Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 07-09-2004, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

. . .
"Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." (Acts 5:34-39)

The problem, as I see it, is that Gamaliel is unapologetically depicted by the author of Acts as considering Jesus to be in the same category as Judas of Galilee and Theudas. Yet the Gospel stories clearly depict Jesus as a different sort of Messiah.

If the historical Jesus was not at all a Messiah like Theudas or Judas, why would Gamaliel think he was? Or, to avoid assuming this to be a historically reliable story, why would the author of acts depict Gamaliel as thinking he was?

The problem doesn't appear to go away if we come at it from the mythical position either. If the Gospel stories depict the mythical living Jesus as a Messiah not at all like Theudas or Judas, why would the author of Acts portray Gamaliel as thinking he was?

I do not think that this shows Gamaliel classifying Jesus with Theudas and Judas, except in the broadest possible category. The author of Acts is using Gamaliel to say that Theudas and Judas were false messiahs because they did not succeed in their political quest. Jesus is a different sort of messiah, who will succeed by using different tactics, if the Jews would just get out of the way.

Quote:

According to Maccoby, this is a piece of actual history surviving in the midst of a general attempt to downplay/disguise/rewrite the actual activities of the historical Jesus.

In terms of explanatory power, I subjectively consider Maccoby's to have more given that I can't imagine how Doherty might address this.

I would disagree with Maccoby on this. I think that the explanation with better explanatory power is that the author of Acts hijacked a historical authority figure - Gamaliel - to 1) save the early apostles from being stoned and 2) provide some authoritative backing for the new movement. This same author also hijacked Gamaliel to make him Paul's teacher and boost Paul's credentials - but thereby introduced a little anomaly or script discontinuity, since Paul must have slept through this lesson from Gamaliel or forgotten about it when he went out to persecute Christians.

Vinnie · 07-09-2004, 10:48 AM

As an FYI, Fredriksen says "We cannot know" about the historicity of this incident. PP 230-231 are informative. Several options are available and only having one historical criteria does not make us have much certainty IMO.

Temple incident looks like it will be in a non liquet range (50/50%) or maybe a "more probable than not range" (51/49) on my scale depending on where you stand on Thomas and some other issues.

We are probably accurate if we say some material developed between the time of Jesus' death and the composition of Mark which depicts hostility towards certain forms of traditional Jewish worship and practice. The Gentile mission took off pretty quick. This tradition may have crystallized along with these.

Its also possible it happened in 30 c.e. and Mark, Thomas and John know versions of it.

Or maybe Mark created it, a drammatic plot devise to bring his story to a climax that John heard of (directly or indirectly) and later adopted and adapted.

A fine combed discussing of all the texts is in order to solve this one (e.g. Crossan's claim of a slight embarrassment present in Who Killed Jesus).

Vinnie

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2004, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

...Philo gives no features uniquely Christian...

I wouldn't expect any features "uniquely Christian" from a proto-Christian sect. Unique features develop over time as a sect seeks to differentiate itself from its parent and establishe an independent identity.

Amaleq13 · 07-09-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The author of Acts is using Gamaliel to say that Theudas and Judas were false messiahs because they did not succeed in their political quest. Jesus is a different sort of messiah, who will succeed by using different tactics, if the Jews would just get out of the way.

It is the absence of any indication that Jesus should be considered a "different sort of messiah" that I find problematic. If the author is creating historical fiction, shouldn't his Gamaliel be aware that Jesus was quite unlike Theudas and Judas?

It seems to me that the significantly different sort of Messiah Jesus represented is a fundamental concept whether historical or mythical but that is precisely what is totally ignored (nearly to the point of contradiction) in this depiction of Gamaliel.

Am I expecting too much from the author of Acts?

Rick Sumner · 07-09-2004, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

I wouldn't expect any features "uniquely Christian" from a proto-Christian sect. Unique features develop over time as a sect seeks to differentiate itself from its parent and establishe an independent identity.

The question isn't whether you'd expect features uniquely Christian, the question is why are you trusting Eusibius' judgment? What grounds do you suggest to accept it, other than the fact that it was Eusibius' best guess?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto · 07-09-2004, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

. . .
Am I expecting too much from the author of Acts?

This is, after all, the part of Acts that contains a clear historical error. Gamaliel is made to speak of Theudas as if he were history, whereas Josephus places his revolt 14-15 years after this speech was supposed to have been made. This error appears to be based on a careless reading of Josephus:

From Luke and Josephus

Quote:

Finally, Luke makes errors in his use of these men that has a curious basis in the text of Josephus. When Luke brings up Theudas and Judas in the same speech, he reverses the correct order, having Theudas appear first, even though that does not fit what Josphus reports--indeed, Josephus places Theudas as much as fifteen years after the dramatic time in which Luke even has him mentioned. That Luke should be forced to use a rebel leader before his time is best explained by the fact that he needed someone to mention, and Josephus, his likely source, only details three distinct movements (though he goes into the rebel relatives of Judas, they are all associated with Judas). And when Josephus mentions Theudas, he immediately follows with a description of the fate of the sons of Judas (JA 20.97-102) and uses the occasion to recap the actions of Judas himself (associating him with the census, as Acts does). Thus, that Luke should repeat this very same incorrect sequence, which makes sense in Josephus but not in Acts, is a signature of borrowing. Further evidence is afforded here by similar vocabulary: both use the words aphistêmi "incited" and laos "the people."

07-09-2004, 01:33 PM

Why privilege Josephus over Acts? Do you consider Josephus infalible?

Toto · 07-09-2004, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bede

Why privilege Josephus over Acts? Do you consider Josephus infallible?

As noted, the sequence makes sense in Josephus, but does not make sense in Acts. This is an indication that the author of Acts copied from Josephus.

Toto · 07-09-2004, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

Cool, I would love to hear it. JofN was a fascinating read.

I also haven't read Sander's Jesus and Judaism which I believe Fredriksen states was one of the more forceful defenses of the temple incident being historical (pp. 290-291 of J of N).

Vinnie

Jesus and Judaism by EP Sanders

Part of the first chapter can be read on line. He says:

Quote:

There is neither firm agreement about the unity and integrity of the basic passages concerning the 'cleansing of the temple' (Mark 11.15-19 and parr.), nor is there absolute certainty of the authenticity of either of both of the sayings about the destruction of the temple. . . Despite all this, it is overwhelmingly probable that Jesus did something in the temple and said something about its destruction. . .

But it is not clear how close that "something" would be to forming the basis for an arrest and crucifixion.

Toto · 07-09-2004, 04:19 PM

Fredriksen has some comments here, in which she tries valiantly to make some sense of the conflicting elements of the gospel stories:

Quote:

. . . . It was not until I started walking around the Temple Mount that I began to understand how huge the Temple area — specifically its outermost court, around the perimeter of which, beneath the protection from sun or storm offered by the stoa or the Royal Portico, "those who sold" could be found — must have been. Its very size shrank the significance of Jesus’ putative action, and prompted the question: If Jesus had made such a gesture, how many would have seen it? Those in his retinue and those standing immediately around him. But how many, in the congestion and confusion of that holiday crowd, could have seen what was happening even, say, twenty feet away? Fifty feet? The effect of Jesus' gesture at eye-level would have been muffled, swallowed up by the sheer press of pilgrims. How worried, then, need the priests have been?

Finally, my confidence in the historicity of the scene in the Temple and its role in bringing Jesus to his death steadily diminished as I contemplated two of the few virtually indisputable facts that we have from the earliest movement. The first concerns his death. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified. His manner of death implies a context. Crucifixion was a mode of execution that Rome reserved particularly for political insurrectionists. If Jesus died on a cross, then he died in a situation where Pilate was concerned about the effect that Jesus and his message might have had on the crowds massed in Jerusalem that Passover. But this inference runs head-on into a second, equally undisputed fact about the earliest Christian movement: though Jesus died as an insurrectionist, none of his followers did.14

If Pilate, whether mistakenly or not, had truly considered Jesus guilty of spear-heading a seditious movement, more than just Jesus would have died. . . ..

These two anomalous facts — Jesus was crucified; those closest to him were left alone — compelled me to reevaluate both the traditions preserved in the New Testament canon and the various portraits of Jesus offered by current scholarship. . . . .

Undoubtably such a story circulated about Jesus: we have it attested in both Mark and John15 — though, significantly, not in Paul.16 But why would the story have started, if Jesus had not performed such an act? Absent evidence, speculations abound: I offer mine, briefly, here. I now incline to see the story of Jesus’ action in the Temple as a post-70 tradition, which harnessed the shock of the Temple’s destruction in such a way that it reinforced Christian belief. Jesus had disapproved of the Temple anyway (Mk 11); he predicted its destruction (Mk 13); what matters is the resurrection (Jn 2); its destruction means that the Kingdom, coupled with Jesus’ return, is at hand. When they see the Temple destroyed, Mark’s Jesus confides to his community, they will know that God "has already shortened the days," and that "this generation" — the generation straddling both Jesus’ lifetime and the Jewish War — "will not pass away before all these things take place" (Mk 13:29).

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

07-09-2004, 10:48 AM	#62
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	As an FYI, Fredriksen says "We cannot know" about the historicity of this incident. PP 230-231 are informative. Several options are available and only having one historical criteria does not make us have much certainty IMO. Temple incident looks like it will be in a non liquet range (50/50%) or maybe a "more probable than not range" (51/49) on my scale depending on where you stand on Thomas and some other issues. We are probably accurate if we say some material developed between the time of Jesus' death and the composition of Mark which depicts hostility towards certain forms of traditional Jewish worship and practice. The Gentile mission took off pretty quick. This tradition may have crystallized along with these. Its also possible it happened in 30 c.e. and Mark, Thomas and John know versions of it. Or maybe Mark created it, a drammatic plot devise to bring his story to a climax that John heard of (directly or indirectly) and later adopted and adapted. A fine combed discussing of all the texts is in order to solve this one (e.g. Crossan's claim of a slight embarrassment present in Who Killed Jesus). Vinnie

07-09-2004, 01:33 PM	#67
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Why privilege Josephus over Acts? Do you consider Josephus infalible?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.