shunyadragon

I disagree with the statement that Jesus would not be considered a threat to Rome. From what we know of Pilate and other Roman authorities of the time, any leader or movement that even hinted at what Jesus preached would have been crucified or otherwise killed without question and many were. This more accurate view is in direct contradiction with the Biblical depiction of Pilate. Pilate would have never considered releasing or turning over to the Jews a man who claimed to be the Messiah, King of the Jews.

I do not beleive that all the men that claimed to the messiah were zealots. There were others who expected the messiah at that time. Nothing known in the records would indicate this.

Jesus Christ was convicted and crucified under Roman Law, but he would have just as well recieved the same punishment under Jewish Law. In both cases he would not have been allowed to have a proper burial.

mrmoderate

I made my points based on various sources of research and you made Maccoby's points. I don't agree with Maccoby based on the opposing points of views of others.

You say Maccoby considers Acts to be the best portrayal of the Pharisees which is very odd indeed. Since Acts is attributed to Luke, the only New Testament writer who was not Jewish, and that fact that Luke wrote everything second hand as it was told to him by others who knew Jesus, this would actually make Luke the least authoritive of the ways of the Pharisees.

I think we are at a believe what we want to believe standstill. Before I get the "you only read what you want to believe" crock from the peanut gallery, I read from anything I can get my hands on and quickly dismiss anything that is deliberately biased in any direction exclusively.

Al Kafirun

Eh, the authorship of Luke isn't bound by tradition.

spin

Maccoby is not so important as the sources he quotes, for Maccoby, who was a serious scholar in the field, includes primary sources for all his statements, so it is not a matter of my experts against yours. It's a matter of knowing what the comments are actually based on. I might not agree with Maccoby, but I'd happily look at his sources to see how valid his position is. One usually cannot do that with encyclopaedias. Nelson's Encyclopedia of the Bible and the Revell Bible Dictionary may in fact cite sources for each datum that is introduced, but usually an encyclopaedia cannot affor to do that.

Maybe Amaleq13 should stress where Maccoby's ideas are coming from a little more, rather than to stress Maccoby himself. That way good methodology stays clear and transparent.


spin

Amaleq13

I think you need to read more carefully. What I actually wrote was:

...Maccoby considers Acts to provide the most honest portrayal of how Pharisees and Sadducees really would have responded to Jesus.

In other words, where Acts portrays Gamaliel urging caution in persecuting the followers of Jesus because they might be right and portrays the Sadducees as the primary opponents to the movement, Maccoby argues that this is a more historically realistic depiction of how it might have happened.

The only thing we can safely assume about the New Testament authors is that they were Christians.

The vast majority of scholars agree that none of the Gospel authors wrote firsthand but the author of Luke is the only one who claims to have conducted research from "eyewitnesses". Your assertions seem to have more faith than scholarship support them.

Amaleq13

I don't get the impression mrmoderate is interested regardless of the sources. He seems to have already made up his mind about Maccoby.

I don't have Maccoby's book with me but I do recall that he refers frequently to various written rabbinical discussions and cites certain Sanhedrin texts. I can check specific sources for specific claims if there is an interest.