How would an Historical JC be Defined?

[oldbadger]

I accept a good deal of them. As with any scholar, I do disagree with some points.

Thanks for that huge post of info....

All I want to do now is ask a couple of questions about Meier's book and findings.

You accept a good deal of them. But you disagree with some points. I need you to give me a couple of examples of what you disagree with, regarding Meier's findings.

Is that ok?

 

[oldbadger]

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi
Meier wrote four volumes over almost 2 decades. A Marginal Jew is not only thousands and thousands of pages, it also doesn't reflect Meier's opinions. He set out from the beginning to determine what scholars in general would tend to agree on, and did so in many ways that conflicts with his own beliefs (most, actually). His "arguments" in these volumes are primarily those of "the many other scholars arguments and claims". That is, his purpose is to try to find the most overlap between scholars as is possible. As his findings conflict/contradict his beliefs, I wouldn't say "Meier's 'historical Jesus'", but rather Meier's pretty successful endeavor to depict the historical Jesus as most scholars would.

I need to ask you again......

Do you accept Meier's findings, as published in his book 'Marginal Jew'?
If you disagree with any of his findings, could you give a couple of examples ?

You mention that Meier's opinions were at odds with his findings. Obviously, once a person has made discoveries, then that person will alter their opinions.....no? So I expect that Meier's book will reflect his 'new' beliefs?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks for the above.

And so...... would you say that this is the most probable picture of Jesus and his life that can be obtained at this time?

I ask because I have not read it yet.

First, it's "them", not "it". He wrote four volumes, and they were neither written nor released at once.

Second, to answer your question: no. I wouldn't say it is the most probable picture of Jesus. For one thing, any attempt to approach a historical topic in which their are multiple views with the aim of finding the most common ground pretty much has to be inaccurate. Take any historical topic with many views, from JFK's assassination to the proper interpretation of Near-Eastern figurines, and the common ground will be the few places where most agree, making it a mathematical certainty that the more fair the treatment, the less likely the result is accurate.

However, as far as a single source is concerned, Meier's volumes have several advantages.
1) They are used by scholars, but are designed specifically such that the technical stuff is relegated to chapter endnotes or excurses. Which means that the general reader obtains a great deal of information about the research on the topic and, as s/he becomes more familiar with the scholarship, can go back and look up the lengthy technical sections in those endnotes or excurses.
2) It's a massive collection. The only rival I know of is Craig A. Evan's The Historical Jesus (Critical Concepts in Religious Studies), but as this cost me almost $2,000 I wouldn't recommend it unless you are filthy rich. By contrast, all four volumes of Meier's are about $50, so you get far more (just his second volume is close to Evan's entire compilation in size) for far less.
3) There is no better series of volumes to possess when it comes to understanding the field itself. This is due partly to the extraordinary work involved, but also because the volumes cite just about every important work done in the last 2 centuries on a number of specific topics. And, thanks to the endnotes, this isn't just a series of citations but often descriptions of the works (so you have more than just the title to determine whether you are interested enough to obtain whatever work it is).
4) The second book unfortunately is both the most related to Jesus himself and the volume I find the least adequate (as it relies too much on a neo-form critical approach, in which textuality and layers can be recovered and translated into Aramaic, rather than the decades of work done in fields like anthropology and cognitive psychology on orality, memory, oral tradition/transmission, etc.). However, it still gives an enormous amount of information and the volumes which follow are invaluable for understanding the context (cultural, political, religious, and how these are not very easily distinguished categories).

For a single book, rather than volumes, the best is probably Theißen & Merz' Der Historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch, which has an English translation The Historical Jesus:A Comprehensive Guide. I can't speak to the quality of the translation, but as this is a recent book and German is pretty close to English (as opposed to say, Hebrew or some other non-IE language), I would be surprised to find that the translation was at all problematic. The advantage of this book is that it is basically a textbook (Lehrbuch is German for textbook, actually), so it covers the basics and is especially useful when it comes to references. However, it's a bit old (this matters far less in fields like ancient history, but sometimes changes in the field can be rather drastic).

Dunn's Jesus Remembered is pretty good. Habermas' The Historical Jesus is ok, but mainly for getting a simplistic understanding of why historians believe Jesus was a historical figure. Same with The Jesus Legend by Eddy & Boyd.

 

[oldbadger]

This is only after the fact. Mark 1:9, it is stated that Jesus went from Nazareth, to find John the Baptist by the Jordan. The implication is that Jesus had been in Nazareth up until that time, as he lived there.

Wrong.... Mark 1:9 does not state that Jesus 'went' from Nazareth, nor does it state that Jesus looked for John.
Answer this to yourself. 1: Where do you live? 2: Where did you come from?
Matthew 3:13 reads 'Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptised by John.'

In verse 21, when Jesus goes to Capernaum, and into the synagogue to preach, he is addressed by a man there as Jesus of Nazareth.

In Europe people's surnames and titles were sometimes given from their birthplaces or 'seats'. An example is 'John of Gaunt' !!
Now, you are referring to Jesus of Nazareth?

Now, for the verse you mention (John 6:42, Matthew also mentions it in 13:55, and since the same idea is in both, I will deal with Matthew). The context is very important here. In Matthew 4:13 (similar to Mark 1:21), Jesus is said to leave Nazareth, and move to Capernaum (again, confirming that Jesus had been living in Nazareth).

The evangelists did want to make mention of prophesies about Nazarenes and such, and Nazareth did need to feature. 'Out of....' etc !!!

And as 13:54 states, they were amazed that he had this wisdom and miraculous powers. There were amazed as they knew his family, they knew him.

Nah! They hadn't seen him regularly imo. He might have visited his mother and siblings, but...........

It is a shocking surprise for these people as they remember Jesus before his actual ministry, before he started doing "miracles" and having had this wisdom.

No! They were saying...... 'Hang on! Isn't this that lowly naggara, all of a sudden thinks he's special?' Jesus could not do the things he could do elsewhere. They thought him a 'quack'. ........ imo

Legion already addressed this better than I could. I do accept much of what Meier's has to say though. He really brings in some of the best information possible, and created a wonderful series.

Yes...... I'm very interested to learn about any misgivings he might have for this work.

Thing is, there is a scholarship cult within the historic Jesus debate. If a person wants to win a point, then s/he finds a scholar who agrees.Then s/he pushes that scholar's work out into the debate, remaining safely behind and under cover. In this way scholars can be hitched and cast loose as required.

When Jesus leaves for Capernaum, he is not said to really know anyone.

So Jesus just walks up to young men, and soon after they tell their Dad that they're skipping off and leaving the team.....? Like John and James? Surely there's a scholar who reckons that Jesus knew these guys for some time before? And the Publican Levi!

Sepphoris, .............. That is where the money is. .

So you think Jesus went after the money? Sepphoris is the place that Jesus's Mother and Father fled from the vicinity of during its subjugation by very unpleasant Roman troops. Thousands of them, foraging, pillaging and showing little care for the locals.

Would you have hung about? And the name of S would have lingered forever in their minds and their tales.

Was he really angry though?

Not angry? Well, that burst of temper got him killed. He didn't often lose it, but I think it got the better of him at that time.

Jesus then symbolically destroys the church with a little demonstration. It really couldn't be from anger, as, according to Mark 11:11, Jesus had already visited the Temple the day before, and took stock of everything. It was then the next day that he entered into the temple a second time, and caused the disturbance. However, there is no suggestion that he actually is angry. Instead, he uses the situation as a time to teach (Mark 11:17).

So Jesus did all this as a calm teaching exercise? You think so?

The verses that he quotes as well state something quite important about this message. The first being that "my house will be called a house of prayer for all people." He is taking this directly out of the OT, and in particular, out of an eschatological idea. Isaiah mentions that at the end of times, all nations will come towards the Temple of God, and honor it. What Jesus is doing here is making a very distinct point.

No. I don't know about you, but I treat any reference to OT (or OT prophesy) with care. Much of it is ET. = not to do with Historic Jesus.

The second passage, which talks about a den of robbers, or a hideout for crooks, is not talking about people doing evil in the Temple. As E.P. Sanders, and others have pointed out, the selling of animals, and the exchanging of coins was a necessary part of the Temple cult. Coins with the image of a deity or the like could not be used in the Temple. Since many were coming from places in which that would be the only money they had, it was necessary to have a place to exchange money. The selling of animals was even more important, as carrying livestock all the way to the temple (often which constituted very long journeys, multiple days), and not having it blemish in some way, would have nearly been impossible. So the sale of acceptable offerings was necessary. Jesus would have recognized this, and in fact supports it, as later on, for his Passover meal, we are told that he has his disciples buy such an offering themselves.

The idea of a den of robbers, or a hideout for crooks is that it became a place where crooks would go in order to hide from authority. They weren't necessarily doing evil there, but instead, went there to hide.

THe whole business was a crooked, dirty, underhanded scam for a crowd of fat overpaid priests and Levites (20000 of them!) to earn loads of extra cash, and the whole blooming lot attended the three big feasts to stuff themselves with loot. You see? A den of bloody robbers, just like Jesus said!

The incident is hardly simple.

Simple

You mean being careful such as not coming out and saying exactly what he wanted? Not being straight forward? I agree. He was not preaching a simple message.

His point was the most beautifully straight simple message.

And while Mark may not report as many parables as others (to say it is most accurate may not be true. Matthew and Luke have other sources, which may just be as early, or even earlier than Mark), he still relies heavily on parables.

He needed to, surrounded by those who would 'grass' him up for nothing.

Not to mention, much of what he says is so rooted in first century Judaism, and first century thought that for modern readers, it becomes difficult to fully realize what he is talking about, unless one actually delves into the background.

Tells me something that Jesus said that was 'difficult'? As long as its not an ET infill,and as long as Jesus trusted his listeners, it will be fairly direct.

It is true that many do not accept John as being as accurate. It does seem (at least from my studies) that Catholic scholars tend to be the ones who find it to be the most accurate. However, there are still ideas within John that many do accept. The suggestion that Jesus' ministry was longer than a year is one that many do at least consider.

Not many scholars consider a 3+ year ministry.

One of the primary reasons being is that the synoptic Gospels do not have to be read as if only one year is being covered. The events could be stretched to a much larger time scale. Now, Mark does seemed to be a a very quick pace; however, that could simply be a literary tool. And in fact, a larger time scale makes more sense as the amount of time that it would take Jesus just to travel would almost require that more time was had. Especially since we do not get a firm clue as to when he started his mission.

OK....... but the most likely time eriod is about 11.5 months. I'm going with that time.


Look.......... please do keep debating this. This kind of argument often throws up new points. Thanks for your interest so far.

 

[fallingblood]

Agreed, but it still didn't mean to Jews that pagan deities were welcome.

The main entrance had Herod's Roman Eagle, and when the Jews tore it down, 40 of the rebels were burned alive.

Just so you know its Johnathon Reed that states the Temple coin with Melqart could have made him angry enough top have a violent outburst.


I leave it on the table as a possibility for a zealous teacher

Where does Johnathan Reed state such?

Also, again, the changing of the money, and selling of items were not in the Temple proper. It was in the outer area, where Gentiles could be. And it was a necessary part of the Temple court.

As for the Eagle, that is quite different. First, it was placed over the most important gate. Second, it was a Roman Eagle. The message that it was intended to send was quite clear. It was to show Roman rulership.

As far as him tipping the tables, can we assume that never took place?

If you had tipped a table a table guard would have wrestled him to the ground, with the table man himself.

This wasn't some backwater open table set up where anyone could trash it.

This was the national treasury with hundreds of thousands of people in attendance, and security would have not been taken lightly.

We can assume it actually took place. Let's first assume it didn't. Why was Jesus arrested and killed then? If he did not tip over the tables (you still need to show what OT scripture it can be taken from), there was no violent outburst (thus your argument also goes), and really no reason to have him arrested.

If we assume it actually took place, which there is good reason to, what we actually see is a small demonstration. Most likely, he overtipped a couple of tables, leaving the vast majority alone, as it would have been impossible for him to tip them all over.

This also would have occurred in a relatively small area, as again, the area in which the money changers and sellers would be was a massive area. He could only have disturbed a very small portion of the area.

This would not be the first time that a disturbance happened in the Temple. Passover was rife with demonstrations, and often they were left alone as to not create more tension then there already was, especially if it was a relatively small disturbance. If the Roman Guards had rushed in, tackled Jesus to the ground, and started a brawl, we can be sure that something would have broken out. After all, Jesus followed up his demonstration with preaching a short message. So basically, what would have been seen was that a Roman soldier was bullying a religious teacher.

 

[fallingblood]

Wrong.... Mark 1:9 does not state that Jesus 'went' from Nazareth, nor does it state that Jesus looked for John.
Answer this to yourself. 1: Where do you live? 2: Where did you come from?

Mark 1:9 does state this. It states that he came from Nazareth, and went to John the Baptist. To go to John, he had to find John. And it clearly states that he is going to find John from Nazareth.

Matthew 3:13 reads 'Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptised by John.'

Nazareth is still in Galilee. Just a chapter later, we are told that when John is arrested, Jesus withdraws to Galilee. Immediately after, is says that Jesus leaves Nazareth. Again, the implication is that Jesus was from Nazareth (Matthew 4:12-13)

In Europe people's surnames and titles were sometimes given from their birthplaces or 'seats'. An example is 'John of Gaunt' !!
Now, you are referring to Jesus of Nazareth?

This isn't Europe though. It is clear from Mark and Matthew, as I showed above, that Jesus was seen as living in Nazareth, and leaving from Nazareth.

The evangelists did want to make mention of prophesies about Nazarenes and such, and Nazareth did need to feature. 'Out of....' etc !!!

Nazarenes, and living in Nazareth are two different things. The prophecies about Nazarenes are a huge stretch, and most likely only employed to rationalize why the Messiah could be from such a nowhere place.

Nah! They hadn't seen him regularly imo. He might have visited his mother and siblings, but...........

What is your opinion based on? Basically, what you have to do is ignore everything that disagrees with you in order to arrive at the opinion that you do.

No! They were saying...... 'Hang on! Isn't this that lowly naggara, all of a sudden thinks he's special?' Jesus could not do the things he could do elsewhere. They thought him a 'quack'. ........ imo

That is not at all what is being said. If you read the verses that were given, it is clear that they knew Jesus before his ministry, and were now shocked that he had these skills.

Yes...... I'm very interested to learn about any misgivings he might have for this work.

Thing is, there is a scholarship cult within the historic Jesus debate. If a person wants to win a point, then s/he finds a scholar who agrees.Then s/he pushes that scholar's work out into the debate, remaining safely behind and under cover. In this way scholars can be hitched and cast loose as required.

What evidence do you have that this actually happens? It seems like nothing more than a want to discredit scholars as they don't agree with you.

So Jesus just walks up to young men, and soon after they tell their Dad that they're skipping off and leaving the team.....? Like John and James? Surely there's a scholar who reckons that Jesus knew these guys for some time before? And the Publican Levi!

Some have suggested that they were disciples of John the Baptist. Either way, it isn't until after going to Capernaum that he finds these people.

So you think Jesus went after the money? Sepphoris is the place that Jesus's Mother and Father fled from the vicinity of during its subjugation by very unpleasant Roman troops. Thousands of them, foraging, pillaging and showing little care for the locals.

Would you have hung about? And the name of S would have lingered forever in their minds and their tales.

Who says that Jesus' mother and father fled from the vicinity of Sepphoris? There is no record of that. And obviously they did hang around as they lived in Nazareth, which was very close, just a few miles away.

And S?

Not angry? Well, that burst of temper got him killed. He didn't often lose it, but I think it got the better of him at that time.

There is no evidence that he had a burst of temper. In fact, such an interpretation does not make much sense, as if it was a burst of temper, he would not have been able to calmly check out the Temple the day before and have no problem.

So Jesus did all this as a calm teaching exercise? You think so?

Yes. That is what the record shows.

No. I don't know about you, but I treat any reference to OT (or OT prophesy) with care. Much of it is ET. = not to do with Historic Jesus.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, or at the very least, interested in eschatology. He would have been well versed in the OT. The prophecies also don't have to do with Jesus, but are ingrained in his message, which we know was eschatological. So they fit in what he is saying without problem. There is no reason to doubt them then.

THe whole business was a crooked, dirty, underhanded scam for a crowd of fat overpaid priests and Levites (20000 of them!) to earn loads of extra cash, and the whole blooming lot attended the three big feasts to stuff themselves with loot. You see? A den of bloody robbers, just like Jesus said!

I don't see, as what you are doing is ignoring the purposes of these services, and how they were needed for the Temple cult, and for Jews to participate. There is no suggestion in any record that people had a problem with this. So we can't assume that they did, as it was a necessary part of the Temple cult.

Also, if you go to a den of robbers, they aren't committing crimes. They are hiding out.

Simple

Only if you don't actually understand the background, and the intentions.

His point was the most beautifully straight simple message.

How so? I am doubting you have even read what he has had to say.

He needed to, surrounded by those who would 'grass' him up for nothing.

How do you get this? Where is the evidence?

Tells me something that Jesus said that was 'difficult'? As long as its not an ET infill,and as long as Jesus trusted his listeners, it will be fairly direct.

Well, if you cut out all difficult passages, then yes, he is fairly direct.

Not many scholars consider a 3+ year ministry.

What is your evidence?

OK....... but the most likely time eriod is about 11.5 months. I'm going with that time.

Where is your evidence? What scholars?

 

[outhouse]

Also, again, the changing of the money, and selling of items were not in the Temple proper. It was in the outer area, where Gentiles could be. And it was a necessary part of the Temple court.

As for the Eagle, that is quite different. First, it was placed over the most important gate. Second, it was a Roman Eagle. The message that it was intended to send was quite clear. It was to show Roman rulership.
.

That's not that part that would make a zealous teacher angry.


A pagan deity would however, the same way the eagle was in the outer area, yet riled a whole group of Jews to tear it down.


Melqart on the temple coins in gods house also shows the collaboration of and corruption of Romans in Gods house.

Face it, the temple currency was Roman, this was a huge Hellenistic influence in gods house! and this was a big money making event for the temple and Pilate who always brought in extra troops to keep the peace and take taxes back to the Empire.

 

[outhouse]

We can assume it actually took place.
.

How so, we know they probably used a OT reference for the tipping part.


All we can say is that he caused a disturbance enough to get him noticed and hunt down in the night and killed.

anything beyond that is speculation, there are many cases where we just do not know what happened with any certainty.



It is certain however, if he messed with the money in the treasury, he would not have walked away.

 

[fallingblood]

That's not that part that would make a zealous teacher angry.

A pagan deity would however, the same way the eagle was in the outer area, yet riled a whole group of Jews to tear it down.

The Eagle was over the most important gate, and was a symbol of Roman domination. That is very different than having money changed. If you can't see a difference, then I don't know what to tell you.

Melqart on the temple coins in gods house also shows the collaboration of and corruption of Romans in Gods house.

Where is the evidence that such Temple coins existed.

Face it, the temple currency was Roman, this was a huge Hellenistic influence in gods house! and this was a big money making event for the temple and Pilate who always brought in extra troops to keep the peace and take taxes back to the Empire.

Where is your evidence for such a claim? What purpose would it serve to have money changers, if the money was being changed for Roman coinage with gods on it? It makes no sense at all.

And where is the evidence that Rome made a lot of money during this event? Where is the evidence that the extra troops was to take taxes? If you want to make such claims, please back them up.

How so, we know they probably used a OT reference for the tipping part.

What OT reference are you talking about? Quote some scripture.

All we can say is that he caused a disturbance enough to get him noticed and hunt down in the night and killed.

He wasn't hunted down. There would have been no reason to hunt him down as he wasn't hiding. And if he didn't over turn the tables, what sort of disturbance did he cause?

anything beyond that is speculation, there are many cases where we just do not know what happened with any certainty.

That is simply false. What is speculation is pretty much everything you have said. You haven't supported anything with actual evidence.

It is certain however, if he messed with the money in the treasury, he would not have walked away.

Was he in the treasury? No he was not. The Temple treasury was in a very different area. He messed with some money changers. That is not the Temple treasury.

 

[outhouse]

It must be noted and is almost or is factual.

These unknown authors and Paul were more interested in keeping OT prophecy and building divinity then trying to keep these legends and mythology along historical lines.

These are not history books, nor were they even written in any kind of context regarding history. They are not devoid of historical evidence, but they are very far from literal pieces where we can say, "Ya" he tipped over tables.

He probably didn't.

 

[fallingblood]

It must be noted and is almost or is factual.

Nope. Unless you can show some evidence, your comments are unverified.

These unknown authors and Paul were more interested in keeping OT prophecy and building divinity then trying to keep these legends and mythology along historical lines.

Show some evidence for this. Because really, I think what you're peddling is nothing more than bunk. And the fact that you can't support what you're saying just proves that to me.

These are not history books, nor were they even written in any kind of context regarding history. They are not devoid of historical evidence, but they are very far from literal pieces where we can say, "Ya" he tipped over tables.

So what? Does this even need to be mentioned?

He probably didn't.

He probably did. And I have made an argument as to why. All you have is mere speculation and bunk.

 

[oldbadger]

And what does this have to do with the Temple? Where is the government that Jesus was addressing, with his demonstration in the Temple? There was none.

The country was a theocracy, ruled by the priesthood,which fulfilled all the governmental positions, and left (more or less) alone by the Client Rulers and Romans. It was centred...... at the temple, and the entire priesthood was on duty during that festival.

Where were the changing tables at? Were they in the Temple proper, in the Gentile area? That latter is true. The whole point of having the changing tables, money exchangers, was so that no coinage with pictures of pagan deities would be in the Temple proper.

No. The whole point of the exchange was a massive flow of funds into the priesthood and government. What a cracking way to fleece the common people.

So, if this story was drawn from the OT, then why should we assume that Jesus was angry? If the story is out of the OT, then wouldn't it make sense that it doesn't actually portray what Jesus did?

OT? Jesus was extremely enraged about what the aristo-classes (mostly priesthood?) were doing to his own common folks. He had few good words (if any) for them. What corruption!

Not all violence is done when someone is angry. Violence can also be done when someone is extremely calm, sad, happy, etc. Your logic here falls short.

Not all....... but in this case, Jesus used force and voice! = anger!

His whole ministry, Jesus wanted his own people, the common workers of Galilee (mostly) to live in the 'Kingdom of God', the true theocracy as laid down by the forefathers. It was God's Kingdom, God's people, and they were God's children, the sons (and daughters?) of God. And look what was happening to them!

 

[oldbadger]

Officially, there was no such thing as the “Court of the Gentiles”. That’s right, nowhere in the ancient literature, be it the Bible, the New Testament, the writing of Josephus or in Talmud does one find such a term. Instead, what one finds is an area called the “Outer Court”, by far the largest section of the Temple complex.

The outer Court, all 67 acres of it, was needed for the Jews! Hundreds of thousand of Jews visited during the feasts, and the Temple and its precincts was 'filled' with Jews. Obviously there were large numbers of semi-jews..... nearly the whole preisthood for a start, but they counted as Jews as they filled their coffers from the purses of the poor.

 

[oldbadger]

First, it's "them", not "it". He wrote four volumes, and they were neither written nor released at once.

I think of 'it' because, some threads back, you suggested that I get vol 3. I have not succeeded yet. I keep finding other books on the subject during my search!

Second, to answer your question: no. I wouldn't say it is the most probable picture of Jesus.

Oh dear.........:sad:

Question: Desert Island + you. If you could only have one HJ book, (and you wanted the one which you believe most) which would it be?

 

[oldbadger]

Mark 1:9 does state this. It states that he came from Nazareth, and went to John the Baptist.

Thanks for all this. I need to cut it down,though.
Came = Correct.
Went to John = Wrong. It does not say that

It is clear from Mark and Matthew, as I showed above, that Jesus was seen as living in Nazareth, and leaving from Nazareth.
Nazarenes, and living in Nazareth are two different things. The prophecies about Nazarenes are a huge stretch, and most likely only employed to rationalize why the Messiah could be from such a nowhere place.

Yes, it is a stretch, and so Matthew's reports of Nazareth are in question.

What is your opinion based on? Basically, what you have to do is ignore everything that disagrees with you in order to arrive at the opinion that you do.

Ignore? No...... I just want to make my points and write my opinions in this debate. I have read the gospels and extracts from Josephus, many scholar-intros from wiki, and some scholar's books, such as Crosson, Vermes and Sanders. These have helped me, but I want to think for myself. I don't want to be told what I must believe.

That is not at all what is being said. If you read the verses that were given, it is clear that they knew Jesus before his ministry, and were now shocked that he had these skills.

A prophet is not without honour.... except....... in his home land?

What evidence do you have that this actually happens? It seems like nothing more than a want to discredit scholars as they don't agree with you.

Since few scholars agree, whichever one I choose will cause challenges such as yours, above......?

Who says that Jesus' mother and father fled from the vicinity of Sepphoris? There is no record of that. And obviously they did hang around as they lived in Nazareth, which was very close, just a few miles away.

Hang on........ who says they stayed? Would you have hung around? Where are the scholars? Matthew (who you quote) says they did not. John (who you have quoted) says they did not. I do accet that much of the Nativity is ET, but is it based upon some truth? You see? There is a record of that, but you chose to ignore it, a fault which you pointed at me a few lines up.

There is no evidence that he had a burst of temper. In fact, such an interpretation does not make much sense, as if it was a burst of temper, he would not have been able to calmly check out the Temple the day before and have no problem.

He didn't 'lose it' the day before....... he was very controlled. But, finally, he had had ........enough.

Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, or at the very least, interested in eschatology.

Well, was he an Apocalyptic teacher or not? You need to make your mind up about this first. I don't think he was. I think he was a teacher, guide, social worker, healer and mystic......... something along those lines.

He would have been well versed in the OT. The prophecies also don't have to do with Jesus, but are ingrained in his message, which we know was eschatological. So they fit in what he is saying without problem. There is no reason to doubt them then.

Hang on...... He was working for God's Kingdom to be given back to the common people, as it was supposed to be, while they yet lived! Of course he believed in 'life after death', but that was different.
Who are you all? You wrote 'we know'.....?

I don't see, as what you are doing is ignoring the purposes of these services, and how they were needed for the Temple cult, and for Jews to participate.

There is no suggestion in any record that people had a problem

with this. So we can't assume that they did, as it was a necessary part of the Temple cult.

What? No sacrifices other than at the Temple. Come to the Temple. Bring your purses. Come regularly. And the poor working people just did what they were told. No record of a problem? Have you read about the continuous and repeated revolts? These were not all against Rome. !

Also, if you go to a den of robbers, they aren't committing crimes. They are hiding out.

In this particular den they were fleecing the common people.

Where is your evidence? What scholars?

Ahhhh.. You play the 'what scholars?' card. Most of them you would not be able to agree with, they all have such different views, etc.
Now,first you must lay some ground rules about scholars. Am I allowed to cherrypick from them? A bit from here,something from there? Or must I show a continuity by showing the findings of one scholar?

I am prepared to name just one scholar, whose work and findings I must accept in total. But then so must you! If you play the scholar-card you surely cannot accept one part and ignore/reject others from the same person?

You hinted earlier that parts of Meier's findings were 'wrong..ish'? You first!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Question: Desert Island + you. If you could only have one HJ book, (and you wanted the one which you believe most) which would it be?

The one with hollowed out pages containing an emergency kit and a satphone with worldwide coverage.

The problem with this question (or rather, the real question behind it: what book what I choose for you if I had to pick one) is that I would need to know several things:

1) Are you interested more in the state of research, in which case something like Jesus Remembered might be the best, because it is covers both the history of the historical Jesus "quest" but also goes into great detail on the historical Jesus and the state of research? The issue here is that Dunn devotes one page on the question "did Jesus exist", as would any such book, because at least since Bauer's 19th century work, there have been continual arguments against what are now almost entirely rehashes of older and already addressed mythicist theories. Dunn's 1985 book was on this question and was what changed Wells' opinion from mythicist to almost mythicist.

2) Are you more interested in a book which focuses on why historians are virtually unanimous that Jesus existed, but which do not go much beyond this./That is, they are concerned with the historical process and the evidence and why this gives us as much certainty about Jesus' existence as one can have when it comes to history before the early modern period. They do not spend much time nor are the really concerned with the details about this historical Jesus.

3) Granted that you aren't looking for a book which is intended to be read only by scholars (e.g., a book that may expect you to know other languages and assumes you are familiar with a great deal of research on this topic), you still have a range of books for the general reader going from the very short and simplistic to the very long and not exactly the most gripping of works. The more you opt for simplicity, the less information you'll get and what you do get will often be somewhat inaccurate or even downright distortions. Sensationalism isn't merely a term applied to historical works which are poor, but to those which trade accuracy for excitement. Dunn's book, not counting the preface, indices, etc., is almost 900 pages. Even Doherty's revised book is almost that length (I definitely would not recommend it). One the other hand, Ehrman's original book on the historical Jesus (or perhaps I should say only, as his latest book is not really about the historical Jesus) can't be much over 100 pages and the pages are small.


So if you are looking for the one book on the historical Jesus which would give you the most information and as close to accuracy as is possible given that every single book on the historical Jesus is wrong (and what I believe is clearly the only correct understanding), then Dunn's book is the most comprehensive single volume I know of which includes not only a great amount of detail about Jesus, but a great deal on the "quest" itself, and is self-contained. That is, unlike the volumes of Meier and Wright, the second volume Dunn wrote as a continuation of Jesus Remembered is not on Jesus but the earliest "Christians". Also, unlike the scores of books out there (those by e.g,. Horsely, Crossan, Stanton, Morton Smith, Casey, Freyne, D. C. Allison, Gowler, Akenson, etc.) it is among those which are closer, in my view, to what is accurate and more importantly provides much more information such that having read it, you'd gain a greater understanding of historical Jesus research (past and present) than you would reading any of the others.

Dunn describes his volume as follows:
"A major compositional concern in the chapters which follow has been to leave the main text as uncluttered as possible, to facilitate continuity of reading. The footnotes are there to document points made in the text, to justify assertions made too baldly, and to indicate the wider scope of debate and bibliography regarding issues referred to. Those less interested in such finer details should have no qualms in passing over the footnotes with only an occasional glance. They are for those who want to be kept aware of how tentative some of the claims have to be, or to follow up points of detail, or to consult some of the varied (though far from complete) bibliography provided. At least they may give readers less familiar with the myriad debates some assurance that the more controversial opinions voiced in the following pages have not been reached without substantial reflection and consultation. Read well!"

Even for those "less interested" in details, a ~900 page book means a lot of reading. And while the language is not filled with jargon and complex sentence structures, it's also not as simplistic as e.g., Crossan's book which is basically a simplified, stripped-down version of his larger volume. One will find in it words like hermeneutical, particularity, epistemology, and sentences like "In fact it was a standard principle in nineteenth-century Romantic historiography: the conviction that understanding is only possible because of the homogeneity of human nature, that throughout history 'all men think, feel, will as we ourselves would in a like situation'."

Basically, it's not light reading.

 

[fallingblood]

The country was a theocracy, ruled by the priesthood,which fulfilled all the governmental positions, and left (more or less) alone by the Client Rulers and Romans. It was centred...... at the temple, and the entire priesthood was on duty during that festival.

Judea was a Roman province. It was directly ruled by Rome.

No. The whole point of the exchange was a massive flow of funds into the priesthood and government. What a cracking way to fleece the common people.

Not at all. The exchange was to cash in money that was tainted with currency that was acceptable in the Temple. This is something that is universally accepted. E.P. Sanders supports it in his book, The Historical Jesus. Bart Ehrman supports it in his book, Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet. The Anchor Bible Dictionary also states the same thing. And nearly any text that actually deals with the subject will say the same thing. It was necessary. If you want, I can give direct quotations.

OT? Jesus was extremely enraged about what the aristo-classes (mostly priesthood?) were doing to his own common folks. He had few good words (if any) for them. What corruption!

Outhouse claims that this story is drawn from the OT. I don't buy it. I also don't think that he was enraged. After all, he was able to check out the Temple the day before. He was able to check out the Temple after the next day. If he was so enraged, why did he only act out once?

Not all....... but in this case, Jesus used force and voice! = anger!

That doesn't equal anger. There is nothing suggesting that he did this out of anger. The fact that he is able to be at the Temple before this event and be perfectly okay with it, as well after the fact, suggests that it wasn't about anger.

His whole ministry, Jesus wanted his own people, the common workers of Galilee (mostly) to live in the 'Kingdom of God', the true theocracy as laid down by the forefathers. It was God's Kingdom, God's people, and they were God's children, the sons (and daughters?) of God. And look what was happening to them!

The priestly and aristocracy also had a place in the Kingdom of God though. All of Israel did. Not to mention, no one had to participate in this exchange of money and buying goods. It wasn't forced on anyone. It was there for their conveyance and so that they could easily participate in the Temple cult. There is no record of people revolting against such.

Went to John = Wrong. It does not say that

It does say that he went to John. The verse states that Jesus came from Nazareth and was baptized by John in the Jordan. The act of coming somewhere (and if we check a map, the Jordan is quite a walk) means that he had to travel, as in he went from Nazareth to the Jordan.

Yes, it is a stretch, and so Matthew's reports of Nazareth are in question.

This doesn't put Matthew's reports of Nazareth in question. The fact that all of the Gospels place Jesus in Nazareth, a place that is not mentioned elsewhere, tells us that he was from Nazareth. There is no reason to make something like that up, especially with the polemic it finds in John (where basically, we are told that nothing good comes from Nazareth, as in, it did not have a high reputation. It was lowly).

The fact that Matthew has to try to find a way to make sense of this, by taking some obscure "prophecy" and twist it just to justify Jesus from coming from such place is even more evidence that he was in fact from Nazareth. And we can be sure this is a creation from Matthew as he is the only one who mentions it.

Ignore? No...... I just want to make my points and write my opinions in this debate. I have read the gospels and extracts from Josephus, many scholar-intros from wiki, and some scholar's books, such as Crosson, Vermes and Sanders. These have helped me, but I want to think for myself. I don't want to be told what I must believe.

There is a difference from thinking for yourself though, and ignoring everything that is written. Some of the conclusions you are coming to are not based on evidence, and fly in the face of what is written.

A prophet is not without honour.... except....... in his home land?

? Not sure what you're trying to point out? Jesus was make the statement that at home, he had no honor. He found this out as the people he grew up with rejected him.

Since few scholars agree, whichever one I choose will cause challenges such as yours, above......?

Scholars agree on much of the basics. It is the precise details that there is disagreement with.

And within actual scholarship, people don't simply push other's works out. They debate the merits of each idea that is being discussed.

Hang on........ who says they stayed? Would you have hung around? Where are the scholars? Matthew (who you quote) says they did not. John (who you have quoted) says they did not. I do accet that much of the Nativity is ET, but is it based upon some truth? You see? There is a record of that, but you chose to ignore it, a fault which you pointed at me a few lines up.

There is no record that they fled. The nativity can not be accepted as actual evidence for your position as it had nothing to do with Sepphoris. It is only in Matthew that the family flees, and that is from Bethlehem in Judea, to Nazareth, the exact vicinity you claim they are fleeing from.

John never talks about them fleeing. He places Jesus as having been from Nazareth. And the Gospels as a whole place the family of Jesus in Nazareth. There is no evidence that they fled from the vicinity. The only talk about fleeing is to Nazareth.

He didn't 'lose it' the day before....... he was very controlled. But, finally, he had had ........enough.

That is nothing more than mere speculation that simply is not supported by the evidence. Why was he able to handle it the day before, when supposedly he was being introduced to the corruption, and not the day after? It doesn't make sense, and it isn't supported.

Well, was he an Apocalyptic teacher or not? You need to make your mind up about this first. I don't think he was. I think he was a teacher, guide, social worker, healer and mystic......... something along those lines.

I have made up my mind. He was an apocalyptic preacher, or at the very least, and eschatological preacher. That is why he preached about the Kingdom of God, which was concerning the end times.

Hang on...... He was working for God's Kingdom to be given back to the common people, as it was supposed to be, while they yet lived! Of course he believed in 'life after death', but that was different.
Who are you all? You wrote 'we know'.....?

We, as in the collective we. Being that we all have the information available to us.

As for the Kingdom of God, it was about the end times. The Kingdom of God could not be set up unless the Kingdom of Earth (Rome) was displaced or destroyed. The literature on the subject all states this. It was about the end times.

What? No sacrifices other than at the Temple. Come to the Temple. Bring your purses. Come regularly. And the poor working people just did what they were told. No record of a problem? Have you read about the continuous and repeated revolts? These were not all against Rome. !

Show me some revolts against the Temple, and the Temple itself. Where did people revolt against the temple because they offered those who wanted to participate in the Temple cult the means (the proper coinage, and proper offerings) to do so. Participating in the Temple cult was voluntary, and in fact, most did not do it regularly. They did it when they could, and did so out of love.

If they didn't want to participate, they didn't have to. And in fact, we do see Jews who simply rejected the current practice (the Essenes).

In this particular den they were fleecing the common people.

And what is your evidence for this? Were they forcing people to do anything? No, they were not. You have no evidence.

Ahhhh.. You play the 'what scholars?' card. Most of them you would not be able to agree with, they all have such different views, etc.
Now,first you must lay some ground rules about scholars. Am I allowed to cherrypick from them? A bit from here,something from there? Or must I show a continuity by showing the findings of one scholar?

Pick whatever scholars you want. As long as they are credible (credible, I mean that they actually are in the field (I don't want you quoting mathematicians for example), they actually have a degree (or are at least respected) in the field, and they aren't totally off in their own world (as in conspiracy theories. If they make an argument that Jesus was Caesar or something, I'm not going to accept them).

You can cherrypick from them as well. I don't care. As long as, if you are taking what they say, you take all what they say in the context. If they state something is a probability, but not likely, I don't want you taking just the first half of the statement.

I am prepared to name just one scholar, whose work and findings I must accept in total. But then so must you! If you play the scholar-card you surely cannot accept one part and ignore/reject others from the same person?

Surely you can. To fully agree with any scholar is very unlikely. Not even scholars who highly respect each other are going to follow everything each other does.

You hinted earlier that parts of Meier's findings were 'wrong..ish'? You first!

My main disagreement with Meier is probably that he sees too much historicity in the Gospel of John.

 

[outhouse]

The outer Court, all 67 acres of it, was needed for the Jews! Hundreds of thousand of Jews visited during the feasts, and the Temple and its precincts was 'filled' with Jews. Obviously there were large numbers of semi-jews..... nearly the whole preisthood for a start, but they counted as Jews as they filled their coffers from the purses of the poor.

Not just Jews

This was one hell of a festival, it was like going to the largest most popular Rock concert with a feast.

Remember this was one of the few times these peasants even were able to eat meat.

Id be pushing people out of the way for my slice

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Wrong.... Mark 1:9 does not state that Jesus 'went' from Nazareth, nor does it state that Jesus looked for John.

Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου/kai egeneto tais hemerais elthon Iesous apo Nazaret tes Galilaias kai ebaptisthe eis ton Iordanen hupo Ioannou

The following translation is "chucked" into pieces so that I can supply various ways in which each chunk can be translated. This way, you need not use a single translation to interpret what the Greek means.

[and it came to be in those days/during that time/and at that time it so happened/and it came to pass at that time]
that
[Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee/Jesus, from Nazareth (in Galilee) came/Jesus went out from Nazareth which is in Galilee]
[and was baptized in the Jordan by John/and was baptized by John in the Jordan]

The issue of whence Jesus came to John is made clear in particular by a prepositional phrase. That is, by itself the Greek word elthon, which I translated as "came", isn't really what makes it very evident that Jesus came from Nazareth. Iesous apo Nazaret "means" Jesus from Nazaret, and it cannot mean (as the use of the genitive case, or the word Nazarene, or any number of other constructions) "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus, the guy from Nazareth", because it is used with a "verb of motion".

Greek uses a lot of "basic" words that can means a slew of even radically different things. This is possible because for any particular usage, we have a construction that tells us what the "sense" of the word is. By construction, I refer to things like the form (morphology) of the word itself, as well as the forms and meanings of neighboring words, and finally through particular combinations of grammatical properties of one or more words in the construction with other particular grammatical properties and/or words. Prepositions can mean very abstract things and frequently do (in English and in Greek), but because there is a verb of motion in Mark 1:9 the sense is clear.

It is through constructions (or, more simply and less technically, context) that we know when John the Baptist says (in Matthew) he is unworthy "to bear" Jesus' shoes, he does not mean he is unworthy to endure the misfortune that is Jesus' shoes, or that he is not worthy to be pregnant with Jesus' shoes, or a number of other things that that verb can connote.

 

[steeltoes]

Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις ἦλθεν Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ Ναζαρὲτ τῆς Γαλιλαίας καὶ ἐβαπτίσθη εἰς τὸν Ἰορδάνην ὑπὸ Ἰωάννου/kai egeneto tais hemerais elthon Iesous apo Nazaret tes Galilaias kai ebaptisthe eis ton Iordanen hupo Ioannou



[and it came to be in those days/during that time/and at that time it so happened/and it came to pass at that time]
that

[once upon a time]