Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

outhouse wrote:Maybe you could try and create history for a change instead of trying to destroy it?

Why don't you give a brief paragraph or two of what you think life was like say in Nazareth 25 CE, and then politics in the temple at 25CE.

Let's take a look at one of your foundational assumptions; that the fact that Jesus was crucified on Passover in front of thousands of eyewitnesses led to the dispersal and spread of Christianity. You assume that (a) witnesses would be sympathetic to Jesus, (b) they would even know what was going on, (c) Jesus would be known above the others crucified that day with him.

Let's imagine we are there, in Jerusalem. preparing for Passover. Perhaps we are on the Temple grounds, with thousand of people milling about. Suddenly, in a corner of the Temple yard, there's a commotion, someone yelling about "My father's house," knocking over tables. You look over, shrug, eventually it goes away. Tables are righted, the day goes on. Later, you might hear that three criminals are being crucified. Maybe you even had attended the trial of one of them in front of Pilate and joined the throngs yelling "Crucify him!" You might even recognize him as the man who created the commotion at the Temple. You can't be sure, though, those crazy zealots all look alike to you. Maybe you decide to watch the criminals taken out to be crucified.

Now, having witnessed that, what do you pass along? How would you know that it was Jesus of Nazareth, miracle wonder man? How would you know that his trial was filled with false testimony? What would make you at all sympathetic to this criminal who you demanded to have crucified? Three criminals were crucified that day, why would just Jesus of Nazareth stand out to you?

cienfuegos wrote:

outhouse wrote:Maybe you could try and create history for a change instead of trying to destroy it?

Why don't you give a brief paragraph or two of what you think life was like say in Nazareth 25 CE, and then politics in the temple at 25CE.

Let's take a look at one of your foundational assumptions; that the fact that Jesus was crucified on Passover in front of thousands of eyewitnesses led to the dispersal and spread of Christianity. You assume that (a) witnesses would be sympathetic to Jesus, (b) they would even know what was going on, (c) Jesus would be known above the others crucified that day with him.

Let's imagine we are there, in Jerusalem. preparing for Passover. Perhaps we are on the Temple grounds, with thousand of people milling about. Suddenly, in a corner of the Temple yard, there's a commotion, someone yelling about "My father's house," knocking over tables. You look over, shrug, eventually it goes away. Tables are righted, the day goes on. Later, you might hear that three criminals are being crucified. Maybe you even had attended the trial of one of them in front of Pilate and joined the throngs yelling "Crucify him!" You might even recognize him as the man who created the commotion at the Temple. You can't be sure, though, those crazy zealots all look alike to you. Maybe you decide to watch the criminals taken out to be crucified.

Now, having witnessed that, what do you pass along? How would you know that it was Jesus of Nazareth, miracle wonder man? How would you know that his trial was filled with false testimony? What would make you at all sympathetic to this criminal who you demanded to have crucified? Three criminals were crucified that day, why would just Jesus of Nazareth stand out to you?

Ill give you credit it is a decent reply.


But your ignoring the social and political climate of a first century Passover in this place. First and not up for debate. Tensions were already high during these Temple Passovers due to Roman occupation and the corruption in the temple.

One man fighting the corruption in the temple, trying to rally the crowd against the powers that be, for good causes, could be remembered and martyred for his death perceived as a selfless sacrifice. This temple was viewed as gods house, the temple coins required by all, had a pagan deities face on them, Melqart. We have examples of Jews going off for just a golden eagle, let alone a pagan deity required in gods own house.

We also have an example of an old man being remembered to this day for being killed at a Passover. By some it was called something like, the Trampled Passover or close to such, after an old man was ran over by a rioting crowd. We have a single Roman guard remembered from a Passover as well to this day after urinating towards a crowd in the temple that ended up killing thousands of people. We have the Zealots responsible for getting the temple destroyed, and look at how little historical information exist regarding that?


Judaism was being perverted by the Hellenist in charge of the temple. The people had enough. And one man was viewed as brave for trying to take them all on and stop the abuse. And he paid with his life. Remember they grabbed him at night, so he had all day to carry on. If we look at Crossans work, he claims he made a protest entering the city on a female donkey to mock Pilates triumphant entry. I think its mythology but we have some good reasons.

How would you know that his trial was filled with false testimony?

That would be later mythology rhetorically added to build character making a peasant more important then he was, to get more people to follow this
new way of Judaism.

Maybe you even had attended the trial of one of them in front of Pilate and joined the throngs yelling "Crucify him!"

Fiction.

You look over, shrug, eventually it goes away.

That is an assumption he was only causing a stink for a few minutes.

To get by the Romans policing the event and the temple guards, and to be put on a cross, it was no small event.

to cienfuegos,

On thing I do, as much as it is possible, is to answer:
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
Answer those questions here then.

You are naive about sources. Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? You can only guess. What was the author's purpose? You can only guess. When was it written? You can only guess. On what primary sources was it based? You can only guess.

I already partly answered that on my website:
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Winter of 70-71
Where was it produced (localization)?
Likely Corinth
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
A Christian, likely familiar with Latin and Roman administration (large project, army). As for the Aramaism, probably originating from an eyewitness visitor, most likely Peter. How that got transmitted into the gospel, I do not know.
That Christian was certainly dishonest and bent into using Jesus & his life story (which he greatly enhanced, embellished and added fiction in order to achieve his purpose) for a religious agenda.
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
The LXX, Paul, eyewitness' account, some Judaizer false apostles, etc ...
I explained most of that mostly in:
http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html and http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html
I have also a graphic from http://historical-jesus.info/107.html


But you present the exact answer to these questions as do or die in order to go further into using gMark for authentic info.
It is not the case. That's only the opinion/proposal of one scholar, not the law of the land (even if it appears in Wikipedia!).
From the same website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method, I also read:
Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.

Because of the particular case of the start of Christianity, I think acting as an investigator of cold case crimes is a very good method, probably more effective that the ill-defined & fuzzy historical method.
I want to add my method also includes process of elimination, looking when the author practiced damage control, identifying discontinuities & interpolations, when some event explain well what follows ...
More about my method here: http://historical-jesus.info/author.html
All of that in order to produce a (not the) reconstruction of the beginning of Christianity which is the most credible according to the available evidence.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to cienfuegos,

On thing I do, as much as it is possible, is to answer:
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Where was it produced (localization)?
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
Answer those questions here then.

You are naive about sources. Who wrote the Gospel of Mark? You can only guess. What was the author's purpose? You can only guess. When was it written? You can only guess. On what primary sources was it based? You can only guess.

I already partly answered that on my website:
When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
Winter of 70-71
Where was it produced (localization)?
Likely Corinth
By whom was it produced (authorship)?
A Christian, likely familiar with Latin and Roman administration (large project, army). As for the Aramaism, probably originating from an eyewitness visitor, most likely Peter. How that got transmitted into the gospel, I do not know.
That Christian was certainly dishonest and bent into using Jesus & his life story (which he greatly enhanced, embellished and added fiction in order to achieve his purpose) for a religious agenda.
From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
The LXX, Paul, eyewitness' account, some Judaizer false apostles, etc ...
I explained most of that mostly in:
http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html and http://historical-jesus.info/appd.html
I have also a graphic from http://historical-jesus.info/107.html


But you present the exact answer to these questions as do or die in order to go further into using gMark for authentic info.
It is not the case. That's only the opinion/proposal of one scholar, not the law of the land (even if it appears in Wikipedia!).
From the same website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method, I also read:
Noting that few documents are accepted as completely reliable, Louis Gottschalk sets down the general rule, "for each particular of a document the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author." An author's trustworthiness in the main may establish a background probability for the consideration of each statement, but each piece of evidence extracted must be weighed individually.

Because of the particular case of the start of Christianity, I think acting as an investigator of cold case crimes is a very good method, probably more effective that the ill-defined & fuzzy historical method.
I want to add my method also includes process of elimination, looking when the author practiced damage control, identifying discontinuities & interpolations, when some event explain well what follows ...
More about my method here: http://historical-jesus.info/author.html
All of that in order to produce a (not the) reconstruction of the beginning of Christianity which is the most credible according to the available evidence.

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard, I accept that you have completed a great deal of work and you know this material very well. I am afraid that you have created a methodology that produce whatever conclusions you favor, much like a person using a oija board. The quote from wiki should be your guide, I think you are not careful in using the Gospels as evidence.

outhouse wrote: Ill give you credit it is a decent reply.

Thank you.

outhouse wrote: But your ignoring the social and political climate of a first century Passover in this place. First and not up for debate. Tensions were already high during these Temple Passovers due to Roman occupation and the corruption in the temple.

I don't know why you think I ignore that.

outhouse wrote: One man fighting the corruption in the temple, trying to rally the crowd against the powers that be, for good causes, could be remembered and martyred for his death perceived as a selfless sacrifice. This temple was viewed as gods house, the temple coins required by all, had a pagan deities face on them, Melqart. We have examples of Jews going off for just a golden eagle, let alone a pagan deity required in gods own house.

In conflicts such as this, there are many sides. Some choose the path of least resistance, collaboration or at least accommodation, with the colonizers (see the Colonizer and the Colonized, Albert Memmi). The population of actual resisters is usually not that large. Most people just try to survive and make do in the context within which they live. Those in the Temple at that time are more likely to have been Jews willing to seek rapprochement with Rome and the Temple elite. There might have been some sympathizers, but there is not much reason to think it would have been that widespread. In fact, the story itself says the crowd did turn on Jesus and was not sympathetic.

[quote="outhouse]We also have an example of an old man being remembered to this day for being killed at a Passover. By some it was called something like, the Trampled Passover or close to such, after an old man was ran over by a rioting crowd. We have a single Roman guard remembered from a Passover as well to this day after urinating towards a crowd in the temple that ended up killing thousands of people. We have the Zealots responsible for getting the temple destroyed, and look at how little historical information exist regarding that? [/quote]

How do we know these things? Think about that and the difference between these incidents and the Jesus Temple story.

outhouse wrote: Judaism was being perverted by the Hellenist in charge of the temple. The people had enough. And one man was viewed as brave for trying to take them all on and stop the abuse. And he paid with his life. Remember they grabbed him at night, so he had all day to carry on. If we look at Crossans work, he claims he made a protest entering the city on a female donkey to mock Pilates triumphant entry. I think its mythology but we have some good reasons.

Is it mythology or not? How do you tell what is myth and what is not?

outhouse wrote:
That would be later mythology rhetorically added to build character making a peasant more important then he was, to get more people to follow this
new way of Judaism.

How do you tell what is "rhetorically added to build character" and what is genuine? Aren't you just picking and choosing what suits your theory?

outhouse wrote:

cienfuegos wrote:Maybe you even had attended the trial of one of them in front of Pilate and joined the throngs yelling "Crucify him!"

Fiction.

How do you determine what is fact and what is fiction?

outhouse wrote:

cienfuegos wrote:You look over, shrug, eventually it goes away.

That is an assumption he was only causing a stink for a few minutes.

I said eventually, which doesn't imply a few minutes. How far would any such rabble rousing get? As you pointed out yourself, Passover was a high tension time when Rome had more security measures in place. Do you think the Romans, Temple guards, or even the patrons themselves would just stand by and watch Jesus turn over tables?

outhouse wrote: To get by the Romans policing the event and the temple guards, and to be put on a cross, it was no small event.

Yet smaller events make it into contemporary histories of the time, but this does not (see Jewish wars 6.5.3 for one example).

cienfuegos wrote: Passover was a high tension time when Rome had more security measures in place. Do you think the Romans, Temple guards, or even the patrons themselves would just stand by and watch Jesus turn over tables?

Tipping of tables may have OT origins. I run with causing general trouble instead of trying o get to descriptive with so little actually know one way or the other. Against it is also the fact the tables had guards that would have wrestled him to the ground, the temple was set up and these tables not just out in the open to be vandalized by peasants.


It also has slight plausibility because of the coins having Melqart on them. Juts not as written.

But yes, they run the risk of all out war, riot or rebellion if they sent a goon squad out to stop him. For sedition like this, sending out a goon squad at night gives it historical credibility, as it is the smartest thing to do.

. Those in the Temple at that time are more likely to have been Jews willing to seek rapprochement with Rome and the Temple elite

I cannot buy that.

The Sadducees were hated by all, by all accounts. The Pharisees known to extort tithes from peasants using Roman muscle. NO these were oppressed pissed off people ready to snap.

Tensions were known to be high, this is not a sign of people there just to party in the holiday.

There was a lot of political turmoil surrounding the temple, and look how short of an existence it had. That is testament to what shaky ground it was always on.

the story itself says the crowd did turn on Jesus and was not sympathetic.

I can see this, look at the crowd of half a million people and how many different cultures and beliefs were there. BUT most of what you are reporting is actually rhetoric to separate the movement from Judaism painting Jews as the bad guys. So that does not get bought by me.

Is it mythology or not?

You will have to be more specific.

How do you tell what is myth and what is not?

A lot of things.

How do you tell what is "rhetorically added to build character" and what is genuine?

years of study on the topic and the art of first century rhetoric which is an art form in itself

Aren't you just picking and choosing what suits your theory?

Not at all

What I have stated is the current study on the topic, and a compilation of the top scholars which do not deviate much on "some" things I have stated

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles ... 154120.htm

Here's a response article by Australian Christian apologist/historian Jon Dickson, who was one of Lataster's professors. While I tend to side with historicists - particularly on the question of whether or not Paul thought Jesus had been here on Earth - Dickson's smear here comparing mythicists to "anti-vaccinationists" is only harming to his own case. While I do think the evidence points more in favor of historicism, such an obvious smear isn't warranted. There ARE reasons to doubt the historicity of Jesus whether Dickson acknowledges this or not. Trying to pretend that it's as closed a case as the benefits of vaccination will only hurt Dickson and his fellow apologists more, the more the general public become aware just how scanty and questionable the evidence is. Other than that, I do agree with most of Dickson's criticisms over Lataster's reading of the evidence (or, at least can see them as 50/50, e.g. whether or not 1 Corinthians 15:1-5 rules in Paul's dependence on human sources)

Whether or not Paul thought Jesus had been here on Earth is a moot point; the key issue is whether the Jesus portrayed in the NT was here on earth and did or said most of the things the NT attributes to him.

^"as portrayed in the NT"? Multiplying bread? Walking on water? Of course not. I think everyone outside of Christian fundamentalism knows that.

"Whether or not Paul thought Jesus had been here on Earth is a moot point"

Not if your hypothesis for how Christianity ignited without a historical Jesus requires Paul not to have thought Jesus had been here on Earth, as Carrier (whom Lataster cites) tries to argue.