Switch89

I've written a review of a new book called "Proving History" which is about the philosophical/logical justification of historical knowledge and about how New Testament studies seem to have gotten away from using logic.

Here's an excerpt from the blog:

Is it true that Jesus scholars have been using bankrupt methods in their historical studies? Several leading biblical scholars (Stanley Porter, for example) have already reached similar conclusions. I'm not sure if they agree that *all* such "criteria" and methodology employed in Jesus studies are bankrupt, but it is beyond doubt that they believe all/most of the criteria have one or more shortcomings. After reading Carrier's analysis of the criteria, I am very much inclined to agree with him, with only one caveat. While Carrier seems to think that all of the criteria are bankrupt no matter what, I believe that if we *assume* that there was a historical Jesus then we can validly reach some conclusions about the life of Jesus. For example: Was Jesus an apocalyptic prophet? That is, did he teach that the end of the world was near? Paul thought the end of the world was near, the gospel authors say that Jesus said this, the book of Hebrews and Revelation says it. What could account for all of these early Christian authors believing the end of the world was near and the gospels portraying this as a central teaching of Jesus? If Jesus was a real historical figure, we have two hypotheses to test: that he was an apocalyptic prophet or he was not. If he was, it is easy to see why early Christian texts say what they do. If he was not, then we have to postulate a rather radical, ad-hoc discontinuity between the teachings of Jesus and the beliefs of so many early Christians. The latter seems fairly improbable while the former is not. Therefore, it is somewhat probable that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet.

MrMacSon

So-called scholars of ancient Christian history certainly special-plead for special application of historical methodology; such as claiming falsely that all documents that mention Jesus or Christ are primary sources when they are not (and are also unlikely to be secondary sources).

aa5874

You have presented a big fat logical fallacy. You have shown that HJ argument is indeed Bankrupt

MrMacSon

Perhaps, but they will not be sound conclusions as any premise involving a historical jesus is not a true one.

Paul is also an alleged character - appealing to writings attributed to him cannot provide true premises, either.

what early christians believed is likely to have been proposed a few generations previously


to say ....
... is a 'confirming-the-consequent' fallacy
.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Switch89,

Can you present the quotes which show Jesus, Paul and whomever preaching an apocalypse? We know from Josephus that there were apocalyptic preachers before the War in 70 C.E.

Josephus gives us no reason to believe that their were apocalyptic preachers any earlier.

It seems almost certain that any apocalyptic notions we find in the NT come out of the apocalypse of the First Roman-Jewish war, rather than anything coming before it.

In the book "Shape of Things to Come," written in 1933, H.G. Welles appears to see the Apocalypse of World War II. He correctly predicts a war between Germany and Poland and a war between the U.S. and Japan. Unfortunately, he predicts the Germany-Polish War which actually lasted five weeks, would last 10 years, and the U.S.-Japanese War, would only be one sea battle, while it actually lasted over 3 1/2 year.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Grog

jay,

Do you see any reason to think the jesus ananias story was mined for material for the passion story? Here's part that is paticularly interesting fromMark (I'm using an ipad and so I' limited in what I can do now):

1 Very early in the morning, the chief priests, with the elders, the teachers of the law and the whole Sanhedrin, made their plans. So they bound Jesus, led him away and handed him over to Pilate.
2 “Are you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate.

“You have said so,” Jesus replied.

3 The chief priests accused him of many things. 4 So again Pilate asked him, “Aren’t you going to answer? See how many things they are accusing you of.”

5 But Jesus still made no reply, and Pilate was amazed.

6 Now it was the custom at the festival to release a prisoner whom the people requested. 7 A man called Barabbas was in prison with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the uprising. 8 The crowd came up and asked Pilate to do for them what he usually did.

9 “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” asked Pilate, 10 knowing it was out of self-interest that the chief priests had handed Jesus over to him. 11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have Pilate release Barabbas instead.

12 “What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews?” Pilate asked them.

13 “Crucify him!” they shouted.

14 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

15 Wanting to satisfy the crowd, Pilate released Barabbas to them. He had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.

Like the Jesus in Josephus' history, Jesus of Nazareth creates a disturbence in the temple, is taken first to Jewish authorities, then to Roman authrities where he is whipped, then killed by Romans (true in one case by chance). It seems too close to be coincidental. Also in both stories, the author states that Jesus does not reply...though curiously, even though Mark says "jesus still made no reply" he previously had Jesus answer withthe enigmatic "you have so".

Any thoughts?

EDiT: i can see where "still" here could be and probably is "no further" or "yet". Thisbis from the NIV. There is at least one otherntranslations that agrees, but mosr do not.

outhouse

Thoughts???


it most certainly if anything never happened that way. It has no historicity at all. even the temple incident has historicity issues as a simular story is in the OT


upon jesus arrest, the apostles fled for fear of their life, with that said, who witnessed these exact details that knew jesus??

No one.



every thing you posted was built on cross cultural oral tradition. oral tradition can be accurate, but when we cross cultures all bets are off.

Adam

Thanks for the lead-in, out,
Because John Mark was not one of the apostles, and I list him as the eyewitness writer of the Passion Narrative.

Turning to the OP that everyone has ignored, I agree that reading the gospels gives the most probability that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. It also follows that denying this reduces the probability for HJ. Paradoxically, however, I argue most strenuously for HJ, yet also argue against Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.

How can I do this? By my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread I have derived that the earliest texts about Jesus did not mention apocalypticism much. There is none in the Passion Narrative by John Mark. There is none in the Johannine Discourses written by Nicodemus. Q1 contains much Cynic philosophy and humor with amorphous apocalypticism that could be interpreted as predicting the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The Signs Gospel (in John) has no apocalypticism, nor does what John himself added. The L text in Luke had many parables of uncertain application, without predicting an immediate end of the world. The source from Peter that underlies gMark also does not. None of these seven primary eyewitnesses presented Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, but an eighth writer did combine relatively later sources among these (Q2, which he himself likely wrote, together with Q1 and Ur-Marcus) to make it more clear that Jesus was predicting the end of the world, in gMark as we have it and the subsequent gMatthew. Maurice Casey and James Crossley have attributed this focus to the early Christian hysterical reaction to the Caligula Crisis of 38 CE. After 70 CE these concerns were obsolete, so the Synoptic gospels must have been finished by then.

Grog

That wasn't my question.

My question was whether the Passion story is based in part on the story from Josephus, reliant on it. This would be an important clue in the dating of Mark, since Wars was not written until the 70's of the first century. You can find it here. Chapter 5, Section 3 [Wars, 6.5.3]

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say any thing for himself, or any thing peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" And when Albinus [for he was then our procurator] asked him, Who he was? and whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!" And just as he added at the last, "Woe, woe to myself also!" there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages he gave up the ghost

Now, obviously there are details that differ in these stories. But the outline and order of the story is the same:

Jesus comes to the Temple during an important holiday, one of the three most important.

Jesus causes an uproar in the Temple.

Jesus' actions in the Temple disturb the Jewish officials who take him up.

Jewish officials then take Jesus to the Roman Procurator.

The Roman procurator whips/flogs Jesus.

Jesus refuses to answer questions from the Roman procurator.

The Roman procurator believes Jesus innocent.

Jesus is killed by the Romans.

Jesus gives up the ghost.


What are the chances that this outline could exist in both stories by chance? The order is even the same.

aa5874

There is also another possibly clue when gMark was written based on the story of the THREE crucified and One survived.

The ONLY story of antiquity outside the Gospels where THREE persons were crucified and ONE survived can be found in "Life of Flavius Josephus" written c 96 CE.
Life of Flavius Josephus
This is quite remarkable.

A character also called Jesus in "Life of Josephus" was a leader of a band of mariners and poor people from Galilee.

Life of Flavius Josephus The very name Jesus and the Passion story in gMark seems to have been derived from the writings of Josephus.