GeorgeW

Neon,

How do you know his claims are "far fetched" and his evidence "misused." Please state the specific claims that are "far fetched" and your authoritative source for this.

The reason I got the book was a favorable review in "The Biblical Archaeology Review." In reading the book, I got absolutely no sense of "apologetics." If I had, I would have put it down immediately as I am quite suspicious of such material. However, I don't dismiss everything out of hand because it is written by a person identified as a Christian. In the book, he makes no claims of inerrancy. He makes no claims of supernatural events. And, his sources are numerous and cited.

BTW, I saw nothing in this short clip that would lead me to believe he is a "fundamentalist."

George

So if this was peacetime where the Romans would be extra nice to the Jews, why would the Romans have executed a Jew in the first place?

Sorry, I don't have a handy list of capital crimes under Roman law.

George

This is also the case with the canonical Pastoral epistles in the NT which actually written by Paul but were written by his followers and attributed to him posthumously.

Neon,

Assuming you meant to write "which actually (were not) written by Paul," and assuming you are referring specifically to 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, I think this is correct. If you are referring to all of the letters attributed to Paul in the NT, I don't think you are right.

George

Joseph,

FWIW, Ehrman (in Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth) says, "We have nothing to suggest that the beliefs embraced by later Gnostic Christians were present in first-century rural Palestine. And so the Gnostic sayings of Jesus found in such Gnostic Gospels as the Gospel of Philip or the Gospel of Mary almost certain do not go back to Jesus himself but were place on his lips by this later (Gnostic) followers."

George

In his book Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, John Dominic Crossan argued that it's highly unlikely that the Romans would have easily given back the dead body of an executed criminal back to his family and followers just because some random rich Jewish guy paid them off. Crossan argued that the empty tomb story was a myth from later Christian tradition and most likely the Romans threw Jesus' body in Gehenna with the rest of the criminals where his body was eaten by wild dogs. Does Evans address this argument in his book?

He does and argues that it would be almost certain that the body would be given back to the Jews for burial (in a criminal tomb). He says that this was in peacetime and the Romans respected Jewish law and tradition in order to maintain the peace. In fact, the bones of an executed man from this era has been found, in a tomb, with the spike stuck in the foot bone. Another burial tomb has been found with a decapitated woman who had been executed. Others have been found which may have been executed.

So, the archaeological evidence clearly suggests that (in peacetime - not during the uprising when many were crucified and left unburied) that the Romans gave the bodies of executed criminals back to the Jews for burial.

George

Is there an overlap with Bart Ehrman's book on the historical Jesus?

Not really. First, they each approach the problem from a different perspective. Second, Ehrman was establishing the existence of the historical person where Evans was looking at what archaeology might tell us about him and his world. Ehrman was interested in the person and his theology (an apocalyptic preacher). Evans didn't address this aspect. Evans looked at him more as a first-century Palestinian Jew.

However, they are complementary in that they both help fill in the picture.

George

Craig Evans, the author of Jesus and His World: The Archaeological Evidence examines the archaeological record of first-century Palestine to see how this correlates with the Gospels and Acts. Since there is a lack of specific archaeological evidence of Jesus, Evans looks at archaeological evidence from the perspective of "verisimilitudes," the plausibility of reported NT events in light of what the archaeological record shows.

He examines the evidence that Jesus studied at synagogues in the Galilee and concludes that it is possible. He considers whether Jesus was literate and concludes that it is likely, but not in professional manner like a scribe. He asks the question about what Jesus looked like and concludes that pictures in Egypt from the period are the best general guess. Since his physical appearance is never commented on the Gospels, he concludes that he was probably a very ordinary-looking Jewish man.

One of the more interesting sections is a long chapter about Jewish burial practices in 1st-century Palestine and how the biblical narrative might fit with what is known. Generally, the evidence (except the resurrection which cannot be scientifically tested) is consistent with the biblical stories. The author suggests the likelihood that (1) Jesus was buried in tombs designated for executed criminals; (2) these were under the control of the Sanhedrin; (3) the guard was an official guard over the criminal tombs; and (4) the body had been moved from the original place to another by the authorities (maybe as a routine administrative move). So, when the family members came back to the original place to anoint him (a common Jewish practice), the tomb was empty. (From there, it is a matter of faith.)

I think anyone interested in the historical person would find this book a worthwhile read. Evans presents lots of archaeological material from the period and relates it to the person described in the Gospels. If nothing else, it gives a good context for that time and place.

George

Rivanna, Very nice. This is the world I grew up in.

George

The national church owns every Wholesale Food distributor in the USA. (I have been told that, I do not know if it is true.) [...]

 

I am very surprised that this interests so few people. Are we so tied up in materialism and self-serving apathy that this is all ho-hum?

I find it hard to believe that there is not a single Catholic, Protestant or Jewish food wholesaler in the entire US.

I will not vote for Romney for ideological reasons, not because he is a Mormon. Maybe you could explain why you think this might be a threat of some sort.

George

Jimb,

First, welcome.

Second, about Doherty. I would recommend Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman. He has a lot to say about Doherty's claims (and not very favorable). If you are not familiar with Ehrman, he is a professor of religion at the University of North Carolina and a recognized NT scholar. (And, an agnostic).

George

If by stasis you mean it in a sense of a balance where we can go no further because all forces are equal, yes it is to me desirable but not in the sense of a closed mind but rather a mind that fully accepts "it doesn't know" and is then able to be transcended because thoughts and actions have reached their limits and conceptually there is no where to go with concepts.

Actually, I was thinking of stasis in terms of reaching a stable, unchanging view. But, you make a good point about arriving at a point from which a human mind cannot progress.

George

This is a followup to Joseph's essay about deconstruction and reconstruction. I thought I would add a couple of thoughts in an appropriate thread.

Recently, in discussions about Bain Captial (Mitt Romney's old venture capital company), the term 'creative destruction' has been used. As I understand it, the idea is that sometimes destruction is needed in order for there to be 'creative reconstruction.' Without debating the merits of this as an economic process, the idea might be relevant to Joseph's proposal. Sometimes, it is necessary to destruct before one can creatively construct.

I think one of the dangers in deconstruction is getting stuck in the deconstructed phase. One can be left with nothing in place except negative attitudes about the previous structure. I am not sure this is healthy for the person or society. Isn't this where the prominent anti-theists are?

I would also say that the building metaphor may not be perfect as we can complete the reconstruction of a physical building, but should we ever complete the reconstruction of a theology? Is it desirable to arrive at stasis? Wouldn't this lead to a mind closed to other possibilities? Isn't this the idea of Evolutionary Christianity?

George

Jody, Welcome, welcome, welcome.

George

I don't think there can be evil without agency and malevolent intent. Natural disasters, IMO, lack agency. Therefore, 'natural evil' cannot exist.

George

Did Santorium's comment the we are or should be a "Christian Country" worry anyone? It is the same concern people had about JFK... I think it is a loyalty question ... If the good of the country conflicts with the good of the church ... what wins?

Kennedy affirmed the separation of church and state and Santorum denied it. He said he almost threw up when he read Kennedy's speech.

George

Further if they get hung-up on the whole NT as a new direction and OT lessons can be ignored only when directed by the NT then any cloth that is not 100% would be sinful........ the list could go on .... Care to discuss the Year of Jubilee with an affluent fundamentalist?

I have heard a moral vs. ritual law distinction given for ignoring certain OT prescriptions. So, where does the death penalty for sassy children fit - the ritual law? I think this, like many of the attempts to explain what one accepts and rejects, is superficial.

I think our underlying worldview guides how we interpret the Bible and what we choose to cite or ignore. Change the worldview and the biblical interpretations will follow.

George

LC, welcome.

George

In other words, in the evolution of faith, one must distinguish between those things postulated in ignorance and those things which retain value.

I like this way of expressing it.

George

Once again, I expose my ignorance. What is the Daily Office?

George

And I think that's an important reason for why we need to rethink the way we've looked at the bible in light of historical context and in light of modern developments and not just blindly accept the way we've always been taught about the bible just because that's what we've always been taught it says.

Absolutely, we should look at the"Bible in light of historical context." That is exactly what Joseph and I have been trying to convey.

No one here has even hinted that we should "blindly accept" the way we have been taught. We have explicitly said that we should view and interpret the Bible objectively. And, that means not spinning it either way on social issues.

George

I think I, as well as others, often conflate the long period of Jewish culture in the Bible. The texts represent more than a thousand years of history and very different social structures.

I read a book several years ago by an anthropologist who divided the culture in three major segments: the bedouin period, represented in the Torah, the period of monarchy and the Second-Temple period. As we might expect, the family and social structure in a bedouin society would be quite different from a more urban centralized society. And, in the Second-Temple period, there was considerable Persian and Greek influence.

The Torah (Pentateuch) reflected (with some later editing) the structure of a bedouin society. But, even with the later editing, the editors were quite conservative in preserving old traditions and writings. The air-brushing occurred later in Chronicles.

(The book was very dense and I have forgotten the title)

George

Brian,

Welcome. I hope that you will contribute here.

George

Is there no written record from surrounding cultures to add light? If one wanted to pursue the issue.

Dutch, I would find evidence from Persian culture, as an example, interesting but not compelling given the textual evidence in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Israelites differentiated themselves from other cultures. In many ways, I think they were more tolerant and progressive than others at the time.

George

The problem with George's standard of "persuasive" evidence is that unless we find some amazing archaeological evidence that proves what the Israelites thought about homosexuality either way, the only thing we have to rely on to reconstruct the moral views and practices of the ancient Israelites is the bible and one's own scriptural interpretation.

Neon, the problem is you are making proposals about the nature of Israelite culture with no evidence.

George

Joseph, very well said.

George