FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-30-2009, 07:31 AM   #61
show_no_mercy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jakejonesiv View Post
In Mark, only Peter is called Satan. Not even Judas is singled out for condemnation, as he is in the other gospels. In Mark, he does not commit suicide, and presumably is still considered one of the disciples. Peter is singled from the other disciples (16:7), not for praise but for condemnation. He was ashamed of Jesus, thrice denying him. And now Jesus is ashamed of him (8:38).
Do you think the Parable of the Sower, and Jesus' explanation of it, is him (or the author) subtly predicting Peter's lack of character?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark 4
13Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16Others, like seed sown on rocky [“Peter” means “rock”] places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away [Mark 14:66-72]. 18Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."
Peter is still called "Simon" right up to when Jesus starts speaking in parables, where the author states that Jesus renamed Simon "Peter".
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 11:04 AM   #62
Vinnie
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post

This places Papias much too late. John was around in AD 100. Presumably he was 20 or so when he met Jesus.

Because he lived on after the other apostles, quite a few people knew him. Indeed we could tell that he was around a lot later than the others, if we didn't know, from the way that he has left all these anecdotes scattered around the Fathers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
John the apostle? I doubt it. Even if he was 20 when he met Jesus, at around 100AD he would have been over one hundred years old. A very unusual age for anyone to live in those days when the average age of death was around 60 max.
Short ministry. John would be 90 in 100 C.E.

Not saying its true but Papias could have been born ca 70 c.e. He may have heard him in his youth as Ireneaus heard Polycarp in his youth. We don't know or sure.
Vinnie is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 12:47 PM   #63
Roger Pearse
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post

This places Papias much too late. John was around in AD 100. Presumably he was 20 or so when he met Jesus.

Because he lived on after the other apostles, quite a few people knew him. Indeed we could tell that he was around a lot later than the others, if we didn't know, from the way that he has left all these anecdotes scattered around the Fathers.
John the apostle? I doubt it. Even if he was 20 when he met Jesus, at around 100AD he would have been over one hundred years old.
About 90, actually. But our opinions aren't important; this is what the ancient evidence says.

Quote:
A very unusual age for anyone to live in those days when the average age of death was around 60 max.
Well, you may not know that Antigonus One-Eyed, one of Alexander's generals, led his army into battle at Ipsus at the age of 81.

Average age isn't really relevant; the question is what the maximum age is, and I don't think that has altered significantly. (What has pushed average age up, if I understand correctly, is the drop in infant mortality).

There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the testimony of the ancient authors.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Roger Pearse is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 01:41 PM   #64
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post

John the apostle? I doubt it. Even if he was 20 when he met Jesus, at around 100AD he would have been over one hundred years old.
About 90, actually. But our opinions aren't important; this is what the ancient evidence says.

Quote:
A very unusual age for anyone to live in those days when the average age of death was around 60 max.
Well, you may not know that Antigonus One-Eyed, one of Alexander's generals, led his army into battle at Ipsus at the age of 81.

Average age isn't really relevant; the question is what the maximum age is, and I don't think that has altered significantly. (What has pushed average age up, if I understand correctly, is the drop in infant mortality).

There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the testimony of the ancient authors.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
Hi Roger,

You and Vinnie both doubt Ireneaus when he stated that Jesus lived to be fifty years old and had a ministry of twenty years.

"Short ministry?" Vinnie?

"For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?"(4) Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "Thou art not yet forty years old." For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age. For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being(5) of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;(6) and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year" Irenaeus, AH 2.22
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 01:45 PM   #65
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Do you think the Parable of the Sower, and Jesus' explanation of it, is him (or the author) subtly predicting Peter's lack of character?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark 4
13Then Jesus said to them, "Don't you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable? 14The farmer sows the word. 15Some people are like seed along the path, where the word is sown. As soon as they hear it, Satan comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16Others, like seed sown on rocky [“Peter” means “rock”] places, hear the word and at once receive it with joy. 17But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away [Mark 14:66-72]. 18Still others, like seed sown among thorns, hear the word; 19but the worries of this life, the deceitfulness of wealth and the desires for other things come in and choke the word, making it unfruitful. 20Others, like seed sown on good soil, hear the word, accept it, and produce a crop—thirty, sixty or even a hundred times what was sown."
Peter is still called "Simon" right up to when Jesus starts speaking in parables, where the author states that Jesus renamed Simon "Peter".
Good points!
jakejonesiv is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 03:37 PM   #66
PhilosopherJay
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Age of Emperors

Hi Roger,

There seems to be quite a bit of variance as to average life expectancy in the Roman Empire. Considering that the life expectancy in 1900 in the United States was age 50, I would be amazed if the life expectancy was anywhere near that in the Roman empire. As you correctly point out though, the life expectancy is not the issue, but neither is the maximum age. Rather, we should be asking what were the chances of an adult male living to specific ages.

In looking at the Roman emperors from Augustus to the fall of Rome in 480, 82 emperors in total. I found that no emperor lived to be 80 years old. Apparently, 7 lived into their 70s and 14 lived into their 60's. So under 10% lived into their 70's, while about 25% lived into their 60's. In most cases, the emperors were already quite advanced in age, when they became emperors, so this should be considered. We may assume that the emperors generally got the best health care of anybody in the empire. On the other hand, they did face dangers from assassination more than the average.

From this, I would assume it reasonable to suggest that of twelve apostles, it would be quite possible that 3 or 4 lived into their 60's, while one may have lived into his 70's. Unfortunately this does not help us much as we have no idea of the ages of any of the apostles. If we assume that they were all in their 30's and 40's, then it is unlikely that any were alive at the time of the war from 67-73. On the other hand, if most were in their 20's, it is possible that one may have survived as late as the 80's.

But when Eusebius tells us (Church History 3:23) that John was alive after Hadrian (died 98 C.E.) and suggests that Phillip too also lived that long, we have some grounds for putting it into the category of myth.

Sincerely,

Philosopher Jay






Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Pearse View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post

John the apostle? I doubt it. Even if he was 20 when he met Jesus, at around 100AD he would have been over one hundred years old.
About 90, actually. But our opinions aren't important; this is what the ancient evidence says.

Quote:
A very unusual age for anyone to live in those days when the average age of death was around 60 max.
Well, you may not know that Antigonus One-Eyed, one of Alexander's generals, led his army into battle at Ipsus at the age of 81.

Average age isn't really relevant; the question is what the maximum age is, and I don't think that has altered significantly. (What has pushed average age up, if I understand correctly, is the drop in infant mortality).

There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the testimony of the ancient authors.

All the best,

Roger Pearse
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 07-30-2009, 05:00 PM   #67
show_no_mercy
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Dancing
Posts: 9,940
Default

What was the life expectancy of a aristocrat or someone generally affluent in 1st century Rome? Someone with access to first rate medical care, education, and a very "luxurious" life?

What was the life expectancy of an illiterate "blue-collar" worker in 1st century Rome? Someone without education, no medical care, and a hard "of the Earth" life?

Can we use the same analogy for the modern world? What's the life expectancy of a rich Republican who grew up in affluent suburbia over the life expectancy of an uneducated minority growing up in poverty?

All this talk about "life expectancy" needs to take into account distinct populations who live in very different environments; environments which have a huge impact on mortality rates.
show_no_mercy is offline  
Old 07-31-2009, 04:03 AM   #68
Vinnie
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
Default

Re Irenaeus and Long ministry of Jesus

Without responding to what you actually quoted I will simply say that I have no issues in disagreeing with Irenaeus on certain issues. He, after all, said Matthew was written before Mark and I have been convinced by arguments for Marcan priority. Therefore, he was incorrect on this point. No Church Father is infallible. But without significant evidence to the contrary, or reason to doubt their statements, I generally give them the benefit of the doubt depending on the issue at hand. If Irenaeus said my friend Papias could fly using his faith the skeptic in me would be unleashed. But if he says (ca. 180) that a Phrygian Bishop, sometime in the first half of the second century wrote five books outlining the oracles or the Lord I have no reason to doubt his claim.

Vinnie
Vinnie is offline  
Old 07-31-2009, 05:35 AM   #69
angelo
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,706
Default

The evidence for a historical Jesus is no different to a historical evidence for Snow White.
Both have no historical evidence that they existed. In the case of Jesus, all the evidence we have is in a word salad of a book we call the N/T. Outside of this book, the evidence is very slim indeed. Any mention of the historical man around the end of the century is hearsay, myth or legends. Had it not been for Paul, I doubt christianity would have survived past the first century.
angelo is offline  
Old 07-31-2009, 06:11 AM   #70
jakejonesiv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 2,060
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by angelo atheist View Post
The evidence for a historical Jesus is no different to a historical evidence for Snow White.
Both have no historical evidence that they existed. In the case of Jesus, all the evidence we have is in a word salad of a book we call the N/T. Outside of this book, the evidence is very slim indeed. Any mention of the historical man around the end of the century is hearsay, myth or legends. Had it not been for Paul, I doubt christianity would have survived past the first century.
I agree with your comments with one small difference.

Actually, the Church at Rome relied very little--if at all-- on Paul before the second half of the second century. We see, for example, that our friend Papias mentioned Paul not all, but emphasized Peter/Mark and Matthew for apostolic authority. Likewise, Justin relied on gospel material and did not mention Paul or his alleged epistles. In other words, the proto-orthodox relied primarily on gospel traditions, although not in the current form.

By way of contrast, the heretics relied on the authority of Paul. Indeed, the Marcionites relied on him exclusively.

One might ask about Ignatius. Didn't he mention Paul? The answer is yes he did, but he showed sure knowledge of only 1 Corinthians! And the earliest version of the Ignatians was written by a Marcionite, or perhaps as Roger Parvis argues most persuasively in his book, by an Apellean. (Apelles had been a student of Marcion). In any case, the Iganatian epistles were then heavily redacted by a proto-orthodox editor in the second half of the second century.

Best,
Jake
jakejonesiv is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:25 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.