Freethought & Rationalism Archive

neilgodfrey · 01-06-2010, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

The Jesus Seminar is simply one body of opinion. Mileages vary considerably amongst academic scholarship on hand-washing in C1. Space and the impending New Year prevent more than a suggestion of reading chapter 7 of this for a detailed example of the other side of the debate.

Crossley, from what I recall, does not address the anachronism issue except, for our purposes, in a circular way. This is standard fare -- so many scholarly works beginning with the assumption of gospel historicity. He even puts Acts as being completed before or around 60 c.e. and treats its various Hellenistic romances as "historical reports" -- and his interpretation of Mark in large measure, from what I recall, rests on that. You can find 3 reviews of Crossley's book very easily via google which point out the questionable assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

That Pilate tried to annoy the Jews is consistent with the external evidence given.

"Consistent with" is one approach. Finding supporting evidence within the text in question is quite another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Matthew's relationship to the Jews is a very complex one- in most ways he is the most Jewish of the Gospels; anti-semitism is the wrong brush to be using for him (he includes the 'King of the Jews' titulus in the same chapter). Matthew is probably referencing the events of AD70 ex eventu in his account of the crowd.

It's important to keep "Jewish" and "Judaism" distinct. There is little doubt about his attitude towards Jews -- it is his approach to the law that sometimes needs explaining. But he even sets up Christians (Jewish Christians) as way surpassing the "letter of" the Jewish law. Like antisemites generally, the only good Jew is a Christian Jew. Not very complex really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Mark 13:1,2 “As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings! Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus..."

Hardly a small pagan temple. Throughout the NT, the Temple is described as the magnificent place it was. Herod may have been a psychopath, but he knew how to do a place up. Look, the Wailing Wall's still standing today- no-one would have been unaware of the size of this place. As for stopping the wares- probably a temporary halt to the normal route when the traders traffic got backed up. The crowd present didn't help matters, and if someone was waving a whip around, best to wait before proceeding.

No one questions the dimensions of the historical temple.

The gospel narrative rounds off the John the Baptist/Elijah introduction by having Jesus (as per Malachi) "cleanse" the temple. The whole point of the gospel narrative is to have Christ cast out the sinners. The starting point is the prophecy, and the narrative is built around that. The story assumes a small temple for it to work.

By taking this event and setting it out of its context and placing it in a historical or real topographical setting only destroys the original story. All sorts of things then have to be creatively imagined to make something work, such as Jesus causing only a minor hiccup for a few minutes, etc. This is fine, but it is neither gospel story nor 'historical record'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Galilee had it's Greek-originated culture, sure, but Jesus spent most of his ministry wandering around the countryside. “Can anything good come from Nazareth?”- the sneer of the southerner against a northern city (UK residents will appreciate).

This makes it sound like his impact would have been marginal. Why did anyone bother about him if no one cared about a yokel from some backwater?

This may be an imaginative reconstruction to adapt some details from the gospel into a "historical backdrop", but it is not the gospel story. The gospel has Jesus in synagogues and with Pharisees (both anachronisms in pre 70 ce Galilee) and being forced into wilderness areas and across lakes by hordes coming to him within cities and villages.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Peter did escape identification- precisely what Judas prevented in the Jesus incident.
I don't see a problem with thugs backing off a little when a charismatic person does his thing. Lone pensioners sending a gang of thugs running is a regular press feature in this country. The Peter incident happens in an instant. No time for smirking- events moved fast ending with Peter running for his mummy. I don't see a problem with the ear incident- multiple attestation of an event not putting Peter in a good light.

Your imagination is as good as Paula Frederickson's and John Crossan's et al :-) and it helps to create an "historical novel" adaptation of the gospel narrative, but it destroys the gospel narrative.

Gospels don't have anyone chasing Peter or the disciples, period. They flee, but not because they are chased. The reason they flee is because their shepherd is struck/taken. The whole scene is to dramatize a prophecy. Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered." That's what the authors had in mind and that's how they wrote it. By trying to imagine "historical reconstructions" we lose sight of the story's roots and destroy it, putting something else quite different in its place.

If the narrators did have Peter and co being chased, and the prophecy tagged on as an afterthought, then I would be prepared to see some sort of historical core. But all we have is a story from first to last built around the prophecy. It is not history.

The exception to this proves the rule. The only one who is chased is the young man who flees naked -- thus fulfilling that Amos prophecy.

As for multiple attestation, no way. We have one story that is adapted by three other evangelists.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

E.P.Sanders- “Pilate lived in one of Herod's luxurious palaces down on the Mediterranean coast in Caesarea. For festivals however, he along with extra troops came up to Jerusalem. That was because there was a history of riots and disturbances during festivals. You pack an extra 300,000 or so extra people into a relatively small city and you fill a large open area with these pilgrims and they are remembering things like "it's Passover week - this celebrates our liberation from bondage in Egypt!" That is, there is an aspect of national liberation to the religious festival of Passover - and then it wouldn't take much for there to be an outbreak, an uprising or disturbance. “ (from the transcript of Jesus before Christ)

I read this sort of thing often, but I never know what to make of it. I would like to know the supporting evidence for these statements.

Religious festivals that I have seen are generally happy occasions. People love to catch up with friends and old contacts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Main on Judas

The authorities were trying to cope with a situation crossing the logistical issues of the Hajj with the potential for violence of an early Nazi rally. They had a lot to deal with- much of it spontaneous or unpredictable, and picking up Jesus was one important issue amongst many. For a couple of days he would turn up places, have conversations with any authorities around at the time who challenged him. On the odd couple of occasions an arrest could be organised, there were too many people around in what was a tinderbox situation. Just as something more specific was being put together, along (probably very early in this sequence) comes Judas.

He offers to provide a good time and place on an ad hoc basis. This frees up time and manpower in the nightmare week, and prevents agents getting identified and attacked. It helps solve a problem and is accepted.

So after the improvised Last Supper, Judas sees the chance, and the authorities put together a mixed bunch of professionals and rentacrowd to bulk up the muscle. None of those present is quite sure they would recognise Jesus, so Judas offers to make a positive ID. The rest, as they say, is history.

Historicity and the Gospel.

It's a great story. Good outline for a movie. But it's not the gospel story. So it is, as you say, historicity AND the gospel -- 2 different stories.

The mere fact that we have to close the gospel narrative and close our eyes and creatively re-place our characters and events in another time and place (out of the gospel and into our 'historical reconstructed' world) only demonstrates how unhistorical the gospel narratives really are.

We don't have to do that with histories and documents informing us about Julius Caesar or Alexander, etc. We should feel a little uncomfortable making an exception for a biblical story.

storytime · 01-07-2010, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog225

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

As we all know, Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, or failed Messiah.

After his death by crucifixion shocked his movement, they re-examined their beliefs and continued their movement, preaching that this crucified person was the Messiah.

One thing is certain. Jesus definitely said the following, as it is reported by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 'For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

Um,no. Jesus did not definitively say this. Look at Paul's source: "For I received from the Lord" Paul never met Jesus. Paul doesn't say he learned this from eyewitnesses. So what is Paul's source? Did Paul receive this bit of tradition in a revelation? What does "from the Lord" mean?

This passage cannot link us back to a man, a failed messiah named Jesus. Unfortunately, this too is a dead end, crashing to a halt at Paul since there is no identifiable source for his claim.

What we can tell, though, is that this is some kind of received tradition. I don't believe Paul made it up. But what its source is I can't say. Maybe somebody has some insight, but we can't say that it came from the so called pillars that Paul met because Paul doesn't say that (in fact in Galatians Paul says he learned nothing from them). We also know that there was a similar but different tradition that may have preceded it and is recorded in the Didache:

That there was some such tradition, yes. That it was instituted by Jesus at an actual "Last Supper"? No. We don't have that. Note as well that he word translated in 1 Cor 11 as "betrayed" also means "to hand over", so while the passage is translated in such a way that it reflects the Gospel passion account, it may not necessarily have been intended to have the connotation of betrayal, but actually "handed over" or "delivered".

You have the flow of events backwards, in my opinion. You are presupposing an actual event that is later recorded somewhat accurately in the Gospels and then arguing that Paul confirms this actual event. When, in fact, there may have not been such an event and the Gospels are reiterating the received tradition that preachers such as Paul were passing along.

This is a huge leap in logic. Jesus says these because he had to say them. It is part of the Jesus story that he was a sacrificial lamb, this was determined from the beginning of time. He knew it because he is not Jesus the humble carpenter's son from Nazareth but because he is Jesus Christ, Son of God, Divinity himself. He was and always was that, not a man, not a failed messiah.

Because the movement presupposed his death. His death had already occurred before any of this tradition arose. "Jesus Christ", the Word (logos) of God, had always been a dying and rising god. The story itself is built around those elements.

What is this mystery? That Christ died for our sins and the Risen Christ dwells within us.

Think about how completely and outrageously provocative it would have been for Pilate to have crucified a Jew, self-claimed messiah or not, at the time of passover with thousands of pilgrims en route to Jerusalem just in time to see such an event. Yet not a word from secular sources about this. Nothing about any uprising (and don't just imagine it would have been a handful of 'disciples', Jewish pilgrims would only see a Jew crucified by Pilate on passover, the who, what, where and why wouldn't matter all that much).

Because it is a crafted story.

?

Quote:

I know which makes more sense.

lol
ok
I see, but I don't believe Paul founded this cult. We can see that this is a well-founded cult by the time of Paul.

I'm leaving my response, because I spent some time writing it and it might provoke discussion.

"So what IS Paul's source? Did Paul receive this bit of tradition in a revelation? What does "from the Lord" mean?

The same thing in meaning that today's preachers declare when they say,"the Lord spoke to me". It's all in their imagination. IOW's, they make this shit up in their thoughts and speak it as "coming from the Lord".

You're right, I think. Paul didn't start the division within Judaism, it was Peter. Paul merely picked up the stick[cross] and ran with it to the Gentiles. The Jews would not accept which was not permitted to them, but Paul knew that Gentiles were ignorant of Jewish scriptures. It was an easy manipulation, or conspiracy, or both, and one thought to providing security to the Jews at Jerusalem, now called Israel.

spamandham · 01-07-2010, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog225

Um,no. Jesus did not definitively say this. Look at Paul's source: "For I received from the Lord" Paul never met Jesus. Paul doesn't say he learned this from eyewitnesses. So what is Paul's source? Did Paul receive this bit of tradition in a revelation? What does "from the Lord" mean?

This passage cannot link us back to a man, a failed messiah named Jesus. Unfortunately, this too is a dead end, crashing to a halt at Paul since there is no identifiable source for his claim.

What we can tell, though, is that this is some kind of received tradition. I don't believe Paul made it up.

An alternative explanation, is that 1 Cor 15 (entirely or at least a portion which includes the text in question) is a later addition. I have seen multiple independent arguments as to why 1 Cor. 15 (or a part thereof) fits better as a later addition.

grog225 · 01-08-2010, 05:14 AM

Quote:

The same thing in meaning that today's preachers declare when they say,"the Lord spoke to me". It's all in their imagination. IOW's, they make this shit up in their thoughts and speak it as "coming from the Lord".

You're right, I think. Paul didn't start the division within Judaism, it was Peter. Paul merely picked up the stick[cross] and ran with it to the Gentiles. The Jews would not accept which was not permitted to them, but Paul knew that Gentiles were ignorant of Jewish scriptures. It was an easy manipulation, or conspiracy, or both, and one thought to providing security to the Jews at Jerusalem, now called Israel.

Well,I don't think it was Peter either. By the time of Paul, Christianity already exists from Rome to Jerusalem with many points in between. It was well-established. There's a church in Rome, churches in Galatia...not all of these were founded by Paul, the so-called apostle to the Gentiles. We already have competing factions--Apollos, the Judaizers. Christianity seems to have been around longer than what the Gospel stories can account for (if we are accepting a traditional dating of Paul and I should note here that we have very few firm dates on any of this material. You will see bible scholars and apologists repeatedly refer to Gospels as written from 80 to 100 with no evidence at all that they actually existed before the turn of the century).

storytime · 01-08-2010, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grog225

Quote:

The same thing in meaning that today's preachers declare when they say,"the Lord spoke to me". It's all in their imagination. IOW's, they make this shit up in their thoughts and speak it as "coming from the Lord".

You're right, I think. Paul didn't start the division within Judaism, it was Peter. Paul merely picked up the stick[cross] and ran with it to the Gentiles. The Jews would not accept which was not permitted to them, but Paul knew that Gentiles were ignorant of Jewish scriptures. It was an easy manipulation, or conspiracy, or both, and one thought to providing security to the Jews at Jerusalem, now called Israel.

Well,I don't think it was Peter either. By the time of Paul, Christianity already exists from Rome to Jerusalem with many points in between. It was well-established. There's a church in Rome, churches in Galatia...not all of these were founded by Paul, the so-called apostle to the Gentiles. We already have competing factions--Apollos, the Judaizers. Christianity seems to have been around longer than what the Gospel stories can account for (if we are accepting a traditional dating of Paul and I should note here that we have very few firm dates on any of this material. You will see bible scholars and apologists repeatedly refer to Gospels as written from 80 to 100 with no evidence at all that they actually existed before the turn of the century).

You just may be right on that point. All it seems, we have to go on is Jewish tradition and it included places of worship for Gentiles wherein the bible story mentions "the Law of Moses" was read to the Gentiles each Sabbath day. The Jesus character mentions lots more disciples other than the 12 he chose to remain at Jerusalem. And then there's John the Baptist's role as preacher before Jesus. Jesus told John, "it has come to us to fulfill all these things", so therein is a connection that provides room for Christianity some time before Jesus came on the scene. What were these Christians(not then named as such) then doing? Were they waiting for the Solar Equinox to give "the sign" of their Messiah's appearance? Maybe the "star in the East" has clue to do with these ancient astrologers/astronomers. Was "the Christ" sign simply a part of the Zodiac in its "season" that they calculated for that time and place? If people followed "the star" charting then it looks like that is just what was happening.

storytime · 01-08-2010, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

As we all know, Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, or failed Messiah.

After his death by crucifixion shocked his movement, they re-examined their beliefs and continued their movement, preaching that this crucified person was the Messiah.

One thing is certain. Jesus definitely said the following, as it is reported by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 'For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me."

This is the flagship of the historicist school , as it definitively points to Paul knowing the Last Supper traditions , as reported in (some) Gospels.

Why did Jesus institute that Last Supper on that day? Did he know he was going to be betrayed, or was it just coincidence?

Jesus seems to have known what was coming. We read,

John 13
21 When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.

18
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples.
3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?

This was what He had prepared them for.

John 17
6 [Jesus said] I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me.
9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

The meal seems to have been for the benefit of those who would come to know Christ. It would also ensure that His disciples continued to meet regularly and support each other in difficult times.

John 13
31 Therefore, when [Judas] was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
33 Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you.
34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

On the mythicist school, the founder of the cult is issuing a revelation whereby the cult can obtain access to the body of its founder in a ritual meal.

No mythicism here then.

Jn.17:9 is a clue to Gentile exclusion - "I pray not for the world (the world outside Judaism was Gentile), but for them[Jews] which thou hast given me, for they are thine." (predistination) Compare Mt.13:11, 22:3-4, 19:28

DancesWithCoffeeCups · 01-10-2010, 10:30 AM

The derail was split and moved here. Please keep this discussion focused on the OP.

Thanks everyone!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-10-2010, 10:30 AM	#87
DancesWithCoffeeCups Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pacific Northwest Posts: 8,077	The derail was split and moved here. Please keep this discussion focused on the OP. Thanks everyone!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.