historical Jesus also a myth?

[Ben Kenobi]

All humanity is descended from two people?

What does that have to do with the Gospels?

[Sava]

So the old testament can be picked apart piecemeal but the nt can't?

[Ben Kenobi]

So the old testament can be picked apart piecemeal but the nt can't?

As a historical source? They are two very different collections. It's best to just stick with the Gospels here, since we're discussing the historicity of Christ.

[Sava]

hahah fundamentalists and the mental acrobatics they go through



Don't ever change.

[Ben Kenobi]

fundamentalists and the mental acrobatics they go through

Uh, I'm wearing my 'history teacher' hat here, Sava.

I'm prepared to discuss the history of the Old Testament, but it's a much different story, and I'm not entirely convinced we know all the particulars. Particularly surrounding Genesis which was your question.

I'd go so far to say we can break up the bible into three segments, NT, OT minus Genesis and... Genesis.

[Sava]

Uh, I'm wearing my 'history teacher' hat here, Sava.

*snicker

[kentonio]

For example the 2 genealogical trees

Genealogical trees showing Jesus had impecable ancestory. On his fathers side...

[Jon Miller]

hahah fundamentalists and the mental acrobatics they go through



Don't ever change.

The idea that Jesus didn't historically exist is ridiculous. Even the Jesus Seminar determined that was not a reasonable position to hold (and they focused on criticism and embraced scholars who held the myth view). We have accounts written in the lifetime of those who knew him. We have manuscripts in our position which date to ~100 AD so within the lifetime of people who knew the people who wrote the accounts (and who knew Jesus).

The issue of the old testament (especially of the books of Moses) is quite different. We know that scrolls were lost/etc and rediscovered a few hundred years before Babylon captivity (a prime opportunity to modify/make up). We know that the earliest Genesis could be written is by Moses which was 100s of years after Abraham. We know that oral traditions are not as accurate as what is written. The oldest manuscripts are from ~30 BC which is at least 100s of years after they were first written (~1000 if Moses was the writer of parts).

Previous to the dead sea scrolls the oldest manuscripts were much later than 100 AD. People in the 19th century thought huge portions were just made up. Then archeology discovered that some events were historical (note that events from Solomon and earlier have not been verified by archeology and scholars are still critical of preAhaz biblical history).

Wikipedia gives a good place to start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Ahaz%27s_Seal

and general

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible#Challenges_to_historicity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah

Jon

[Ben Kenobi]

Genealogical trees showing Jesus had impecable ancestory. On his fathers side...

Yes, and? Your point being?

[kentonio]

Yes, and? Your point being?

What was one of the things about Jesus that tends to be a trifle important to Christians? Something about his mother..?

[Sava]

Jon

Seems like a convenient way to say the supernatural stuff in the OT, like Genesis (that can be proven false with genetic testing), can be ignored while accepting the walking on water and all that nonsense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What was one of the things about Jesus that tends to be a trifle important to Christians? Something about his mother..?

Recall that the messianic lines refers to coming from the House of David. Adopted children tend to belong to the same house as their fathers.

[Ben Kenobi]

The issue of the old testament (especially of the books of Moses) is quite different. We know that scrolls were lost/etc and rediscovered a few hundred years before Babylon captivity (a prime opportunity to modify/make up). We know that the earliest Genesis could be written is by Moses which was 100s of years after Abraham. We know that oral traditions are not as accurate as what is written. The oldest manuscripts are from ~30 BC which is at least 100s of years after they were first written (~1000 if Moses was the writer of parts).

There's a very large gap of what we don't know in the early period of manuscript evidence in the OT, from before the dead sea scrolls to about 500 BC. Which we may never find out.

[Sava]

What was one of the things about Jesus that tends to be a trifle important to Christians? Something about his mother..?

I've always wondered, where did historical Jesus get his y chromosome? Did God give himself a special one?

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems like a convenient way to say the supernatural stuff in the OT, like Genesis (that can be proven false with genetic testing), can be ignored while accepting the walking on water and all that nonsense.

The only one's making that argument are the people who reject the text. The argument we are making is that if the sources themselves have different authors and different dates (something which is not controversial with the Old Testament), that this has implications for the historiography of the bible. \\

I'd go so far to argue that the primeval text of Genesis was not originally written down by Moses. But dates, perhaps as far back as several thousand years before him.