Message

How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby outhouse » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:18 pm

Secret Alias wrote:[
. But the fact that the gospel writer can make a blanket reference to 'Pharisees' time and again means there must have been some identifying characteristic which was general enough to identify the group. My assumption is that the Pharisees were the most active in establishing converts from among the People of the Land

.



As far as I know the Pharisees were divided internally by those who did not want to establish converts. Pro Hellenist VS Pharisaic zealots holding more traditional value.


I also have a hard time thinking the Hellenistic gospel/text authors carried the same context from one to another author. I also think they were also not well acquainted with Pharisees in general nor was any internal disagreement worth publishing by Hellenist who were painting Judaism in a bad light.

A movement growing in the Diaspora in gentile communities, should have less Pharisaic knowledge then say Hellenistic Jews in Israel.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Advertisements

by »

 

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:19 pm

An example of the survival of the negative view of the Pentateuch from among the sects of Dositheus within Samaritanism. From Abu'l Fath's Chronicle:

He (the Dositheans heretic Sakta) said that synagogues were no different from temples of idols, and if one offered something to the synagogue, it was as though he had offered it to a temple of idols. He said that the ark containing the rolled up Scroll in the synagogue is like an overdressed harlot." He ruled that every person who recites (Scripture) or prays must cover his head, and that anyone who does not do as he says is liable to (God's) curse.


I've always thought the last sentence echoes 1 Corinthians chapter 7 but maybe it's just me.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:23 pm

As far as I know the Pharisees were divided internally by those who did not want to establish converts. Pro Hellenist VS Pharisaic zealots holding more traditional value.


Of course within every group there are variations. In the Republican party there are many kinds of Republicans. Same with the Democratic party. Nevertheless there are easy to define caricatures of 'Republicans' and 'Democrats' in our time. So too with the Pharisees. The Pharisees seem to be defined as a group eager to convert the peasants of the land to accept the laws of the Pentateuch. This presupposes that most of the People of the Land didn't live according to the commands of Moses, right? The same sorts of things are echoed in the Talmud centuries later. Go to any Chinese restaurant in your town and you'll find 'Jews' of the same ilk. Being 'Jewish' was never entirely defined by observing the Pentateuch.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby outhouse » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:25 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
a Hellenistic divorce of cultural Judaism.


But you recognizing that only the ten commandments came from God (ignoring or rejecting the Pentateuch) allows one to co-exist with any culture quite easily. Were there formerly law-abiding priests in the aftermath of the destruction who were persuaded to embrace the position that only the ten commandments were holy? I am absolutely certain of that especially given the fact that it is highly probable that many or most of the captured Jewish holdouts in Jerusalem were castrated when put into chains, thus excluding them forever from the priestly ranks. This is the simplest explanation for why sacrifices were summarily dropped after the destruction. .



More or less agree with everything but, I think there is plenty of evidence typical oppressed Israelite Jews knew much more then the ten laws.

Were not traveling teacher/healers dime a dozen? I would agree the peasant based teaches were not the literal geniuses compared to a text based house of worship. But excluding all literary traditions is quite a steep order here.


I would say its about factual they were not ignorant to a thousand years of traditions.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:31 pm

we "may be" able to label as ZEALOTS


But here is where I don't understand your argument. There is nothing in the gospels which connect Jesus to the zealots. You do this by way of Josephus and a personal desire to figure out who Jesus was. But there is no evidence from Christian antiquity that there were groups who identified Jesus as a revolutionary. At least what I am doing has some precedent from the surviving material. I don't know why you call out making the connection between the People of the Land and the adherence to only the ten commandments as 'unsubstantiated' when it is clearly referenced or intimated in different periods of Jewish history but your identification between Jesus and the revolutionaries is TOTALLY contradicted by even the evidence you cite.

Josephus makes clear that the revolutionaries were motivated by forcing people in the land to observe the laws of Moses (often forcibly circumcising them which would be brutally painful). They would have had to force people to do something they were already doing. Josephus was a Pharisee. He was also a revolutionary. The people of the land had no interest or knowledge of the Pentateuch. The Galilean peasant thing doesn't connect with the revolutionary thing. Josephus blames the Galileans for the war but the Pharisees themselves acknowledge that they didn't succeed at converting the Galileans. So where are these 'rabid Galilean zealots who also were adherents to the Pentateuch who also became Christians.' This notion doesn't jibe with any of the evidence.

Instead we should believe that Josephus, being guilty of many war crimes and atrocities, blames the native Galileans for crimes that he and his Jewish soldiers committed. That's the most sensible explanation.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby outhouse » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:33 pm

Secret Alias wrote: The Pharisees seem to be defined as a group eager to convert the peasants of the land to accept the laws of the Pentateuch.

.


I follow this Only along the lines of the socioeconomics. The rich benefited from the Hellenistic perversion of Judaism. They benefited from Roman schools and gyms, and retained their wealth working hand in hand with the enemy.

This is the Hellenistic corruption the Zealots took over the temple for. This was a major part of the politics that destroyed the temple.


I don't have a number to say it was a 50/50 split, more or less. I have no idea how many grass rooted Pharisees even existed. I would say if they existed in Jerusalem, they are the Hellenist negatively portrayed in the gospel text.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby outhouse » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:39 pm

Secret Alias wrote:But here is where I don't understand your argument. There is nothing in the gospels which connect Jesus to the zealots. You do this by way of Josephus and a personal desire to figure out who Jesus was..


Yes and no.

The gospel tradition of Galilean for me dictates he was a Zealots, "yes" because only Josephus describes this group.

But I can still throw Josephus out the window, and rely on the socioeconomic difference between Antipas Hellenist in Sepphoris, and the division between them and Aramaic peasant villages with feces packed fieldstone walls.

I can also use the tradition of trouble in the temple, with the example of a destroyed temple a few decades later.


I have liitle faith in anything Josephus wrote, while recognizing the valuable context can still be pulled from his redacted text.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby Secret Alias » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:39 pm

The rich benefited from the Hellenistic perversion of Judaism.


But how was Judaism 'perverted' by kissing the ass of their conquerors in the Greek and Roman period when the religion began by Ezra kissing the ass of the Persians? It was always an effeminate culture developed from flattering foreign rulers. In the Pentateuch for instance there are no mentions of Moses raising any armies to protect the state. Why? Because at the time of Ezra the Israelites were forbidden from taking up arms. The religion began and was sustained only through kissing the ass of foreign rulers. Adapting to Greek or Roman society pales in comparison (in the kiss ass dimension) to pretending that heaven resembled a Persian garden (down to taking the fucking Persian name!). The second most important thing in the Pentateuch - the giving of the Law is always described in Persian terminology eshdat lamo. There was no greater kiss ass religion in the history of humanity than the one made up by Ezra - but that is why it likely survived. All manliness (= rebellion) was already thrown out the door. It already assumes that real men aren't required to maintain the religious state. Instead all the able bodied men of the upper classes devoted themselves to plundering the ignorant superstitious population of what little they had.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Secret Alias
 
Posts: 6157
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby outhouse » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:45 pm

One note. Even if you were correct, only ten laws known for the peasant class.


These are not the people who wrote the text your inferring to. These are in part rhetorical traditions, from another culture altogether. I don't think you have a case either way. Hellenistic Proselytes to Judaism and even Hellenist were called Jews with very limited knowledge simply swearing off pagan deities. But people did not adopt only ten laws and one god, then have no more questions regarding said faith. It doesn't make any sense at all to me.
outhouse
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

Postby outhouse » Mon Oct 12, 2015 12:47 pm

Secret Alias wrote:The religion began and was sustained only through kissing the ass of foreign rulers.



.


That is truth only we see, with us holding more knowledge then they ever dreamed possible.


That is not the textual apologetic traditions is it?
outhouse
 
Posts: 3043
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Advertisement

by »

 

PreviousNext

Return to Christian Texts and History

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], Giuseppe, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MrMacSon, powindah, Steven Avery, Stuart and 52 guests