RE: Did Jesus Christ exist as a historical human or was he a theological construct?
June 7, 2010 at 3:02 pm
The Mishnah (which is rabbinic) specifies even less than that...50 cubits which is about 75 feet or so, but from the border of the town. Therein lies the rub. No one has found a town. Could wealthy families from Sepphoris or Jotapata have made use of the limestone formation to dig tombs? Sure. For that matter a family living on Pfann's farm may well have had the time to scrape out the tombs for deceased ancestors as well. It was their land and, as you say, it didn't have to be THAT far away from the home as to make the thing impossible. The first trick remains to find evidence of a town dating to the time you need. Somewhere around 15 BC-10 AD.
Then here is your dilemma: You need to decide which of your allegedly inerrant gospels is wrong. Were it that small it would not have a synagogue in the first place. (There is a notable school of Israeli scholars who doubt that there would have been synagogues anywhere while the temple was in operation but let's not go there just yet.) Moreover, were it that small, all of those families would have been related by blood or marriage or both. What "Luke" would be suggesting is that one of jesus' kinsman "Is that not Joseph's son...." did not know who he was and moreover that they they were willing to take one of their kinsmen and throw him off a cliff. Come on.
Either it was a city/town with a synagogue and a population which was not all interrelated or it was a little shithole of a couple of families. Like the contradiction between "Luke" and "Matthew" concerning the date of the nativity it is not possible for both stories to be true.
No. The Jews were not excluded from Judaea until after the bar Kochba revolt c 135 AD. As noted here:
In the aftermath of the Great Revolt the Sanhedrin relocated to Yavneh, west and slightly north of Jerusalem on the coast. The modern site is just south of Tel Aviv. When Hadrian's army suppressed the bar Kochba revolt the Jews were evicted from Judaea and a new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina was built on the ruins of Jerusalem with an initial population of Hadrian's retired soldiers...as was Roman custom.
As an aside the inscription is question is little more than 3 fragments...one, if I recall has only 5 letters. It's pretty tough to make much out of it. By comparison, the shattered tel Dan stele is in pristine condition.
One, I am more and more of the conclusion that "Paul" was, at best, a composite character but again, lets save this for another time since we are doing so well. Two, let's stick with your argument for a moment. Assuming that to be accurate, why would "Paul" not use the Greco-Roman style to address that audience. The Greeks used the "Joe" of (place) [Epicharmus of Cos] for example. The Judaeans used the patronymic form "Jesus bar (son of) Joseph" etc. Were "Paul" speaking to Gentiles it would be more likely rather than less likely for him to have referred to "Jesus of Nazareth".
I can only suggest that you widen your reading to include Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" to see how xtian doctrine evolved. I have electronic versions of that and Jesus Interruped (another good effort by Ehrman) which I could send you if you are interested.
By George, I think you've got it.
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/sepphoris.html
The lesson which Varus taught was not wasted on Sepphoris. When Josephus showed up wanting them to join the Great Revolt they told him to go fuck himself. One has to wonder if he began to see the handwriting on the wall at that point. The City of Tiberias had similarly shut him out. Starting a revolt against the Romans in the first century was not good for longevity.
Quote:I understand that Nazareth was a small place some say as small as 500 acres. Only a few families could have possibly lived there.
Then here is your dilemma: You need to decide which of your allegedly inerrant gospels is wrong. Were it that small it would not have a synagogue in the first place. (There is a notable school of Israeli scholars who doubt that there would have been synagogues anywhere while the temple was in operation but let's not go there just yet.) Moreover, were it that small, all of those families would have been related by blood or marriage or both. What "Luke" would be suggesting is that one of jesus' kinsman "Is that not Joseph's son...." did not know who he was and moreover that they they were willing to take one of their kinsmen and throw him off a cliff. Come on.
Either it was a city/town with a synagogue and a population which was not all interrelated or it was a little shithole of a couple of families. Like the contradiction between "Luke" and "Matthew" concerning the date of the nativity it is not possible for both stories to be true.
Quote:Do not those tablets say that the priest were relocated when the temple was distroyed in 70 AD. Isn't it the tablets themselves dated to the second century AD.
No. The Jews were not excluded from Judaea until after the bar Kochba revolt c 135 AD. As noted here:
Quote:The first non-Christian reference to Nazareth is an inscription on a marble fragment from a synagogue found in Caesarea Maritima in 1962.[11] This fragment gives the town's name in Hebrew as nun·tsade·resh·tav. The inscription dates as early as c. 300 CE and chronicles the assignment of priests that took place at some time after the Bar Kokhba revolt, 132-35 CE
In the aftermath of the Great Revolt the Sanhedrin relocated to Yavneh, west and slightly north of Jerusalem on the coast. The modern site is just south of Tel Aviv. When Hadrian's army suppressed the bar Kochba revolt the Jews were evicted from Judaea and a new Roman city, Aelia Capitolina was built on the ruins of Jerusalem with an initial population of Hadrian's retired soldiers...as was Roman custom.
As an aside the inscription is question is little more than 3 fragments...one, if I recall has only 5 letters. It's pretty tough to make much out of it. By comparison, the shattered tel Dan stele is in pristine condition.
Quote:As for Paul his ministery was to the gentiles
One, I am more and more of the conclusion that "Paul" was, at best, a composite character but again, lets save this for another time since we are doing so well. Two, let's stick with your argument for a moment. Assuming that to be accurate, why would "Paul" not use the Greco-Roman style to address that audience. The Greeks used the "Joe" of (place) [Epicharmus of Cos] for example. The Judaeans used the patronymic form "Jesus bar (son of) Joseph" etc. Were "Paul" speaking to Gentiles it would be more likely rather than less likely for him to have referred to "Jesus of Nazareth".
I can only suggest that you widen your reading to include Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" to see how xtian doctrine evolved. I have electronic versions of that and Jesus Interruped (another good effort by Ehrman) which I could send you if you are interested.
Quote:Antipas would have had to start the rebuilding of Sepphoris some time before the death of Christ to have completed the city and it would have had a roman bathhouse because no self respecting roman would go to a city without one.
By George, I think you've got it.
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/sepphoris.html
The lesson which Varus taught was not wasted on Sepphoris. When Josephus showed up wanting them to join the Great Revolt they told him to go fuck himself. One has to wonder if he began to see the handwriting on the wall at that point. The City of Tiberias had similarly shut him out. Starting a revolt against the Romans in the first century was not good for longevity.
