Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reconstructing the Historical Jesus
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 91 of 560 (466129)
05-13-2008 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by GDR
05-13-2008 2:20 AM


quote:
I can't prove how accurate they are. How can you prove how accurate Josephus or any other ancient text is? I
You'd consider the author's agenda, biases, sources and agreement with other data. Unfortunately we have very little that would let us do that very well with the Gospels.
quote:
Actually if you think about it, if the resurrection is not historical then it is obvious that the writers weren't inspired. If however the resurrection is an actual historic event it isn't a stretch at all to believe that the writers were inspired by God.
Which just shows how much your assumption that the Gospels are the "inspired word of God" biases your evaluation of the data.
quote:
It is clear from the texts that they had no messianic expectations after the crucifixion. They just went back to their fishing etc. Most of them didn't even hang around for the crucifixion.
Eh ? All the Gospels pretty much agree that they remained in Jerusalem. Matthew has them going to Galille under Jesus' (post-resurrection) instructions, relayed by Mary Magdalene. Luke leaves out this instruction and doesn't have them going further than Emmaus until they see Jesus - and they don't go to Galilee at all. John has Jesus appearing to them in Jerusalem and only later are they fishing in Galilee. The only way to get your version would be to ignore Matthew, Luke and chapter 20 of John. Is that how you treat the "inspired word of God" ?
quote:
Most of the apocalyptic expectations seem to have resolved around the destruction of the temple.
You're kidding, right ? It's in Matthew, Luke and Revelation - all written after the destruction. 2 Peter (maybe as late as 160 AD) indicates that the idea was becoming embarrassing, but obviously it was still believed enough that it was necessary to argue that "soon" didn't really mean "soon".
quote:
Nobody as far as I know was suggesting any particular day or year.
And I didn't say that they had a prediction to the day or even year. But they were expecting it in the near future - within the lifetime of at least some of the Disciples. And as 2 Peter reminds us - it didn't happen.
quote:
Here is the web site of "The Jesus Seminar". You can make up your own mind whether or not it had a liberal bias from the outset.
You're moving the goalposts. You specifically said that thety were biased against miracles. Liberal Christians simply lack a strong bias in favour of Christian miracles. Not the same thing at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by GDR, posted 05-13-2008 2:20 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-13-2008 10:48 AM PaulK has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 92 of 560 (466165)
05-13-2008 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by PaulK
05-13-2008 7:44 AM


PaulK writes:
You'd consider the author's agenda, biases, sources and agreement with other data. Unfortunately we have very little that would let us do that very well with the Gospels.
Wouldn't that be the same with any ancient text? Nobody writes without bias. I have a bias and you have a bias. If you want to learn about Jesus it seems to me that you learn about Him from those who knew Him. I know that the disciples didn't write the books themselves but they were the sources for the information.
PaulK writes:
Which just shows how much your assumption that the Gospels are the "inspired word of God" biases your evaluation of the data.
Just as you have your bias. I was agnostic until my mid 30's so my bias changed. Tio be honest, after reading both sides of the argument I have an even stronger bias. So what?
Eh ? All the Gospels pretty much agree that they remained in Jerusalem. Matthew has them going to Galille under Jesus' (post-resurrection) instructions, relayed by Mary Magdalene. Luke leaves out this instruction and doesn't have them going further than Emmaus until they see Jesus - and they don't go to Galilee at all. John has Jesus appearing to them in Jerusalem and only later are they fishing in Galilee. The only way to get your version would be to ignore Matthew, Luke and chapter 20 of John. Is that how you treat the "inspired word of God" ?
I was only referring to the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection.
You're kidding, right ? It's in Matthew, Luke and Revelation - all written after the destruction. 2 Peter (maybe as late as 160 AD) indicates that the idea was becoming embarrassing, but obviously it was still believed enough that it was necessary to argue that "soon" didn't really mean "soon".
In my initial post I agreed that there was a belief that time as we know it would end within a generation. Why quote me out of context?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2008 7:44 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by PaulK, posted 05-13-2008 2:22 PM GDR has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 93 of 560 (466202)
05-13-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by GDR
05-13-2008 10:48 AM


quote:
Wouldn't that be the same with any ancient text?
No, we often have a better idea of who the author is.
quote:
Nobody writes without bias.
SInce I explicitly listed the author's biases as something that should be included when assessing the reliability of the text I wonder what your point is.
quote:
If you want to learn about Jesus it seems to me that you learn about Him from those who knew Him. I know that the disciples didn't write the books themselves but they were the sources for the information.
However, it's far from clear to what degree they were sources or how directly. And that is something we would want to know. We've got some important disagreements between the Gospels (e.g. Luke's account of the post-Resurrection appearances versus Matthew's) which don't seem to be consistent with both coming directly from people who were there. Let alone with both being the product of some "Divine Inspiration" that guarantees reliability.
quote:
Just as you have your bias. I was agnostic until my mid 30's so my bias changed. Tio be honest, after reading both sides of the argument I have an even stronger bias. So what?
Bias makes your conclusions unreliable. I resist mine. You seem to embrace yours.
(And I can certainly agree that your bias is likely to have got stronger - it would probably need to). And it is certainly not valid to baselessly accuse others of bias just to discredit their conclusions as you have done repeatedly in this thread..
quote:
I was only referring to the time between the crucifixion and the resurrection.
That was less than 72 hours. None of the Gospels say that the Disciples did anything much in that time, and even Mark implies that they were still in Jerusalem at the end of that time. Given that John 21 (which INCLUDES a post-Resurrection appearance) is the only thing that suggests anything similar it looks as if my initial assessment is more accurate.
quote:
In my initial post I agreed that there was a belief that time as we know it would end within a generation. Why quote me out of context?
I didn't quote you out of context. Here's the whole paragraph as proof.
Most of the apocalyptic expectations seem to have resolved around the destruction of the temple. I think that Paul believed that "New Creation" would happen in the relatively near future but Jesus made the point that no one would know the hour or the minute. Nobody as far as I know was suggesting any particular day or year.
The additional text does not contradict my reading. It reaffirms and emphasises it. It does not admit that the belief that the end would come within a generation persisted for any length of time after the destruction of the Temple. By associating such beliefs with Paul (who is believed to have died some time before the destruction) - and Paul alone - it only emphasises your assertion to the contrary. Thus your accusation that I quoted you out of context is an obvious falsehood.
(In fact the word "generation" appears in exactly one of your previous posts - in a quote of Grizz).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by GDR, posted 05-13-2008 10:48 AM GDR has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 94 of 560 (466247)
05-13-2008 10:17 PM


GDR,
The question I am posing is: what does the Jesus of History look like when freed from the trappings of established theology and dogma? Without theologians and their institutions to define for us who Jesus was and is, what can we conclude? Who is Jesus without Paul, Marcion, Martin Luther, or the Pope?
In short, if you read the documents without someone else interpreting them for you, what do you see?
Some musings and a bit of history:
If you are a Christian or were brought up a Christian, you soon realize that you could not fly solo when it comes to understanding scripture or understanding Jesus. One must be 'guided' and this means one must also have availability to the sages and seers who interpret the scriptures. This is not something exclusive to Christianity; It doesn't matter if you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Buddhist, someone will always be needed to answer the inevitable questions: what?, why?, how?, and when?. In addition to the sacred texts, we will always need those who have attained the status of enlightenment to interpret the meaning of these texts and lead the way.
We rely heavily on these individuals and their mojo to counter any claims of contradictions and define the ambiguous in absolute terms we can all relate to. Of course, there will always be those pesky individuals who claim "No no no !, you are wrong !, the scriptures clearly tell us that...." The institutions that gave rise to orthodoxy have been a direct result of such disputes about Jesus. Today, these institutions have various names: Catholicism, Protestantism, Seventh-Day Adventism, and Baptists. The byproduct of such institutions is what we call dogma and the dogma becomes just as scared as the texts themselves. Often, dogma and the resulting pomp and circumstance upstages the texts themselves.
If the follower of any religions is going to invest their time and energy, they will demand certainty. The individuals who traffic in certainty are called theologians: Paul of Tarsus, Polycarp, Jerome, St Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Pope. In order that people do not go astray in their interpretations, these individuals made their interpretations available to the common man in the pew who lack the mojo.
To question authority is to question certainty and in the past this could be detrimental to your well-being and could easily result in the loss of your life. Following the council of Nicaea, orthodoxy figured out quickly that the best way to quell dissent was to remove it, often violently. Today, outside of Islam, such removal of dissent usually takes less violent tones and comes in the form of excommunication whereby one is severed from the community and severed from any hope of eternal paradise. It becomes perfectly clear to ay initiate that if one wants to be a member of the club you must leave your own formulations and opinions at the door: Thou shalt not interpret the sacred texts on your own.
The question, "What does this all mean?" is nothing new and it should come as no surprise that it has been around since the beginning of Christianity. This is why churches schism and why there are so many Christian denominations and sects.
Jesus offers very little in the way of lengthy theological discourse. The Jesus portrayed in the synoptic gospels is brief and clandestine. At times, he speaks in often confusing and ambiguous parables and metaphor. We are offered no deep theological discourses on abstract concepts like justification by faith or the number of sacraments. Jesus appears to answer questions by posing other rhetorical questions and never really attempts to string out any esoteric theology about the existence of the sacraments or the nature of transubstantiation. If anything, the texts indicate that the figure of Jesus shunned this type of dogmatic approach to spirituality.
The Jesus of the synoptics spent a considerable amount of effort to rail against the establishment for its hypocritical attachment to dogma which served to accomplish nothing but reduce the individual to a servant at the whims of the theologians who sat in judgement. The simpilcity of this approach seems to lie in stark contrast to the lenghty theological prognostications that would follow his death.
Paul of Tarsus is really the first figure we are aware of to offer a legnthy attempt at explaining the why and the how. It is no surprise that on any given Sunday, the vast majority of scriptural citations related to theology will come from the Old Testament or Paul's letters and epistles.
Protestants spend the majority of their time discussing the theology of Paul, and Catholics spend the majority of their days fretting over the proper form in which to engage in the sacraments. In fact, even Paul himself never mentions anything at all about the miracles or words of Jesus. Like the God of a Deist, Jesus is kind of implicitly hiding in the background as the figure who set it all in motion. Jesus is upstaged by the sectarian theologians who, through their own mojo, claim to possess this special gnosis.
Other major players who followed Paul were the Gnostics, the Ebionites and Marcion of Sinope. There were divisions in early Christianity over the nature of Jesus's divinity and the nature of the resurrection and its meaning for Christians. There was often fierce debate over the new abstract theological concept of the triune godhead.
Of these three, Marcion of Sinope offered up the most popular rival to traditional Christianity. At its height, Marcion's theology rivaled that of the early church in both popularity and number. Marcion was the first public theologian we are aware of that suggested that the details of the God described in the Jewish scriptures cannot be reconciled with the nature of the God that Jesus was proclaiming to represent. In the early second century, marcion was vehemently opposed to the growing popular theology and claimed that Jesus represented the appearance of a completely different God than was described in the Jewish scriptures.
For Marcion and his followers, the idea that God could one day order a mass slaughter of innocents at Jericho and another day extend an olive branch to humanity was absurd. How could the God of war who ordered Joshua to slay every man, woman, and child suddenly have a change of heart and become a god of peace, love, and brotherhood? Jesus came to rescue mankind from what Marcion saw as the vengeful and blood-thirsty tyrant described in the old testament. Marcion was considered by his followers to be the successor to Paul. The Marcion canon consisted only of his Epistles, The Gospel of Luke, and Paul's Letters.
By the middle of the fourth century, Christianity had become a bit fractured on theological grounds. Although all of the various sects shared in common an understanding of the importance of Jesus to the world, they often contentiously disagreed on the details. Early Christians were hoping for and expecting the imminent return of Jesus and it did not materalize. People began to ask more and more questions: Who really was Jesus?, what really happened?, and what does it mean for us today and tomorrow? The council of Nicae was the first attempt by the Christian community to establish a universal dogma and define heresy.
The first nicene creed composed in 325 CE concluded with a warning to dissenters who chose a different path:
'And let it be known to all that those who state: 'There was a time when Jesus did not exist;' or 'He was not before he was made' or 'He was made from nothing,' or 'He is of another substance or essence,' or 'The Son of God is created or changeable or alterable' ” they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.
All of the sects whose theology fell outside of this dogma were deemed to be heretical. Furthermore, to question the divinity of Jesus would soon be punishable by death. The church would become a global power with the ability to physically impose its will on those who dissented or questioned its authority on matters of interpretation. Very quickly, the oppressed became the oppressor. Documents that were deemed to be heretical were destroyed and dissenters were persecuted and run out of dodge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 05-15-2008 1:46 AM Grizz has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 95 of 560 (466424)
05-15-2008 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Grizz
05-13-2008 10:17 PM


Grizz writes:
The question I am posing is: what does the Jesus of History look like when freed from the trappings of established theology and dogma? Without theologians and their institutions to define for us who Jesus was and is, what can we conclude? Who is Jesus without Paul, Marcion, Martin Luther, or the Pope?
Crossan believes that Jesus was a "Jewish Cynic peasant". If Crossan is correct then your question makes sense. If however, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, was bodily resurrected and was and is divine then the conclusions that you would come to look very different.
Grizz writes:
If the follower of any religions is going to invest their time and energy, they will demand certainty. The individuals who traffic in certainty are called theologians: Paul of Tarsus, Polycarp, Jerome, St Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the Pope. In order that people do not go astray in their interpretations, these individuals made their interpretations available to the common man in the pew who lack the mojo.
To question authority is to question certainty and in the past this could be detrimental to your well-being and could easily result in the loss of your life. Following the council of Nicaea, orthodoxy figured out quickly that the best way to quell dissent was to remove it, often violently. Today, outside of Islam, such removal of dissent usually takes less violent tones and comes in the form of excommunication whereby one is severed from the community and severed from any hope of eternal paradise. It becomes perfectly clear to ay initiate that if one wants to be a member of the club you must leave your own formulations and opinions at the door: Thou shalt not interpret the sacred texts on your own.
As a Christian I've read, Dawkins, Borg, Crossan, Lewis, Wright etc. I've listened to different pastors, I disagree on issues within people within my own small local church and I disagree with many within my denomination. I completely disagree with your last sentence.
Jesus offers very little in the way of lengthy theological discourse. The Jesus portrayed in the synoptic gospels is brief and clandestine. At times, he speaks in often confusing and ambiguous parables and metaphor. We are offered no deep theological discourses on abstract concepts like justification by faith or the number of sacraments. Jesus appears to answer questions by posing other rhetorical questions and never really attempts to string out any esoteric theology about the existence of the sacraments or the nature of transubstantiation. If anything, the texts indicate that the figure of Jesus shunned this type of dogmatic approach to spirituality.
Jesus lived in a time where political dissidents were either locked up or put to death. By speaking in abstract metaphors and riddles he was able to continue in His mission.
All of the sects whose theology fell outside of this dogma were deemed to be heretical. Furthermore, to question the divinity of Jesus would soon be punishable by death. The church would become a global power with the ability to physically impose its will on those who dissented or questioned its authority on matters of interpretation. Very quickly, the oppressed became the oppressor. Documents that were deemed to be heretical were destroyed and dissenters were persecuted and run out of dodge.
This is why the church should never be a route to power. The church should be simply a body of believers serving God. (That isn't to say that Christians shouldn't be in politics.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Grizz, posted 05-13-2008 10:17 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Grizz, posted 05-27-2008 7:15 PM GDR has replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 96 of 560 (468165)
05-27-2008 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by GDR
05-15-2008 1:46 AM


The reason I have trouble with the methodology of the theologian is because their methods are not exhaustive. I am quite skeptical that theologians such as Wright would use the same criteria of judgement and draw the same conclusions about the historicity of the resurrection accounts without their immersion in present-day Christian theology.
As I offered in a prior post, if Christianity had died out in the second century and two millennia later archeologists discovered a small cache of documents containing the synoptic Gospels buried in the sand, I doubt the same conclusions would be reached based only on the information contained within them and our understanding of Temple Judaism. If someone were to opine that one could not get all those early Christians to accept the tradition had the resurrection not occurred, the response would likely be, "I am not quite sure what happened but of course I do not take seriously the claims within these documents of antiquity that an individual was raised from the dead."
Like any objective historian, most individuals with no emotional interest in the truth or falsehood of the claims would likely state that these documents just unearthed are religious literature and we know as a fact that they are notoriously biased documents with the intent purpose of proselytization. Some here might make the assertion that Christianity did survive and it was through divine providence that the message made its way to us today and this reinforces the veracity of the claims contained within the documents. The point of contention here, however, is that a theologian like Wright is making the assertion that their arguments for the historicity of the resurrection are based only on an appeal to the documents and the theological norms of first-century Judaism, nothing more.
I certainly will not claim to speak for anyone else on this matter and I cannot read anyone's mind. Perhaps Wright would draw the same conclusions and it would be unfair and wrong for me to put words in the mouths of others and attempt to form their opinions, especially when they are not present to speak their mind. I will just say that I find it plausible to conclude that the opinions and judgements that are now being offered ny many might be a bit different if it was not for the present exposure to Christianity and the emotional attachments that come with it.
To really understand what happened, we need more information than is supplied in the Gospel documents. Unfortunately, we do not have at our disposal any forensic psychological profiles of the individuals of antiquity. To put it bluntly, the historian often has no way of knowing if the major players being described in any story from antiquity were playing with all their marbles, especially when making grandiose claims that are atypical for a time and place.
Were any of these individuals possibly mildly schizophrenic and prone to seeing hallucinations or hearing voices? I am not asserting the answer to this question is yes. I am simply pointing out we lack too much information and are making too many assumptions about the main figures of early Christianity.
We also have no personality profiles. Were the main players of early Christianity prone to exaggeration? Did their non-Christian contemporaries consider these individuals to be honest and trustworthy? There are simply too many unknowns to state anything with a degree of certainty and one cannot make an exhaustive assessment of the motives, intent, and mental state of any of the prime figures. Motive and intent it is very hard to establish with people today, even more so for people of antquity. The same can be said for other religious figures like Mohammad or Joseph Smith. Were these individuals sincere chaps who believed what they were saying or were they lunatics and/or charlatans?
Essentially, we are left holding documents containing information that early Christian authors felt it was necessary for people to hear. What we do not hear are those things that happened that went unrecorded or things that might not have shed a positive light on the movement. The historian has no plausible reason to conclude that the sectarian religious documents from antiquity that were first composed a generation following the death of Jesus give us the complete story. Essentially, we are hearing a story the way certain individuals wanted others to hear it. It is very hard to pass judgement when you are receiving only one side of the story and this story comes from a sectarian group whose goal it is to advance a movement.
That first-century inhabitants of Judea managed to convince a pre-enlightenment culture steeped in superstition that a man was raised from the dead and would soon return to rescue his followers is not exactly a shocking puzzle and enigma. Barring future archeological discoveries that reveal more information, we may never know the specific details. Many questions in history remain unresolved and under dispute. Many of these mysteries are much more complex and hard to solve.
To give an example: How did the Rapanui manage to move all those giant stones on Easter island to create the moia bird-men statues that circle the island looking out to sea? Why did they situate them as they did? Of course, there are those who state the existence of the stones can only be accounted for by an explanation that transcends our existence on Earth.
Modern historians and engineers are not exactly sure of the methods employed but suspect a rockered lever system. Upon hearing of such possible explanations, the transcendent crowd responds with skepticism -- How on Earth could a primitive culture without any understanding of physics or engineering possibly manage to figure out a way to use tree branches and human power to move 65' tall, 270 ton stones miles away from a volcanic query and into position on a sloped hillside? Admittedly, such an extraordinary feat would even present serious challenges using today's modern hydraulic equipment.
The fact is, the Rapanui did manage to find a way to accomplish the task and such a feat is a testament to human ingenuity and creativity. Nobody claims with certainty to know how the job took place. We weren't there and we simply lack the necessary information that would allow us to be more accurate in our inferences. History is full of such mystery and that's what makes it interesting. Whenever there is something that appears highly improbable or bizarre, there will always be those who first look for transcendent explanations. For the 'Chariots of the Gods' crowd, the bird-men statues are undeniable evidence that we have been visited and the Rapanui obviously had the assistance of an advanced civilization levitating stones with a neutron tractor-drive suspended from the mother ship.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by GDR, posted 05-15-2008 1:46 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 05-28-2008 10:44 AM Grizz has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 97 of 560 (468199)
05-28-2008 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Grizz
05-27-2008 7:15 PM


Hi Grizz
I'd just make the point that no one comes to any of this with a completely objective POV, whether it be Wright or those from the "Jesus Seminar".
I think that one thing that would allow us to consider the state of mind and thus the veracity of what was written is to compare what was written to what we would expect if it were to be a fabrication.
I suggest that one of the things about the gospels is that they aren't what you would expect. The disciples never seem to understand what's going on all through Jesus' ministry. Their faith is weak, they argue about who's going to get the top position, and there is even one who betrays him. Heck nearly all of them couldn't even show up for the crucifixion. By that time they just believed he was another failed Messiah. There is certainly no self promotion of anyone in the Gospels.
Also, the stories surrounding the resurrected Jesus aren't what you would expect either. There is no radiant body. He just appears. They don't always recognize Him right away. It doesn't make sense that they would write it the way they did unless it was as they observed. It is like they are saying - I know this sounds really improbable but this is what we saw.
One other point that Wright makes is that if the gospel writers were just making up something and wanted it to be credible they wouldn't have had women as being the first people at the tomb. In that society women were not considered to be credible witnesses.
A second consideration would be to look at what would be the motivation for fabricating the stories.
I can't see how any of the writers of the NT would have had anything to gain. It does seem that most of them had a great deal to lose.
Another consideration is that much of the NT, such as Paul's letters and Mark, was written while there were many eye witnesses still alive.There would certainly be enough people around to be able to say that isn't what happened at all. Even at the time of the resurrection all anyone had to do was produce the body.
The Bible is an historical book. It isn't like science where events are repeatable. We are always dependent on the writers for truth. So, you are correct, it becomes a faith issue. Are the writers truthful people? Are they inspired by God? Of course the NT was culturally conditioned so how do we apply it to our lives today? Is our thinking influenced by the Holy Spirit as is claimed in the N.T? These are faith issues but, although I imagine you would disagree, I don't believe it is a blind faith.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Grizz, posted 05-27-2008 7:15 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2008 2:10 PM GDR has replied
 Message 101 by Grizz, posted 05-28-2008 8:01 PM GDR has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 98 of 560 (468226)
05-28-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by GDR
05-28-2008 10:44 AM


Of course you're doing exactly what Wright does - specuilate about what people would do. However, if you listened to the discussion between Wright and Crossan (and you obviously didn't) you would know that even Wright was forced to weaken his arguuments by appealing to there being something "special" about Jesus which caused the authors to act atypically.
It is easy to concoct motivations. For instance given Paul's tensions with the Jerusalem church maybe it was desirable to make the disciples look bad - to make Paul (andd Jesus) look better in comparison.
But why put such speculations above what the texts actually tell us ? Isn't it more important that Paul tells us almost nothing about the post-Resurrection appearances, Matthew places them in Galilee and Luke places them in and around Jerusalem. John tries to have it both ways, which contradicts Luke and Matthew. Doesn't this suggest a shortage of reliable information ?
Before we jump to conclusiosn about why Mark has women as witnesses shouldn't we note that he tells us that they told nobody what they had seen ? Isn't that more puzzling - and therefore interesting. Is it at least not possible that Mark is explaining why the story was not taught by the disciples ? Paul doesn't mention it, or even the existence of a tomb. Isn't it as likely that the stories we have are tales that grew up to fill a near-vacuum of information.
And if you are relying on stories that grew up to obscure the unimpressive real events, how can you come to a reliable conclusion ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 05-28-2008 10:44 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 05-28-2008 3:20 PM PaulK has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 99 of 560 (468236)
05-28-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by PaulK
05-28-2008 2:10 PM


PaulK writes:
Of course you're doing exactly what Wright does - specuilate about what people would do. However, if you listened to the discussion between Wright and Crossan (and you obviously didn't) you would know that even Wright was forced to weaken his arguuments by appealing to there being something "special" about Jesus which caused the authors to act atypically.
I own and have read the book,The Resurrection of Jesus - John Dominique Crossan an N. T. Wright in Debate
You should read it.
If I had witnessed someone executed and the show up fully alive later I just might act atypically as well. It strengthens his argument it doesn't weaken it.
It is easy to concoct motivations. For instance given Paul's tensions with the Jerusalem church maybe it was desirable to make the disciples look bad - to make Paul (andd Jesus) look better in comparison.
I did say I was speaking of the gospels.
But why put such speculations above what the texts actually tell us ? Isn't it more important that Paul tells us almost nothing about the post-Resurrection appearances,
quote:
Corinthians 15 -- 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
Matthew places them in Galilee and Luke places them in and around Jerusalem. John tries to have it both ways, which contradicts Luke and Matthew. Doesn't this suggest a shortage of reliable information
Simply different appearances. Even John mentions that the appearance in Galilee was the 3rd time He had appeared to the disciples.
Before we jump to conclusiosn about why Mark has women as witnesses shouldn't we note that he tells us that they told nobody what they had seen ? Isn't that more puzzling - and therefore interesting. Is it at least not possible that Mark is explaining why the story was not taught by the disciples ? Paul doesn't mention it, or even the existence of a tomb. Isn't it as likely that the stories we have are tales that grew up to fill a near-vacuum of information.
Both Crossan and Wright will agree that there was originally more to Mark's gospel that has been lost at some point in time. So it is impossible to say how he finished off the narrative. We only know what Paul said in the letters that we have. We don't know what else he might have said. Paul does use the term resurrection though which makes referring to the tomb redundant.
And if you are relying on stories that grew up to obscure the unimpressive real events, how can you come to a reliable conclusion ?
And you know what the real events are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2008 2:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by PaulK, posted 05-28-2008 5:25 PM GDR has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 100 of 560 (468262)
05-28-2008 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by GDR
05-28-2008 3:20 PM


quote:
I own and have read the book,The Resurrection of Jesus - John Dominique Crossan an N. T. Wright in Debate
You should read it.
THen you have even less excuse for your misrepresentations of Crossan's views. However I have seen no indication that either has much to say of interest to me. The audio debate was clearly focussed on theological issues which strike me as a waste of time.
quote:
If I had witnessed someone executed and the show up fully alive later I just might act atypically as well. It strengthens his argument it doesn't weaken it.
Wright's concession was their their reaction TO the resurrection was atypical. In case you've forgotten Wright takes the position that the resurrection really did happen, thus your objection really makes no sense at all.
quote:
I did say I was speaking of the gospels.
That's good because so was I.
Exactly - almost nothing. It's just a list of people who supposedly witnessed appearances. It doesn't say anything about where, or what the appearance consisted of or whether Jesus said anything at all. And the appearance to the 500 can't even be clearly identified in the Gospel accounts (including Acts as an extension of Luke).
quote:
Simply different appearances. Even John mentions that the appearance in Galilee was the 3rd time He had appeared to the disciples.
That simply isn't possible. Matthew and Luke's accounts are mutually exclusive. The disciples can't be in two places at once. I find it truly amazing that anyone could insist that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and not care what it says. Because if you did care what it said you could read it rather than just trying to make up excuses.
quote:
Both Crossan and Wright will agree that there was originally more to Mark's gospel that has been lost at some point in time.
And they could both be wrong.
quote:
We only know what Paul said in the letters that we have. We don't know what else he might have said. Paul does use the term resurrection though which makes referring to the tomb redundant.
It would hardly take much to mention it (just changing one word would do it !) - and if it were known that the tomb were seen to be empty, that would seem a point that might be worth mentioning. But the fact is that there is no mention of the empty tomb or any tomb in Paul's writings. Thus it is certainly possible that early Christians had no knowledge of what happened to Jesus' body and the tomb story simply grew over time.
quote:
And you know what the real events are.
I didn't make that claim. After all my point is that the evidence is too weak to reliably reconstruct the real events - even of the alleged appearance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by GDR, posted 05-28-2008 3:20 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by PaulK, posted 05-30-2008 7:48 AM PaulK has not replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 101 of 560 (468281)
05-28-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by GDR
05-28-2008 10:44 AM


Hi Grizz
I'd just make the point that no one comes to any of this with a completely objective POV, whether it be Wright or those from the "Jesus Seminar".
Hi GDR, Thanks for continuing to participate in the discussion. It is good to have another side of the story involved in the dicussion.
I agree that we can never be entirely objective, especially when dealing with a subject in which many of us have found ourselves immersed throughout our lives. Judging the claims contained within the documents of early Christianity without any prejudice may be impossible for most of us, but I believe that it is possible to remain somewhat objective by approaching the subject in the manner I suggested earlier -- we should analyze the historical documents using the same methods and criteria of judgment we would had we just discovered them.
If we really want to be historians, we should give no weight to arguments that are influenced by our present exposure to theology and we should not use the existence of our contemporary institutions as support for the veracity of any of the claims contained within the documents.
In such a case where a new documentary discovery is made, the first thing we would do is consider all natural explanations for the events and claims contained with them. As with any new documentary discovery from antiquity, we would expect to encounter some things that are a bit puzzling and mysterious. Of course, we would question how such a movement got started and what social and political factors had a hand in its popularity and expansion. We would then infer what is plausible fact and what is plausible fiction. In other words, having just discovered these documents, we would proceed by using the same approach as employed by the secular historian.
As already stated many times, we must not brush off the fact that the period under scrutiny is totally foreign to our present existence. The world view of the inhabitants of the first-century, whether pagan, Jew, or Christian, was ruled almost entirely by superstition and an appeal to unseen sprits and divine forces. We cannot use the same type of approach to this genre of literature as we would when evaluating documents that are more contemporary to our time. Unfortunately, many theologians do just that; it is quite obvious that many theologians appear to approach the documents with an implicit presupposition that the authors of the documents were not in any way influenced by popular sensibilities or prone to superstitious reasoning.
A second consideration would be to look at what would be the motivation for fabricating the stories.
I can't see how any of the writers of the NT would have had anything to gain. It does seem that most of them had a great deal to lose.
When using the word "Fabrication", we need to be very careful of exactly what we mean. Fabrication is a very strong word with specific connotations. Fabrication implies a specific intent which involves outright fraud that is knowingly perpetrated upon an audience.
It is certainly appropriate to use this label when it is warranted, but when it is used inappropriately it can lead to a misunderstanding of intent. For example, when someone sees an unidentified object in the sky that behaves in an unfamiliar manner and then writes a story detailing how they witnessed an alien spacecraft, should we label this indivual as being fraudulent or would we conclude that the individual is adding interpretations to actual sensory experiences? Certainly, there are people who often create outright fabrications when offering such stories to the public; however, there are also people who, for whatever reason, believe they are actually experiencing what they claim to have seen. There are much more appropriate labels for these individuals: "mistaken" or "naive."
Also, if we assume a piece of information is fabricated, whom should we pin the fraud on? Which party shall we conclude was responsible for the initial transmission of the fraudulent information? Lets say I had the intention of fabricating such a story and with intent to deceive I fabricate a story involving a UFO that descended on my front lawn and doctor-up a few photos and pass it around on the Internet.
Those who might be susceptible to this type of story might, in their willingness to believe, take these stories at face value and use this information as part of a book detailing UFO sightings. The individual may be complicit in fraud by not checking out the story but he would certainly not be guilty of fabricating the story. If one believes the information presented to one is true and then uses that information to create a narrative, I would certainly be hard- pressed to label that individual a fraud. They perhaps are guilty of being misguided, misinformed,or duped, but not fraudulent.
.................................................................
Do I personally believe that the authors of the Gospels engaged in outright fabrication when relaying certain stories and events? If one is objective, I believe such an inference is largely unavoidable in certain instances(one example will be noted below). Does one instance of fabrication immediately negate the validity of all other claims? Certainly not. Each claim should be evaluated according to their merits. However, the existence of fraud anywhere does present a credibility problem that should not be ignored when looking at the overall picture.
If an author is willing to employ methods that involve outright fabrications, then one should be looking for other cases where fraud may be employed. If you see enough occasions where misrepresentations or fabrications are employed then you begin to suspect everything that you are being told.
There are a good number of cases where the historian of antiquity analyzing the gospel documents has every reason to believe that an author has purposely interjected false information into the story with the specific goal of proselytization and propaganda. I will outline one of those here. My goal in this thread is not to point out the contradictions or inconsistencies in the documents but I present this example to show how and why a historian will come to suspect the overall veracity of a claim and of the documents themselves.
.................................................................
Case Example: The slaughter of the innocents.
This alledged event as recorded exclusively in Matthew is almost certainly a fabrication and not an actual historical event. The story appears nowhere else but in the texts of the gospel of Matthew, which is considered to be written primarily for a Jewish audience following the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.
The consensus, without exception, among nearly every biblical historian outside of Evangelical circles is that this narrative was used as a literary device to appeal to the sentiments of traditional Jews by drawing parallels between the lives of Jesus and Moses. Just as the story of Moses began with divine providence allowing Moses to flee from the wrath of the Pharaoh who had ordered the slaughter of the firstborn of Israel, so does the story of Jesus have as a beginning his escape from the wrath of Herod, whom the Jews of the first-century despised equally as much. Essentially, the author(s) of Matthew begins the story with an approach that a Jewish audience would be familiar and comfortable with.
Unlike the common Hollywood portrayals, Judea was not a Colosseum where gratuitous and indiscriminate slaughter took place and Roman society was not currently taken in by the excesses and insanity of Nero. Governments cannot collect taxes from dead people. This period marked the reign of Pax Romana. In Judea, the Roman prefect would do whatever was necessary to keep the peace and keep his head.
Although the Romans at this time were brutal in their administration of Justice, they did not condone lawlessness and they valued peace and stability above all else. Had such an event been carried out and ordered by a ruling Jewish ethoncrat, there would no doubt have been outrage and a cry to Qurinius, the Roman provincial in Syria. Monarchs have been deposed for much less and in fact it was the complaints of the citizens of Judea against Archelaus that had a hand in his ethnocracy being quashed by Rome. Furthermore, Jospehus, who is meticulous in recounting the happenings from this period, would have certainly given such a barbaric travesty at least a mention.
It is true that Herod was a man known for his ruthless measures and barbarity; however, it defies common sense that such a mass-scale genocidal event would go unrecorded by a Historian like Jospehus and unheeded by the Roman authorities. An appeal to common sense indicates that the existence of so many dead newborns lying around the streets of Judea would not go unnoticed or unmentioned by the historical figure who had the pulse of first century Judea.
Had this event indeed occurred, it is also highly implausible that other gospel authors and early Christian writers would fail to mention such an emotionally significant event, were it common knowledge. As already stated, events are much easier to recall than words, especially if they have emotional significance. The silence of the subsequent gospels are a further testament to this event being a myth.
That the slaughter of the innocents was a fictitious literary device used for the purpose of proselytization is as close to a statement of fact as any historian of antiquity could possibly arrive. The absence of any external historical references to such a horrific mass-scale event, the singular occurrence of the story in Christian literature, and the lack of any response by Rome leaves no other plausible conclusion. It is almost certain that such an event did not take place and was an attempt to interject prophecy into the story.
Any objective historian worth his weight would be hard-pressed to not conclude that given the information at our disposal, such a narrative was an intentional misrepresentation of facts with the specific purpose of appealing to traditional Jewish sentiments and norms. This is only one example and the literature is replete with such questionable statements of historical facets. It is obvious that the early Jewish Christian was attempting to frame the story within the context of the Jewish prophetic tradition. The manuscripts are replete with examples whereby it is highly plausible to conclude that author was using the established prophetic writings to fill in blanks, create theological narratives, or add information which contributes to the acceptance of the story.
A rather bizarre attempt at using the prophetic tradtion to create information was also used by the author of Matthew:
"And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets , He shall be called a Nazarene. " Matt 2:23
There is no such messianic reference to Nazareth in the prophetic literature and most scholars believe the author was attempting to appeal to Isaiah:
" And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots. " Isaiah 11:1
The Greek word for branch is 'netzer' and quite embarrassingly, the author somehow managed to interpret this as Nazarene. The Historian sees this particular entry as damage control and an attempt to explain why and how such a figure would come from a region that was pretty much despised by the traditional Jewish populace. Nazareth was located north of Judea in the district of Galilee. The capital city of Galilee, Caeseria, was the seat of Roman power during this time. Galilee was the home of the Roman Prefect and housed the legions stationed within the province. Galilee was thought of as the home of violent extremists, pagans, marginal Jews, and heretics. The idea of Jesus being a Nazarene was probably so imbedded in the earlier verbal tradition that there was no alternative but to attempt to appeal to some prophetic explanation for this slight embarrassment. I would liken this embarrassment to someone showing up at a southern fundamentalist tent revival meeting and claiming to be an anointed prophet from Berkeley, CA.
"Surely the Christ is not going to come from Galilee, is He?" John 4:17
"They answered him, "You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee." John 7:52
.................................................................
Basically, what the historian infers from all of this is that the authors of the Gospels were working overtime to force a story to conform to popular prophetic tradition. As the Gospels developed in sophistication over the next few decades you will see more and more of these types of interjections in the story. For example, Mark never mentions the virgin conception. A decade later, Matthew first mentions the virgin birth and does so in a manner that appeals to prophetic sensibilities:
"All this happened to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which being interpreted is God with us'". Matt 1:22
Another decade passes and Luke gives an extended narrative with even more quotations from prophetic literature.
Jews were a people immersed in prophetic tradition. The objective historian has every reason to suspect the use of prophetic inference to establish relevant events that likely never occurred. The reasoning likely used by the early Jewish Christians was: since Jesus was the messiah, everything claimed in the prophets about the messiah must be true. Therefore, these things must have occurred. Jesus must have been born of a virgin and must have been born in Bethlehem, not Nazareth. We see none of this mentioned in the first Gospel, Mark. What we see is a very simple story that later develops into elaborate accounts of Mary and Joseph leaving Nazareth for various reasons then getting stuck in Bethlehem where Jesus is born. They then return to Nazareth etc etc. This appears to be Prophetic reconstruction rather than historical narrative.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by GDR, posted 05-28-2008 10:44 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by GDR, posted 05-29-2008 1:14 AM Grizz has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 102 of 560 (468332)
05-29-2008 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Grizz
05-28-2008 8:01 PM


Grizz writes:
In such a case where a new documentary discovery is made, the first thing we would do is consider all natural explanations for the events and claims contained with them. As with any new documentary discovery from antiquity, we would expect to encounter some things that are a bit puzzling and mysterious. Of course, we would question how such a movement got started and what social and political factors had a hand in its popularity and expansion. We would then infer what is plausible fact and what is plausible fiction. In other words, having just discovered these documents, we would proceed by using the same approach as employed by the secular historian.
Hi Grizz
The point is that certainly this book cannot be studied this way. The claim is made that the book was written by men who were divinely inspired. If the claim is true then it would have to be researched in a manner that would be entirely different than other historical books. I'm not suggesting that God dictated the wording but that they were given the wisdom to understand fundamental truths.
As already stated many times, we must not brush off the fact that the period under scrutiny is totally foreign to our present existence. The world view of the inhabitants of the first-century, whether pagan, Jew, or Christian, was ruled almost entirely by superstition and an appeal to unseen sprits and divine forces. We cannot use the same type of approach to this genre of literature as we would when evaluating documents that are more contemporary to our time. Unfortunately, many theologians do just that; it is quite obvious that many theologians appear to approach the documents with an implicit presupposition that the authors of the documents were not in any way influenced by popular sensibilities or prone to superstitious reasoning.
I agree and it seems to me that Christians have been remiss in taking this approach for too long. (I would even include one of my heroes CS Lewis in this.) This is however one of the reasons that I enjoy reading Wright, (who is a first century Jewish historian), so much. Stories like the "Prodigal Son" take on an entirely new meaning when seen through the eyes of a 1st century Jew.
When using the word "Fabrication", we need to be very careful of exactly what we mean. Fabrication is a very strong word with specific connotations. Fabrication implies a specific intent which involves outright fraud that is knowingly perpetrated upon an audience.
I agree. I intended to use the word fraudulent as in that the gospels were written falsely with intent. As you said that is not the same thing as someone misconstruing what it was that they witnessed.
I don't pretend to be as knowledgeable as you on this subject but I don't agree with your argument concerning "the slaughter of the innocents". We know Herod was capable of it. He killed his favourite wife, sons and other family members. He killed many Jewish citizens at his death so that there would be mourning among the people.
From what I know of that period the Romans wouldn't have any problem with any of this. They wanted someone who would rule with an iron fist as well as do their bidding.
Josephus wrote extensively on Herod but didn't mention this particular incident. Bethlehem was a pretty small place and what would be construed as the surrounding area is anyone's guess. The point being that we don't know how many babies would be involved and it did happen almost a century before Josephus wrote about it.(Of course Matthew wasn't a whole lot earlier.)
You inferred that Matthew put in the "slaughter of the innocents" knowing it to be false. I frankly can't see what the motivation would be.
Basically, what the historian infers from all of this is that the authors of the Gospels were working overtime to force a story to conform to popular prophetic tradition. As the Gospels developed in sophistication over the next few decades you will see more and more of these types of interjections in the story. For example, Mark never mentions the virgin conception. A decade later, Matthew first mentions the virgin birth and does so in a manner that appeals to prophetic sensibilities:
I accept that some of the gospel writers wrote in a way that would fit the prophetic vision. Your rationale for them doing that makes sense. However it seems to me that before they made minor adjustments for their Jewish readers they had to believe the major points in the story such as the resurrection. Based on what they knew, (rightly or wrongly) to be true they then assumed that the prophesies had been fulfilled.
It is interesting that you can have people of such knowledge, intelligence and good will as Crossan and Wright come to such fundamentally different conclusions about the same material. In a strange way though, if the Christian story is true that is what we would expect.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Grizz, posted 05-28-2008 8:01 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Grizz, posted 05-29-2008 6:45 PM GDR has replied

Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 103 of 560 (468497)
05-29-2008 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by GDR
05-29-2008 1:14 AM


The claim is made that the book was written by men who were divinely inspired. If the claim is true then it would have to be researched in a manner that would be entirely different than other historical books. I'm not suggesting that God dictated the wording but that they were given the wisdom to understand fundamental truths.
I can certainly understand the person of faith taking this position; however, such a position does raise further issues. This position presupposes knowledge of the nature of revelation, its goals and aims, and it never addresses the obvious limits we see in the revelation itself. If one is going to presuppose that the texts were divinely inspired and this involved a supernatural act whereby general wisdom was implanted into the minds of the authors, why did this revelation not go deeper and involve the divine implantation of the information content of the entire story into the minds of the authors? This would be just as easy for an omnipotent being and this approach would certainly leave out any potential for subjective inferences, misunderstandings, or additions. If the goal of revelation is to transfer accurate information to humanity, why limit revelation and leave everyone in the future hanging on points of contention that are not clear?
I don't agree with your argument concerning "the slaughter of the innocents". We know Herod was capable of it. He killed his favourite wife, sons and other family members. He killed many Jewish citizens at his death so that there would be mourning among the people.
From what I know of that period the Romans wouldn't have any problem with any of this. They wanted someone who would rule with an iron fist as well as do their bidding.
We get most of our popular ideas about Rome from Hollywood or the extravagant stories about Nero and the Colosseum. Rome wanted someone who could exude power but they also required a ruler who would bring peace and stability to the region. You do not obtain peace and stability by having rulers who indiscriminately execute the infants of the citizenry. Rome would never have overlooked an act which would serve no purpose but to bolster the personal ambitions of an appointed ehtnocrat and inflame the public sentiment. As I stated earlier, the Romans were brutal in their administration of Justice but they did whatever was necessary to keep the peace and keep the people from rebelling. They did not and would not tolerate a self-centered and gratuitous acts of violence that would lead to dissent, anger, and instability.
It was not until 6 CE that Judea officially became a Roman province. After Herod the Great's death in 4 CE, Herod's son Archelaus was doing such a terrible job at managing the affairs of the state that he was inciting the citizens to rebellion. Octavian Augustus stepped in and handed over direct control of the territory to the Roman prefects. Prior to this event, Judea was a Client Kingdom of Rome. Although Rome had overall power and control of the kingdom, the day-to-day operations were left to the client King appointed by Rome -- in this case, Herod the Great. The main importance of Judea to Rome revolved around the shipping lanes in the Mediterranean and the position of the port of Caesarian along the route. The shipping lanes and ports were crucial to Roman commerce and allowed Rome to quickly exert its military influence within the desert kingdoms. Outside of that, Judea was a low-income region with minimal tax benefits for the Empire.
Herod's client Kingdom was a special arrangement approved by the Senate. Normally, territorial expansions led to direct Roman rule of a new province. Herod was an opportunist and because of his allegiance to Rome and his personal friendship with Caesar, he was able to convince the senate to appoint him tetrarch of Judea. He eventually even managed to convince Octavian and the Senate to appoint him 'King of the Jews' following the uprising of Antigonus. Such a position was not an absolute position of power, however, and was not without stipulations.
The false premise here is that Judea was Herod's to do with as he pleased. This is completely false -- Judea officially fell under the watchful gaze of Rome and the prefect of Judea was constantly watching for any signs of trouble. Herod was simply the bureaucrat who did the daily work. Herod would be much more concerned with brown-nosing the Romans than with worrying about any potential rival. He would have absolutely no reason whatsoever to be the least bit concerned with a potential messiah usurping his power.
Appointments to positions of power over a territory came only from the emperor and senate and such an internal threat to his status would be the last thing on Herod's mind. The Romans would never allow this. Herod had the Roman legions ready to quell any potential insurrections and ensure the peace and stability of the area should his position remain untenable. It is hard to think of any rational reason whereby Herod would feel in any way threatened by a rumor of an infant who would later take away a kingdom that was not even his to begin with. Also, Herod was up there in age and on his last legs.
So, the initial premise that Herod would be worried about someone usurping both himself and the ruling roman seat of power in Judea is quite absurd actually.
...........................................
As far as Herod's brutality, what happened between Herod and his family members takes place in an entirely different context and this did not involve Herod taking such behavior to the streets on a mass scale. Rome would certainly take notice and would not stand for such a breech of stability in the public arena. Again, Archelaus was deposed for much less and the Citizens of Judea were free to complain to the provincial and they did indeed complain of Archelaus to Quirinius and this in part had to do with his being deposed. Herod was more concerned with brown-nosing the Romans than worrying about any internal oppositions. He would be more concerned with how the Roman authorities would react to an unprovoked mass slaughter of innocents.
Also, this alleged event went entirely unrecorded except for the Gospel of Matthew and the Protevangelism of James in the late second century. None of the other synoptics or any of the hundreds of apocryphal gospels or any other external source ever gives any slightest hint or mention of such an event. Why would such an event with profound emotional and theological significance go unmentioned by all subsequent authors? Furthermore, Archeologists who have done extensive excavations in Bethlehem have seen no archeological evidence of any infant remains or any physical evidence which indicated such an event took place.
In conclusion, not only would Herod have no reason to fear for his position, which was backed by the power of Rome, it defies common sense and imagination that such an event would go unheeded by anyone but Matthew.
On a side note, there are Christians who will reject the claim simply on moral grounds. Some theologians find the story totally incompatible with Christian ethics. Why would God send an angel to warn Mary and Joseph but not also warn other parents of the imminent danger? Essentially, the angel is telling Joseph that, "I was sent to warn you that a bunch of infants are about to be massacred. You better leave before the killing starts." Why did Mary and Jospeh neglect to warn others of the imminent danger to their children? If the story is factual, it appears that their primary concern was their own safety.
You inferred that Matthew put in the "slaughter of the innocents" knowing it to be false. I frankly can't see what the motivation would be.
The narrative was likely used as a literary device to appeal to the sentiments of traditional Jews by drawing parallels between the lives of Jesus and Moses. Just as the story of Moses began with divine providence allowing Moses to flee from the wrath of the Pharaoh who had ordered the slaughter of the firstborn of Israel, so does the story of Jesus have as a beginning his escape from the wrath of Herod, whom the Jews of the first-century despised equally as much. Essentially, the author(s) of Matthew begins the story with an approach that a Jewish audience would be familiar and comfortable with.
Matthew is considered the "Jewish Gospel" in that it appears by scholars to be addressed to a Jewish community following the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. After the revolt, most Jews found themselves scattered throughout Palestine. There was a very large traditional community that set up camp to the north in Galilee and most scholars believe this was the target audience of Matthew. It is inferred that the author was writing for a Jewish audience and was employing many narrative tools in which a Jewish audience could find their home.
Regardless, after Matthew, the 'Massacre of the Innocents' disappears entirely from the literature and only reappears a century later as an obscure mention of the event in a short apocryphal manuscript. Luke and John, who both used Matthew as a source, never mention this event. Nor do the hundreds of other Gospel authors who penned all of the extant apocrypha. It goes beyond reason that if the Christian community believed this event to be factual that it would never again be mentioned given its emotional and prophetic significance. It also is defies understanding or common sense that none of the Jewish contemporaries of the event would ever record this brutality and they too would somehow fail to remember.
Even for a Christian, accepting the reality of this event takes more than the normal leap of faith. It also requires one to scratch their head and just state, "I guess everyone else just plain forgot about it." Accepting this event as fact certainly stretches the historical sensibilities of all but the literalist.
I accept that some of the gospel writers wrote in a way that would fit the prophetic vision. Your rationale for them doing that makes sense. However it seems to me that before they made minor adjustments for their Jewish readers they had to believe the major points in the story such as the resurrection. Based on what they knew, (rightly or wrongly) to be true they then assumed that the prophesies had been fulfilled.
But if they were willing to assume things without witnessing events then perhaps they assumed other things as well.
As I stated earlier, the Historian has no reason to believe that we are getting the whole story.
It is interesting that you can have people of such knowledge, intelligence and good will as Crossan and Wright come to such fundamentally different conclusions about the same material. In a strange way though, if the Christian story is true that is what we would expect.
Opinions - everyone's got one. If we all agreed, it would be no fun. If everyone on this forum agreed on everything we would get bored pretty quickly. Wright is certainly a brilliant orator and author and one does not rise to his position by being an idiot. He simply approaches the subject with different presuppositions than someone like Crossan or Borg. Ultimately, whether ones accepts or rejects a position depends less on the argument than on the acceptance of the presuppositions.
I really don't think anyone who is approaching the subject with faith is going to be swayed by any of my positions and that is really not my goal. We are pretty much laying out our reasoning and people will either relate to what we present or they won't. I don't think anyone should really enter such a discussion with the goal of trying to convert or convince as they will likely not be successful when it comes to debating a subject that often has profound personal significance to one's life.
Such discussions are often beneficial simply because they cause one to research things on their own or perhaps learn a bit from what others have to say. I always come away knowing a bit more about my own positions and in the process I also end up understanding more about the position of others.
Edited by Grizz, : Addition

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by GDR, posted 05-29-2008 1:14 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by GDR, posted 05-29-2008 7:25 PM Grizz has not replied
 Message 105 by GDR, posted 05-29-2008 11:30 PM Grizz has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 104 of 560 (468507)
05-29-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Grizz
05-29-2008 6:45 PM


Grizz writes:
Such discussions are often beneficial simply because they cause one to research things on their own or perhaps learn a bit from what others have to say. I always come away knowing a bit more about my own positions and in the process I also end up understanding more about the position of others.
Well Grizz. I have wound up in a gun fight armed with a tooth pick. You obviously have a strong background in this area and I am enjoying the discussion, but I have no theological background at all. My secondary education all had to do with airplanes which doesn't qualify me as being knowledgeable about anything else.
I have been a Christian for nearly 30 years after being agnostic for a number of years. I readily agree that I am not reading the literature objectively. I very definitely have a bias. The thing is, as a Christian I have had experiences that don't seem to have any likely explanation other than something that is outside the normal. (Nothing earth-shaking but profound from my point of view.)
I have been heavily influenced by first, CS Lewis and more recently by Wright. I enjoy reading the debates between the "Jesus Seminar" adherents and Wright. I keep Josephus as a reference manual but haven't read it through. I also enjoy McGrath and Polkinghorne. (They are all Brits. Go figure. )
I strongly believe that the Bible is the book that God wants us to have, just the way it is. I understand that it consists of metaphor, mythology, history, and spiritual guidance. I believe that God speaks to us through all of these literary vehicles. I don't find any aspect of science incompatible with my Christian faith.
I only mention these things so that I'm being completely open about my particular bias.
Frankly, I could go on arguing about what Herod did and didn't do but I would only make myself look foolish. I don't have anything like your knowledge of that era. You have a very good grasp on the subject and it has been a very interesting learning experience for me. The good news is that whether the "slaughter of the innocents" was historical or not it doesn't really affect the essential message of the NT. I understand what that your point is if that isn't true then what else isn't as well. Essentially Wright, who is an expert on the subject, does have a logical and coherent argument concerning the NT. After that it does become a matter of faith.
I agree with Wright in that the Bible is to be read as a meta-narrative. Creation-fall-Israel-Jesus-resurrection-church-new creation. I see that approach as being the historical story of God and his image bearing creatures.
I wish that I had a better grasp on the subject so that I could challenge you more effectively.
Edited by GDR, : sp

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Grizz, posted 05-29-2008 6:45 PM Grizz has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 105 of 560 (468535)
05-29-2008 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Grizz
05-29-2008 6:45 PM


Grizz writes:
I can certainly understand the person of faith taking this position; however, such a position does raise further issues. This position presupposes knowledge of the nature of revelation, its goals and aims, and it never addresses the obvious limits we see in the revelation itself. If one is going to presuppose that the texts were divinely inspired and this involved a supernatural act whereby general wisdom was implanted into the minds of the authors, why did this revelation not go deeper and involve the divine implantation of the information content of the entire story into the minds of the authors? This would be just as easy for an omnipotent being and this approach would certainly leave out any potential for subjective inferences, misunderstandings, or additions. If the goal of revelation is to transfer accurate information to humanity, why limit revelation and leave everyone in the future hanging on points of contention that are not clear?
Having given my disclaimer I'll do the best I can. It is clear from a Christian perspective that we have free will. Our whole life is made up of choices. I imagine God could have created us a robots designed to have no other choice than to do the right thing. He doesn't seem to have made that choice. I suggest that the concept of a Bible written and redacted by men who were inspired with enough of the truth to give us the Bible we have today, but to still be subject to their humanity would be consistent with what we experience in life. Sort of like looking through a glass darkly.
We get most of our popular ideas about Rome from Hollywood or the extravagant stories about Nero and the Colosseum. Rome wanted someone who could exude power but they also required a ruler who would bring peace and stability to the region. You do not obtain peace and stability by having rulers who indiscriminately execute the infants of the citizenry. Rome would never have overlooked an act which would serve no purpose but to bolster the personal ambitions of an appointed ehtnocrat and inflame the public sentiment. As I stated earlier, the Romans were brutal in their administration of Justice but they did whatever was necessary to keep the peace and keep the people from rebelling. They did not and would not tolerate a self-centered and gratuitous acts of violence that would lead to dissent, anger, and instability.
I again point out that your grasp of this far exceeds mine but from the little I know the Romans were reasonably happy with anything so long as the local guy in charge could maintain control of the population and keep those tax dollars flowing. The general population didn't like or respect Herod but they feared him which was enough to keep him in control. (The whole thing reminds me a lot of Hussein in Iraq.) I'm not completely convinced that Rome would care.
Again I question how many infant boys would be born in the immediate area of Bethlehem in that period. The historical outline that you have provided is fascinating. Thanks
On a side note, there are Christians who will reject the claim simply on moral grounds. Some theologians find the story totally incompatible with Christian ethics. Why would God send an angel to warn Mary and Joseph but not also warn other parents of the imminent danger? Essentially, the angel is telling Joseph that, "I was sent to warn you that a bunch of infants are about to be massacred. You better leave before the killing starts." Why did Mary and Jospeh neglect to warn others of the imminent danger to their children? If the story is factual, it appears that their primary concern was their own safety.
John Polkinghorne has written a great book called Quarks, Chaos & Christianity: Questions to Science and Religion I can't quote it exactly as I have lent it out. John theorizes that God has created this world in such a way that although he is all knowing he does not know the future. Polkinghorne suggests that God has created a world with nearly infinite possibilities so although He knows the present and the past He only knows of future possibilities. God may very well only have known that it would be a strong possibility that Herod would try and kill Jesus but not have known that Herod would go as far as he did.
Here is a talk given by Polkinghorne on the subject of God's interaction with the world. John Polkinghorne
Such discussions are often beneficial simply because they cause one to research things on their own or perhaps learn a bit from what others have to say. I always come away knowing a bit more about my own positions and in the process I also end up understanding more about the position of others.
The main reason I hang around here is to learn, primarily by reading but secondarily by having to explain just what it is I believe. Thanks again.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Grizz, posted 05-29-2008 6:45 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Grizz, posted 06-01-2008 11:45 AM GDR has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024