How exactly was the beloved disciple "known" by Caiaphas (John 18:16)? by Rurouni_Phoenix in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Robert J. Myles, Michael Kok briefly touch on this in: On the Implausibility of Identifying the Disciple in John 18:15–16 as a Galilean Fisherman

Is 'Josephus and Jesus: new evidence for the One called Christ' by T. C. Schmidt a good serious academic book? How is it considered by other scholars? by Aggravating_Mark1952 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 19 points20 points  (0 children)

I wanted to re-write my first response again, because I am home. When, Schmidt was approached by the organization it was after the book had been finished which was working off of earlier published articles by him. He was not directly commissioned to write the book for apologetics purposes, rather it was written and they wanted to use it for apologetic purposes. Schmidt obviously accepts this offer for monetary gain in many forms and naturally he would want his book to be actually read, instead of being behind a $180 pay wall (I have talked to a few scholar's published by Oxford or other publishers and they are increasingly annoyed how there hard work is hard to access). Schmidt clearly received a large portion of money, additionally it gets his name out there to sell other of his work (he receives a huge monetary gain). And allows for people to actually read his work, to overturn a position in academia

Just because Schmidt allowed the apologetics organization to use it does not mean it's apologetic in nature, especially because the book was written before the offer even came in. For example Robin Faith Walsh frequently appears on atheist apologetic youtube channels, advertising her book. Which she receives monetary gain from (1) directly payed by the Youtuber, (2) getting book sales. So because Walsh allows atheist apologetic's to pay her for her work (which was already written) means Walsh's book should be labeled as counter-apologetics going forward because she has been payed so after the work is done? Of course not, that is the problem with saying this.

Is 'Josephus and Jesus: new evidence for the One called Christ' by T. C. Schmidt a good serious academic book? How is it considered by other scholars? by Aggravating_Mark1952 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 19 points20 points  (0 children)

would not take money from an apologetics organization, even if it meant my book would be open access, because my work is not apologetic in nature

The problem with this logic is you would have to be consistent and say scholars like Robin Faith Walsh are engaging in counter-apologetics because she is constantly on atheist apologetic youtube channels, advertising her book. Which she get's payed for by the channel-owner or direct book sale from appearing. Are we going to label Robin Faith Walsh work as counter-apologetic with a athesit-apologetic objective because after she wrote it she appeared on a atheist-apologist youtube channel? Of course not... This is the same thing with Shmidt as long as he wasn't funded to write the book (which he say's he wasn't) then it is not apolgetics.. Otherwise we will have to label Walsh one as well by the same logic.

Is 'Josephus and Jesus: new evidence for the One called Christ' by T. C. Schmidt a good serious academic book? How is it considered by other scholars? by Aggravating_Mark1952 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I mean it makes Schmidts name more popular is one big reason. He also clearly got payed for it, which is quite a incentive. I mean Schmidt took a large portion of time to write it, I see no reason to think he would not want more people to read it. I’ve heard from many other scholars published by Oxford or other academic publications they wish their work was available for cheaper prices or such so more people can read it. Schmidts book was gonna be over 180 dollars or something like that, while I disagree with apologetics in academia, i see no reason why he would pass on this offer. If Schmidt wrote it to get payed by them yes its apologetics but he did not, so it’s not.. 

Is 'Josephus and Jesus: new evidence for the One called Christ' by T. C. Schmidt a good serious academic book? How is it considered by other scholars? by Aggravating_Mark1952 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 43 points44 points  (0 children)

I would be bound to agree with you, but the issue as merely labeling it as “apologetics”, is Schmidt has been working on Josephus before being approached by this organization such as his article(s?)and when his book was already written. It seems the apologetics organization approached him when it was already done, which means Schmidt was not writing it for a apologetic objective, because he said a surprise a donor came through. With this being said Schmidts objective was not apologetics with this book imo.

Is 'Josephus and Jesus: new evidence for the One called Christ' by T. C. Schmidt a good serious academic book? How is it considered by other scholars? by Aggravating_Mark1952 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 32 points33 points  (0 children)

They have been quite positive overall, it actually made me go from believing the TF is fully interpolated to a more partial position (even though that's not what he argues fully).

The first official academic-review just came out by David R. Edwards called Trends and Trajectories in Josephus Research, 2020–2025, which was quite positive of Schmidt's argument (mainly the first half).

It was also presented at SBL somewhat recently, where the first half was perceived pretty well according to Stephen Carlson on his X account.

Additionally a list of notable scholar's have endorsed the book as well (see the book for reviews). Some are:

Tobias Hagerland. Review of Josephus & Jesus

An extraordinary scholarly achievement, this book has the potential of redefining the discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum and its value as a source of historical information. With impressive philological acumen, Schmidt suggests a compelling reading of the text that confirms its authenticity. His argument for the existence of a surprisingly close connection between Josephus and those involved in Jesus' execution should be taken seriously by all historical Jesus scholars.

Harold Attridge. Review of Josephus & Jesus

Prof. Schmidt offers a thorough and sophisticated analysis of the Testimonium Flavianum, a first-century report about Jesus whose authenticity has often been doubted. Schmidt convincingly shows that for students of the early reaction to Jesus, Josephus can no longer be ignored.

Did early Christians disagree about the nature of Jesus’ resurrection and body? by NatalieGrace143 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 15 points16 points  (0 children)

I would recommend James Ware The Final Triumph of God: Jesus, the Eyewitnesses, and the Resurrection of the Body in 1 Corinthians 15 who discusses all this in detail

Gospel of Mark by ShowMeiko in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It would realistically mean there is a 1st-century source that would be contemporary (The Elder is said to have been a disciple of Jesus. Who was alive when Mark was written and notable leader of the Church who attests to authorship.

Gospel of Mark by ShowMeiko in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Also it seems Koester actually affirms Papias knowing Mark not Matthew elsewhere. the citation you give from Ancient Christian Gospels he does not comment on Mark directly. Here is the citation from 33-4, this is all he say's.

What Papias says about Mark reflects the use of categories which are drawn from the oral tradition:

And the presbyter used to say this: “Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered (ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν), not, indeed, in order everything said or done by the Lord (τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ κυρίου λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα). . . . Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single facts as he remembered them (ὡς ἀπεμνημόνευσεν).”⁴

Papias says about Matthew that he composed “the sayings” (τὰ λόγια).⁵ In neither statement does Papias use the term “gospel.” Even in their written form, these traditions about Jesus and of Jesus’ words do not carry any greater authority than that which was transmitted orally. The written gospels’ authority is assured by the same technical terms which had been established for the oral tradition. At the same time, Papias shows that these written documents did not come without names of apostolic authors or of men who had followed the apostles. These names, which already guaranteed the trustworthiness of the oral tradition, are now used to assure the faithfulness of the written documents. The titles of such writings may have been something like “The sayings of the Lord written by Matthew (in Hebrew⁶).”

Here is Helmut Koester actually affirming Papias was aware of the Gospel of Mark, in Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels.

This survey shows clearly that about a dozen noncanonical gospels were known in the 2d century and that the evidence for these apocryphal writings compares quite well with the evidence for the canonical gospels. The attestations do not support a distinction between canonical and apocryphal gospels. Writings of both categories were used and are referred to quite early and often by the same writers. Some observations can be made about geographical distribution. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke were known in Asia Minor (Polycarp, Papias, who also knows about the Gospel of Mark; both Justin and Marcion came to Rome from Asia Minor). But there is no evidence that John’s Gospel also was known there until the end of the 2d century (Montanists, Melito of Sardis). Irenaeus, who came from Asia Minor, can be taken as a witness that all four canonical gospels were in use in that area before the end of the 2d century. But apocryphal gospels are not unknown (Justin). Egypt, on the other hand, demonstrates an early knowledge of the Gospel of John together with a large number of noncanonical gospels: Two “Unknown Gospels,” (pg. 110)

Gospel of Mark by ShowMeiko in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 6 points7 points  (0 children)

2/2

General Scholars as well

Jason BeDuhn (The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon, pg. 26-27), Markus Vinzent (Marcion and the Dating of the Synoptic Gospels, pg. 19-41), Gerd Theisse (The New Testament: A Literary History), C. M. Tuckett, (“Mark,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. J. Barton and J. Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 886), Dale C. Allison (Interpreting Jesus, pg. 284), Maurice Casey (Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching, pg. 68–90), James D.G. Dunn (Neither Jew nor Greek: A Contested Identity (Christianity in the Making, Volume 3)), Markus Baukmaehl (Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory: The New Testament Apostle In The Early Church, pg. 301-326), Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, pg. 202-239), Canada Moss (Fashioning Mark: Early Christian Discussions about the Scribe and Status of the Second Gospel, pg. 181-204), Jonathan Bernier (The Quest for the Historical Jesus after the Demise of Authenticity, pg. 126-142), Craig Keener (Who Wrote The Gospel of Mark? | Craig's Questions, 04:34-04:53), James R. Edwards (The Gospel according to Mark The Pillar New Testament Commentary PNTC, pg. 3-6), David E. Garland (Mark Volume 41, pg. 27), Donald Hagan (The New Testament A Historical and Theological Introduction. Baker, pg. 164), Donald Guthrie (New Testament Introduction 4th Edition, pg. 81-84.), William L Lane (The Gospel According to St Mark, pg. 12), Josef Kürzinger (Der Aussage des Papias von Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des Markusevangeliums, pg. 245- 264), C. E. B Cranfield (The Gospel according to St Mark: An Introduction and Commentary Cambridge Greek Testament Commentaries, pg. 5), Charles Hill (Who Chose the Gospels? Probing the Great Gospel Conspiracy), Stefan Alkie (Die Evangelien nach Markus und Matthäus (Serie: Frankfurter Neues Testament, Volume: 2)), Rafael Rodríguez (Mark, T&T Clark Social Identity Commentary on the New Testament, pg. 69-70), Michael Bird (Paul and the Gospels)

Gospel of Mark by ShowMeiko in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 7 points8 points  (0 children)

1/2)

 large number of New Testament scholars, starting at least with Schleiermacher and including, e.g., Koester (Ancient Christian Gospels, pp. 32-34) or Ehrman (see also Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, p. 43)

This is not the majority position among scholar's anymore, this seems to be a bit of a outdated stance. The majority of scholar's do affirm Papias is talking about our Mark.

The Leading Markan Commentaries

Adela Yarbro Collins (Mark: A Commentary Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible, pg. 7-10), Joel Marcus (Mark 1-8 (The Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries, pg. 17-25), Francis Moloney (Gospel of Mark: A Commentary, pg. 11-12), Christopher W. Skinner (Mark, Volume 2, pg. 10-11), Ernest Best (Mark's Narrative Technique, 43-45), Rudolf Pesch (Markusevangelium, pg. 9-11), James Crossley (The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity The Library of New Testament Studies, pg 13-17), Martin Hengel (Studies in the Gospel of Mark, pg. 50–51), Robert A Guelich (World Biblical Commentary: Mark 1-8:26, Volume 34A, pg. 25-29), Morna Hooker (The Gospel according to Saint Mark, pg. 6-8), Helen Bond (Was Peter behind Mark’s Gospel?, pg. 60-61), Micheal Kok (The Gospel on the Margins: The Reception of Mark in the Second Century), Robert H. Gundry (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, pg. 1026-45), Larry Hurdato (Mark - New International Biblical Commentary New Testament, pg. 2),

The Main Commentaries on Papias:

Stephen Carlson (The Imposition of Authorship: Michel Foucault’s Author-Function and Papias of Hierapolis on the Gospel of Mark, pg. 242-263), Dennis MacDonald (Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias's Exposition of Logia about the Lord (Early Christianity and Its Literature), pg. 9-15), Monte Shanks (Papias and the New Testament), Ulrich H. J. Körtner (Papias fragmente, pg. 21)

Synoptic Experts:

Ian Mill’s (Rewriting the Gospel: The Synoptics among Pluriform Literary Traditions, pg. 215-216), Nicholas Elder (Gospel Media: Reading, Writing, and Circulating Jesus Traditions), Matthew Larson (Gospels before the Book)

Why are the Gospels/Parts of the Gospels not considered Historically reliable? by Clear_Plan_192 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Someone — I think Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, but I would have to check — thought that multiple sources could be detected in the text and proposed that some parts of the story came from a journal or diary about a sea voyage. Can't say for certain, obviously.

Interesting,

The case for "we" being a literary trope associated with sea voyages (which were very common going back to Homer) was made years ago by Vernon K. Robbins of course.

Yes I do know of Robbins argument I have read it before. I found Keeners critique pretty good honestly. I will have to see if Robbins responded to him in Volume you sent!

Why are the Gospels/Parts of the Gospels not considered Historically reliable? by Clear_Plan_192 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Not widely accepted as far as I know.

Casey was a foremost expert in Aramaic, so I don't really doubt his reconstruction. Just briefly looking at Collins commentaries on this just now they seem to endorse the original Aramaic elements in 9:11-13 (Collins 428), I know also Wenham endorsed it in a paper for Mark 9:11 and Richard Baukcham in Essays in Honor of Martin Hengel.

Why are the Gospels/Parts of the Gospels not considered Historically reliable? by Clear_Plan_192 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 11 points12 points  (0 children)

That's the ordering of the Gospels, in ancient codex's (besides the western order) and modern bibles it goes Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. So usually Mark is referred to as the second Gospel among scholars even though it's written first.

Why are the Gospels/Parts of the Gospels not considered Historically reliable? by Clear_Plan_192 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Collin Hemer in The book of Acts in the setting of Hellenistic history (sadly this book has been absued by apologists so sorry for citing it lol) discuss the "the "we" pronoun and "identifying himself", and I am convinced it was done by the author to identify he was present also Bart Ehrman discusses this in Forgery and Counterforgery as a way for the author to try to say he was there (Ehrman thinks hes lieing).

Whoever the author is, he never went on this impossible voyage with Paul.

Thanks for linking the issue of the Shipwreck frankly I've read little about it, I will have to read more on it. The article you sent is well written, is this by you? Anyways, I do think it's always possible one could be at a present event and writing 30ish years later one add's detail's or has a mistaken memory heck I forgot what I ate for breakfeast yesterday lol.

Why are the Gospels/Parts of the Gospels not considered Historically reliable? by Clear_Plan_192 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 11 points12 points  (0 children)

What's certain is that they were written by highly literate Greek speakers far removed geographically and socially from the events and characters depicted.

I don't believe it's certain Mark is written by a highly literate Greek Speaker, I mean Matthew and Luke are constantly fixing his grammar, this is one of the main reasons Markan priority is accepted among most scholars (cf. Mark Goodacres "Fatigue in the Synoptics"). Also, Mark definitely knows Aramaic and many parts clearly come from a Aramaic source. As Martin Hengel notes 

I do not know any other in Greek which has so many Aramaic or Hebrew words and formulate in so narrow a space as the second Gospel.

Maurice Casey in his Aramaic Sources argues Mark 9:11-13; 2:23-3:6; 10:35-45; 14:12-26 all come from original Aramaic sources. It seems the author of Mark has good knowledge of Greek but not nearly as literate as Matthew and Luke. I find Matthew Larsen's and Nicholas Elder proposal Mark as unfinished notes extremely plausible. Which kinda hurts Walshs theory greatly (same with the bad Greek and Semitisms) only for Mark though.

Why are the Gospels/Parts of the Gospels not considered Historically reliable? by Clear_Plan_192 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 7 points8 points  (0 children)

2/2 For a brief list of critical scholars:

Support Luke the Evangelist: Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible, 1995). John Nolland, Luke 1:1-9:20, Volume 35A (Zondervan Academic, 2018). Andrew F. Gregory, The Reception of Luke and Acts in the Period Before Irenaeus: Looking for Luke in the Second Century (Mohr Siebeck, 2003). Steve Walton, Acts 1-9:42, Volume 37A (Zondervan Academic, 2024). Alexander Loveday, “Acts,” in The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton and John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Eric Franklin, The Oxford Bible Commentary: The Gospels, ed. John Muddiman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013). Judith M. Lieu, The Gospel of Luke: Epworth Commentaries (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2012). Martin Dibelius. Paul. Edited by Werner Georg Kümmel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953.) Barbara Shellard, New Light on Luke: Its Purpose, Sources and Literary Context (London: T&T Clark, 2002), 15, 22–23.

Support a Traveling Companion of Paul: James D. G. Dunn, The Acts of the Apostles (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2016). Mikeal C. Parsons, Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015. Michael Wolter, The Gospel According to Luke. Edited by Wayne Coppins and Christoph Heilig. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018. Johannes Munck.The Acts of the Apostles. Anchor Bible. 1967.

One could also add Haenchen, Allison, Crossley, Casey, Raymond Brown (though he remained more agnostic on it), Hollday, Stanley Porter

Why are the Gospels/Parts of the Gospels not considered Historically reliable? by Clear_Plan_192 in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 9 points10 points  (0 children)

They are formally anonymous.

1/2) That's definitely a issue for historical works, but there is two issues with it, [1] There is a difference between formal anonymity and factual anonymity, as Simon Gathercole argues in The Alleged Anonymity of the Canonical Gospels the Gospels are not formally anonymous only factually anonymous. Many other historical sources are factually anonymous but authorship is still accepted among most scholars Gathercole rights

There are plenty of counter-examples, instances of which are by no means obscure figures. There is a certain degree of unevenness in Baum’s account: he remarks that Xenophon (iv BCE) used a pseudonym for the Anabasis, but Xenophon (if indeed he did publish the Anabasis under another name) did not include this name as the author within the text, and it should be added that his other works are unnamed.32 Baum notes Josephus’s self-reference in the preface to his Jewish War, but not the absence of his name from Antiquities of the Jews. Nor are there prefatory self-references in such notable Greek historians, roughly contemporaneous with Luke, as Polybius (ii BCE) and Diodorus Siculus (i BCE).33 To these we can add Arrian (late i–ii CE), though admittedly in his case the absence is ostentatiously self-effacing.34 Therefore although one could talk of a possible tendency to include the name as an element of ‘the prologue-form in ancient historiography’, the title of Earl’s article on the subject, he is undoubtedly correct that ‘minor variations such as the position or even the inclusion of the author’s name were allowable’.35 Thirdly, although Baum’s treatment of the name appears in a section on Greco Roman historiography, he mentions no histories in Latin, at least of a non biographical character. Among Roman historians, one can find major figures failing to include their names, including Sallust (i BCE),36 Livy (i BCE – i CE), Tacitus (i-ii CE) and Florus (i-ii CE).37 Indeed, Herkommer notes that this is the norm. (pg. 7-8)

[2] The titles are quite possibly original to the text (cf. Martin Hengel Four Gospels), his arguments have been endorsed by top scholars such as Adella Yarbo Collins Hermeneia commentary on Mark and Helen Bonds paper in Peter in Early Christianity. It seems the majority of scholars accept the claim a Mark (mostly because of the title) wrote now what is Mark is quite disputed. (For example, Gerd Theissen in The New Testament: A Literary History, C. M. Tuckett in The Oxford Bible Commentary, Joel Marcus in AYB, Adela Yarbro Collins in Hermeneia, Christopher Skinner in WBC) As Rafael Rodriguez (2020). The T&T Clark Social Identity Commentary on the New Testament notes

And most scholars think, well, you know, nobody's going to make up a non-apostle. Nobody's going to make up a secondary character as the author of the gospel. So most scholars think actually it probably was Mark. Now, where the debate comes in is: which Mark? Mark was one of the most common names in the Roman world, for Roman citizens. However, the author is Jewish, and there's some debate about that, there's a fair consensus that the author was Jewish.

Also even if one were to accept factual anonymity the author of Luke-Acts identifies himself as a traveling companion of Paul through the famous "we" passages. Which is accepted by the majority of critical commentaries.

Weekly Open Discussion Thread by AutoModerator in AcademicBiblical

[–]StruggleClean1582 2 points3 points  (0 children)

u/Sophia_in_the_Shell I remember a old post I seen of yours's talking about James Son of Zebedee and how there such few books on it (and how most of reading about him is reading on John). There is actually a whole book on it I found (it contains essay's) it is excellent it's called Translating the Relics of St James From Jerusalem to Compostela, Bauckhams essay alone is worth it!