Ted Hoffman

Repost
Rick:
Jacob:
Preferably, list your reasons so that we can clearly see them. Please.

Ted Hoffman

Vinnie, I have a few questions.

1. If you don't presume the existence of a HJ, what then, is the objective of your methodology? How effectively can we apply it to a character like Robin Hood (or any other shadowy character) without compromising its reliability?

2. If you dont presume the existence of a HJ, what is the reason behind placing the first stratum at 30 CE?

3. What kind of HJ potrait does your methodology find? A cynic sage? A Revolutionary? Social Reformer? Charismatic miracle worker? Peripatetic teacher? A mixture of these?

4. Why was this christ crucified? And by who?

I need these answers so that I dont criticize you on things you are not guilty of in your work.

Ted Hoffman

Rick,
"Because he tells us so--he explicitly mentions Pilate and Caiaphas at the time."

1. But this pilate, he is different from the Pilate of Philo and Josephus - no? How do you explain Pilate's mercy admist a blood-thirsty crowd, yet Pilate was notorious for being brutal?

The Pilate used could not have been Pilate because:
* He would not have shown any Mercy to Jesus because he was a brutal man.
* He would not have crucified Jesus and left his followers if Jesus was an insurrectionist.
* Since crucifixion was preserved for Insurrectionists by Romans, that he was crucified would mean Jesus was an insurrectionist. If he was an insurrectionist, there is no way Josephus would have failed tomention Jesus of Nazareth among the insurrectionists that were his contemporaries.

Therefore we cannot trust the historicity of the account on the basis of the inclusion of Pilate.

2. Who was Jesus and why was he crucified?

3. This crucifiction of a Jesus of Nazareth, why doesnt Josephus mention it?

4. This existence of a Jesus of Nazareth with Messianic tendencies, how come Josephus omits him from his several Jesuses who were contemporaries of Jesus? Did the Author of Matthew have monopoly over the knowledge that Jesus existed?

5. If you cannot provide cogent answers for the above, why should we assign historicity to Jesus' existence yet its not multiply attested outside the Gospels when it should have and when the fictionalized historical characters are clearly fictionalized?

Vinnie

"""""""1. If you don't presume the existence of a HJ, what then, is the objective of your methodology? How effectively can we apply it to a character like Robin Hood (or any other shadowy character) without compromising its reliability?"""""""

I have a source cutoff. Robin Hood sources come hundreds of years after he allegedly lived. I don't use Christian sources that date later than ca 130. I have proposed a general 100 years rule which I explained in detail on my site. In fact, I tend to stick with the first two stratums. Matthew has no value to me since he is dependent upon Mark. No value except for secondary purposes. For example. the pre-Matthean sayings material within Matthew has value and seeing how he changes and modifies Mark is very informative. Also special M material that cannot be called Matthean creation. I explain this in the updated page.


""""""""""2. If you dont presume the existence of a HJ, what is the reason behind placing the first stratum at 30 CE?""""""""""

Christian sources start popping up in the fifties. All sources in the fifties, seventies, nineties and so forth, all place Jesus ca 30 c.e. This stage is consistent with the nature of the gospels and their development from an oral stage. Not to mention that we have CPD (contemporary primary data) that putative original followers of Jesus were alive when Paul was writing.

Also, all information we have from 50 - 100 c.e. places Jesus in the first third of the first century. Alleged Crucifixion by Pilate, connection with JBap, LK's Statement that Jesus was about 30, both Infancy narratives place his birth near the time of Herod, Paul became a follower after Jesus' death (established upper limit), also John 2:20 (46 years to build this temple which was built in the 15th or 18 year of Herod's existence), John 8:57 (yo uare not yt 50 years old. Luke 3..In the reign of Tiberius,....the progression of belief in and imminent return and so on.

I do not find it too difficult to work into a ground zero for Jesus. That is probably the first thing we should do. We would have to do the same for Robin Hood but based upon prior discussions RH sources are too far away in time from the alleged events they speak of for me personally to use them.

For example, I don't expect any gospels or letters from 210 to contain independent and reliable information about Jesus. They are all influenced by earlier works--wheteher it be Matthew, Luke, Mark and John of the Gospel of Thomas of GEgyptians or Ghebrews or whatever. Earlier tradition creates new tradition and modifies the record.

I tend to stick with the first two stratums in my analysis. I also explained "the stratums" in my paper.

"""""3. What kind of HJ potrait does your methodology find? A cynic sage? A Revolutionary? Social Reformer? Charismatic miracle worker? Peripatetic teacher? A mixture of these?"""""""

Probably a mixture of each off the top of head based upon my readings as they are not incpmpatible but I haven't gotten that far. I am also an uber-minimalist so not much is the verdict.

4. Why was this christ crucified? And by who?

I am uncertain of this. It could be because of an incident around Passover--a volatile time which has led to other deaths (this is not without problems) or I think, more likely because others proclaimed Jesus as Christ as Paula Fredriksen claims. This explains why he alone was crucified and not his followers. Also why crucifixion as opposed to a private murder.

Obviously Jesus was crucified by the Romans. Some Jews may have been involved and in my above arguments Jesus clearly ends up being crucified during the time of Pontius Pilate's tenure so I see no reason to totally drop Pialte though the gospel stories about him are certainly creative fictions of the gospel authors themselves.

Vinnie

Vinnie

1. But this pilate, he is different from the Pilate of Philo and Josephus - no? How do you explain Pilate's mercy admist a blood-thirsty crowd, yet Pilate was notorious for being brutal?

Christian creativity. Hell, Jesus practically interviews Pilate in the Gospel of John rather than a vice versa interrogation.

The Pilate used could not have been Pilate because:
* He would not have shown any Mercy to Jesus because he was a brutal man.

Pilate crucified Jesus. That I believe is what is claimed. Flogging then crucifying him is not showing him mercy. Rome killed Jesus.

* He would not have crucified Jesus and left his followers if Jesus was an insurrectionist.

This is very much solid reasoning. The conclusion Fredriksen reaches is Jesus himself was not an insurrectionist. Its also possible Pilate knew the Jesus group was harmless (ganted whatever their views were) but thta it was growing rapidly and he wanted to stomp it out so he snuffed their leader. Or possibly Jesus never claimed to be Messiah but others did and Pilate knew Jesus was harmless but decided to X him cause of what others were claiming (Fredriksen).

* Since crucifixion was preserved for Insurrectionists by Romans, that he was crucified would mean Jesus was an insurrectionist. If he was an insurrectionist, there is no way Josephus would have failed tomention Jesus of Nazareth among the insurrectionists that were his contemporaries.

Does Josephus mention every person crucified for insurrection (aka all of them)? Jesus wasn't important to Josephus or presumably his audience. He was nothing more than a rabble-rousing Jew crucified by Rome.

"""""Therefore we cannot trust the historicity of the account on the basis of the inclusion of Pilate."""""""

Of course we can't trust the historicity of the details in the passion narratives.

"""""""2. Who was Jesus and why was he crucified?"""""""

See above.

"""""""3. This crucifiction of a Jesus of Nazareth, why doesnt Josephus mention it?"""""""

I am under the impression he does. He does so in a block that is more about disturbances under Pilate than Jesus.

""""""""4. This existence of a Jesus of Nazareth with Messianic tendencies, how come Josephus omits him from his several Jesuses who were contemporaries of Jesus? Did the Author of Matthew have monopoly over the knowledge that Jesus existed?""""""""

What is a messianic tendency? How do you know Jesus had them? Did Jospehus dwell on the messianic tendencies of all individuals from this time period. Don't forget that Josephus also says NOTHING about Christians. Are only the 30 or so Christian texts by different authors from different provenances the only ones who know about this rapidly growing cult? These arguments from silence in and of themselves increase suspicion but nothing more. They cannot carry the argument.

""""""""5. If you cannot provide cogent answers for the above, why should we assign historicity to Jesus' existence yet its not multiply attested outside the Gospels when it should have and when the fictionalized historical characters are clearly fictionalized?"""""""""

Thomas, Q, all the pre-Gospel sources, etc. None of those are "canonical gospels". We also expect Christian sources to mention Jesus since to the outside world Jesus was an unknown rabble-rouser from some unknown backyard who was crucified by Rome. He was probably as unknown and unnamed to them as are the two alleged theives crucified alongside Jesus to us.

Vinnie

Rick Sumner

I'm not arguing the historicity of Jesus. This still isn't the topic. It doesn't matter how many times you try, I'm still not going to bite.

The question is whether or not this is multiply attested, the answer is yes. It doesn't matter where it originated from--from Jesus, from the man on the moon, from Animal on the Muppet Show, from the Qumranic Teacher of Righteousness, from Gamaliel, or from James, my barber. It's still multiply attested.

Don't build strawmen.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

We can only argue from what we have, not from what we don't.

Paul gives no indication that he thinks there is anything wrong with being "a Jew to Jews, and a Gentile to Gentiles" either--except when he condemns Peter for doing so.

You're appealing to a consistency that isn't there.

And why is the imminent end a part of his gospel? Does he say so?

I'm not arguing for the resurrection experiences. I am simply arguing that the tradition of the imminent end is multiply attested--I'm arguing, in essence, that even if Sanders is wrong about the specific saying (as I indicated above, I'm agnostic on it), his general point, used for *reconstruction* is accurate.

I haven't said there were any resurrection experiences. I haven't said where the saying originated, except that the evidence seems to indicate it predates Paul and is known commonly to both Paul and Matthew. Where it originated beyond that is irrelevant to my point.

Again, my argument is simply that the tradition that the end was imminent--very imminent, as in any day now imminent--is multiply attested. That's it. That's the only point I'm trying to make.

So, to answer your implied question, of course there is no reason to presume that it's rooted in the resurrection experiences, at least not based on anything I have presented. I haven't suggested an original source for it one way or the other.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

If a neo-nazi writes a book about Hitler that glorifies Hitler, creates a fictitious, loving Hitler, that doesn't change the timeframe his book is supposed to reflect. It's still about Hitler. Hitler still lived at a specific time, in a specific place.

What time would you suggest Matthew chose for the setting of his gospel, if not the one explicitly stated?

You seem to be confused. That Matthew placed his gospel at time X does not mean that the events recorded in it really occurred at time X. It simply means that that is the setting of the story.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

But aren't you arguing that belief in an imminent End predates Paul from the absence of any objections in his surviving letters?

I think I poorly worded my position in the previous post with regard to the relationship of the resurrection experiences and belief in an imminent End.

Paul seems to me to make it quite clear that he believes the End is near becuase of the resurrection experiences. The Risen Christ is the "first fruits". And, yes, I think there can be no serious question that this should be considered part of his gospel.

I actually agree that we have multiple attestation to an early belief in an imminent End. So your point has been made at least in my general direction.

Amaleq13

You can certainly argue that Paul places the resurrection experiences ca 30 c.e. but you have to read information from other sources into Paul to have him placing a living Jesus in that time frame.

As far as I can tell, the notion that Paul's living Jesus had been crucified perhaps as long ago as two centuries prior is entirely viable. In other words, Paul has so little to say about the crucified Jesus because he is assumed to have been just one of hundreds of anonymous victims in the mass crucifixions Josephus describes. This, I think, matches up with the Powerless Unknown Paul describes much better than the Gospel Jesus.