Here is what the fine folks at Yale have to say on the subject:
Primary sources provide first-hand testimony or direct evidence concerning a topic under investigation. They are created by witnesses or recorders who experienced the events or conditions being documented. Often these sources are created at the time when the events or conditions are occurring, but primary sources can also include autobiographies, memoirs, and oral histories recorded later.
Why yes, it does Jane. See autobiographies about and written by the author, memoirs and oral histories by eyewitnesses. None of which you have. So, evidence that your bible is any of these? We’re waiting.
and love those “scholarly” sources. Let’s look at one: Feeding the five thousand : studies in the Judaic background No evidence presented at all, just references to the bible and other myths.
The Jesus of the Bible / Stephen M. Miller. So, just how is this “scholarly” Jane? You claimed that I might have only read “popular” books. A color coded reference, an easy to read journalistic style as Amazon says? Wow a journalist and went to a seminary. Jane, where is all of his expertise in ANE history and languages that you are so certain one needs to “truly” understand the bible?
Jesus and the gospel : tradition, Scripture, and canon / William R. Farmer By Fortress press, always known for its unbiased content
Farmer a professor at a Christian university.
Who Scott McCormick Jr. is at all who knows.
Finding the historical Jesus : rules of evidence / Bernard Brandon Scott, editor
Polebridge press, the press of the Westar Institute home of the Jesus Seminar. This is the only one that gets close to a scholarly scource. Yep, the “historical jesus” once again, which has no evidence supporting the jesus you claim existed, Jane. Without that evidence, you are worshipping a purely mortal rabbi that may have been one of the many messiah claimants at the time. This is what the Jesus seminar concluded
“The seminar's reconstruction of the historical Jesus portrays him as an itinerant Hellenistic Jewish sage and faith healer who preached a gospel of liberation from injustice in startling parables and aphorisms.” According to the seminar, Jesus was a mortal man born of two human parents, who did not perform nature miracles nor die as a substitute for sinners nor rise bodily from the dead. Sightings of a risen Jesus were nothing more than the visionary experiences of some of his disciples rather than physical encounters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
Let me guess, these people really don’t know what they are talking about either?
I note again that you try to qualify those works you accept, now we have you claiming that only “serious” works are admissible, aka those that Jane likes and that agree with her. where are those articles from your “stupifying dull” journals. You’ve claimed them, so show them, not make excuses for the books you’ve cited above.
Albright is not taken seriously anymore. Archaeology has been a constant source of supporting evidence for what the Bible says. But I have come to realize that God and 40 of his angels descending upon the forum correcting your misunderstandings would be met with derision. You all are wedded to what you want to believe and I am content to leave you to it.
Evidence, Jane. Where is the archaeology that has been a “constant source of supporting evidence”. I know archaeology well, so I’m sure you can point me to the reports. You’ve also resorted to yet another common Christian lie, that atheists would refuse to believe anythign that shows that they are wrong. You are wrong again, Jane. Your claim is a lie and is simply an excuse for your failure so far. Has God 40 angels handy? I’d settle for a burning bush that didn’t consume the shrubbery. I’ve prayed when losing my faith and got nothing. I watch theists of all stripes come here and offer the same arguments about “their” gods, and they all use the same ones, “look at my holy book” (well, look at the parts they want looked at) “look at the universe”, “listen to my personal anecdote”, “look at my my secondary, tertiary, quadrenary, etc sources”. They don’t believe each other’s claims so why should anyone believe theirs?
You’ve claimed that we know a lot about the provenance and authorship of the gospels. Evidence of this? We know some and all of it shows that your claims are bogus. There is simply no evidence of the events claimed in them. The Romans note nothing about this miracle performing messiah. He supposedly had thousands of people just outside of Jerusalem gathered and the Romans didn’t notice a legion’s worth of people gathering in an occupied land? Ridiculous. There are claims of his raisign the dead. No one notice. There are claims of the long dead walking the streets. Not one noticed. Etc, etc.
Then you claim Paul was a contemporary of Jesus. He never met Jesus except by a supposed “vision”. He contradicts Jesus’s message. Now I’m sure you don’t believe me but other Christians agree: http://www.voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html
Now I’m sure you’ll simply pull out the usual no true scotsman argument again. You also claim that the letters of Paul are just administrative. Hmm, then why have them in the bible if he isn’t preaching? In that he does contradict what JC said in them, there is a problem for you.