Stephen said
Anyone seen the adverts for a new movie coming out next week called RISEN? Apparently it’s about a Roman centurion sent out by Pontius Pilate to investigate reports of Jesus’ resurrection. It seems to have a strong evangelical fundamentalist point of view although it’s looks high budget and is filled with pretty well-known actors.
I had not, but according to IMDB there have already been some advance screenings. It sounds exactly like I imagined before I even knew anything about it.
I’ve been more curious about the fact that I recently read that Reza Aslan‘s book is going to be made into a movie. Sensationalism sells. Bart’s books need to be more scandalous, scurrilous and sensational! Looks like Reza has the Hollywood bug. He’s recently been involved in several shows I’ve seen for some unknown reason. While I didn’t watch beyond the first season he’s apparently been a producer on season 2 of HBO’s The Leftovers and also on a few episodes of USA Channel’s far under appreciated “Dig” (well, under appreciated for those of us who like Indiana Jones type stuff).
Lawyerskeptic said
I think you exaggerate my powers if you think I have “resolved” anything about the Bible.
I understood that you weren’t an expert on Roman law or maybe even the history of legal documents; so that, at least in theory, it would be entirely possible that you might not have the right answer; however, considering my own serious doubts about this hypothesis, as interesting as it seemed, input from someone with a legal background on what constitutes a legal brief and whether a given document could be one, was worth asking for. Not to mention your own familiarity with Lawyers writing apologetic books The question of whether Acts could be a legal brief, even if true, wouldn’t change very much.
Now as to why I don’t think there was any overestimation of your powers because as far as I can tell Mauck doesn’t bring up any information about what a Roman brief might have looked like versus a modern one and that his assessment here was likely to be based on the same information as your own.
In fact, a good reason to find Mauck’s thesis highly doubtful is,
” If the Book of Acts was written as a legal document, that suggests that its claims are well-documented and could have been verified at the time of its writing. The Emperor had an office of investigators charged with researching specific facts for upcoming trials. Mauck argues that “Theophilus,” to whom the book is addressed, was a pre-trial investigator for Nero. The Gospel of Luke, also addressed to Theophilus, was probably also written as background reading in anticipation of a trial.”
I added emphasis because the statement that “The Emperor had an office of investigators charged with researching specific facts for upcoming trials” just sounds too far fetched. There seems to be a tendency in modern apologetics to assume everything was gone through with a fine tooth comb, whether it’s the stories people told. The disciples would have poo pooed any deviation therefore the accounts of Jesus life are highly accurate or this latest, the Emperors pre trial investigators would have turned up any problems, therefore Acts is completely reliable. To use Mauck’s wording,
“”It would be investigated by people who had the capacity and experience to investigate everything in the book, and it would be cross-examined by Paul’s accusers. They would have every incentive to point out if there were inaccuracies or lies in terms of Luke’s account, either in Luke or in Acts. It tells us that these books – Luke and Acts – were historically accurate and verifiable at the time they were written.”
Further, the author reportedly did research ” using the resources of a local seminary library” Not that seminaries aren’t well stocked, but wouldn’t you want to conduct your research in a law library when trying to ascertain the legal standing of a certain type of document? The choice of research resources suggests-again mere supposition, the sort of support the author wanted; that he got it in the form of Josh Mcdowell, is telling.
This whole assessment rests on WOULD BE. My suspicion- not derived from ANY evidence, is that Caesar probably did not spend a lot of time doing research, even by proxy, that it’s more likely he would hear both sides and form an opinion there and then based on what he heard. Further, the whole “office of investigators” line seems to be simply reading modern legal practices into Ancient history.
Finally, as to something being resolved, that depends on whether we are thinking in terms of scholarly consensus or a bunch of amateurs/newbies posting in a forum. Further, it would also depend even more on the point of the question. If the point was to brilliantly defend some “proposition”, a question probably doesn’t quite get us off the ground. On the other hand, if the point was to get an impression from someone with a legal background, then you definitely helped resolve the question.
spiker said
” If the Book of Acts was written as a legal document, that suggests that its claims are well-documented and could have been verified at the time of its writing. The Emperor had an office of investigators charged with researching specific facts for upcoming trials. Mauck argues that “Theophilus,” to whom the book is addressed, was a pre-trial investigator for Nero. The Gospel of Luke, also addressed to Theophilus, was probably also written as background reading in anticipation of a trial.”
This whole assessment rests on WOULD BE. My suspicion- not derived from ANY evidence, is that Caesar probably did not spend a lot of time doing research, even by proxy, that it’s more likely he would hear both sides and form an opinion there and then based on what he heard. Further, the whole “office of investigators” line seems to be simply reading modern legal practices into Ancient history.
I believe the language you have in bold comes from the review of Mauck’s book. Mauck makes it quite clear that he does not know whether this office existed, but he has some evidence indicating that might have existed.
I think your other comment is very much on point. Mauck simply assumes that Paul’s trial was a very important thing to the Roman Empire and that investigators would expend great time and effort on Paul’s case.
Greg Matthews said
I’ve been more curious about the fact that I recently read that Reza Aslan‘s book is going to be made into a movie. Sensationalism sells. Bart’s books need to be more scandalous, scurrilous and sensational!
Perhaps Bart needs to catch up with Dale Martin:
Jesus led his followers, armed, to Jerusalem to participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Perhaps Bart is still thinking…….
“It’s making me rethink my view that Jesus was a complete pacifist,” he says. “And it takes a lot for me to change my views about Jesus.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Apocalyptic preachers are more like a side-show – they don’t have the wherewithal to effect change within the social/political environment. It’s those prepared to man the barricades that do that. Needless to say, the gospel Jesus was a failure in both apocalyptic and revolution. And yet…………………on a literal reading of the gospel story…. that is what is celebrated as a means of ‘salvation’….failure. Failure overcome by the NT magic trick of resurrection.
Reason, logic itself, requires that such an interpretation of the gospel story is nonsensical.
The Allies celebrated victory – just as the dead are annually celebrated by ceremonies of remembrance. And the Germans? No – defeat is never a reason to celebrate, to remember with pride.
What the gospel crucifixion story is remembering is not any event of the 30/33 c.e. time-frame. The revolutionary victory that was won over the Romans, albeit for a short 3 years, was that of Antigonus in 40 b.c.e. Yes, defeat came in 37 b.c.e. – but the moment of ‘glory’ – of a Jewish kingdom free from Rome – would not be forgotten.
As to the Reza Aslan movie of Zealot – perhaps it will bring a greater awareness to the political revolutionary aspects of the gospel story.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Lawyerskeptic said
I believe the language you have in bold comes from the review of Mauck’s book. Mauck makes it quite clear that he does not know whether this office existed, but he has some evidence indicating that might have existed.
I think your other comment is very much on point. Mauck simply assumes that Paul’s trial was a very important thing to the Roman Empire and that investigators would expend great time and effort on Paul’s case.
Yes, that’s right, and in truth one can’t take a reviewers characterization as definitive but I’m glad Mauck expended some time actually looking into it. I’d be surprised if anything like that existed. It wouldn’t surprise me if Caesar, say, asked an advisor to look into it.
In a similar vein I had asked Bart about the possibility that there was no trial for Jesus, given that one of the accusations reportedly made by the Jewish embassy against Pilate was execution without trial. Don’t take this as a verbatim quote, but, if I recall correctly, Bart seems to have thought Pilate may have delegated the trial to one of his underlings. This makes sense if you consider what we can establish about Jesus historically. Would a backwater messiah rate the governors time? The other question is whether Paul would have been any more significant? I know there is something out there about Roman citizens having had the right to have themselves heard by the emperor. I don’t know if that is even true or if true, would apply in all cases.
maryhelena said
Greg Matthews said
I’ve been more curious about the fact that I recently read that Reza Aslan‘s book is going to be made into a movie. Sensationalism sells. Bart’s books need to be more scandalous, scurrilous and sensational!
Perhaps Bart needs to catch up with Dale Martin:
Jesus led his followers, armed, to Jerusalem to participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Perhaps Bart is still thinking…….
“It’s making me rethink my view that Jesus was a complete pacifist,” he says. “And it takes a lot for me to change my views about Jesus.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As to the Reza Aslan movie of Zealot – perhaps it will bring a greater awareness to the political revolutionary aspects of the gospel story.
There’s a world of difference between a Jesus who leads an armed mob into open revolt to overthrow the Romans a la Simon bar Kokhba and someone saying they’re rethinking their views that Jesus was a complete pacifist.
As to the Aslan movie all it brings is the sensationalism that audiences demand. The truth be damned. Where are the non wacko scholars who support these ideas? How many times does Bart have to say that mainstream scholarship dismissed Aslan’s ideas decades ago?
Greg Matthews said
maryhelena said
Greg Matthews said
I’ve been more curious about the fact that I recently read that Reza Aslan‘s book is going to be made into a movie. Sensationalism sells. Bart’s books need to be more scandalous, scurrilous and sensational!
Perhaps Bart needs to catch up with Dale Martin:
Jesus led his followers, armed, to Jerusalem to participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Perhaps Bart is still thinking…….
“It’s making me rethink my view that Jesus was a complete pacifist,” he says. “And it takes a lot for me to change my views about Jesus.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
As to the Reza Aslan movie of Zealot – perhaps it will bring a greater awareness to the political revolutionary aspects of the gospel story.
There’s a world of difference between a Jesus who leads an armed mob into open revolt to overthrow the Romans a la Simon bar Kokhba and someone saying they’re rethinking their views that Jesus was a complete pacifist.
As to the Aslan movie all it brings is the sensationalism that audiences demand. The truth be damned. Where are the non wacko scholars who support these ideas? How many times does Bart have to say that mainstream scholarship dismissed Aslan’s ideas decades ago?
Bart rethinking his view that Jesus was ‘complete pacifist’? Good for him – I’ll be eager to hear his position once he has settled on what it is…..
If Bart is rethinking his view on Jesus being a ‘complete pacifist’ – how then can you be so adamant that Reza Aslan’s basic premise is wrong – that Dale Martin is wrong re ‘‘Jesus led his followers, armed, to Jerusalem to participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea’’
The ‘non wacko scholars’? In another thread there are names there for you to consider. As for Dale Martin – I’m sure Bart considers him to be a non wacko scholar…..
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Reza Aslan on twitter:
Jesus Was Crucified Because Disciples Were Armed, Bible Analysis Suggests. By guy who criticized me for saying same ** you do not have permission to see this link **
My problem with Reza Aslan is not that he holds to the “Jesus as seditionist” theory but that he misrepresents his area of expertise (he claims and allows it to be claimed that he’s a “New Testament” scholar when his degree is in sociology of religion and he teaches creative writing) and pretends that he came up with the theory. If he had referenced Reimarus and wrote a book about the idea and why he agrees with it, fine, but there’s clearly an agenda going on. Aslan is a public apologist for Islam and many commentators have pointed out how similar his view of Jesus is to the traditional view of Mohammad. And as Prof Ehrman (among others) has pointed out, the book is full of errors of fact. Errors that a real scholar would never make.
The frustrating thing is that people lap this stuff up without anything approaching a real understanding of the historical issues involved. The vast majority of NT scholars don’t take this stuff, or Dan Brown, or mythicism seriously at all. But the average person reading these books has no way of knowing that. Dan Brown could have written just as successful a thriller and taken the time to get his facts straight, and Reza Aslan could have written a successful popular book exploring the theory of Jesus as a political rebel and taken the time to get his facts straight.
As far as the actual “Jesus as seditionist” theory goes I thought Paula Fredriksen voiced all the compelling objections. Prof Fredriksen is an interesting NT scholar. She was educated at Princeton and Oxford and is a very well respected. She is a practicing Jew and currently teaches at Hebrew University in Israel. Her work has focused on the Jewish milieu out of which Christianity developed. Her book Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity is excellent and won the National Book Award. Needless to say it sold a small fraction of what Dan Brown’s and Reza Aslan’s epic tomes did.
Stephen said
My problem with Reza Aslan is not that he holds to the “Jesus as seditionist” theory but that he misrepresents his area of expertise (he claims and allows it to be claimed that he’s a “New Testament” scholar when his degree is in sociology of religion and he teaches creative writing) and pretends that he came up with the theory. If he had referenced Reimarus and wrote a book about the idea and why he agrees with it, fine, but there’s clearly an agenda going on. Aslan is a public apologist for Islam and many commentators have pointed out how similar his view of Jesus is to the traditional view of Mohammad. And as Prof Ehrman (among others) has pointed out, the book is full of errors of fact. Errors that a real scholar would never make.The frustrating thing is that people lap this stuff up without anything approaching a real understanding of the historical issues involved. The vast majority of NT scholars don’t take this stuff, or Dan Brown, or mythicism seriously at all. But the average person reading these books has no way of knowing that. Dan Brown could have written just as successful a thriller and taken the time to get his facts straight, and Reza Aslan could have written a successful popular book exploring the theory of Jesus as a political rebel and taken the time to get his facts straight.
Yes, errors there are – but don’t let the errors trump the argument re a ‘zealot’ type Jesus. The arguments for that position, as you acknowledge, go back long before Reza Aslam put pen to paper.
I’m interested in the issue involved here – ‘Jesus as a seditionist’. That Reza Aslan is the man who has written a popular, best selling, book – that’s neither here nor there for me. Dan Brown – never could get past the first page of The Da Vinci Code…did see the movie though…
As for the public just accepting stuff without checking out sources – not good of course. However, if the meme is out there i.e. Jesus was a ‘zealot’, then who knows what it might throw up. It might well turn out to be an idea whose time has come….the genie finally out of the bottle, so to speak….As far as the actual “Jesus as seditionist” theory goes I thought Paula Fredriksen voiced all the compelling objections. Prof Fredriksen is an interesting NT scholar. She was educated at Princeton and Oxford and is a very well respected. She is a practicing Jew and currently teaches at Hebrew University in Israel. Her work has focused on the Jewish milieu out of which Christianity developed. Her book Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity is excellent and won the National Book Award. Needless to say it sold a small fraction of what Dan Brown’s and Reza Aslan’s epic tomes did.
Dale Martin on the Paula Fredricksen criticism of his position – unfortunately short.
First, I think it is nit-picky to say that machaira can also refer to a dagger or “small sword” that would be more like a knife (Paula Fredricksen made this point in the Newsweek article also). It can refer to a small sword, but one need only note the places it occurs even just in the NT to see that it often refers to a sword, and a battle sword at that. In Acts 16:27 it is the weapon used by a jailor; in Rev 6:4 it is even called “a great sword” and is given to an angel for battle; in Rev 13:10 it again refers to a sword a soldier would use in battle. It is commonly translated as “sword.” To say that just in “this case” it refers to a knife is not playing fair with our evidence.
And besides, even if it refers to a small sword or dagger, the evidence I cited from Cicero shows that even that kind of weapon could get even a Roman citizen arrested and punished in Rome. It seems to have been a dagger in that case. But Cicero doesn’t seem to think that is relevant. It is still illegal and dangerous.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
maryhelena, all I can say is what I said before, that I think Fredriksen adequately answers Martin. There is one other thing though. You seem to think that Aslan and Martin are saying the same thing about Jesus and they really aren’t. The apocalyptic prophet ushering in the Kingdom of God is not the same as the Zealot trying to overthrow the Romans and establish an independent Jewish state.
Greg Matthews said As to the Aslan movie all it brings is the sensationalism that audiences demand. The truth be damned. Where are the non wacko scholars who support these ideas? How many times does Bart have to say that mainstream scholarship dismissed Aslan’s ideas decades ago?
You might want to add that Aslan’s ideas have not only dismissed by mainstream scholars, but -I’m drawing this from memory, his understanding of the subject matter is just bad. Somewhere in DJE, Bart refers Aslan’s Nazareth imbroglio. That he made claims that were wholly ignorant of the subject matter and he was corrected by the Nazareth head archaeologist, ken Dark for his lack of knowledge. In short Alsn is not reluctant to let his own ignorance dictate his assesment.
Stephen said
maryhelena, all I can say is what I said before, that I think Fredriksen adequately answers Martin. There is one other thing though. You seem to think that Aslan and Martin are saying the same thing about Jesus and they really aren’t. The apocalyptic prophet ushering in the Kingdom of God is not the same as the Zealot trying to overthrow the Romans and establish an independent Jewish state.
Good point! And a very simple distinction!
What the heck is an idea whose time has come even mean!? it seems new and exciting so forget the facts? Is there any bad idea that some people wont latch onto? A flat earth is an idea whose time has come! WHEW HEWWWWW!
Stephen said
maryhelena, all I can say is what I said before, that I think Fredriksen adequately answers Martin. There is one other thing though. You seem to think that Aslan and Martin are saying the same thing about Jesus and they really aren’t. The apocalyptic prophet ushering in the Kingdom of God is not the same as the Zealot trying to overthrow the Romans and establish an independent Jewish state.
And what is a Jewish state but a ‘kingdom of god’….It’s theocracy not democracy that is at stake…zealots and apocalyptic prophets have the same aim….
Dale Martin:
Abstract
In debating the meaning of Jesus’ arrest and death at Jerusalem, scholars have paid too little attention to normal Roman practices of dealing with persons found armed in public in Rome or other cities under their control. Moreover, the idea that only one or two of Jesus’ disciples were armed has been accepted uncritically in spite of the probability that more or all of them were armed. This article highlights the significance of Jesus’ disciples being armed when he was arrested just outside the walls of Jerusalem, linking that fact with other details from the sources, such as Jesus’ opposition to the temple, the presence of Samaritans among his early followers, the absence of lamb at the last supper, and the fact that he was executed by the Romans as a ‘social rebel’. Jesus led his followers, armed, to Jerusalem to participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(my formatting)
spiker said
What the heck is an idea whose time has come even mean!? it seems new and exciting so forget the facts? Is there any bad idea that some people wont latch onto? A flat earth is an idea whose time has come! WHEW HEWWWWW!
THE ORIGIN OF THE FAMOUS MISQUOTE:
“On resiste a l’invasion des armees; on ne resiste pas a l’invasion des idees.”
Victor Hugo (1802-1885)
French novelist, poet, playwright and historian
The French sentence above is from the final chapter of Hugo’s book Histoire d’un Crime (“The History of a Crime”), his account of the French coup d’état of 1851 that brought Napoleon III to power. It’s the origin of the famous quotation that is commonly, but erroneously attributed to Hugo: “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” (Also cited as “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”) In reality, the literal English translation of the sentence from Hugo’s Histoire d’un Crime is: “One can resist the invasion of armies; one cannot resist the invasion of ideas.” The oft-cited English paraphrase versions were never spoken or written by Hugo.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
spiker said
maryhelena said “Jesus led his followers, armed, to Jerusalem to participate in a heavenly-earthly battle to overthrow the Romans and their high-priestly client rulers of Judea.”
So close and yet so far
Actually, maryhelena never said that. The sentence was taken from the ABSTRACT to an article by Dale Martin.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)