FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-07-2013, 07:00 AM   #101
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 9,233
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post


The hypothesis that "Paul" wrote the non Pseudo-Pauline letters in the first century may not be true.

Non Pseudo-Pauline letters!!!

It's stuff like that from bible scholarship that boggles the mind. Next we'll have anti-non Pseudo-Pauline letters, and then....never mind.

Sometimes I think that "rational" interpretation of the scriptures is every bit as screwy as literal interpretation.
Jaybees is offline  
Old 08-07-2013, 03:09 PM   #102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaybees View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
The hypothesis that "Paul" wrote the non Pseudo-Pauline letters in the first century may not be true.
Non Pseudo-Pauline letters!!!

It's stuff like that from bible scholarship that boggles the mind. Next we'll have anti-non Pseudo-Pauline letters, and then....never mind.

Sometimes I think that "rational" interpretation of the scriptures is every bit as screwy as literal interpretation.
Adding new terminology via new adjectives is more likely to muddy the waters:
The hypothesis that a single "Paul" wrote the [B]non Pseudo-'Pauline' letters is yet to be proven,
as is whether they were primarily written in the first century and hardly edited afterwards.
MrMacSon is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 04:06 AM   #103
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

LA Times review of Jesus the Zealot

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/reza...evara_partner/
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 04:50 AM   #104
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 1,848
Default

From the review:

"All the Gospels were written in Greek, in the Roman Empire, in the first century, following the death of Jesus. The first, Mark’s, ..."

"By the time John wrote his gospel, 100 years after Mark ..."

Interesting chronology.
yalla is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 04:56 AM   #105
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Not to mention that he has Jesus born in Bethlehem in Mark.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 05:50 AM   #106
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 1,848
Default

More interesting chronology [from Scott Kolb's review linked at the previous site]

"The first third of Aslan’s book brilliantly paints this bloody backdrop, which ends in 70 c.e. with the total annihilation of Jerusalem, more than three decades after Jesus was killed and about three decades before the gospels would first take shape."

I find the sentence a bit ambiguous, is Kolb saying that the gospels were written 'about three decades' after the total annihilation of Jerusalem [sic], ie turn of the century?
yalla is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:00 AM   #107
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 738
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yalla View Post
More interesting chronology [from Scott Kolb's review linked at the previous site]

"The first third of Aslan’s book brilliantly paints this bloody backdrop, which ends in 70 c.e. with the total annihilation of Jerusalem, more than three decades after Jesus was killed and about three decades before the gospels would first take shape."

I find the sentence a bit ambiguous, is Kolb saying that the gospels were written 'about three decades' after the total annihilation of Jerusalem [sic], ie turn of the century?
It does sound like that and I would more or less agree with that.
Grog is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:04 AM   #108
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Craig Evans review lists a lot of picky little historical errors.
Quote:
Zealot is riddled with errors, probable errors, and exaggerations. Aslan tells us a builder (Greek: tekton) in Nazareth had “little to do” (p. 34). Excavations at Nazareth and nearby Sepphoris suggest otherwise. Being a builder (or “carpenter”) mean that “Jesus would have belonged to the lowest class of peasants in first-century Palestine” (p. 34). Where does this come from? Sepphoris, a major city of Galilee, is said to be “a day’s walk” from Nazareth. Actually, it takes a jogger about 45 minutes. Scholars will be surprised to learn that Jesus ben Ananias (d. 70 CE), mentioned by Josephus, prophesied the “imminent return of the messiah” (p. 53). He did no such thing.

Aslan would have us believe that in an interval of one or two years (the time Jesus spent with John the Baptist) Galilee had become “urbanized, Hellenized, iniquitous” (p. 93). Previously it had been a place of family farms and open fields and blooming orchards. Excavations at Sepphoris indicate that even this large, somewhat Hellenized city had not adopted foods and customs contrary to Jewish law and traditions in the time of Jesus. In fact, excavations throughout Galilee have revealed how faithful to the Law of Moses the people were. When Jesus commands the cleansed leper to show himself to the village priest and do as Moses commanded, Aslan thinks “Jesus is joking” (p. 112). The discussion of magic and miracles (pp. 105–9) is confusing and inconsistent.

When transliterating the Greek for the nominative plural “apostles” Aslan gives us the genitive singular apostolou, instead of the expected apostoloi. Aslan assigns Eusebius to the third century, but the Christian apologist and historian flourished in the fourth century (p. 149). Aslan assumes throughout that Jesus and his disciples were illiterate (e.g., p. 171: “they could neither read nor write”; 178: “illiterate peasants from the backwoods of Galilee”). There is no engagement with scholarship that suggests otherwise. We are also told that James the brother of Jesus wore “simple garments made of linen, not wool” (p. 197). But linen was worn by the wealthy (see Luke 16:19), not the poor and simple.
But most of his objections seem theological.

Le Donne on the Jesus Blog thinks these errors were the result of rushing the book to print without adequate peer review or editing.
Toto is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:25 AM   #109
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 393
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by James The Least View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grog View Post

I have Aslan's book now on my tablet, but when he has stated that the one "fact" that can be agreed upon is that Jesus was crucified, it is hard to get motivated to read this closely. I am hoping it is not just another "This is how Jesus must have been given the context of the times."

To me, the crucifixion is not well-attested. The accounts themselves are derived entirely from other sources.
The "fact" of the crucifixion is that it is based entirely on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Matthew added a couple of additional "facts" from the Wisdom of Solomon. Nothing about the crucifixion can be explained as historical witness to an actual crucifixion.
The Passions are fiction, but Paul says Jesus was crucified. He gives no details, but it shows that the crucifixion belief preceded the writing of the Gospels.
I don't know if the epistles precede the Gospels -- perhaps they do -- but "Paul" is getting all of his information about Christ Jesus from the Septuagint as well.
James The Least is offline  
Old 08-18-2013, 09:27 AM   #110
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
LA Times review of Jesus the Zealot

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/reza...evara_partner/
Your link claims
Quote:
ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is the latest in a long line of fictions about the “historical Jesus,” or Jesus-the-man, a lucrative genre that never lacks readers, but seems markedly graver during paradigm shifts...
The "Zealot" is fiction.
aa5874 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:43 AM.

Top

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