Modern Gospel Scholarship
QisQos
the authenticity of the Gospels and the historicity of Jesus Christ
simply argue from biased and partially informed sources.
Material is now coming out that the Gospels are cited in passages of
talmud wriiten around the time of the trumphant destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/entertainment/6014126.htm
here is a passage from a recent article:
Posted on Sat, Jun. 07, 2003
Support for authenticity of book of Matthew comes from an unlikely
place
By NEIL ALTMAN
Special to The Star
Buried in ancient texts of Jewish historical works are fragments of
evidence that appear to show the first book of the New Testament
actually was written by one of Jesus' apostles.
One of these texts also challenges a long-held assertion that no
ancient text except the Bible mentions Jesus' birth.
Taken together, the information lends support to the claims of some
Christian scholars that Matthew actually wrote the Gospel bearing his
name, a Gospel that more than the three others emphasized Jesus'
Jewish roots.
"One of the reasons that people have not come to grips with the
Jewishness of Jesus is that it makes the accounts of the Gospels
plausible," Craig Blomberg, distinguished professor of New Testament
at Denver Theological Seminary, said in an interview this week. "For
the Jewish or Christian believer, it helps them better understand who
Jesus was, what he stood for and what to do with this Gospel."
Since the 1800s groups of scholars have argued that Jesus might have
been a real person, but that he wasn't the son of God, that he didn't
perform miracles and that the four Gospels are mostly myths composed
by people who assigned to Jesus godlike powers.
More recently the scholarship has taken the form of the Jesus Seminar,
a group of about 200 academics who have been studying the Gospels
since the mid-1980s. The seminar created a media splash a decade ago
when it publicly announced its conclusions that Jesus said only 18
percent of what's conventionally attributed to him in the New
Testament. The Gospels, they concluded, are not historically reliable.
But as scholars of Judaism continue to research the history of early
Christianity, they are uncovering evidence that appears to show the
Gospels of the New Testament may be more reliable than some thought.
Matthew as parody
In the New Testament, none of the authors of the Gospels identifies
himself as the writer. The names -- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John --
belong to followers of Jesus who early church leaders believe wrote
the texts.
Until the 1800s Gospel authorship was rarely, if ever, questioned.
Then scholars in Germany shook up conventional belief by questioning
the authorship and challenging commonly accepted dates for when the
Gospels were written.
One of the first Gospels to be doubted was Matthew. Church tradition
said it was written by Matthew, a tax collector who became a disciple
of Jesus, a witness to events. Conservative Christian clergy and
scholars said they believe the book of Matthew was written between
A.D. 40 and 60, within Matthew's lifetime.
But other scholars concluded the Gospel wasn't written any earlier
than A.D. 85, perhaps as late as A.D. 135, long after Matthew's death.
If the author wasn't a witness, the thinking goes, the Gospel becomes
less credible.
So to scholars the dating is important.
In an essay written for the book Passover and Easter: Origin and
History to Modern Times, Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew
University reported a find in the Talmud that appears to show Matthew
could have been written earlier than some scholars contend.
Yuval wrote that a leading rabbinical scholar of the time was
"considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel
according to Matthew."
The parody, written by a rabbi known as Gamaliel, is believed by some
well-respected liberal Christian scholars to have been written about
A.D. 73 or earlier.
The fact the parody exists and the date when it was believed to be
written "would undercut badly (biblical critics') claims of a late
date of A.D. 85-90 or later," said Bob Newman, professor of New
Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania.
"That is very significant and very important," said Tim Skinner,
associate professor of Bible and theology at Luther Rise Seminary in
Georgia, because that validates the legitimacy of Matthew's
Gospel...it confirms the truthfulness of the biblical account in
Matthew and confirms the truth of what Jesus did."
Blomberg said a close study of the parody's wording indicates it was
based on an existing text. If that text was Matthew, the Gospel
existed much earlier than some scholars believe.
Similarly the earlier the Gospel was written, the more likely
eyewitnesses to Jesus' life would still be alive.
"(Which) would mean that Matthew's Gospel would be seen by other
eyewitnesses who could check and authenticate it," Blomberg said.
Praise and pronouncements
Among the challenges to Christianity was the charge that Jews had
rejected Jesus and that no Jewish leaders or scholars ever accepted
Jesus as the Messiah. But even one of the most revered Jewish texts,
the Talmud, a collection of rabbinical writings from 100 B.C. to A.D.
500, suggests otherwise.
In the second century A.D., Rabbi Judah Ha Nasi (A.D. 135-200) purged
the Mishnah, part of the Talmud, of many references to Christianity
and those who adhered to it. But not everything was edited out.
In his classic work, The History of the Talmud, Jewish Talmudic
scholar Michael L. Rodkinson wrote: "There were passages in the
Mishnayoth concerning Jesus and his teaching...the
Messianists...(were) many and considerable persons and in close
alliance with their colleagues the Pharisees during the (first) two
centuries."
Those words from the Mishnah appear to correspond to New Testament
accounts that many Jews, including Pharisees and "a great company of
priests were obedient to the faith" (Acts 6:7).
The Talmud mentions that the Romans hanged Jesus from a tree, while in
another text section the Talmud does something done nowhere else but
the New Testament -- mentions Jesus' birth.
English scholar R. Travers Herford, in his book Christianity in Talmud
and Midrash, wrote that rabbinical writings mention that Jesus'
mother, Mary, was "descended from princes and rulers."
Despite the noble lineage, Herford noted, the Talmudic text referred
to Jesus as "Ben Pandira," roughly translated as "son of a virgin,"
which was considered an epithet.
"While the Jesus Seminar was making radical pronouncements (among them
that Jesus was not the Son of God) and courting the media," Blomberg
said, "what is less well-known to the public is the study in which
scholars have been growing in their appreciation of Jesus' Jewish
roots."
He said, "These things have never been presented in any popular forms
of consumption to the American public."
QisQos;
As we see in this article, that the "modern scholars" have been
selective and disingenuous in presenting their findings and
conclusions and betray a very unscholastic attitude by pubishing only
that which undermines Christian Faith and the authenticity of the
Gospels and AScts of the Apostles.
So for those bahaists on this list who made such vehement arguments
that the gospels are fabricated, false or otherwise unhistoric and not
true, it is now being shown that the "scholarship" they believed to be
true simply is untrue and represents the God-hating biases of the
modern liberal scholars who infest our universities teaching
anti-christian lies.
Which now brings us to the final thesis: The Gospel of Matthew says
that Jesus rose from the dead, physically and really and ascended into
heaven. It is further taught in scripture Jesus will return to judge
the world. Bahais claim Jesus returned in the form of Bahaullah. But
Bahaullah was born of a married woman and conceived through sexual
intercourse. If Jesus rose in his resurrected physical body he is to
return in the same form - does Jesus now have two bodies, three if we
count the Bab? It is obvious that the return of Christ is meant
literally and in the same body he resurrected and ascended with - not
reborn as a "manifestation" or other metempsychotic, figurative or
other excuse.
Bahaullah is not the return of Jesus, nor has he judged the world -
despite his various claims to do so in his books.
Qisqos
Susan Maneck
>the authenticity of the Gospels and the historicity of Jesus Christ
>simply argue from biased and partially informed sources.
Which 'bahai sciffers' do that?
Randy Burns
the Jesus of the Gospels account. Sorry.
Randy
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03070...@posting.google.com...
QisQos
Scoffers, Susan. Apologies for the typographical error.
Randy Burns
Randy
--
QisQos <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29a4262b.03070...@posting.google.com...
Susan Maneck
>
>Scoffers, Susan. Apologies for the typographical error.
>
Dear Qis Qos,
While most Baha'is don't deny the findings of modern Gospel scholarship they
also accept the basic integrity of the Gospels as the Iqan clearly states:
"Our purpose in relating these things is to warn you that were they to maintain
that those verses wherein the signs referred to in the Gospel are mentioned
have been perverted, were they to reject them, and cling instead to other
verses and traditions, you should know that their words were utter falsehood
and sheer calumny. . . .
We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine
text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath
ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred! How oblivious of the fact
that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious
and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of
Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the
fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His
creatures, to disappear also? What would be left to that people to cling to
from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the
Muhammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such
people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, the omnipotent
Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the
heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful
be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge
with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He
above their comprehension!"
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
I thought you were the one scoffing at the Baha'is; so I think you are a Baha'i scoffer. I don't think you
make any claim about modern scholarship disproving the authenticity of the Gospels, etc.
Are you saying anything this time?
Best wishes!
- Pat
kohli at ameritel.net
Pat Kohli
QisQos wrote:
Corrections on me too. I see you wrote about bahaist scoffers, vice bahai scoffers.
Pat Kohli
Randy Burns wrote:
> Dang them scifferes, anyways.
You might be the bahaist sciffer I know, though.
BW!
- Pat
Herbert West
"QisQos" <Qis...@aol.com> wrote in message news:29a4262b.03070...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> In an essay written for the book Passover and Easter: Origin and
> History to Modern Times, Israel J. Yuval of Jerusalem's Hebrew
> University reported a find in the Talmud that appears to show Matthew
> could have been written earlier than some scholars contend.
>
> Yuval wrote that a leading rabbinical scholar of the time was
> "considered to have authored a sophisticated parody of the Gospel
> according to Matthew."
>
> The parody, written by a rabbi known as Gamaliel, is believed by some
> well-respected liberal Christian scholars to have been written about
> A.D. 73 or earlier.
Gamaliel is a character in the parody, not it's author. The parody was most
definitely NOT written earlier than 73 CE. The story appears only in the
Babylonian Gemara. Here is the relevant passage:
Shabbat 116a,b--Imma Shalom was the wife of R. Eliezer and sister
of Rabban Gamaliel. There was in her neighborhood a "philosoph",
who had got a name for not taking a bribe. They sought to make fun
of him. She sent to him a lamp of gold. They came before him. She
said to him, "I desire that they divide to me the property of the
women's house." He said to them, "Divide it." They said to him,
"For us, it is written, 'Where there is a son, a daughter does not
inherit.' " He said to them, "From the day when you were exiled
from your land, the Law of Moses has been taken away, and the Law
of the Evangelion has ben given, and in it is written, 'A son and
a daughter shall inherit alike.' " The next day he [Rabban Gamaliel]
in his turn sent to him a Lybian ass. He [the judge] said, "I have
looked further to the end of the book, and in it is written, 'I am
not come to take away from the Law of Moses, and I am not come to
add to the Law of Moses.' and in it [the Law of Moses] is written,
'Where there is a son, a daughter does not inherit'. " She said to
him, "Let your light shine as a lamp!" R. Gamaliel said to her,
"The ass has come and trodden out the lamp."
In the Gemara the story is tacked on to a passage dealing with written
scrolls; but there isn't a word of introduction to say on whose authority
it was told. Chances are it was a family anecdote told by the descendants
of R. Gamaliel. If the the incident took place at all, then it was certainly
post-72 CE, per the phrase ""From the day when you were exiled
from your land", which likely refers to the confiscation of Jewish property
in that year. Thus, it's possible that the incident portrayed in the above
story may have happened as early as 73 CE, but it certainly didn't occur
prior to that. More likely is that if it occurred, it was within the closing
years of the first century, or the beginning of the second century. The
place was probably Yavneh. As to authorship, R. Gamaliel was not
the author, it may have been one of his descendants, but there's no
way to tell for certain who that was specifically. The date of authorship
is likely the first half of the second century, definitely not earlier.
<snip>
> As we see in this article, that the "modern scholars" have been
> selective and disingenuous in presenting their findings and
> conclusions and betray a very unscholastic attitude by pubishing only
> that which undermines Christian Faith and the authenticity of the
> Gospels and AScts of the Apostles.
>
> So for those bahaists on this list who made such vehement arguments
> that the gospels are fabricated, false or otherwise unhistoric and not
> true, it is now being shown that the "scholarship" they believed to be
> true simply is untrue and represents the God-hating biases of the
> modern liberal scholars who infest our universities teaching
> anti-christian lies.
<snip>
The article is crap. There's no new information in that story, excepting the
new spin the authors tried to give it. Liberal scholars offend you because
they separate the Christ of history from the Christ of faith. You don't want
any of your claims about Jesus subject to historical investigation. If nothing
in the creed or church doctrine is allowed to be at issue for a scholar, then
they'd just be pretending, which is the way you'd apparently like it.
Herbert West
Miskatonic U.
"Nothing is more logical than persecution. Religious tolerance is a kind of infidelity."
-- Ambrose Bierce
Randy Burns
Randy
--
Inconcussus <inconc...@aol.comnodogma> wrote in message
news:20030707224934...@mb-m11.aol.com...
> > it is now being shown that the "scholarship" they believed to be
> >true simply is untrue and represents the God-hating biases of the
> >modern liberal scholars who infest our universities teaching
> >anti-christian lies.
>
> What do you want done to purge this "infestation" as you call these
people?
> Brand them as "terrorists" and take things from there?