mikem

I was not suggesting that you had not tried to understand the text in it's own terms, I was making an observation about a general trend which I have observed in the way that the debate with fundamentalists is conducted. I have not made any assumptions about you, so please don't make assumptions about me. I don't mind you disagreeing with my arguments as vociferously as possible, but I find the resort to personal denigration unpleasant. Up to now I had found the debate exhilerating and mind stretching, and your comments informative. Don't spoil it.

mikem

I was not ignoring the gospels primary intention, I was trying to explain why I think that that the theological and the historical are complementary. It is just as much of an assumption to think that because the authors intention was religious that he is therefore unreliable as a historian. I agree that it is the historian's task as a historian to try and construct the most probable sequence of events from the material provided.

I wasn't trying to prove they were reliable history. I was trying to show that their form did not undermine the content. I was primarily arguing against what appears to be an unwarranted assumption that because the gospels are cast as they are, they are therefore historically unreliable. It would be a different endeavor to argue for their reliability, which is what I have been attempting to do in our very interesting debate about Caiaphas.

Interesting you should choose the Flood legend to illustrate your point. However I was arguing not for historicity here, but merely what the Old Testament tells us about Jewish hopes and aspirations.

I'm not arguing for an accurate representation, solely a general historical reliability, a substrate if you will.

Can I return to your other points later? The argument about the traditions behind the gospels is a big one, as you probably know. (Daughters require taking to the cinema!)

Vorkosigan

I am very sorry. I assumed that comments in a post directed to me were a veiled hint to me.

Michael

Steven Avery

Hi Vork. Yes, I agree. This is one of the most interesting and directly applicable quotes, looking at the Josephus usage of polis.


http://www.colby.edu/rel/archaeology/Shikhin.html
The Location and Identification of Ancient Shikhin (Asochis)

Lastly, it should be noted that Asochis is called a "city" (polis) whenever Josephus mentions it. Since our identification of Asochis/Shikhin, places the city adjacent to the large "city" (polis) of Sepphoris, in what sense may Asochis be said to be a polis? Here a digression on the meaning of the term polis in Josephus' writings seems necessary. That Josephus works primarily with two dominant terms to designate urban life in Palestine becomes clear in his description of Galilee where he specifically mentions "cities" (poleis) and "villages (komai) (V.235; B 3.43). While numerous places are specifically termed "cities" (poleis), in a more general sense the term designates those places which are distinct from the countryside (e.g., A 11.28) or a village (B 4.127; A 18.28; 20.130). In the course of his historical narratives, Josephus often uses the term "cities" (poleis) with no particular specificity of meaning (B1.316; 2.365; 3.63), even when he lists specific cities (B 1.156;165-66; 2.97; 2.629).[23] In its loosest usage, the term appears in rhetorical statements which allude to "every city" (e.g., B 1.614;2.109, 125) or "all the cities" (B 2.279; 7.96).

Vorkosigan

Why is Josephus relevant here?

Michael

Steven Avery

Suprising question. Writing in the same time period, in the same language, about the same country. With similar cultural background. Detailed analysis of his precise polis word usage done, even in a context outside of NT text usage.

Should be a good indication of word usage. What authors would you claim as more relevant for vocabularly understanding of an NT word like polis.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Amaleq13

Upon what basis? I've already given the basis for my conclusion.

The money-changers were outside the Temple proper. That was the whole point of their existence, after all. You are simply ignoring what Josephus has told us and I find that disingenuous. Extra guards were placed around the area outside the Temple specifically to prevent or respond to incidents just like the one in the Gospel story!

Pilate once placed disguised soldiers among protesting Jews and then had them whip out cudgels to beat people. A stampede resulted and many people were trampled to death. So, no, I do not consider your objection above to be credible. You really should read what Josephus has to say about Pilate and his concern for the Jews under his charge.

You are asking the wrong question. The real question is for you: How could you possibly establish that this story is historical when you have completely conflicting accounts about when it happened in Jesus' career? This isn't about me establishing what claims are less likely to be historical. It is about you establishing which claims can be relied upon as history. This is clearly not a good example for you.

Can you name one example of a known historical event that two authors place in completely different times of the central figure's life? We're not talking about one guy says "June" and another says "November". We're talking about one guy says "This is how Jesus started his ministry while three others say this is how Jesus' ministry ended.

Keep in mind also that the Synoptics describe this action as pivotal with regard to motivating the Jewish conspiracy against Jesus. That John moves it to the beginning of the ministry completely wrecks this crucial plot point.

It certainly makes your job of identifying which version is "the" reliable description of what really happened quite difficult.

Creating a disruption in the Temple area during Passover was clearly taken seriously by the Romans and for very obvious reasons. The nature of the celebration (ie freedom from persecutors) renders it a politically charged occasion hence the extra guards around.

No, causing a disruption in the Temple area during Passover was clearly considered an action with strong implications of rebellion. IIRC, Josephus tells us a story about an Egyptian who managed to gather a following and took them all out to the Jordan river. This was enough to be considered an act of rebellion, if only symbolic, so the Romans rode out and cut off his head!

The Gospels.

"Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, and they were not finding any. For many were giving false testimony against Him, but their testimony was not consistent. Some stood up and began to give false testimony against Him, saying, "We heard Him say, 'I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.'" Not even in this respect was their testimony consistent." (Mk 14:55-59, NASB)

No, as we can clearly see above, they lied about this. What really got them upset was his claim to be Christ:

"But He kept silent and did not answer Again the high priest was questioning Him, and saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?" And Jesus said, "I am; and you shall see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN." (Mk 14:61-62, NASB)

Apologists like to mangle this to be a blasphemous statement but they have to change Jesus' claim from being the Messiah to being God. Where is the evidence that it was ever considered a blasphemy to claim to be the Messiah? That makes no sense.

I think that is largely because you are ignoring the evidence from Josephus. However, your opinion about the "narrative sense" does absolutely nothing to establish the scene as historically reliable and that is supposed to be your goal.

Amaleq13

I thought that was obvious enough that it didn't have to be stated. Even knowing what source is claimed can help establish reliability but having no clue whatsoever can only make that goal more difficult.

That is correct. It certainly makes your job of establishing reliability quite difficult.

No, it is crucial when we've already established that historical reliability can only be a secondary consideration of the author.

How does this differentiate between fiction and reliable history? It doesn't. There are plentiful examples of internally coherent yet entirely fictional stories.

I am prepared to accept anything you can support with credible evidence. That even the Catholic Church (by way of The Catholic Study Bible) acknowledges that "Petrine influence cannot be exaggerated" suggests you will have a difficult time producing such evidence.

Amaleq13

I don't see how this opinion is relevant to the OP and subsequent discussion. That you can view them as complementary does not establish that there is anything historically reliable in the Gospels.

I'm not offering an "assumption" but an observation leading to a conclusion and the above misrepresents it. I'm not denying that the author may have accurately described historical events. I'm simply observing that, given historical accuracy could only have been a secondary consideration, it is only rational to question the basis for any claim but especially those that have a clear theological value. Since, as far as I can tell, there isn't much in the story that doesn't have a clear theological value, the job of establishing which claims are also historically reliable is that much more difficult.

No? You seemed to think there was some history in the Temple Disruption scene. If this is your actual position, then you have no basis to claim that they contain any and our discussion is over.

Then you are arguing against a straw man. The assumption is that Mark wrote his story primarily to share the "good news" and only secondarily, at best, to accurately describe history. From this assumption it is only reasonable to conclude that any theologically significant claim cannot be assumed to be historical but that this must be established.

I won't. As far as I'm concerned "a general historical reliability" is a meaningless statement. It is a vague assertion that avoids doing the work necessary to establish specific historical reliability.

I'm in no hurry.

mikem

Well you have me there. I do not know the passage from Josephus that you are referring to here. Can you tell me where it is? Thanks.