rlogan

Glad to return the favor.

Neither are yours.

:wave:

krosero

Well then I have your answer: you would rather appear that you do not wish to learn than respond to questions that are relevant to the topic and respectfully addressed to you.

And I have your answer concerning the subject: you regard those arguments I put forward about detecting early layers (a core) in any historical traditions as not worth debating; they’re obviously wrong, in your opinion.

So Ben’s opening post was right: you really do regard it as illegitimate to seek any kind of core, nucleus, or early tradition when it comes to Jesus, though not with Caesar (a figure you mentioned as having loads of positive evidence at the core -- though you did not use that word -- of the legendary portrayal we have of him).

This may not be your position, but ignoring people in contempt (as you have done with Ben, and as apparently you have done with me now in several threads) is not the way to get your arguments understood -- nor, at that, a good reflection on this forum, or yourself.

Rlogan, thank you for conceding the argument of the OP.

Jabu Khan

This is my humbled lesser researched take on the matter. The reason we can seperate the legend from the history with these other figures is because both were handed down to us. In the case of Jesus their is nothing even remotely historical handed down to us. Even if all the sparse mentioning of the name at a later date are accepted there is no record of the actions of one person having the effect on the region that are neccessitated by the figure portrayed in the bible under any name wether a supernatural being or a regular joe carpenter. There is no historical figure to seperate the legend from. Until we have one this is all a hypothetical.

spin

You're not keeping up. That was "How do we date the Pauline corpus from scratch?" Try the sequel "Dating the Pauline corpus from scratch (2)".

When Paul hasn't been checked out, that is not correct.

I would have thought post hoc comments about the temple are par for the course in Judeo-christian writings. 2 Thes was written in the dimming afterglow of the Pauline certainty of a hasty end.

How many independent voices are there here? I'm sure you've seen how various inerrantists defend a particular biblical error such as that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Are they independent witnesses to the claimed fact?

The ancients didn't have FoxNews.

One continuingly disturbing element in the problem we deal with is seen in the dictum, "who controls the present controls the past". This is part of the curtain that goes down on these issues. The present of an ancient church defended tradition (held by the logic of the inerrantist for those traditions) will cloud the overall picture of the past and leave us with an apologetic laden story of events analogous to the harmonized christmas story (which unites two contrary and conflicting sources). This issue is part of what you (we) have to deal with. The righteousness that gave us orthodox corruption of scriptures would not have refrained from clarifying the past. That's why stating afresh is essential.


spin

Ben C Smith

I had read that one, too. I do not see where it addresses the combination of Corinth and Aretas that Carlson brought up and Andrew tightened.

If the hypothetical forger of 2 Thessalonians (and I think it is genuine, but do not wish to debate that at this time) back-wrote this reference in, it seems to indicate that he thought Paul wrote before 70. It is another of many pointers.

An exercise in futility, I agree. But the ancient evidence is limited, IIUC, to the book of Daniel, right?

For Paul, we have a lot more to go on. And some of it is extremely tight yet extremely indirect (the James issue, for example, where internal evidence puts Paul at the same time as James, external evidence for James places him before 70, and external evidence for Paul places him before 70).

Nor do I. I do not even have access to it.

Two contrary and conflicting sources. I agree. Yet for Paul, what sources place him elsewhere? Is it only your Aretas issue that bothers you, or do you have sources that actually place him somewhere else other than the middle of century II?

Ben.

spin

It doesn't need to. It is sufficient to show that the conjecture about Aretas III is simply unsupportable apologetic. I don't claim that Paul lived at the time of Aretas II. It's just that he was the Nabataean ruler who very temporarily hd control of Damascus before Roman rule.

It is a common trope to write about the temple as though it was still standing. It can be seen a number of times in Jewish literature in apocryphal and pseudepigraphic writings, such as Baruch.

There's enough Babylonian evidence. Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidas, who was the model for Daniel's Nebuchadnezzar, who supposedly went off into the wilderness for years (try and fit that into Nebuchanezzar's tight schedule ) as Nabonidus went off to Arabia for years, leaving his son Belshazzar to act as regent. There's an indication of the role model of Nabonidas for Nebuchadnezzar in the DSS, the "Prayer of Nabonidas".

Which James is it that Paul was talking about? Can you say exactly what the reference "brother of the lord" means? Our knowledge of the matter is heavily conditioned by a work, Acts, whose date cannot be ascertained, and which I believe was written after an organized church structure which was based on apostleship was established.

I guess CBS will be sufficient for the poor.

The Aretas issue shows that there are historical problems with the Pauline corpus, as I think the reference to bishops and deacons at the beginning of Philippians, above and beyond the saints, is a problem.


spin

Ben C Smith

What I meant was that Daniel was the only evidence for the apologists. They all depend on Daniel, right?

I think so. But that will have to wait.

I think we can treat Acts as just another indicator. I think it is a mistake to priviledge it above all else, and I think it is a mistake to ignore it.

Not CBS either. My TV sets are hooked up for DVD and video only. I use Netflix. I have no TV reception at all (not aerial, not cable, not satellite; zip).

I will be out of town this weekend, starting about now. My access to the net will be limited.

Ciao.

Ben.

spin

Yup.

Should I risk holding my breath?

Our problem is that it has had a large influence on our thinking, so I think we have to go without it until its relationship can be established. The contamination as it is needs to be overcome.

Ahh, that stirs my appreciation buds.


spin

Clivedurdle

From editorial review of Clash of gods.

Historical cores?

rlogan

heh. That's pretty funny.

When I see one of those I'll respond.

Cheers.