Steven Carr

This is ground breaking work which will revolutionise how historians do history.

Dale Allison's masterful demonstration on pages 417-418 that Romans 8:15 has an echo of Jesus being distressed in Gethsemane made a powerful impression on me, and made me reconsider how history should be done.

Allison states on page 418 that the urgency of Paul's word for `cry' well suits the description of Jesus in the garden who is `distressed' and `agitated.'

This demonstration of the historicity of the distress of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane is a striking example of how historians should approach texts, and one that historians outside the field of New Testament studies should learn from.

Dale Allison also points out on page 419 the astonishing similarity in language between Colossians 4:2 `Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful.' and the language in Mark 14:38, providing another striking example of how the distress of Jesus in the garden must be historical.



I quote from page 425 of Dale Allison 'Constructing Jesus' (or via: amazon.co.uk) where he points out that a real historian accepts things as historical if he cannot see from a distance of 2000 years since date of writing why anybody would make them up.

'Some have urged that at least a few of the stories are likely to mirror real events because they cannot be derived from the Jewish Bible and because there is no obvious motivation for Christian invention: conscription of a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, to carry Jesus cross; crucifixion by order of Pontius Pilate; execution at a place known as Golgotha, the prescence of female followers at the cross, burial by a Jewish official, Joseph of Arimathea.

To my mind the argument is substantive, and since I have not, with regard to the items just listed, run across effective counterarguments, I accept them as likely historical.'

Yes, the early Christians tracked down passers by at the crucifixion and took witness statements from them, getting their name and address.

Toto

Dale Allison is on the faculty of Pittsburg Theological Seminary.

James McGrath says:

avi

Firmly disagree.

I am 3000 years from the Trojan War, and I have no idea whether or not Paris, Helen, Menelaus et al were real or fictional. I certainly don't know why anyone would "make them up". Does that then make them real?

It is not even 100 years, since Babe the blue ox appeared on the scene. If we cannot offer any explanation for the Babe's existence, does that engender reality for the ox?

The main problem with such a definition is that obscurity trumps, and that is the antithesis of historical pursuit, which always, in all cultures, seeks clarity.

avi

mopc

The reasons someone made Jesus up was to sell a religion, to sell the story that the Jewish messiah had come and thus Jews would have to cease to exist, solving the Jewish question and providing a new dogma for the state thought-police.

Jesus might have been only partially fictional, a true person "adapted" to sell a dogma.

aa5874

This is a BIG RED flag.

Why is there a need to revolutionize the way historians do history?

In order to historicize Jesus?

Why is it that people cannot accept that the Jesus story was just believed like the stories about Romulus and Remus?

There was no revolutionary way to do history when one deals with Romulus.

What is so special about Jesus? The Jesus character was just another myth like Romulus.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven Carr,

Regarding the rule "that a real historian accepts things as historical if he cannot see from a distance of 2000 years since date of writing why anybody would make them up."

I just saw a movie called "The Wild Party". It claimed to be loosely based on the life of Fatty Arbuckle.

In real life, Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle was a great silent film comedian, well liked by his colleagues and the public. At a party, in 1921, a young actress, Virginia Rappe became ill, probably due to the poor quality of the bootleg liquor. She died of peritonitis, caused by a ruptured bladder. Apparently another woman at the party tried to extort money from Arbuckle, promising to tell the police that Rappe had told her that Arbuckle had raped her.
The doctor at the hospital found no evidence of rape, but the yellow press of Randolf Hearst had a field day suggesting that overweight Arbuckle had raped the poor woman and his excessive weight had caused her death. Overnight, the comedian became a monster. Arbuckle faced three trials, the juries deadlocked on the first two, but the third found him innocent and offered him an apology. This incident ruined Arbuckle's career and life. He was certainly an innocent man falsely accused of murder for simply throwing a party.

Wikipedia says this about the film, "The Wild Party"

In the film, the comedian is portrayed as a witless and vicious character and an inept film comedian (critics generally rank Arbuckle as only slightly less brilliant than Chaplin, Keaton, and Lloyd) . He hasn't made a film in five years (Arbuckle was still popular and worked steadily from 1914 to 1921). There is an orgy at the party with both female and male homosexuality. (entirely made up). The comedian in a drunken stupor shoots and kills two people and wounds another at the end. He cries when he realizes what he has done.

The filmmakers in this case made no attempt to convey the facts in the historical case. They were simply using the notoriety of the incident as a way to popularize their story.

In this case I would call the film trivially historical. Its relationship to the historical people and event is trivial and terribly misleading.

There might very well have been a bandit or revolutionary Jewish leader who cried knowing he was going to be captured, or it might have been a stock scene from plays of the period,l or the author might have thought it was an effective device to gain pity for his lead character. It is impossible to say at 2000 years distance.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Sheshbazzar

Yeah but brain dead Fundy Christians will just love this new and 'improved' way to 'do' history!

Just like in the Film business, in the Flim-Flam business, all it has to do is make 'em weep, and 'sell in Peoria'!

Steven Carr

Mind you, on page 22 , Allison weeps over the fact that much about the historical Jesus is uncertain because of the failings of human memory.

Readers of religious texts might wonder if rampant invention, propaganda and theological agendas are more responsible for this uncertainty as to what happened rather than the failings of human memory.

But Allison presumably discounts those as not as important as the fact that people might have forgotten what they were doing on the day Kennedy was shot or the day the earth was plunged into darkness for three hours.

Steven Carr

On page 240, Dale Allison points out that the story of Barabbas being released is likely not historical because there is no 'certain evidence' of such a custom.


Strange. It appears Allison is just accepting things as historical or rejecting them as not historical based on criteria which vary from chapter to chapter.


How can that be?

Surely True Historians have a consistent methodology.

Sheshbazzar

Bible Baloney

One may slice the baloney cross-wise, slice the baloney diagonally, or slice the baloney lengthwise,
slice it thick, or slice it thin,
Pan fry the baloney, grill the baloney, or boil the baloney,
Cube the baloney, chop the baloney, or mince the baloney.
No matter how it is prepared, no matter how it is seasoned, and no matter how it is served,
it began as baloney, and at the end, it is still remains nothing but baloney.

Actually I like and enjoy a bit of baloney now and then......
but that doesn't mean I have to let the store get away with mislabeling it, inflating its price, and attempting to sell it to me as steak.




Sheshbazzar