Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 12-20-2003, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
GD, you aren't the moderator.

Do I actually have to preface my Doherty specific points with "Doherty Says", and then Quote him? Very well.

My apologies. Since you seemed to have rejected Paul's visions as made up as well, my fears were that you weren't arguing either for or against Doherty in this thread, rendering any replies based on the validity of Doherty's ideas moot.

Quote:

Here's what "Doherty Says":

"Even Paul, this man so emotional, so full of insecurities, who declares (Philippians 3:10) that "all I care for is to know Christ, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings," "

Paul is sure expressing a powerful want here.
It isn't something that he wants to do. It is all he wants to do.(Share in his sufferings)

So how can anybody be arguing that paul doesn't want to share in his suffering? That would be the crucifixion. If it happened.

So it looks like it didn't happen.

This is fairly incoherent. Who is arguing that Paul doesn't want to share in his suffering? Actually, what does that even mean?

Quote:

Doherty goes on at length about lack of evidence for crucifixion, and with the perverse logic of the HJers:

"Paul's faith is centered on the crucifixion. What bizarre mental processes could have led him to disembody it, to completely detach it from its historical time and place, from the life which culminated on Calvary?"

Well no kidding. So when did it happen?

It happened just before the visions of Paul and the others. You just need to find those dates in Paul's epistles, and, depending on the vision, subtract a few days.

Quote:

Doherty goes on about the complete lack of evidence of a date in the contemporary historical record. He even considers the Christian assertions of darkness or earthquakes that could triangulate the year of crucifiction - and there's nothing there.

The fact that there is no year given for crucifiction is precisely relevant to Doherty.

OK.

Quote:

The veneration theme is precisely relevant to Doherty.

Correction: the veneration theme as regards to a *HJ* is relevant to Doherty. The veneration theme as regards to a *MJ* doesn't seem to worry Doherty.

Quote:

So for you to suggest disqualifying me from mentioning such writings as if they did not pertain to Doherty at all is not a very fair tactic.

You want me to disqualify you from, say, quoting the Bible? [/B]

Well, if I said that I didn't believe anything in the Bible, and I was arguing a position based on quotes in the Bible, wouldn't you be a little concerned?

As Doherty uses Paul quite heavily, and you've seemed to have questioned Paul's honesty when it comes to his visions, I wonder how you are going to respond when issues of Paul are raised?

Vinnie · 12-20-2003, 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rlogan
You just proved my point. And I do read literature. I happen to have Crossan's "Histortical Jesus" in front of me at the moment. He can't do it either. Nor does Meier.

The best you HJ wallflowers can do is try to give a range by throwing out one of the two contradictory birth dates, appeal to the "about thirty years old" ministry reference, the year of John the Baptist's work, and count passovers.

Nobody, anywhere in this period can say what the year was. Nobody. Dates were referenced by the year of whoever was reigning. "15th year of so-and-so"

That was a pretty snide remark cloaked with patronizing garb about "read some books". I think Toto made a pretty good point some time ago - when you don't have facts to offer you have only insults to offer.

So now, Vinnie - tell me exaclty what year Christ was Crucified according to a source that actually cites the year. Not one wherin someone tries to extrapolate inderectly from contradictory sources.

I know you cannot - because I do read Vinnie. "Favor" 30 C.E. is not a source. What does Matthew say? Mark? Luke? Epistles? Josephus? Anyone? Nobody.

I dug something up in Tertullian and asked for help pegging it to the A.D. dates and nobody offered help.

What the HJer's are not dealing with is exactly what I said: Why does no author say "Jesus was Crucified in year X of Pilate". Now deal with that.

What point did I prove? In order for there to be an historical Jesus you idiotically require a source to name the specific year? That is not critical history. Its blatant stupidity.

Good day,

Vinnie

Vinnie · 12-20-2003, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mike_decock
[Mod Mode]

Vinnie: Please refrain from the "read some books" type of rhetoric.

rlogan: Please refrain from namecalling like wallflowers.

Thanks guys,

-Mike...

If a person says "no HJer does this" and a ton of HJers actually offer chronlogies of Jesus' life, I fail to see how "read some books" isn't a valid response. Then again, we have a person here thinking they are qualified to comment on what critical scholarship does or does not do because they've read Crossan

Vinnie

Amaleq13 · 12-20-2003, 07:54 AM

Jacob,

You are really starting to piss me off by "forcing" me to agree with Vinnie and Layman!

I think Layman is correct in claiming that Marcion's view of Jesus is not compatible with Doherty's description of Paul's beliefs.

However, Marcion does seem to create a "middle ground" between Doherty's interpretation of Paul and the Gospel Jesus. I can see why you would have a problem considering a Jesus who appears fully grown straight out of heaven as "historical" but Marcion clearly does portray this figure in the historical context of the Gospel story. Marcion's Jesus is both more explicitly human and historical than Paul's but not quite as human and historical as the Gospels' (i.e. literal birth denied).

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
An exact chronology of Jesus' life and all the problems involved in such a reconstruction are a dime a dozen.

If you do not see HJers dealing with this issue it only serves to show that you don't read much literature here. Start with Volume 1 of Meier's Marginal Jew series. He offers a chronology and a great overview of the relevant issues.

While I agree that suggested chronologies are "a dime a dozen", it isn't like we have anything approaching certainty on the subject. In fact, doesn't Meier suggest that any claims about specifics, such as the precise date of the crucifixion, must be considered speculative when he writes:

"In the end, the historian is left with the difficult task of sifting through the Four Gospels for historical tradition. The task is difficult indeed, for these documents are all products of Christian churches in the second half of the 1st century A.D." (Marginal Jew, vol 2, p.5)

Quote:

Personally, I favor 30 C.E. for the year of Jesus' death but I am fine with ca. 30 C.E.

I thought the evidence from the Jewish calendar (i.e. Gospels = Passover on a specific day of the week) only fits for either 32CE or 36CE. I can't find the specific reference in my notes but this would still be within your "ca" range, wouldn't it?

Also, my earlier question seems to have gotten buried by subsequent discussion:

Vinnie wrote:

Quote:

The fact that J was crucified but his followers were not means Jesus was not personally preaching something that may have been considered sedition.

I replied:
What other charges could have resulted in that punishment? It was my understanding that this was reserved for sedition and murdering a Roman.

mike_decock · 12-20-2003, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
If a person says "no HJer does this" and a ton of HJers actually offer chronlogies of Jesus' life, I fail to see how "read some books" isn't a valid response. Then again, we have a person here thinking they are qualified to comment on what critical scholarship does or does not do because they've read Crossan.

Perhaps I misread your statement. If by "read some books", you simply meant that there are many books which offer chronologies of Jesus' life, that would be fine. If by "read some books" you are implying that the person is unread or ignorant, that is an argument against the person which we try to discourage. It seems to me that you are doing a little of both and that's why I commented on your response.

Like Toto said, the mods are just trying to keep sniping and insults to a minimum so that the discussion can stay on topic and substantive.

-Mike...

Toto · 12-20-2003, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
What point did I prove? In order for there to be an historical Jesus you idiotically require a source to name the specific year? That is not critical history. Its blatant stupidity.

Good day,

Vinnie

Vinnie - please avoid the words "idiotically" and "stupidity".

It is in fact a characteristic of history to use actual dates, and a characteristic of fable to set stories in a poorly defined time, once upon a time or back then. The fact that the gospels do not mention a date is a point for viewing them as fable, not history, although it is not proof.

Your post shows that you are the one who does not understand critical history.

Layman · 12-20-2003, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
It is in fact a characteristic of history to use actual dates, and a characteristic of fable to set stories in a poorly defined time, once upon a time or back then. The fact that the gospels do not mention a date is a point for viewing them as fable, not history, although it is not proof.

Ancient authors often pinpointed events by reference to leaders, not exact dates. Hence, Luke: " In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah..."

Even most dates were referenced by reference to the reign of certain leaders.

Luke pulls both of these together quite clearly to give us a specific time frame:

Quote:

Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.

There is something here for everyone. A specific reference to a specific time period within the reign of Tiberius. For those more local to Judaea, we tells them it was during Pilate's tenure. For those in Galilee, he tells them it was during the reign of Herod the tetrarch. For those not concerned with Roman rule he tells them it was the tenure of the specific high priests.

Toto · 12-20-2003, 12:10 PM

Interesting that the author of that section of Luke ties the announcement that John would be born to a particular year in the reign of a particular emperor, creating problems for dating the actual birth.

From Carrier

Quote:

Three months before John is born, Gabriel announces to Mary only that she will conceive (1:31, 36), not that she already has. In fact, Luke never says when Mary conceives. Instead, John appears to have already passed most of his childhood by the time Jesus is born (1:80), and given Jewish tradition to barmitzvah after the age of 12 (which would be John's "day of public appearance to Israel"; we see that day for Jesus in 2:42ff.) and other parallels between Jesus and John (cf. 1:80 and 2:40), it would be reasonable to assume that Luke has in mind that John was nearly twelve when Jesus was born (since "in those days" from vv. 2:1 picks up the "day" of the previous vv. 1:80).[1.1.2] This rescues Luke from charges of chronological error, since Luke reports that John's birth was foretold in a vision "in the days of Herod king of Judaea" (1.5), and if John was born around then, it would be an error to have Jesus born around the same time if Herod the Great were meant, since he was long dead by the time the census occurs--although this may well be Herod Archelaus, not Herod the Great, and in fact if Luke did not mean John to be twelve when Jesus was born, then Luke would most likely have meant Archelaus.[1.1.3] Of course, we are not told how much time intervened between the annunciation and John's birth (1.22-24), but if we follow what I just argued could be Luke's meaning, it is notable that he places the birth of John in exactly the same year that Matthew seems to place the birth of Jesus (6 B.C.).

It does appear that the author of Luke has included some dates to give the appearance of real history, while creating chronological problems for later historians - indicating that aLuke was working from sources that lacked clear dates.

Layman · 12-20-2003, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
It does appear that the author of Luke has included some dates to give the appearance of real history, while creating chronological problems for later historians - indicating that aLuke was working from sources that lacked clear dates.

There is no chronological problems that can be gleaned from the reference to Tiberius. And Carrier's understanding of how Luke dates events is a distinctly minority opinion. And it's only a problem as compared to Matthew.

Not much substance to this criticism. Luke's dating of the birth of John the Baptist in the Fifteenth year doesn't seem to suffer from any problems. Unless you can explain them of course? Does this conflict of when Josephus places John the Baptist? I thought that they were consistent.

Toto · 12-20-2003, 12:25 PM

Josephus' dating of JBap

Quote:

. . . When, exactly, does Josephus state that John arose?

He is not at all clear, as is often the case for events that occurred before his time. Even when Josephus is precise about dates he can frequently shown to be somewhat off (as when he gives the length of the reigns of Roman emperors). So any conclusions about John from this passage must be taken cum grano salis.

Having said that, it does appear that Josephus is giving John's death as occurring in 36 CE, which is at least 6 years later than what is expected from the New Testament, and after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Consult that link for an extended discussion. And have a happy holiday vacation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.