Amaleq13

Is that always "the job"?

Why and who says?

I recently spent several days exchanging speculations with Doctor X that I found quite enjoyable and actually enlightening. This was despite making no effort whatsoever to accomplish "the job" described above. We just beat the crap out of a particular topic until we got tired and/or bored. I'm not saying it is the coolest use of free time in the world but I have to admit I enjoy it. I'm an atheist whose favorite hobby is studying the Bible.

Personally, I agree but I'm not sure Vinnie would so how far would such a lack of common ground take us in a discussion? Somebody has to make an at least temporary concession of their own assumptions/conclusions. I have no problem accepting some of his assumptions or conclusions for the sake of a given argument. I like examining the logical structure of the argument. I enjoy well-crafted arguments even when they reach conclusions with which I do not agree. Sometimes I even learn things.

Flexible thinking and applied imagination, I guess.

Merry Mithra's Birthday, amigo!!

spin

It doesn't have to be, but then I would have thought anyone would be interested in cutting down the crap content. When you treat literary figures as real figures then you have no idea what you are talking about.

See above.

There is a distinction I need to make. Dealing with what a text says and how it reflects a literary context seems to be appropriate for texts generally. Dealing with text as though it is history without any way of validifying the historical content (either during or after) is basically a waste of time.

Speculating can be entertaining and can lead to more substantial conclusions when you can go back and provide the substance. If the latter can't be done, what you may have done may have been an entertaining pastime.

If Vinnie doesn't agree one would have to find out what his difficulty is with the concept. There are basic rules which need to be followed: you cannot suspend all the rules of logic and evidence in order to have a conversation, for the result would have no value -- and I'm not implying that that would be the case here. We do, however, have to maintain a minimum level of rules to get somewhere.

I don't mind temporary concessions. But what I am talking about involves no sign of the end of the temporary concession. It's just you accepting the reduction in your logical space in the conversation.

Fine, if you don't mind not talking about substance.


spin

Amaleq13

You can't consider the logic and coherence of the story?

Why not? If the story doesn't make sense, it doesn't really matter if the figures are historical. The story isn't credible. I make the same judgments whether the figures are historical or not. I can recognize a flawed fictional plot just as well as I can recognize an incoherent yet allegedly historical story. As long as both parties are aware that certain assumptions are being made for the sake of the argument, I don't see the problem.

I disagree because the logic of the story is always available for consideration. I'm also not sure this is applicable to the discussion in question. I'm clearly not accepting the text as history when I question its logic or coherence. In fact, I think the only "temporary concession" I'm making is the existence of a guy named Jesus who got crucified in Jerusalem where a movement began in his name afterwards. You don't see any value in trying to determine if the story makes any sense with these relatively minimal assumptions? Sorry but I do.

I agree but I consider the logic of the story to be substantive.

You say that like it is bad thing.

Why bother if I can shown that the subsequent story is not credible?

As I wrote:
Your suggestion that Pilate knowingly convicted Jesus wrongly and in agreement with the (apparently illegal) Sanhedrin seems unbelievable in the context of Josephus' descriptions of his interactions with the Jews.

I don't find the depiction of Pilate in the Gospels credible. Do you have a problem with my conclusion?

I "got" to the above conclusion just fine. You, apparently, would have chosen a different approach. What difference does it make if we both reach the same conclusion?

How does finding the depiction of Pilate unbelievable fail to signal an end to concessions?

I enjoy the challenge!

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, I've got plenty of space even with the assumptions.

spin

No problem. You deal with literary figures. But this also has difficulties because you find people talking of literary figures as though they are real figures.

This is called literary criticism. A worthy pursuit in itself, but nothing to do with history.

Why make this concession? If you are doing literary criticism, you can deal with coherence, motivation, and whatever else one does with a text, without entering into a rhetoric that reifies the characters.

... To the story world.

Well, does it get anywhere? to any conclusions about the real world?

Well, obviously you are each doing two different things. There is no communication. You are talking past each other. You don't come to any shared conclusions.

What about Vinnie?

You could have done just as well in your bath tub, couldn't you? What does Vinnie have to do with the conclusion?

Wasn't it a foregone conclusion?


spin

judge

Not all Spin. Some need more evidence than others. If you think the evidence is not substantial enough then that is fine.

Hope you had a good Christmas, and all the best for the NY

4God

Very, very interesting....so you believe it implausible that Pilate would have misgivings about executing a man he knew to be innocent b/c he would later perform some deplorable acts against the Jews? Please take a look at this...

Furthermore
So Tiberius issues a decree in 32 to not mistreat the Jews. Also, Sejanus, who most believe appointed Pilate and was Pilate's superior, was ousted due to a rumored plot to overthrow Tiberius in 31. It stands to reason that if Jesus was crucified before Sejanus' death then Pilate's attitude toward Jesus and wanting to please the Jews seems highly unlikely. However, if Jesus' death is after this time, then it's highly likely that he wouldn't want to displease the Jews. Further, the Jews called him out when telling him he needed to kill Jesus.

According to John's Gospel,
To not be a friend to Caesar, was bad for your career and life. If Sejanus is still alive and the preceding is happening before 31, then the Jews would have no, I mean no, foot to stand on with Pilate to say this. Sejanus was Tiberius' right hand consul(so to speak) and Pilate, purportedly was Sejanus' appointee, and there are several times he committed grievous acts against the Jews, so why change now? Did He actually believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Possibly, but even if He didn't the evidence speaks clear.


So to state that Pilate could not have acted the way portrayed in the Bible discounts the fall of Sejanus, the decree of Tiberius, and the word choice of the Hebrews present, IMHO.

Again, if Jesus dies before 31 then Josephus' accounts can be taken in total and this disregarded. However, I think it highly unlikely.

edited by Toto to add: the first quote appear to be taken from http://www.historian.net/romejud.html - Jack Kilmon's site.

The second is from http://www.xenos.org/essays/sejanus.htm - Xenos Christian Fellowship site.

Please be sure to identify your sources for purposes of copyright issues and general scholarly principles. Thanks

spin

This is an example of the sort of mixing of literature and history which I have already referred to. It doesn't seem to be very productive.

As to Pilate, according to Josephus (AJ 18.4.2),

Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome, and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome Tiberius was dead.

Vitellius became governor of Syria in 35 CE (the year after he was consul). It was after that time that we are told he sent Pilate packing. Tiberius died in 37 CE, so we have a clear enough window for when Pilate was told he was to go to Rome, his departure, and the news of Tiberius's death.

The reason for his departure was because it seems he treated the Jews with enough disrespect -- and this obviously after the fall of Seianus -- that they made accusations against him which reached Tiberius. (This of course doesn't mean that he couldn't have acquiesced to a Jerusalem crowd.)


spin

4God

spin...the Bible is History...it is not "just" literature.

...more texts from around the period exist of the Bible than of any other work of the same period.

If you say that the Bible is not a work of history, but is a "novel" if you will, then that's false to me. There are too many facts sited elsewhere for it to be a complete fabrication.

Furthermore, Josephus is clear! Josephus is also a Jew! You think that no reasonable person could believe that he was biased in his view toward Pilate.

And, given the summary nature of your quote, 10 years is a long time. Given the fact surrounding the death of Jesus I think you can admit that it is at the very least "plausible" that Pilate would have acted in this manner.

spin

This is a slight misapprehension. Sacrifices were made before standards, not to them, despite Josephus.

The reference in Pesher Habakkuk (col.6:3-4) to sacrificing to standards (otot) probably refer to the sort of thing referred to Ps 74:4 in which the enemy set up their banners (otot) in the Jerusalem temple. There is no reason to assume Romans in Pesher Habakkuk, though it is a widely held belief.


spin

spin

You cannot "just" assume that.

It should then be surprising that there is basically no archaeological nor epigraphic evidence to support its major contents, while works that are not so widely attested have wide archaeological and/or epigraphic support. Popularity means little in history.

Documents are almost always secondary evidence (if that). The historian intending to use a literary source needs to justify its use, usually citing primary evidence to show the veracity of the text.

The bible is not just one work, but proves to be very many works, written over a long arc of time, by numerous hands, when for each hand we do not, in most cases, know. We don't know how the text relates to the time it refers to. A text written long after the events it purports to deal with needs to be shown to be relevant before it can be even considered.

Every text is liable to challenge, including Josephus, for motive, content, date, desired impact, etc.

I don't accept any facts concerning the literary figure Jesus. I cannot say how the literary figure relates to history. And I don't think anyone can.


spin