maryhelena said

gavriel said
As it is now possible to dismiss the blind alley opened by maryhelena on the meaningless speculation that Pilate had a very long rule and Gratus a very short one, upholding the solidly based consensus view of Pilate’s ruling period , we might look to the suggestion that Jesus was executed in 36 (referred to by maryhelena /Kokkinos ). This view is based on interpretations of Josephus that cannot be neither rejected nor are they conclusive.

Oh, dear, this is not the way forward in any discussion. ”blind alley”….”meaningless speculation”. Daniel Schwartz is a highly respected Jewish scholar from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In fact not being a christian means he has no vested interest in researching Josephus in connection to the NT. 

An interesting discussion! 

Maryhelena:  I think Gav is correct here. Not only in his argument but also in his descriptions like “blind alley” and “meaningless” speculation. I don’t think he was trying to be disparaging (insulting)  a blind alley is a blind alley and speculation is speculation. It would have been different if he said your argument was retarded or stupid. 

Having never even heard of Schwartz, I’m willing to accept your description; however, whether he is highly respected or not invested, doesn’t make him immune to error.  Gav cited a timeline derived from Paul’s letters. In this context, Paul has no interest either:Determining the time frame of Pilate’s rule. Further, Schwartz, himself, delivers the death blow by asserting that his argument  “would not compromise the traditional chronology of the events of the Gospels and the account of the crucifixion of Jesus...,”

So what do you have left when your own source doesn’t support you?

 

spiker said

maryhelena said

gavriel said
As it is now possible to dismiss the blind alley opened by maryhelena on the meaningless speculation that Pilate had a very long rule and Gratus a very short one, upholding the solidly based consensus view of Pilate’s ruling period , we might look to the suggestion that Jesus was executed in 36 (referred to by maryhelena /Kokkinos ). This view is based on interpretations of Josephus that cannot be neither rejected nor are they conclusive.

Oh, dear, this is not the way forward in any discussion. ”blind alley”….”meaningless speculation”. Daniel Schwartz is a highly respected Jewish scholar from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In fact not being a christian means he has no vested interest in researching Josephus in connection to the NT. 

An interesting discussion! 

Maryhelena:  I think Gav is correct here. Not only in his argument but also in his descriptions like “blind alley” and “meaningless” speculation. I don’t think he was trying to be disparaging (insulting)  a blind alley is a blind alley and speculation is speculation. It would have been different if he said your argument was retarded or stupid. 

Having never even heard of Schwartz, I’m willing to accept your description; however, whether he is highly respected or not invested, doesn’t make him immune to error.  Gav cited a timeline derived from Paul’s letters. In this context, Paul has no interest either:Determining the time frame of Pilate’s rule. Further, Schwartz, himself, delivers the death blow by asserting that his argument  “would not compromise the traditional chronology of the events of the Gospels and the account of the crucifixion of Jesus...,”

So what do you have left when your own source doesn’t support you?

Schwartz, as far as I’m aware, runs with the historical Jesus assumption. Consequently, dating Pilate early does not compromise that assertion i.e. re Schwartz, Pilate was still in Judea re the Lukan chronology.

Schwartz proposes that Pilate was in Judea from around 18 c.e. It is the early dating of Pilate that is of interest  –  not that Pilate was in Judea during a time that fits Lukan chronology.

Why? 1) Because there was a time prior to the writing of the gospel of Luke. A time in which Lukan chronology was not current. i.e. earlier chronology regarding a Jesus crucifixion was possible. An earlier crucifixion chronology that was still causing problems in the time of Eusebius. i.e. the 7th year of Tiberius. 2) The Lukan chronology is not without it’s own problems  –  re Lysanias of Abilene being dated around 40 b.c.e. 3) Conflicting crucifixion dates contributes to the literary make up of the gospel story. i.e. within a literary context the time-frame of a story can be re-set or updated  –  which is what the Lukan writer has done.

gavriel said
** you do not have permission to see this link **: “I don’t believe what I’m reading! We don’t need historical evidence that Aretas IV had ‘temporary control’ of Damascus…………….“

Of course it would be nice to have safe evidence for or against the hypothesis that Aretas had control over Damascus some time during the thirties, to the degree that he could select or influence the selection of a governor.  But that was not my point. My point was that if Aretas was alive during the basket evidence, then 36 CE as the year of execution can be ruled out with very high probability. Some few scholars have tried to fix the possible year of the Basket incident even closer, but this is not commonly accepted. I think that most historians think that Aretas could not be in control over Damascus after 37 CE.  However, if Paul was misinformed, this would not be convincing evidence for dating the basket incident to some time in 36/37.

 

** you do not have permission to see this link **: “Sufficient to accept….” Not in my book….Wishful thinking has no place when attempting to discern what is and what is not history.“

Then you have to prove why it is wishful thinking. Is it reasonable to believe that Christianity spread to Damascus during one year  following  the crucifixion and that Paul started his persecution campaign  and during that same period had his conversion experience?  Then he could theoretically be referring to Aretas during his last year alive. But this is not very likely. Every Pauline scholar I have read assumes more time between execution  and conversion.

History requires more than words on a page  –  words are open to being misinterpreted, open to being misunderstood. If an argument is based on nothing but words on a page then one is not presenting an historical argument. Making assumptions about Paul when one can’t even establish historicity for this figure is not doing history. It is doing apologetics.

The NT is a Christian origin story. It is a romanticized origin story. A man, a nobody, a poor illiterate itinerant carpenter preacher gets himself crucified. His followers bestow his death with theology etc. The nobody preacher becomes the sinless savior of the world. Great as fantasy but devoid of any rationality. Christianity did not prosper because it was a fantasy  –  it prospered because at it’s core it was reflecting Jewish history. It would only be when Jewish history became lost to memory that its NT reflection became viewed as the historical reality. Today, we have no excuse. Jewish history is available to anyone able to open a history book.

Science has debunked the Adam and Eve story. Jewish history can debunk the historical Jesus assumption. Jewish history has all the evidence needed to demonstrate the literary nature of the NT story.

A socio-economic message?  People might join a socio-economic movement with the hope of it realizing it’s aims. What is the historical evidence that a social gospel achieved success in lst century Palestine? None that I know of.  And now, almost 2000 years later  –  what success has the NT as a social gospel achieved? Zero success.  Consequently, it seems to me, to be a bit problematic to assume that a social gospel was the reason that Christianity flourished. The poor, said Jesus, will always be with you  –  indicating that removing poverty via a socio-economic gospel was not his message. Rather, he left it to individuals to help the poor   –  as Bart Ehrman is doing with his charity. 

Christianity is not a social gospel  –  if that is what it claimed to be   –  then historical evidence of 2000 years would be it’s death knell. Christianity has no monopoly on good works. Good works are not it’s defining characteristic. What are? A man on a cross; death and resurrection. Reading the NT as theology or philosophy is one thing   –  but we can’t translate that theological story into a historical story without compromising our humanity. Human sacrifice is abhorrent. Belief in resurrection is anti-scientific.  While it’s scholarly to keep the man on a cross and ditch the resurrection that is not the approach of the average Christian with hope of an afterlife. However, if we, today, can separate theology from reality  –  we can’t assume that the NT writers were unable to do likewise.  The NT death and resurrection story is a story of salvation within a very specific context  –  theology. Or to be more precise, an intellectual context. Within an intellectual context death and resurrection of ideas is the method of intellectual evolution. Sacrificial death and resurrection within physical reality is anti-humanitarian and un-scientific. 

 Christianity has survived because it is the mother of heretics. It has kept throwing up heretical idea  –  good, bad and indifferent. That’s it’s internal strength  –  heresy. It’s an intellectual roller-coaster….;-)

However, if we want to search for early christian origins we have to get behind the story  –  we have to deal with history.

gavriel said
maryhelena said

You have admitted that you have no historical evidence that Aretas IV controlled Damascus. You then proceed to make one assumption after another expecting me to entertain your argument. An argument based on wishful thinking. The discussion regarding Aretas IV ended when you admitted that you have no historical evidence that he controlled Damascus. I’m interested in history as it is reflected in the NT story. History is primary. History cannot be replaced by assumptions. One needs to touch first base before one can develop scenarios about how history has been used in the NT story.

Thomas Brodie not a serious scholar? Is a serious scholar only a scholar who confirms your own views?

 

The scholars are divided  over this issue. Have a look at the revised Schürer(** you do not have permission to see this link **), Vol 2 on the history of Damascus. They are quite open for the possibility that there was a short period  with such control, taking Paul as a primary source that is not contradicted by any other source.  It may be that Paul was misinformed, but from his letters it appears that he had some kind of long-standing attachment to this city.

Maybe leave it there then  –  the scholars are divided.

But this is not the main point. A minimum interpretation of Paul’s statement is that Aretas was alive  during the basket episode. This means that if  the assumptions that I listed hold, then they rule out CE 36 and later years as the year of crucifixion.

I’m an ahistoricist/mythicist. Hence, I don’t have to choose any specific date for the crucifixion story. I can deal with all of the dates. 36 c.e. is not ruled out. It’s one date among others. None of which can be ruled out i.e. they are dates that can be calculated, one way or another, from the available sources. Multiple dates speak to story updates.

Paul himself writes that he waited 3 years before visiting the twelve. It is simply incredible that the time span from crucifixion until  Paul’s anti-christian campaign ended in his conversion, in as little as one year.  The basket episode would have to have taken place after the Jerusalem visit, by implication, and is comfirmed by Acts (9:25), which describes it as something happening by means of Paul’s disciples. Luke has rearranged the chronology implied in Paul’s letters in many places, but has here kept the basic point, namely that it happened during his missionary efforts involving his disciples. These are all reasonable “assumptions”, accepted by the overwhelming majority of NT scholars.

Paul in a basket over the wall of Damascus  –  could be echoes here of Jericho….

———

 “History is primary. History cannot be replaced by assumptions.”  In fact it is opposite. History is unknown in most respects, and historians try to reconstruct it using reasonable assumptions based on primary sources like archaeology and   ancient writings.  Since they all are un-precise and/or  contradicting and/or lacking there will always be more or less reasonable assumptions to be made.

Primary sources come first then the assumptions can follow. i.e. a narrative can be built up from primary evidence. One can’t be making historical assumptions without primary sources. Ancient writings are important but words can deceive as well as they can throw light. With the gospel story, in particular, concrete evidence has to be evident before one can proceed to build a historical scenario. That is why I question theories that take a character from Josephus and connect that Josephan character to the gospel story. Without concrete evidence for historicity one is simply building upon sand. The historical figures that I believe are reflected in the gospel story have concrete evidence to support their historicity. Coins. Hasmonean and Herodian coins. 

gavreil said

If you have a mythicist position, why the heck do you go into a debate about what is the the probable age of Jesus, provided the sources reflect a historical person?

Some people might decide that Jesus is not historical and walk away from the gospel story. I’ve never done that. The fact that, to me, Jesus is ahistorical, is all the more reason to investigate the gospel story.

You yourself make all sorts of impossible assumptions in your monotonous repetitions of Jesus as a literary fiction built on a historical first  century BCE figure of Jewish history, popping up in every debate, bearing all the hallmarks of a dilettantish hobby-horse.

Assumptions  –  maybe  –  but they are assumptions based upon historical facts i.e. Hasmonean and Jewish history. I’ve seen no historical facts behind your Jesus assumption.

I’m talking about the probable year of Jesus’ crucifixion, provided Paul is not offering parables when he seem to talk about real persons and situations around him, during his life time. That is a sound assumption, and it is good science to list every assumption made.To  the assumptions made so far, we may add the Gallio-incident of Acts, taking place after the “Jerusalem Conference”. Using Paul’s comment about “fourteen years later” (added to the three before the Jerusalem visit), then it is clear that Paul thinks the crucifixion took place well before 32 CE. To come closer than that, we have to bring in other sources, the Gospel material and then try to detect what is not legendary in them.

You can make ‘monotonous repetitions’ about the NT Paul until kingdom come and they will do nothing for your assumptions about a historical Jesus. Nothing.  No different, so it seems to me, than any mythicist; they want to use Paul to discredit the gospel story  –  you want to use Paul to prove the gospel story. Well   –  bad luck to both of your arguments. For both of your arguments, the mythicist and the historicist, Paul is a diversion that leads to a cul-du-sac. I’m not about to play any games with Paul as the trump card.

One may contest this, for instance “assume” that when Paul speaks about his visit to Peter and James in Jerusalem, it was in fact an allegory or a report from a mystic’s experience of an adventure into a religious dream world. This is a possible “assumption”, but a rather silly one.

You know what, there was a time before Paul. That is the time we should be considering. A time even before pen was put to paper. What happened in that time? What would people living at that pre Paul time remember of their history? Would they be memories of an illiterate, wandering, carpenter preacher who got executed by Rome? Or would the talk, the memories, be of something much more important to their daily lives? Millions of people today remember exactly where they were when John Kennedy was assassinated  – whether they actually heard the news on the radio or they heard it by word of mouth. They might forget the exact year or month  –  but they remember that John Kennedy was assassinated. And on the 50th anniversary of his assassination America remembered it’s fallen leader. Likewise, the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, executed via a paid assassin, would be a part of public awareness. Memories also of the horrendous, brutal siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.e. when Herod’s soldiers acted like madmen. 

People remember the historical events that shaped their lives. What were the options for Jews wanting to remember Antigonus.? Public memorials or public displays would not be possible under Rome or the Herods. Storytelling, that old standby of the Jews, was an obvious way to do so. Under occupation the Irish wrote songs. Under occupation those Jews wanting to remember Antigonus wrote a story. A story in which his Roman execution became the template for the crucifixion of the story’s central character.

Oh, as to Kennedy and the 50th anniversary of his assassination. Here in the UK it was also remembered. The BBC radio program featured a man who had played the bagpipes at Kennedy’s funeral  –  playing Danny Boy. Enjoy the video  –  let your memories run back to that sorrowful day. 

** you do not have permission to see this link **

Greg Matthews said

maryhelena said

You can make ‘monotonous repetitions’ about the NT Paul until kingdom come and they will do nothing for your assumptions about a historical Jesus. Nothing.  No different, so it seems to me, than any mythicist; they want to use Paul to discredit the gospel story  –  you want to use Paul to prove the gospel story. Well   –  bad luck to both of your arguments. For both of your arguments, the mythicist and the historicist, Paul is a diversion that leads to a cul-du-sac. I’m not about to play any games with Paul as the trump card.

I’m absolutely certain that you are being intentionally obtuse.  You’ve got 2 mythicists in the entire world who have more than a high school education.  People with college degrees deny the holocaust.  It doesn’t make it true no matter how much “proof” they come up with.

I really don’t know what your point is here…

The proof that Paul offers is not assumptions.  Any claim to the contrary is asinine.  Josephus makes tons of statements that you seem to have no issue with.  What is it about Paul that makes you lose the ability to think rationally?

Paul, I’ve no problem with Paul! I simply keep Paul in his place  –  as secondary to the gospel story. My focus is the gospel story. 

As to Josephus  –  you really don’t know me at all. Compared to getting the mind of Josephus   –  reading the gospel writers is a piece of cake! As for understanding and searching for early christian origins  –  Josephus is where it’s at  –  albeit a minefield that endangers ones footfall every inch of the way….

Next to Steefan you’re now my second favorite poster.

Why, just why, go down this route of sarcastic belittlement? 

maryhelena said
Why, just why, go down this route of sarcastic belittlement? 

Well Maryhelena since your responses amount to what one might call the nuht uhhhh defense and lack even a pretense of thoughtfulness, I dont see why you should expect anything else. You have skillfully avoided opportunities to make your case, have spent more time worrying about things like undercurrents . One has to wonder if you even know what evidence is(HINT: it’s not an undercurrent of disdain). Not one probing question or thoughtful response, no thoughtful critique of the available evidence; thus while I goaded you with the idea that all mythicists wear the same tin hat, the only thing you could come up with was the idea that not all historicists had halos; as if that could even be momentarily meaningful. A pure “well, nuht uhh” argument.

You seem to base your acceptance of a given theory on how it sounds rather than consideration of the evidence: The idea that John’s burial story is the earliest. According to what evidence? a table showing nothing other than the differing details in storyline!?  If you’re going to be honest, you might as well stop calling yourself an ahistoricist and simply say your an argumentitivist.