Amaleq13

I think of it more as his impression after reading Philo's depiction rather than a "guess" but other than his connection of them with Christians, there is only their connection to Galilee and to the Nazoreans. The former is one of two locations they are said to be found (Egypt as the 2nd) while they appear to have at least shared a calendar with the latter.

Ted Hoffman

Amaleq,
Why do you believe Gamaliel is specifically referring to Jesus of Nazareth?

Rick Sumner

Sanders doesn't hinge the entire arrest and crucifixion on the temple incident--he presents it largely as something of a catalyst.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

The author of Acts clearly has Gamaliel speaking about the Jesus who was the former leader of the apostles present in the story.

If we assume that the author of Acts has inserted an actual quote from Gamaliel, you are correct that he could very well have been talking about somebody else. However, I think Toto has pretty well demolished the idea that this Gamaliel story has any basis in history.

I think I was expecting too much from the author of Acts in assuming he would depict Gamaliel as describing Jesus as a different sort of Messiah from the others.

rlogan

In reference to the OP, we don't actually have anything that would constitute primary evidence of the central characters to begin with.

No archaeological evidence. No contemporary historical tracts. We don't even have solid anchors in the canon itself.

When we address the problem of "best explanation", it includes explaining this lack of primary evidence.

Bede, I suppose there is reason to be sceptical of Josephus insofar as he would perhaps be expected to put a Roman twist on things. But in comparison to the fantasies of virgin birth, the fabricated slaughter of the innocents, miracles of healing and etc. - Josephus is head and shoulders above Acts.

At least his work is in fact credited to a real author in contrast to Acts. I see people excusing the lack of accredited authorship for Christian writings. But that just isn't true of Josephus and other historians of the time. What historian would give credence to anonymous writings?



Spin, welcome back.

Steven Carr

And Josephus carefully documents many sources, in contrast to the author of Luke, who never names his sources (either Mark, Matthew or Q, according to taste) and can be seen to alter them to suit his own private agendas. Josephus often just quotes other people, rather than altering them to suit himself. (I imagine he does that sometimes but Luke does that a lot)

Ted Hoffman

Thus the MJ theory remains secure.

spin

Your reference to sects and scrolls may have been misleading.

I've seen a few indications which I have noted in the past which could point that way, but I'm nowhere where I can resupply the info, and it's ultimately irrelevant to me.

You could call call it a necessary condition, but it is so of many things, ie they need explanatory power, good films, good novels, good con-men, good politicians (yeah, what's the difference?), good religions. None of these are attempting to get at reality.

Obviously, if an analysis doesn't explain what it needs to then it has little/no value. There is no point of a theory that doesn't explain things. So, "explanatory power" gets a "doh" from me. It is stating the banal obvious.

Historical methodology is about tools for analysing, and therefore explaining, what happened in the past. Explanatory power without historical methodology has no value in a historical pursuit, for ultimately it has no substance for its explanatory power.


spin

spin

Jesus of where?


spin

Amaleq13

At least from this passage in Acts, yes.