The Bible as a Historical Source

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Patent nonsense. John betrays absolutely no sense of anti-Semitism

Actually I'm not pinpointing John or any individual evangelist. I'm talking about the whole idea of it being necessary for Jesus to have been handed over to the Romans. If he was a militant, as both you and I seem to agree, then why was it necessary for him to have been handed over? Could the Romans not have dealt with him themselves? Now that sounds like a story. The gospels were written to a Greco Roman audience with the deification of Jesus in mind. It would not do to deify a rebel against the empire, hence the story of the Sanhedrin handing over Jesus by the wicked Jews to be crucified by a reluctant Pilate.

Your contention of the Jews being worried about purification before the Pascha does not sound convincing. If that was the case, then why did the Sanhedrin not just wait till the Passover season went by? After all, meeting at night, meeting in secret, and meeting on the eve of the Passover all contravened Talmudic law. They seemed to have no qualms about that.

Oops. I didn't read the last part of your post. My apologies. So you think they wanted to get rid of Jesus in order to have a tranquil holiday. Hmmm.... possibly. But if Jesus was already arrested, they could have kept him in custody until the passover season was over before having him executed.

Edited September 20, 2007 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

QUOTE

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.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...sanhedrin4.html

See also Elwood Sanner's Biblical Commentary page 400.

There are other sources too but I would have to visit the public library again for that.

Anyway the Sanhedrin were not allowed to convene at night and furthermore were not allowed to meet on the eve of a holiday or on a holiday either.

How do you know John does not depict a meeting of the whole Sanhedrin?

Edited September 20, 2007 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[M. Porcius Cato]

So you think they wanted to get rid of Jesus in order to have a tranquil holiday. Hmmm.... possibly. But if Jesus was already arrested, they could have kept him in custody until the passover season was over before having him executed.

 

If the disciples were armed hooligans, keeping Jesus in custody would pose the risk of armed conflict (or at least protest) for his release. Once Jesus was dead, however, his followers had no figure to rally behind. Jesus had to die before the festival, and the Romans had to do it lest the high priests be sullied by the impurity. In this very limited sense, Jesus died for others (though IMO that hardly seems like something worth celebrating).

 

Also, John depicts only a meeting at the house of Caiaphas, not an assembly of the whole Sanhedrin. I guess it's possible that the whole Sandedrin might have met (and might have fit) in the house of Caiaphas, but there's nothing in John that suggests that this was the case, and if against Jewish law, it seems unlikely that they would have done so. They typically followed these laws ... religiously.

[caldrail]

[Do you mean a lie?]

Propaganda involves distortion and fiction. Whether its a lie or not is a matter of opnion. I think some of it is.

[Are you sure that you don't have it backwards here?]

Not at all. The early christian leaders needed something to give their neophytes as evidence of their beliefs. They collected the gospels for that purpose.

 

[is the Bible a history book or one on religion?]

Neither really. Its a guidebook to christian dogma. By that I mean to reinforce the personality cult of Jesus. Is that religion? The followers say yes, because they believe. I say no, because Jesus was a mortal rabble rouser and not the son of god.

 

[for religious purposes]

It is used in that way, but lets understand what religion is. Belief is what you hold to be true. Religion is what someone else tells you to believe.

 

[is this within the province of historians or theologians? Would one allow a historian to draw medical conclusions?]

We do sometimes. Heck, in the case of the bible this has gone on for two thousand years. Some people take the bible absolutely literally today, and there are those who believe the world was indeed created warts and all in 4004BC. That figure was arrived at by treating the bible as a wholly reliable source. Think about it.

 

[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.] I understand your point but that merely opens up all sorts of historical distortions in an attempt to prove the bible is a reliable source. Which different calendars do we need to observe? The actual date of Jesus's birthday isn't known (its celebrated at christmas by convention, because the saturnalia was the most popular festival of the year). However, there are no records that I'm aware of of observable stellar phenomena in that period at all.

 

[How do you 'know' this?]

When I was ten years old my parents gave me a pamphlet explaining where babies come from. Recreational sex wasn't a feature of life for judaeans of good character. If joseph hadn't got her pregnant... well.... In any case, the story is probably bunkum. By describing it as a virgin birth, the incident appears pure and untainted by human sexual behaviour. A gift from god as it were.

 

[The Chinese record a bright star at that time.]

Interesting. Do they also record it moving across the heavens? I think they would have noticed. Or is the record a mere coincidence? You have no way of knowing when this part of the story was added, and whatever the chinese say, the western world does not record that event.

 

[A conclusion without any premises or 'facts'.] No, a supposition, but one based on ordinary human behaviour and not fantastic events without any shred of evidence whatever.

 

[You seem to admit that God exists here. If God exists, then nothing (miracles) is impossible for Him.] Erm... No... thats the christian view. Nor is there any reason to believe that god can actually perform miracles. The use of miracles as evidence of divine status is typical of those who want people to believe nonsense. The modern media do that all the time.

 

[All about worship and not about history?] Correct. The history is in there to understate the vital message. That Jesus must be worshipped

 

[but, Jesus IS God according to Christians.] Thats a heresy, not standard christian dogma. Although I do agree that the worship of Jesus has precedence. But isn't that the whole point of christianity in the first place? Its the subversion of judaic beliefs as the basis of a personality cult.

 

[Neither the Virgin Mary nor the 'supporting cast' are 'worshipped' by Christians.] Pardon? Have you travelled anywhere in the latin world? The virgin mary takes pride of place in a great many churches.

 

[Would you hold the same for a favorable biography of A. Lincoln?] Why would I? Is anyone worshipping Mr Lincoln? Now if that biography tells us he could walk on water, cure the blind, feed thousands out of thin air, and got himself shot to save mankind, I might start wondering.

 

[No problem here, but is this the fault of men or the Book?]

Men. The human factor always arises where the potential for exploitation is there.

 

[Couldn't the same be said of you?] That I don't think for myself? Rubbish. If I didn't think for myself I'd be lining up on Sunday along with all the other happy punters. Can I be fooled? Of course. Can I be mistaken? Yes, just like you or anyone else. Just like people who believe in a religion. It may or may not be absolute cobblers but if I believe everything I'm told, then I'm at risk of manipulation. Sorry, but if I smell a rat, I'll shoot it.

[Again, you have concluded without offering the proof you demand of believers.]

No, I've presented an arguement for debate, not a statement for you to believe in. Oh dear, you do seem amenable to religion.

 

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

Not as a homegenous conspiracy. But its a milieu for those who want to conspire.

 

I hope that I have shown that you have very weak arguments, if not fallacious ones.

Sorry, you failed. Pulling my arguement apart with statements that have even less strength doesn't convince me. Fallacious? Not as far as I'm concerned, especially when you read how much blatant nonsense the bible spouts. Thats my opnion. You're welcome to yours.

 

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.

And modified by many, many revisions over the last two millenia.

 

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?

It would be given a different emphasis without modern experience and education. But if you want to know how amenable people are to hidden mysteries, then look at all the behaviour surrounding 'The Da Vinci Code' which now has a core of readers absolutely convinced that Dan Brown has revealed the truth of the world. Hunting for holy grails has proven to be a futile quest more than once hasn't it?

Edited September 21, 2007 by caldrail

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

Also, John depicts only a meeting at the house of Caiaphas, not an assembly of the whole Sanhedrin

If he does then that is a marked departure from the stance taken by the Synoptic Gospels. Mark, and Matthew who copies him, state unequivocally that the entire Sanhedrin were present at the trial (Mark 14: 53 - 65).

Another couple of things I stumbled across while I was researching this - the Sanhedrin were supposed to convene in a special meeting place called the Gazith (Chamber of Hewn Stone), not at the High Priest's residence. Another improbability attributed to a body of men that were so particular about following the Law. Also, a period of 24 hours was supposed to transpire before a sentence of death was passed. Mark, however, says that "they all condemned him worthy of death".

Further sources: Misnah (Sanhedrin IV:1) and Maimonides (Hilkot Sanhedrin XI:2)

Edited September 21, 2007 by Gladius Hispaniensis

[Agrippina of the Julii]

I think that any assessment of the new testament as a source is always based on your own particular bias. If you are an avid christian, you will accept the its value to the extent of the depth of your faith. It is hard to be objective about the one source that validates your belief. If on the other hand you are an avid athiest you will reject the entire thing.

I have two points to make, one is that there may have been more than one itinerant cleric who went around turning people away from the influence of Rome's paganism and the extreme orthodoxy of the temple. A more moderate type of propagandist if you like. My feeling is that as there are no records of a trial from the Roman point of view, and we have to remember that the Romans were almost as meticulous as the nazis about keeping records, we can assume that if a trial actually happened, it was a local event. Crucifixion was the standard Roman method of dealing with insurgents so possibly, there was a trial and possibly there was only one person.

My second point is that the bible is not complete. When the books were assembled to be used as the guide to christianity, the people who decided which were going to be included and which not, could only have done exactly what publishers of early times did with every written work. How do we know for sure that was is left off at the end of Herodotus wasn't thrown away because it cast Athens is a bad light. The same thing can be said about Thucydides and other writers who have bits and pieces missing and if we go by the style of writing of the day, Suetonius' tabloid style for example, writing of the time was extremely biased in favour of the subjectivity of the writer. There were no professors to correct what was written to bring the writer back on track and to point out the lack of objectivity. So except as a source of more or less what life was like at the time, and as an example of the writing style of the time, just like all the other writers, I think the New Testament can only be used to lend credence to Josephus and Josephus to lend credence to the Bible.

Sorry it's a long waffle but the answer to this question can only be that it depends on your subjectivity.

For my part, I wouldn't use it unless I was researching something that was absolutely not mentioned anywhere else but then I would do it with a lot of skepticism.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Also, John depicts only a meeting at the house of Caiaphas, not an assembly of the whole Sanhedrin

If he does then that is a marked departure from the stance taken by the Synoptic Gospels. Mark, and Matthew who copies him, state unequivocally that the entire Sanhedrin were present at the trial (Mark 14: 53 - 65).

Interesting. It's further evidence that John is more reliable than the Synoptics.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Also, John depicts only a meeting at the house of Caiaphas, not an assembly of the whole Sanhedrin

If he does then that is a marked departure from the stance taken by the Synoptic Gospels. Mark, and Matthew who copies him, state unequivocally that the entire Sanhedrin were present at the trial (Mark 14: 53 - 65).

Interesting. It's further evidence that John is more reliable than the Synoptics.

That assertion is entirely a matter of Faith. That's exactly the problem.

[Gladius Hispaniensis]

That assertion is entirely a matter of Faith. That's exactly the problem.

Why is that, Asclepiades? I thought we were talking about verifiable historical data here. Where does Faith come into it?

[ASCLEPIADES]

That assertion is entirely a matter of Faith. That's exactly the problem.

Why is that, Asclepiades? I thought we were talking about verifiable historical data here. Where does Faith come into it?

The assertion in question is "John is more reliable than the Synoptics". The narrative differences between John and the Synoptics, as far as I know, are mainly Jesus' life events quoted by no independent sources.

 

For example:

 

- The Gospel of John contains 3 passover feasts, suggesting Jesus' ministry lasted between 2 and 3 years, where in the synoptic gospels, it is only one.

 

- The healings of demon-possessed people are never mentioned as in the Synoptics.

 

- John doesn't have as many Jesus' miracles and healings as do the Synoptics.

 

- Major synoptic speeches of Jesus are absent, including all of the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet discourse and the instructions that Jesus gave to his disciples when he sent them out throughout the country to heal and preach.

 

- Jesus driving the money changers from the temple appears near the beginning of the work. In the Synoptics this occurs late in Jesus' ministry.

 

- Most of the action in John takes place in Iudaea Province and Jerusalem; only a few events occur in Galilee.

 

- The crucifixion of Jesus is recorded as Nisan 14, about noon, in contrast to the synoptic Nisan 15.

 

Then, the choice of relying in John or the Synoptics (or both or no one) does not depend on verifiable historical data; it is entirely a matter of Faith.

Edited September 21, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

The assertion in question is "John is more reliable than the Synoptics". The narrative differences between John and the Synoptics, as far as I know, are mainly Jesus' life events quoted by no independent sources.

 

First off, as an atheist, I put absolutely no faith in John's account. My argument so far--if you've bothered to follow it at all--has been restricted entirely to Jesus' trial and based entirely on what we know about Roman law, Jewish law, the Jewish calendar, the Roman provincial territory, who governed which territory at which time, and facts about the background of Jesus that can be checked against other sources. At no time has anyone weighed in on such imponderables as the number of miracles that Jesus performed, the number of demons exorcised by Jesus, or the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

 

Moreover, you apparently have a double-standard regarding historical sources, as many facts about Roman history cannot be checked against independent sources either. For example, when Caesar claims to have been abducted by pirates and to have crucified them all just as he vowed he would, there is no independent corroboration whatever. All we have is Caesar's word and others repeating what Caesar said about himself. Now why is it that you don't charge in with demands for corroboration for this and every other event described in Roman history? The cold truth is that if we followed this standard, we'd be left with only fragments of (redundant) information in Livy, Polybius, Caesar, Sallust, Cicero, and all the rest of our literary sources.

 

To my mind, there is precious little information about ancient history, and while we have no reason to accept testimony of the scientifically impossible (whether it be Romulus or Jesus ascending into the heavens), we ought to operate under the principle that our sources are otherwise innocent of fabrication until proven guilty. If you want to adopt the opposite premise, you'll have little to nothing to say.

[ASCLEPIADES]

To my mind, there is precious little information about ancient history, and while we have no reason to accept testimony of the scientifically impossible (whether it be Romulus or Jesus ascending into the heavens), we ought to operate under the principle that our sources are otherwise innocent of fabrication until proven guilty. If you want to adopt the opposite premise, you'll have little to nothing to say.

 

First of all, let me apologize in advance to other UNVR members and visitors, as I do not intend to be disrespectful to their personal beliefs (atheists included).

 

The auto-proclaimed and only purpose of all the Gospels (canonical and apocrypha alike) is to give testimony of the coming of the only God to the earth. As an atheist, where does the "scientifically impossible" begin for you? Check out the list on my last post (the "historically" more accurate data that make the difference between John and the Synoptics, the assertion in question of my purported double-standard). All of them were, by definition, acts of god (deeds of Jesus) and Christian articles of faith.

 

Once upon a time, this thread began because I doubted of the authority of John (and also of the other Gospels) as a source for the study of contemporary Jewish Law (or Roman, BTW); we can find many examples for that, and other UNRV members had done it for us, but I have repeatedly stated specifically one; the Barabbas story, a legal absurdity quoted by the four canonical Gospels (Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:13

[ASCLEPIADES]

BTW, you may find a better model of double-standard here.

 

Finally, I must say that I happen to agree with most of what AJ wrote for us in her last post (#51 of this thread), especially with her wise last statement (sic):

 

"For my part, I wouldn't use it unless I was researching something that was absolutely not mentioned anywhere else but then I would do it with a lot of scepticism."

[M. Porcius Cato]

The auto-proclaimed and only purpose of all the Gospels (canonical and apocrypha alike) is to give testimony of the coming of the only God to the earth.

Insofar as I'm interested in the Romans' role in Hellenizing the Near East, the purpose of the Gospels is mostly irrelevant to me. What matters to me is what they have to say about the Romans, and when the Gospels conflict, I have to figure out which of the accounts is most reliable about the surrounding events. My contention is that on these matters John is the most reliable.

 

Some of the differences between John and the Synoptics concerns the mythological. I don't care about these differences one way or the other, as they are totally irrelevant to whether John better understood the trial of Jesus, which is an historically interesting case simply because it offers unmatched details about Roman law in the provinces. There is only one difference between John and the Synoptics that matters on this issue: whether Jesus' last supper was the Paschal feast or not. The Synoptics say it is; John says it is not. If we assume that the Synoptics are right and John is wrong, all kinds of chronological weirdness is implied; if we assume that the Synoptics are wrong and John is right, the weirdness dissipates, and the rest of John's account of the trial of Jesus makes perfect sense and proves to clarify what was meant by the Jewish authorities when they said, "it is not permitted to us" to execute Jesus: viz., it is not permitted to us BY JEWISH LAW to execute Jesus on the day of the Paschal feast.

 

Once upon a time, this thread began because I doubted of the authority of John (and also of the other Gospels) as a source for the study of contemporary Jewish Law (or Roman, BTW); we can find many examples for that, and other UNRV members had done it for us, but I have repeatedly stated specifically one; the Barabbas story, a legal absurdity quoted by the four canonical Gospels (Matthew 27:15-26, Mark 15:6-15, Luke 23:13–25, John 18:38-19:16) and even by the apocryphal Gospel of Peter.

What does the Barabbas story really prove?

 

If the Barabbas story is false (which I don't think it is), it implies nothing about the relative accuracy of the Gospel writers, but it suggests that none of them should be taken as literal and unerring truth (DUH!). Since no one has suggested taking the Gospels as literal and unerring truth, then, what conclusion is exactly being suggested by the supposed "absurdity" of the Barabbas story? The allegation is that the Barabbas story is an attempt to "pin the crime of deicide on the Jews". This argument makes no sense to me. From the perspective of the Gospels, the crucifixion of Jesus was pre-ordained and an act of glorious self-sacrifice by which Jesus saved the souls of all mankind. If one accepts this tenet (and Christians are enjoined to do so), then the Barabbas case is simply part of a divine plan in which the Jews have an essential role to play. If one does not accept this tenet (and thereby rejects the very notion that a God was being crucified), then the Barabbas case is simply a case of bad luck for Jesus, and also says nothing about the Jews. Nor is it even clear whether some, all, or no Jews are meant to slandered by the story. Thus, even if the Barabbas story were false, it would have no meaning for the issue at hand.

 

If the Barabbas story is true, it seemingly implies nothing about the relative reliability of the Gospels (since all cite it), and therefore says nothing about which Gospel should be relied upon in teasing out whether the Jews had the power to execute. Certainly, the truth of the Barabbas story is deservedly questioned, but don't suppose it to be an absurdity. In fact, the release of prisoners during the period of a religious festival was practiced by Babylonian kings, as attested by surviving Assyrian tablets, and the king of Judah was freed under such circumstances after the death of Nebuchadnezzar (according to 2 Kings and Jeremiah). Further, there was the Greek custom of freeing prisoners during the Greater Dionysia, which took place over six days in the month of Elaphebolion (~28 Mar - 2 April), and at the Thesmophoria, as attested by Ulpian. Far from being an "absurdity", the festival release of prisoners was known throughout the region.

 

Finally and most importantly, see C. B. Chavel (1940), "The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem," JBL 60, 275ff, which points to evidence of the custom of freeing political prisoners in Mishna tractate Pesah. 91a (The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo'ed II [ed. I. Epstein; London: Soncino, 1938], p 485). Critical for my thesis, J Blinzler's (1959) The Trial of Jesus points out that the Mishna text referred to by Chavel "fits in only with John's account, according to which the trial of Jesus and the release of Barabbas took place on the fourteenth Nisan, but not with the synoptics's account, which places the trial on the fifteenth Nisan" (p. 219). Thus, if Chavel's thesis is right and John is the more reliable of the Gospels, then the Barabbas episode makes perfect sense, is not a legal absurdity, and is consistent with non-Gospel sources.

Edited September 22, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[ASCLEPIADES]

Finally and most importantly, see C. B. Chavel (1940), "The Releasing of a Prisoner on the Eve of Passover in Ancient Jerusalem," JBL 60, 275ff, which points to evidence of the custom of freeing political prisoners in Mishna tractate Pesah. 91a (The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo'ed II [ed. I. Epstein; London: Soncino, 1938], p 485). Critical for my thesis,

Maybe it would be a good idea if you post textually your primary source, as Talmud's translation may be difficult.

From your quoting, I understand Chavel and you are referring to Mishnah Pesachim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 1 (translation by Jonathan Wolf:

 

"One who was contaminated or was on a distant journey, and had not observed the first Pesach, must observe the second. If he erred or was prevented, and therefore did not observe the first Pesach, he must observe the second. If so, why is it said (Bamidbar 9:10) "One who was contaminated or was on a distant journey?" Because these are exempt from kares, but those are liable to kares.

Commentary:

The concept of kares, or spiritual excision appears in Torah in many places. It means to be "spiritually cut off" as a heavenly punishment. According to the sages, kares is incurred for willful violations of scriptural commandments. The Torah specifies only two provisions (being contaminated or on a distant journey) since those are beyond the control of the person and so they are exempt from kares. Thus if he erred or was delayed, he is liable for kares."

 

?????

 

Even Christian exegesis commonly accepts the Barabbas legal background as untenable (not to mention the Jewish). As I haven't found Chavel's book yet, I'm not able to explain why he have had so little Scholar impact since 1940.

 

Here is a nice analysis by M D Magee .

 

And a more or less typical commentary by Austin Cline (extract):

"Why was Barabbas important?:

There was no custom whereby the Romans would release a condemned prisoner on the occasion of a holy day, but even if there were Pilate would never consent to allow Barabbas go over Jesus. No one who tried to overthrow Roman rule was allowed to live. Jesus, even if he did claim to be King of the Jews, hadn