Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 03-18-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

N. T. Wright certainly has argued for a resurrection in The Resurrection and the Son of God. Dale Allison is far more cautious in Resurrecting Jesus. He believes the evidence is just barely in favor of an empty tomb, but says that the evidence for the resurrection just isn't that solid. He even discusses the issue of grief hallucinations and notes just how real they seem to the people experiencing them.

Usually a scholar is a scholar because he/she has a body of work behind them in a particular field. Yes, I have no doubt that people, even NT scholars, have written books arguing for a resurrection, just as Jesus Mythers have written books arguing for a mythical Jesus. But are those books used in scholarly circles to make a decision on the historicity of the resurrection?

To use an example from another thread: there is debate on whether the Qumran scrolls were the product of an Essene community. Let's say that currently the consensus is that the evidence favours that position. Do we find the same situation in modern NT studies? Is the consensus view that the evidence favours the historicity of a physical resurrection? Would someone advocating against a resurrection in scholarly circles be viewed as going against the known evidence?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

What I find a lot more telling is that it is fair game to argue against the resurrection, and commonplace to deny it, even though it is central to Christianity. That is a bellwether that indicates that biblical scholarship is at the least tolerant of ideas that are dangerous to religion. Individual scholars may be afraid of certain ideas, but the fears of individuals don't seem to be stopping discussion of those ideas in the field.

Yeah, I think that this is obvious to all except Vork. He is perfectly right to raise the issue of bias, but I have to wonder at the evidence for it. Blanket statements on perceived apriori bias is the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist.

Charles Wilson · 03-18-2006, 06:30 PM

Hello group, first post here, although I have applied for refuge status from JesusMysteries group over at Yahoo!.

I am working on a thesis that the Jesus stories were written around 8 - 12 CE by survivors of the Assault on the Temple by Archelaus in 4 BCE. Jesus is a construct, representing the Priesthood. These Priests, with sympathetic lay people, are attempting a reconstruction of the True Worship, sacrifices and all, and are angling to get back at Herod. Herod dies a week or so too soon and Herod's son Archelaus becomes involved in a Slaughter of 3000 in the Temple at the onset of the Passover.
The Jesus stories are "all" histories. The story of Jairus chronicles the Plan, the Plan to eliminate the Romans and Herod and restore the Rule of the Priests: Jairus, the president of a synagogue, has a daughter who is twelve years old. She is "dead" until Jesus brings her back to life. In the middle of this story, a Woman with a Twelve Year Issue of Blood touches the robe of Jesus. Clothes represent the Priesthood. This becomes a marker for history. The woman has been unclean for twelve years for something that involved the Temple and the Priesthood. Israel has been rendered unclean by the Priests. This is a reference to the Passover Slaughter of 4 BCE.
Another historical marker is the "Woman Bent Over Double for 18 Years." This references the decree given by Herod that all of Judah shall bow down to Herod and the emperor (7/6 BCE).
Even the boulder in front of the tomb is a marker: No one is to write or tell anything they know of this Slaughter and no one can roll the boulder away.
I am currently documenting the Hasmonaean histories given in the gospel stories. It appears that the Jesus group had its origins and grievances in the early years of Herod when Herod killed so many in the Sanhedrin and made the High Priest position a political appointment. See "The Good Samaritan" story: The man who was assaulted was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. He is attacked and, of course, his clothes are taken from him. There were two Hasmonaen Palaces, one in Jerusalem and one in Jericho. See also, in GJohn, the story of the Old Man by the pool, ill for 38 years. This takes you back to early days of Herod and the Battle of Actium.

When Jesus threw down a challenge to the Pharisees, "Is it right to help or hurt on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?", it is a challenge to those who witnessed the Slaughter and either did nothing about it or approved it.

This is the story of a last call to honor for observant Jews and the recall of Greater Israel.

Any interest in reading more?

Charles

Vorkosigan · 03-18-2006, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

His rhetoric (not always a "bad" word) is beautiful, but his arguments are sound. He has some 20 years of solid study prior to his popular rhetoric.

Mens, Crossan's arguments are bad.

Quote:

As I said: multiply attested sayings from sources independent of each other, mostly from the first hundred years after Jesus' death.

Sources Crossan thinks are independent, although many disagree.

Quote:

And that's the point, although many NT scholars note multiple attestation, no one before Crossan collated them from independent sources.

mens, what is Crossan's methodological justification for doing that?

Quote:

The combination establishes the congruity of the collection. Crossan cites Alfred Koester's Ancient Christian Gospels to a considerable extent while he does this, so if you want to dump Crossan, you should be ready to take on Koester at the same time.

Not necessarily.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 03-18-2006, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Yeah, I think that this is obvious to all except Vork. He is perfectly right to raise the issue of bias, but I have to wonder at the evidence for it. Blanket statements on perceived apriori bias is the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist.

No problem, then. Just give me a list of other scholarly fields where people agree to disagree on the possibility of supernatural intervention in specific and concrete historical events. Where scholars struggle to preserve the possibility....hence your comment here:

Quote:

Usually a scholar is a scholar because he/she has a body of work behind them in a particular field. Yes, I have no doubt that people, even NT scholars, have written books arguing for a resurrection, just as Jesus Mythers have written books arguing for a mythical Jesus. But are those books used in scholarly circles to make a decision on the historicity of the resurrection?

...completely misses the point. And this one....

Quote:

I have to wonder if that's true as well. AFAICS you can't argue that Jesus is a myth in scholarly journals because the evidence for it simply isn't there.

...is downright hilarious. "Evidence" is a product of method, and methodology is where NT studies is at its absolute weakest.

Quote:

Blanket statements on perceived apriori bias is the hallmark of the conspiracy theorist.

As always, the inability of the historicist crowd to support its case with actual methods is revealed in the instant reach for insult.

Vorkosigan

No Robots · 03-18-2006, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Just give me a list of other scholarly fields where people agree to disagree on the possibility of supernatural intervention in specific and concrete historical events.

Well, SecWeb seems to think that's just fine.

mens_sana · 03-18-2006, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mens_sana

And that's the point, although many NT scholars note multiple attestation, no one before Crossan collated them from independent sources.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

mens, what is Crossan's methodological justification for
doing that?

I'm missing something here. Are you asking why Crossan examined an entire century's canonical (to be expected) and extracanonical (a heretofore unusual practice) documents, looking for sayings that repeat or parallel each other, purposefully omitting the standalones? Why would any historian NOT do this (now that it has been proposed)?

And I imagine that the reason for examining sayings, independent of narrative, lies in what is perceived of the nature of Q and GThomas as sayings collections — along with the Gospel reports of Jesus teaching in parables. Stephen Patterson has a nice presentation of the Crossan methodology in The Search for Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk), ed. by Hershel Shanks.

Julian · 03-19-2006, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jjramsey

Creationists nominally base their arguments on evidence as well, but do not deal with the evidence properly. I see the same problems with mythicists. I see some mythicists be dishonest, like Acharya S or Freke & Gandy. In some cases, they ignore convergence of evidence. In some cases, I see them have a fixed scheme that they have latched onto, and everything is kinked and pressed and stretched to fit.

Creationists do not base their views on evidence, they hold their views in spite of evidence. I don't think anyone here takes Acharya, and Freke and Gandy seriously. Every field has its crackpots, creationism only has crackpots.

Quote:

The "So what?" has to do with double standards. It seems rather absurd to demand contemporary evidence for Jesus' existence when this is not demanded for the existence of other personages.

But the claims are entirely different. If we applied the same standards to all literature we would have to conclude that Zeus probably existed, as well. Different claims, different standards.

Quote:

On the other hand, I think we both agree that any accounting of Jesus' historicity has to explain why the contents of the New Testament are what they are, and in that sense, the NT is definitely evidence, even when it can't necessarily be taken at face value.

The only thing we can conclude is that the NT is evidence of christianity, its history and how they thought.

Julian

Julian · 03-19-2006, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Jeffery Jay Lowder is a cofounder and Past President of Internet Infidels, who writes on historical criticism issues. In this article here, Lowder examines whether the New Testament provides prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. He looks at some criteria of independent confirmation, and concludes (my emphasis):

"There simply is nothing epistemically improbable about the mere existence of a man named Jesus. (Just because Jesus existed does not mean that he was born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, etc.) Although a discussion of the New Testament evidence is beyond the scope of this paper, I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament "the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material", we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

Lowder is correct in his statement but his conclusion is erroneous. When we read mythology in ancient writings, or any text that revolves around clearly impossible events, we naturally conclude that we are reading about made-up events. Like I said earlier, no one assumes a historical core regarding Zeus. Jesus may very well have been a historical figure, I have no problems with that, but I am not about to simply leap to that conclusion just because some people, none of them eyewitnesses, said so.

Julian

Chris Weimer · 03-19-2006, 01:05 AM

Let's keep it civil folks. There's no reason why we need to attack other people - after all, we all should be looking for the same thing - an answer.

Julian · 03-19-2006, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Wilson

Hello group, first post here, although I have applied for refuge status from JesusMysteries group over at Yahoo!.

I am working on a thesis that the Jesus stories were written around 8 - 12 CE by survivors of the Assault on the Temple by Archelaus in 4 BCE. Jesus is a construct, representing the Priesthood. These Priests, with sympathetic lay people, are attempting a reconstruction of the True Worship, sacrifices and all, and are angling to get back at Herod. Herod dies a week or so too soon and Herod's son Archelaus becomes involved in a Slaughter of 3000 in the Temple at the onset of the Passover.
The Jesus stories are "all" histories. The story of Jairus chronicles the Plan, the Plan to eliminate the Romans and Herod and restore the Rule of the Priests: Jairus, the president of a synagogue, has a daughter who is twelve years old. She is "dead" until Jesus brings her back to life. In the middle of this story, a Woman with a Twelve Year Issue of Blood touches the robe of Jesus. Clothes represent the Priesthood. This becomes a marker for history. The woman has been unclean for twelve years for something that involved the Temple and the Priesthood. Israel has been rendered unclean by the Priests. This is a reference to the Passover Slaughter of 4 BCE.
Another historical marker is the "Woman Bent Over Double for 18 Years." This references the decree given by Herod that all of Judah shall bow down to Herod and the emperor (7/6 BCE).
Even the boulder in front of the tomb is a marker: No one is to write or tell anything they know of this Slaughter and no one can roll the boulder away.
I am currently documenting the Hasmonaean histories given in the gospel stories. It appears that the Jesus group had its origins and grievances in the early years of Herod when Herod killed so many in the Sanhedrin and made the High Priest position a political appointment. See "The Good Samaritan" story: The man who was assaulted was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. He is attacked and, of course, his clothes are taken from him. There were two Hasmonaen Palaces, one in Jerusalem and one in Jericho. See also, in GJohn, the story of the Old Man by the pool, ill for 38 years. This takes you back to early days of Herod and the Battle of Actium.

When Jesus threw down a challenge to the Pharisees, "Is it right to help or hurt on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?", it is a challenge to those who witnessed the Slaughter and either did nothing about it or approved it.

This is the story of a last call to honor for observant Jews and the recall of Greater Israel.

Any interest in reading more?

Charles

It sounds interesting, to be sure. Since it is a huge topic I suggest you start some threads on individual aspects of your theory.

Welcome to II! :wave:

Julian

03-18-2006, 06:30 PM	#32
Charles Wilson Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Saint Petersburg, Fl Posts: 51	When did Jesus exist? Hello group, first post here, although I have applied for refuge status from JesusMysteries group over at Yahoo!. I am working on a thesis that the Jesus stories were written around 8 - 12 CE by survivors of the Assault on the Temple by Archelaus in 4 BCE. Jesus is a construct, representing the Priesthood. These Priests, with sympathetic lay people, are attempting a reconstruction of the True Worship, sacrifices and all, and are angling to get back at Herod. Herod dies a week or so too soon and Herod's son Archelaus becomes involved in a Slaughter of 3000 in the Temple at the onset of the Passover. The Jesus stories are "all" histories. The story of Jairus chronicles the Plan, the Plan to eliminate the Romans and Herod and restore the Rule of the Priests: Jairus, the president of a synagogue, has a daughter who is twelve years old. She is "dead" until Jesus brings her back to life. In the middle of this story, a Woman with a Twelve Year Issue of Blood touches the robe of Jesus. Clothes represent the Priesthood. This becomes a marker for history. The woman has been unclean for twelve years for something that involved the Temple and the Priesthood. Israel has been rendered unclean by the Priests. This is a reference to the Passover Slaughter of 4 BCE. Another historical marker is the "Woman Bent Over Double for 18 Years." This references the decree given by Herod that all of Judah shall bow down to Herod and the emperor (7/6 BCE). Even the boulder in front of the tomb is a marker: No one is to write or tell anything they know of this Slaughter and no one can roll the boulder away. I am currently documenting the Hasmonaean histories given in the gospel stories. It appears that the Jesus group had its origins and grievances in the early years of Herod when Herod killed so many in the Sanhedrin and made the High Priest position a political appointment. See "The Good Samaritan" story: The man who was assaulted was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho. He is attacked and, of course, his clothes are taken from him. There were two Hasmonaen Palaces, one in Jerusalem and one in Jericho. See also, in GJohn, the story of the Old Man by the pool, ill for 38 years. This takes you back to early days of Herod and the Battle of Actium. When Jesus threw down a challenge to the Pharisees, "Is it right to help or hurt on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?", it is a challenge to those who witnessed the Slaughter and either did nothing about it or approved it. This is the story of a last call to honor for observant Jews and the recall of Greater Israel. Any interest in reading more? Charles

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

03-19-2006, 01:05 AM	#39
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Let's keep it civil folks. There's no reason why we need to attack other people - after all, we all should be looking for the same thing - an answer.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.