JoeWallack

JW:
"is Sanders a Christian?". Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods? Normally when a Bible scholar says that something about Jesus was certain this is their Faith talking and not their scholarship. I read all your online articles early on. I was assuming I could easily find major errors to advertise here. I have to confess though that I found your scholarship excellent. Detailed arguments with multiple supporting examples, limited scope and focus on objectivity. Most importantly, your conclusions are supported by your arguments. You have no faith to get in the way of your scholarship. If the Fundy Forums have to ban you because of their Faith that's good for us. More objective criticism here. Again, it's your choice, but you could do even more good by criticizing bad Christian scholarship rather than bad Skeptic scholarship. But I understand that it could be hazardous to your career health .

I'm pretty sure that Readers here are much more interested in your evaluation of Sanders here than me. Let's say you do find major errors in my argument here. Since I'm an amateur does that really mean very much? If you find major errors in Sanders though or, alternatively, support him or are even in between, isn't that of much more use to the Public?



Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Really? Who are you to say?

Then you have no idea what you are talking about, let alone how the guild operates, but work out of ignorance when you pose such stale conspiracy theories.

Really? What I'm sure of is the I (and others here) would 'd like to know not only how you know that Sanders (who BTW was one of my teachers) is a Christian, but -- and much more importantly -- (1) whether or not what you've done vis a vis Sanders is to critique (and then go on, as you do, to call your critiqe definitive) a work you haven't read and (2) whether this practice of not having read works you critique is typical of you.

So help us out here. Did you or did you not read Sanders?

The very fact that you keep avoiding answering this question is a pretty good sign to my eyes that you have not.

Yes. It would mean that you have no right to be as arrogant as you are toward Biblical scholars and "christian" scholarship, and that you should stop announcing, as you frequently do, that your grasp of the material you are posting about is superior to that of the "christian" scholars you deride and that your arguments are superior to theirs. It would also mean that your charges against others of "sloppy" scholarship are the height of hypocrisy.

JG

spamandham

If Sanders really does make such a claim, and actually means it, then I wouldn't put much stock in any other such claims. There is damned little about the first century that any serious scholar would consider "beyond dispute", and absolutely nothing regarding the life of Jesus is 'beyond dispute'. The only historical concensus regarding Jesus is "he existed".

I'm willing to allow Sanders the use of hyperbole as anyone else, so we should probably try determine whether this was really meant, or is simply a literary device.

Larsguy47

Regardless of what Roman records, reliable, incomplete or otherwise that survive, there is ZERO CHOICE for when Jesus was born per the gospels because his age at the time of his baptism is given the same year John began his ministry in the 15th of Tiberius.

"Luke 3: In the fifteenth year of the reign of Ti·be´ri·us Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Ju·de´a, and Herod was district ruler of Gal´i·lee, but Philip his brother was district ruler of the country of It·u·rae´a and Trach·o·ni´tis, and Ly·sa´ni·as was district ruler of Ab·i·le´ne, 2 in the days of chief priest An´nas and of Ca´ia·phas, God’s declaration came to John the son of Zech·a·ri´ah in the wilderness.

3 So he came into all the country around the Jordan, preaching baptism [in symbol] of repentance for forgiveness of sins..."

23 Furthermore, Jesus himself, when he commenced [his work], was about thirty years old, "

So Biblically speaking, if one were just wanting to determine when Jesus was born, you need only count back 30 years to the fall of 2 BCE. 2 BCE, because as we all know, there was no Roman zero year.

Of course, the fall of 2 BCE doesn't work with the 4 BCE dating, therefore, there is an error in the secular reference for the death of Herod in 4 BC. The Biblical date for his death would be on Shebat 2, 1 AD since Jesus was between 1 and 2 years of age when Herod tried to kill him.

LG47

Ted Hoffman

Ben is right, Sanders is relying on Luke 1:5 (the annunciation of the birth of JBap) and the Quirinus census to argue that Luke has two conflicting dates - even though this much is not clear from the immediate context Sanders has situated his argument.
His two problems are:
1. The 4BCE date is NOT almost beyond dispute and even Raymond Brown, whose BotM is the most extensive work on the infancy narratives(AFAIK), would disagree with Sanders, or any attempt to harmonize Luke and Matthew.

2. Sanders attempt to ascribe Luke's "confusion" to a bogus phenomena is a farce.

Carrier didnt quote Sanders. But then again Gibson will always be Gibson.

jgibson000

Would you, I wonder, be kind enough to provide a quote from Brown which shows him disagreeing with Sanders' note that the c. 4 BCE ("near the time of the death of Herod") date of Jesus' birth (let alone with Sanders' mentioning on p. 11 that the year of Jesus' birth is not entirely certain" and that while he thinks that the Matthean dating of Jesus' birth at about the time of Herod's death in 4 BCE is likely, he recognizes that this does not mean that Jesus was actually born in the year that Herod died, and that other scholars, also accepting the Matthean data as valid, "prefer 5, 6, or even 7 BC."?

It might be if that's what Sanders did. But would you care to quote where he does what you claim he does -- and more importantly, why his doing so, if indeed he does, is a farce?

Yes, I see that now. My mistake.

Well let's hope so!

And you, Ted/Jacob, will, it seems, always be one who doesn't read his sources carefully, and will, to score points against someone, always present that someone as saying things he didn't say.

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Some exchanges need no commentary.

jgibson000

Then why are you commenting upon this one?

JG

aa5874

So, how is it that the only historical consensus is that Jesus existed, when no serious scholar would consider anything beyond dispute with respect to Jesus and even the 1st century.

Are you implying that the scholars who claim Jesus existed cannot be serious? It appears so to me.
]

jgibson000

Only? You haven't read Sanders, have you?
.
Would you be kind enough to tell me please what your criteria are by which you judge scholars to be "serious" ones?

Does anyone here want to wager that the A man will not give a direct answer to either of these questions?

JG