spin

That's unique Lucan material. It's in neither Mt or Mk, so it is obviously not from the earliest layers of the tradition.

This is a fulfillment story. Zech 14:21 talks of the day when there will no longer be Canaanites (= merchants) in the temple.

(The Vulgate translates "canaanites" as "merchants" here. The JPS Tanakh uses "traders". Elsewhere in the LXX the Greek reflects this translation as well, eg Isa 23:8.)

outhouse

Correct, but Gmark and all gospels state he died a Roman death that implies a Roman law was broken. Sedition would apply based on all gospel temple accounts, would it not?


I dont ever place much historicty on these layered versions, but I also dont think Gmark got into details that these later authors thought so important hat they would add to Gmark.







Understood, I know use that OT example as well.

The only thing that changed my mind towards historicity was the temple coins having Melqart on them. Having a pagan deity on the temple coin all Jews were forced to use definately would have seemed blasphemous to zealous Jews. Following the example of the 40 ish burned alive who tore down Herods eagle.



All I really stand behind is that he caused trouble enough so to get placed on a Roman cross.

spin

You are shaping your data to fit your conclusion, a conclusion that is part of the tradition narrative and so unverifiable.

I don't see the relevance of this to what we are dealing with. The tax was paid in Tyrian coin, a coin found at Qumran among other places. What has the fact that one had to pay the tax with a Tyrian shekel to do with your reification of the table turning story?

You might stand behind it, but doing so doesn't give it any credibility.

outhouse

The implications are multiple.


It was another tax of many to be paid. This temple was the cash cow for the Romans and if it didnt bring in the revenue, they would have destroyed long before they did. This Passover was a money making event similar to todays rock concerts. The Saducees ran the treasury, owned the sheep to be bought, and most other goods and worked hand in hand with the Romans to keep their power.

Zealous Jews would not have liked the corrupt Saducees running the temple for the finacial collaboration with Romans.


You dont think some zealous Jews would not find it blasphemous to have a pagan deity on a coin in gods very own house?



Possibilities at best are all you will find for a death of a peasant.

andrewcriddle

Apocalypse of Adam does not claim that the Illuminator will be born of a virgin. It claims that the fourth kingdom will make such a claim. The successive (and contradictory) claims of the kingdoms are meant to be regarded as inaccurate or at least inadequate.

I.E. the reference to birth from a virgin is probably more a mistaken claim (by the kingdom) than an allegorical claim.

Andrew Criddle

outhouse

Do I?

Because these people believed in the supernatural and wrote about it, does not indicate fiction or nonfiction.


You statemenst are again, unsubstantiated. We just dont know how much they were pulling from historical memory.

Certain people were correct for the time period, making parts factual.

Jaybees

We found him!!

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...QEwAg&dur=3037

Grog

"recounts" implies more than vague references that seem to occur in a timeless past. If 8ne of the aspects of the earthly life of Jesus that Paul "recounts" is the resurrection then you are referring to a supernatural event. Is that one fact that "they" might have been "pulling" from historical memory?

metacristi

Reading what some people say here one would believe that there is no reasonable argument for the historicity of Jesus. Actually this is what I often encounter in mythicist circles (some can even be labelled safely 'priests of mythicism').

I think is pointless to continue a polemics in this direction if some want to believe that be it so. Only that all rational people reckon that there is a reasonable argument pro the historicity of Jesus. Try that of Ehrman for example in 'Did Jesus exist?', which is fully tenable overall (Carrier really has nothing of substance). Or read a sketch of it here (there are 7 parts). Not enough for quasi certitudes but there is enough to settle the matter for the moment.

I weighted the arguments (and believe me or not I happen to know some about research programs and paradigm shifts in science) and I'm afraid mythicism is not really synonymous with simplicity, elegance and best accommodation of data. A BIG breakthrough is needed to provoke a paradigm shift. Until then all I see is politics, I maintain that mythicists are engaged in a huge political 'bloody revolution' to 'gain the power' with all costs. Little in common with rational paradigm shifts. Remain to be seen (I do not write off this hypothesis) what will happen on long run, sometimes metaphysics becomes science way later after its first proposal indeed, but I personally don't think that Carrier's arguments will be able to make mythicism less 'fringe'.

Toto

I think there is a reasonable argument for the historicity of Jesus, just as there is a reasonable case for mythicism. But 1) I don't think it is a very strong argument or that any fair person can claim that the issue is settled and 2) I don't think it helps the discussion when historicists rely on insults and put downs, or talk about "fringe" positions.

It also seems clear to me that there is no mythicist church, and that it is misleading to talk about "mythicist circles." Acharya S would like to claim a monopoly on the term, but hardly any other mythicist-leaning scholar agrees with her on very much.