How Much of the Gospel is Actual History

[Secret Alias]

I wonder why you keep raising this issue if it is not relevant to the case you might wish to try to present.

Because I am interested in engaging intelligent people. The fact that I keep getting stuck talking to you TedM and John outhouse is an unfortunate consequence of the technology. There are people who read this forum but don't participate directly in the discussion but PM people if they have something interesting to say. I guess you haven't been getting many PMs here ...

[Secret Alias]

You raised these issues and I am happy to dismiss them.

So you've made a case for the Pentateuch being written for some other cultic center than a Samaritan one? Where exactly do you think Shechem is? Poland?

[Secret Alias]

So according to you the Pharisees didn’t exist; no Jews accepted the Prophets and the Writing

You recognize that the term Pharisee was applied at first disparagingly to the tradition. It designated them as a heresy implying that they came after the Sadducees. For why else would someone adopt a name given by one's enemies. The enemies necessarily existed before the birth of the tradition.

[Secret Alias]

You claim that the vast majority of people living in Judea and Galilee are what 6th century CE rabbinic Judaism refers to as the people of land without providing any 1st century evidence.

Since most of the contemporary pagan world was illiterate why should we ignore a testimony dated to sometime after the fourth century about most Jews being 'like' their pagan neighbors in terms of literacy. Chances are that most of the Jews was as illiterate as their pagan counterparts, no? What is the basis for the uniqueness of the Jews in terms of literacy given the testimony that ben Akiva the proselyte was once of the idiotai? Why would the Jews make that up about one of their most beloved sages?

And even if the passage was written around the fourth century, what is it really saying? It is saying that the people of the land were illiterate ignoramuses and that the people of the land were always illiterate ignoramuses. Why should anyone doubt that fact? I fail to see why that isn't persuasive given the criterion of embarrassment.

Moreover the Talmud makes similar references to the Samaritans - i.e. there are Samaritan am ha-eretz no less than Jewish ones. I fail to see what is controversial about any of these assertions. Your point is that because the Jewish sources don't go back to the first century that we should imagine a completely different world of literacy among Jews and Samaritans. Why? The ancient world had very low literacy rates. There is no rational basis to your criticism.

[Secret Alias]

When you ask me to go away is this your way of saying that you can’t present a rational case for your position?

No I doubt very much I have anything to learn from you so it doesn't serve my reason for being at the forum (i.e. to engage with intelligent, knowledgeable people).

[Secret Alias]

You have a strange view on how to discover what Jesus did and said and what the early church was doing.

But that already presumes that Jesus did or said ANYTHING. All we have is a book called the gospel which was evidently forged many times over. The Marcionites claim to have the first gospel written by Paul and Paul says he had or wrote a gospel. The Catholics claimed they had a corrupt version penned by Paul's assistant Luke curiously sidestepping Paul himself saying he had a gospel.

I see no reason to start with the assumption that Jesus said or did anything of note. The event that is given a firm date is the crucifixion. The enemies of Christianity claim to have documents from Pilate which assign the date to 21 CE. At the very least it is a 'dateable' event, the only one in the gospel. I see no reason to see any history in the gospel beyond the crucifixion. And indeed not surprisingly no agreement seems to exist between Christians groups in the earliest period beyond the historicity of the crucifixion.

[Secret Alias]

Also Schwartz's reconstruction of Josephus's testimony (mentioned approvingly by a host of good scholars including Charlesworth, Mason and I forget the half dozen others) agrees with the dating of the Acts of Pilate.

[Secret Alias]

And John 7:49 is generally thought to acknowledge that the am ha-eretz situation existed in the first century:

No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law--there is a curse on them.

Sounds sort of like the situation I am describing no? And a few lines later Jesus declares:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM!"

Hmmm. The Pharisees knew that Jesus was saying he was the angel who met Moses and wanted to stone him for blasphemy. The people of the Land who were attracted to his teachings were complete ignoramuses but became his followers anyway. They believed he was the god who met Moses. But other than that all that I am describing is completely wrong. Hmmm.

[Secret Alias]

The Pentateuch says:

And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING (ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν); and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, the Being (ὁ ὤν) has sent me to you.

The gospel says

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM (ἐγώ εἰμι)!"

And various Church Fathers have made the connection as early as Justin, but somehow I am way off base from the truth.

[Michael BG]

But the recognition that Jews and Samaritans at one time held the ten commandments to be the only Torah from heaven is critical to understanding the fictitious debate in Matthew 19. Jesus is throwing his hat into the 'only the ten commandments came from heaven' side by saying 'Moses shouldn't have granted divorce bills' bit. With this Jesus is not only distinguishing God's commandments and Moses's, in doing so he is necessarily depreciating the entire Pentateuch and Moses.

Why is it critical that 400 or 500 years before Jesus was born the Jews only recognised the Ten Commandments came from God? Do you think that the gospels were written then?

You need to provide evidence for what was happening in the 1st century CE, not hundreds of years in the past or future. Even using the Talmud it is clear that Rabbinic Judaism discussed how to keep more than just the Ten Commandments. Circumcision is not in the Ten Commandments but Judaism during the Hasmonean period practiced it and those males converted to Judaism were circumcised.

And if I cited the rabbinic tradition, Irenaeus and Porphyry is that going to change your mind about Ezra? …

You are correct, because you need to discuss why you think the rabbinic tradition applies and why you think Irenaeus and Porphyry would be correct as they are not neutral.

You claim that the vast majority of people living in Judea and Galilee are what 6th century CE rabbinic Judaism refers to as the people of land without providing any 1st century evidence.

Since most of the contemporary pagan world was illiterate why should we ignore a testimony dated to sometime after the fourth century about most Jews being 'like' their pagan neighbors in terms of literacy.

Please provide the quote with its reference and if you can an internet link to it?

Chances are that most of the Jews was as illiterate as their pagan counterparts, no? What is the basis for the uniqueness of the Jews in terms of literacy given the testimony that ben Akiva the proselyte was once of the idiotai? Why would the Jews make that up about one of their most beloved sages?

And even if the passage was written around the fourth century, what is it really saying? It is saying that the people of the land were illiterate ignoramuses and that the people of the land were always illiterate ignoramuses. Why should anyone doubt that fact? I fail to see why that isn't persuasive given the criterion of embarrassment.

Please provide the quote with its reference and if you can an internet link to it?

Moreover the Talmud makes similar references to the Samaritans - i.e. there are Samaritan am ha-eretz no less than Jewish ones. I fail to see what is controversial about any of these assertions. Your point is that because the Jewish sources don't go back to the first century that we should imagine a completely different world of literacy among Jews and Samaritans. Why? The ancient world had very low literacy rates. There is no rational basis to your criticism.

Would the Talmud, assuming you could provide the quote and the reference and an internet link, be reliable when discussing the Samaritans? It would be like relying on the Talmud to discover historical facts about Jesus.

And John 7:49 is generally thought to acknowledge that the am ha-eretz situation existed in the first century:

No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law--there is a curse on them.

Sounds sort of like the situation I am describing no? And a few lines later Jesus declares:

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I AM!"

Hmmm. The Pharisees knew that Jesus was saying he was the angel who met Moses and wanted to stone him for blasphemy. The people of the Land who were attracted to his teachings were complete ignoramuses but became his followers anyway. They believed he was the god who met Moses. But other than that all that I am describing is completely wrong. Hmmm.

Do you really think the writer of John’s gospel is writing history?
How can you accept this as historical but reject everything else in the gospels?