Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jaybees · 08-07-2013, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The hypothesis that "Paul" wrote the non Pseudo-Pauline letters in the first century may not be true.

Non Pseudo-Pauline letters!!!

It's stuff like that from bible scholarship that boggles the mind. Next we'll have anti-non Pseudo-Pauline letters, and then....never mind.

Sometimes I think that "rational" interpretation of the scriptures is every bit as screwy as literal interpretation.

MrMacSon · 08-07-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The hypothesis that "Paul" wrote the non Pseudo-Pauline letters in the first century may not be true.

Non Pseudo-Pauline letters!!!

It's stuff like that from bible scholarship that boggles the mind. Next we'll have anti-non Pseudo-Pauline letters, and then....never mind.

Sometimes I think that "rational" interpretation of the scriptures is every bit as screwy as literal interpretation.

Adding new terminology via new adjectives is more likely to muddy the waters:

The hypothesis that a single "Paul" wrote the [B]non Pseudo-'Pauline' letters is yet to be proven,
as is whether they were primarily written in the first century and hardly edited afterwards.

Vorkosigan · 08-18-2013, 04:06 AM

LA Times review of Jesus the Zealot

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/reza...evara_partner/

yalla · 08-18-2013, 04:50 AM

From the review:

"All the Gospels were written in Greek, in the Roman Empire, in the first century, following the death of Jesus. The first, Mark’s, ..."

"By the time John wrote his gospel, 100 years after Mark ..."

Interesting chronology.

Vorkosigan · 08-18-2013, 04:56 AM

Not to mention that he has Jesus born in Bethlehem in Mark.

yalla · 08-18-2013, 05:50 AM

More interesting chronology [from Scott Kolb's review linked at the previous site]

"The first third of Aslan’s book brilliantly paints this bloody backdrop, which ends in 70 c.e. with the total annihilation of Jerusalem, more than three decades after Jesus was killed and about three decades before the gospels would first take shape."

I find the sentence a bit ambiguous, is Kolb saying that the gospels were written 'about three decades' after the total annihilation of Jerusalem [sic], ie turn of the century?

Grog · 08-18-2013, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

More interesting chronology [from Scott Kolb's review linked at the previous site]

"The first third of Aslan’s book brilliantly paints this bloody backdrop, which ends in 70 c.e. with the total annihilation of Jerusalem, more than three decades after Jesus was killed and about three decades before the gospels would first take shape."

I find the sentence a bit ambiguous, is Kolb saying that the gospels were written 'about three decades' after the total annihilation of Jerusalem [sic], ie turn of the century?

It does sound like that and I would more or less agree with that.

Toto · 08-18-2013, 09:04 AM

Craig Evans review lists a lot of picky little historical errors.

Quote:

Zealot is riddled with errors, probable errors, and exaggerations. Aslan tells us a builder (Greek: tekton) in Nazareth had “little to do” (p. 34). Excavations at Nazareth and nearby Sepphoris suggest otherwise. Being a builder (or “carpenter”) mean that “Jesus would have belonged to the lowest class of peasants in first-century Palestine” (p. 34). Where does this come from? Sepphoris, a major city of Galilee, is said to be “a day’s walk” from Nazareth. Actually, it takes a jogger about 45 minutes. Scholars will be surprised to learn that Jesus ben Ananias (d. 70 CE), mentioned by Josephus, prophesied the “imminent return of the messiah” (p. 53). He did no such thing.

Aslan would have us believe that in an interval of one or two years (the time Jesus spent with John the Baptist) Galilee had become “urbanized, Hellenized, iniquitous” (p. 93). Previously it had been a place of family farms and open fields and blooming orchards. Excavations at Sepphoris indicate that even this large, somewhat Hellenized city had not adopted foods and customs contrary to Jewish law and traditions in the time of Jesus. In fact, excavations throughout Galilee have revealed how faithful to the Law of Moses the people were. When Jesus commands the cleansed leper to show himself to the village priest and do as Moses commanded, Aslan thinks “Jesus is joking” (p. 112). The discussion of magic and miracles (pp. 105–9) is confusing and inconsistent.

When transliterating the Greek for the nominative plural “apostles” Aslan gives us the genitive singular apostolou, instead of the expected apostoloi. Aslan assigns Eusebius to the third century, but the Christian apologist and historian flourished in the fourth century (p. 149). Aslan assumes throughout that Jesus and his disciples were illiterate (e.g., p. 171: “they could neither read nor write”; 178: “illiterate peasants from the backwoods of Galilee”). There is no engagement with scholarship that suggests otherwise. We are also told that James the brother of Jesus wore “simple garments made of linen, not wool” (p. 197). But linen was worn by the wealthy (see Luke 16:19), not the poor and simple.

But most of his objections seem theological.

Le Donne on the Jesus Blog thinks these errors were the result of rushing the book to print without adequate peer review or editing.

James The Least · 08-18-2013, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Quote:

Originally Posted by James The Least

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

I have Aslan's book now on my tablet, but when he has stated that the one "fact" that can be agreed upon is that Jesus was crucified, it is hard to get motivated to read this closely. I am hoping it is not just another "This is how Jesus must have been given the context of the times."

To me, the crucifixion is not well-attested. The accounts themselves are derived entirely from other sources.

The "fact" of the crucifixion is that it is based entirely on Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. Matthew added a couple of additional "facts" from the Wisdom of Solomon. Nothing about the crucifixion can be explained as historical witness to an actual crucifixion.

The Passions are fiction, but Paul says Jesus was crucified. He gives no details, but it shows that the crucifixion belief preceded the writing of the Gospels.

I don't know if the epistles precede the Gospels -- perhaps they do -- but "Paul" is getting all of his information about Christ Jesus from the Septuagint as well.

aa5874 · 08-18-2013, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

LA Times review of Jesus the Zealot

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/reza...evara_partner/

Your link claims

Quote:

ZEALOT: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth is the latest in a long line of fictions about the “historical Jesus,” or Jesus-the-man, a lucrative genre that never lacks readers, but seems markedly graver during paradigm shifts...

The "Zealot" is fiction.

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

08-18-2013, 04:06 AM	#103
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	LA Times review of Jesus the Zealot http://www.salon.com/2013/08/17/reza...evara_partner/

08-18-2013, 04:50 AM	#104
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	From the review: "All the Gospels were written in Greek, in the Roman Empire, in the first century, following the death of Jesus. The first, Mark’s, ..." "By the time John wrote his gospel, 100 years after Mark ..." Interesting chronology.

08-18-2013, 04:56 AM	#105
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Not to mention that he has Jesus born in Bethlehem in Mark.

08-18-2013, 05:50 AM	#106
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	More interesting chronology [from Scott Kolb's review linked at the previous site] "The first third of Aslan’s book brilliantly paints this bloody backdrop, which ends in 70 c.e. with the total annihilation of Jerusalem, more than three decades after Jesus was killed and about three decades before the gospels would first take shape." I find the sentence a bit ambiguous, is Kolb saying that the gospels were written 'about three decades' after the total annihilation of Jerusalem [sic], ie turn of the century?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.