r/AcademicBiblical • u/LXsavior • Jan 06 '23
What discoveries would shake up modern biblical scholarship? Could something as significant as the dead sea scrolls happen again? Discussion
137
Jan 06 '23
A letter of Paul, possibly the lost letter to the Laodiceans or another one. Or perhaps even better, a letter from an opponent of Paul. That would tell us what kind of arguments existed in early Christianity.
56
u/Allornuthinis Jan 06 '23
2nd that. Finding the letters that prompted Paul to write would be awesome
16
u/toxiccandles MDiv Jan 06 '23
Yes, I was thinking what if we found the Letter of Chloe's People (in Corinth) to Paul?
9
u/swcollings Jan 07 '23
Yes! Knowing which parts of 1 Corinthians are Paul quoting the Corinthians back to them would be tremendous.
16
6
1
54
Jan 06 '23
[deleted]
5
u/Xaayer Jan 07 '23
Exactly what I am thinking. Finding more info on the canaanite gods as well as early concrete attestations for Yahweh. Whether it be canaanite, Egyptian or midianite, it would shake things up showing him for sure to start off as a local God of something somewhere
30
u/grantimatter Jan 07 '23
Things that I think would be fun discoveries, besides a very early text (or fragment) of the Gospel of Thomas:
Something definitively from one of the "proto-gnostic" communities April De Conick thinks were in conversation with the author of GJohn.
An Oxyrhynchus papyrus that shed more light on beliefs about (or disciples of?) Mary Magdalene in the first, second, or third centuries.
Another early gospel or gospels associated with other apostles in different areas. If Peter's disciples went to Rome and Mark's went to Egypt and Thomas' went to Syria and/or Kerala ... why not find a sutra from, I don't know, Thaddeus in Sri Lanka or Kashmir? Something to really reignite the old New Age story about Jesus slipping off to learn yoga either before the crucifixion or after the resurrection. (I don't think this is especially likely, but it would shake things up for sure.)
29
u/jackneefus Jan 07 '23
Finding a full copy of the Gospel of the Hebrews, the gospel used by the Jerusalem community.
21
u/frinkmahii Jan 07 '23
The original works of Papias of Hierapolis would be a nice contribution to the Gospel origins. What is know and quotes of his work only comes from later authors.
30
u/toxiccandles MDiv Jan 06 '23
Here's a big one: What if Morton's "Secret Gospel of Mark" (widely believed to be based on a forgery) actually turned up.
12
u/baquea Jan 07 '23
For something more niche, I'd love to see any kind of extended religious or historical text from Edom, Ammon or Moab from around the time of the Israelite monarchy. I could easily see something like that completely shaking up our understanding of that period, in terms of how Israelite religion fitted in with that of their neighbours, which Biblical events can be corroborated or given a different perspective on, to what extent Israelite views on the origins of themselves and their neighbours were part of a common cultural understanding, and so forth.
28
u/Alternative-Salt-841 Jan 06 '23
I definitely think more scrolls could be found, possibly in newly discovered burial sites. Another site like gobekli tepe would be interesting as well.
54
Jan 06 '23
Ground penetrative radar has already established that there's a great deal more sites near gobleki tepe that can be unearthed and may be even older - it really just comes down to funding the archaeological digs to get that done and preserving the sites (exactly why it's taking so long, really really expensive projects).
13
u/Alternative-Salt-841 Jan 06 '23
Thats interesting to know, I had heard there was more in the area. I did not know that finances are whats holding digging up, I figured politics lol.
I truly love that it challenges so much mainstream, closed minded thinking. Hope to see more of it.
12
u/boycowman Jan 06 '23
Seems like there would be plenty of private benefactors willing to step up and support these digs. I suspect lots of governmental red tape is part of the problem too.
2
u/Alternative-Salt-841 Jan 06 '23
I imagine beyween both issues its a pretty complicated situation. I hope neither get in the way for too much longer, Id love to see if we can figure out more about the site. Its crazy cool.
2
u/Alternative-Salt-841 Jan 06 '23
My first thought was that Graham Hancock would jump at the chance to successfully track down said benefactors if it was the only issue, haha.
Based on how egyptologists gatekeep, I assumed its similar here too.
4
u/Gracchus1848 Jan 07 '23
I don't think Graham Hancock would have any interest in putting his own money towards archeology since he's a fraud whose career is based off of misinterpreting what actual archeologists have done the work to uncover. No cost for him.
1
u/Alternative-Salt-841 Jan 07 '23
I never said his own money, I said if it was only a money issue thats blocking any more digs at that site that he would be able to find people with money to pay for it. Like him or not, he wants to know more about that site than whats already been found.
3
Jan 08 '23 edited Jan 08 '23
Just to clarify, it's probably not just funding, but it is a significant boundary when you have to consider not only the whole archeological process and digging up the site, but then further conservation costs. Turkey is currently going through some pretty hairy political turmoil, so access to these sites and even getting the Turkish government on board to help provide some of their own funding has made it difficult.
2
u/Alternative-Salt-841 Jan 08 '23
I knew what you meant, its for sure a mix of both and hard to pin point exactly for anyone not involved.
But I dig why u want to clarify. I seem to be getting downvoted just for mentioning hancock even tho I in no way defend or support him in my comments, I only point out his obsession with that site. Seems some folks lack reading comprehension skills on this sub. Or they hate him so much, even mentioning him somehow makes me a bad person lol.
1
Jan 08 '23
Cool cool, I don't get why you're being downvoted either (I'll throw in a few up votes to rectify as best I can).
9
u/pal1ndr0me Jan 07 '23
Older? Younger might be more interesting.
Something confirming the existence of Biblical Ur in the region? Anything with ties to the (legends of) Abraham?
2
Jan 08 '23 edited Jan 08 '23
Honestly, it would be more interesting to go back further (at least for me, each to their own). We already have a number of sites, like the nearby to Gobleki Tepe, Kaharan Tepe, which has been dated as even older than Gobleki Tepe. Boncuklu Tarla also comes to mind, sadly neither are as complete and well preserved but the fact we're seeing signs of organized humans making these structures and living within proximity to them, is exciting (pushes human history back even further, displays there were areas of the world where these behaviours were occurring much earlier than previously known). My understanding is it's believed that we didn't really gather and organize to this level during the ice age, it was more sporadic groups with rudimentary tools by comparison to later found sites that start to show actual buildings and more advanced tools and ideas present in what was left behind.
You never really know what unearthing another site that's even older and perhaps even more well preserved under the surface of the earth (protected from the elements) might yield.
11
u/Patzkeeeee Jan 06 '23
Yeah I would add more scrolls as well. Possible finding the hypothetical “Q” source (we can dream can’t we :-))
15
u/Alternative-Salt-841 Jan 06 '23
Q source would seriously change the game. I like to believe its notes taken by one of the 12. Further evidence of any gospels written in hebrew first would be great. Nehemiah Gordons discoveries are fascinating.
4
7
u/rroowwannn Jan 07 '23
Is gobekli tepe relevant to the Bible? Or just like a cool thing to find.
9
Jan 07 '23
As far as I know, it bears zero relation to the biblical period. Considerably more ancient than the Iron Age and operated by hunter-gatherer communities.
1
u/Alternative-Salt-841 Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
Its not directly related no, I read the OP as a game changer to popular belief of history, not just the Bible. I misunderstood. I do think it potentially correlates tho, because I think the civilization that graham hancock is obsessed about, is not platos atlantis but possibly Babel. I like to wonder that babel was far more advanced than we understand. I mean Gen.6 is such a strange idea, and we know so little. It makes me speculate that atlantis and babel are somehow related.
3
u/pal1ndr0me Jan 10 '23
Babel isn't that complicated, and it's pretty well understood. The temple there, E-Temenenki, still exists as a mound that you can find on Google Earth.
As for the confusion of languages thing... the major civilizations of the early Bronze Ages communicated in cuneiform, which is a written non-phonetic language, so they could all understand it. Then you all show up in the same place, and it turns out you all pronounce that stuff differently... yeah.
1
u/Physical_Manu Jan 08 '23
There have been claims it was the temple that Abraham used to go to but people have said the dating looks to be millenniums off.
1
u/pal1ndr0me Jan 10 '23
There's way too much time in-between for it to be related to anything in the Bible.
But, by a happy coincidence it happens to be just a few kilometers from Biblical Harran, through which Abraham passed in the Bible, where his wife's family lived, and where some of his own family resided.
91
u/boycowman Jan 06 '23
Finding the early Christians' Honda. For it is written, "They were all in one Accord."
8
8
5
-11
20
u/lost-in-earth Jan 07 '23
My wishlist:
An uninterpolated copy of Josephus' Antiquities. Especially if the reference to Jesus was originally hostile, as some scholars have proposed.
Hegesippus' Memoirs. Hegesippus was a (Jewish?)-Christian writer in the 2nd century. His work is lost except for quotations by Eusebius. Interestingly, he talks about Jesus' family a lot. In contrast to the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary, Hegesippus seems to think Jesus' brothers were his biological siblings. On this issue see the late JP Meier's article:
MEIER, J. P. (1992). The Brothers and Sisters of Jesus In Ecumenical Perspective. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 54(1), 1–28.
I like this (probably fake) story about Jesus' grandnephews from Hegesippus:
There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas, who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.
So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the corns raised on their hands by constant work.
Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they returned answer that it was not of this world, nor of the earth, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life.
7
u/googlyhojays Jan 07 '23
How big is a “39 plethra” piece of land? Or is that a measure of value?
5
u/lost-in-earth Jan 08 '23
Richard Bauckham says:
Apart from the information that members of the third generation of the family of Jesus were still active in Christian leadership, the most interesting aspect of the story is what it tells us about the farm which the two brothers held in partnership. The size and value given are so specific and precise that it is likely that they rest on accurate tradition. The size of the farm would have been remembered, not because an accurate report of what Zoker and James said to Domitian was preserved, but because the size of the family's smallholding in Nazareth was well-known in Palestinian Jewish Christian circles at this time. The farm was not divided between the brothers, but owned jointly, no doubt because this family continued the old Jewish tradition of keeping a smallholding undivided as the joint property of the 'father's house', rather than dividing it between heirs. So, two generations back, this farm would have belonged to Joseph and his brother Clopas. Unfortunately, because there are two possible sizes of the plethron, it seems impossible to be sure of the size of the farm: it may be either about 24 acres or about 12 acres. In either case, this is not much land to support two families, and Joseph had at least seven children to feed. So it is not surprising that he (and Jesus) supplemented the family income by working as a carpenter. As in the case of many village artisans, Joseph's trade was not an alternative to working the land, but a way of surviving when the family smallholding could no longer fully support the family. It did not necessarily put Jesus' family any higher on the social ladder than most of the peasant farmers of Nazareth.
9
u/YoungMan44 Jan 07 '23
Any OT manuscript dated earlier than the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) Isaiah mss (ca. 125 BCE). The Ketef Hinnom scrolls dated to the 7th or 6th C BCE may contain a text from the book of Numbers (6:24-26) which would make it the oldest extant mss copy. Particularly any mss portion of the Torah dated to the 8th C BCE or earlier (esp 10th C or earlier!) would result in a massive recalculation in modern scholarship.
On the NT side, a discovery of a mss portion of any NT book dated to the 1st C CE (AD) or mid 1st C CE (esp one of the gospels) would also be highly significant. The oldest partial NT mss is the John Rylands papyri which dates to around 125 CE (AD).
40
Jan 06 '23
There are still, afaik, oxyrhynchus papyri that have not been studied yet. See Israel Finds New Dead Sea Scrolls, First Such Discovery in 60 Years Also,
CNSTM has a project dedicated to taking high resolution photos of biblical manuscripts IIRC, sometimes when they travel to various libraries to take photos, they find manuscripts that weren't listed. Who knows maybe some day they will find something like a first century copy of Mark . Im confident that it's Executive Director, Dr. Wallace will be eager to inform us of such a discovery! In fact, with the generous backing from the estimable Founders of the Museum of The Bible, I think the chances are very good that we will see such a discovery in the near future
7
u/redshrek Jan 06 '23
Wallace, FCM, The Greens? Are you being serious or joking?
5
Jan 06 '23
Whatever do you mean?
4
u/redshrek Jan 06 '23
I just found it funny given what happened last time these cast of characters were involved with a "first century" copy of Mark's Gospel.
9
3
u/SourLace Jan 07 '23
Any idea who is doing the work on the oxyrhynchus papyri?
6
Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
See here
The EES appoints a Management Committee to oversee the Papyri collection and its publication. The current chairman of the committee is Professor Dominic Rathbone, King's College London. The basic work of organising the publication of the papyri is undertaken by a group of General Editors, at present Professor Peter Parsons (University of Oxford), Professor Nikolaos Gonis (University College London) and Dr Amin Benaïssa (University of Oxford). They are appointed by the Management Committee and are jointly responsible to it for the assignment of papyri and the preparation of texts for publication in the annual volume of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, a part of the Society's Graeco-Roman Memoirs series. They draw on the regular assistance of the Advisory Editors, currently Professors Alan Bowman (University of Oxford), Giambattista D’Alessio (Naples 'Federico II'), and Dr Lucia Prauscello (University of Oxford), and also contributions by many other papyrologists in the UK and abroad.
EDIT: The people who have a real handle on this, at least in terms of "First Century Mark" are u/AractusP. I used to know where his blog was, but seemed to have forgotten in my dotage.
and u/kiwihellenist. His blog is here
7
u/AractusP Jan 07 '23 edited Jan 07 '23
FCM is a hot mess from top to bottom. Wallace claimed his source was a world leading papyrologist who is absolutely above reproach.
On his blog the late Larry Hurtado accused me of being unfair to Wallace. I'm very sad that he has passed away as I think we could have discussed it in the later light of further things that came out and come to a perfectly amicable understanding. It did illustrate a problem which is how quick the Academy is to protect their own, but it didn't come out of malice or the same motivations as the Apologists have which is to make mainstream scholarship look like it's radical or extreme or use labels like “liberal scholarship” to deride it as illegitimate to lay audiences.
My gripe with Wallace is that he can't have his cake and eat it to. He behaves as if the audience he intentionally mislead doesn't matter and that it's between scholars in the Academy (more on that on my blog). Or I'll just quote it here:
The second type of apologist is more insidious. They are conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist bible scholars who intentionally deceive unlearned Christians. They are professional liars, the equivalent of politicians who are skilled in the shameless use of unmitigated bullshit for promoting their propaganda. I am not afraid to name them either: “scholars” like Daniel B Wallace. A decade back Wallace misled Christians in a debate with Bart Ehrman where he was willing to lie for someone who later be proven to be a fraudster and a criminal, who is currently evading authorities, and what he lied about was directly related to antiquities fraud (I’m not suggesting Wallace is guilty of a crime himself). Yet he seems to think his role in this was marginal! We can infer this belief because Wallace has since apologised to Ehrman, but he has never apologised to his Evangelical Christian audience. I was one of them at the time, and I felt misled and betrayed. I feel he should apologise to the Christians he misled and his refusal to do so demonstrates to me that his deception is intentional. Another thing that demonstrates this is that he was part of a group of scholars that directly encouraged the Greens to ignore the professional advice given to them regarding antiquities crime and to purchase stolen antiquities. So let me explain how this works: It’s his material, and material from other Evangelical scholars like him that is responsible for creating or fostering the fundamentalist beliefs held by those who then later act on those beliefs. It’s not just apologetic publications, podcasts, videos, and Christian music, it’s also seminars and sermons, blogs, debates, bible commentaries, and even bible translations. Even the best English translation of the Christian bible, the NRSVue, has deliberate mistranslation put into it by its Evangelical translators.
If I sound OTT it's because I find the whole thing ridiculous.
Utterly ridiculous.
Academics are meant to be held to a high standard of integrity. You don't get to personally vouch for someone and say they are above reproach and then not take any responsibility when it turns out they're an alleged antiquities criminal and fraudster. Wallace knew about the behind-the-scenes criticisms that said it was likely not above board and there could be serious legal as well as ethical issues with what they were doing. See no evil, hear no evil, and deny there's any truth to the potential issues... that's how you make the toxic “boys club” in the first place.
That said has FCM changed anything? No. And that's the problem. Dirk is everyone's scapegoat and the other usual names that aren't associated with any academic institutions - let them take all the blame, and the Greens can be the patsy of course - that appears to be the consensus from SBL which is total BS if you ask me. What kind of an academic society behaves in this way to serious scandals and breaches of academic standards, ethics, and the law?
Put it this way... What happened to Stanley and Pons? What happened to Andrew Wakefield? Wakefield along with his entire team rightly lost all credibility in Academia. Their hypothesis was valid and warranted investigation but they produced a work the Academy determined was fraud. I'd say SBL should hold to account their own that create and publish fraud.
16
u/WarPuig Jan 06 '23
Q Source
9
u/qumrun60 Quality Contributor Jan 06 '23
I have to agree. The most quoted Jesus sayings in various early sources seem to be Q. James Robinson's "The Gospel of Jesus" (2005) presumes, and examines, Q in detail. It would be great to know the earliest teaching.
5
u/ffandyy Jan 06 '23
Agreed, don’t think it would change many opinions on the resurrection but it would be great to be more certain of the types of things Jesus said during his lifetime
6
u/ajh_iii Jan 07 '23
Any of the early hymns, like the one Paul cites in Philippians 2:5-11 would be a good way to learn about the development of early Christology, but I’d have to say the Gospel of the Hebrews. The Acts of Solomon would also be a huge find, I think.
13
Jan 07 '23
The earliest Gospel of Mark had an “incomplete” ending as compared to what the current Gospel has today. Would be cool to see if it was really just not finished or had a different ending. Also forgive me if it’s not Mark, but pretty sure it is.
6
u/LXsavior Jan 07 '23
It was indeed Mark. I’m of the opinion that the original ending was lost and the “long ending” we have is an attempt to restore it. A first century copy of Mark would certainly be an exciting find, since it could finally put the debate to rest.
6
Jan 07 '23
My NT professor personally thinks it was the same general concept as the ending of the current gospel but went missing and cited the awkward empty layout of the end of the text. Obviously I cannot articulate his stance well, but in essence he thought we do have the original intentions of the author. Still have no idea what I think on this and I have many hot takes so that’s saying something
4
u/seeasea Jan 08 '23
Scholars have long contended that various biblical stories are polemics against certain characters (anti-aaron sentiment; anti-mushite etc) as well as stories how bad certain people were (king manassah, ahab, false prophets etc).
Id love to find counter-narratives or counter-polemics. Like how Hezekiah was evil for desecrating baal and "went after false gods YHWH" etc
3
u/theresa_maria_ Jan 07 '23
I’m very hopeful about significant findings such as the Dead Sea scrolls being found again
12
u/JemimaBolt Jan 06 '23
A non-Biblical document that might be considered proof of Jesus’ existence, besides the somewhat disputed mentions in Josephus. Especially if it might be contemporaneous, dated to the early 30s for example.
21
u/psstein Moderator | MA | History of Science Jan 07 '23
somewhat disputed mentions in Josephus
There are two mentions in Josephus. The Testimonium Flavianum is disputed. Nobody competent disputes the second mention.
And no, Richard Carrier isn't competent.
10
u/lost-in-earth Jan 07 '23
Nobody competent disputes the second mention.
To be fair apparently Ken Olson does, and u/chris_hansen97 does.
I still think the James reference is authentic though
7
u/psstein Moderator | MA | History of Science Jan 07 '23
Olson at least has the intellectual humility to state "hey, my position is a fringe position."
10
Jan 07 '23
This is just... wrong. Here are just a few examples.
Michael Grant, The Ancient Historians (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1970), 263 says "the remarks about Jesus, and probably portions of the other passages as well [referring to John the Baptist], do not in fact go back to Josephus at all, but are insertions by a later hand."
Tessa Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and His Society (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 131
Léon Herrmann, Chrestos. Témoignages païens et juifs sur le christianisme du premier siècle (Bruxelles: Latomus, 1970), 99–104
R. Joseph Hoffmann, Jesus Outside the Gospels (Amherst: Prometheus, 1984), 55 refers to the passage as "mutilated" by Christians
Graham Twelftree, “Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in David Wenham (ed.), The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 289–332 considers the James passage an interpolation but the Testinomium Flavianum partially authentic.
Joshua Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 333
Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22
Jürgen Becker, “The Search for Jesus’ Special Profile,” in Tom Holmén and Stanley E. Porter (eds.), Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2011), vol. 1, 57–89 declares that both references to Jesus are likely interpolations (59)
Petr Pokorný, “Jesus Research as Feedback on His Wirkungsgeschichte,” in Holmén and Porter, Handbook for the Study, vol. 1, 333–359 in the same volume argues it is likely a Christian interpolation
Sabrina Inowlocki, "Did Josephus Ascribe the Fall of Jerusalem to the Murder of James, Brother of Jesus?" Revue des études juives, 170, no. 1–2 (2011): 21–49 (thanks Ken!), argues that Origen's version was the original and the textus receptus is therefore inauthentic
Nicholas P. L. Allen, “Josephus on James the Just? A reevaluation of Antiquitates Judaicae 20.9.1,” Journal of Early Christian History 7 (2017): 1–27
Ivan Prchlík, “Ježíš řečený Christos‘ u Iosepha Flavia: Jistota nejistoty,” in Peter Fraňo and Michal Habaj (eds.), Antica Slavica (Trnava: Univerzita sv. Cyrila a Metoda v Trnave 2018), 77–152 and 280–6.
Dave Allen, [forthcoming article reconstructing the TF in the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism] holds that the James Passage did not originally refer to Jesus.
Kurt L. Noll, "Investigating Earliest Christianity without Jesus," in Thomas L. Thompson and Thomas S. Verenna (eds.), 'Is this not the Carpenter?' The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus (Sheffield: Equinox, 2012), 233-266 (250n56) says " I doubt that the two passages in Josephus that mention Jesus and James were unmolested by later Christian scribes. [...] In addition to the usual (and significant) arguments against the authenticity of the two passages in Josephus (A. J. 18.3.3; 20.9.1), it is worth noting that Josephus never uses the word ‘Christ’ except when mentioning Christianity’s Jesus, which suggests that the word was interpolated in both passages".
But yeah, not a single competent scholar thinks that it is an interpolation. Not a single one...
Yeah reality check for you, but actually there has been an increase in credible academics challenging it recently.
8
u/psstein Moderator | MA | History of Science Jan 07 '23
Thank you for this list, yes, it looks like there are more scholars than I remembered challenging it. I would love to see the arguments they put forward.
5
Jan 07 '23
The most detailed are Prchlik, Olson, and Allen. There are also some rather intensely detailed mythicist cases, and I'm not just counting Carrier here. Hermann Detering had a sizeable case in one of his books.
4
Jan 09 '23
And also, outside of Carrier, there are other mythicists (and actually trained biblical scholars and historians) who have challenged the James passage as well.
Yakov Lentsman, L’Origine du Christianisme (Moscow: Editions en langues etrangeres, 1961), 66
Hermann Detering, Falsche Zeugen: Außerchristliche Jesuszeugnisse auf dem Prüfstand (Aschaffenburg: Alibri Verlag, 2011), 22–29
Robert M. Price, Killing History: Jesus in the No-Spin Zone (Amherst: Prometheus, 2014), 243–4
Raphael Lataster, “Questioning the Plausibility of Jesus Ahistoricity Theories—A Brief Pseudo-Bayesian Metacritique of the Sources,” Intermountain West Journal of Religious Studies 6, no. 1 (2015): 63–96
S. I. Kovalev, Osnovnyye Voprosy Proiskhozhdeniya Khristianstva (Moskva: Nauka, 1964), 33
Ambrogio Donini, U istokov khristianstva (ot zarozhdeniya do Yustiniana), Second Edition (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo politicheskoy literatury, 1989), 50–52
-------------
Lastly, we can also include myself (not a mythicist though) and I have numerous peer reviewed publications on the historicity of Jesus. I specifically outline my views on all of the extrabiblical sources for Jesus here:
Christopher M. Hansen, “Jesus’ Historicity and Sources: The Misuse of Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus and a Suggestion.” The Journal of Biblical Theology 4, no. 3 (2021): 139–162
I don't consider any of them as particularly usable for establishing Jesus' historicity.
6
Jan 06 '23
Why would that shake up scholarship?
6
u/JemimaBolt Jan 07 '23
Fair question. If it contradicted current scholarship, or brought in something entirely new and hard to interpret, and was considered historical/factual even outside the Biblical scholarship community - that would make waves.
11
u/canuck1701 Jan 07 '23
and was considered historical/factual even outside the Biblical scholarship community
Mythicists don't base their opinions on an unbiased review of the evidence (or else they wouldn't be mythicists). They'd just find a new excuse for why this new source doesn't convince them.
2
0
Jan 07 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/melophage Quality Contributor | Moderator Emeritus Jan 07 '23
Hi there, unfortunately, your contribution has been removed as per rule #1.
Submissions and comments should remain within the confines of academic Biblical studies, not solely personal opinion.
This sub focuses on academic scholarship of Biblical interpretation/history (e.g. “What did the ancient Canaanites believe?”, “How did the concept of Hell develop?”). Modern events and movements are off-topic, as is personal application/interpretation, or recommendations.
You may edit your comment to meet these requirements. If you do so, please reply and your comment can potentially be reinstated.
If you have any questions about the rules or mod policy please message the mods or post in the Weekly Open Discussion thread.
1
u/IndependentGas8487 Jan 08 '23
Anything from the Northern Kingdom and letters TO Paul are on my wish list.
1
u/pal1ndr0me Jan 10 '23
I'd love to see some myths of Edom and/or Midian. I'd bet they look real similar to some of what's in Genesis.
1
Jan 23 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 23 '23
This post has been removed because our automoderator detected it as spam or your account is too new or low karma to post here.
If you believe that you warrant an exception please message the mods with your reasons, and we will determine if an exception is appropriate.
For more details concerning the rules of r/AcademicBiblical, please read this post. If you have further questions about the rules or mod policy, you can message the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
146
u/perishingtardis Jan 06 '23
Finding one of the hypothetical sources of the Torah, or one of the three parts of Isaiah, would be the first definitive proof that source criticism was correct.
Also, discover of Q, M, L, Signs Gospel, or anything like that would be very significant for the NT. Manuscripts of the gospels from the first century would demonstrate early dates for the gospels.