Robert said
Steefen, sorry but your views of the composition of the gospels and 1 Cor 11 are completely untenable by the overwhelming majority of critical scholars.
Because … ?
Besides, you cannot cite a majority of scholars who have studied the argument and have published a response.
Your response is not a thoughtful one, it is poor appeal to consensus when the consensus has not thought about the argument.
You have no grounds to say it is completely untenable or to claim others hold it to be completely untenable.
The only reason it would be untenable is if it brings the study of the New Testament and Roman Catholicism to Game Over.
Robert
the difficulty Paul’s letters pose for your theory of a composite historical Jesus who was not messianic until the time of the Judean war. In order for you to advance this theory, you need to speak about your views of the authorship and chronology of the thoroughly messianic letters of Paul.
Steefen
You got your answer how there is no difficulty posed by Paul’s letters because the dating of Paul was pushed back in time just as Jesus was pushed back decades in time.
Steefen
No, Robert, it is not just the gospels and 1 Corinthians. It is anywhere there is power in the blood of Jesus.
Righteousness through Faith (in the blood of Jesus)
…23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 25God presented Him as an atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand
Romans 3rd chapter
I have gained the unmerited favor of God
“In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.” (Ephesians 1:7)
= = =
The blood of Son of Earth/Son of Man/Gaius Julius Caesar whose blood-stained robe was waved over mourners by Marc Antony.
The blood of the Samaritan Redeemer given the death penalty by Pontius Pilate.
The blood of Jesus of Galilee during the time of the Jewish Revolt.
Whatever blood flowed from the crucified man by the permission of a future emperor (General Titus), Josephus took down from the cross allowing the man to survive crucifixion because he was given the best of care Josephus could provide.
Robert
There’s no argument that even merits a published response. It’s all crazy ideas put forward by cranks, as even someone as fringe as Richard Carrier tried to tell you.
Steefen
I have not corresponded with Richard Carrier for at least two years, probably more; so, whatever he had to say would be outdated in reference to two or more years of study and more on my part.
Second, Richard Carrier and I corresponded about the book Caesar’s Messiah, not about the dating of the gospel of Mark against the Autobiography of Josephus.
And, as I said above, I have moved on to new information since I read Caesar’s Messiah, more than two and a half years ago. Furthermore, I did not give Caesar’s Messiah by Joseph Atwill a 5-star review, anyway. A minority of the chapters of his book I graded A or A+. The majority were F, D, or C resulting in a 2 out of 5 star review.
If Richard Carrier is a member of these forums without revealing his real identity, that is another thing.
The topic is the dating of the gospel of Mark against the autobiography of Josephus, the Jewish Civil War, and the Jewish Revolt (including the destruction of the Temple).
You were in error and get a penalty for putting forth that the importance of the blood of Jesus in Pauline Christianity is limited to the last Passover Supper of the Biblical Jesus. I showed what everyone knows: the importance of Jesus’ blood also appears in Romans and Ephesians.
A quick check of the list of authentic letters of Paul shows 1 Corinthians and Romans are two of the seven authentic letters of Paul.
Ephesians (not deemed to be an authentic letter of Paul)
Wikipedia:
While most English translations indicate that the letter was addressed to “the saints who are in Ephesus” (1:1), the words “in Ephesus” do not appear in the best and earliest manuscripts of the letter, leading most textual critics, like Bart Ehrman, to regard the words as an interpolation. This lack of any internal references to Ephesus in the early manuscripts may have led Marcion, a second-century heresiarch who created the first New Testament canon, to believe that the letter was actually addressed to the church at Laodicea, for details see Epistle to the Laodiceans. … The content of the letter seems to suggest a similar socio-critical context to the Laodicean church mentioned in the Revelation of John.
Furthermore, if Paul is regarded as the author, the impersonal character of the letter, which lacks personal greetings or any indication that the author has personal knowledge of his recipients, is incongruous with the account in Acts of Paul staying more than two years in Ephesus. For these reasons, most regard Ephesians to be a circular letter intended for many churches. The Jerusalem Bible notes that some critics think the words “who are …” would have been followed by a blank to be filled in with the name of “whichever church was being sent the letter”.
Scholars who dispute Paul’s authorship date the letter to between 70–80 AD. In the latter case, the possible location of the authorship could have been within the church of Ephesus itself.
= = =
1 Corinthians
Wikipedia
By comparing Acts of the Apostles 18:1–17 and mentions of Ephesus in the Corinthian correspondence, scholars suggest that the letter [1 Cor] was written during Paul’s stay in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of AD 53–57.
Steefen
Given the lack of agreement between Acts and the Letters of Paul and given the Corinthian correspondence not being an authentic letter of Paul, if Cor correspondence refers to 1 Cor as an inclusion, look for additional foundations for dating 1 Cor. before AD 70, if that is even plausible, now.
= = =
You brought up 1 Cor 11 about the Lord’s Supper
but
1 Cor Chapter 15 should be brought up about the natural explanation of the resurrection where Paul speaks of the Resurrection which he cannot write a letter about until Josephus arranges for the three crucified men to be taken down from their crosses, given care, and one survives.
What is intriguing is whether or not the Dead Sea Scrolls point to an Evil One who before AD 70 makes religion out of blood and fictional resurrection of the Samaritan Redeemer and that is rolled into the Jesus of Galilee and Joseph’s aid to the three crucified of AD 69 – AD 70.
Points for consideration against “the historical Redeemer given the death penalty by Pilate” proceeding to the Biblical Jesus BEFORE AD 70:
The Samaritan Redeemer did not have a last Passover supper where he asked that his body and blood be remembered. There would be no tie-in to the cannibalism of the Jewish Civil War and Jewish Revolt.
The Samaritan Redeemer is not an apocalyptic prophet. He is a redeemer.
Resurrect the Samaritan Redeemer by poetic/literary license as a Jewish Messiah to block the probability that Paul is a fictional character writing letters who has been back dated decades before AD 70 AD 71.
Then you have a Samaritan Redeemer who gives you anticipation of his death by betrayal of Jews (opponents of the Samaritans) and Pontius Pilate but you do not get a Samaritan Redeemer/Messiah who foresaw the destruction of the Temple. The Samaritan Redeemer would not have been brought before Herod Antipas.
Besides the Samaritan Redeemer was not a Galilean.
It is highly unlikely that history can give us anything other than Jesus and Paul backdated thus fictionalizing them.
So now Jesus is Caesar? Not Horus or Mithras?
Carrier can be hard to keep up with. Always a new theory. When the old one gets discredited.
Dating of Mark has nothing to do with Jesus being a metaphor for Caesar, which makes less sense than any theory I have ever heard on any subject in my entire life.
godspell said
So now Jesus is Caesar? Not Horus or Mithras?Carrier can be hard to keep up with. Always a new theory. When the old one gets discredited.
Dating of Mark has nothing to do with Jesus being a metaphor for Caesar, which makes less sense than any theory I have ever heard on any subject in my entire life.
Yes, as explained above with more supportive claims and evidence not shown above.
I am not keeping up with Carrier. It has been at least more than three years since I looked at Carrier’s website or a youtube video of him giving a lecture.
What makes less sense than any theory you have ever head on any subject in your entire life? When a gospel is dated, it is dated at completion. You have misconstrued.
You were in error and get a penalty…
Robert, since Steefen has “the unmerited favor of God” you’re in deep doo doo, my brother.
godspell said
So now Jesus is Caesar?
Jeepers where have you been all this time? This is Steefen’s basic contention since waaaaay back. That the figure of Jesus was invented, based on the life of Julius Caesar!
Hell, I bet you don’t even know that all the dirt on earth came from outer space. (See what you’ve been missing?) Go back and get caught up.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
There is actually some doubt as to whether Paul believed in anything like the later church doctrine of Transubstantiation. Augustine denied that people were literally digesting Jesus’ flesh and blood, centuries later. Catholics in particular deny that he denied it, but he pretty clearly denied it.
Jesus was quoted as saying something that he may or may not have said (I’m guessing he did), that he may not may not have meant literally (I doubt he did), and people had to try and make sense of it. Some chose to take it literally, but a very large number of influential Christian writers made it very clear, it was meant symbolically, and spiritually–people knew the difference between the taste and texture of meat and bread.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
(And why, may we ask, if he meant to be taken literally, didn’t Jesus take up a piece of paschal lamb, instead of a piece of bread? He certainly did seem to be drawing a parallel between himself and the sacrificed meat animal, but no Christian church I’m aware of has ever offered meat in communion.)
The literal interpretations of some theists. The literal interpretations of some atheists.
Equally stupid.
I don’t quite understand how there can be this long of a discussion about Mark 13 without any mention of Daniel. Is there really any debate that the Olivet Discourse was a callback to Daniel?
As to Zeichmann’s argument on coinage, it seems to entirely reliant on the (lack of) archaeological findings in Judea and the assumption that Mark was written in Palestine or the Lower Levant; there are quite a few presumptions built into this argument when attempting to use it as a dating tool.
vergari said
I don’t quite understand how there can be this long of a discussion about Mark 13 without any mention of Daniel. Is there really any debate that the Olivet Discourse was a callback to Daniel?
Daniel Chapter 7
…12As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was removed, but they were granted an extension of life for a season of time.
13In my vision in the night I continued to watch: And I saw One like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence.
14And He was given dominion, glory, and kingship, so that every people, nation, and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.…
= = =
Does it call forward to a successful revolt against Rome in the first century or early second century?
How has this vision in the Hebrew Bible manifested within Judaism?
The help from one like a son of man coming with the clouds of Heaven did what to stop the Jewish Civil War and did what to keep Herodians and Jews from siding with Rome when given a choice after rebel bandits attacked the Roman Legion 12 Fulminata?
Does Daniel speak of two Sons of Man (Jesus and a third person Son of Man, likely Vespasian or Titus, Non-Hebrews)?
The Daniel scripture evolves by the time we get to the completed manuscripts of the gospels. By that time, Josephus declared Vespasian the fulfillment of scripture. When Jesus and Stephen say they see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, it is Son of Man / Son of Earth / Gaius = Rome who is seated next to the God of the Hebrews (and the Jewish priests mourned that).
Steefen said
vergari said
I don’t quite understand how there can be this long of a discussion about Mark 13 without any mention of Daniel. Is there really any debate that the Olivet Discourse was a callback to Daniel?Daniel Chapter 7
…12As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was removed, but they were granted an extension of life for a season of time.
13In my vision in the night I continued to watch: And I saw One like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence.
14And He was given dominion, glory, and kingship, so that every people, nation, and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.…
= = =
Does it call forward to a successful revolt against Rome in the first century or early second century?
How has this vision in the Hebrew Bible manifested within Judaism?
The help from one like a son of man coming with the clouds of Heaven did what to stop the Jewish Civil War and did what to keep Herodians and Jews from siding with Rome when given a choice after rebel bandits attacked the Roman Legion 12 Fulminata?
Does Daniel speak of two Sons of Man (Jesus and a third person Son of Man, likely Vespasian or Titus, Non-Hebrews)?
The Daniel scripture evolves by the time we get to the completed manuscripts of the gospels. By that time, Josephus declared Vespasian the fulfillment of scripture. When Jesus and Stephen say they see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power, it is Son of Man / Son of Earth / Gaius = Rome who is seated next to the God of the Hebrews (and the Jewish priests mourned that).
Is this the Joseph Atwill hypothesis? that the “Son of man” in Mark is one of the Flavian emperors? I don’t like necessarily dismissing things out of hand, but even Price and Carrier have mocked this hypothesis.
A problem here is that, among the 8 known manuscript fragments of Daniels and Qumran authors quoting from Daniel (labeling it as scripture) from the second half of the second century BCE — all in the Dead Sea Scrolls, we have fragments which include Daniel 8:17 and much of the apocalypse from Daniel 9: 6Q7 from Cave 6 and 4Q116 from Cave 4. The 6Q7 fragment, which dates to the Herodian period (37 BCE to 73 CE) and is conventionally dated to approximately 50 CE, includes the express reference to the “son of man.” And, the 4Q117 fragment, which generally dates to the Hasmonean period (168 to 63 BCE), includes the apocalyptic destruction of Jerusalem.
As to Daniel 7, we have not yet found manuscript fragments from 7:12-14. But we do have the immediately preceding passage, Daniel 7:11 in ** you do not have permission to see this link **, in a fragment from Cave 4 (pictured below), dating to the Herodian period and generally accept as being composed no later (at the very latest) than 50 CE.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Finally, Daniel Chapter 12 (which we have not yet found in Dead Sea Scroll manuscript fragments) is quoted from in a Hebrew Midrash on the Last Days also found in Cave 4 and dating to the Herodian period.
It is to the point of near scientific impossibility that Book of Daniel existing by no later than 50 CE, and almost certainly at the time of composition of Mark, was missing the elements of the Son of Man and/or the apocalyptic destruction of Jerusalem. Could the “Son of man” referenced by Daniel (in whatever form it existed at that point) be a reference to Vespasian or any other Flavian emperor?
Well, Vespasian, as of the year 50 CE, was in Britannia, completing his conquest, and had never once set foot in Judea. Titus was 11 years old. And Domition was yet to be born. So, I think it’s rather safe to say that the “Son of man” in Daniel was not a Flavian emperor.
Vergari
Could the “Son of man” referenced by Daniel (in whatever form it existed at that point) be a reference to Vespasian or any other Flavian emperor?
Steefen
Yes. As Josephus pulled the Star Prophecy / Star of Bethlehem Prophecy to Vespasian, the Daniel reference can be applied to him as well.
Steefen said
Vergari
Price has mocked this Atwill’s hypothesis.Steefen
You are in error because currently Dr. Price agrees with Atwill.
This is what Price wrote in 2006 regarding the Flavian conspiracy:
Atwill claims he has learned to read the esoteric secrets of the gospels, whereby they are seen as black-comedic satires of events in the Jewish War. For instance, when Jesus offers his flesh for consumption at the Last Supper, it is “really” a wink to the reader who is somehow supposed to think of a passage in Josephus set during the Roman siege, when a woman eats the roasted flesh of her own infant. When Jesus offers to make his disciples fishers of men, the line is supposed to sardonically anticipate a wartime episode in which the Romans picked off fleeing Jewish rebels swimming in the Lake of Galilee. Thinking his method justified by comparison to the ancient practice of scriptural typology, Atwill gives himself license to indulge in the most outrageous display of “parallelomania” ever seen.
He connects widely separated dots and collects sets of incredibly far-fetched verbal correspondences, from gospel to gospel and between the gospels and Josephus, then uses them to create ostensible parallel accounts. Then he declares himself justified in borrowing names, themes, and intended references from one “parallel” account and reading them into the other, thus supplying “missing” features. Triumphantly, Atwill defies the reader to call it all coincidence, working out the math to show such correspondences could never be the product of chance.
Well, of course they are not. They are the product of his own arbitrary gematria in the first place. “That the wicked man in the Fulvia story can be seen as a lampoon of Paul seems difficult to dispute,” unless of course one forgot to pick up a pair of 3-D glasses on the way into the theatre. Again, Atwill hammers home the “parallel” between Josephus’ story of a Jewish matron, Paulina, tricked into sleeping with a deceiver, Decius Mundus, claiming to be Anubis incarnate, on the one hand, and that of the supposed deception of disguising Titus as the god Jesus, on the other. What do they have in common?
Josephus says Decius came forward to gloat, revealing the hoax three days later, while the adjacent Testimonium Flavianum of Josephus says Jesus was seen alive again three days after his crucifixion. “There is, of course, a difference. Whereas Jesus appears on the third day to show that he is a God, Decius appears on the third day to announce that he is not a god. [But] It is implausible that something as unusual as two ‘third-day divinity declarations’ would wind up next to one another by chance.” But there is no declaration of divinity in either case! As Atwill notes, Decius declares the opposite, while Josephus (or whoever wrote the Testimonium passage) says nothing of Jesus or anyone else declaring him divine as a result of the resurrection. Of such airy bricks is Atwill’s cloudy castle built.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen said
Vergari
Could the “Son of man” referenced by Daniel (in whatever form it existed at that point) be a reference to Vespasian or any other Flavian emperor?Steefen
Yes. As Josephus pulled the Star Prophecy / Star of Bethlehem Prophecy to Vespasian, the Daniel reference can be applied to him as well.
I ** you do not have permission to see this link ** that we actually have surviving manuscripts of Daniel, referencing the “son of man” and destruction of Jerusalem, which pre-date Vespasian’s entry into Jerusalem by (at the very least) more than a decade.
So, I must ask, are you suggesting that the actual author of Daniel had a time machine?
You are still in error, your evidence is not supported by Price himself, your evidence has been rejected: outdated quotes are inconsistent with Price’s current views.
= = =
One Like a Son of Man Reference: Daniel Chapter 7
Daniel’s Vision of the Ancient of Days
12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was removed, but they were granted an extension of life for a season of time.
13 In my vision in the night I continued to watch: And I saw One like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence.
14 And He was given dominion, glory, and kingship, so that every people, nation, and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.…
= = =
Maybe when you say Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, you are referring to Daniel Chapter 9.
24 Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
25 Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah, the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of distress.
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed.…
= = =
Steefen said
You are still in error, your evidence is not supported by Price himself, your evidence has been rejected: outdated quotes are inconsistent with Price’s current views.
This is simply (and merely) a case of poor reading comprehension. My contention was quite simple: “even Price and Carrier have mocked this hypothesis.” Note the use of past perfect tense: “have mocked.” It is a matter of fact that Price mocked Atwill’s hypothesis in 2006. That Price may have changed his view over time doesn’t rewrite history.
Steefen said
One Like a Son of Man Reference: Daniel Chapter 7Daniel’s Vision of the Ancient of Days
12 As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was removed, but they were granted an extension of life for a season of time.
13 In my vision in the night I continued to watch: And I saw One like a Son of Man coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence.
14 And He was given dominion, glory, and kingship, so that every people, nation, and language should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.…
= = =
Maybe when you say Daniel foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, you are referring to Daniel Chapter 9.
24 Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to stop their transgression, to put an end to sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
25 Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, until the Messiah, the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of distress.
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah will be cut off and will have nothing. Then the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood, and until the end there will be war; desolations have been decreed.…
= = =
Are you suggesting that the material from Daniel 9 in the Dead Sea Scrolls was written after the destruction of the Second Temple by Vespasian and Titus?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)