Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote: It is 100% plausible that the early movement so closely tied to a Galilean trouble maker would be perceived as huge risk to the temple.

After all, just a few decades later Galileans took the temple down.

We agree 100%. No argument.

But as I said in an earlier response (and what you ignored then) is that we can always imagine plausible scenarios and even use them to write scripts for some great movies. But it's all a mind-game. That's not how historians of ancient history or classicists actually do history.

Just imagining what's plausible is not history. History is always based on evidence. Scholars disagree over whether Jesus did even cause any disturbance at the Temple. Paula Fredriksen is one of those who thinks the episode is entirely fiction.

She and a number of other scholars also believe the Romans did not consider his followers any sort of threat and that's why they did NOT pursue them. Paul said he was persecuted because of his stance on the law -- and we know he did not persecute Christians for that reason. So who was persecuting these Christians before Paul was converted and why?

Now of course you can not bother with the evidence or arguments and just count heads and say most scholars disagree. But when it comes to any basic events in any other field of history ALL scholars are agreed on WHAT are the basic facts. No scholar disputes that Caesar crossed the Rubicon. But when it comes to the Temple incident some major names among the scholars do disagree that it is a fact.

They point to the criteria for historicity -- if an event is said to fulfil prophecy then it's probably just made up. If an event is there as a plot device to make the story work, they say, it is also probably just made up. That's why they think the incident never happened. (There's also the little problem of the incident being used as a metaphor for theological messages and the way it is contradicted in another gospel.)

If it never happened, we have no reason to think Jesus and his followers were feared as threatening zealots. Or do you think Jesus was a zealot?

neilgodfrey wrote:You've missed my point. Nothing changes the simple fact that they are all hypotheses. Nothing is changed by many or few people accepting the hypothesis. There is no "proof" of oral tradition or Markan priority or Q etc. We have arguments that persuade many people. And many treat them as givens. But they are still hypotheses.

.

Proof from this time period is a rare thing. Don't that me like that nut job Jacobovici


Lets run with hypothesis, all with different amounts of plausibility, from certainty to 50/50 to never happened.

I need no proof for the facts of oral tradition in illiterate societies.

Most scholars I think believe some sort of "easter experience" (so called) explains how the followers of Jesus came to believe in the resurrection

I don't buy it. That is apologetic nonsense. They would not be historians if they follow anything supernatural. Most scholars I know simple claim "some time" after his death people reported seeing him again, whether it be a vision or what not. I follow many that also see a spiritual resurrection that evolved into a physical one. Brings the missing ending of mark into context as views changed from spiritual to many following physical. Not only that had they all thought originally a physical event, Pauls version would not have been spiritual.

I assumed you knew all that that because of your boasting about how much more you know about the scholarship than twits like me.

I value your knowledge brother Neil, you take this to personal.

neilgodfrey wrote: Scholars disagree over whether Jesus did even cause any disturbance at the Temple

Lets say it like it is, a minimum of 95% follow he caused trouble in the temple. Can we say most?

Paula Fredriksen

I have followed some of her work. I like her trying to keep "Judaism in Jesus" and I like that she didn't view Jesus as viewing himself as a messiah that is was the crowd in Jeruslam.

My dislike is her relying on John as being more historical top make said conclusion.

we can always imagine plausible scenarios and even use them to write scripts for some great movies. But it's all a mind-game. That's not how historians of ancient history or classicists actually do history.

Actually during this time period due to the lack of much primary evidence, plausibility does come into play as well as the lack of certainty in many areas.

She and a number of other scholars also believe the Romans did not consider his followers any sort of threat and that's why they did NOT pursue them

You know the Romans method was to cut the snakes head off. And next, I only believe he had 3-4 followers running around Galilee with him, his inner circle. No threat there, that and the gospels portray them as cowards, which I can see them running back to Galilee tails between legs when the crap hit the fan.

So who was persecuting these Christians before Paul was converted and why?

Before Paul is a guess, but again, stopping people perceived as following a martyred Galilean that was gaining traction as talk of what was being said at Passovers crept back to those in power.

I think you miss something I could be wrong. But at Jesus death it was over with cutting the head off. I think it took years for the mythology to grow enough for this to even be noticed as a sect in the Diaspora, and be noticed as a threat to hire Paul.

Or do you think Jesus was a zealot?

Me personally, Yes. I think all Aramaic Galileans fit the bill. I also thing the term/name is as loose as trying to define first century Judaism. Zealots were wide and diverse in belief all over the board.

Now I monkeyed with my interpretations for a good while trying to retain the name "Jesus" as part of the "original" author's narrative but with bizarre twists like this. I came to the conclusion that the interpolator was so anxious to glorify Jesus that he sometimes changes doxologies addressed to the God and attribute them to Jesus, making some bizarre twists. Sometimes he just gets sloppy, like here

Are you saying the word Jesus may be an interpolation in the writings of "Paul"?

outhouse wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:You've missed my point. Nothing changes the simple fact that they are all hypotheses. Nothing is changed by many or few people accepting the hypothesis. There is no "proof" of oral tradition or Markan priority or Q etc. We have arguments that persuade many people. And many treat them as givens. But they are still hypotheses.

.

Proof from this time period is a rare thing. Don't that me like that nut job Jacobovici

You appear not to understand what a hypothesis is. Just because "proof is a rare thing", by the way, does not mean we must change the rules of historical inquiry. Or is that what you want to do for biblical studies?

outhouse wrote:Lets run with hypothesis, all with different amounts of plausibility, from certainty to 50/50 to never happened.

I need no proof for the facts of oral tradition in illiterate societies.

When mainstream scholars like

Henaut,
Hays,
Fredriksen,
Mack,
Allison,
Hock,
MacDonald,
Winn,
Goulder,
Boyarin,
Arnal,
Riley,
Pervo,
Tolbert,
Bonz,
Brant,
Crossan,
Penner,
Moles,
Watts,
Weeden, et al

all argue that significant sections of the Gospels and Acts are not indebted to oral tradition, (some even argue that virtually the entirety of the gospels (and Acts) cannot be explained on the hypothesis of oral tradition then I think even a layman is entitled to have doubts, too.

We don't have to sit back and say "Oral tradition is not in question." Oral tradition is in doubt with respect to varying amounts of the gospels and Acts (and some say almost all of the gospels and Acts).

The evidence they all address against oral tradition for many aspects of the Gospels-Acts is the similarity of the Gospels-Acts to other ancient texts we know were literary creations (no oral tradition) and the very real evidence that some (some say nearly all) of their stories are borrowed from other literature.

Research has shown that all literary creations share oral characteristics so oral features in a gospel are not proof of oral tradition. Many of the older scholarly ideas were based on oral traditions in Balkan societies and that situation has now been shown to be not relevant to ancient Palestine.

If you read Vansina, an authority on oral tradition, you will see that much of what he writes about how oral tradtion really works actually contradicts what many biblical scholars assume about it. I can direct you to where to find details about this if you are interested.

outhouse wrote:

Most scholars I think believe some sort of "easter experience" (so called) explains how the followers of Jesus came to believe in the resurrection

I don't buy it. That is apologetic nonsense. They would not be historians if they follow anything supernatural.

Stop pretending to be so dumb. You said you knew what the scholarly arguments are so I know you're just playing games and teasing me now and I'm sure you have better reading comprehension than you are pretending to have now.

The "easter experience" that mainstream scholars speak about is the dawning conviction that many of them came to sense or feel that Jesus was in some sense still alive and with them. No scholar is saying (at least openly) that there was a real supernatural experience. (Okay, a few do say this. Mainstream scholars, too.)

But I know you understand that and were just pulling my leg.

outhouse wrote:Most scholars I know simple claim "some time" after his death people reported seeing him again, whether it be a vision or what not. . . . .

That's what the scholars call the "easter experience" or the "easter event".

outhouse wrote:

I assumed you knew all that that because of your boasting about how much more you know about the scholarship than twits like me.

I value your knowledge brother Neil, you take this to personal.

One minute you say you value my knowledge and next you suggest I'm a clown.

I'm asking you to open your mind and think for yourself by getting to know the actual evidence for the many claims you (and your professors) make and start to think like a true scholar.

And do try not to be rude and I promise not to be rude back.

outhouse wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: Scholars disagree over whether Jesus did even cause any disturbance at the Temple

Lets say it like it is, a minimum of 95% follow he caused trouble in the temple. Can we say most?

What difference does counting heads make? That's not how arguments are decided by historians.

Let's say instead that you argue the reasons 95% of scholars say the event is historical and we will discuss those arguments.

Or if you don't want to discuss them then just list them so we can all understand why it is that 95% of scholars say it is historical.

Then we will compare those reasons with the reasons historians say any other event in the ancient world is believed to be historical.

Fair enough?

outhouse wrote:

Paula Fredriksen

I have followed some of her work. I like her trying to keep "Judaism in Jesus" and I like that she didn't view Jesus as viewing himself as a messiah that is was the crowd in Jeruslam.

My dislike is her relying on John as being more historical top make said conclusion.

That's nice, but what about the actual arguments against the historicity of Jesus causing a Temple disturbance? Can we discuss those?

outhouse wrote:

we can always imagine plausible scenarios and even use them to write scripts for some great movies. But it's all a mind-game. That's not how historians of ancient history or classicists actually do history.

Actually during this time period due to the lack of much primary evidence, plausibility does come into play as well as the lack of certainty in many areas.

I see. So you want to change the rules to get the sorts of results you need?

What do other historians of ancient times do when they find a lack of primary evidence?

outhouse wrote:

She and a number of other scholars also believe the Romans did not consider his followers any sort of threat and that's why they did NOT pursue them

You know the Romans method was to cut the snakes head off. And next, I only believe he had 3-4 followers running around Galilee with him, his inner circle. No threat there, that and the gospels portray them as cowards, which I can see them running back to Galilee tails between legs when the crap hit the fan.

Okay, then you do not believe that the early christians were believed to be a political threat after all and so there was no reason to persecute them for any reason like that. So you withdraw your argument that the authorities were scared of a band of zealots whose leader had led an attack on the Temple, yes?

outhouse wrote:

So who was persecuting these Christians before Paul was converted and why?

Before Paul is a guess, but again, stopping people perceived as following a martyred Galilean that was gaining traction as talk of what was being said at Passovers crept back to those in power.

But didn't you just say there was only a handful of cowards left in Galilee?

What evidence do you have for any alternative scenario? It sounds like you are just playing let's pretend mind-games. That's not history. That's creative writing. Fiction. Myth-making? Are you a mythicist or something?

Here are various Christian groups of the earliest days that are proposed by scholars:

The Itinerants of Galilee (Q community)
The Jerusalem Pillars
The Family of Jesus
The Congregation of Israel
The Synagogue Reformers
The James community
The Thomasine Christians
The Didache community. . . .

Which ones of those do you imagine the authorities fearing and Paul going out and persecuting -- and why? (Most of them did not have any interest in worshiping a reputed crucified rebel.)

outhouse wrote:I think you miss something I could be wrong. But at Jesus death it was over with cutting the head off. I think it took years for the mythology to grow enough for this to even be noticed as a sect in the Diaspora, and be noticed as a threat to hire Paul.

That's all myth-making guesses. What is your evidence for this scenario? You're not doing history. You are creating a script for a movie.

You need to make a case based on evidence. That's doing history the way historians do it.

outhouse wrote:

Or do you think Jesus was a zealot?

Me personally, Yes. I think all Aramaic Galileans fit the bill. I also thing the term/name is as loose as trying to define first century Judaism. Zealots were wide and diverse in belief all over the board.

So you disagree with most reputable scholars on this one. I see.

If you are allowed to do that can you let me side with a minority scholarly view, too?

neilgodfrey wrote: No I have not overlooked or forgotten that passage at all. It was a reason I was a long time in coming to my current views.

As for any suggestion that Paul was persecuted for the same reasons he supposedly persecuted the church -- that's illogical. There was nothing in Christian teaching -- nothing about Christianity's beliefs about a messiah or Jesus -- that was so "blasphemous" that would have led Jewish authorities to snub their noses at their Roman and other overlords and go out incarcerating, torturing and lynching Christians in their midst. Such a scenario is postulated only in ignorance of Second Temple Judaism and the historical situation.

Hi Neil

There may be an issue of what we mean by persecution.

If we ignore Acts, then IMO the prima-facie interpretation of Paul would be that before he became a Christian he was involved in Christians getting whipped by the synagogue authorities for publicly expressing their controversial ideas.

After he became a Christian he got whipped by the synagogue authorities for publicly expressing his controversial ideas.

Are you saying that such a scenario is implausible ? or just that it would not amount to real persecution ?

Andrew Criddle

neilgodfrey wrote:Of course there were persecutions. But no one is denying that there were. What is questioned is that it was "a time of persecution" -- common knowledge and factual ... starting with Paul hunting them down and not letting up till the Edict of Milan. That is the myth Candida Moss refutes.

From c 100 CE to c 255 CE and again for several years at the beginning of the 4th century,it was possible to be legally executed for merely being a Christian and refusing to renounce Christianity. In most times and most places during this period this was highly unlikely to happen, but that is another matter.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote: No I have not overlooked or forgotten that passage at all. It was a reason I was a long time in coming to my current views.

As for any suggestion that Paul was persecuted for the same reasons he supposedly persecuted the church -- that's illogical. There was nothing in Christian teaching -- nothing about Christianity's beliefs about a messiah or Jesus -- that was so "blasphemous" that would have led Jewish authorities to snub their noses at their Roman and other overlords and go out incarcerating, torturing and lynching Christians in their midst. Such a scenario is postulated only in ignorance of Second Temple Judaism and the historical situation.

Hi Neil

There may be an issue of what we mean by persecution.

If we ignore Acts, then IMO the prima-facie interpretation of Paul would be that before he became a Christian he was involved in Christians getting whipped by the synagogue authorities for publicly expressing their controversial ideas.

After he became a Christian he got whipped by the synagogue authorities for publicly expressing his controversial ideas.

Are you saying that such a scenario is implausible ? or just that it would not amount to real persecution ?

Andrew Criddle

Yes what the word for persecution does mean is an issue as I'm sure you know.

Where do we learn about pre-Pauline Christians being whipped for being Christians if we ignore Acts?

Paul indicates he was persecuted for his views on the law. That was not an issue for anyone before Paul as far as I am aware.

Lots of scenarios are plausible. But we want to do it the way historians do.

andrewcriddle wrote:

neilgodfrey wrote:Of course there were persecutions. But no one is denying that there were. What is questioned is that it was "a time of persecution" -- common knowledge and factual ... starting with Paul hunting them down and not letting up till the Edict of Milan. That is the myth Candida Moss refutes.

From c 100 CE to c 255 CE and again for several years at the beginning of the 4th century,it was possible to be legally executed for merely being a Christian and refusing to renounce Christianity. In most times and most places during this period this was highly unlikely to happen, but that is another matter.

Andrew Criddle

The sporadic and occasional nature of such events is the point. Christians were not being driven underground as we know. Well-to-do advertized their Christianity in their sarcophagi. The poor in Phrygia placed Christian inscriptions on open grave markers -- not hiding in catacombs. Christians occupied high offices. Persecutions that broke out had more to do with issues secondary to their Christianity itself.