Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 04-10-2008, 10:23 PM

I just wanted BC & H posters to know that a searchable review of Sanders The Historical figure of Jesus is now availabe in modern library. I have added some new arguments and improved on the earlier ones.
Here is the abstract in Whats New

Quote:

Many New Testament scholars have presented their personal reconstruction of the historical Jesus, laboring to painstakingly separate fact from myth. Unfortunately, in the absence of a rigorous methodology, religious beliefs have doggedly militated against their best efforts, and E. P. Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus is no exception to this tendency. In this review, Jacob Aliet outlines what he takes to be the five main weaknesses of Sanders' scholarship, some philosophical, some methodological, as revealed in The Historical Figure of Jesus.

Enjoy.

Ted Hoffman · 04-11-2008, 02:17 AM

Sorry folks, I just realized that I have repeated http:// in the above two links. Please use whats new for whats new on secular web and this link for the review.
Thanks for the heads up spin.

JoeWallack · 04-19-2008, 08:38 AM

JW:
I do not read Sanders because his conclusions are not supported by his arguments and your review is a case in point. I am especially interested though in writings on the Birth Dating error, so a few comments:

1) Sanders seems Ignorant of Historical Methodology. He is dealing with two separate issues, Historicity and Errancy. The value of "Matthew" and "Luke" to historicity depends on their quality as sources. Potentially, whether "Matthew" and "Luke" agree or disagree means relatively little until their quality as sources has been established. By mainly/only comparing "Matthew" and "Luke" with each other Sanders is really dealing with Errancy but Misrepresenting his analysis and conclusion as Historicity. Sanders own argument establishes Errancy between "Matthew" and "Luke" as to the Birth Dating so for him to posture a conclusion at a significantly higher standard (Historicity) which is already contradicted by his own argument is not just wrong, it's comical.

2)

Quote:

Sanders finds several difficulties with Luke's census. One is that Luke "dates it near Herod's death (4 BCE) and also ten years later, when Quirinius was the legate of Syria (6 CE)."[26] Luke writes in Luke 2:1-2 that Jesus was born during a census that was held when Quirinius was governing Syria. And we know from the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus that this census took place in 6 CE[27], around ten years after Herod the Great had died. (Herod died in 4 BCE.) But at the same time, Luke 1:5 has the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist "in the days of Herod" and Luke 1:36 states that Mary bore Jesus approximately 16 months after annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist, putting Jesus' birth "no later than 3 BC."[28] Yet Matthew 2:1-3 claims that Jesus was born while Herod the Great was still alive, probably two years before he died (Matthew 2:7-16). Thus Luke inconsistently dates the birth of Jesus at 6 CE and at 3 BCE, while Matthew dates Jesus' birth near 4 BCE.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Luke_1

Quote:

Luke 1:5 There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

JW:
The literal/default understanding here should be Herod the Great because the name "Herod" is used and the noun is "King". However, as Carrier points out:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...nius.html#Luke

Quote:

It is often claimed that Luke has John the Baptist and Jesus born around the same time, but, first, this is not necessarily true and, second, this still would not entail a corroboration of Matthew. The second point is more forceful than the first: namely, that Luke is referring to Herod Archelaus, not Herod the Great, and I think this most likely (see 1.1.3 below).

...

Quote:

[1.1.3] Mark Smith has composed a good article explaining in his own terms why attempts to reconcile Luke and Matthew fail, while concluding with strong support for the accuracy of Luke as against Matthew: Mark Smith, "Of Jesus and Quirinius," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 62:2 (April, 2000): pp. 278-93.
Smith argues that Luke may have meant by "Herod the King" not "Herod the Great" but "Herod the Ethnarch," in other words Archelaus, Herod's successor (ibid. pp. 285-6). Smith makes a good case for this. I originally decided against it because I thought Luke was otherwise very precise with the titles of men in power throughout Luke and Acts (a fact that Smith himself documents), but Luke fails to be precise in naming the offices of Pilate and Quirinius, too. Archelaus only called himself Herod on his coins (Burnett, Roman Provincial Coinage 1992, nos. 4912-17) and the historian Cassius Dio also knows him only as such (55.27), while even Josephus, who otherwise refers to Archelaus as ethnarch, could still call him a king (Antiquities of the Jews 18.93), facts that slipped my notice before. Additionally, the title of "ethnarch" is never used by any Gospel author, and appears only once in the New Testament (2 Cor. 11:32), while at the only place in the New Testament where the name "Archelaus" is used (Matthew 2:22), he is said to have basileuei, "reigned," a term that does not entail but nevertheless implies a status of king (basileus), in contrast to other verbs of governing that could have been chosen. Likewise, though Archelaus was technically a tetrarch, this term is only used in the New Testament of later rulers.
It has been suggested that the potential for confusion between the two Herods would call for precision, since Herod the Great is the more famous. But this requires assuming, at the very least, (1) that Luke thought of this (authors don't always anticipate every confusion they could be causing) and (2) that Luke expected his audience to know there was a technical difference in title between Herod the Great and his son Herod Archelaus (not everyone was a history major) and (3) that Luke actually knew which Herod it was (his sources may have been vague) and (4) Luke thought precision here mattered (even though he doesn't attempt to identify the year with the kind of precision he does in Luke 3:1) and (5) Luke thought the context (proximity to the census which came upon the removal of Herod Archelaus) didn't already make it clear which Herod he meant and (6) Luke knew what Herod Archelaus' formal title actually was (just because he had good sources on what the titles were of other men in 30 A.D. doesn't mean he had good sources on what Archelaus' title was fifteen years earlier) and (7) Luke wasn't bothered by contradicting himself (or confusing his readers by appearing to contradict himself) by incorrectly preceding a census in 6 A.D. with a king who had already been dead for ten years. Overall, that's a lot of assumptions to adopt simply to overcome Smith's analysis. A few of these assumptions could be granted, but to grant all of them is a bit much.
Hence I believe Smith could be right, and thus Luke intended the year of John's birth to be 5 A.D.

JW:
Thus Carrier, probably the foremost authority on the Birth Dating error, thinks that "Luke" was referring above to Archelaus and not Herod the Great. I do too. I definitely think "Luke" knew it was Archelaus since I think the Archelaus/Qurinius census in Jospehus was a source for her.

3)

Quote:

Sanders' accidental combination argument is based on Roman historian Ronald Syme's assertion that similarities between 4 BCE and 6 CE lead to confusion. And that assertion, in turn, is based on the fact that W. W. Tarn, "a well-known Hellenistic historian, once wrote that Herod died in 6 CE."[31] Whether the inconsistent statements about the year of Jesus' birth were due to a typo, a chronological error, or a genuine mix-up of the dates is not demonstrated in HFoJ. But Sanders treats the error as sufficient evidence of a phenomenon, and then proceeds to ascribe Luke's error to that phenomenon. By ascribing this alleged error to Luke, Sanders opens the door for Matthew's date, which is thereafter treated as the correct one. Such spurious methodology amounts to a means to fix a preference for one date over another on the basis of no evidence at all.

By attributing the discrepancy to some 4 BCE-6 CE dyslexia, Sanders is in effect maintaining that Luke probably knew the correct date of Jesus' birth. The date mix-up can be conveniently explained away as selective dyslexia. Sanders' harmonization of the dates in Luke and Matthew through such tenuous arguments is more akin to what one finds in biblical apologetics than in historical research. This is a serious indictment against Sanders' scholarship.

JW:
To be fair, Brown, who by implication you indicate a superior authority to Sanders, thinks the same thing (that "Luke" confused dates and "Matthew" more likely has the correct one).

Overall Ted, this section (Birth Dating) of your review is excellent.

Joseph

BIRTH, n.
The first and direst of all disasters. As to the nature of it there appears to be no uniformity. Castor and Pollux were born from the egg. Pallas came out of a skull. Galatea was once a block of stone. Peresilis, who wrote in the tenth century, avers that he grew up out of the ground where a priest had spilled holy water. It is known that Arimaxus was derived from a hole in the earth, made by a stroke of lightning. Leucomedon was the son of a cavern in Mount Aetna, and I have myself seen a man come out of a wine cellar.

Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth by Richard Carrier

Ted Hoffman · 04-20-2008, 10:21 PM

Thanks Joe for your comments. And for that reference to Mark Smith.

JoeWallack · 05-11-2008, 04:28 PM

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_1

Quote:

1:5 There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Another reason to think that "Luke" meant Archelaus here and not Herod the Great is the use of "king of Judea" which geographically would have been correct for Archelaus but not for Herod the Great.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

DCHindley · 05-11-2008, 08:33 PM

But Archlaeus was ethnarch of Judea, not a full-fledged king. Herod the Great was king of Judea, as well as Idumea, Samaria, Galilee, Perea, Trachonitis and Batanea.

Per Wicki:

The generic title (not a formal style) of ethnarch was used in the Roman East to refer to rulers of vassal kingdoms who did not rise to the level of kings. The Romans used the terms natio and gens for a people as a genetic and cultural entity, regardless of political statehood. ... Previously, Hyrcanus II, one of the later Hasmonean rulers of Judea, had also held the title of Ethnarch, as well as that of High Priest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnarch

It might do wll to note that while Hyrcanus II was ethnarch of Judea, Herod's father Antipater was the Roman appointed procurator of Judea and weilded all the real power. Archelaus, to his credit, didn't seem to require a babysitter.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_1

Quote:

1:5 There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.

Another reason to think that "Luke" meant Archelaus here and not Herod the Great is the use of "king of Judea" which geographically would have been correct for Archelaus but not for Herod the Great.

Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

youngalexander · 05-12-2008, 01:02 AM

From the second par of the review:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ted Hoffman

The first quest was started by Hermann Samuel Reimarus and included William Wrede and Schweitzer himself, among others, and continued up to the 19th century. A second quest started in the 19th century and recognized that the New Testament texts had been redacted over time and that the Gospels were written decades after the death of the putative Jesus. The third quest started in the mid-19th century and used archaeology and extrabiblical texts to attempt to uncover a historical Jesus.

This is somewhat fetishistic re 19th century surely? You actually mean 20th C.

My understanding is that the first quest effectively terminated with the publication of Schweitzer's The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1906. The second quest was initiated by Kasemann in 1953 and the third began in the 1980's after various archeological finds and the setting up of the Jesus Seminar in 1985.

Thus the three 19th C should read
'continued up to the 20th C'
'second quest started in the mid 20th C'
'third quest started in the late 20th C'

Just a few minor corrections. Congrats, I thort the review quite cool and objective.

Ted Hoffman · 05-12-2008, 01:45 AM

Thanks Youngalexander

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

04-11-2008, 02:17 AM	#2
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Sorry folks, I just realized that I have repeated http:// in the above two links. Please use whats new for whats new on secular web and this link for the review. Thanks for the heads up spin.

04-20-2008, 10:21 PM	#4
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Thanks Joe for your comments. And for that reference to Mark Smith.

05-12-2008, 01:45 AM	#8
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Thanks Youngalexander

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.