Vinnie

You got me there. I guess Jesus didn't exist.

Oh wait, I almost forgot I pointed out a gaping hole with that in another thread here recently and Rick also pummeled it into nothingness in another thread.

I believe in an historical Jesus again. I only doubted for 2.6874 seconds

Vinnie

rlogan

One big circular self-validating mess if we interpret it cosnsistently one way at every turn.

Not being greek proficient, I am not sure which version is best. KJV has "uttermost" in the last sentence.

It is just too convenient that throughout these books we have vague references in key places - somewhat like the "prophesies" of Nostradamus. Sufficiently flexible to adapt to anything.

The one concrete term used, though - is killed. It is in all the versions I checked. So we have the spectacle of taking the concrete term "killed" and making it vague (reduced to "involvement") by interpretation, but taking the more vague "wrath" portion and ascribing a specific event to it. (I favor the roman soldier farting at the temple).

In my book, we're working too hard to favor a specific view when we do that. At each corner, we take the turn that favors us.

Consider the fact that 2:13 fits very smoothly with 2:17. You don't think that is a strong argument for interpolation. Someone else can, when it is set aside their menu of other interpretations.

I could care less either way. There's been too much impeachment, tampering, and such throughout the whole history to make any provable contentions.

Vinnie

When did I ever reduce down anything? Jews had involvement in Jesus' death as did the Romans. Both share the guilt and responsibility--not only the specific guy who actually banged in the nails or rather, the guy who ordered him too. I never downlayed Jewish responsibility or Roman responsibility.

The passage is about the Jews, not the Romans. It is no wonder Paul stresses their involvement. Also, as I noted in my article, which none of the tap-dancing responses have addressed: Paul normally refers to Jesus' death as being crucified. In regards to Jews here he says the Jews killed him, NOT CRUCIFIED HIM. Crucified would have been his more normal usage.

As I also noted: """"""Given countless references to the "crucifixion" of Jesus, it would have been obvious to everyone that Romans were involved. Paul is simply opining that the Jews were involved in the process somehow.""""

For some reason the exegetes here at IIDB read "somehow" as if it has necessary minimal connotations. It does not. It simply refers to the fact that Paul doesn't state anywhere how the Jews killed Jesus//what specifically their involvement in his death was. Just that they bear responsibility for his death. Yes, we would not go looking for Roman involvement if not for the countless references to crucifixion as Jesus' mode of death in the Pauline corpus.

"""I could care less either way. There's been too much impeachment, tampering, and such throughout the whole history to make any provable contentions."""""

I am sure you are willing to document that claim that the entire New Testament is untrustworthy on textual grounds. I am pretty skeptical of some of the text myself, but best of luck to you in accomplishing such an endeavor.

At any rate, that looks a lot like a concession to me and that's how I am going to interpret it

Vinnie

Layman

It never ceases to amaze me how much time you skeptics devote to things you do not care about.

rlogan

Almost ironic Layman.

I'm interested in the subject matter. But have no vested interest. I have nothing to defend. So I could care less if the next archaeological find supports HJ or not.

I will confess - I was "rooting" for HJ and thought it would be a slam dunk...

Vinnie

I have no "vested" interest either.

Vinnie

Vorkosigan

This "rebuttal" to Doherty simply assumes what you are trying to prove. The underlying logic of it is bogus. Since the belief is that Paul's letters predate 70, therefore, this most refer to a pre-70 event, so then we search for an event we can shoehorn into this, and then voila! problem solved. The reality is that no event that occurred prior to the destruction of Jerusalem could be called "God's Wrath upon the Jews." None was universal enough.

It is my belief that this is an interpolation. The most natural reading of the meaning of this passage is that the calamity referred to therein is the destruction of Jerusalem. Consider that there are few, if any other references in the literature of the age in which anyone says "the jews got what they deserved" "Jerusalem is desolate" etc and they mean something other than the 70 AD events. In what other Christian document are these events remembered? Whereas the NT is chock full of references to the destruction of Jerusalem. Second, this cannot refer to a local calamity like the massacre at Passover or the expulsion from Rome, because it refers to the Jews collectively (twice in the passage -- the jews killed prophets, and then again, the jews got what they deserved). Imagine how this would read;

Those horrible Jews, historically they killed all the prophets, and then they got expelled from Rome? See?

Nor can it refer to the Passover Massacre, whose numbers in Josephus are wildly exaggerated as always.

It doesn't work, Vinnie. The only thing with the psychic "weight" to counter the whole of Jewish history is of course the destruction of Jewry's living heart, the Temple in Jerusalem. That is why the last line in that sequence must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem, which means that this is either an interpolation, or the letter dates from after 70. I consider either possible, as does Toto, I suspect.

As for the "evidence" from Acts, Acts is a fantasy and contains little if any valid history of Paul. It is fiction. We've had a million threads on it here, and I think the reasons for consider it fantasy are well known and need not be repeated here. Therefore, whatever it says about Paul hobnobbing with the great of Judea is total nonsense, and useless as historical data.

A claim often made, but alas, inherently unsupportable from the evidence at hand. Moreover, Paul often avers that his groups knew other stories, which he chides them for listening to or go over to. It is doubtful that the kind of knowledge which you claim is really true of those groups. Most of the recent converts I know of here in Taiwan, for example, know almost nothing about Christianity. They have converted for some complex social reasons, not because they have heard and memorized and know a set of stories. That is the last reason anyone converts. Conversion is largely a social act, not an intellectual one.

Vorkosigan

Bede

My favoured solution to this is that a margin gloss was included in the text. Paul wrote almost all the disputed passage except the "The wrath of God has come upon them at last" which was added as a gloss by some gleeful copyist. As so often happens, the commentary became incorporated into the text. This seems the solution that requires the least twisting and turning as interpolations tend to be as small as possible.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Layman

As usual Vork, all you offer is sheer determined opinion.

Josephus had little reason to inflate the tragedy here because his interest was in downplaying Roman culpability, not hyping it. And unlike in other references to crushed rebellions, he does not put much blame here on the Jews. A Roman caused this and a Roman made it worse by calling out the troops.

And to say this is a merely "local" event is anachronistic and wishful thinking. Jerusalem and the Temple were the heart of Judaism at this time, not just a political capitol. The Feat of Unleavened Bread would have drawn thousands of Jews from across Judaea and Galilee, and from throughout the Diaspora.
Remember, "this feast became the cause of mourning to the whole nation, and [every family ]lamented their own relations."

This was no mere "local" event. It was a national tragedy. And to Chrisitians looking for God's wrath upon the Jews, it fit quite well.

Amaleq13

I read your essay and decided to respond to Layman far more concise points. IMHO, your work contains way to much 'ad hominem' distraction and appeals to the majority. I had to slog through a lot of crap before discovering your true argument and it seemed that Layman hit all the high notes in his brief response.