abarham cannot?

@onlytruth6337

8 ай бұрын

@@TupacMakaveli1996 Abraham can not save Adam and all people that lived before abraham. Adam did not need judaism and did not need abraham and isaac and jacob... all OTcan not save Adam and can not save anybody. Only Jesus can save Adam and people of the past and future. Isaac, Daniel Isaiah etc... did not save anybody and will not save anybody. The Ot is only the preparation of the NT, only Nt saves.

@onlytruth6337

8 ай бұрын

@@Besthinktwice Exactly, only Jesus can save to who has not heard of him, for example Adam and Eve. But Abraham or Moses or David or isaiah can not save Adam and can not save Israel. The prophets are not saviours, they only tell some good rules and israel is only the place of JesusThe Ot without Nt is completly absurd and useless. Nobody in all world has accepted ever the OT before Jesus, because all world knows that is useless, the japanise people will never accept the OT, they only can accept the God of Israel if they accept the NT and Jesus.

@stevenkarner6872

8 ай бұрын

I'm not looking for a first century apocalyptic preacher to save me from anything. Thanks though. BTW- no one EVER is born of a virgin and no one EVER comes back from the dead. Reading it as allegory at least makes some sense.

@youknowitstrue3826

8 ай бұрын

​@@onlytruth6337There's no salvation in idolatry. But please, explain the process, pagan.

Brother brother brother, you need to educate yourself about your own religion before you embarrass yourself with this kind of videos. Who determines whether a book is inspired or not. Were those books inspired before and then later got uninspired for them to be removed. If they were never inspired to begin with then what were they doing in the bible in the first place. Listen, not everyone's unbelief is caused by extra books that are not included in the bible, some people's unbelief comes from reading, studying and researching. Remember, just as they tell you that those books are not inspired, it could have been the ones that today you regard as inspired that could have been excluded had the agenda been different. What would you say then, you would not have a choice but to say they are not inspired. In other words I'm saying to you, the only reason you say those extra books are not inspired is because you were told so and the only reason you believe your 66 books are inspired is because you were told so. You talk about some of those books' authors being someone different from the name given to the book, guess what, your own inspired gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. So, just sit down bro.

@edwardmiessner6502

7 ай бұрын

Certainly you're not talking to Jacob Berman because your comment seems to have come from left field. Jacob never was a Christian, he's Jewish. I myself used to be a Christian until I discovered that there was the manufacture of so many lies by the Christian church and the declaration of books as inspired, then uninspired, by committee. None of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible or any other books of the Catholic, Orthodox, and Ethiopian Bibles were inspired, except maybe by the ingestion of drugs!

Jesus was God in the flesh....your Creator. ✝️

@derekallen4568

8 ай бұрын

Sure he was and Buddha too.

@YECBIB

8 ай бұрын

@@derekallen4568 Just Jesus ✝️

@derekallen4568

8 ай бұрын

Jesus was a mythical character created by Paul. There's no historical evidence, outside of the bible that Jesus ever existed.

@geraldamos292

8 ай бұрын

Ha ha...can you prove what you are parioting??

@YECBIB

8 ай бұрын

@@geraldamos292 Where and how would we have a parrot in the first place, wingnut?🤦‍♂️✝️