Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-04-2010, 03:02 PM

Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life and teaching (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Maurice Casey, is soon to be published.

The Biblical Studies list on yahoogroups says

Quote:

We are pleased to announce that on the 11th of October and running through the 18th of the month we will host Dr. Maurice Casey who will be discussing with us his very soon to be published volume Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian’s Account of His Life and Teachings. The official publication date is 30th September in the UK, and 30th December in the States (to allow time for shipping from the UK to the US). But they will have advance copies for sale at the booth at SBL. In the meantime, I’ve been granted permission to excerpt segments of the volume and they will be posted on the List. If you’d like to discuss the excerpts (which will doubtless lead to many interesting questions) just sign up to take part. We’re exceedingly pleased that Prof. Casey will be our guest and we know the discussion will be lively!

Meanwhile, a few teasers have been published on a bibloblog:

Quote:

I try to use evidence and argument to establish historically valid conclusions. I depend on the best work done by many other scholars, regardless of their ideological affiliation. I also make abundant use of one relatively recent discovery which should help us to go further than ever before in reconstructing the Jesus of history in his original cultural context. That is the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and above all the eventual publication of all those which are written in Aramaic, the language which Jesus himself spoke. In two complex technical books, I have shown how genuine sayings of Jesus, and the earliest narrative reports of his deeds, can be reconstructed in their original Aramaic versions in a manner unthinkable before the publication of the Aramaic scrolls.2 As all students of language and culture in general are very well aware, language is a central part of culture. Accordingly, the reconstruction of the Aramaic sources of the synoptic Gospels is an essential step in understanding him against the background of his own culture, that of first-century Judaism.

His previous books include Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (or via: amazon.co.uk).

Comments?

JoeWallack · 10-04-2010, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Jesus of Nazareth: An independent historian's account of his life and teaching (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Maurice Casey, is soon to be published.
...

Quote:

I have shown how genuine sayings of Jesus, and the earliest narrative reports of his deeds, can be reconstructed in their original Aramaic versions in a manner unthinkable

Comments?

JW:
Alarm

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

spamandham · 10-04-2010, 09:08 PM

One of the problems with this approach, is it tends to beg the question. Sure, if one man was mostly responsible for the sayings, and the deeds really were of one man, then maybe trying to reconstruct those sayings and deeds makes sense. But what if the sayings are a composite of things people simply attributed to their hero character? This happens all the time. I'd say it's the norm rather than the exception.

If you try to attribute all or most of it to one man when it was not originated by one man, you miss out on the opportunity to deconstruct the milieu.

aa5874 · 10-05-2010, 12:25 AM

The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing on Jesus of Nazareth. Where do these so-called scholars come from?

Mars?

Don't these so-called scholars understand that it is known on earth that there is no credible evidence for an historical Jesus, just forgeries in Josephus?

Steven Carr · 10-05-2010, 03:12 AM

I think Stephanie Fisher summed it up best when she wrote 'no, texts are not authentic because they might have an aramaic background. Not even casey says so.'

Maurice Casey can tell you what Jesus said at the Last Supper, and with greater accuracy than the Gospellers, who, of course, were not there, even though 'Mark' was written circa 40 AD.

I quote 'We must infer that Jesus gave traditional interpretations of the lamb or goat, and of the bitter herbs, as part of his exposition of God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt. Like Gamaliel, who will have been leading a Passover group elsewhere in Jerusalem, he will have said something to the effect that ‘we eat bitter herbs because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt’. Similarly, over the Passover offering, he will have said something to the effect that ‘this is the Passover, for our Father in heaven passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt’. He may have quoted Exodus 12.27: ‘It is the sacrifice of the Passover for the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he slew the Egyptians and spared our houses’.

This hermeneutical framework was essential if Jesus was to use the interpretation of bread and wine to predict and interpret his forthcoming death.

He was surrounded by Jewish followers. They had come on pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate this major feast, when all Israel looked back to their deliverance from Egypt, and many looked forward to their deliverance in the future.

He was therefore bound to make reference back to their deliverance from Egypt by the mighty hand of God, on whom alone they could rely for their deliverance in the future. Mark had the sort of source which, for that reason, did not need to mention it, when it could take it for granted while it made the main points relevant to understanding Jesus’ death.'

The mere fact that Casey's source does not mention these things is no barrier to Casey knowing exactly what Jesus was 'bound' to do, 2000 years ago.

I had no idea that a major requirement for an 'independent' historian is to be psychic, and to be able to project yourself into a room that existed 2000 years ago, and write down what was being said.

Steven Carr · 10-05-2010, 03:13 AM

CASEY
n two complex technical books, I have shown how genuine sayings of Jesus, and the earliest narrative reports of his deeds, can be reconstructed in their original Aramaic versions in a manner unthinkable before the publication of the Aramaic scrolls.

CARR
In other words, Casey just made things up and called it a 'reconstruction'.

But in reality there is no more methodology in those books than the reconstructions done in a Hollywood biopic.

Jesus spoke Aramaic. This is Aramaic. Therefore ,Jesus spoke this.

This is such a logical fallacy that you have to be an 'independent' historian to not spot it.

Steven Carr · 10-06-2010, 03:55 AM

Maurice Casey continues to show off his psychic powers in an extract which can be found at

http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress....-excerpt-four/

'All this evidence indicates that Jesus was emotionally and administratively more dependent on a small group of women than the Gospels tell us.'

Casey has sources which are not apparent to the rest of the world, as he has 'evidence' which is not in the Gospels, and which no man can see.

As Casey claims not to be using the Gospels for this 'evidence', then what is he using?

Apart from his undoubted psychic gifts and vivid imagination?

Toto · 12-01-2010, 02:02 PM

Neil Godfrey has a detailed summary and critique of Casey. The last post, on the historicity of the 12, is here. others are linked here

Steven Carr · 12-02-2010, 07:25 AM

I like Casey’s claim that ‘most bilinguals are not fully competent in both their languages’.

I guess that makes Casey incompetent in all of Greek, English and Aramaic. After all, is he not one of these trilingual people , who we now know are ‘not fully competent’.

Casey knows that ‘Marcus’ asked people about Aramaic and misunderstood what they say.

If only Mark had been as brilliant at languages as an English professor writing 2000 years after the events, who can read invisible Aramaic wax tablets better than native Aramaic speakers who can actually hold them in their hands.

Steven Carr · 12-03-2010, 01:50 AM

In this brilliant book, by the brilliant independent historian, Maurice Casey, Professor Casey shows on page 197 that 'Mary Magdalene was particularly important, and other rich women were instrumental in providing for financing and other practical aspects of the ministry in Galilee.'

On page 194,Professor Casey gives unshakeable evidence, obtained simply by reading the Bible, that there were many other relatively rich women whose donations had a cumulative effect that was evidently important.

In this brilliant book, by the brilliant independent historian, Maurice Casey, Professor Casey shows on page 64 that the disciples were so poor that they had to go into cornfields in Galilee and pick grain to eat on the Sabbath to avoid starving.

Truly, Professor Casey has an independent mind.

If only those rich women who were instrumental in providing for financing and other practical aspects of the ministry in Galilee had read Professor Casey's book, they would have realised that the disciples were so poor that they had to eat raw grain to survive a Sabbath.

12-03-2010, 01:50 AM	#10
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching In this brilliant book, by the brilliant independent historian, Maurice Casey, Professor Casey shows on page 197 that 'Mary Magdalene was particularly important, and other rich women were instrumental in providing for financing and other practical aspects of the ministry in Galilee.' On page 194,Professor Casey gives unshakeable evidence, obtained simply by reading the Bible, that there were many other relatively rich women whose donations had a cumulative effect that was evidently important. In this brilliant book, by the brilliant independent historian, Maurice Casey, Professor Casey shows on page 64 that the disciples were so poor that they had to go into cornfields in Galilee and pick grain to eat on the Sabbath to avoid starving. Truly, Professor Casey has an independent mind. If only those rich women who were instrumental in providing for financing and other practical aspects of the ministry in Galilee had read Professor Casey's book, they would have realised that the disciples were so poor that they had to eat raw grain to survive a Sabbath.

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

10-04-2010, 09:08 PM	#3
spamandham Contributor Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Dallas, TX Posts: 11,525	One of the problems with this approach, is it tends to beg the question. Sure, if one man was mostly responsible for the sayings, and the deeds really were of one man, then maybe trying to reconstruct those sayings and deeds makes sense. But what if the sayings are a composite of things people simply attributed to their hero character? This happens all the time. I'd say it's the norm rather than the exception. If you try to attribute all or most of it to one man when it was not originated by one man, you miss out on the opportunity to deconstruct the milieu.

10-05-2010, 12:25 AM	#4
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing on Jesus of Nazareth. Where do these so-called scholars come from? Mars? Don't these so-called scholars understand that it is known on earth that there is no credible evidence for an historical Jesus, just forgeries in Josephus?

10-05-2010, 03:12 AM	#5
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I think Stephanie Fisher summed it up best when she wrote 'no, texts are not authentic because they might have an aramaic background. Not even casey says so.' Maurice Casey can tell you what Jesus said at the Last Supper, and with greater accuracy than the Gospellers, who, of course, were not there, even though 'Mark' was written circa 40 AD. I quote 'We must infer that Jesus gave traditional interpretations of the lamb or goat, and of the bitter herbs, as part of his exposition of God’s redemption of Israel from Egypt. Like Gamaliel, who will have been leading a Passover group elsewhere in Jerusalem, he will have said something to the effect that ‘we eat bitter herbs because the Egyptians embittered the lives of our fathers in Egypt’. Similarly, over the Passover offering, he will have said something to the effect that ‘this is the Passover, for our Father in heaven passed over the houses of our fathers in Egypt’. He may have quoted Exodus 12.27: ‘It is the sacrifice of the Passover for the Lord, who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he slew the Egyptians and spared our houses’. This hermeneutical framework was essential if Jesus was to use the interpretation of bread and wine to predict and interpret his forthcoming death. He was surrounded by Jewish followers. They had come on pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate this major feast, when all Israel looked back to their deliverance from Egypt, and many looked forward to their deliverance in the future. He was therefore bound to make reference back to their deliverance from Egypt by the mighty hand of God, on whom alone they could rely for their deliverance in the future. Mark had the sort of source which, for that reason, did not need to mention it, when it could take it for granted while it made the main points relevant to understanding Jesus’ death.' The mere fact that Casey's source does not mention these things is no barrier to Casey knowing exactly what Jesus was 'bound' to do, 2000 years ago. I had no idea that a major requirement for an 'independent' historian is to be psychic, and to be able to project yourself into a room that existed 2000 years ago, and write down what was being said.

10-05-2010, 03:13 AM	#6
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	CASEY n two complex technical books, I have shown how genuine sayings of Jesus, and the earliest narrative reports of his deeds, can be reconstructed in their original Aramaic versions in a manner unthinkable before the publication of the Aramaic scrolls. CARR In other words, Casey just made things up and called it a 'reconstruction'. But in reality there is no more methodology in those books than the reconstructions done in a Hollywood biopic. Jesus spoke Aramaic. This is Aramaic. Therefore ,Jesus spoke this. This is such a logical fallacy that you have to be an 'independent' historian to not spot it.

10-06-2010, 03:55 AM	#7
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Maurice Casey continues to show off his psychic powers in an extract which can be found at http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress....-excerpt-four/ 'All this evidence indicates that Jesus was emotionally and administratively more dependent on a small group of women than the Gospels tell us.' Casey has sources which are not apparent to the rest of the world, as he has 'evidence' which is not in the Gospels, and which no man can see. As Casey claims not to be using the Gospels for this 'evidence', then what is he using? Apart from his undoubted psychic gifts and vivid imagination?

12-01-2010, 02:02 PM	#8
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Neil Godfrey has a detailed summary and critique of Casey. The last post, on the historicity of the 12, is here. others are linked here

12-02-2010, 07:25 AM	#9
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I like Casey’s claim that ‘most bilinguals are not fully competent in both their languages’. I guess that makes Casey incompetent in all of Greek, English and Aramaic. After all, is he not one of these trilingual people , who we now know are ‘not fully competent’. Casey knows that ‘Marcus’ asked people about Aramaic and misunderstood what they say. If only Mark had been as brilliant at languages as an English professor writing 2000 years after the events, who can read invisible Aramaic wax tablets better than native Aramaic speakers who can actually hold them in their hands.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.