Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 08-21-2005, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

There's nothing "unheroic" about a person who allows himself to be unjustly killed in order to save others. In fact, that is a common meme for heroism, and, thus, doesn't speak to whether or not Jesus was an actual person.

I found Neusner's commentary on the Passion narrative interesting ...

Quote:

In the Halakhic context, the death penalty achieves atonement of sin, leading to the resurrection at the end of days. It is an act of mercy, atoning for the sin that otherwise traps the sinner/criminal in death. In the context of the Gospel narrative, with its stress on repentance at the end and atonement on the cross by a single unique man, representative of all of humanity, for the sins of all humanity, we deal with no juridical transaction at all. It is an eschatological realization of the resurrection of humanity through that of Jesus Christ on Easter Sunday. Read in light of Mishnah-tractate Sanhedrin and its Halakhic theology with its climax, "All Israel has a portion in the world to come," the passion narrative coheres, each component in its right proportion and position, all details fitting together.

The Mishnah interprets the death penalty as a medium of atonement in preparation for judgment leading to resurrection, just as the theology of the passion narratives has always maintained. For both the Mishnah and the Gospels, the death penalty is a means to an end. It does not mark the end but the beginning. The trial and crucifixion of Christ for Christianity, like the trial and execution of the Israelite criminal or sinner for Judaism, form necessary steps toward the redemption of humanity from death, as both religions have maintained, each in its own idiom.

- see A Judaic Reading of the Passion Narratives for Mel Gibson to Consider

John Kesler · 08-21-2005, 09:54 AM

Quote:

spin:
I have pointed out overtly non-historical material in the gospel:

<snip>

[*] vast number of Hebrew bible citations were turned into "prophecies" to create events in Jesus's life.

I think some of this is actually a case of events in Jesus' life leading to the citation of "prophecy," which helps the HJ position. I find it more likely, for example, that Matthew tried to validate how a historical Jesus could be from Nazareth and still be the Messiah (Matthew 2:23) than that he made up the Nazareth tradition (which appears in all four gospels) based on an ambiguous "prophecy" in Isaiah 11:1.

John Kesler · 08-21-2005, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Toto:
If Jesus were a wandering hippie-type preacher, it is hard to imagine why he was enough of a threat to the Romans to crucify him.

Jesus was a troublemaker, and Pilate didn't need "good" reasons to kill anyone who might challenge Roman authority. Jesus' "cleansing" of the temple would certainly have gotten Rome's attention. Look at what Josephus says happend to another Jesus, Jesus son of Ananus:

Quote:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...phus/war6.html
But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!"

Ben C Smith · 08-21-2005, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

I am convinced that Jesus really existed because he made a false prophecy of his return within the lifetimes of his listeners accompanied by other events, as told in Mark 13 and Luke 9:23-27. In 2 Peter 3, the Christian religion had to defend themselves from mockers who asked, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." And the defense is, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This ad hoc would not happen in myth.

A good point, but J. P. Meier, who leans heavily on the criterion of embarrassment, still argues in the second volume of his Marginal Jew series that Jesus never made any such timebound prediction. Meier surmises that such a prediction was put on his lips during the first Christian generation and proved to be an embarrassment only to the second generation, who then had to come up with the ad hoc explanations and rationalizations of which you speak.

Specific causes for embarrassment, in other words, may change. (I am not, BTW, saying that Meier is necessarily correct about Jesus never having made such a prediction.)

Ben.

spin · 08-21-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

I think some of this is actually a case of events in Jesus' life leading to the citation of "prophecy," which helps the HJ position. I find it more likely, for example, that Matthew tried to validate how a historical Jesus could be from Nazareth and still be the Messiah (Matthew 2:23) than that he made up the Nazareth tradition (which appears in all four gospels) based on an ambiguous "prophecy" in Isaiah 11:1.

Wishful. One doesn't need a historical Jesus in order to create aspects of his life. Let's call in Ockham's razor, which states if two explanations deal with the same set of manifestations equally well, you always go with the simpler, and, as you don't need a Jesus to create a life of Jesus (you just need "biblical prophecy"), it must be the simpler hypothesis.

The "prophecies" represent messianic expectation and the reinterpretation of Hebrew bible to know what the messiah would do. Thus you don't need a messiah to have the life of the messiah.

The origins of the Nazareth tradition have nothing originally to do with a town of that name. The town is written in Hebrew NCRT (C = tsade), and the tsade is almost always transliterated into Greek as a sigma, not a zeta, yet every manifestation of Nazareth, Nazara, Nazaret, Nazarean, and Nazorean in the Greek tradition is written with a zeta. That should indicate that the town had little to do with the words I listed, being the last addition to a long development of an arcane tradition.

Mt 2:23 has a very early tradition which features not Nazareth, but Nazara, ie not the town name we are all familiar with. This latter is a good candidate for having been formed by back formation from nazarhnos and the Mt writer may not have known about Nazareth at the time he was writing. After all, he uses Nazara in 4:13 according to the Alexandrian gospel tradition, so Nazara seems to have been earlier in the gospel tradition than Nazareth (Mt moves Jesus from Nazara to Capernaum). If we can trust the remains of the works of Julius Aftricanus, he knows of Nazara, but doesn't mention Nazareth.

spin

spin · 08-21-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

might not Ockham find his wrath tempered by recalling the Jerusalem sect and the "sayings", and then noting that the presumption of a sect leader behind this sect and these sayings is a fairly reasonable and parsimonious inference?

What do you know about a Jerusalem sect based on contemporary indications?

And similar sayings have been around for a long time. Some of those attributed to Jesus can be found in the DSS. The sayings in the gospels smack not of a single originator, but of a literary collection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

But is not legend history layered with, refracted through, and embellished/distorted by fiction?

What makes you think that? Can you validate your claim? How about legend being fiction tinged with historical trappings?

spin

Jayhawker Soule · 08-21-2005, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

might not Ockham find his wrath tempered by recalling the Jerusalem sect and the "sayings", and then noting that the presumption of a sect leader behind this sect and these sayings is a fairly reasonable and parsimonious inference?

What do you know about a Jerusalem sect based on contemporary indications?

Not very much, spin. Do you claim that the Jerusalem sect is likewise a myth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And similar sayings have been around for a long time. Some of those attributed to Jesus can be found in the DSS.

Would you please reference those sayings "attributed to Jesus [but] found in the DSS"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Some of those attributed to Jesus can be found in the DSS. The sayings in the gospels smack not of a single originator, but of a literary collection.

The gospel smack? I see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ConsequentAtheist

But is not legend history layered with, refracted through, and embellished/distorted by fiction?

What makes you think that? Can you validate your claim? How about legend being fiction tinged with historical trappings?

Can I validate my claim? Tilt elsewhere.

Kosh · 08-21-2005, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krosero

what is unconvincing TO YOU about the HJ model(s), and what is convincing TO YOU about the MJ model(s)?

You don't have a cross to hang on....

Chili · 08-21-2005, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kosh

You don't have a cross to hang on....

Of course you do. If you are a believer the sins of your world are meant to become the very cross that you must be crucified on. Jesus showed us how to do that and the rest is history. If this was not true it all would be history and there would be no story to tell.

Vinnie · 08-21-2005, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

A good point, but J. P. Meier, who leans heavily on the criterion of embarrassment, still argues in the second volume of his Marginal Jew series that Jesus never made any such timebound prediction. Meier surmises that such a prediction was put on his lips during the first Christian generation and proved to be an embarrassment only to the second generation, who then had to come up with the ad hoc explanations and rationalizations of which you speak.

Specific causes for embarrassment, in other words, may change. (I am not, BTW, saying that Meier is necessarily correct about Jesus never having made such a prediction.)

Ben.

This one historical tradition should be someone's thesis on why HJ research is futile outside of a few bare essentials. It really should. The saying has been contested by the likes of Crossan and Meier and accepted by the likes of Sanders. It does "pass the tests" for authenticity as well but some plausible reasons against it can be induced.

This shows how weak the methodologies really can be and that they are simply not followed stringently anyways. Methodology in HJ scholarship is just like a guy pointing in a direction saying "thats north, go that way". Everything else is left to chance, there is no trail, no path, and its real easy to forget which way you were going.

Vinnie

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.