The Bible as a Historical Source

[frankq]

No one

[ASCLEPIADES]

As far as I understand, John's historicity is highly debated among Christian theologians. But at least for us, the main problem is probably their concept of "historicity". What they mean is the account of Jesus' deeds on this World.

Taking away some fundamentalist views (vg, LDS), most scholars seem to agree that John was the last of the Gospels to be written (circa early II Century AD). Briefly, the "pro-John" group considers that this Gospel fills some gaps in the narrative continuity of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark & Luke), originally written for almost contemporary readers.

For example, Mark 10:32: "They were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking on ahead of them; and they were amazed, and those who followed were fearful", didn't explain the reason of that fear; John 2:13-15: "The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And He found in the temple those who were selling ... And He made a scourge of cords, and drove them all out of the temple... and He poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables;" helps to explain it. This episode didn't appear in the Synoptics at all.

On the other hand, the "against-John" group would consider the long time that had passed after Jesus' life made John's testimony unreliable.

Here are a couple of examples: a pro-John and an against-John.

I haven't found yet any statement about John as a superior source for the background historicity in comparison with the other Gospels.

 

All that said, I would consider any Gospel as an unreliable source for Roman or even Jewish legal information (remember Barrabas).

Edited September 18, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

I haven't found yet any statement about John as a superior source for the background historicity in comparison with the other Gospels.

 

Disappointing. I've been spending nearly this whole thread advertising Fergus Millar's argument in favor of John. See above. Also, nothing in the against-John link above has anything to do with John; it's about the Jesus seminar.

Edited September 18, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[ASCLEPIADES]

Disappointing. I've been spending nearly this whole thread advertising Fergus Millar's argument in favor of John. See above. Also, nothing in the against-John link above has anything to do with John; it's about the Jesus seminar.

 

I don't know you, but I am far more interested in what Millar has to said about Jewish and other people's autonomy under the Roman rule than in theological arguments.

 

I have no access to his book. May I ask you how does he qualify the degree of autonomy of the Jews and other conquered populations across the diverse periods of Roman rule on the Near East? (Besides John, I mean).

 

Thanks in advance.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I don't know you, but I am far more interested in what Millar has to said about Jewish and other people's autonomy under the Roman rule than in theological arguments.

Absolutely nothing I have said in this thread has anything to do with theological argument, nor does anything that Fergus Millar said in his work that I cite above.

 

May I ask you how does he qualify the degree of autonomy of the Jews and other conquered populations across the diverse periods of Roman rule on the Near East?

You do realize that you're not only asking for a summary of his book but for a summary of his use of sources as well?

 

Perhaps the thrust of your question is how much Millar relies on John. And the answer is almost not at all. His only consideration of John occurred in his chapter on the trial of Jesus, which was a tour de force on how to use source information critically. The real message of that chapter, which was written simply as a student exercise, was that it's not possible to cobble together all the contradictory sources on a topic--one filling in details for another--without establishing a primary, reliable source against which to evaluate the others. The specific case of Jesus was simply to make the historical method plain by re-working a familiar example.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Absolutely nothing I have said in this thread has anything to do with theological argument, nor does anything that Fergus Millar said in his work that I cite above.

True, with one exception.

 

As I stated before, the (purported) superior historicity of John over the Synoptics (your argumentation) is a purely theological concept.

[M. Porcius Cato]

As I stated before, the (purported) superior historicity of John over the Synoptics (your argumentation) is a purely theological concept.

 

Huh? If John got the chronology of human events right, that's a purely historical matter that stands independent of any theological concept whatever.

[ASCLEPIADES]

You do realize that you're not only asking for a summary of his book but for a summary of his use of sources as well?

 

Perhaps the thrust of your question is how much Millar relies on John.

Nope, I certainly didn't realize the magnitude of my petition.

 

Neither is the reliability of John the thrust of my question.

 

Can you quote some of the specific sources of this Millar's book which might be available online about this issue?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Can you quote some of the specific sources of this Millar's book which might be available online about this issue?

 

Millar cites a vast assembly of secondary scholarly material, with titles like "Remarks on the Neirab Texts", "The Cuneiform Tablet from Tell Tawailan," "The Aramaic Ostracon," etc.

 

If you're looking for primary written source material, then important sources on the Roman Near East are Josephus (Jewish Wars, The Antiquities), Strabo, and Polybius.

 

But these authors provide much less information than is needed to grasp the extent and manner by which Romans Hellenized the Eastern Mediterranean. To get that you have to have a secondary source that assembles the vast archaeological, numismatic, and non-Greco-Roman literature into a coherent narrative. This requires fluency in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. The mind reels at the size of the project.

[Gaius Octavius]

I have enjoyed this debate and the erudite scholarship. I could nit-pick here and there, but that would be fruitless.

 

As one who helped to start 'Academia', I believe that one of you will have to write up a summation giving the pros and cons of the debate and submit it for inclusion in UNRV 'Culture'.

 

Please don't stop here.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Millar cites a vast assembly of secondary scholarly material, with titles like "Remarks on the Neirab Texts", "The Cuneiform Tablet from Tell Tawailan," "The Aramaic Ostracon," etc.

 

If you're looking for primary written source material, then important sources on the Roman Near East are Josephus (Jewish Wars, The Antiquities), Strabo, and Polybius.

 

But these authors provide much less information than is needed to grasp the extent and manner by which Romans Hellenized the Eastern Mediterranean. To get that you have to have a secondary source that assembles the vast archaeological, numismatic, and non-Greco-Roman literature into a coherent narrative. This requires fluency in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. The mind reels at the size of the project.

Gratiam habeo, MPC

[caldrail]

No one's saying the Bible shouldn't be put under attack by critics, it's been under fire for a century now as it should be. But dismissing it entirely as fiction isn't really productive. The Bible is used and stands up to much cross-referencing by historians, and is quoted as a source in research.

 

So is the Historia Augustae, and even though thats supposed to be a history book it isn't exactly trustworthy is it? The bible on the hand, as I've mentioned, is propaganda. It exists to provide support for christian dogma, not to provide historians with accurate data, although it must be said that christians do prefer people to see it that way. Of course they do. If the bible is given that sort of credibility then so does their religion. Look at what happens. In the case of a book like the Historia Augustae, we do indeed quote from it, yet researchers check what they can and draw attention to its inconsistencies. The bible on the other hand is treated as a source that is in some way irrefutable, and everyone spends their time trying to prove it correct. Thats a big difference, and I think the inconsistencies of the bible story do need to be highlighted, or the historians quoting from it are not really doing their job properly.

 

Ok - The New Testament. We're told that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for the purposes of a census. Yet the records of the time don't mention one. Mary is supposed to have a virgin birth. Thats fiction I'm afraid. That element is there to give a purity to young Jesus that ordinary mortals don't have, accentuated by the dubious tale of star that moved in the heavens and led three oriental kings to the stable. All very cute, but how many researchers have wasted their time trying to search for evidence of astrnomical phenomena of the period? And haven't found any? In fact, if the tale of virgin birth has some reality then Mary is a very guilty woman indeed. Can you see how the christian story is embellished and romanticised to make the easily impressed person think that something special happened? Thats the whole point of the story. It isn't to provide a true story, its to create the illusion that Jesus was indeed a son of god. Now if that story begins in such a way, how can you be sure that the rest of the story isn't as distorted? Notice also the most glaring inconsistency of all. In the Old Testament (basically the existing judaic half) we are given the Ten Commandments - the rules by which believers in God must live. One states quite clearly that only God must be worshipped. Yet the tale of Jesus in the christian second hald is all about worship - it illustrates the noble humility of this son of god, how he refuses the devils offer, of how he cures ills and feeds the poor out of nowhere - and look what happens - We know see Jesus worshipped in place of god, not to mention the virgin mary or any others of the supporting cast. The bible is the basis of a personality cult (a successful one it might be said), equivalent to Mein Kampf or those little coloured books so beloved of communist dictators. Now that view is going to offend some people. I understand that, yet you must also understand that christianity is not blameless. Wars have been fought over which version of the bible should be read. People have been burned at the stake because religious leaders don't like alternative opinions, nor the scientific revelations that cast doubt on the traditional christian teaching. We see people exploited as cash cows by charismatic fakers - and thats something thats been true of christianity since the very beginning.

 

Simply stating that we should not dismiss the bible because some researchers have quoted from it isn't a good arguement - it suggests that you don't think for yourself and merely accept that some with letters after their name can do no wrong or automatically know better than you. They might (and often do!), but then I'm not dismissing the bible - I'm simply pointing out that its a romanticised story for propaganda purposes, and whilst it is based on historical events, it should be viewed with a lot more suspicion than many researchers give it.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Take for example Jesus

[Gaius Octavius]

No one's saying the Bible shouldn't be put under attack by critics, it's been under fire for a century now as it should be. But dismissing it entirely as fiction isn't really productive. The Bible is used and stands up to much cross-referencing by historians, and is quoted as a source in research.

 

So is the Historia Augustae, and even though thats supposed to be a history book it isn't exactly trustworthy is it? The bible on the hand, as I've mentioned, is propaganda. [Do you mean a lie?] It exists to provide support for christian dogma, [Are you sure that you don't have it backwards here?] not to provide historians with accurate data, [is the Bible a history book or one on religion?] although it must be said that christians do prefer people to see it that way. Of course they do. If the bible is given that sort of credibility then so does their religion. Look at what happens. In the case of a book like the Historia Augustae, we do indeed quote from it, yet researchers check what they can and draw attention to its inconsistencies. The bible on the other hand is treated as a source that is in some way irrefutable, [for religious purposes] and everyone spends their time trying to prove it correct. Thats a big difference, and I think the inconsistencies of the bible story do need to be highlighted, or the historians quoting from it are not really doing their job properly. [is this within the province of historians or theologians? Would one allow a historian to draw medical conclusions?]

 

Ok - The New Testament. We're told that Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem for the purposes of a census. Yet the records of the time don't mention one. [Are you using the same calendar as the authors? At the battle of Austerlitz(?), the Russians arrived 11 days late because they and the Austrians used different calendars.] Mary is supposed to have a virgin birth. Thats fiction I'm afraid. [How do you 'know' this?] That element is there to give a purity to young Jesus that ordinary mortals don't have, accentuated by the dubious tale of star that moved in the heavens and led three oriental kings to the stable. [The Chinese record a bright star at that time.] All very cute, but how many researchers have wasted their time trying to search for evidence of astrnomical phenomena of the period? And haven't found any? In fact, if the tale of virgin birth has some reality then Mary is a very guilty woman indeed. [A conclusion without any premises or 'facts'.] Can you see how the christian story is embellished and romanticised to make the easily impressed person think that something special happened? Thats the whole point of the story. It isn't to provide a true story, its to create the illusion that Jesus was indeed a son of god. [You seem to admit that God exists here. If God exists, then nothing (miracles) is impossible for Him.] Now if that story begins in such a way, how can you be sure that the rest of the story isn't as distorted? Notice also the most glaring inconsistency of all. In the Old Testament (basically the existing judaic half) we are given the Ten Commandments - the rules by which believers in God must live. One states quite clearly that only God must be worshipped. Yet the tale of Jesus in the christian second hald is all about worship [All about worship and not about history?] - it illustrates the noble humility of this son of god, how he refuses the devils offer, of how he cures ills and feeds the poor out of nowhere - and look what happens - We know see Jesus worshipped in place of god, [but, Jesus IS God according to Christians.] not to mention the virgin mary or any others of the supporting cast. [Neither the Virgin Mary nor the 'supporting cast' are 'worshipped' by Christians.] The bible is the basis of a personality cult (a successful one it might be said), equivalent to Mein Kampf or those little coloured books so beloved of communist dictators. [Would you hold the same for a favorable biography of A. Lincoln?] Now that view is going to offend some people. I understand that, yet you must also understand that christianity is not blameless. Wars have been fought over which version of the bible should be read. People have been burned at the stake because religious leaders don't like alternative opinions, nor the scientific revelations that cast doubt on the traditional christian teaching. We see people exploited as cash cows by charismatic fakers - and thats something thats been true of christianity since the very beginning. [No problem here, but is this the fault of men or the Book?]

 

Simply stating that we should not dismiss the bible because some researchers have quoted from it isn't a good arguement - it suggests that you don't think for yourself and merely accept that some with letters after their name can do no wrong or automatically know better than you. [Couldn't the same be said of you?] They might (and often do!), but then I'm not dismissing the bible - I'm simply pointing out that its a romanticised story for propaganda purposes, and whilst it is based on historical events, it should be viewed with a lot more suspicion than many researchers give it. [Again, you have concluded without offering the proof you demand of believers.]

 

Are you stating that Christianity is a 2000 year old conspiracy?

 

I hope that you understand that I am not taking a side here and am not trying to be an apologist for Christianity. I hope that I have shown that you have very weak arguments, if not fallacious ones.

 

The Bible was written (guided by the Hand of God according to believers), for the people of the time, using the nuance of the time. The translations may have been written according to the nuance of their periods. I wonder if a 'novel' written today and could be transported back in time and translated, would it be understood in the same sense as it is today?

Edited September 20, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[M. Porcius Cato]

But remember also that even the story of Jesus being "handed in" to the authorities by the Sanhedrin is highly suspect. The fact remains that crucifixion was a Roman punishment, meted out by Roman soldiery, by a Roman governor, and in a Roman province. If the issue was one of "blasphemy", as the Gospel writers would have us believe, Pilate could simply have told the Jews to take him away and stone him, and stoning was the classic Deuteronomic punishment for blasphemy.

But this is exactly what John reports to have happened--Pilate tells the Jewish authorities to deal with Jesus themselves, and the Jewish authorities protest that they were not able to do so, presumably because their laws required them to maintain their ritual purity for the upcoming Pascha. Purification and its maintenance explains most of the religious events leading up to the Pascha, and it explains also the refusal of the authorities to enter into the "unclean" house of Pilate. Hence, the otherwise absurd song-and-dance that has Pilate going out to hear their complaint in the courtyard.

 

Crucifixion was a standard punishment doled out to political offenders. It seems that an attempt is being made here to shift the ball to another court and deliberately pin the crime of deicide on the Jews.

Patent nonsense. John betrays absolutely no sense of anti-Semitism. As an aside, let me simply point out that the facts are what they are, irrespective of how anti-Semites choose to abuse them. Even if it were true that the Jewish authorities were paragons of innocence in Jesus' prosecution (which I doubt), and even if you succeed in pinning the "crime of deicide" on the Romans alone (which I think is equally unjust), it wouldn't reduce anti-Semitism one iota. Racial hatred doesn't feed itself on facts but on fear, envy, and arrogance. For this reason, I totally oppose the idea of twisting our understanding of Jesus' trial to address medieval prejudices and gratify modern sensibilities--especially when it amounts to substituting one scapegoat (the Jews) for another (the Romans).

 

Another problem here is the sheer historical unlikeliness of the Sanhedrin meeting in the dark and in secret, both of which it was not permitted to do

Source? Also, John doesn't depict a meeting of the whole Sanhedrin.

 

One would think that on the eve of the most sacred festival in Judaism men of import in Judea had nothing better to do with their time than twiddle their thumbs in expectation of a sentence being passed on Jesus. After all, what was the freaking hurry?

You answered your own question, which is that Jesus was militant--apparently even instructing his followers to arm themselves with swords (so much for Jesus as the Prince of Peace)--and they wanted to quietly have the Romans dispose of him to ensure a tranquil holiday.