what Jesus did not know (disciples, church, gospel, bible)

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

The OP, LargeKingCat, pretty much did though.

That's right Thomas but most that goes for "scholarship" here is just posturing and one-upmanship.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

The OP, LargeKingCat, pretty much did though.

Ah well - not everyone has spent time on the exact dates of the ages, so I don't begrudge anyone that. As long as he was able to admit his mistake and move on, that's all that counts for me. If he had - despite the evidence - remained rooted firmly to his statement to save face, well - we already have some of those posters around here. In fact..

Originally Posted by Eusebius

That's right Thomas but most that goes for "scholarship" here is just posturing and one-upmanship.

...says the non-scholar who is unable to determine the quality of scholarship when he is confronted by it. I am speaking to the same person who thinks the pyramids are machines, that Noah was a real person who freeze-dried food, that the Sumerians did not exist before the "Bible said they did", that some of the proven worst English Bible translations are actually the Best, and the myriad other incredible claims you have made here, right?

You have your strengths, Eusebius, and you have your weaknesses - as do I. There's no shame in admitting that one does not know everything - I certainly do not. That's why I must constantly study, study, and study - it never ends. But I am always open to information contrary to my own, as long as it has merit. If I had a nickel for every time a new discovery or new piece of the puzzle caused me to alter my previous views - well, you know the saying....

But what would Qoheleth think of all this? A chasing after the wind? Vanity of vanities? Breath of breaths, the slightest of breaths? At least he tried.

[Thomas R.]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Ah well - not everyone has spent time on the exact dates of the ages, so I don't begrudge anyone that. As long as he was able to admit his mistake and move on, that's all that counts for me. If he had - despite the evidence - remained rooted firmly to his statement to save face, well - we already have some of those posters around here. In fact..

I think s/he's one of them as the initial response was that the Romans may have been Iron Age, but Jews weren't. I don't know that there's been a later response. (One thing that strikes me odd is that somehow "Iron Age" actually almost sounds less nice to me than "Bronze Age." Bronze is pretty, more or less, and can give images of sumptuous Cretan or Egyptian mansions. Iron-Age almost sounds more warlike to me, but "the script" for many online-atheists is to use "Bronze Age" as the ultimate put-down. Nothing like citing people who invented much civilization needed to say "backward loser." )

I'm not sure why, but some atheists have this notion first century Jews were unusually backward in most respects. Although they had some harsh ways and corruption, they had been a civilization for many centuries. By the first century they had produced some notable philosophers and historians.

See you next Sunday!

[Janie.Cake]

I think you are really trying here. Who are you? How do you know so much?
Nice try

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by whoppers

...says the non-scholar who is unable to determine the quality of scholarship when he is confronted by it. I am speaking to the same person who thinks the pyramids are machines, that Noah was a real person who freeze-dried food, that the Sumerians did not exist before the "Bible said they did", that some of the proven worst English Bible translations are actually the Best, and the myriad other incredible claims you have made here, right?

See, this is just what I mean. If they can't say something of substance they have to attack the person to posture and do one-upmanship.

You have your strengths, Eusebius, and you have your weaknesses - as do I. There's no shame in admitting that one does not know everything - I certainly do not. That's why I must constantly study, study, and study - it never ends. But I am always open to information contrary to my own, as long as it has merit..

That is great you constantly study. But it seems to me you study teachers who have a bone to pick with the bible because it seems to me all you do is discount the historicity of the Bible. For instance, what you said about Pilate and how what he did that day was not historically accurate. Saying so proves nothing. But there were several forces working upon Pilate that day; Pilate's wife, God, the religious leaders and the tumultuous crowd. Not to meantion the priests were blackmailing Pilate that if he releases Christ that Pilate would then not be a friend of Caesar (cf John 19:12). In other words, you let Him go Pilate and we will go to Caesar and you will be out of a job or worse. Court proceedings rarely had these forces working against Pilate. So, of course it was out of the norm. But it was historically accurate.

If I had a nickel for every time a new discovery or new piece of the puzzle caused me to alter my previous views - well, you know the saying...

You'd be up, what, 20 cents by now? and with inflation, that would be worth about .02 cents.

But what would Qoheleth think of all this? A chasing after the wind? Vanity of vanities? Breath of breaths, the slightest of breaths? At least he tried.

But would you say he got it all wrong?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

I think s/he's one of them as the initial response was that the Romans may have been Iron Age, but Jews weren't. I don't know that there's been a later response. (One thing that strikes me odd is that somehow "Iron Age" actually almost sounds less nice to me than "Bronze Age." Bronze is pretty, more or less, and can give images of sumptuous Cretan or Egyptian mansions. Iron-Age almost sounds more warlike to me, but "the script" for many online-atheists is to use "Bronze Age" as the ultimate put-down. Nothing like citing people who invented much civilization needed to say "backward loser." )

I'm not sure why, but some atheists have this notion first century Jews were unusually backward in most respects. Although they had some harsh ways and corruption, they had been a civilization for many centuries. By the first century they had produced some notable philosophers and historians.

See you next Sunday!

Yes, you make very good points - it's common to see modern Atheists use the "Bronze-Age" card frequently to automatically discredit any moral or ethical teachings from the Bible, especially the Hebrew Bible. I don't agree with this tactic at all, for it basically lumps everything in one category that is considered "primitive" and it automatically assumes that we can discredit anything from "back then". Humans are humans, and have been for a long time - and I am constantly impressed by many writings from the ancient world that seem to have come from a modern poet's pen. Gilgamesh, our oldest poetic epic, constantly surprises me with it's "modern" concerns about life and death. The Book of Job makes me ponder and think about justice in a world full of injustice. Ecclesiastes makes me wonder about those people who seem to think they can ever know the secrets of the Divine.

"Bronze Age" doesn't automatically mean "primitive" in all areas. I agree with you on that. Perhaps this is what Eusebius has been protesting with his reactions to "goat-herder" comments?

Originally Posted by Eusebius

See, this is just what I mean. If they can't say something of substance they have to attack the person to posture and do one-upmanship.

It wasn't an attack on a person - just on a person's ability to assess certain data.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

That is great you constantly study. But it seems to me you study teachers who have a bone to pick with the bible because it seems to me all you do is discount the historicity of the Bible.

I've said this many times - the Bible was not written as a historical document in the manner in which we consider something an objective history, a mere reporting of the facts, a simple recounting of what happened. It was written by many different people, with many different perspectives, views, goals and beliefs - no matter how inspired it was. Admitting to this fact is not a betrayal of God, or Jesus, or Christianity, or Judiasm or one's Faith - it's simply an admission of the very human makeup of the various writings that eventually became collected in the different canons which make up different faith groups' idea of Scripture, or the Bible.

I don't care about the historicity of the Bible and am not enamoured with the very limiting idea of sola scriptura. I am not on a crusade to prove it or disprove it, as if my faith depended solely on whether the Bible is a historical document - which it most certainly is not. It's many things, but it was never written as a mere historical document. Sure - it has historical elements in it, and many of them are absolutely true; but it also has many non-historical elements in it, written for various theological or political reasons. So what? Admitting this doesn't make one any less of a believer or worshipper, unless one is wedded inextricably to the idea of sola scriptura - that most recent of ideas that forever shackled the Bible to a Protestant dogma that accorded the Bible a bit too much divinity for it's own good, to the point that it has become a virtual idol - untouchable among the most conservative and orthodox of believers. "Don't touch it! One small poke will bring the whole edifice come crumbling down!" This is exactly why the Catholic Church (and please don't think this is some Catholic advertisement) was so opposed to the idea of sola scriptura - they already knew that while the Bible may have been inspired, it was not completely inerrant. Scholars from before the time of Christ had been wrestling with many of the individual books' awkward details - the history of Biblical Interpretation is full of such detaills. The problem of claiming the Bible - as a whole - is entirely perfect, inerrant, Divinely written (instead of inspired!) is that any attempt to accord it such a status would just open it up to the slings and arrows of doubters, who would be fully capable of attacking such a flimsy structure. And they have been attacking that structure for a long, long time.

But that is just one approach - to imagine that one can demolish Christianity and Judaism by attacking it's holy books - and that approach is only possible when there are believers who believe that their collection of books is completely inerrant and historical. I don't know anyone who chooses to spend their time or professional career studying the Bible JUST to "disprove" it. That would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it? I do know plenty of people, however, who spend their time studying a book they love, which is one of the foundation stones of their belief. They do so because they wish to draw closer to it, in many cases. If this involves facing certain truths that are unavoidable - then so be it. Nobody is going to spend their time learning ancient languages (which usually requires at least 7 nowadays), studying the context of the ancient world in which the various books of the Bible were written, spend countless hours, days, and years investigating what individual words mean sometimes, or make entire careers out of investigating a single book or particular topic - and then run face-first into that great big wall of "The Bible Is 100% Historically Accurate In Every Single Way" (which the Bible - as a whole - never claims for itself, since it was never conceived of as a historical document in the way later histories would be) and remain firmly convinced (despite everything that person has learned) of this brick wall.

But that's not the point. It's not the point with me, either. It may seem like that, at times - but I assure you: I am not in the business of tearing down the Bible. I love the Bible - passionately. I spend far too much time on it, to the detriment of those around me at times. But it's not only the Bible - it's the entire landscape from "back then". The entire region fascinates me, as it has to countless other people. But before I get lost in a panorama of interesting people and their cultures, let me return to the "point". I am not - obviously - a conservative believer, and neither do I wear my belief on my arm like a badge of honor. I very rarely discuss personal beliefs, because they are exactly that: personal. They remain - for most of the time - strictly "in the closet", as a 1st century Jewish man named Jesus once counselled concerning prayer. As to the historical problems of the Bible - I am entirely willing to discuss the historical aspects of certain Biblical books (and I have many times), but I am not hellbent on "proving" their historical aspects. It's just not that big of an issue for me. It was a huge issue for many "Biblical Archaeologists" in the last century who spent their time digging "with a spade in one hand, and a Bible in the other" (as the famous saying goes), who were convinced that the majority of the Biblical story could be shown to be historically true. They opened up a can of worms, though - they proved many things were accurate in the Bible, but not always exactly as recorded (recall my post from another thread on the invasion of Sennacherib against Judah); they showed that many practices of the Biblical characters were corroborated by extra-biblical stories (recall my post on the wife-sister marriage motif in Genesis, and the legal practice of according one's wife "sister" status in certain societies), but that some were not (such as domesticated camels in Genesis); but they also showed that many events recorded in the Bible were simply impossible, as recorded (many of the conquest narratives in Joshua/Judges). They tried to "prove" their faith, by "proving" the Bible - and they came away with mixed results.

But again - this is only a problem if one is hellbent on proving that the Bible - a collection of disparate writings - was actually a historical document intended to accurately record actual events. The writers of the Bible told their story of themselves and their interraction with Yahweh from their own perspective, just as other writers would write of their own peoples history and their interraction with Marduk - and these peoples would sometimes collide in a cultural and historical explosion of competing existence. Many of the Biblical writers were excellent spindoctors (see the Chronicler and his impressive achievement cleaning up David's character), and there's nothing wrong with this. It just makes the whole process of studying the books much more interesting, being able to see why a certain story was told and why it was placed in a certain spot in the record; why a certain motif appeared over and over, and why a certain writer loved using it; how certain writers downplayed earlier beliefs of other writers in the same "Bible" and argued with each other. All of this is fascinating, IF you are willing to see it. There are plenty of believers who have been willing, and are open to the intricacies of the Biblical writers.

Now - that was entirely too long, but I hope you get an idea of how I see things. If you love something and you want to know more about it, you sometimes have to be willing to go with what you find - even if you have to get rid of old notions about it.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

For instance, what you said about Pilate and how what he did that day was not historically accurate. Saying so proves nothing. But there were several forces working upon Pilate that day; Pilate's wife, God, the religious leaders and the tumultuous crowd. Not to meantion the priests were blackmailing Pilate that if he releases Christ that Pilate would then not be a friend of Caesar (cf John 19:12). In other words, you let Him go Pilate and we will go to Caesar and you will be out of a job or worse. Court proceedings rarely had these forces working against Pilate. So, of course it was out of the norm. But it was historically accurate.

I wrote that as a passing comment with no intention of going into an indepth examination of it, but the information is freely available and has been pretty well known for a long time now. It is not as if I said anything revolutionary. Each Gospel writer paints a different picture of his characters - whether it's Jesus or Pilate. The Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels is relatively short-spoken and enjoys speaking in parables, while the Jesus of the Gospel of John is long-winded, a philosopher who explains everything and never uses parables. That's one example of why the Gospel of John is not considered a "Synoptic" Gospel. But even within the Synoptic Gospels, we have contradicting information at times - since they were written by different people. One would expect this when you have several different accounts, written by several different people at different times, of the same story.

When I said that the Gospel's portrayal of Pilate as a weak crowd-panderer was not historically accurate, that's exactly correct. If you take the time to investigate the matter - using the Historical Method and consulting different sources - you will find that Pilate was an extremely anti-Judean procurator who did everything in his power to offend the people he governed. He was SO bad at his job, that he was finally recalled to Rome and then one never hears of him again. This is the picture of Pilate that we have historically. Compare the Gospel Accounts of Pilate (starting with the earliest, Mark, and moving to Matthew/Luke and then John) and notice how his character changes to the point that he realizes that Jesus is the Messiah, and he wishes to wash his hands of the whole mess, and the Jews claim to accept the blood-guilt of Jesus' death forever - Pilate appears saintly, and as a matter of fact he WAS turned into a Saint by the Church later. When one considers that it would be a bad move to blame the Romans for Jesus' death (remember - during the period of the composition of the Gospels, Rome was constantly at odds with Judea and it's revolts, always on the lookout for any group that might cause trouble) when one is actively moving around the Roman Empire, proselytizing and starting churches - one can see why the later Gospel writers tended to paint the Jews as the villains and the Romans (via Pilate) as the saints. If they had done the opposite - Christianity probably would have been stomped out by the Romans; they had enough trouble with the Romans as it was, so that adding the culpability of Jesus' death to their heads would have been a bad mood.

This is how it appears when one examines it historically. Whether one agrees with the Historical Method and it's results or not - I'm entirely entitled to say that the Gospel writer's picture of Pilate was not entirely accurate. I can suggest further reading, if you want to pursue WHY this is the historical conclusion: Elaine Pagel's The Origin of Satan (the title is a bit misleading, but it has to do with the demonization of the Jews as the enemy of the Church), Colum Hourihane's Pontius Pilate, Anti-Semitism and the Passion in Medieval Art (for a brief article by him, see here), Daniel R. Schwartz's entry on Pontius Pilate in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, and the bibliographies that are provided with the above.
A quick quote from the ABD entry has the general consensus view:

The general thrust of Church tradition about Pilate consisted of a continuation of the Gospel's tendency to exonerate Pilate and put all the onus for the death of Jesus upon the Jews. In various Acta Pilati and related early Christian literature we find the repeated emphasis that Pilate had recognized Jesus' innocence and that Jesus was in fact executed by the Jews; and from portraying Pilate as recognizing Jesus' innocence it was a short step to present Pilate acutally recognizing Jesus' divinity as well. See The Acts of Pilate. Thus, already Tertullian (ca. 200) could state that Pilate was a believer in the truth of Christianity. This was a very necessary and functional procedure, given the threatened status of the missionary religion in the empire; its spokesmen had to be able to argue that the empire's representative who had actually had the closest contact with Jesus, far from considering him a criminal worthy of condemnation, in fact thought him innocent or even more. Thus, what Paul could not do to Agrippa (Acts 26:28), the Church in fact did do to Pilate. As Winters points out...it was only the Christianization of the empire which removed the need for such apologetics: "Constantine eventually became converted - and Pilate missed canonization." But not totally - in the Ethiopic and Coptic churches he is indeed counted among the saints.
(Schwartz, "Pontius Pilate", ABD V, p. 400, Doubleday, 1992)

For what it's worth - the information is available. Check it out, if you want to see why it's the consensus view. It is why I said what I said.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

You'd be up, what, 20 cents by now? and with inflation, that would be worth about .02 cents.

Nah - I'd be a wealthy man...

Originally Posted by Eusebius

But would you say he got it all wrong?

No - I think I would agree with Qoheleth on a lot of things. I guess it all depends - he certainly is a world-weary writer, to the point that an editor had to add a little quip at the back of his work reassuring the readers that there actually WAS a point to it all heh heh! But remove that editorial insertion and you have a very interesting approach to it all. It's one of my more favorite books from the Hebrew Bible. It's amazing that it even made it's way into the canon, when one thinks about it... it's not exactly a good advertisement for belief (without the editorial afterword). I suppose that's why the Bible is so fascinating - it has room for plenty of different views and philosophies. The idea of a Systematic Theology contained in the Bible is really a "chasing after the wind", given the disparate views and opinions.

[Eusebius]

Originally Posted by whoppers

I don't care about the historicity of the Bible and am not enamoured with the very limiting idea of sola scriptura. I am not on a crusade to prove it or disprove it, as if my faith depended solely on whether the Bible is a historical document - which it most certainly is not.

I'm not on any crusade either to prove or disprove it. It is just that when someone states something against it I should be allowed to stand up for my side without ridicule (i.e., freeze dried food etc.).
It most certainly is an historical document. Which of the prophetic books is not historical? Please inform us.

Moderator cut: deleted

Sure - it has historical elements in it, and many of them are absolutely true; but it also has many non-historical elements in it, written for various theological or political reasons. So what? Admitting this doesn't make one any less of a believer or worshipper, unless one is wedded inextricably to the idea of sola scriptura - that most recent of ideas that forever shackled the Bible to a Protestant dogma that accorded the Bible a bit too much divinity for it's own good, to the point that it has become a virtual idol - untouchable among the most conservative and orthodox of believers. "Don't touch it! One small poke will bring the whole edifice come crumbling down!" This is exactly why the Catholic Church (and please don't think this is some Catholic advertisement) was so opposed to the idea of sola scriptura - they already knew that while the Bible may have been inspired, it was not completely inerrant. Scholars from before the time of Christ had been wrestling with many of the individual books' awkward details - the history of Biblical Interpretation is full of such detaills. The problem of claiming the Bible - as a whole - is entirely perfect, inerrant, Divinely written (instead of inspired!) is that any attempt to accord it such a status would just open it up to the slings and arrows of doubters, who would be fully capable of attacking such a flimsy structure. And they have been attacking that structure for a long, long time.

Well, the Catholic Church has gotten a boat load of things wrong in the last 1500 years. I was born and raised Catholic and was deeply entrenched in their system. Many years ago I left their "one true Church." I have never claimed there are no errors in the Bible. There are scribal errors but these do not make the whole work an error. Historically, the Catholic church didn't like sola scriptura because they wanted to go against Luther by using the Church Fathers. It was Luther who proclaimed sola scriptura! He knew he would win against them if he made them argue only from the scriptures.

But even within the Synoptic Gospels, we have contradicting information at times - since they were written by different people. One would expect this when you have several different accounts, written by several different people at different times, of the same story.

Dr. Bullenger addressed most if not all the supposed contradictions. They are only contradictions to one who has not studied them sufficiently. I don't believe there are contradictions unless of course one takes the Greek word "aionios" in Matthew 25:46 as "eternal," rather than "age-during" or "eonian" then, yes, this would contradict 1 Timothy 2:4-6.

When I said that the Gospel's portrayal of Pilate as a weak crowd-panderer was not historically accurate, that's exactly correct. If you take the time to investigate the matter - using the Historical Method and consulting different sources - you will find that Pilate was an extremely anti-Judean procurator who did everything in his power to offend the people he governed. He was SO bad at his job, that he was finally recalled to Rome and then one never hears of him again. This is the picture of Pilate that we have historically. Compare the Gospel Accounts of Pilate (starting with the earliest, Mark, and moving to Matthew/Luke and then John) and notice how his character changes to the point that he realizes that Jesus is the Messiah, and he wishes to wash his hands of the whole mess, and the Jews claim to accept the blood-guilt of Jesus' death forever - Pilate appears saintly, and as a matter of fact he WAS turned into a Saint by the Church later.

I never read the account thinking Pilate was saintly and don't know of anyone personally who did. The four accounts actually prove your point that Pilate was trying to provoke the Jewish people by nailing the sign on the cross "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." The Jewish religious leaders protested to Pilate that the sign was wrong that it should say "He said I am King of the Jews." But Pilate rammed it down their throats and retorted: "What I have written, I have written!" Pilate is always at odds with the Jews in the accounts. He threw it into the priests faces: "You kill Him." Knowing full well they were not legally able. Pilate really did know that there was no reason to crucify Jesus and he knew it was only because of jealousy the priests wanted Him killed.

When one considers that it would be a bad move to blame the Romans for Jesus' death (remember - during the period of the composition of the Gospels, Rome was constantly at odds with Judea and it's revolts, always on the lookout for any group that might cause trouble) when one is actively moving around the Roman Empire, proselytizing and starting churches - one can see why the later Gospel writers tended to paint the Jews as the villains and the Romans (via Pilate) as the saints. If they had done the opposite - Christianity probably would have been stomped out by the Romans; they had enough trouble with the Romans as it was, so that adding the culpability of Jesus' death to their heads would have been a bad mood.

Did you mean "a bad move" at the end? The early Christians wrote what they did concerning the trial because they got the actual court documents concerning the proceedings and used those as their basis for what happened (the Pilate/Jesus/chief priests' doalogues). They weren't into lying or doing cover-ups. Had they presented their side contrary to the OFFICIAL documents they would have been run out of town.

This is how it appears when one examines it historically. Whether one agrees with the Historical Method and it's results or not - I'm entirely entitled to say that the Gospel writer's picture of Pilate was not entirely accurate. I can suggest further reading, if you want to pursue WHY this is the historical conclusion: Elaine Pagel's The Origin of Satan (the title is a bit misleading, but it has to do with the demonization of the Jews as the enemy of the Church), Colum Hourihane's Pontius Pilate, Anti-Semitism and the Passion in Medieval Art (for a brief article by him, see here), Daniel R. Schwartz's entry on Pontius Pilate in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, and the bibliographies that are provided with the above.
A quick quote from the ABD entry has the general consensus view:

The general thrust of Church tradition about Pilate consisted of a continuation of the Gospel's tendency to exonerate Pilate and put all the onus for the death of Jesus upon the Jews. In various Acta Pilati and related early Christian literature we find the repeated emphasis that Pilate had recognized Jesus' innocence and that Jesus was in fact executed by the Jews; and from portraying Pilate as recognizing Jesus' innocence it was a short step to present Pilate acutally recognizing Jesus' divinity as well. See The Acts of Pilate. Thus, already Tertullian (ca. 200) could state that Pilate was a believer in the truth of Christianity. This was a very necessary and functional procedure, given the threatened status of the missionary religion in the empire; its spokesmen had to be able to argue that the empire's representative who had actually had the closest contact with Jesus, far from considering him a criminal worthy of condemnation, in fact thought him innocent or even more. Thus, what Paul could not do to Agrippa (Acts 26:28), the Church in fact did do to Pilate. As Winters points out...it was only the Christianization of the empire which removed the need for such apologetics: "Constantine eventually became converted - and Pilate missed canonization." But not totally - in the Ethiopic and Coptic churches he is indeed counted among the saints.
(Schwartz, "Pontius Pilate", ABD V, p. 400, Doubleday, 1992)

For what it's worth - the information is available. Check it out, if you want to see why it's the consensus view. It is why I said what I said.

But the four accounts had nothing to do with exhonorating Pilate and accusing the Jews. The JEWISH believers were writing about their own JEWISH chief priests and Pilate. Historically, the Jews HATED the Gentiles and their leaders. So you'd think they would have come down hard on Pilate. But it looks fair and balanced reporting to me. whoppers, don't believe everything you read. Just because a book has wide-spread Christian approval (such as one finds for the ABD) does not mean it is correct and in fact more than likely it shows it is wrong.

Nah - I'd be a wealthy man...

May it ever be so!


Thanks for explaining your position on the scriptures. I have a new found respect for you I didn't have before. Really, I mean that. You're a good man whoppers.

[Woof]

Thanks for the big 'un above, Whoppers. It's interesting to me since I was once a Bible geek, though with me it was more about trying to figure out exactly who Jesus was (in relationship to other mystics and to God) what he wanted of us ...... after some years of beating my head against the universe I gave up on that.

Back then, maybe 15-30 years ago, I read Pagels, Crossan, the Jesus Seminar, and the occasional conservative or inspirational writing. John Meier was an important one for me, with his A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. A lot of what he wrote is a sort of expanded version of what you posted!

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Woof

Thanks for the big 'un above, Whoppers. It's interesting to me since I was once a Bible geek, though with me it was more about trying to figure out exactly who Jesus was (in relationship to other mystics and to God) what he wanted of us ...... after some years of beating my head against the universe I gave up on that.

You're welcome - and I understand that initial urge to find out exactly what's going on. We like to be sure that what our pastor or rabbi or priest [or other] has told us is true, and that we are not wasting our time (whether that be our time now or after death). We want to be sure, and if we are unsure - we want to find the means to at least come close to surety. A few of my friends have jumped from one demonination to another, constantly finding something they feel doesn't agree with Scripture - finally to conclude that there's a reason there are so many different denominations.

Originally Posted by Woof

Back then, maybe 15-30 years ago, I read Pagels, Crossan, the Jesus Seminar, and the occasional conservative or inspirational writing. John Meier was an important one for me, with his A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus: The Roots of the Problem and the Person. A lot of what he wrote is a sort of expanded version of what you posted!

Yes - that's an excellent reccomendation there for the Marginal Jew series (it's up to 4 volumes as of 2009)! While expensive, one can find volumes of it online for reasonable prices (or get lucky in a used book shop). Well worth the read for anyone looking for a good place to start. It is one of the best studies available right now, I think. Pagels is always interesting to read, Crossan the same - but I don't much care for the Jesus Seminar group. But in the end, as long as it gets one thinking and investigating - they have served their purpose. They point in the right directions, I think. If you've missed The Origin of Satan (which is easy to do, since the title implies the book is about you-know-who), it is well worth your time.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Thanks for explaining your position on the scriptures. I have a new found respect for you I didn't have before. Really, I mean that. You're a good man whoppers.

First off - thank you. I just wanted to clear some things up and try to show you I'm not the "adversary" - I just have a different approach.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I'm not on any crusade either to prove or disprove it. It is just that when someone states something against it I should be allowed to stand up for my side without ridicule (i.e., freeze dried food etc.).

As I said before - it wasn't a personal attack. It was an critique of some of your claims - which is perfectly in line with a forum and general inquiry. Even scholars have to open themselves up to the assaults of their peers when they publish and engage in the peer-review system. If a claim is demonstrably false or on extremely shaky grounds, it will be critiqued. If the person insists on clinging to the idea despite this, then they have opened themselves up for more criticism. It's not ridiculing of a person, and it's not even really ridiculing of their ideas. It's just a stern critique. We all had to endure this in regular school (k-12) to some degree, and it becomes even more demanding past that. Please don't take it personally.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

It most certainly is an historical document.

While it may be a historical document, it does not make that claim for itself and it does not meet the standards for what historians would consider an unbiased, objective historical account. It is a historical witness to some degree, but like I've said - it's very name, Gospel, indicates it sectarian and biased approach. To a historian, it cannot be taken at face-value (and this applies to any document - not just the Gospels). We've discussed this before, when speaking of "witnesses" and the importance of "independent witnesses". To a limited degree, the Gospels are "independent witnesses" - but this is not entirely accurate since at least the authors or Matthew and Luke used Mark as their primary source, while supplementing it with other sources.

This isn't all because "I say so" either - I encourage you to look up the Historical Method and how a historian evaluates ancient texts. And remember - this is just one approach to Scripture, the historical approach.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Which of the prophetic books is not historical? Please inform us.

The Book of Jonah is the most prominent example. Ehud Ben Zvi writes in the introductory notes to the book that

Although there is some debate on the matter, the usual date for the composition of Jonah is the Persian period. No critical scholar today advocates the historicity of the prophet and his fantastic adventures.
(The Jewish Study Bible, Oxford, 2004, p. 1199)

This view can be followed up by either picking up a good commentary, or simply studying the book in detail and assessing some of it's historical claims. It doesn't really matter if the book is historical or not in the end, however - it's the message that matters. Even if it never happened - does it matter? No, I don't think so. It's powerful message is still capable of influencing people to this very day.

As for the other prophetic books, they are collections of oracles, hymns and speeches made by various prophets that were collected at some point into the scrolls we now have. I imagine that there were many prophets working who never received the good fortune of having someone write down their words (a scribe would have done so - not the prophet himself), but at least we have the ones we do. And their scathing critiques of traditional religion and the mistreatment of the downtrodden still affect us today.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Oh, o.k. we should all bow to your say-so. You must be right because you said it.

Not at all - I try to always provide references or avenues of research. I have never once said "you need to accept what I wrote just because I wrote it!" Some of the things I write are already well known and accepted among modern scholarship - so at times I don't bother to "justify" what I have written, as it's in many times a reflection of a consensus view already held and merely a passing comment in a larger argument. If pressed, I will always provide the means to follow it up. For instance - my comment on Jonah: I provided a reference to follow, but have also spoke at length on the topic in other threads. If you do a search for "whoppers Jonah" you'll probably find some threads all about it, with plenty of references as well. But also, any good study Bible will claim the same information. The best way of approaching it, however, if you are unable to read the original language, is to get a decent commentary and study it and see if what the writer is saying is tenable. Follow the references HE provides, if there is a point that needs further elucidation. One can get endlessly trapped in a cycle of reference-hunting on certain subjects heh heh!

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Well, the Catholic Church has gotten a boat load of things wrong in the last 1500 years. I was born and raised Catholic and was deeply entrenched in their system. Many years ago I left their "one true Church." I have never claimed there are no errors in the Bible. There are scribal errors but these do not make the whole work an error. Historically, the Catholic church didn't like sola scriptura because they wanted to go against Luther by using the Church Fathers. It was Luther who proclaimed sola scriptura! He knew he would win against them if he made them argue only from the scriptures.

Yes, they sure did - along with every other denomination to some degree or another. Though I think they were worried about the dangers of sola scriptura long before Luther came along. After all, it's not as if it had always been a "book religion" that seemed to imply that with the closing of the canon revelation was finished from God. The religion thrived long before anyone set down words to paper, and long before the various canons were collected and "finalized". I wasn't referring to scribal errors, however - just some of the things that can be found in the older writings of Philo, and even in the later books of Judaism. Inner-biblical exegesis was going on even during the time of the writing of the books of the canon - recall my thread on the Documentary Hypothesis and the Chronicler's attempt at fixing the Passover instructions. This is just one example out of many. See Michael Fishbane's Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Clarendong Press, 1985) for the standard reference work on this practice. See James Kugel's Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era (Harvard University Press, 1997, 1998) for the various interpretations of Scripture that had taken place up until that time, and his other works.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Dr. Bullenger addressed most if not all the supposed contradictions. They are only contradictions to one who has not studied them sufficiently. I don't believe there are contradictions unless of course one takes the Greek word "aionios" in Matthew 25:46 as "eternal," rather than "age-during" or "eonian" then, yes, this would contradict 1 Timothy 2:4-6.

E. W. Bullinger (born in 1881) is very outdated and even when he was writing he was heavily critiqued for his bizarre ideas - so bizarre that they gained their own titles, such as "Bullingerism" and "Hyperdispensationalism". Those critiques still stand. Check out the excellent work cited by Woof above by John Meier, and virtually any introduction to the New Testament. Raymond E. Brown's (Doubleday, 1997) Introduction is still an excellent one, as is his monumental commentary on the Gospel of John.

I cannot comment on depth on the Greek you are quoting at the moment, as it's not my special field of interest. But the Synoptic Problem still exists, and the writers cited above have studied the Gospels far more intensely than Bullinger ever did. Even in Bullinger's day, it is not as if the important New Testament scholars did not dig "deep enough" - they most certainly did.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

I never read the account thinking Pilate was saintly and don't know of anyone personally who did.

Well, now you have some lines of research to follow to see how he was viewed.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

The four accounts actually prove your point that Pilate was trying to provoke the Jewish people by nailing the sign on the cross "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews."

Yes, that is a good obverstaion - however, while this incident may make historical sense in line with what we know of Pilate's character extra-biblically, the trial scene and Pilate's slowly evolving character does not. We are still left with a problem.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

Did you mean "a bad move" at the end? The early Christians wrote what they did concerning the trial because they got the actual court documents concerning the proceedings and used those as their basis for what happened (the Pilate/Jesus/chief priests' doalogues). They weren't into lying or doing cover-ups. Had they presented their side contrary to the OFFICIAL documents they would have been run out of town.

Yes heh heh - I meant "a bad move".
Now let me ask you - how do you know that the early Christians got the court documents? On what do you base this claim? Remember - the Gospels were not written down until many decades after the fact of Jesus' death, and it is not as if the Romans were constantly monitoring people to make sure they told the exact details of an obscure court case among many. That seems to be stretching it a bit.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

But the four accounts had nothing to do with exhonorating Pilate and accusing the Jews. The JEWISH believers were writing about their own JEWISH chief priests and Pilate. Historically, the Jews HATED the Gentiles and their leaders. So you'd think they would have come down hard on Pilate. But it looks fair and balanced reporting to me.

Well, you're free to hold that opinion - but I encourage you to at least read the modern, Christian scholarly view. I can't claim that such a topic can easily be decided in a forum post or two.

Originally Posted by Eusebius

whoppers, don't believe everything you read. Just because a book has wide-spread Christian approval (such as one finds for the ABD) does not mean it is correct and in fact more than likely it shows it is wrong.

I don't. One is expected to examine the evidence presented critically, of course. This is why references are provided, as well - so you don't have to take someone's word for something. You can do the research yourself, see if it matches, and then make your decision. But one must be capable of doing so first of all, and one must go through with it second, and then one must be willing to use one's own critical skills to assess all the evidence.

As for saying that something is far less likely to be true if it has "wide-spread Christian approval" - you may be correct in certain instances, but I am talking about professional scholarship and science - where the peer-review system helps to make a consensus view as persuasive as it is. I can only suggest that you investigate how this system works to see its efficacy.


New Testament scholarship is very difficult, because it's very easy to offend people and their beliefs. But we all reach a point where we must re-examine what and why we believe what we do. This does not require a loss of faith (as witnessed by the many scholars who are actively working in the field BECAUSE they are still Christians) - but it may sometimes require an alteration of a denomination's traditional dogmas. And I don't see any problem with the latter, personally, though some confuse one's denominational traditional teachings with what the Bible actually says - and then it becomes very difficult for an honest, critical examination of Scripture.

[Checkered24]

Whoppers is making some good points about Pilate. The biblical portrayal of him just does not pass the test against all that is historically known of him, or the Romans use of things such as crucifixition.

Simply, Pilate was a typical Roman governor, who had no regard at all for Jewish sensitivities, and who's answer to to unarmed protesting or resisting crowds was brute force by sending in legions. As someone who regularly (and we know this historically) used brute force for crowd control, the Gospel's portrayal of him meekly acquiesing to the crowd just does not pass the snicker test.

Without getting too far into it, Jesus was probably targeted by Pilate, who saw him as dangerous, a revolutionary who was stirring up dissent and rebellious thoughts regarding Roman control. (which also has some merit in examining the reasons and manner why Romans would crucify Jews)