Fortuna

Very interesting topic here, and something that I've been tryiny to find time to investigate more fully as time permits. My problem is that, I end up with little time to pursue it.

Lots of misc issues here as well, one in particular ;

I [somewhat] recently completed my masters degree in Ancient History, specializing in the middle to late Roman period. Almost all of hte newer textbooks use CE and BCE, wile older references use AD and BC.

I'm from a Jewish background, and I have to admit that sometimes I would groan when I heard AD and BC. But, it wasn't really a big deal for me, but then I'm not a believer either.

And I don't hear any modern religionists complaining that many of the days of the week and some months names are from pagan dieties.

Same here. I've always thought it might be better to use religiously nuetral language.

Fair enough, but if our societies want to aspire to Laïcite ( in English, the principle of being "secular in the public arena") then this seem to be an improvement no ? As I learned the purpose of laïcisation is to make the public sector religiously nuetral in order to promote individual freedom of religion. No one religion is given preference over another. Thus, replacing religiously-biased object with nuetral ones in the public sphere
Thus, it would seem to be a value-positive exercize no ?.


Well said Spin. But it should not surprise us that some Christians are going to complain about losing preferred status in the process of the secularization
of the public sector.




K, enough of that volatile topic.

On the dating of the NT gospels...............

So, we have a conflict with regard to the date of JB's death. While subjectively I would prefer to go with Josephus's date, I cannot objectively make that statement. So unless we have some independent evidence for a tiebreaker, I think we just have to acknowledge that this date is in dispute.


Wow ! Yikes !

Are you referring to those people with Doctorate degrees who have studied the texts critically and dedicated their lives to the study of those texts ?

Ok, but, why should we not believe that Christian scholars would also not have an agenda ? These cocuments support their faith and religious beliefs, so how could we ever expect them to be objective ?

As for apologists, that very name doesn't imply objectivity does it ?


About the NT gospel authors knowing about the sack of Jerusalem and thus dating them to post 70

Roger, I must confess that I do make that presumption by default, but I make that same presumption for any historic figure about whom a simiiar claim is made. I do not presume that just because an author tells us that his character is divine, that they are or were divine in reality. It is after all, just a story, that may or may not be historically accurate.

It is the author who wants us to believe that Jesus is divine. and in the context of his story his Jesus has the gift of prophecy. And within the story, that is certainly plausible.

But, let us not forget that the gospels are not the only stories from the ancient world where authors tell us that their characters are divine.(and there are a good # of them, pick just about any from Hesiod)

Do you believe that we ought to always presume that these authors characters are/were divine in reality by default ? Or that they became divine ? (like Perseus, Aesclepius, Julius Caesar ?)


Agreed. From what we read the Judeans were fiercly religious and independent. Josephus tells us of revolutionary groups and of several instances of failed insurrection.

I remember one Jewish historian commenting that during the Roman occupation of Judea the revolt was not a question of "if" but of "when".

But, my problem with the NT gospels authors is not just that they know that Jerusalem is going to be sacked, but they know specifics. They know that the temple is going to be pulled down. They kno that Jerusalem is going to be seiged. One of them knows that the seige will invole earthenworks. They believe that either the seige or invasion will begin in the winter.

IOW, this is not just a general statement like our Jewish historian above. The NT authors seem to know specifics about the Roman-Jewish war.

Now you can ascribe that to prophecy or writing after the fact. For me, it is not a matter of knowing it with 100% certainty. It is a matter of the evidence, and there is more to it than just what we are discussing here.

It is or me a statement about probabilities of it being true, and it's relationship to what [probably] happenned.


"Christianity" is a religion and is a matter of faith, not historical truth. This "Truth of Christianity" of which you speak seems to be to be an entirely different matter and has a much wider scope.

Frankly, I don;t see any relationship between the "truth" of the religion of Christianity and "Jesus couldn't predict anything".

Perhaps because I am not a Christian I cannot understand what you are trying to relate here.

Let me try ;

My younger brother is very religious. He goes to Synagogue every friggin shabbat and does all the holidays and fasts (TishaB'Av) etc. He is really into it. But, he does not believe the Exodus story literally. We talked about it and the recent History Channel programme on it and we both favor it as a legendized telling of the hyksos expulsion.

In other words, you don;t have to believe absolutely everything about a religion to be a faithful member and practitioner ?

I know Catholics who are about the same as my brother.

groomanl

Hello Clivedurdle. In addressing the tiny problem that you introduce,

(though this is quite off the subject) I am copying and pasting a response from an atheist friend with whom I communicated some time ago.

"Did Christ exist? Is the life story of the founder of Christianity the product of human sorrow, imagination and hope--a myth comparable to the legends of Krishna, Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysis and Mythra? Early in the eighteenth century the circle of Bolingbroke, shocking even Voltaire, privately discussed the possibility that Jesus never lived. Volney propounded the same doubt in his 'Ruins of Empire' in 1791. Napoleon, meeting the German scholar Wieland in 1808, asked him no petty question of politics or war, but did he believe in the historicity of Christ.” (History of Civilization, vol.3 "Caesar and Christ" by Will Durant, Chapt.24 p.553). Will Durant may, perhaps, be the most prominent historian of the Twentieth Century. His monumental, multi-volumed "History of Civilization" represents perhaps of the most ambitious historical overview ever attempted, and stands as the definitive work on the recorded history of mankind. Ultimately Durant finds it improbable that the story of the crucified carpenter should have appeared so abruptly and so well formed if purely fictional. Most historians take the same position, nor am I inclined to dispute it myself. The stories of Jesus are probably based on an actual individual. Besides, if the existence of the historical Jesus is to be questioned then the historical Buddha, the historical Zoroaster, and the historical Mohammed are equally suspect.”

From my own perspective, as I have studied Scripture, I have found that the Jesus of history is the same as the Jesus of faith. There is no difference. I know the difficulties that exist within Christianity on a purely philosophical level. I know how incomprehensible it is to our way of thinking that Jesus the Christ was 100% man, while at the same time is also 100% God. I know how the doctrine of the Trinity has been a stumbling block for many. But human reasoning and understanding do not disqualify these doctrines as being truth.

A question for you—you state that you are an ex-religionist. What is your background, and what factors led you to your rejection of Christianity.

While I doubt that you believe in the reality of heaven and hell, I would say to you that your destination to either of those places is largely based on what choices you make. Jesus has paid the penalty that your sin demands because He would rather die than to live without you. Will you choose life (and death) on your own terms or life on His terms?

If you would like to start a new thread to address some of these issues in greater depth, I would be happy to listen to you there.

Clivedurdle

http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/itaintne.htm

spin

I'm sorry, Acts is not an area that is particularly attractive to me for study, because of the structure of the work and other reasons, I haven't kept up with the literature in the last few years.

However, your statement simply means that you haven't got up and looked at the actual scholarship available on the subject of Acts. All you need to do is look at some of the Acts sessions of SBL conferences to learn just a little bit about the real state of modern scholarship. Hiding in FF Bruce is an admission that your sources are 50 years out of touch.

As you don't seem to have even contemplated the partition I delineated, I can understand that you don't get on what I'm "basing such a statement". I usually don't work from secondary works, but prefer to deal with the texts rather than others' opinions.


spin

spin

Dating a text is important for placing a work in its literary context. It helps one understand what sorts of influence may have been at work on the text and what sort of influences the work may have had on others.


spin

yalla

Within the text of "Mark" there are several hints that indicate a possible date of writing.
Besides the well cited temple prophecy that is.
For example:
1. "Rabbi'' used as a form of address for JC. Possibly an anachronism in that the term probably was not used until sometime ofter the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70ce.
2. The portrayal of synagogues as places of religious teaching. Probably they did not exist as such in Palestine until the Roman-Jewish War of 66ce started.
3."Legion" as the name[s] of the demons. Possibly a veiled reference to X Fretensis the Roman legion with a boar as it's emblem that was the main unit involved in the quelling of the Jews 66ce on.
That story could also reflect a story of a sea battle in Josephus. If so post 70ce.
4.The allegory of the vineyard, "Mark" 12.1-12, where the war is probably referred to in verse 9. Could be the first or second war.
5.The reference to "ALL Jews wash their hands'' which I have seen described as an anachronism that should be related to the second century.
6.The reference to ''being flogged in synagogues'' etc., 13.9, which probably dates the writing to the era of the Christian-Jewish split following the birkhat-ha-minim [sp?] which I have seen dated as 85-95ce or treated as legendary.

There may be more.
Of course none are conclusive, all are debatable, much detail has been omitted above, and pages could be, and doubtless has, written on each.
But there is certainly more than just the temple stuff to get discussion rolling.
cheers
yalla

Toto

Will Durant was a popularizer, not a professional historian. I doubt that any current historian would describe his word as "definitive." Here's a prior thread in which members of this forum bash Durant. You can probably find more by using the search function.

The Jesus of faith is a divine being. The Jesus of history was a failed apocalypic prophet, most likely.

HeretiKc

Now I have it listed that King Aretas' invasion happened somewhere around 36-37. This would have to put JtB's death before that--I have that listed as 35-36.

EDIT: I'll look up the references in a second.

mountainman

Dating of a text is critical for placing a work in its historical context.

IMO, the literary context and the historical context are at least
equally important considerations in understanding texts in general.





Pete Brown

Diogenes the Cynic

Another important point in regard to the CE/BCE convention (which is now commonplace in academia) is that the basis for the Christian system is WRONG. BC and AD are based on an erroneous dating of the birth of Jesus. Jesus (at least the character of that name found in the Gospels) was either born before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE (if you believe Matthew) or after Judea was annexed as part of the Roman province of Syria in 6 CE (if you believe Luke). In either case, 1 CE is not a possible date for the birth of Jesus according to Christianity's own scripture.

Moderator's note to Groomanl, this is an atheistic/agnostic message board. Most of the posters in this forum prefer to use the academic/non-religious dating conventions. You are still welcome to use BC/AD if you want but you are not going to tell everybody else what to do. You can either accept the conventions of this forum or find somewhere else to post. We are not going to change, I assure you. We also have a low tolerance for content-free preaching here so please try to stay on topic.

Thank you
DtC, Moderator, AS:C&H