RE: Bart D. Ehrman - The Bane of Fundies!
November 8, 2010 at 7:58 pm
(This post was last modified: November 8, 2010 at 8:27 pm by Minimalist.)
I don't get that out of Matthew 27 at all, Void.
The Jews not only cause it they accept responsibility for them and their children. Pilate is portrayed as a vacillating wimp.[/code]
Yet, Coffee,
Such a statement is, I suppose, a little bit better than "Luke" saying "I pulled the whole thing out of my ass" but not by much.
As for the Jews, be serious. The Romans did not give a rat's ass about the Jews by the time the 3'd revolt was over. For a group which was trying to make inroads among an essentially Greco-Roman population far better to blame a bunch of hated outcasts than the imperial administration.
But since you raise the point it is probably worth considering this whole sadducee/pharisee thing. Prior to the sack of the temple it was the sadducees who ran it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...senes.html
With the end of the temple and the required sacrifices the raison d'etre for the Sadducees vanished and so did they. In fact, Josephus tells us quite plainly that many were killed within in the temple precincts by the various Zealot factions or, presumably, when the Romans broke in. The point being that by the time the gospels were cobbled together there were no more sadduccees and it was the pharisees who turned the whole thing into rabbinic judaism. Perhaps this accounts for the repeated "conflicts" between jesus and the pharisees when they were not the ones calling the shots during his supposed life time. The pharisees had survived to become the "bad example" that the early xtians needed.
Just a thought...though there are other aspects of this issue.
Quote:Jesus Before Pilate
11 Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?”
“You have said so,” Jesus replied.
12 When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. 13 Then Pilate asked him, “Don’t you hear the testimony they are bringing against you?” 14 But Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge—to the great amazement of the governor.
15 Now it was the governor’s custom at the festival to release a prisoner chosen by the crowd. 16 At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. 17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” 18 For he knew it was out of self-interest that they had handed Jesus over to him.
19 While Pilate was sitting on the judge’s seat, his wife sent him this message: “Don’t have anything to do with that innocent man, for I have suffered a great deal today in a dream because of him.”
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.
21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.
“Barabbas,” they answered.
22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.
They all answered, “Crucify him!”
23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.
But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”
24 When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”
25 All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”
26 Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.
The Jews not only cause it they accept responsibility for them and their children. Pilate is portrayed as a vacillating wimp.[/code]
Yet, Coffee,
Quote:even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word,such a claim is mere hearsay. There is no hint at who those sources may have been. "Luke" is of course the most "Roman" of the 4. Instead of highlighting "Jewish" events, Luke tries to tie the story (poorly) into Roman history making mention of Augustus, Tiberius, Pilate and Quirinius and runs afoul of "Matthew" with the nativity in the process.
Such a statement is, I suppose, a little bit better than "Luke" saying "I pulled the whole thing out of my ass" but not by much.
As for the Jews, be serious. The Romans did not give a rat's ass about the Jews by the time the 3'd revolt was over. For a group which was trying to make inroads among an essentially Greco-Roman population far better to blame a bunch of hated outcasts than the imperial administration.
But since you raise the point it is probably worth considering this whole sadducee/pharisee thing. Prior to the sack of the temple it was the sadducees who ran it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou...senes.html
Quote:The main focus of Sadducee life was rituals associated with the Temple.
The Sadducees disappeared around 70 A.D., after the destruction of the Second Temple (see below). None of the writings of the Sadducees survived, so the little we know about them comes from their Pharisaic opponents.
With the end of the temple and the required sacrifices the raison d'etre for the Sadducees vanished and so did they. In fact, Josephus tells us quite plainly that many were killed within in the temple precincts by the various Zealot factions or, presumably, when the Romans broke in. The point being that by the time the gospels were cobbled together there were no more sadduccees and it was the pharisees who turned the whole thing into rabbinic judaism. Perhaps this accounts for the repeated "conflicts" between jesus and the pharisees when they were not the ones calling the shots during his supposed life time. The pharisees had survived to become the "bad example" that the early xtians needed.
Just a thought...though there are other aspects of this issue.
