Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 10-23-2006, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Solo, if you know Jesus was historic , just produce the evidence. That is all I need at this stage.

What stage would that be ?

If you are on a deathbed and have doubts, I recommend you ask for a priest.

Jiri

aa5874 · 10-23-2006, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

What stage would that be ?

If you are on a deathbed and have doubts, I recommend you ask for a priest.

Jiri

Since you have no evidence that Jesus was historic, there is no need to ask a priest, both of you have the same belief.

spamandham · 10-23-2006, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The earliest extant copies of the Pauline epistles date to the third century CE, some 150 years after they were allegedly written. Yet, it is assumed that they are in the same format and say substantially the same thing as they allegedly come from the pen of "St. Paul" circa 50 CE. No offense, but that view is naive in the extreme.

I would call it uninformed rather than naive. If I were more than a layman in my knowledge of 1st/2nd century history, I guess I wouldn't be asking basic history questions. I believe I am capable of drawing my own conclusions from the basic facts, but must leave the fact finding itself to the experts.

I had never heard such a wide flung contention regarding Paul before your post, other than quibllings about which of the epistles were "authentic" Pauline epistles (from what I have read, the latest concensus is only 4 of them were substantially written by the same author).

By the way, thanks! This is the type of thing I'm hoping to find (whether it strengthens or weakens the case for a historical Jesus).

jakejonesiv · 10-23-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The problem with this, however, is that if Catholic minded people created Paul, they would have done a better job of it, since the works of Paul clearly undermine the gospel story anyway.

Well, you are right. Paul was the apostle of the heretics. Only later was he co-opted into a catholic saint, and the epistles redacted to tame him. That is why "St. Paul" seems so schitzophentic. He is made to speak out of both siodes of his mouth.

Here is an anology, however imperfect. The first synoptic gospel was GMark. This text (actually two slightly different versions) were redacted into GMatthew and GLuke. Now, both the latter gospels kept most of the text of GMark, but substantially changed the meaning by adding new material. Same process at work with the Pauline material.

Jake Jones IV

jakejonesiv · 10-23-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

I would call it uninformed rather than naive. If I were more than a layman in my knowledge of 1st/2nd century history, I guess I wouldn't be asking basic history questions. I believe I am capable of drawing my own conclusions from the basic facts, but must leave the fact finding itself to the experts.

I had never heard such a wide flung contention regarding Paul before your post, other than quibllings about which of the epistles were "authentic" Pauline epistles (from what I have read, the latest concensus is only 4 of them were substantially written by the same author).

By the way, thanks! This is the type of thing I'm hoping to find (whether it strengthens or weakens the case for a historical Jesus).

OK, I am happy to help.

If you haven't been exposed to radical kriticism before, you will probably enjoy reading it no matter what your final conclusion. Much of this has been hidden from the English speaking audinece because most of the works are in German or Dutch.

However, here is a link to some introductory texts in English.
RADICALKRITIK: Articles, reviews and books in English

Jake Jones IV

spin · 10-23-2006, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Look, I am aware of the discussions, the view that Nazareth did not exist as a town until later, the similarity in the stem to the Nazarene/Nazorean (even nozrim) tag. Makes no difference: until there is a proof to the contrary, the identifying epithet is historically justifiable.

As you don't evince knowledge of the archives, I'll have to wait for you to get up to date.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

That is, if you arbitrarily discard everything else.

Well, what else would you like to list as historical data in GJn?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I don't think you can present a historical case for discarding Jesus assault on the temple and his execution. At best, it will be a speculation.

Judah went into exile at the beginning of the sixth century BCE yet the book of Judith which takes a pre-exilic context was written in the 2nc c. BCE. Numerous books about the fall of the temple under Nebuchadnezzar were written centuries later. Infancy gospels of Jesus were written centuries later. There is a strong theological tradition in the Judeo-christian literature of writing long after events (or tradition events were formed), so this argument of yours about the temple is totally empty. Knowing the literary tradition should help dissuade you of this temple conjecture.

You need to demonstrate some historical fabric which holds the literature together, not just one reference to something that could have been written about any time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

You are free to believe that. I have maintained that a convincing case for non-existence can be made. But I will not be convinced by self-validating hypothetical statements.

Which bits didn't you like?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I have no reason to believe that the fictional reports originate in an invented character.

You have no reason to believe anything in the matter. Your job is to show some historical basis for Jesus, rather than saying, show me he didn't exist -- which is certainly not my job. History is about showing historicity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

In the tradition captured in the gospels, there appear to be elements which are historical, or for the occurences of which "history" is the best explanation.

Best explanations from texts that you know nothing about are conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

For example, on "mythical" grounds there was no reason for the authorities to seek Jesus' death for his "resuscitation" of Lazarus. Indeed the story, as told by John, contains a variant of itself, in which Jesus after placing Lazarus in the tomb, and after the latter's falling asleep, returns to him a day late, finding his hysterical sisters declaring their brother dead (for real) to the Pharisee neighbourhood, Jesus trying to hide from the hostile Jews (Judeans) and extract his novice away from them. However, as they follow Mary, they catch Jesus in the act and denounce him as a sorcerer to the authorities. The mythicist approach has no way of explaining the form that John 11 has taken, the historicist approach has.

I get really sick of people talking this stuff about mythicists. This has nothing to do with you doing history. Stop wasting bandwidth over things that are not germaine to the topic of making a historical case for Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Obviously, dealing with this sort of material, one needs to take certain latitude.

In doing history we need to eek out what we can of the context of writing of the texts. It is essential to understanding them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There are two issues here:

1) relationship with history: the imputed events are placed within a definite time frame. We can, based on the gospels, place Jesus of Nazareth within a decade or so. So the complaint here is mainly that the reference to this time frame occurs relatively late in the traditions. I agree there is an issue but don't see where this invalidates it historically.

I can't see how this goes towards establishing the foundation a historian needs. Take for example the letters between Paul and Seneca, or the letter of Abgar. The tradition we are examining is replete with examples that doesn't allow the thought here to have any value per se.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

2) supply of literary traditions: in the evolving set of beliefs around HJ, he grew in stature post-mortem into a Soter-god, and misnamed as Messiah, by the Hellenic-Jewish milieu where the process of deification occured. Consequently, both pagan mythological motifs and Jewish prophetic traditions were deployed in the build-up. The proof of sorts for this process was the early parallel existence of the Ebionite Jewish-Christianity in which Jesus was apprehended as a prophet and martyr, i.e. without the paraphernalia of a rising God (likely first) suggested by Paul.
To assume the Hellenic Saviour type was the point of origin for Jesus of Nazareth, would involve a hypothesis of the Jewish Jesus re-Judaized for the (otherwise) orthodox followers of James the Just. Such process AFAIK has never been demonstrated.

That it has never been demonstrated is irrelevant. We don't do history by demonstrating the opposite position from what you want to sustain doesn't reach the standard of your ideas. That is nothing to do with showing the historicity of what you weant to show. (I might even agree that some of your thought here makes sense, but what does it have t o do with history?)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

I never claimed that I have a way of producing a genuinely historical Jesus. Like everyone else here, I speculate where on earth or in human mind, this figure originates. Like yourself, I go by what makes sense to me, and have fun with exaggerated claims of knowledge where Jesus sprang to life.

The difference between us, I think is, that I don't have arguments with Christianity as such. For all his eschatological faults, and lack of intelligently reported-on existence, Jesus had no reported habit of sending his troopers to disembowel poets who had a different opinion on heaven and hell. I grew up in communist Eastern Europe. I learned that religion was the opium for the people, from the commies; alas they were offering bad acid as the alternative.

So what history we have makes a big difference in the world today.

I get the idea that you have taken on all this through some sense of fair play rather than any desire to really say anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

what I am saying is this: until a compelling case for the mythical origin of Jesus of Nazareth is made, the earthly existence of someone whom we came to identify as Jesus of Nazareth, is a better historical explanation for the religion that came in his name.

Is this the position that you will assume historiocity until otherwise demonstrated??

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

In the original creed of Paul nothing of his earthly life mattered; only his death was real. So, to paraphrase a line from a great movie: even if all the gospel stories were fiction, if he died, he was an authentic human. All authentic humans deserve a history. That is my sense of the matter.

"[D]eserve"? You are plainly not doing history. History is the attempt to reconstruct what really happened in the past, not who deserves to be mentioned.

spin

aa5874 · 10-23-2006, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

The first synoptic gospel was GMark. This text (actually two slightly different versions) were redacted into GMatthew and GLuke. Now, both the latter gospels kept most of the text of GMark, but substantially changed the meaning by adding new material. Same process at work with the Pauline material.

Jake Jones IV

How can it be determined when the Gospels or any book of the Bible was actually circulated versus when the texts were written?

spin · 10-23-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

That’s fine, thank you. Thus, according to Josephus Pilate was in the functions of a procurator but according to you he lacked the required appointment. Is it that?

What evidence do you have that Pilate exercised the job of a procurator?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

epitrofos is used by Philo in Tês presbeias tos Gaion 1:38 in the following context: en oikia tôn epitropôn, which I translate into “in the residence of the procurators.” This appears to me clear indication that not only was Pilate a procurator, but so were governors of Judea prior to him.

Thanks for a little more context, But why do you think epitropos in Egypt at the time of Philo meant "procurator" when Egypt was administrated by a prefect? The verb from which the noun comes epitropeuw indicates "to be an administrator". Can you show that Philo used the term the way you want him?

Incidentally the term epitropos is found a few times in the gospels (Mt 20:8, Lk 8:3), to simply mean an administrator (steward).

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

He wrote Embassy to Gaius in behalf of the Jewish people. He gives detailed account of events to which he hadn’t been a witness; events, therefore, that had been told to him by fellow coreligionists. This was his source, reliable enough in my opinion.

You still haven't indicated why he necessarily would know the right title to give him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Am I here under the erroneous impression that you are shifting your position? You began by saying that a procurator was a manager of the emperor’s property, but in the few last posts you have reduced its role to that of a mere bookkeeper. For - what would be left in for him if a prefect, a soldier in a subordinate position, could supersede his managing capacities by ruling as a full-fledged civil administrator?

The distinction is between where the position of prefect comes from. When a person is appointed as prefect it is through the normal military process. When a person of that position is placed as a praefectus civitatium, they are administrating a minor province.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Your position is based on the indication that the Samaritans knew who was Pilate’s superior, but I don’t see why you think them to know better than Philo. The opposite is likelier.

No. The report from Josephus tells us that they made their appeal to Vitellius who acted upon the appeal. Your suggestion that Vitellius acted on instructions from Tiberius has no foundation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

The question is obvious, but I must ask it. If Pilate was answerable to the Syrian legate, why was Pilate ordered to go to Rome to answer before the emperor about problems of his performance in the post instead of being called on to Antioch to answer before the Syrian legate, who, according to you, was responsible of the government of Judea?

?

The emperor was the final arbiter of his own possessions. Vitellius sacked Pilate, replaced him and sent him back to the emperor to decide upon. Pilate was governor of Judea. Vitellius was his superior. The emperor was the owner of the provinces. That's the pecking order which should be transparent. That the emperor dealt with these matters is nothing untoward. Pilate could make his case to the emperor to overturn Vitellius's ruling. It doesn't change the pecking order. It was Vitellius who was responsible for sending Pilate to Rome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Don’t waste your time flogging the straw man.

This merely indicates to me that you aren't interested in the physical evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Your source for this is Josephus, isn’t it? Josephus calls Fadus eparchos (prefect) in AJ 19:363 and also epitropos (procurator) in AJ 20:2. This confirms, if you wish, that a prefect might as well be a procurator. {snip}

You've made a very good case that Josephus's use of titles is not dependable. We know that a freedman cannot be a prefect, but the post of governor of Judea was opened to equestrians and freedmen, so obviously it is inappropriate to use "prefect" for the role. Now you go on to show the inconsistency of Josephus's terminology. Well done!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Sabinus is said to be “Caesar’s procurator,”

Sabinus is Caesar's epitropos according to Josephus. You make the equivalent between epitropos and procurator, probably based on prior published literary analysis.

You've already pointed out that Josephus calls Pilate hêgemôn, a term used for the legate of Syria. You have him flip-flopping between eparchos, ie "ruler" and epitropos, ie "administrator", for the governor of Judea. It seems that you have done a good job at showing that Josephus was not accurate in his terminology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Now, Claudius restored Judea to the condition of a Roman province, as compared with the vassal kingdom it had grown under King Agrippa. Also Claudius extended the custom to appoint procurators to rule provinces other than Judea

You are assuming your conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

(and Egypt, for reasons you know better than I),

You already know that it was a prefect, not a procurator who ruled Egypt and it remained so for centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Yet Claudius’ very novelty was the appointment of freedmen, in addition to equestrian knights, as procurators. As freedmen could never have belonged in the rank of curators, procuratorship was thus severed from the oldest traditions of the Republic.

What is this "rank of curator"? The term "procurator" comes from the verb procuro (procurare), not from "curator" (given the model "consul -> proconsul" etc). Before Augustus, a procurator managed an estate. Augustus used the title for those who administered his finances in the imperial provinces. Claudius gave them legal power, that their decisions would have "the same force as his" (Tac. A. 12.60). That was when procurators had the power you want Pilate to have had as "procurator" under Tiberius. Procurators didn't have the power then and Pilate, as we know, was officially called a prefect.

The reference in Tacitus to Pilate as a procurator wasn't written by Tacitus who plainly knew better than to have used that term in the circumstances we find it.

spin

ynquirer · 10-23-2006, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

What is this "rank of curator"? The term "procurator" comes from the verb procuro (procurare), not from "curator" (given the model "consul -> proconsul" etc).

Really? So you haven't heard of the Lex Plaetoria, have you? That is tantamount to saying that everything you have been writing here on "procurators" is mere hearsay.

Well, you really don't think I'm wasting any more time on this issue, do you?

spin · 10-23-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Really? So you haven't heard of the Lex Plaetoria, have you? That is tantamount to saying that everything you have been writing here on "procurators" is mere hearsay.

The role of a curator regards the tutelage of a minor or an imbecile. So, what is the "rank of a curator"??

Quote:

Originally Posted by ynquirer

Well, you really don't think I'm wasting any more time on this issue, do you?

I suggest you peddle false etymologies elsewhere and spare us the bs.

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.