Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-03-2012, 08:29 AM

Mark is irrelevant. I am not arguing that a single word of Mark has to be historical. I am saying there's nothing implausible about the Tacitus summary.

There's also nothing implausible about somebody being crucified for causing a disturbance at the Temple. Arguing that something is merely plausible is not the same thing as arguing it must be historical.

The threat against the Temple is also independently attested in Thomas, by the way, so it isn't just Mark.

arnoldo · 05-03-2012, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

....Governors needed to keep peace in their provinces. Executing people willy- nilly without knowing the backgrounds of who you were executing could not work. How did Pilate know that Jesus was not an important man in Galilee? He could have had important family members and hundreds of followers in Galilee. His execution could have led to riots in Galilee for all Pilate knew....

Please, are you NOT aware of Josephus' writings??

Roman Governors KEPT the PEACE by KILLING PEOPLE.

When Pilate ORDER the Jews to KEEP the PEACE and they did NOT--HE SIMPLY had them KILLED.

Pilate was ordered to Rome by Tiberius on a charge of GENOCIDE or Slaying people. See Antiquities of the Jews 18.2 and 18.4.

John the Baptist, Theudas, and the Followers of the Egyptian prophet, the Samaritans and the Jews were SLAIN to KEEP the PEACE.

Josephus, in Antiquities 20, Chapter 5 provides examples of Roman use of force to enforce order. Allegedly, during the early first century during the Census of Cyrenius, the sons of Judas of Galilee were crucified.

Quote:

And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant20.html

FWIW, in the same chapter Josephus states that during passover it was not unusual to have roman soldiers present in Jerusalem to repress "innovation."

Quote:

When that feast which is called the passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals.

Unfortunately during this particular passover a Roman Soldier decided to expose himself to the jews causing a great disturbance and loss of life. After another Roman soldier tore up some jewish writing he was ordered to be beheaded by the Roman Procurator, Ventidius Cumanus.

mountainman · 05-03-2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Regarding the anachronisms, some are better placed in 1st century and some are better placed 2nd century, which together, means that they support 2nd century.

It also means that such anachronisms could have been even later, such as the 3rd century or later. You could be responsible an avalanche of needless questions. Is it not PC to let sleeping dogma lie?

mountainman · 05-03-2012, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

The threat against the Temple is also independently attested in Thomas, by the way, so it isn't just Mark.

Where in Thomas? And what are you using to date Thomas?

yalla · 05-04-2012, 12:06 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas

"Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels. The vast majority of mainstream scholars fall in to the "late" camp[32][33]"[My emphasis]

mountainman · 05-04-2012, 02:43 AM

Upon what are these scholars estimating the date?

Attestation to The Gospel of Thomas in antiquity

(1) Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text,

(2) and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas.

(3) Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

Have I missed anything out?

PhilosopherJay · 05-04-2012, 08:00 AM

Hi arnoldo

The execution of Judas the Galilean's sons James and Simon, apparently happened around the time of the great famine in Judea -- 44 C.E., when Tiberius Alexander was procurator.

Since the tax rebellion of Judas started around the time of Cyrenius, 6 C.E., we can assume that the sons of Judas the Galilean were involved with a rebellion that had been going on for some 38 years. Judas the Galilean was associated with "The Fourth Philosophy" which Josephus blames for the outbreak of the war in 66 C.E..

While the execution of well known felons and enemies of Rome like the sons of Judas the Galilean makes sense, the execution of persons unknown to a procurator like Jesus of Nazareth does not make sense.

Tens of thousands of people visited Jerusalem during the Passover ceremony. many groups, like the Samaritans and the Essenes, wanted to shut down the Temple business. The Galileans led by Judas apparently wanted to make "innovations". It made sense for the Romans to have armed guards to keep the peace at these times.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Please, are you NOT aware of Josephus' writings??

Roman Governors KEPT the PEACE by KILLING PEOPLE.

When Pilate ORDER the Jews to KEEP the PEACE and they did NOT--HE SIMPLY had them KILLED.

Pilate was ordered to Rome by Tiberius on a charge of GENOCIDE or Slaying people. See Antiquities of the Jews 18.2 and 18.4.

John the Baptist, Theudas, and the Followers of the Egyptian prophet, the Samaritans and the Jews were SLAIN to KEEP the PEACE.

Josephus, in Antiquities 20, Chapter 5 provides examples of Roman use of force to enforce order. Allegedly, during the early first century during the Census of Cyrenius, the sons of Judas of Galilee were crucified.

FWIW, in the same chapter Josephus states that during passover it was not unusual to have roman soldiers present in Jerusalem to repress "innovation."

Quote:

When that feast which is called the passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals.

Unfortunately during this particular passover a Roman Soldier decided to expose himself to the jews causing a great disturbance and loss of life. After another Roman soldier tore up some jewish writing he was ordered to be beheaded by the Roman Procurator, Ventidius Cumanus.

JoeWallack · 05-04-2012, 09:35 AM

JW:
The excerpt from Josephus regarding the crucifixion of Judas' sons is here:

CHAPTER 5.

CONCERNING THEUDAS AND THE SONS OF JUDAS THE GALILEAN; AS ALSO WHAT CALAMITY FELL UPON THE JEWS ON THE DAY OF THE PASSOVER.

Quote:

1. NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, (9) persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befell the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus's government.

2. Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; as also that Herod, brother of Agrippa the great king, departed this life, in the eighth year of the reign of Claudius Caesar. He left behind him three sons; Aristobulus, whom he had by his first wife, with Bernicianus, and Hyrcanus, both whom he had by Bernice his brother's daughter. But Claudius Caesar bestowed his dominions on Agrippa, junior.

3. Now while the Jewish affairs were under the administration of Cureanus, there happened a great tumult at the city of Jerusalem, and many of the Jews perished therein. But I shall first explain the occasion whence it was derived. When that feast which is called the passover was at hand, at which time our custom is to use unleavened bread, and a great multitude was gathered together from all parts to that feast, Cumanus was afraid lest some attempt of innovation should then be made by them; so he ordered that one regiment of the army should take their arms, and stand in the temple cloisters, to repress any attempts of innovation, if perchance any such should begin; and this was no more than what the former procurators of Judea did at such festivals. But on the fourth day of the feast, a certain soldier let down his breeches, and exposed his privy members to the multitude, which put those that saw him into a furious rage, and made them cry out that this impious action was not done to approach them, but God himself; nay, some of them reproached Cumanus, and pretended that the soldier was set on by him, which, when Cumanus heard, he was also himself not a little provoked at such reproaches laid upon him; yet did he exhort them to leave off such seditious attempts, and not to raise a tumult at the festival. But when he could not induce them to be quiet for they still went on in their reproaches to him, he gave order that the whole army should take their entire armor, and come to Antonia, which was a fortress, as we have said already, which overlooked the temple; but when the multitude saw the soldiers there, they were affrighted at them, and ran away hastily; but as the passages out were but narrow, and as they thought their enemies followed them, they were crowded together in their flight, and a great number were pressed to death in those narrow passages; nor indeed was the number fewer than twenty thousand that perished in this tumult. So instead of a festival, they had at last a mournful day of it; and they all of them forgot their prayers and sacrifices, and betook themselves to lamentation and weeping; so great an affliction did the impudent obsceneness of a single soldier bring upon them. (10)

4. Now before this their first mourning was over, another mischief befell them also; for some of those that raised the foregoing tumult, when they were traveling along the public road, about a hundred furlongs from the city, robbed Stephanus, a servant of Caesar, as he was journeying, and plundered him of all that he had with him; which things when Cureanus heard of, he sent soldiers immediately, and ordered them to plunder the neighboring villages, and to bring the most eminent persons among them in bonds to him. Now as this devastation was making, one of the soldiers seized the laws of Moses that lay in one of those villages, and brought them out before the eyes of all present, and tore them to pieces; and this was done with reproachful language, and much scurrility; which things when the Jews heard of, they ran together, and that in great numbers, and came down to Cesarea, where Cumanus then was, and besought him that he would avenge, not themselves, but God himself, whose laws had been affronted; for that they could not bear to live any longer, if the laws of their forefathers must be affronted after this manner. Accordingly Cumanus, out of fear lest the multitude should go into a sedition, and by the advice of his friends also, took care that the soldier who had offered the affront to the laws should be beheaded, and thereby put a stop to the sedition which was ready to be kindled a second time.

JW:
The general observation is that the Romans considered crucifixion the ultimate punishment and reserved it for forceful political resistance against them. The above specific excerpt is consistent with the general observation. The implication from Josephus is that the sons are crucified because they are connected with armed resistance to Rome's authority to collect taxes in Israel. Also note the example above of the creator of disturbance in the Temple who is not crucified as punishment.

As previously noted, we have no evidence of any Jews being crucified in Israel, except for Jesus and two bandits (Brown missed this), prior to the 40s. Per Josephus, the armed resistance gets going in the 40s and continues to the Temple destruction c. 70. This is the period when Josephus records crucifixion as the standard (so to speak) punishment for threatening Roman rule. Another possible anachronism to add, the bandits with Jesus getting crucified. This also looks like a post 30s thing.

This observation coordinates with Paul's letters. No letters exist from the 30s or 40s. Starting in the 50s he has letters which gradually claim a crucified Jesus. This parallels with the progression of crucifixions in Paul's time.

My supporting observation to doubt the historical claim of Jesus' crucifixion is that the key witnesses can not give a likely reason for it. The most important witness, Paul, does not give any reason for it. Maybe because there wasn't any. The other witness "Mark" gives a reason but it is unlikely. "Mark" narrates that "The Jews" threatened to riot unless Pilate crucified Jesus. This contains the following unlikeliness:

1) Unlikely that the Jews placed in power by the Romans would have threatened to lead a riot

2) Unlikely that the Jews would have demanded that Jesus be crucified

3) Unlikely that Pilate would have been persuaded by the crowd to kill Jesus

4) Unlikely that Pilate would have killed Jesus by crucifixion.

I've demonstrated Ad Nazorean that "Mark" parallels well with Greek Tragedy. Aristotle explains to us that a key of Greek Tragedy is to try and make it plausible so the audience can think "that could happen". This is why "Mark" always provides supposed reasons. Not necessarily likely, just possible. This makes good fiction but bad history.

In an effort to defend against my point, DtC mines "Mark" for a reason, any reason, why it is completely plausible that Jesus was crucified, and invokes the Temple Tantrum. "Mark's" related narrative than has its own quite unlikely information like it being physically impossible for Jesus and no one interrupting Jesus. Comically (ironically) this legitimate reason to find Jesus guilty at his trial is long forgotten a few days later.

Is there any way though by exorcising all the impossible and unlikely accompanying baggage that we can be minimalists and only compare a reason, any reason for Jesus' crucifixion to likelihood? If Jesus did create a disturbance in the Temple that would not make crucifixion likely. Execution maybe, based on the extent, but not crucifixion.

How much would we have to add to "Mark's" Temple Tantrum to make crucifixion likely? What we would have to add is Rome as a target. But this goes against all of "Mark".

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

la70119 · 05-05-2012, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
Is there another possible anachronism with the crucifixion?

How about the verb chosen? The verb σταυρόω seems to be a terrible choice if we are to accept the dating of Mark before 95 CE. For the most part, it meant "to impalisade, fence with pales, drive piles for foundations and marine works, suspend [vines] upon poles, pole fences and pole trellises, and similar actions for poenal human bodily suspension." In fact, the earliest texts I have found where this verb unambiguously refers to crucifixion are in Josephus' Antiquities 17.295 & 19.94 (94 CE) and Epictetus' Discourses 2.2.20 & 3.26.22 (108 CE). The earlier texts wherein σταυρόω has been translated as "crucify" could just as easily or more easily refer to simple direct impalement (suspension by 'pile driving') due to the context given, or the stinginess thereof.

Gunnar Samuelsson has stated this before:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crucifixion In Antiquity (at Amazon)

Gunnar Samuelsson investigates the philological aspects of how ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, including the New Testament, depict the practice of punishment by crucifixion. A survey of the ancient text material shows that there has been a too narrow a view of the "crucifixion" terminology. The various terms are not simply used in the sense of "crucify" and "cross," if by "crucifixion" one means the punishment that Jesus was subjected to according to the main Christian traditions. The terminology is used much more diversely. Almost none of it can be elucidated beyond verbs referring vaguely to some form(s) of suspension, and nouns referring to tools used in such suspension. As a result, most of the crucifixion accounts that scholars cite in the ancient literature have to be rejected, leaving only a few.

The New Testament is not spared from this terminological ambiguity. The accounts of the death of Jesus are strikingly sparse. Their chief contribution is usage of the unclear terminology in question. Over-interpretation, and probably even pure imagination, have afflicted nearly every dictionary that deals with the terms related to crucifixion as well as scholarly depictions of what happened on Calvary. The immense knowledge of the punishment of crucifixion in general, and the execution of Jesus in particular, cannot be supported by the studied texts.

Amazon.com (or via: amazon.co.uk)

FRDB Was Jesus Crucified? thread
Gunnar Samuelsson's site: http://www.exegetics.org/
Interview of Samuelsson in Germany: Eine Krux mit dem Kreuz

Conclusion: gMark MUST have been written after 94 CE.

la70119 · 05-05-2012, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

As previously noted, we have no evidence of any Jews being crucified in Israel, except for Jesus and two bandits (Brown missed this), prior to the 40s. Per Josephus, the armed resistance gets going in the 40s and continues to the Temple destruction c. 70. This is the period when Josephus records crucifixion as the standard (so to speak) punishment for threatening Roman rule. Another possible anachronism to add, the bandits with Jesus getting crucified. This also looks like a post 30s thing.

It is possible that Pilate crucified the leaders of the Samaritan fiasco on Mount Gerizim:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josephus Antiquities 18.85-88 (18.4.1-2)

1 85 But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived everything so that the multitude might be pleased, so he bid them to get together upon Mt. Gerizim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come hither, he would show them the sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there. 86 So when they came thither armed¹, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; 87 but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file-roads with a great band of horsemen and footmen, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate had ordered slain².

2 88 But when this tumult was appeased, the Samaritan Senate sent an embassy to Vitellius, a man that had been consul, and who was now President of Syria, and accused Pilate of the murder of those that were killed; for they did not go to Tirathaba in order to revolt from the Romans, but to escape the violence of Pilate. So Vitellius sent Marcellus, a friend of his, to take care of the affairs of Judea, and ordered Pilate to go to Rome, to answer before the Emperor to the accusations of the Jews. So Pilate, when he had tarried ten years in Judea, made haste to Rome and this in obedience to the orders of Vitellius, which he durst not contradict; but before he could get to Rome, Tiberius died.

¹ Greek ὅπλοις. It could also mean "with tools." Hence the confusion where Pilate was certain they were armed for revolution, and the Jews accusing him of murder.
² Greek ἔκτεινε. It could be translated "put to the full stretch" like in gJohn 21:18 but not as is used here in the present active infinitive. Still, Josephus' verb choice might be hinting at some kind of crucifixion, perhaps on a decussate cross.

View Poll Results: What Does An Anachronistic Crucifixion of Jesus Demonstrate?
That "Mark" is Certainly 2nd Century	1	11.11%
That "Mark" is Almost Certainly 2nd Century	1	11.11%
That "Mark" is More Likely Than Not 2nd Century	0	0%
Why FRDB Thinks "Mark" is 2nd Century	2	22.22%
Whatever spin says it does	3	33.33%
That JW is the foremost authority on the dating of "Mark" or thinks he is	2	22.22%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

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

05-03-2012, 08:29 AM	#11
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Mark is irrelevant. I am not arguing that a single word of Mark has to be historical. I am saying there's nothing implausible about the Tacitus summary. There's also nothing implausible about somebody being crucified for causing a disturbance at the Temple. Arguing that something is merely plausible is not the same thing as arguing it must be historical. The threat against the Temple is also independently attested in Thomas, by the way, so it isn't just Mark.

05-04-2012, 12:06 AM	#15
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas "Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels. The vast majority of mainstream scholars fall in to the "late" camp[32][33]"[My emphasis]

05-04-2012, 02:43 AM	#16
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Upon what are these scholars estimating the date? Attestation to The Gospel of Thomas in antiquity (1) Eusebius cites Hippolytus (155-235), Refutation of all Heresies, v. 1-6., as mentioning something similar to the received text, (2) and cites Origen as mentioning some text of Thomas. (3) Eusebius cites saying (No. 2 in the gThomas) as quoted by Clement of Alexandria (Miscellenies ii. 45. 5; v. 96.3), as coming from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Have I missed anything out?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.