neilgodfrey

C'est moi. I am Neil Godfrey, and I have never claimed to have the truth against all the professionals. I have done nothing more than point out the simple logic and facts of the published claims of New Testament historians and contrasted them with what one reads in the area of other nonbiblical historiography.

My views were prompted by the "minimalists" Philip R. Davies, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson who had a major impact in exposing the circularity underlying the historiography of Old Testament or Biblical Israel historiography. They argued for bringing OT historiography up to the same standards of any other ancient historical enterprise, which meant relying on the primary evidence first and foremost, and interpreting the secondary evidence through the primary. This led to the undermining of "Albrightianism".

There are no primary sources (in the strict von Rankean or classical sense, meaning sources physically traceable to the very time of Jesus) for Christianity, but the above "minimalists" also addressed other fundamental principles of historical inquiry, such as external controls and independent corroboration as means of assessing the value of sources and their contents.

I found that these same principles were addressed long ago -- a century ago -- by biblical historians, including Albert Schweitzer, but their warnings and advice have gone unheeded.

I attempt in my blog posts to offer enough source material for any reader to check for themselves the methods and facts discussed.

Readers of my blog posts can see the responses of scholars like James McGrath, James Crossley and R. Joseph Hoffmann -- whose works I have critiqued -- and make up their own minds about the strength of my critiques against their own claims and responses.

(I have also addressed and corresponded with other scholars with whom I have seen eye-to-eye, but I am singling out the above because they have expressed very strong criticisms of my comments.)

One only has to examine the way historians (ancient, medieval and classical) handle sources and compare with NT scholars to see the difference for themselves. No-one needs Neil Godfrey to post on it. But I have done my bit to point out the differences between the two in this post.

Case in point: Some NT historians like to stress that the methods they use are the same as those used by nonbiblical historians. In the above linked post I show (from a NT scholar who addresses the same point) that those methods are a range of "criteria". NT scholars use those criteria to try to establish what data in a narrative is probably a historical fact and what is probably not. But nonbiblical historians use those same criteria to interpret what is clearly already an objective, tangible, universally accepted "fact". That is the difference. It is as stark as night from day. One set of scholars use X to try to find what might be a fact, the other set use the same X to interpret known objective tangible facts.

When one attempts to point out such differences to NT scholars and gets only insults and abuse in response, one does wonder if one has touched a vulnerable spot in their methodologies and assumptions.

Littlejohn

The study about the true origins of Christianity and of real historical profiles of the personages involved in the story of the Gospel, have been began about three centuries ago, with the affirmation of the principles of the Enlightenment. Traditionally one does officially date back the inauguration of this event to the figure of H. S. Reimarus, which opened the way for an exegetical interpretation significantly different from that followed until then

However, although a period of approximately three centuries since then it is elapsed, and despite the fact that you are committed in such a research "many scholars recognized", yet nobody has been able to write the 'end' word to such research, inasmuch, basically, things are remained circa in the same way as leaved they Reimarus! ... Do you know to give a plausible explanation to this? ..

Even if you, like many others here in the forum, feed legitimate 'remore' (doubts) about what I'm writing by over 2 years in this forum, however I can assure you that I managed to find the key of the whole affair, and I do not are by no means a "recognized scholar," because I have not even a degree (I simply have a diploma in electrotechnical).

In light of this, I am convinced (given the bewildering characteristic of the evangelical story and of the hallucinating speculations performed on it by the forger fathers, both those of the origins that the ones of the successive centuries, virtually until to the present day) that only a 'outsider' like me would have could to have the 'chances' of success in investigating the history of the origins of Christianity, inasmuch the 'Recognized scholars' are fatally 'sentenced' to follow the methodology, like they have learned in academy, and this means that they can not go beyond where they arrived the academics who preceded them in this 'cyclopic' effort, such as the one to recover all data and information needed for a reconstruction of the events of two thousand years ago, with sufficient historical reliability.



Greetings


Littlejohn

.

andrewcriddle

One problem is that this post is largely a comparison of the methods of NT scholars and the methods of historians of the modern and (later) medieval period.

Ancient History, (in general), cannot be done by the methods applicable for (relatively) modern history. (1066 is modern in this context.)

What might be more interesting is a comparison between NT scholars and Ancient Historians studying such issues as the Historical Socrates, pre-Socratic philosophy, the Catiline conspiracy, the Druids, the life of Alexander the Great etc.

Andrew Criddle

GakuseiDon

Can you provide passages to support that statement? Paul refers to "rulers" [archon] in the following passages:

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

1 Cor 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

There is also another reference to Eph 2:2 ("the prince of the power of the air") which is not generally considered written by Paul.

In Rom 13:3, "archon" appears to refer to earthly rulers.

In 1 Cor 2:6, "archon" also appears to refer to earthly rulers, since it doesn't make sense that Paul would infer that Christians might be talking about the "wisdom of demons" among them "that are perfect", e.g. if we use that meaning, we see this:

1 Cor 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor [the wisdom of demons], that come to nought...

Does Paul really need to tell his readers that Christians were not talking to other Christians about the wisdom of demons? Does Paul even talk about the "wisdom" of demons at all anywhere else? Given that Paul is also talking about human wisdom in the passage directly before (in 1 Cor 2:5: "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God"), then "wisdom of demons" in 1 Cor 2:6 seems out of place.

One thing to ask here is whether Paul is alluding to the OT. One hint is in Acts, which also refers to "rulers":

Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers [archon] were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together...

Acts 4:26 is a reference to Psalm 2, which talks about the Lord and His Annointed, who is the Son:

Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
...
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way

This Psalm seems to provide the context to Paul: the rulers of the earth gather together against the Lord, but it is in vain, as the Anointed One of God shall break them. This Anointed One is the "begotten son". Elsewhere Paul tells us that Christ was appointed Son of God after crucifixion and resurrection. Psalm 2 tells the kings to "be wise", and serve the Lord. In Paul, though, we see that they weren't wise. The "rulers of this age" crucify Christ, and the crucifixion leads to Christ being appointed Son of God, and thus the kings will perish.

PhilosopherJay

Hi DCH,

Good, thoughtful points. Thanks.

I think that the passion narrative should be treated as a different source than the rest of the gospels. Nowhere are the gospels in agreement about events as they are in the passion narrative. The plot, characters, times and places are largely in agreement in all four gospels (with somewhat significant exceptions). This should lead us to treat it as coming from a single source text.

This does not necessarily mean that the passion material is historical whereas the rest of the gospel material is fictional. I would compare it to the 1907 film by Edwin S. Porter "The Teddy Bears"

Mama, Papa and Baby Bear in the movie "The Teddy Bears"

The plot begins with a retelling of the "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" fairy tale which was first published in 1837 in a volume of writings by English author and poet Robert Southey.

The little girl in the story went from being called Silver Hair (1853) to Silver Locks (1858), Golden Hair (1868) Little Golden-Hair (1889) and finally Goldilocks in Old Nursery Stories and Rhymes in 1904.

The 13 minute 1907 film called "The Teddy Bears," is the first filmed version of the story. It follows the well known fairy tale to a certain extent, but suddenly, near the end, while the bears are chasing Goldilocks, President Theodore Roosevelt shows up and shoots the "Mama" and "Papa" Bears. He spares the "Baby" bear, but turns him into a pet for Goldilocks.

This ending is based on an historical event (Wikipedia):

In the film, "The Teddy Bears," we have material that is obviously fictional with an ending that has an historical person and event attached. However note the differences. In the historical event, Roosevelt did not kill any bear. In the movie, he killed two bears. In the movie he saved the Baby bear and gave it as a pet to Goldlocks. In the real event, he ordered the bear cub killed.

Thus in the historical event:

1. Roosevelt killed no bear
2. Ordered cub killed to put it out of its misery

While In the movie:
1. Roosevelt killed two bears
2. Captured and gave the Baby bear to Goldilocks.

While we can say that the movie references an historical event, it is more difficult to say that the movie portrays an historical event. One might say that the movie falsifies an historical event for its own purposes.

It is quite possible that the gospels follow the same pattern. The story is a retelling of the typical prophet warns Israel to repent story (the fairy tale part) and a falsification of an historical event (the passion part).

In this case I would label the passion narrative as "Trivially" historical, a "reference" to an historical event, rather than a recitation of historical facts. The material for the passion narrative might have come from a Mime play or even a Jewish attempt at an ancient Novel like Daphnis and Cloe.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Minimalist

There is no history to support your "historical" fact, Steve. NOthing but the ramblings of believers which is hardly the same thing. It happens no where except your bible.

Just like Luke Skywalker only blows up the Death Star in Star Wars.

Two fictional events.

aa5874

Why are we going around in CIRCLES? You KNOW "Paul" did NOT ever claim he was a witness to the crucifixion. The Pauline writer wrote about a RESURRECTED dead called Jesus who MUST resurrect to save mankind from sin and that he was NOT the apostle of a MAN NOR did he get his gospel from a man.

Ga 1:1-11 "Paul" called Jesus the FIRST BORN of the dead.

Col 1:18 - "Paul" was NOT a witness to the crucifixion. "Paul" wrote about the theology of the resurrected dead, Salvation through the resurrected dead.

Ro 10:9 - We MUST get credible sources EXTERNAL of the Pauline writings to corroborate that there was a Jesus who was crucified on earth by the Romans.

At this point we ONLY have claims in the Pauline writings what is NOW needed are external sources to CONFIRM the writers' VERACITY and CREDIBILITY.

Why are we continuously going around in circles? The Pauline writers have already established they saw the resurrected dead. The Pauline BEGINS AFTER the resurrection.

"Paul" is NOT a WITNESS to the CRUCIFIXION but to the RESURRECTION.

"Paul" cannot answer questions about the crucifixion of Jesus on earth.

"Paul" DEPENDED on the resurrected dead for his history of the betrayal and the Last supper.


1Co 11:23 - "Paul" cannot ANSWER questions of the history of Jesus . "Paul" cannot answer the questions of the crucifixion of Jesus on earth unless he FIRST consults the RESURRECTED dead.

PLEASE STOP wasting time. "Paul" swears by God that he could NOT recall.

2Co 12:2-3 - God knows "Paul" cannot settle the matter of the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans but he was a WITNESS to the resurrection.

Steven Carr

Paul believed angels appointed by God crucified Jesus and they were the 'rulers of this age'?

Surely Paul that bad naughty angels, demons even, were the rulers of this age, not nice good angels appointed by God.


The naughty angels were not appointed by God to be the rulers of this age, surely?

And the fact remains that Paul clearly thought people crucified by the Romans had it coming to them. String them up, he would have thought, it's the only language they understand. Perhaps he had had that Pilate in the back of his cab once....

maryhelena

I like that - "a 'reference' to an historical event".

The usual dating re the gospel crucifixion story is either 30 ce or 33 ce. Luke references the 15th year of Tiberius and details historical rulers that stretch his storyline back 70 years - to 40 BC (Lysanias of Abilene). In that year the Hasmonean Antigonus seized Jerusalem and sent his uncle into exile - and cut off his ear. Three years later, in 37 BC, Herod the Great took Jerusalem and sent Antigonus to Mark Anthony in Antioch where he was crucified and beheaded. Antigonus was the last Priest/King of the Jews.

So - a historical event that was worked over, given some new details and time frame - and ends up being the passion/crucifixion narrative in the gospel Jesus story.

I think the theory of George Wells holds out some ability to move forward with the Jesus debates ie. separate the passion/crucifixion gospel story from the Galilean preacher story - who according to Wells was not crucified. Wells finds no way to link Paul's spiritual Jesus construct with Galilee.

Sure, with the gospel crucifixion story the resurrection is bound up - the dying and rising god scenario. But mythology and theology aside - the grain of historicity most likely rests with the fate of the last Hasmonean Priest/King of the Jews - Antigonus.



Roman History by Cassius Dio
published in Vol. V
of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1917

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...s_Dio/49*.html


my bolding

DCHindley

Luke 3;1 mentioning Lysianas the tetrarch of Abilene [mid 1st century CE] hardly brings the story to the time of Lysanius the son of Ptolemy, king of Chalcis in the time that Herod was fighting to take physical possession of his kingdom [Ant 14:330 & 15:92, about 38 BCE].

There was also a "house of Lysanius" that assisted Zenodorus, apparently a client ruler of Trachonitis, Batanea and Auranitis, in pillaging Damascus from bases in Trachonitis, contributing to Zenodorus' execution at the hands of Caesar's governor of Syria, Varro, and the addition of Zenodorus' territories to Herod's kingdom some years into his rule (Ant 15:344).

That the kingdom of Chalcis cannot be the same as the kingdom or tetrarchy of Lysanias is proved by Wars of the Jews 2:247

247 After this, Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from [the kingdom of] Chalcis into a greater kingdom; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, which contained Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis: he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias [which he calls the tetrarchy of Lysanias in Ant 20:138], and that province [Abilene] which Varus had governed.

I think the passage you cite in Cassius Dio is taken out of context. The full passage in Cassius Dio is this:

Gaius Sosius received from [Antony] the governorship of Syria and Cilicia. 3 This officer subdued the Aradii, who had been besieged up to this time and had been reduced to hard straits by famine and disease, and also conquered in battle Antigonus, who had put to death the Roman guards that were with him, and reduced him by siege when he took refuge in Jerusalem. 4 The Jews, indeed, had done much injury to the [preceeding was missing from the online version cited originally] Romans, for the race is very bitter when aroused to anger, but they suffered far more themselves. The first of them to be captured were those who were fighting for the precinct of their god, and then the rest on the day even then called the day of Saturn.7 5 And so excessive were they in their devotion to religion that the first set of prisoners, those who had been captured along with the temple, obtained leave from Sosius, when the day of Saturn came round again, and went up into the temple and there performed all the customary rites, together with the rest of the people. 6 These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he [that is, Sosius] bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.

What you have here is Antony's general Sosius punishing Antigonus in such an exemplary manner for daring to kill, in a fit of Jewish nationalism, the Roman soldiers who had been previously garrisoned in Jerusalem when he took Jerusalem from his brother Hyrcanus with Parthian help. It was not Herod who did this to Antigonous. It should also be noticed that Sossius did not execute the priests who were captured while defending the temple precincts in the midst of the fighting, but immediately released them to continue their ministrations after a week of purification, out of respect for their religious zeal.

DCH