If Discussing Early Christianity Were a Sport What Would the Rules Be?

[GakuseiDon]

Is it accurate to say that in antiquity there was "no agreement what year" Jesus was crucified?

In the second century yes. In the fifth century no.

What are the various years of crucifixion proposed in the Second Century CE? Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin Martyr etc have Jesus crucified under Pilate. They might have disagreed about the number of years of ministry, but what were the different years that they proposed for the crucifixion? I might have missed something (I probably have) but I don't remember them being overly concerned with pinning down the year.

[Secret Alias]

1. Irenaeus 74. And again David (says) thus concerning the sufferings of Christ: Why did the Gentiles rage, and the people imagine vain things? Kings rose up on the earth, and princes were gathered together, against the Lord and his Anointed.205 For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar,206 came together and condemned Him to be crucified.207 For Herod feared, as though He were to be an earthly king, lest he should be expelled by Him from the kingdom. But Pilate was constrained by Herod and the Jews that were with him against his will to deliver Him to death: (for they threatened him) if he should not rather do this208 than act contrary to Caesar, by letting go a man who was called a king.
2. Acts of Pilate, Josephus (originally?) 21CE
3. after the NT 30CE + up to 19 years

[neilgodfrey]

My point is we should try to incorporate the Church Fathers into any understanding of early Christianity. This is controversial?

It is certainly "controversial" when you insist on your interpretation of them as the only valid one -- and throw out an insulting response against someone who tries introduce a different approach.

SA, if you are wanting rules for a scholarly discussion, you don't have to reinvent the wheel. You will find many statements of such rules on the web put out by research institutes and universities. One thing they will all have in common, I suspect, is the obligation to treat peers with respect and avoid any form of denigration of others. If only more biblical scholars followed those rules! But we don't have to follow the bad examples here.

You clearly don't have patience for LC's views. Okay -- following the professional standards that exist already, you are free to ignore them without comment. You are also free to argue against them with respect.

I for one am glad LC has expressed his views here because it has given me a chance to ask him some critical questions that I have had about his theory. As a result, I have been forced to think more deeply about how I would respond were I to take the time to engage with his views.

When you try to define limits to a discussion as you are doing here -- reducing it to a sporting field with do's and don'ts re content -- then you are opposing free academic inquiry.

It is a "good thing" that someone challenges us to think carefully about how we know what we know, or think we know. Evidence is always subject to interpretation. Years back I took "time out" to try to figure out exactly how we knew anything about the past, especially the ancient past. The answer is not immediately self-evident. We always have to be ready to question anything and everything we believe or take for granted or read in a scholarly publication.

If one cannot answer an opponents objections rationally and calmly, but cannot help but throw in insults and denigration, then I suspect that person has a weak spot that they cannot defend rationally.

If we think that our point of view is the only valid one on any particular point, and we cannot understand how or why someone else sees it differently, then we have a problem and need to do more to understand that other point of view. Only then can we be in a position to engage in a rational and scholarly discussion -- otherwise we are reduced to impatience and hostility and denigration --- the very things that most codes of conduct in academic institutions condemn.

[Secret Alias]

It is certainly "controversial" when you insist on your interpretation of them as the only valid one

What field of study would ignore the earliest eyewitness testimony to the thing being studied? Again these are hardly controversial points. If you are studying the rise of Hitler you'd study those who were closest to Hitler. If you wanted to know how ancient people cooked you'd study ancient cookbooks. https://youtu.be/IVpiIa_Txws This is incredibly silly. I'd argue that it's you, not me, that allows subjectivity to creep into your 'studies' of early Christianity. Everything is driven by personality and 'common goals.' So you like mythicism because it harms Christianity 'in the right way.' I couldn't give a fuck if Jesus existed or didn't exist. It interests me because it seems to explain some of the curious things I've stumbled across in my research. Whether Jesus existed or didn't exist will suit me just fine. The hate that you have for this religion is palpable. It's like Lenin or Trotsky engaging in 'research' into capitalism. Everyone knows where the research is going and what the conclusion will be. Big fancy words and books hiding or disguising one thing - hate.

You know I've always been interested in how my maternal grandfather survived capture in Paris in 1940. He was a German Jew and a communist. His name appeared in the Deutsche Reichsanzeiger in 1938 so he was a wanted man. And then today I was walking my dog and the answer came to as I was crossing the street to my house. Just a flash. It's weird. Insight just comes when we are least involved with a problem. I was thinking about something else and then one or steps in this other direction ... bam. It was all solved. That's why being detached is good for problem solving.

[neilgodfrey]

It is certainly "controversial" when you insist on your interpretation of them as the only valid one

What field of study would ignore the earliest eyewitness testimony to the thing being studied? Again these are hardly controversial points. . . .
This is incredibly silly.

I don't follow you. Eyewitnesses of what? I have never suggested that we discard the church fathers. I have only tried to suggest that we analyse them textually before we take particular comments of theirs at face value. You seem to think we shouldn't do that? Why?

I'd argue that it's you, not me, that allows subjectivity to creep into your 'studies' of early Christianity. Everything is driven by personality and 'common goals.' So you like mythicism because it harms Christianity 'in the right way.' I couldn't give a fuck if Jesus existed or didn't exist. It interests me because it seems to explain some of the curious things I've stumbled across in my research. Whether Jesus existed or didn't exist will suit me just fine. The hate that you have for this religion is palpable. It's like Lenin or Trotsky engaging in 'research' into capitalism. Everyone knows where the research is going and what the conclusion will be. Big fancy words and books hiding or disguising one thing - hate.

What hate? Please quote for me any words of mine that have expressed this hatred you speak of? And where do you see me "liking mythicism"? Where have I expressed any endeavour to "harm Christianity"? You obviously didn't read the words I have written and linked to that simply debunks those accusations head on. You are imagining someone in me who does not exist, Stephen. Why?

Here's something I would really like you to respond to: Demonstrate to me from my words my "hatred" for Christianity and my "liking" mythicism. You do know, or at least would know if you read anything I have written on the subject, that I am quite open to a historical Jesus and have had arguments in favour of an HJ on my blog.

What interests me is historical methods as practised by historians. I did try to suggest to you that your own arguments could be improved if you also took some of those methods on board but you got cross with me.

That's why being detached is good for problem solving.

You sure don't come across as detached. You come across as very emotionally involved. So angry, in fact, that you have started a thread to propose rules for excluding views you don't like.

[neilgodfrey]

Big fancy words and books hiding or disguising one thing - hate.

I overlooked this sentence of yours before. Are you upset because I try to read a lot -- and have in recent years been in a very fortunate position where I have had opportunities to read so much -- and share some of the results of my reading with others? (Isn't that what scholars are supposed to do? Is it wrong if I try to do it, too?)

Tell you what, I like to spend my time on things I love. Exploring the historical roots of Christianity and the Bible is a pursuit I love. It's not hate, Stephan, it's love that motivates me. You once said -- years ago -- that you liked me to try to pull me in when I was apparently being offensive in some of my comments and you were trying to engage with me. I don't recall what I was saying but I know I have often come across in ways that I have later regretted, sometimes deeply regretted. We all probably do, some more than others. When I tried to suggest to you that what I call a "naive" reading of the church fathers is not the way to go, I really had hoped that a good discussion on historical methods could be opened up between us. I quoted Liverani because I thought it would add more credibility to what I was trying to suggest if I pointed out that the idea was a scholarly one and not my personal idiosyncrasy.

There are many things that are more important than biblical studies and many of them do involve hateful things. I fear that my posts on biblical studies have become something of an escape into something less important but that I find enjoyable, that I love. But I don't really use "big fancy words", do I?

You and I both want a better forum here. I don't think the way forward is to write up a list of rules of what can and can't be argued.